Best Fighter Jet

[Rhoderberg]

Not only is War Is Boring a pretty biased source, but the "F-35 can't dogfight" myth has been debunked numerous times in this thread.


For what it's worth, the majority of NATO's members pulling closer to their own weight would be nice, if not entirely feasible.

They used to.

I'm well aware.

[Novus America]

Not only is War Is Boring a pretty biased source, but the "F-35 can't dogfight" myth has been debunked numerous times in this thread.


For what it's worth, the majority of NATO's members pulling closer to their own weight would be nice, if not entirely feasible.

They used to.

And my point is they should do so again. But the poster I replied to was embracing the fact that they do not. As long as many Europeans have his attitude, of take and never give we have a problem.

[Dooom35796821595]

They used to.

And my point is they should do so again. But the poster I replied to was embracing the fact that they do not. As long as many Europeans have his attitude, of take and never give we have a problem.

If your referring to me, I said that the UK would be unlikely to take sides in a US vs China war. Not that the UK shouldn't do its part. We've recently been in the middle east, and would (hopefully) intervene to secure North Africa, Eastern Europe and our overseas territories, as well as fight against russian aggression. We would also support America and Canada in the unlikely event they faced an invasion, as well as supporting Australia and New Zealand in a defensive war.

What we wouldn't do is fight a war against mainland China.

[Kubra]

Not only is War Is Boring a pretty biased source, but the "F-35 can't dogfight" myth has been debunked numerous times in this thread.

Unless I've missed something, that the F-35 can't dogfight has not been debunked. Not even Lockheed Martin is pushing it as a plane for dogfighting. Rather, what has been said is that its stealth and sensory capabilities negates the need for any dogfighting in the first place.

[Husseinarti]

Everyone should buy Rafale~

[Grand Britannia]

The F-22 and her edgy sister the F-23.

Chinese/Russian posers can suck it.

I forgot to add their little sister the F-35.

[Novus America]

Not only is War Is Boring a pretty biased source, but the "F-35 can't dogfight" myth has been debunked numerous times in this thread.

Unless I've missed something, that the F-35 can't dogfight has not been debunked. Not even Lockheed Martin is pushing it as a plane for dogfighting. Rather, what has been said is that its stealth and sensory capabilities negates the need for any dogfighting in the first place.

True, close in gun fights are no longer relevant nor what it is designed for. Why design a fighter to 1960s ideas of what is best? All design is a trade off. The F-35 is not as fast as YF-12 either, it does not need to be.

[Novus America]

And my point is they should do so again. But the poster I replied to was embracing the fact that they do not. As long as many Europeans have his attitude, of take and never give we have a problem.

If your referring to me, I said that the UK would be unlikely to take sides in a US vs China war. Not that the UK shouldn't do its part. We've recently been in the middle east, and would (hopefully) intervene to secure North Africa, Eastern Europe and our overseas territories, as well as fight against russian aggression. We would also support America and Canada in the unlikely event they faced an invasion, as well as supporting Australia and New Zealand in a defensive war.

What we wouldn't do is fight a war against mainland China.

Nobody should. But if the U.S. is attacked by or has to fight China defensively an ally MUST help. The UK MUST take the side of its ally, or it is NOT an ally. Obviously nobody is saying anybody should invade or attack China. But the UK must take its allies' side, if the ally is fighting defensively. Or again it is not an ally at all. My point is the ally thing is a two way street. If we will help you you must help us in return.

Obviously a war against China is not likely. The key is deterrence. If you want peace you must be ready for war.

[United Kingdom of Poland]

Unless I've missed something, that the F-35 can't dogfight has not been debunked. Not even Lockheed Martin is pushing it as a plane for dogfighting. Rather, what has been said is that its stealth and sensory capabilities negates the need for any dogfighting in the first place.

True, close in gun fights are no longer relevant nor what it is designed for. Why design a fighter to 1960s ideas of what is best? All design is a trade off. The F-35 is not as fast as YF-12 either, it does not need to be.

actually the 60's idea was "we don't need to worry about a turning fight because missile spam" and the words "and stealth" and you got the F-35 principle. The problem is that in its stealth configuration it only has 4 hard points it can use, now add that to the fact that even our best missiles right now are barely cracking the 50% mark when it comes to kill percentages means that your only going to get 2-3 kills before you need that turning ability. Or you can carry more missiles on exterior hardpoints, which kills your stealth ability.

