To all the aero engineers out there how much of an advantage is no tail to highly canted tails for stealth? Assuming better stealth tailless is it a big enough advantage over less maneuverability (assuming the latter is more maneuverable).
To all the aero engineers out there how much of an advantage is no tail to highly canted tails for stealth? Assuming better stealth tailless is it a big enough advantage over less maneuverability (assuming the latter is more maneuverable).
I can't see the USAF spending the money on a second manned variant when there is effectively only one peer competitor in the air. To be blunt, they are already a generation ahead of anyone outside of the PLA-AF/PLA-N. They are perhaps keeping their options open as they move forward with the program but given how many other different projects they need to fund right now, paying for the development of a second manned fighter seems like a non-starter to me. The iterative /digital century series approach seems limited to the CCAs as of now.
I can't see the USAF spending the money on a second manned variant when there is effectively only one peer competitor in the air. To be blunt, they are already a generation ahead of any outside of the PLA-AF/PLA-N. They are perhaps keeping their options open as they move forward with the program but given how many other different projects they need to fund right now, paying for the development of a second manned fighter seems like a non-starter to me. The iterative /digital century series approach seems limited to the CCAs as of now.
Given that they planned to keep Next Generation Air Dominance airframes for up to 15 years max, so that they can replace it with newly improved versions, a second manned variant can probably be included as such.
As such, it may be possible that this so-called "second manned variant" might actually still be part of the NGAD program, perhaps the same type of aircraft but with a different role, perhaps a strike or multirole variant.
That humorously sums it up. And that's gonna happen every generation, as the airframes are designed to be continually replaced after 15 years, since technological advancements are happening at such a short period of time that a new aircraft can be rendered obsolete the moment it is unveiled, kind of like a Dreadnaught Effect situation
An interesting presentation about Sixth-Generation Fighters, and what they may do in the future. Posting this here because both NGAD USAF/PCA and NGAD USN/F/A-XX have separate topics in there (I already posted this on both GCAP and FCAS programs)
It's still just a concept, but the design, while inspired by several Lockheed Martin designs (And possibly Rodrigo Avella's work), it still paints a tail-less aircraft, and one that might be designed for both speed, maneuverability and range.
However, given how allegedly, the NGAD/PC-A might be bomber-sized, the actual design being planned may be far bigger, in order to accommodate the new technologies and weaponry, and thus, it may also have a far longer range, one that allows it to accompany the B-21s deep into enemy territory
I suspect "F-111 sized" is the sweet spot. The larger you get, eventually you just have a bomber that carries AAMs. I'd think that an all wing design F-111 sized airframe with some kind of adaptive engine, or potentially even multi-mode engine, would easily generate a lot more endurance than just a thousand miles. The F-111 already had a longer combat radius than that; I'd think a more aerodynamic shape and much more efficient engine along with modern composites could easily push that out to a couple thousand miles.
Maybe being a little optimistic and maybe borderline silly but I envision about 300-400 PLA aircraft heading towards Taiwan while about 50 NGADs loiter undetected
PLA
“Radar looks clear execute the attack”
Suddenly
“We are picking up hundreds of missile launches we don’t know where they came from!”
Well presumably one advantage of a much larger airframe would be payload as well as fuel for multiple, or very large, air to air engagements. While the USAF does want to arm the CCA component of the NGAD, the impression I get is that this is more of a short range, keeping the enemy honest kind of arrangement to ensure that all UAVs can't just be ignored as unarmed. As in, carry a couple of short range Peregrine/Cuda type missiles to be able to disrupt formations and hit targets of opportunity. I think most of the combat power is still going to be centered on the manned platform.
Maybe being a little optimistic and maybe borderline silly but I envision about 300-400 PLA aircraft heading towards Taiwan while about 50 NGADs loiter undetected
PLA
“Radar looks clear execute the attack”
Suddenly
“We are picking up hundreds of missile launches we don’t know where they came from!”
Worse still, if any of those PLA aircraft remain after the initial missile attack, hundreds of drones appear and then take out the rest like it's the 1944 Marinas Turkey Shoot
I suspect the operating altitude will also be significantly higher that a typical 4th or even 5th gen fighter and excess 60,000 feet.
When you have such an advantage in stealth, you also design the platform to fly higher and faster more efficiently. This has also the benefit of giving your weapons and sensors more range.
