PAK-FA, T-50: News #2

havok wrote:

magnumcromagnon wrote:3.) The F-22 is a hangar queen, 30-40 hours of repair time for every 1 hour of air time. A good analogy might be the F-22 is a skilled Olympic athlete, and pioneered in it's field in a multitude of ways, however it never lived up to it's full potential due to the fact that it's an extremely injury-proned athlete.

I see you got suckered into believing that statistic. You got suckered because you have no aviation experience, I dare say.

Ever done a 'wing walk'? No, am not talking about stunt flying.

http://www.navyadvancement.com/warfare-specialist/vfa/102-aircraft-handling.php

4. Safety Observer (Wing-Walker/Tail-Walker)
A) Conduct's a pre-tow inspection of the a/c.
B) Ensures safety pins are installed.
C) Ensures a/c is ready for move.
D) Ensures a/c is free of chains, cable cords, and support equipment.
E) Ensures a/c will clear all obstructions during movement.

To move an aircraft from one row to the next or to the hangar, required are: the crew chief, the tow truck driver, cockpit brake rider, two wing walkers, and one tail walker. Six man-hrs and they are all tabulated into the final monthly maintenance stats. Civilians does it as well.

For the F-22, since surface integrity is crucial to maintain its low radar observability, extraordinary care must be taken in removing any access panel so that the panel and its neighbors are not damaged. Maintainers must wear 'booties' if they need to be on the aircraft's topside, and on topside, any components that are removed from the aircraft cannot be resting on the aircraft's surface, but either on a mat or delivered downstairs. Once panels are installed, spot radar checks must be performed to measure reflectivity. The tool is called the 'Repair Verification Radar' (RVR).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II

Ground crews require Repair Verification Radar (RVR) test sets to verify the RCS after performing repairs, which is not a concern upon non-stealth aircraft.

Once access to components are available, even major pneudraulics items, such as heavy actuators or pumps, are no more difficult to R/R than on the F-15 or F-16, and I was on the F-16 for five yrs. Prior to the -16, I was on the F-111 for four yrs. I know what I am talking about and I dare say you do not.

You falsely believe, based upon your ignorance of aviation and statistics, that for the F-22, somehow after every flight, there seems to be a near catastrophic malfunction. You are wrong. There are three classification of problems that can be reported by the pilot:

- Code One. Which is no problems at all.
- Code Two. Which are minor issues that do not affect flight capability and sortie generation.
- Code Three. Which grounds the aircraft.

Lockheed have a magazine called 'Code One'.

http://www.codeonemagazine.com/index.html

I suggest you try to be objective and read it and may be you will learn something.

Anyway...For the F-22, code two issues often, not always, require code three or near code three maintenance operations precisely because of the need to maintain surface integrity, according to the RVR tool, not because the engine nearly caught fire, or the hydraulic pump nearly failed, or electrical system did not delivered. But if necessary, code one and two issues for the F-22 can be resolved out on the flightline. Code Three will have any aircraft or any era into a hangar.

Bottom line is this...You do not know what you are talking about. Next, you are going to repeat Rachel Maddow (MSNBC) and say 'stealth' can be ruined by rain.

It's widely known that the F-22 is a hangar queen, if it wasn't as bad as they claim it wouldn't be out of production...BTW no rational person would watch Obama's own personal lapdog apologist network otherwise known as MSNBC, its the Democrats version of Fox News.

magnumcromagnon wrote:It's widely known that the F-22 is a hangar queen, if it wasn't as bad as they claim it wouldn't be out of production...

From my experience debating this issue, whenever someone say 'widely known' in the face of opposing arguments, especially one filled with supporting sources like mine, it mean the person does not know what he is talking about. Further, you do not know the exact context of a 'hangar queen' anyway. In aviation maintenance, a 'hangar queen' is an aircraft that is down for longer than thirty days.

As for your argument as to why the low figure of purchased F-22s, it has to do with the budgeting process and cost per aircraft, not because of its alleged 'high maintenance' or falsely perceived 'hangar queen' reputation. Yours is a typical ignorance filled argument.

magnumcromagnon wrote:BTW no rational person would watch Obama's own personal lapdog apologist network otherwise known as MSNBC, its the Democrats version of Fox News.