[Novus America]

True, close in gun fights are no longer relevant nor what it is designed for. Why design a fighter to 1960s ideas of what is best? All design is a trade off. The F-35 is not as fast as YF-12 either, it does not need to be.

actually the 60's idea was "we don't need to worry about a turning fight because missile spam" and the words "and stealth" and you got the F-35 principle. The problem is that in its stealth configuration it only has 4 hard points it can use, now add that to the fact that even our best missiles right now are barely cracking the 50% mark when it comes to kill percentages means that your only going to get 2-3 kills before you need that turning ability. Or you can carry more missiles on exterior hardpoints, which kills your stealth ability.

That was a 50s idea.
See the YF-12 and XF-108.
That proved immature in Vietnam. But proved correct by the the 1980s.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operati ... Cricket_19

The design for the F-16 originates from the 1960s. And it is only designed to carry six missiles.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/General ... ing_Falcon

Recent air to air combat has been with long range missiles. Not in WWII or Vietnam type dog fight.

The F-16 is designed to fight based on 1960s tactics and technology. It was designed based on Vietnam. Things have changed since Vietnam. We should not build a fighter to refight the Vietnam war.

[Fartsniffage]

If your referring to me, I said that the UK would be unlikely to take sides in a US vs China war. Not that the UK shouldn't do its part. We've recently been in the middle east, and would (hopefully) intervene to secure North Africa, Eastern Europe and our overseas territories, as well as fight against russian aggression. We would also support America and Canada in the unlikely event they faced an invasion, as well as supporting Australia and New Zealand in a defensive war.

What we wouldn't do is fight a war against mainland China.

Nobody should. But if the U.S. is attacked by or has to fight China defensively an ally MUST help. The UK MUST take the side of its ally, or it is NOT an ally. Obviously nobody is saying anybody should invade or attack China. But the UK must take its allies' side, if the ally is fighting defensively. Or again it is not an ally at all. My point is the ally thing is a two way street. If we will help you you must help us in return.

Obviously a war against China is not likely. The key is deterrence. If you want peace you must be ready for war.

Which explains why the US jumped right in in 1939. Allies always help each other out in time of war.

[Novus America]

Nobody should. But if the U.S. is attacked by or has to fight China defensively an ally MUST help. The UK MUST take the side of its ally, or it is NOT an ally. Obviously nobody is saying anybody should invade or attack China. But the UK must take its allies' side, if the ally is fighting defensively. Or again it is not an ally at all. My point is the ally thing is a two way street. If we will help you you must help us in return.

Obviously a war against China is not likely. The key is deterrence. If you want peace you must be ready for war.

Which explains why the US jumped right in in 1939. Allies always help each other out in time of war.

We were NOT allies in 1939. And we were enemies in the early 1800s. Our past status is not relevant.

[Fartsniffage]

Which explains why the US jumped right in in 1939. Allies always help each other out in time of war.

We were NOT allies in 1939. And we were enemies in the early 1800s. Our past status is not relevant.

So the US involvement at the end of WW1 was a bit of a mistake? The US didn't really like UK/France but just thought their soldiers needed a bit of a holiday?

[The balkens]

Which explains why the US jumped right in in 1939. Allies always help each other out in time of war.

We were NOT allies in 1939. And we were enemies in the early 1800s. Our past status is not relevant.

Then why bother send materials?

Americans also fought in the RAF.

[Dooom35796821595]

Which explains why the US jumped right in in 1939. Allies always help each other out in time of war.

We were NOT allies in 1939. And we were enemies in the early 1800s. Our past status is not relevant.

Of course it is.

America: UK, we need support!

UK: absolutely, we'll be there in two years or so.

[Novus America]

We were NOT allies in 1939. And we were enemies in the early 1800s. Our past status is not relevant.

So the US involvement at the end of WW1 was a bit of a mistake? The US didn't really like UK/France but just thought their soldiers needed a bit of a holiday?

The belief at the time, and one that many still hold is it was a mistake.

And we were co-belligerents not allies in WWI.

