US Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

A

anzha

Captain
Registered Member
Strangelove said:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Click to expand...

How well is Chen regarded as an authorial source? Its SCMP, so...also the abode of She Who Shall Not Be Named.

That said, um, yeah. That's kinda the point: these are not meant to be super duper fighters. The Valkyries are intended to be a semi expendable and cost around $3M. For the cost of a B-21, you could have 150 to 170 Valkyries, depending on the B-21's final price. If you buy the equivalent of 40 B-21s, you're looking at 6,000+ Valkyries. That would be a headache, even if they turned out to be easy to shoot down.
 
N

nlalyst

Junior Member
Registered Member
MarKoz81 said:
Flight III is not really decent. It is running at maximum capacity of outdated ship architecture. Consider that first Flight III enters service in 2023 which with 35-year life means service until 2058 for a ship with architecture (and thus potential for upgrades) from 1991. That's 67 years.

Consider that a WW2 destroyer from 1945 was only 46 years old in 1991. This is how outdated Arleigh Burke Flight III class is regardless of new radars or computers. There are serious consequences to that - especially logistics - that are not obvious at first glance.
Click to expand...
What in particular is wrong about its architecture? PLAN is still building Type 052D destroyers which are based on an equally old baseline. JMSDF too is still building ships based on the Arleigh Burke baseline.
 
Last edited:
A

anzha

Captain
Registered Member
siegecrossbow said:
Kinda looks like the dress uniform from the Star Trek series.
Click to expand...

There is some resemblence. For some reason, I had the 1920s/1930s jackets and whatnot in mind when I saw the uniform.

Recent uniform redesigns have been awful for the US by and large. Just IMO.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top