Regardless of your tactics, your enemy will also want to fight you in the manner that you are weakest and they are strongest. Moreover the dominant faction has to protect and their opponents can hit and run (generally gets to choose the time and place of the engagement, someplace where you have a weak presence)

Turboprops can take off from a dirt runway. Air "bases" in the conventional sense weren't necessary for them to get planes in the air, a strip of dirt road would do.

Regardless of your tactics, your enemy will also want to fight you in the manner that you are weakest and they are strongest. Moreover the dominant faction has to protect and their opponents can hit and run (generally gets to choose the time and place of the engagement, someplace where you have a weak presence)

Turboprops can take off from a dirt runway. Air "bases" in the conventional sense weren't necessary for them to get planes in the air, a strip of dirt road would do.

They didn't shoot us down with turbo props, they were using MIGs from bases the politicians in DC decided to not engage. You're talking fiction, I'm talking historical fact.

Yeah and claiming that any enemy bases managing to get fighters into the air and into short range combat means an air campaign is failing seems like a massive exaggeration IMO.

The F-35 gave up too much to get stealth, and really it's only stealthy from one angle (when it's flying straight at you), and the Chinese supposedly now have a new phased array radar that negates the stealth "I win" button. And a f-18 would dominate a f-35 in a dogfight. If it was up to me I would scrap the whole f-35 project now and cut our losses before they get any bigger, the only variant of the f- 35 worth keeping is the marine variant because it has vtol capability and that's the one with the most development problems.

The F-35 is what you get when a new aircraft has to be all things to all people, the hope of the whole free world is pinned on it, and so it can’t possibly be allowed to even have a hint of appearance of failure. Then the manufacturer decides to parcel out all the various piece work to at least one or two major employers in every single state and district in the country, so that they have each and every one of the Senators and Representatives in their back pocket.If the camel is a horse designed by committee, then what would you get if you had to design a single horse that could be the fastest racehorse in the world, and also the strongest drafthorse in the world, and also the smartest hill pony in the world, and also the most magical unicorn in the world, and then they made sure that each and every politician in the world was absolutely totally committed to the success of this project and that the politicians in question would be cutting their own throat if the project was allowed to fail.Any ideas?

The proverbial straw that broke the camels back in a technological sense was stealth. If that wasn't a consideration, the f-35 could have been all other things to all other people

Yeah and claiming that any enemy bases managing to get fighters into the air and into short range combat means an air campaign is failing seems like a massive exaggeration IMO.

The opening stages of an air campaign is the SEADs mission, Suppression Enemy Air Defenses. Enemy air bases are part of the air defense system. Fixed long range radar is part of the air defense system. The ability to gather information from those radar sites, process it at the command and control level, and issue orders to the air bases, is part of air defense. If the enemy is able to detect, order, and maneuver aircraft to an attacking force that means the entire SEADs mission has failed. It's not an exaggeration it's how air war is fought when you aren't on an Xbox.

Regardless of your tactics, your enemy will also want to fight you in the manner that you are weakest and they are strongest. Moreover the dominant faction has to protect and their opponents can hit and run (generally gets to choose the time and place of the engagement, someplace where you have a weak presence)

Turboprops can take off from a dirt runway. Air "bases" in the conventional sense weren't necessary for them to get planes in the air, a strip of dirt road would do.

They didn't shoot us down with turbo props, they were using MIGs from bases the politicians in DC decided to not engage. You're talking fiction, I'm talking historical fact.

I remember seeing an old discovery channel show with film of one of their turboprops, I don't know how many they had but they had them.

I'm sure they had turbo prop aircraft. I'm also sure they didn't shoot down american aircraft with turbo prop aircraft. We did the opposite though, a SkyRaider did shoot down Mig17s, twice.

I'm sure they had turbo prop aircraft. I'm also sure they didn't shoot down american aircraft with turbo prop aircraft. We did the opposite though, a SkyRaider did shoot down Mig17s, twice.

I'm guessing that they mentioned they sky raider incidents right after their turboprops, and in the same proverbial breath as mig 17's shooting down our aircraft. Perhaps the point they were trying to make with the 2 statements together was that more advanced technology doesn't always win.

How this all started was that I noticed we didn't see any new ship designs in the trailer and commented that I would be very disappointed if all of the ships in Episode VII were Original Trilogy era designs or updates and modifications of those designs. This led to some people trying to justify why there might not be any new ship classes in the sequels.

Perhaps this was already discussed, but I don't see anything wrong with updated old designs in the trailer. First off, the trailer was just a teaser to remind us of how awesome Star Wars is. For that, they needed iconic images.

Secondly, for realistic context, aircraft are kept around for decades. A quick wiki search tells me that the F-16 was introduced in 1978 and is still in service 36 years later. Heck, the B52 was introduced in 1955 and is still in service 60 years later. Military designs stick around a lot longer than one would think. Why reinvent the wheel if you can just update it.

I'm not sure if this was adressed elsewhere, but those Tie and X-Wing fighters might not be the best of the best anymore. Those might be the grunt ships and we'll see the super cool new fighters dogfight at the end of the movie and/or the real trailer.

Honestly I don't know how many ways I've said this in the discussions of this. I don't have a problem with Original Trilogy era designs or upgraded models of those designs appearing in the sequels.

What I would have a problem with is if there were no new designs in the sequels.

Honestly I don't know how many ways I've said this in the discussions of this. I don't have a problem with Original Trilogy era designs or upgraded models of those designs appearing in the sequels. What I would have a problem with is if there were no new designs in the sequels.

There would be outrage if the Millennium Falcon wasn't seen. YT-1300 was even around in Episode 3 so is a tried and tested old dog.

But if Disney doesn't want an angry mob with torches and pitchforks, there should be new tech too. I'd be happy with E-Wings and Tie Defenders.

But from rumors of regarding Luke...

...I'm worried Disney doesn't know Star Wars from their A-holes.

Let's tighten those sphincters and brace ourselves for something...

...different

I'm counting on different. If these movies were based on the majority of the drivel that's been put out in the EU I'd be way more disappointed.

Regardless of episode VII-IX I'm looking forward to the filler movies far more anyway, particularly the rumored Boba Fett and Han Solo movies.

My prediction is that Harrison Ford will get his wish and Han Solo will die. That's probably what it took to get him to reprise the role.

My prediction is that Harrison Ford will get his wish and Han Solo will die. That's probably what it took to get him to reprise the role.

Agreeing to make more Indiana Jones movies is what got him to sign.