"The United States declared war on Germany in 1917 on the grounds that Germany violated U.S. neutrality by attacking international shipping and because of the Zimmermann Telegram sent to Mexico.[4] The U.S. entered the war as an "associated power", rather than a formal ally of France and the United Kingdom, in order to avoid "foreign entanglements".[5] Although the Ottoman Empire and Bulgaria severed relations with the United States, neither declared war.[6]"

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allies_of_World_War_I

We told the UK in 1917, "look this does not mean we will help you in the future". So why were you suprised we kept our word?

In 1939 we had NO mutual security or defense pact. We were legally neutral in 1939. We had no obligation nor desire to fight. Hence we were not allies. Things change.

Btw Japan was a Brtish ally in WWI. Obviously not in in 1939.

[Novus America]

We were NOT allies in 1939. And we were enemies in the early 1800s. Our past status is not relevant.

Then why bother send materials?

Americans also fought in the RAF.

Sending materials was highly controversial given our legal neutrality.

And those that fought in the RAF did so as private citizens.

See
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutral ... s_of_1930s

[Novus America]

We were NOT allies in 1939. And we were enemies in the early 1800s. Our past status is not relevant.

Of course it is.

America: UK, we need support!

UK: absolutely, we'll be there in two years or so.

Germany: UK we need support!

UK: Die Nazi scum!?

A country's past status means nothing. Should we attack Britain for burning Washington? Germany was attacking you in 1939, should you attack them? They were not your allies then either. But they are NOW. Their status in 1939 is also irrelevant.

Britain did not help us in the Civil War either. It does not matter as what happened BEFORE we were allies.

Things change. We were legally neutral and NOT an ally in 1939.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutral ... s_of_1930s

We were Switzerland like then.

[Imperializt Russia]

That article has been brought up before.
It appears to have been written by someone who understands little of air combat.

i can find a bit of talk about the topic of the f-35 not being able to dogfight, but that's not what this article is about. The article was 13 hours old at the point of posting, there is nothing here that far back on the matter. Never thought you'd be so quick to denounce a pro f-35 article, man.

I assumed you were reposting the "F-35 can't dogfight" article.

Not only is War Is Boring a pretty biased source, but the "F-35 can't dogfight" myth has been debunked numerous times in this thread.

Unless I've missed something, that the F-35 can't dogfight has not been debunked. Not even Lockheed Martin is pushing it as a plane for dogfighting. Rather, what has been said is that its stealth and sensory capabilities negates the need for any dogfighting in the first place.

Which is kind of the point when it comes to debunking that original article - which basically said "F-35 can't dogfight therefore a shit rip usaf".

[Grenartia]

Most of the expense for modern aircraft is design and testing. The beauty of remaking A-10s is that all of that is literally done and paid for. All we have to do is update certain parameters (better armor, better structural materials, better avionics), and it'll be better than before, and cost less than the F-35 has thus far.

idk then. The A-10 would likely find use in getting rid of light armor, infantry. Killing T-72s is probably stretching it. T-80s and whatever tank the russians came up with probably has better armor, ERA and other thing that make them more survivible against an A-10.

And another thing, Back during when the Fulda Gap was a thing that both NATO and the warsaw pact were willing to spend THOUSANDS of lives for, casualties rates for A-10s were fucking crazy. Like, unnecessarily, fuckass crazy. That is due likely to those Mobile SAMs the Russians are fond off.

IIRC, they held up pretty well in Baghdad.

Nice quadruple and double posts.
: ^ )

Care to sauce that?

Air defenses have become a hell of a lot more common since the A-10's inception, and they've also gotten a lot better. It's common sense really.

It's also worth nothing that the US military only expected the A-10 fleet to last around two weeks in the event of WWIII. You'd be lucky if they lasted anywhere longer than a few days on a modern battlefield.

1. I'm more than well aware of what the F-22 was designed for and what the F-35 was designed for. And I stand by my statement because the F-35 is objectively shit. A modern day Spruce Goose.

2. That's what Wild Weasel missions are for. Also, considering the A-10 was specifically designed for CAS, it arguably has an edge over the F-35 at that role (especially since it relies on missiles for tank killing, which are prone to countermeasures, while the A-10 relies on the Avenger, speaking of which, fires bigger rounds than the F-35's cannon), since the F-35's design philosophy was to basically be mediocre at everything, but be so cheap that it could be zerg rushed by multiple nations at once. The only part of that that seems to have been borne out is being mediocre at everything, and even by those standards, its subpar.

