Your Nation's Air Force Mark III: Best Korea Edition

[The Akasha Colony]

Need to decide on which is to be my strategic bomber, if I can only have one:

(a) Generic flying dorito stealth bomber, developed in the mid-80s, but shaped somewhat like the X-47B.

(b) A not-Avro 730 mach 3 aircraft.

If I pick the latter, how feasible is it to re-engine it with modern turbofans?

For a Mach 3 aircraft or really almost any aircraft designed primarily for supersonic flight you would not want a turbofan engine, you would want a turbojet, as these are much more efficient at supersonic speeds. This is why even Concorde used turbojets.

The stealth bomber is probably a better pick though, from an industrial experience perspective (it's a more widely-applicable technology and therefore a more useful one to invest in) and from a cost/upgradeability perspective. Many of the most expensive technologies in the supersonic bomber will not be all that applicable elsewhere and will require separate R&D to keep current.

[Corindia]

A float-plane in the works. Should get some good usage out of it considering that my region is a large archipelago that's not too well developed.

[Gallia-]

New year, new stealth bomber

Stats are fairly modest; 450,000 ib MTOW and a 2,500 nmi combat radius with a 40,000 ib payload. Powered by four afterburning VCEs the standard mission profile is mach 2.2 cruise at full mill power at 50-60k feet followed by a mach 2.6 dash to the target in partial afterburner. Compared to something like a B-2 it's slightly less radar VLO (especially against lower wavelengths) and has a much larger IR signature (no surprise there) but being 3 times as fast means its arguably more survivable, its time-to-target is a lot shorter, and it's sortie rate can be much higher, attributes useful for both close air support and deep strike missions.

(Image)

>"VLO"
>planform alignment

laffin irl

[The Technocratic Syndicalists]

>"VLO"
>planform alignment

laffin irl

What?

The opposite edges of the beaver tail are parallel, as are the leading and trailing edges of the vertical stabilizers and outboard wing sections (respectively). There are also no 90 degree corners and the curvature of the fuselage, inlet sides, inlet shock cones, and blended wing-body interference is of continuously varying radius, causing the specular reflection to be of a different angle than the incident radar wave. The inlets have an S duct, and the face of the inlet is serrated to eliminate corner reflections between the inlet face and wing planform.

It's VLO, just not super-VLO like a B-2 because the vertical tails and inlets would start to become resonant at VHF and UHF frequencies, unlike a B-2 which has no vertical tails and whose inlets are mounted above the wing and thus hidden from view by ground-based radars. Vertical tails are necessary on this design to maintain an acceptable stability margin (the AC is shifted aft) and the under-wing intakes are necessary because over-wing intakes would have their flow choked at the high AoA this aircraft would need to fly at to cruise at supersonic L/D max and the high AoA it would need to have an acceptably low landing speed.

[Corindia]

Another seaplane!

[Gallia-]

>"VLO"
>planform alignment

laffin irl

What?

The opposite edges of the beaver tail are parallel, as are the leading and trailing edges of the vertical stabilizers and outboard wing sections (respectively). There are also no 90 degree corners and the curvature of the fuselage, inlet sides, inlet shock cones, and blended wing-body interference is of continuously varying radius, causing the specular reflection to be of a different angle than the incident radar wave. The inlets have an S duct, and the face of the inlet is serrated to eliminate corner reflections between the inlet face and wing planform.

It's VLO, just not super-VLO like a B-2 because the vertical tails and inlets would start to become resonant at VHF and UHF frequencies, unlike a B-2 which has no vertical tails and whose inlets are mounted above the wing and thus hidden from view by ground-based radars. Vertical tails are necessary on this design to maintain an acceptable stability margin (the AC is shifted aft) and the under-wing intakes are necessary because over-wing intakes would have their flow choked at the high AoA this aircraft would need to fly at to cruise at supersonic L/D max and the high AoA it would need to have an acceptably low landing speed.

"it's VLO, just not super-VLO"

so basically it's not VLO

how will you commit to ~ｄｅｓｉｇｎ ｍｉｓｓｉｏｎ~ if youre not able to loiter over siberia waiting for TELs to drive within the baleful gaze of your LPI attack radar?