I can see the same design philosophy in the B-21, but the designers there traded all the supersonic speed capability for range and payload.
It’s funny how it was always the Russians that were building the bigger airplanes because their country was so large and they had to carry more fuel.
Now, the US is designing a new fighter as if Taiwan is part of the country and has to be defended from far away bases. As a result their next gen fighter makes even the MIG-31s look small by comparison.
Well presumably one advantage of a much larger airframe would be payload as well as fuel for multiple, or very large, air to air engagements. While the USAF does want to arm the CCA component of the NGAD, the impression I get is that this is more of a short range, keeping the enemy honest kind of arrangement to ensure that all UAVs can't just be ignored as unarmed. As in, carry a couple of short range Peregrine/Cuda type missiles to be able to disrupt formations and hit targets of opportunity. I think most of the combat power is still going to be centered on the manned platform.
I don’t understand that reasoning at all.
Unlikely significant cost savings could be made making a slightly smaller/ shorter range airframe for a European theatre - indeed would likely work out as, at a programme level, spending more for less capability.
A future US combat aircraft based in UK or many European countries will still need significant range (indeed probably more range than in the Cold War - potential targets probably further East than had been the case at that time). Would reduce need for tankers, or significantly increase the depth they could penetrate with the equivalent tanker support as a shorter range version.
We aren’t talking about a point interceptor here.
I suspect "F-111 sized" is the sweet spot. The larger you get, eventually you just have a bomber that carries AAMs. I'd think that an all wing design F-111 sized airframe with some kind of adaptive engine, or potentially even multi-mode engine, would easily generate a lot more endurance than just a thousand miles. The F-111 already had a longer combat radius than that; I'd think a more aerodynamic shape and much more efficient engine along with modern composites could easily push that out to a couple thousand miles.
I think that's what the USAF is actually going for: Less Manuverability, more payload and weaponry, and a suite of systems and capabilities that will make up for the reduction in manuverability, like drones, enhanced sensors and whatnot. Even the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments stated and suggested in their 2015 report regarding future aircraft combat, that a subsonic-cruising aircraft is one of the ideal conditions needed to engage in future aircraft combat, as their much slower speed means less friction between air and airframe, giving it an overall IR reduction, perhaps to near-invisibility. That way, speed is also not necessarily a requirement for the NGAD, and although the USAF may be planning hypersonic capabilities for the NGAD, which may defeat the purpose of the CSBA's report and their suggestion, the NGAP engines that they will have should allow them to be able to fly efficiently at Subsonic speeds, and at the same time, travel at Hypersonic speed, which the pilots may use to either reach their target faster or return back to base.
Perhaps instead, the idea being suggested here could be for the European Theater, where there are lots of NATO-affiliated airbases to land, refuel, and get maintenance on, provided these airfields get the necessary technologies and capabilities needed to maintain said airframes, and where conflict happens in countries much nearer to the US' fellow NATO countries, like Poland.
For the Pacific, 1000 or even 2000 miles is not enough to cover the entire ocean, and if I remember, the USAF needs a fighter that can accompany the B-21s in deep-penetration missions in countries like China, which means that not only should these fighters cross the entire stretch of the Pacific Ocean (And possibly half of the North American continent, if they will be based on bases like Whiteman Air Force Base. though not likely as they may be based on Air Force bases closer to the Ocean, like Edwards Air Force Base, or even far nearer to China, in Guam). Regardless of where these future fighters will be based, they need all the fuel capacity they need in order to reach their targets, and at the same time, a reduced dependance on tankers, as they are now vulnerable to strikes, and a strike happening during aerial refueling won't be good for both aircraft.
Well presumably one advantage of a much larger airframe would be payload as well as fuel for multiple, or very large, air to air engagements. While the USAF does want to arm the CCA component of the NGAD, the impression I get is that this is more of a short range, keeping the enemy honest kind of arrangement to ensure that all UAVs can't just be ignored as unarmed. As in, carry a couple of short range Peregrine/Cuda type missiles to be able to disrupt formations and hit targets of opportunity. I think most of the combat power is still going to be centered on the manned platform.
Possibly that design plan is the one they intend for the European Theater. The Pacific Theater one will be an overall different beast due to the differing requirements presented for it.