3. And all it had to be was several hundred billion dollars over budget, and counting.

You can stand by your statement all you want, that doesn't make you right.

1. In any case, you'll never suppress all the enemy's air defenses, especially things like MANPADS, which would eat the A-10 alive if it were to attempt to use it's GAU-8. Speaking of the GAU-8, while PGMs only have something like a 20% pK, the 30mm rounds fired by the weapon cannot penetrate the frontal or upper turret and hull armor of any 3rd generation MBT. 2. In any case, the F-35's gun is like the infantryman's bayonet, it's something that's better to have and not need than need and not have. In any case, the F-35 is certainly not going to attempt gun runs on ground targets, because it's designers realized that's suicide on a modern battlefield.

3. In any case, the F-35 was intended as a multi-role strike aircraft to compliment the F-22's air superiority role. 4. It was not designed to be mediocre, and 5. it was not designed to be "zerg rushed" as you put it. 6. You'd understand that if you put aside your blind hatred of a perfectly decent aircraft and bothered to go read some actual unbiased information on the subject at hand for once in your life.

And? What, have we suddenly lost all information on how to make said machinery?

By the time you rebuilt the factories and machinery needed to build new A-10s you would have expended more money than it would take to simply go ahead with putting the F-35 into service.

7. All of which would be wasted on re-introducing an aircraft that isn't viable for anything but gunning down kebabs that can't afford anything remotely resembling air defenses.

They might be old, but they still do the fucking job, and quite well. All we need is some spare parts for them, really.

The problem is they don't. Not only are the airframes getting increasingly old, but they're also obsolete for anything that isn't COIN. If they weren't the air force wouldn't be trying to replace them.

8. Listen, I like the A-10C as much as the next guy, probably a lot more than most people do. But eventually a time comes when you have to wake up and smell the fucking coffee. That goes for the rest of your posts as well.

1. I expect Saddam's SAM sites were capable of a bit more damage than MANPADS.

2. Except, you know, anti-missile countermeasures are a thing. You can't misdirect a bullet away from you. Especially not one fired from the Avenger.

3. I'm aware.

4. Ok, I take back that it was designed for mediocrity, but it definitely is, nonetheless. In a way, that makes it even worse, since it's being brought forward, and having had the bar continually lowered for it to barely make it over said bar.

Among other things: "In a report released in 2013, it was stated that flaws in the fuel tank and fueldraulic (fuel-based hydraulic) systems have left it considerably more vulnerable to lightning strikes and other fire sources, including enemy fire than previously revealed, especially at lower altitudes." "The same 2010 report also noted performance degradation of the three variants, the sustained turn rates had been reduced to 4.6 g for the F-35A, 4.5 g for the F-35B, and 5.0 g for the F-35C. The acceleration performance of all three variants was also downgraded, with the F-35C taking 43 seconds longer than an F-16 to accelerate from Mach 0.8 to Mach 1.2; this was judged by several fighter pilots to be a lower performance level than expected from a fourth generation fighter." "On 30 August 2013, it was reported that the F-35B and F-35C models take several complex maneuvers in order to "accelerate" to their top speed of Mach 1.6, which consumed almost all of the onboard fuel." "In March 2013, USAF test pilots, flying with pre-operational software that did not utilize the all-aspect infrared AAQ-37 DAS sensor, noted a lack of visibility from the F-35 cockpit during evaluation flights, which would get them consistently shot down in combat." "The same report found (in addition to the usual problems with the aircraft listed above):

Current aircraft software is inadequate for even basic pilot training.
Ejection seat may fail, causing pilot fatality.
Several pilot-vehicle interface issues, including lack of feedback on touchscreen controls.
The radar performs poorly, or not at all.
Engine replacement takes an average of 52 hours, instead of the two hours specified.
Maintenance tools do not work.[188]"
"Even in the final "3F" software version, the F-35 will lack ROVER, in spite of having close air support as one of its primary missions.[190]" "In 2014, David Axe stated design flaws related to its single-engine configuration could vex the F-35 for decades to come, forcing the Pentagon to suspend flying too often for the majority of its fighter fleet.[191]" "A 2014 Pentagon report found these issues:

First two mission data sets available November 2015, after USMC IOC.
Overall operational suitability relies heavily on contractor support and unacceptable workarounds.
Aircraft availability reached 51% but short of 60% goal.
Fuel Tanks don't retain inerting for required 12 hours after landing.
High dynamic loads on the rudder at lower altitudes in 20-26 AoA preventing testing.
82 pounds added to F-35B in last 38 months, 337 pounds below limit.
Transonic Roll-Off (TRO) and airframe buffet continue to be program concerns.
572 deficiencies remain affecting Block 2B capability, 151 of which are critical.
VSim would likely not support planned Block 2B operational testing in 2015.
Maintainability hours still an issue.
ALIS requires many manual workarounds.[143]"
"A 2015 Pentagon report found these issues:[194]

The Joint Program Office is re-categorizing or failing to count aircraft failures to try to boost maintainability and reliability statistics;
Testing is continuing to reveal the need for more tests, but the majority of the fixes and for capability deficiencies being discovered are being deferred to later blocks rather than being resolved;
The F-35 has a significant risk of fire due to extensive fuel tank vulnerability, lightning vulnerability and an OBIGGS system unable to sufficiently reduce fire-sustaining oxygen, despite redesigns;
Wing drop concerns are still not resolved after six years, and may only be mitigated or solved at the expense of combat maneuverability and stealth;
The June engine problems are seriously impeding or preventing the completion of key test points, including ensuring that the F-35B delivered to the Marine Corps for IOC meets critical safety requirements; no redesign, schedule, or cost estimate for a long-term fix has been defined yet, thereby further impeding g testing;
Even in its third iteration, the F-35’s helmet continues to show high false-alarm rates and computer stability concerns, seriously reducing pilots’ situational awareness and endangering their lives in combat;
The number of Block 2B’s already limited combat capabilities being deferred to later blocks means that the Marine Corps’ FY2015 IOC squadron will be even less combat capable than originally planned;
ALIS software failures continue to impede operation, mission planning, and maintenance of the F-35, forcing the Services to be overly reliant on contractors and “unacceptable workarounds”;
Deficiencies in Block 2B software, and deferring those capabilities to later blocks, is undermining combat suitability for all three variants of the F-35;
The program’s attempts to save money now by reducing test points and deferring crucial combat capabilities will result in costly retrofits and fixes later down the line, creating a future unaffordable bow wave that, based on F-22 experience, will add at least an additional $67 billion in acquisition costs; and
Low availability and reliability of the F-35 is driven by inherent design problems that are only becoming more obvious and difficult to fix."
"Three different types of data "massaging" are identified in the DOT&E report:[195] moving failures from one category to another, less important one; ignoring repetitive failures, thus inflating numbers of failure-free hours; and improper scoring of reliability.[196]" " Maintenance problems were determined to be so severe that the F-35 is only able to fly twice a week. To address the issue of wing drop and buffet maneuvering, the required control law modifications will reduce the maneuverability of the F-35, "only exacerbating the plane’s performance problems in this area". The F-35C's wing drop problem is "worse than other variants". Testing to investigate the impact of buffet and transonic roll-off (TRO or “wing drop”) on the helmet-mounted display and offensive and defensive maneuvering found that “buffet affected display symbology, and would have the greatest impact in scenarios where a pilot was maneuvering to defeat a missile shot.” Buffeting also degrades the gyroscopes in the inertial platforms which are essential for flight control, navigation, and weapons aiming. DOT&E explained that this was an ongoing issue: “In heavy buffet conditions, which occur between 20 and 26 degrees angle of attack, faults occurred in the inertial measurement units (IMUs) in the aircraft that degraded the flight control system (two of three flight control channels become disabled), requiring a flight abort.” [197]" "In July 2015, Lockheed Martin confirmed the authenticity of a leaked report showing the F-35 to be less maneuverable than an older F-16D with wing tanks.[199][200]" "The pilot who flew the mission reported inferior energy maneuverability, a limited pitch rate and flying qualities that were "not intuitive or favorable" in a major part of the air-combat regime gave the F-16 the tactical advantage. In general the high AoA capabilities of the jet could not be used in an effective way without significantly reducing follow-on maneuvering potential."

F-35, I hereby proclaim you to be the Windows Vista of American fighters.

5. "The United States plans to buy 2,457 aircraft. The F-35 variants are intended to provide the bulk of the manned tactical airpower of the U.S. Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps over the coming decades"

"A final procurement tally of 187 operational production aircraft was established in 2009 and the last F-22 was delivered to the USAF in 2012."