[Roskian Federation]

So is the correct way to use the American Air Force against a near-peer military this:

F-22 Interceptors work to eliminate aerial opposition (such as Su-35).
As air opposition lightens, F-35s enter the mix, assisting in the removal of aerial opposition as well as beginning SEAD operations
F-22 switches to SEAD operations as aerial opposition becomes spotty at best
F/A-18s now enter as competent air defence units become spotty, strike high value targets, occasionally performing SEAD, as well as assisting ground assault
*ground forces capture a few useable airports*
F-16s also enter, striking more high value targets as air defence comes down to manpads and short range air defence
A-10 warthogs support an ever growing ground force presence
AC-130s enter as near complete elimination of air defences appear. AC-130 only serves to make victory come swifter - at this point, victory is already assured unless something drastic happens

[Pavelania]

So is the correct way to use the American Air Force against a near-peer military this:

F-22 Interceptors work to eliminate aerial opposition (such as Su-35).
As air opposition lightens, F-35s enter the mix, assisting in the removal of aerial opposition as well as beginning SEAD operations
F-22 switches to SEAD operations as aerial opposition becomes spotty at best
F/A-18s now enter as competent air defence units become spotty, strike high value targets, occasionally performing SEAD, as well as assisting ground assault
*ground forces capture a few useable airports*
F-16s also enter, striking more high value targets as air defence comes down to manpads and short range air defence
A-10 warthogs support an ever growing ground force presence
AC-130s enter as near complete elimination of air defences appear. AC-130 only serves to make victory come swifter - at this point, victory is already assured unless something drastic happens

Eh, that kinda looks good.
I'm currently thinking of sending one of our Amphibious ships to the Med. Sea near Israel, and strike against ISIS targets with air power. Our amphibious assault carriers can launch AV-8Bs, FA-01 Flying Fish, RF-01 Spying Fish, CAF-09 Ship-borne COIN aircraft, CH-53 Stallion, UH-1N Twin Huey, AH-1W Supercobra, AH-6 Littlebirds, and SH-3 Seakings. Our assault carrier is about the same length as a USS Wasp, but is more wider.

[The Akasha Colony]

So is the correct way to use the American Air Force against a near-peer military this:

F-22 Interceptors work to eliminate aerial opposition (such as Su-35).
As air opposition lightens, F-35s enter the mix, assisting in the removal of aerial opposition as well as beginning SEAD operations
F-22 switches to SEAD operations as aerial opposition becomes spotty at best
F/A-18s now enter as competent air defence units become spotty, strike high value targets, occasionally performing SEAD, as well as assisting ground assault
*ground forces capture a few useable airports*
F-16s also enter, striking more high value targets as air defence comes down to manpads and short range air defence
A-10 warthogs support an ever growing ground force presence
AC-130s enter as near complete elimination of air defences appear. AC-130 only serves to make victory come swifter - at this point, victory is already assured unless something drastic happens

Like many strategies mooted here, it seems to presume the enemy just sits back passively and allows you to neatly engage their air defense assets one by one, like an action movie where the goons charge in one at a time to get pasted by the hero.

Unfortunately, this isn't how it works.

In reality, most of these assets would be tasked with performing most of these missions simultaneously. Because even the F-22 can't be deployed with impunity over enemy airspace and totally ignore their ground-based air defenses. You will need to be conducting SEAD/DEAD while still dealing with the enemy's fighter force and while also going after high-value ground targets before they displace to another location. Because trying to deal with their air force over their territory will mean suppressing their ground-based air defenses at the same time so they don't just shoot down your F-22s. F-16s are hardly going to wait until a few enemy airports are captured to commence operations either, they'll presumably be flying from Day 1 using the same bases your F-35s and F-22s are operating from because you would want to use every useful combat asset available.

A competent "near-peer" military will also likely never see their entire air defense network degrade to just SHORADS and MANPADS. Through careful management and camouflage of their assets and the employment of various self-protection systems, it is likely the enemy's air defenses can be degraded and weakened, but never totally destroyed. The USAF couldn't even completely destroy Yugoslavia's air defenses. Thus, a danger to aircraft will always remain and there will likely always be aircraft tasked in some capacity to hunting down the remaining air defense systems.

And it seems to be a rather interesting proposition that the USAF would be employing F/A-18s in any capacity, given that it doesn't operate them.

[Allanea]

Also in a realistic universe, the Air Force would be working together with Navy and ground assets. There would also be sabotage/special forces attacks on enemy air defense, ALCM missile strikes [of course, yes, I know ALCMs can be shot down but its nowhere near a guaranteed thing], electronic warfare, and, in the near future, Conventional Trident strikes.