Well presumably one advantage of a much larger airframe would be payload as well as fuel for multiple, or very large, air to air engagements. While the USAF does want to arm the CCA component of the NGAD, the impression I get is that this is more of a short range, keeping the enemy honest kind of arrangement to ensure that all UAVs can't just be ignored as unarmed. As in, carry a couple of short range Peregrine/Cuda type missiles to be able to disrupt formations and hit targets of opportunity. I think most of the combat power is still going to be centered on the manned platform.
I don’t understand that reasoning at all.
Unlikely significant cost savings could be made making a slightly smaller/ shorter range airframe for a European theatre - indeed would likely work out as, at a programme level, spending more for less capability.
A future US combat aircraft based in UK or many European countries will still need significant range (indeed probably more range than in the Cold War - potential targets probably further East than had been the case at that time). Would reduce need for tankers, or significantly increase the depth they could penetrate with the equivalent tanker support as a shorter range version.
We aren’t talking about a point interceptor here.
Well, it was the US Air Force that said they are considering for 2 different types of NGAD sometime years ago. Just stating potentialities as it is, assuming that the "2 types of NGAD" approach is what the US Air Force is
going for.
In truth, I would also agree with you that the NGAD shouldn't be divided into 2 sub-aircraft for different theaters, rather a single NGAD that has all the bells and whistles to travel around the world if need be, regardless of base or station, and dish out some American Freedom on any aircraft or ground target that are in the way and are given the clearance to destroy.
Also, I have deleted that comment and replaced it with something that also addresses Josh's other point
Maybe being a little optimistic and maybe borderline silly but I envision about 300-400 PLA aircraft heading towards Taiwan while about 50 NGADs loiter undetected
PLA
“Radar looks clear execute the attack”
Suddenly
“We are picking up hundreds of missile launches we don’t know where they came from!”
Maybe being a little optimistic and maybe borderline silly but I envision about 300-400 PLA aircraft heading towards Taiwan while about 50 NGADs loiter undetected
PLA
“Radar looks clear execute the attack”
Suddenly
“We are picking up hundreds of missile launches we don’t know where they came from!”
I suspect the operating altitude will also be significantly higher that a typical 4th or even 5th gen fighter and excess 60,000 feet.
When you have such an advantage in stealth, you also design the platform to fly higher and faster more efficiently. This has also the benefit of giving your weapons and sensors more range.
I can see the same design philosophy in the B-21, but the designers there traded all the supersonic speed capability for range and payload.
It’s funny how it was always the Russians that were building the bigger airplanes because their country was so large and they had to carry more fuel.
Now, the US is designing a new fighter as if Taiwan is part of the country and has to be defended from far away bases. As a result their next gen fighter makes even the MIG-31s look small by comparison.
Yep, the benefits of basically making the NGAD orders of magnitude greater than all Fifth-Generation Fighters is truly a must, especially that the current Geopolitical status quo calls for aircraft that can go twice or thrice the size of a superpower country, namely the US
Also, if the NGAD is actually much bigger, longer and wider than the Tu-28 Fiddler, then I'll be ecstatic. And not just because it may be larger and heavier than it, but it would also allow it to have both the necessary fuel, payload, avionics and payload capacity to reach their target, detect the enemy air force incoming, and take out several dozen enemy fighters and ground targets by itself, with its drones taking out the rest, and at the same time, it will be powerful enough to go beyond what we expect of it.
Realistically however, they may barely approach that weirdly gigantic fighter's size, but it might make up for it by having a larger and wider wingspan, and of course, actual aircraft fighting capability, as the Tu-28 is more or less an interceptor, and not designed to fight much faster aircraft.
I suspect "F-111 sized" is the sweet spot. The larger you get, eventually you just have a bomber that carries AAMs. I'd think that an all wing design F-111 sized airframe with some kind of adaptive engine, or potentially even multi-mode engine, would easily generate a lot more endurance than just a thousand miles. The F-111 already had a longer combat radius than that; I'd think a more aerodynamic shape and much more efficient engine along with modern composites could easily push that out to a couple thousand miles.
I suspect "F-111 sized" is the sweet spot. The larger you get, eventually you just have a bomber that carries AAMs. I'd think that an all wing design F-111 sized airframe with some kind of adaptive engine, or potentially even multi-mode engine, would easily generate a lot more endurance than just a thousand miles. The F-111 already had a longer combat radius than that; I'd think a more aerodynamic shape and much more efficient engine along with modern composites could easily push that out to a couple thousand miles.