Well, given the fact that we're planning on buying over 10 for each Raptor we've bought, and the basic idea is to heavily rely on them, I can be forgiven for making that assumption.

6. See above. Vista Plane still doesn't make the cut. The simple fact is, designing a Jack of all Planes from scratch is an inherently shit idea. But don't take my word for it.

you do realize that by meaningful armament I mean the equivalent of a ww2 era fighter plane. that and the last time the DOD tried this everyone realized none of their needs, ideas, or even philosophies matched went screw this I'm out of here and proceeded to create their own aircraft leading to our current generation of fighters.

The thing about world-beatingly good multirole planes - the Spitfire, the Corsair, the Phantom, the Harrier, the Eagle, etc. - is that they all seem to have come about as the result of fulfilling one requirement extraordinarily well, and then being naturally developed further to cover other areas. The Spitfire started out as a race aircraft that became a pure air-superiority fighter, and then could basically fulfill every role in an Air Force by its retirement. The Corsair started out as an unloved carrier fighter, then finally was developed to where the kinks could be ironed out and people discovered it could make a hell of a fighter-bomber/support aircraft as well. The Harrier was developed almost exclusively as a gimmick for the VSTOL engine, and it was then discovered that it could basically do everything, everywhere, even operating off of those little British carriers.

Trying to create a plane that is the equivalent of these sorts of planes right off the bat, without the benefit of the decades of real-world development and advancement that all of them had, is a fool's errand. Try and do ONE THING well first, and then go from there.

I honestly suspect that, based on historical trends, the F-22 would be a superior multirole platform to the F-35.

7. Again, we didn't seem to have a problem in Baghdad.

[Grenartia]

All aircraft become expensive after decades of service.

The F-22 was never going to be a commercial success because its far to expensive for anyone besides the US to operate it in any respectable numbers. Or else we'd all hear about Europe's jointly owned flight of 4 F-22As, which only fly 100 hours a year because of engine troubles. The US operates 200 F-22As, which is more than enough to engage and ground any other modern fleet of aircraft today.

Also the F-35 is projected to become cheaper than most other aircraft in service today, its expensive, yes, its be taking a long time, yes, but its also the first 5th generation aircraft project to come post Cold War, its running into civilian bureaucracy rather than military R&D.

Also the Eurofighter took forever to get A2G capacity as well, which took time money and man hours wasted when they could have just bought the Rafale instead.

The F-22 is only expensive because we did not build enough. Same with the B-2. R&D is a sunk cost we already paid so we could build them a much lower cost per unit now.

And yet, its unit cost is still lower than the Vista Plane. Also, sunk cost fallacy.

[Grenartia]

You are aware that this thread is about aircraft? And that aircraft carry bombs? It's perfectly feasible to utterly ruin an industrial base these days without ever having to put a soldier within 500 miles of the place.

Are you seriously claiming that airpower can singlehandedly win a war?

Only if you take "utterly ruin an industrial base without putting a soldier within a 500 mile radius" as "singlehandedly winning a war with airpower".

[Grenartia]

Russia's not invading Ukraine, buckaroo. It's supporting a secessionist movement.

It is invading Ukraine. Russian troops are on Ukrainian soil. That is an invasion. Yes it is not an all out one, but Russia with its weak economy, 1 year conscripts and crappy logistics is in no shape to launch an all out attack. The point is Russian troops have clearly shown to not be worth much in real battles. Even the hapless Ukrainian Army can beat them in some defensive battles. I mean that is just sad.

And again vs NATO. NATO has around 18 times the economy and 5 times the population. The fact that we are even scared of Russia at all is a sad commentary on how horribly we have neglected our militaries. We could easily build a force that would have Russia outnumbered and out gunned 3 time over if we actually tried.

Actually, its really just the nukes that we're afriad of.

[Vitaphone Racing]

Keep in mind that "Vista Plane" has been the first US fighter to go through it's development within the age of the internet and hence has been under a microscope. The US has also been strangely open with it's problems, likely because keeping them a secret was too difficult with the amount of clients involved in the project.

Meanwhile F-22 prototypes could have exploded mid-air and we won't find out until 2030.

[Atomic Utopia]

Actually, its really just the nukes that we're afriad of.

Which is good. I hope the Russians are afraid of our nukes too, because we do not need another major war, conventional or nuclear.