[Crookfur]

Also AC-130s will only be operating in support of special forces missions and will likely being doing that from H hour onwards depending on what escort assets are available and what gaps in the opponent's defensive coverage can be found and/or created.

As said pretty much everything will be going on at the same time with many shorties being flown simply to achieve local air superiority so that specific objectives can be achieved.

[Gallan Systems]

So is the correct way to use the American Air Force against a near-peer military this:

F-22 Interceptors work to eliminate aerial opposition (such as Su-35).
As air opposition lightens, F-35s enter the mix, assisting in the removal of aerial opposition as well as beginning SEAD operations
F-22 switches to SEAD operations as aerial opposition becomes spotty at best
F/A-18s now enter as competent air defence units become spotty, strike high value targets, occasionally performing SEAD, as well as assisting ground assault
*ground forces capture a few useable airports*
F-16s also enter, striking more high value targets as air defence comes down to manpads and short range air defence
A-10 warthogs support an ever growing ground force presence
AC-130s enter as near complete elimination of air defences appear. AC-130 only serves to make victory come swifter - at this point, victory is already assured unless something drastic happens

Like many strategies mooted here, it seems to presume the enemy just sits back passively and allows you to neatly engage their air defense assets one by one, like an action movie where the goons charge in one at a time to get pasted by the hero.

Unfortunately, this isn't how it works.

Could've fooled the US Air Force.

[Rhodesialund]

Something something, Sea Gripen is a meme like the XM8.

[Corindia]

Could seaplanes be used for naval AEW&C given that my navy has no large CATOBAR carriers that could handle standard designs?

[The Corparation]

Could seaplanes be used for naval AEW&C given that my navy has no large CATOBAR carriers that could handle standard designs?

Why not use a helicopter? That's what everyone else without CATOBAR carriers does. While I don't think there would be too many issues with building a sea plane AEW&C aircraft, I don't really see the point. If they operating with a fleet you'll need to bring along a sea plane tender (As opposed to just another couple of helicopters if you go with helicopter AEW&C) and if it's operating from a sea plane base chances are you could just build an airfield and use a conventional aircraft.

[Corindia]

Could seaplanes be used for naval AEW&C given that my navy has no large CATOBAR carriers that could handle standard designs?

Why not use a helicopter? That's what everyone else without CATOBAR carriers does. While I don't think there would be too many issues with building a sea plane AEW&C aircraft, I don't really see the point. If they operating with a fleet you'll need to bring along a sea plane tender (As opposed to just another couple of helicopters if you go with helicopter AEW&C) and if it's operating from a sea plane base chances are you could just build an airfield and use a conventional aircraft.

Oh, all good points.

[United Earthlings]

Fixed that one for ya.

This is a road we've been down before lol

And yet that road is still a shitty dirt and gravel one because we can't have nice things like a smooth concrete paved road because someone who shalln't be named thought hauling HOGs on our road was a brilliant idea.

We currently have a huge order for Boeing's F-15SE Silent Eagles to replace our old F-4E Phantoms, older F-15C/Ds, and some other old fighters. Should we replace all of our old F-15Cs with new F-15SEs or should we upgrade some of our F-15Cs that can still fly for another decade or so (Oldest F-15Cs get replaced by F-15SE)? I'm talking about the F-15 2040C upgrade for our newer F-15Cs from the 80s when we ordered/bought them.

A new build F-15SE will run between $100 million and $135,703,571 USD. To upgrade your old F-15C/Ds to the 2040C standard will cost an average of $29,055,690 USD per unit/plane.

New year, new stealth bomber

Stats are fairly modest; 450,000 ib MTOW and a 2,500 nmi combat radius with a 40,000 ib payload. Powered by four afterburning VCEs the standard mission profile is mach 2.2 cruise at full mill power at 50-60k feet followed by a mach 2.6 dash to the target in partial afterburner. Compared to something like a B-2 it's slightly less radar VLO (especially against lower wavelengths) and has a much larger IR signature (no surprise there) but being 3 times as fast means its arguably more survivable, its time-to-target is a lot shorter, and it's sortie rate can be much higher, attributes useful for both close air support and deep strike missions.