Good for you...But I still willing to bet that Rachel Maddow of MSNBC was the source of your knowledge since her hack piece have been often used by many.

havok wrote:
The plasma antenna method is more elegant and less power consuming than the rather fantastical plasma cloud enveloping an aircraft. Just in case you wonder why the US is not pursuing this path, all I can say is that we have something even better in terms of active absorbance technology. It will blow Russia's PAK-FA and China's J-20 out of the sky the way the F-117 did for radar detection when it debuted.

Lol, if it is anything like the F-117, then Russia and China have little to fear indeed.

TR1 wrote:

havok wrote:
The plasma antenna method is more elegant and less power consuming than the rather fantastical plasma cloud enveloping an aircraft. Just in case you wonder why the US is not pursuing this path, all I can say is that we have something even better in terms of active absorbance technology. It will blow Russia's PAK-FA and China's J-20 out of the sky the way the F-117 did for radar detection when it debuted.

Lol, if it is anything like the F-117, then Russia and China have little to fear indeed.

Thought the exact same.

Even the Serbians with their 70's technology apologized by USA with the phrase "Sorry, we didn't know it was invisible"

TR1 wrote:Lol, if it is anything like the F-117, then Russia and China have little to fear indeed.

Is it? But Russia and China do fear the F-117, even though it is retired.

Werewolf wrote:Thought the exact same.

Even the Serbians with their 70's technology apologized by USA with the phrase "Sorry, we didn't know it was invisible"

Same limited minds do think alike.

Funny how despite over thirty THOUSANDS sorties, NATO lost only two aircrafts: one F-16 and one F-117. Spray and pray, that is all that was, gents. Even funnier is now Russia and China are scrambling to create their own versions of 'stealth'. Why if the Serbs discredited 'stealth' ? How did Zoltan Dani described what he did?

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/world/2005-10-26-serb-stealth_x.htm

It involved "electromagnetic waves," was all that Dani — who now owns a small bakery in this sleepy village just north of Belgrade — would divulge.

How 'insightful', Dani...!!! Radar detection involves 'electromagnetic waves'. And now the man who supposedly 'defeated stealth' runs a bakery in some backwater village in Serbia. His 15 minutes of fame expired, only to be occasionally re-lit by ignorant hacks desperate to poke US in the eye in whatever feeble ways they can.

Try again...Gents.

havok wrote:

Werewolf wrote:Thought the exact same.

Even the Serbians with their 70's technology apologized by USA with the phrase "Sorry, we didn't know it was invisible"

Same limited minds do think alike.

Funny how despite over thirty THOUSANDS sorties, NATO lost only two aircrafts: one F-16 and one F-117. Spray and pray, that is all that was, gents. Even funnier is now Russia and China are scrambling to create their own versions of 'stealth'. Why if the Serbs discredited 'stealth' ? How did Zoltan Dani described what he did?

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/world/2005-10-26-serb-stealth_x.htm

It involved "electromagnetic waves," was all that Dani — who now owns a small bakery in this sleepy village just north of Belgrade — would divulge.

How 'insightful', Dani...!!! Radar detection involves 'electromagnetic waves'. And now the man who supposedly 'defeated stealth' runs a bakery in some backwater village in Serbia. His 15 minutes of fame expired, only to be occasionally re-lit by ignorant hacks desperate to poke US in the eye in whatever feeble ways they can.

Try again...Gents.

It is rather funny your posts of this "super duper technology" and even the magical F-117 would put the russians and chinese into shaking fear.... sure pal.

IF this stealth technology would be that astounishing and actually so magical helpfull in penetrating russian or chinese airspace without alertion or beeing intercepted than the US would already use VLO cruise missiles equipped with nuclear warheads to penetrate russian airspace and comprimize russian PVO capability to bring it down on its knees like USA wants since decades.

The other laughable remark you made about only "two plane lost" is just the tip of the iceberg of US denies in aviation losses through the decades of US military history.

Shall i recall the US ridicilous claims of F-4 vs MiG-21 engagements of the BS ratio of 10:1 which over decades was adjusted down several times to 5:1 than 3:1 or the same claims about Korea and F-86 Sabre and MiG-15's Fishbeds and the claims of 10:1 than 7:1, 5:1 and ended till this date 3:1 without any evidence except the claim of USAF, while those kills that could been confirmed were confirmed with collected data of aircraft numbers, location of interception, pilot of victim and victories pilot, date of engagement, use of gun and location of the specific weapons damage on aircraft all collected here in this book.

http://bookza.org/book/1147684/303681

Where the end of the engagement, specifically speaking of F-86 vs MiG-15's are 317 losses of MiG's to Sabres and 547 Sabres lost to Fishbeds a ratio near 1.7:1 in favor of Fishbeds.

