An F-35 stealth fighter flying in Texas sent classified data to an air base 5,000 miles away in Denmark

[MamboDervish]

Oh great .... message smuggling. As if Trump needed one more reason to take Greenland from Denmark!

 

[ataraxia]

Problem being is that drones could be used to take out the f22s while on the ground.

If I were a policy maker, I would want a stealth drone " mother ship" developed to carry a few dozen smaller drones programed to search for the engine intakes of the enemy fighters and blow up 1 kg of explosives when entering the engine intake ( note when the enemy jets are on the ground).

Send about 10 stealth mother drones to attack a major airbase and you could potentially take out 30 jets for months if not destroyed beyond repair

That may be where this guy may come in handy:

Our First Look At The YFQ-44A 'Fighter Drone' Collaborative Combat Aircraft

The Air Force has kicked off ground testing of Anduril's YFQ-44A and General Atomics' YFQ-42A ahead of expected first flights this year.

www.twz.com

 

[Rich2018]

We haven’t lost any F-22s. @SMTA was probably referring to the F/A-18 shootdown by the USS Gettysburg and the F/A-18 that was lost over the side on the Truman. There was a third F/A-18 that was lost in a landing accident.

Well he was replying to my comment:
"...if you lose an F-22, it represents a far greater capability loss than if the Russians lose 1 Su-27."

His reply was at best, misleading. But perhaps his reading skills were where the fault lay

Still the comment remains true: Losing an F-22 represents a far greater capability loss than the Russians losing an Su-27

The better/more expensive you make your aircraft and ships, the fewer you will have, hence any losses represent a far greater loss proportionately, than a country like Russia or China.

 

[Fledermaus]

Well he was replying to my comment:
"...if you lose an F-22, it represents a far greater capability loss than if the Russians lose 1 Su-27."

His reply was at best, misleading. But perhaps his reading skills were where the fault lay

Still the comment remains true: Losing an F-22 represents a far greater capability loss than the Russians losing an Su-27

The better/more expensive you make your aircraft and ships, the fewer you will have, hence any losses represent a far greater loss proportionately, than a country like Russia or China.

How did the "more numbers is better" work out for Iraq?