Against a lower tier opponent in a low-intensity conflict, your bomber will get the job done, ah be it at a very high operational cost per flight hour which will also eventually affect its operational sortie rate. Also, in regard to CAS speed isn’t as essential a requirement as the ability to remain over the target area is, the longer ToT {Time Over Target} a platform can manage the better.

Against a peer adversary with a sophisticated IADS, the bomber(s) are more than likely not coming back. Better stealth features equating to better survivability than faster speed.

[The Technocratic Syndicalists]

Against a lower tier opponent in a low-intensity conflict, your bomber will get the job done, ah be it at a very high operational cost per flight hour which will also eventually affect its operational sortie rate. Also, in regard to CAS speed isn’t as essential a requirement as the ability to remain over the target area is, the longer ToT {Time Over Target} a platform can manage the better.

Against a peer adversary with a sophisticated IADS, the bomber(s) are more than likely not coming back. Better stealth features equating to better survivability than faster speed.

The Supersonic speed and VLO are not mutually exclusive, I was just pointing out that the specific shaping features I chose would be somewhat less effective against lower frequency radars than something like a flying wing or tailless BWB. It would still be VLO enough that S/L and X band search and FCRs (respectively) would be unable to track it head-on at tactically useful ranges and missiles with X/K band ARH guidance would be unable to get a lock at anything more than literal point blank range (less than a kilometer assuming a -40 dbsm frontal RCS which would be reasonable in those bands based on its specific shaping and RAM). The only practical way to shoot it down (besides an enemy aircraft detecting it visually or with IRST and using a gun or IR missile) would be using a VHF/UHF radar to command-guide your SAM and hope that your UHF/VHF radar's angular resolution is good enough to put the missile inside the warhead's kill box. This is also discounting ECM, you can read more in the writeup (which I haven't finished yet) but the B-4 has an NGJ style GaN AESA jamming system with separate low, mid, and high frequency jammers and four 45K class 3-stream VCEs which can put out around a megawatt of electrical power each which along with the extremely high power density capability of GaN circuitry (5x that of GaAs) and the cooling capacity provided by the aircraft's large internal volume means the aircraft can emit a rather large amount of jamming power should it choose to, probably more than what would be necessary to overwhelm ground-based search radar or FCRs with a barrage jamming attack and/or to jam the datalink of any missile being command-guided by a VHF/UHF radar. In this case I'm risking passive detection of the B-4 by the sidelobes emitted by its jammers but using AESAs with active sidelobe suppression means the sidelobes should be small enough that the passive ECM systems used by the IADS would be unable to track the aircraft, at least not accurately enough to generate a weapon lock.

Now speed: the main advantage of going M2.2+ at 60K feet is that the SAM's (or AAMs) engagement envelope will be significantly smaller than it would be against a subsonic target. It's also advantageous for CAS because the reaction time is much shorter, by the time a subsonic bomber gets there the friendly unit could have been overrun or the enemy unit could have escaped. When not assigned to deep strike missions my doctrine is to use my strategic bombers as roving linebackers of sorts where they loiter subsonically over friendly airspace to maximize time on station and wait for an attack order. When a friendly unit gives them a fire mission, say to take out an enemy tank formation that has just overrun a friendly FOB, the bomber punches its afterburners, downloads the targeting information from ground controllers or other sources through a datalink and/or acquires the necessary targeting information with its sensors in flight, then drops its bombs on the target. Because I'm using VCE's I can loiter subsonically in double-bypass mode with decent efficiency and then once the strike order is received I can supercruise at mach 2+ in zero-bypass turbojet mode, the bypass air either being injected into the core for more thrust or being diverted for power generation purposes, basically getting the best of both worlds.

The biggest weakness of this system is cost, you're paying >1 billion for a bomber with a payload and combat radius at best equal to a B-2 which adjusted for inflation and production run would be around 50-70% the cost of this aircraft. The cost per flight hour would also be pretty high, although potentially lower than a B-2 since it could use embedded RAM coatings that don't need frequent maintenance between flight and a more advanced ALIS type logistic system that mostly removes the need for scheduled maintenance, and also an all metal-matrix composite airframe which would be significantly more expensive in terms of up front costs than a metal airframe but would have much better fatigue and crack propagation resistance properties which would make it cheaper to maintain in the long run, amongst other advantages like a better stifness/weight ratio and higher service temperature.

[Gallia-]

Need to decide on which is to be my strategic bomber, if I can only have one:

(a) Generic flying dorito stealth bomber, developed in the mid-80s, but shaped somewhat like the X-47B.