I suspect "F-111 sized" is the sweet spot. The larger you get, eventually you just have a bomber that carries AAMs. I'd think that an all wing design F-111 sized airframe with some kind of adaptive engine, or potentially even multi-mode engine, would easily generate a lot more endurance than just a thousand miles. The F-111 already had a longer combat radius than that; I'd think a more aerodynamic shape and much more efficient engine along with modern composites could easily push that out to a couple thousand miles.
Probably still falls short of what the USAF wants with the NGAD, at least the Pacific variant, if they're still proceeding with the "2 types of NGAD" approach.
I suspect "F-111 sized" is the sweet spot. The larger you get, eventually you just have a bomber that carries AAMs. I'd think that an all wing design F-111 sized airframe with some kind of adaptive engine, or potentially even multi-mode engine, would easily generate a lot more endurance than just a thousand miles. The F-111 already had a longer combat radius than that; I'd think a more aerodynamic shape and much more efficient engine along with modern composites could easily push that out to a couple thousand miles.
I suspect "F-111 sized" is the sweet spot. The larger you get, eventually you just have a bomber that carries AAMs. I'd think that an all wing design F-111 sized airframe with some kind of adaptive engine, or potentially even multi-mode engine, would easily generate a lot more endurance than just a thousand miles. The F-111 already had a longer combat radius than that; I'd think a more aerodynamic shape and much more efficient engine along with modern composites could easily push that out to a couple thousand miles.
But that’s where the future is headed. Four engine monstrosities that carry dozens of AAM and has so much excess power that DEW and ECM provide and energy shield from enemy kinetic assets.
I suspect "F-111 sized" is the sweet spot. The larger you get, eventually you just have a bomber that carries AAMs. I'd think that an all wing design F-111 sized airframe with some kind of adaptive engine, or potentially even multi-mode engine, would easily generate a lot more endurance than just a thousand miles. The F-111 already had a longer combat radius than that; I'd think a more aerodynamic shape and much more efficient engine along with modern composites could easily push that out to a couple thousand miles.
But that’s where the future is headed. Four engine monstrosities that carry dozens of AAM and has so much excess power that DEW and ECM provide and energy shield from enemy kinetic assets.
I'd say 2-Engined, as that is what's initially planned, but I won't be surprised if the actual NGAD comes out as 4-Engined, because knowing the Americans, they would definitely go beyond overkill when designing and making the latest aircraft
Not to mention, their AAM might be able to hit 200, 300 or more kms away from the fighter itself. I won't surprised if that figure exceeds 1000.
And as for their Direct Energy-Weapons and Electronic Counter-Measures, don't get me started. Even if they won't be using Fusion Reactors yet, they obviously have enough juice to utilize both. The only problem now is miniaturizing the DEW and ECM systems to be both easily installed inside the aircraft, and performing many orders of degrees more than the latest DEW and ECM tech that we have today
I suspect "F-111 sized" is the sweet spot. The larger you get, eventually you just have a bomber that carries AAMs. I'd think that an all wing design F-111 sized airframe with some kind of adaptive engine, or potentially even multi-mode engine, would easily generate a lot more endurance than just a thousand miles. The F-111 already had a longer combat radius than that; I'd think a more aerodynamic shape and much more efficient engine along with modern composites could easily push that out to a couple thousand miles.
But that’s where the future is headed. Four engine monstrosities that carry dozens of AAM and has so much excess power that DEW and ECM provide and energy shield from enemy kinetic assets.
I suspect "F-111 sized" is the sweet spot. The larger you get, eventually you just have a bomber that carries AAMs. I'd think that an all wing design F-111 sized airframe with some kind of adaptive engine, or potentially even multi-mode engine, would easily generate a lot more endurance than just a thousand miles. The F-111 already had a longer combat radius than that; I'd think a more aerodynamic shape and much more efficient engine along with modern composites could easily push that out to a couple thousand miles.
But that’s where the future is headed. Four engine monstrosities that carry dozens of AAM and has so much excess power that DEW and ECM provide and energy shield from enemy kinetic assets.
