Those two involved "level playing fields?"Yeah cause that really worked during WWI and WWII.
Those two involved "level playing fields?"
Still not a level playing field. Britain and France were starving Germany out, though that wasn't their intent. Not to mention how overmatched Germany was in her colonies, and the hilarity of the Ottoman Empire actually invading Russia.
Those two involved "level playing fields?"
A Great Power Balance of Power is more likely to stop major wars from breaking out. Unfortunately, it's also more likely to result in them being pretty horrific if they do. Makes whether it's a good thing or not a bit debateable.
Nah, not really. Britain and France had a sizeable advantage, especially the longer the war dragged on. They didn't realise it at the tme of course. And as the war dragged on, they gained more and more allies, thus tipping the balance even more in their favour.
Its not as if you can order Ford to start cranking out F-22s all day.
As for production "skyrocketing," just how the hell do you expect THAT to happen?
You think putting a plane together is like building a car? Aircraft today, especially the most advanced one on the planet, is indefinitely more complicated than a stupid car, requires more time, energy, materials, and technology than any sort of car factory has, and, oh, did I mention that a single unit costs $135 Million?The first article puts a heavy focus on the F-35. It basically says that it is garbage and F-22s are good. If the US can only rely on its F-22s: it will only have 180 (I believe the goal is) and they will require land bases within striking range, or heavy use of tankers (which while possible isn't something you want and will significantly decrease the number of sorties). Take into account that some of those will be grounded due to mechanical problems, and some will likely be required to be elsewhere and you don't have much of an force for achieving air-superiority.There are also only 20 B-20s. And I don't know where they fit in the article.