(b) A not-Avro 730 mach 3 aircraft.

If I pick the latter, how feasible is it to re-engine it with modern turbofans?

For a Mach 3 aircraft or really almost any aircraft designed primarily for supersonic flight you would not want a turbofan engine, you would want a turbojet, as these are much more efficient at supersonic speeds. This is why even Concorde used turbojets.

The stealth bomber is probably a better pick though, from an industrial experience perspective (it's a more widely-applicable technology and therefore a more useful one to invest in) and from a cost/upgradeability perspective. Many of the most expensive technologies in the supersonic bomber will not be all that applicable elsewhere and will require separate R&D to keep current.

There's so many civilian applications for low VLO aircraft!

It's not widely applicable at all. It's just "easier" because the USAF sunk loads of money into VLO instead of high speed.

[The Akasha Colony]

There's so many civilian applications for low VLO aircraft!

It's not widely applicable at all. It's just "easier" because the USAF sunk loads of money into VLO instead of high speed.

I forgot the market for SSTs is booming!

Stealth technology is more widely applicable for military use and that's important enough. It scales better to smaller applications like surveillance drones and fighters than the technologies associated with a high-supersonic bomber. And it's more useful for the missions these craft are expected to fill.

[Gallia-]

There's so many civilian applications for low VLO aircraft!

It's not widely applicable at all. It's just "easier" because the USAF sunk loads of money into VLO instead of high speed.

I forgot the market for SSTs is booming!

It's almost like military technology has very few civil applications whatsoever and only survives through government contracts!

Wow!

Stealth technology is more widely applicable for military use and that's important enough.

Good to see we're already moving the goalposts!

It scales better to smaller applications like surveillance drones and fighters than the technologies associated with a high-supersonic bomber. And it's more useful for the missions these craft are expected to fill.

Utter nonsense.

Hypersonic aircraft are the only things that can reliably penetrate pretty much any extant form of air defense system and destroy their targets. Certainly more dangerous than a subsonic VLO bomber that takes 18 hours to reach its target when you can take 30 minutes to reach your target at Mach 20+.

Here's the reason VLO won: It was easier to make something stealthy than it was to make it go fast.

That's it.

When/if hypersonic airbreathers become reality, they will displace subsonic VLO aircraft. The first targets are probably going to be subsonic VLO cruise missiles like LRASM, Storm Shadow, and JASSM. It remains to be seen if the VLO manned bomber will survive at all when you can simply throw M8+ hypersonics from a B-52. It probably will for reasons beyond capability, though. B-52 is pretty obsolete and terrible yet it lives forever because it can carry loads of missiles. VLO subsonics will probably live because they can loiter for long periods.

Alternatively you'd use robotic aircraft and scrap the B-21s in 209X when the USAF gets its first operational hypersonic missile.

[The Akasha Colony]

I forgot the market for SSTs is booming!

It's almost like military technology has very few civil applications whatsoever and only survives through government contracts!

Wow!

Stealth technology is more widely applicable for military use and that's important enough.

Good to see we're already moving the goalposts!

What are you on about?

When did I ever say anything about civilian use?

I simply said "more widely applicable" and you immediately assumed for some reason I was talking about stealth 747s or something dumb like that, as if the only other application for an aerospace technology (it's not even really an aerospace technology) is in the civilian realm.

But that's cool, I guess it's just more of that "putting words in my mouth" thing you like to accuse others of doing.

Utter nonsense.

Hypersonic aircraft are the only things that can reliably penetrate pretty much any extant form of air defense system and destroy their targets. Certainly more dangerous than a subsonic VLO bomber that takes 18 hours to reach its target when you can take 30 minutes to reach your target at Mach 20+.

JFC, have you even read anything that's been written?

No one said anything about hypersonic aircraft. No one said anything about Mach 20+.

The discussion was about a Mach 3 Avro 730, possibly with newer, more modern engines. Which would still be airframe-limited to essentially the same speed regardless of engine thrust. No Technocratic Syndicalists-esque super-bombers. No hypersonic speeds.

You want to talk about those goalposts again?

[Gallia-]

What are you on about?

When did I ever say anything about civilian use?

I simply said "more widely applicable" and you immediately assumed for some reason I was talking about stealth 747s or something dumb like that, as if the only other application for an aerospace technology (it's not even really an aerospace technology) is in the civilian realm.