Better yet, when said engines can change according to flight regimes, there would be little to no need for tankers as Fuel Efficiency would be at a very high level
I suspect "F-111 sized" is the sweet spot. The larger you get, eventually you just have a bomber that carries AAMs. I'd think that an all wing design F-111 sized airframe with some kind of adaptive engine, or potentially even multi-mode engine, would easily generate a lot more endurance than just a thousand miles. The F-111 already had a longer combat radius than that; I'd think a more aerodynamic shape and much more efficient engine along with modern composites could easily push that out to a couple thousand miles.
Don't forget that modern manufacturing techniques can half that value for the same form factor (but then stealth add some significant percentage to that end-value).
It's only going to move forward, not backward, as it should be. But knowing the US, their definition of moving forward is through orders of degrees, not one step at a time, so expect the NGAD to be ten steps ahead of the Raptor, even more, and then expect its Seventh-Generation successor to be a hundred steps ahead of the NGAD.
Going larger than the previous generation is only worth it when you cannot make any other sort of qualitative gain, or when you are adamant about the theater and the way the action will be thought.
Larger aircraft, before anything else, is basing problems. If you're fighting over Guadalcanal from Rabaul - it's nice that you can, but sharks were the winners.
Is there really a need to go over already-reached sizes - which already aren't small? Or better to stop at something that still can be meaningfully hidden from the orbit?
Is there a need to build as large/capable an aircraft as possible if a significant part of the fighting is to be offloaded onto flying pylons and loyal wingmen?
Going larger than the previous generation is only worth it when you cannot make any other sort of qualitative gain, or when you are adamant about the theater and the way the action will be thought.
Larger aircraft, before anything else, is basing problems. If you're fighting over Guadalcanal from Rabaul - it's nice that you can, but sharks were the winners.
Is there really a need to go over already-reached sizes - which already aren't small? Or better to stop at something that still can be meaningfully hidden from the orbit?
Is there a need to build as large/capable an aircraft as possible if a significant part of the fighting is to be offloaded onto flying pylons and loyal wingmen?
As it seems to be the trend regarding the NGAD, yes, for a few reasons:
1: The US Air Force is considering an increased range for the NGAD, far enough to penetrate China's borders and reach its interior alongside the B-21 in potential deep strike, penetration and interdiction missions. Thus it necessitates a much larger fuel capacity, which calls for a much larger airframe. And although NGAP may potentially greatly increase fuel effiency so as to render that first reason moot, it would rather be taken as a further boon, and help further increase the range of the fighter itself, instead of greatly scaling the fighter back. Additionally, such a larger fighter with a larger fuel capacity and extremely fuel efficient adaptive engines would have less need for tankers to refuel them from time to time, especially now that there are BVR missiles designed to target and destroy enemy tankers from ranges far more than current BVR Air-To-Air Missiles.
2: While it's true that NGAD will be able to have squadrons of loyal wingmen drones to follow alongside it, they may not be large enough to be able to hold larger and far more advanced weaponry. Potentially, future Air-To-Air missiles, such as the Long Range Engagement Weapon, may potentially be two-staged, thus being much longer in length, and thus unable to fit in the internal weapons bay of the drones (Unless there will be drones that are almost as large as the main fighter, and are to be deployed, which may be likely, or unless more fuel efficient AAMs are developed, with twice the range of an AMRAAM or even a Phoenix, but with the same size as a regular AMRAAM). Additionally, as future fighters might seem to slowly merge with some types of bombers in the ground attack role, the future ground ordinance may also be enlarged and thus, may not fit in the internal weapon bays of current fighters. In that sense, a much larger aircraft also means a much larger internal weapons payload so as to handle not just more weapons, but larger ones, for when they are made.
3: Future aircraft are gonna be heavily powered by electricity, and many of their systems would thus rely on sufficient amounts of power to be able to operate. A small fighter might not have all the space needed to contain these advanced systems. Not to mention, one of the main goals of Sixth-Generation Fighters such as the NGAD is to have Directed-Energy Weapons, which in their current form, take up a lot of space, and use up a lot of energy. Unless miniaturization of these weapon systems can be made in such a short timeframe (Which may happen, given how much strides we have gained in laser weapons technology since then), such weapons will be too large for even a mid-sized fighter like the Eagle or the Raptor to possess. And even if we're not including or counting Directed-Energy Weapons in, other advancing systems such as Avionics Systems, Sensor Systems, and Electronic Counter-Measures Systems may be too powerful for drones to handle, and so may need to be placed on the main fighter. True, one drone can be a dedicated sensory platform, another an ECM platform, and a third with DEW point-defense, and so on, but energy is an important requirement, and the drones may not have the sufficient power to handle really advanced systems that are required for the NGAD. Thus, they may need to be placed on the main fighter, which of course, necessitates space, thus again, a larger airframe is needed.
