Embarrassing for the US Air Force for sure but I fail to see the relevance. UAV's are mainly used in an infantry support role, particularly in less developed countries, it's a good alternative because they can loiter in the air for a long long time and support troops when and where needed. But against any adversary with more than WWII era tech they're going to be woefully ineffective because they're too easy to jam or to just outright shoot down. neither the F-22 nor the F-35 is unmanned, nor is the B-2 or a whole slew of other platforms.Originally Posted by freemehul
Against China, Russia or any other nation-state adversary a conflict is going to look very much different, at least in an initial stage, after one side has achieved air superioity the conflict might devolve into something similar to what we're seeing nowadays.
I'll admit I'm not very familiar with the term, I've heard it mentioned in the context of ancient Greece and it translates roughly into 'to rule the sea'. So I'm not exactly sure what you want to imply by that statement :(
Furthermore, linking a commercial "documentary" "comparing" 70 years of fighter aircraft? what do you want to achieve here? I've seen that documentary before and it's fun watching but it's hardly a particularly deep diving documentary that strives for any sort of relevancy in anything serious.
Reply With Quote