The same goes for Serbia,Iraq and other rather recent operations by NATO, but of course the figures of Serbians with their 70's technology managed to shot down only 2 aircrafts like US claims while the actual figure succeeds 35 fixed wing aircrafts and this source isn't even full, not counting the 4 Apaches of which 2 crashed on Serbian soil and are today displayed in serbias museum of NATO bombing and all the trophies they could achieve. Counting of them fragments of shot down aircrafts, personal equipment from the survival kits from aicrafts, NATO uniforms from 4 countries, USA,UK,GER and France, several shot down UAV's and helicopters survival kits and personal equipment.



http://www.vojvodina.com/other-pages/natodown.htm

But if you really think that Russia and China would have even worse PVO capabilities than Serbia did with export models of more than two decades outdated equipment against a much larger and more competent army managed to do such a significant job than i'm pretty sure russia wouldn't mind an open air strike campaign against its country since US is completley incompetent to penetrate russian air space without losing a high percentage of its air force.

In an open enagement between Russia and USA, US would avoid the direct use of its Air Force on Russian air space but focuse its entire assets on cruise missile strikes to compansate russias PVO before using its Air Force in such a campaign, but that is obviously off the table due nuclear triade of both sides.

But don't get the missperception of my post as a Flag waving bullshit, neither US,China nor Russia can win a conventional war against the other two it is just like it is, some are better than others in some fields but nothing of it in a way that would lead to a succesful invasion.

havok wrote:

magnumcromagnon wrote:It's widely known that the F-22 is a hangar queen, if it wasn't as bad as they claim it wouldn't be out of production...

From my experience debating this issue, whenever someone say 'widely known' in the face of opposing arguments, especially one filled with supporting sources like mine, it mean the person does not know what he is talking about. Further, you do not know the exact context of a 'hangar queen' anyway. In aviation maintenance, a 'hangar queen' is an aircraft that is down for longer than thirty days.

As for your argument as to why the low figure of purchased F-22s, it has to do with the budgeting process and cost per aircraft, not because of its alleged 'high maintenance' or falsely perceived 'hangar queen' reputation. Yours is a typical ignorance filled argument.

magnumcromagnon wrote:BTW no rational person would watch Obama's own personal lapdog apologist network otherwise known as MSNBC, its the Democrats version of Fox News.

Good for you...But I still willing to bet that Rachel Maddow of MSNBC was the source of your knowledge since her hack piece have been often used by many.

It's out of production, that means there won't be anymore new orders of F-22's ever! It doesn't matter if there's room in the budget or not there won't be new ones being built unless the Washington bureaucracy changes their minds. Also I find it funny that you defend your argument by relying on a Lockheed Martin website, like they don't have a conflict-of-interest by down playing the problems of the F-22.

Also I find it funny that you defend your argument by relying on a Lockheed Martin website, like they don't have a conflict-of-interest by down playing the problems of the F-22. wrote:

True...

And i am just waiting if he insists to this discussion untill he draws to much attention on his claims and mindstorm comes in with his talent of devestating and very informative way putting someone in the right place. Almost legendary   

Werewolf wrote:

True...

And i am just waiting if he insists to this discussion untill he draws to much attention on his claims and mindstorm comes in with his talent of devestating and very informative way putting someone in the right place. Almost legendary   

Let's hope mindstorm chimes in with his 2 cents, his posts are always enjoyable.   BTW here's the irony, I have friends and family in the U.S. armed forces, when I criticize something bought by the Pentagon, it has more to do with the livelihood of each U.S. soldier than being anti-American, if a vehicle has flaws that endangers the life of U.S. soldiers than I can only imagine if it was one of my friends or family that might be endangered.  I also should add that I have a family friend that's particularly close to my father, who is a tenured Aerospace engineer at a Lockheed Martin plant in Colorado and lives near Denver, and he's worked on the F-22 since it's inception, so it's not about me having a personal vendetta against the F-22...I actually like the plane, and it's not like I want my friend to be out of work lol! The F-22 has lots of positive aspects like pioneering technology and setting trends, and it's a aesthetically pleasing plane, the problem was that Lockheed Martin became greedy and hastily rushed the end product. Lockheed would of been better served if they waited an additional 6-10 years to work out all the kinks.

havok wrote:

TR1 wrote:Lol, if it is anything like the F-117, then Russia and China have little to fear indeed.

