Clark Griswold

Keep bombing them to whatever was before the Stone Age Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Related to the theme of this thread, posted as I thought Farage described the issue very well: https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2025/04/28/farages-reform-set-to-spark-biggest-british-political-realignment-in-a-century-says-top-pollster/ “Capitalism is dead, it doesn’t exist, we’re living in corporatism. An unholy alliance of big business, big banks, and big government… I genuinely think we won’t get economic growth if the country is dominated by six giant multinationals, none of whom pay tax on-shore.”

Reasonable point at this time, my earlier comment was really that we should have developed it in the late nineties to early aughties to complement the 22 as it was only then A2A focused The tech may be old but if the RUMINT that is told about the 23 is just mostly true, it’s very low signatures would be relevant today. Could that older but probably capable tech be delivered at a cost less than upcoming better tech? Don’t know but if possibly and it was significantly less in cost and it’s tech we are more comfortable sharing with Allies because it’s older, it might be worth 6.9 minutes of consideration. I would still argue for a strike focused manned platform with an unrefuelled combat radius in the 1500 nm range and a much lower price point than the upcoming 21. This would give our regional partners (Aussies, Japanese, Brits) the ability and credibility to deter dragons and bears themselves. This would also be in our inventory too, replacing the B-1 and 52, all stealth bomber fleet. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So what’s the strategic dilemma to impose on them? They face no daunting distances, flood the zone is a decent tactic to make the Taiwan Strait a shooting gallery but I worry that our regional allies will get wobbly if the first shots by the PRC are only directed at Taiwan with no preemptive strikes on US / Allied assets in the area in surrounding countries. If I were a PRC general I’d try to convince leadership to not preemptively strike to not force the hand of nations hosting US forces or the US itself. Preemptive strikes or bet that the democracies will bicker internally long enough to establish a foothold and blockade thus winning inevitably?

The single engine gave me that same idea but hence the -35 Still a manned / unmanned / optionally would be my ideal as a compliment to the 47 If we weren’t on the outs with the GCAP / FCAS nations I’d say let’s look at building this with them with a level of tech we are willing to share Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

NGAD is a done deal but what about a mini me NGAD? https://www.turbosquid.com/3d-models/3d-lockheed-martin-ngad-2157706

That all checks, I flew the C-27, you had to get tires shipped from ‘Merica to Italy get an Alenia stamp on it then ship it back Not sustainable Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

For my two cents, I hope the Navy goes with the T-100 / 346 346 propaganda:

You’ll be a richer man methinks given where the T-7 is in development (also being pitched to the Navy)

T-50N being offered to the USN https://www.aviacionline.com/lockheed-and-kai-offer-the-tf-50n-to-replace-the-us-navys-t-45

Posting here as this affects the gathering storm with China, if it goes thru and we sell them AMRAAMs… https://www.19fortyfive.com/2025/04/vietnam-has-reached-an-agreement-to-buy-u-s-f-16-fighter-jets/?_gl=1*8cu3hz*_ga*MTMxOTM1MzM3NS4xNzQ1MDI1ODg2*_up*MQ..

We should / should’ve developed the 23 into the Regional Bomber concept to complement the 21