What else could you possibly mean? Are you suggesting that working with composites in VLO has any sort of translation to working with composites in making tables or automobiles?

VLO literally won because a couple of early high speed aircraft (B-70 and Avro 730, to name a few) fell apart due to different reasons. That's it. It has nothing to do with any inherent superiority of VLO. It was because Air Force officers at the time thought that high speed penetrators couldn't survive the IADS of 197X.

They were right for the wrong reasons.

Utter nonsense.

Hypersonic aircraft are the only things that can reliably penetrate pretty much any extant form of air defense system and destroy their targets. Certainly more dangerous than a subsonic VLO bomber that takes 18 hours to reach its target when you can take 30 minutes to reach your target at Mach 20+.

JFC, have you even read anything that's been written?

No one said anything about hypersonic aircraft. No one said anything about Mach 20+.

The discussion was about a Mach 3 Avro 730, possibly with newer, more modern engines. Which would still be airframe-limited to essentially the same speed regardless of engine thrust. No Technocratic Syndicalists-esque super-bombers. No hypersonic speeds.

You want to talk about those goalposts again?

M20 was a snide reference to extant high speed bombers being better at the job of bombing than VLO ones.

And yet an M3 bomber would be just as good as B-2 at penetrating air defenses and nuking Leningrad with supersonic releasable B83s.

The only thing XB-70 couldn't do is loiter, but ~design mission~ is a meme to begin with. A good meme but still a meme.

If he wants to use Avro 730s, he can use Avro 730s. He's already sunk enough money into high speed so you might as well continue it. It depends on whether or not they're mutually exclusive. If he intends to use Avro 730s in the 1950s and switch to his stealth plane in the 1980s or whatever, that doesn't make a lot of sense. Not as much as just keeping the supersonics around for 50-70 years like B-52s. If the USA had B-70s in service, stealth would be a decade later or more, or Space Age Supertechnology would have the Air Force chugging at 100 kft and M10 by now.

OTOH, his stealth plane seems to be a 2nd generation VLO aircraft like B-2 (or perhaps 3rd generation like B-21), so it's not really certain that could appear without prior investment in VLO development spanning a decade or more.

The ultimate question that should be asked is how far back does he want his aircraft development to go. His VLO plane seems to indicate a very determined and aggressive strategic bomber industry while Avro 730 indicates a first generation supersonic that could go either way.

There is nothing that indicates either is the "better pick" because we simply don't know enough about the choices to say that. Essentially, they indicate two opposed paths: (a) is an aggressive and sustained development of nuclear bombers spanning several decades, (b) is a early nuclear bomber that could indicate either the capstone/apex of an industry or the beginning of one.

Since he asked also about re-engining the 730, he seems to be biased towards it instead of the stealth bomber. Since there's likely no practical difference between the two aircraft (assuming a deep modernized ESM/ECM suite for the Avro 730), the latter seems to be the option that has the most flexibility in outcome. Ergo, it should be assumed given no greater context.

(b) is the superior choice. (a) is only the superior choice if you lack imagination and assume nothing would ever change.

Need to decide on which is to be my strategic bomber, if I can only have one:

(a) Generic flying dorito stealth bomber, developed in the mid-80s, but shaped somewhat like the X-47B.

(b) A not-Avro 730 mach 3 aircraft.

If I pick the latter, how feasible is it to re-engine it with modern turbofans?

Since Avro 730 was never built, it's impossible to say how amenable it would be towards new engines. IRL British aviation industry is so incompetent they were incapable of rebuilding Nimrods into something reasonably modern for a variety of reasons (namely, British industry was even more incompetent when it built the Nimrods in the first place), so it's difficult to say to what standard (or lack of standard) that 730 could be built to.

Basically, it's very specific. This is NS. Assume nothing serious occurs.

[Laritaia]

Turns out you can't fit CAD designed and manufactured wings to a fuselage that was hand made by communists in the 60s

for a company of supposedly smart people BAE can do some monumentally dumb things

[Gallia-]

Turns out you can't fit CAD designed and manufactured wings to a fuselage that was hand made by communists in the 60s

for a company of supposedly smart people BAE can do some monumentally dumb things

~disco age~ technics

greatest

I guess taking hand measurements of literally 8-9 airframes was too much effort for the lazy ass Millennials involved in working the maths. Or even knowing the actual manufacturing methods of the 1960s of what is ostensibly their own company.