And 4: Stealth is a requirement for the Sixth-Generation fighters, and as proven by the B-2, a larger airframe that flies slower can actually boast a much smaller Radar Cross-Section than smaller fighters that fly at high mach speeds. While the NGAD may potentially be able to fly hypersonic, they may most likely be an optional setting, or to be used only when either rushing towards the battlefield, or rushing back to base. It may be that in conflict, future fighters will rely less on maneuverability and more on BVR weaponry, long-range sensor technology to detect their enemies, and loyal wingmen drones to take the fall from a potential detection from the enemy, as well as assistance in taking down multiple enemy targets. Meanwhile, both the main fighter's large size, stealthy airframes, highly-advanced RAM and slow speeds will further mask its presence on enemy sensors, thus they may potentially be undetected throughout the entire fight, and would serve in a quarterback role far more than the F-35 did.
There may be other reasons that necessitates the increase in size for future Sixth-Generation Fighters, but from my understanding of what's currently going on in the NGAD's research and development, these 4 are the most common reasons as to why they need to be bigger. Of course, other Sixth-Generation Fighter programs don't have to necessarily become bigger, as GCAP, FCAS and F/A-XX seems to be more more focused on simply making more advanced versions of current fighters, instead of a truly revolutionary design process, as the USAF is envisioning with the NGAD. (The FCAS and F/A-XX moreso, due to the limited size of Aircraft Carriers, and the requirement that they be carrier-capable, thus their size estimates are already stunted from the start.)
As always, I could be wrong, and my stuff could also be just some popular comments from articles here and there. But based from what I'm seeing and hearing, the direction for Sixth-Generation Fighters (Or rather, the NGAD) seems to be on a much larger fighter to handle all the requirements the USAF is asking the program for.
P.S my "move forward, not backward" statement is not necessarily about the size of fighters (Though I do think that might be the case for the USAF), but rather on Fighter development as a whole. After all, Future Generations of Fighters will be wholly more advanced in most, if not all ways, than the predecessors, and will focus on new and developing missions and suites of technologies that previous generations of fighters may fail to succeed in achieving, even if they outperform or outlive their successors in several ways. In a nutshell, future succeeding generations of fighters will be far more advanced and far more capable in most, if not all ways than previous generations, and they in turn will be exceeded in all ways by their successors.
I suspect "F-111 sized" is the sweet spot. The larger you get, eventually you just have a bomber that carries AAMs. I'd think that an all wing design F-111 sized airframe with some kind of adaptive engine, or potentially even multi-mode engine, would easily generate a lot more endurance than just a thousand miles. The F-111 already had a longer combat radius than that; I'd think a more aerodynamic shape and much more efficient engine along with modern composites could easily push that out to a couple thousand miles.
Probably still falls short of what the USAF wants with the NGAD, at least the Pacific variant, if they're still proceeding with the "2 types of NGAD" approach.
I suspect "F-111 sized" is the sweet spot. The larger you get, eventually you just have a bomber that carries AAMs. I'd think that an all wing design F-111 sized airframe with some kind of adaptive engine, or potentially even multi-mode engine, would easily generate a lot more endurance than just a thousand miles. The F-111 already had a longer combat radius than that; I'd think a more aerodynamic shape and much more efficient engine along with modern composites could easily push that out to a couple thousand miles.
Probably still falls short of what the USAF wants with the NGAD, at least the Pacific variant, if they're still proceeding with the "2 types of NGAD" approach.
Interesting, though they wouldn't be able to penetrate China's land borders and go deep inside the country itself, even from Palau. Hence, they should have twice, or more than twice the range needed, perhaps 3000 miles or more is plenty enough, as it should allow them to be stationed either at Australia or at Diego Garcia, much farther away from China, and therefore, safer from their potential aggression. However, having more than double the range while being stationed at either Palau or Guam should also allow them to reach both Russia and North Korea, ensuring that the other non-friendly countries are also at arm's reach from US strikes, and thus strengthen their deterrence.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