Is it? But Russia and China do fear the F-117, even though it is retired.

Based on what?

Your hopes and wishes?

Two F-117s were hit btw. And when we consider how many sorites they carried out vs non-stealth birds....well, to argue that Russia fears is is funny indeed.

magnumcromagnon wrote:Lockheed would of been better served if they waited an additional 6-10 years to work out all the kinks.

Till this date the F-22 is nothing more than in prototype shape, not fully capable of what it is always claimed to be, hangar queen, impossing a high threat to the operator, limited in altitude due the problems of life support of the oxygen providing system, navigation and communication systems are unreliable and have since years shown problems even tho they were several times "fixed", lacking modern technologies which are not really that new like IRST and MAWS but still lacking such systems but at the same time computer simulations produced of 200:0 engagements nonsense same as the figures for the RCS, just popcorn material on forums and sad thing on some specific forums this is taken serious.

Russia and China would never fear an F-117.

It is no more than a very expensive cruise missile able to hit two targets over shorter distances than most currently in service cruise missiles can hit.

An F-117 would be useless in airspace patrolled by anything as potent as a Mig-21... the F-117 can't outrun the Mig, and nor can it defend itself with its two laser guided bombs.

Nor can it out manouver a Mig-21... all it can do is try to hide.

A Mig-29 or Su-27 which are the standard border patrol/air defence fighters of the Soviet Union/Russia would both easily deal with an F-117 using IRST, and ground based long range radar and R-73 AAMs.

F-117s are great for attacking third world countries or countries that lack modern SAMs but with the introduction of the Pantsir-S1 and late model TOR missiles and of course BUK... all able to reach up fairly high... the F-117 becomes a liability.

And when the F-22 is not suffocating its pilots it is certainly a hangar queen.

question: How the fuck do you spray and pray purty huge missiles up to ten thousand ft or more?
Even if the F-117s have been on the same 'ideal line' in the air I dont see how you can send a missile at the exact moment
for the proximity fuse of the warhead to be near the target. Maybe they eyeball it? or they just know it would be there(omiscience perhaps)
Also these arent manually guided atgms so if the missile cant see the target it wont go anywhere near it.

Exactly... if you could shoot down planes based on their flight plans then why bother with SAMs at all... actually being able to track in real time with a radar gives you much more precise real time information so obviously it would make rather more sense to use a cheaper weapon like a GRAD or SMERCH artillery rocket... except in the real world real SAMs require locks and guidance to hit objects, or get close enough to activate their proximity fuses.

Even if you had a bus time table hitting an invisible bus would be largely impossible except if you hit it at a stop... in F-117 terms that means having its flight plan... you could hit it when it is due to take off and land, but otherwise you wont have much chance at all.

One of my best memory during my 10 yrs in the USAF was on my first jet -- the F-111.

We were a four-ship formation on an air refueling training sortie over Scotland. On the way home to Upper Heyford, over the radio, Wing asked if we could help the French out with their new mobile air defense radar looking over the Channel, covering France and Belgium. Lead said we had plenty of fuel and could spare an additional hr. I was in the WSO seat on 3. My pilot asked how low could we go and I told him I could tune the TFR to pick up surface waves if we have to and for that day, it would be a bumpy ride because sea state was 6. Typical late fall weather.

Lead said the flights would split up with him and 2 take the N/E approach, from the North Sea, at 500 kts and at 100 meters altitude. 3 and 4 would approach directly from west at 500 kts and at 50 meters altitude. We swept the wings to 50 and dived right around Wales, since we had the tactical coverage from land. Lead and 2 hit the deck as soon as the flights split up around Edinburgh. All would do a toss maneuver provided we were undetected and whoever was called must acknowledge and break off.

The French never picked us up and they were pissed. None of us were called. We were not carrying the Pave Tack targeting pods but simulated the attack maneuver anyway. The French detected us only when we popped up. If the bombs were conventional, the targeted air defense unit would be either destroyed or severely damaged to be out of action for a long time. If the bombs were nukes...

To be 'stealthy' is to avoid radars in general. To be 'low radar observable' is to produce minimum reflections if avoidance of radars is not possible. From this perspective -- the truth in tactics -- the burden of radar avoidance falls equally upon 'stealthy' fighters as well. The 'stealthy' fighters just have a technical advantage that we did not have. The F-117s over Serbia did not have the tactical freedom that we had. NATO tightly controlled ingress/egress routes. Planners had to avoid Serbian radar nets as best as possible.

So this old man in this little corner of the Internet looking at a bunch of kids who probably can barely tell the differences between a screwdriver and a hammer, let alone touch a real jet fighter, but have no problems yakking about 'stealth' and air combat. All based upon their own ignorance, no experience, and PR blurbs about said fighters. They are cheering for an air force that is barely a shadow of its former self and whose combat experience dated back to the Korean War when its pilots flew for another air force. They are making excuses for an air force that tossed away a crucial understanding of radar detection that left it at least a decade, if not two, behind a competitor.

You guys are entertaining...I will give you that...

You guys are entertaining...I will give you that... wrote:

Actually the entertainer here is you, with your claims of the mighty and very fierceful F-117 that will make sinos and slavs shit bricks...you remind me a little bit of the soldiers during WW2 who fall for the own propaganda of the "battleship" Tiger tank "the indestructable" where some tank crews were so fooled by own countries propaganda that they played battleship and were smoked under enemy fire on the battlefield.

Stealth helps, it does, but nothing like US department of propaganda which is today a sub department of MOD, tries to tell everyone.
You know that your claim that F-117 would be feared by russia and china is on same level of delusion as the claims of Lockheed Martin with the F-22 RCS of 0.00001m².

The word enternainging was very well chosen.

havok wrote:The F-117s over Serbia did not have the tactical freedom that we had. NATO tightly controlled ingress/egress routes. Planners had to avoid Serbian radar nets as best as possible.

And you can not fire S-125 missile until you have a lock on the target so .......    

Viktor wrote:

havok wrote:The F-117s over Serbia did not have the tactical freedom that we had. NATO tightly controlled ingress/egress routes. Planners had to avoid Serbian radar nets as best as possible.

And you can not fire S-125 missile until you have a lock on the target so .......    

Just wait Viktor he has still one ace in his sleeve, they opened the bomb BAYS!!!

havok wrote:One of my best memory during my 10 yrs in the USAF was on my first jet -- the F-111.

We were a four-ship formation on an air refueling training sortie over Scotland. On the way home to Upper Heyford, over the radio, Wing asked if we could help the French out with their new mobile air defense radar looking over the Channel, covering France and Belgium. Lead said we had plenty of fuel and could spare an additional hr. I was in the WSO seat on 3. My pilot asked how low could we go and I told him I could tune the TFR to pick up surface waves if we have to and for that day, it would be a bumpy ride because sea state was 6. Typical late fall weather.

Lead said the flights would split up with him and 2 take the N/E approach, from the North Sea, at 500 kts and at 100 meters altitude. 3 and 4 would approach directly from west at 500 kts and at 50 meters altitude. We swept the wings to 50 and dived right around Wales, since we had the tactical coverage from land. Lead and 2 hit the deck as soon as the flights split up around Edinburgh. All would do a toss maneuver provided we were undetected and whoever was called must acknowledge and break off.

The French never picked us up and they were pissed. None of us were called. We were not carrying the Pave Tack targeting pods but simulated the attack maneuver anyway. The French detected us only when we popped up. If the bombs were conventional, the targeted air defense unit would be either destroyed or severely damaged to be out of action for a long time. If the bombs were nukes...

To be 'stealthy' is to avoid radars in general. To be 'low radar observable' is to produce minimum reflections if avoidance of radars is not possible. From this perspective -- the truth in tactics -- the burden of radar avoidance falls equally upon 'stealthy' fighters as well. The 'stealthy' fighters just have a technical advantage that we did not have. The F-117s over Serbia did not have the tactical freedom that we had. NATO tightly controlled ingress/egress routes. Planners had to avoid Serbian radar nets as best as possible.

So this old man in this little corner of the Internet looking at a bunch of kids who probably can barely tell the differences between a screwdriver and a hammer, let alone touch a real jet fighter, but have no problems yakking about 'stealth' and air combat. All based upon their own ignorance, no experience, and PR blurbs about said fighters. They are cheering for an air force that is barely a shadow of its former self and whose combat experience dated back to the Korean War when its pilots flew for another air force. They are making excuses for an air force that tossed away a crucial understanding of radar detection that left it at least a decade, if not two, behind a competitor.

You guys are entertaining...I will give you that...

And Dale Brown was in the same formation as you?

I am just using an opportunity to ask a real USAF ace about this. Dale Brown and Stephen Coonts brainwashed a lot of USAF fanboys. I do not want to generalize but if these ex-USAF guys are anything to judge by, the service seems to be filled by ultimate morons.

Zinuru wrote:And Dale Brown was in the same formation as you?

I am just using an opportunity to ask a real USAF ace about this. Dale Brown and Stephen Coonts brainwashed a lot of USAF fanboys.

Brown and Coonts wrote from their own experience and everything they wrote can be independently verified. Sure, they took some creative licenses and their fellow pilots understood that. But if you want to talk about brainwashing, I guess the Soviet/Russian military is a model of transparency and honesty.

Zinuru wrote:I do not want to generalize but if these ex-USAF guys are anything to judge by, the service seems to be filled by ultimate morons.

Considering how the Russian military often had to literally abduct young men off the streets to fulfill its conscription quotas, we can only wonder what is the quality of the Russian Air Force. So do generalize about US, you need the distraction from the sorry status of the military you are cheering for.

Viktor wrote:And you can not fire S-125 missile until you have a lock on the target so .......    

Dale Zelko recalled that he had to dodge at least 3 missiles before a proximity explosion did serious enough damage to his ship. Three that he knew of. So you are wrong. The decision to launch can be at the commander's convenience. The 'spray and pray' tactic is not new and that is what happened to Zelko.

This is a Russian military forum.

If you want to talk shit about the Russian military, please go over to F-16.net.

Don't be surprised if we don't respond positively to your US centric crap.

Go ahead and pat yourself over the shoulder over pounding some 3rd world armies.
Or keep spending yourself into the grave.

havok wrote:

Viktor wrote:And you can not fire S-125 missile until you have a lock on the target so .......    

Dale Zelko recalled that he had to dodge at least 3 missiles before a proximity explosion did serious enough damage to his ship. Three that he knew of. So you are wrong. The decision to launch can be at the commander's convenience. The 'spray and pray' tactic is not new and that is what happened to Zelko.

What kind of missiles? It is immposible to launch S-125 missile before you have a lock on a target and that F-117 was shoot down with S-125 missile.

You can do it with some other SAMs but not with S-125 ....  

Werewolf wrote:Actually the entertainer here is you, with your claims of the mighty and very fierceful F-117 that will make sinos and slavs shit bricks...

May be not the Chinese since they were too far behind US anyway. But for the Soviets? You bet they shit bricks. Huge ones. They armed Iraq and trained the Iraqis. Then they saw how the US ran over the entire Iraqi defense with barely a pause in Desert Storm. The shitting of bricks in Desert Storm reminded them of how much bricks they shat over Raygun's Star Wars program. In public, they spent a lot of money and hot air telling everyone how ABM defense could not work, but behind close (toilet) doors, they shat many many bricks. In a society where the simple microwave oven could not be produced, their scientists and engineers know that once America's private sectors are unleashed on the program, the US will produce a functional ABM defense system.

Werewolf wrote:you remind me a little bit of the soldiers during WW2 who fall for the own propaganda of the "battleship" Tiger tank "the indestructable" where some tank crews were so fooled by own countries propaganda that they played battleship and were smoked under enemy fire on the battlefield.

Take your own advice. Belenko and other defectors told US enough of the propaganda the Soviet military fed their soldiers.

Werewolf wrote:Stealth helps, it does, but nothing like US department of propaganda which is today a sub department of MOD, tries to tell everyone.

Is that the best you can do? We got combat experience to back up our claims. What do you got?

Werewolf wrote:You know that your claim that F-117 would be feared by russia and china is on same level of delusion as the claims of Lockheed Martin with the F-22 RCS of 0.00001m².

You think we care if you believe US or not?

Werewolf wrote:The word enternainging was very well chosen.

It is. And I am very amused. Have you even turned a wrench on a civilian aircraft?