This member has provided no bio about themself...
While I share your skepticism that they'll actually be able to build it (given how difficult some of the problems involved are and the number of previous failures that have occurred), if they actually managed to construct a full sized, scramjet powered aircraft in the next 10 years that would be a huge deal. Besides military uses (hitting something going Mach 6+ in the upper atmosphere with a ground launched rocket would be ridiculously impractical), scramjets would have big implications for orbital launches and other civilian fields. Since to my knowledge NASA and the US military are the only ones putting significant funding into developing scramjets, I say let them try.
There are plenty of European players, other regions tend to only get populated on specific days though.
The aerospace industry is ridiculously protective of trade secrets. I've personally found it practically impossible to get even remotely detailed technical information on commercially available aircraft from the manufacturer (luckily, as it turns out, a lot of pilot's manuals get leaked onto the internet), and I can't imagine the defense industry is any less protective.
There is still a significant amount of speculation (trying to use aircraft geometry to estimate speeds, ect.) even within respectable periodicals like Jane's, and they tend to contain data that is, at most, lacking of any useable context such as cruise speed or minimum turning radius. In particular, conventional measures of acrobatic ability, such as the behavior of short-period oscillations, are practically never provided. Ultimately, the root of all information on non-operational military aircraft is the military, and the they rarely have any incentive to be truthful or thorough in what they release.
There's not much to discuss... The Chinese military doesn't have much of a need to justify its funding to the public since the country is autocratic, and as a result almost nothing concrete is released to the public about any of its military equipment under development.
Not that I put much trust into anything that's posted to this group (people here seem to be vastly over-confident in their knowledge of highly secretive combat aircraft, including ones not even out of early developmental phases), but with western and Russian aircraft there's at least some semi-reliable information available from official sources. Any discussion of new Chinese aircraft is basically going to be pure speculation, making it rather pointless.
This is the cockpit layout of the F-35:
The F-35 and F-22 both were designed with human interfaces as a primary concern, and have probably the best cockpit layouts in existance. The F-15 was revolutionary due to its excellent electronics, but suffered for the exact same reason-the amount of information available was simply overwhelming to pilots. Pilot skill for the F-15 was mostly measured by how well a person could make sense of the many, many monitors, dials and other sensors while simultaneously being aware of their position in combat. The newer aircraft allow pilots to focus more on combat by greatly condensing sensor outputs and other cockpit functions, and this has been a huge selling point for the military.
Just because they're not at any physical risk does not mean that drone operators don't face a great deal of stress. For reference: Nytimes.com
It is maybe understandable to worry about leadership (which itself has never been at risk) being more ready to use airstrikes against targets when there is no risk to any allied soldiers, as with the extensive drone operations in areas such as Pakistan. However, those operations have resulted in extremely few civilian deaths relative to conventional military operations, and I'm happy for any development in war that reduces death toll.
As odd as it might seem, the exact opposite is true. Speed is one of the primary defenses of conventional aircraft, so they tend to drop in, attack their target, and leave so quickly that the pilot doesn't see the effects of the bombing.
Drone operators on the other hand often will watch a target for hours prior to bombing it, and will stay to confirm that the missile hits. The result is that not only do they see the people they're killing, given the current use of drones, they often see them acting like normal people rather than acting as soldiers. In fact, the US military has had a significant problem with drone operators suffering psychological problems (PTSD, ect.) due the high stress nature of their work.
It's mounted in the frontal armor on all modern Abrams. Depleted uranium is only really toxic when it burns, which it will not do when it is in a large flat plate inside of standard armor. If the armor completely failed like this(http://s24.postimg.org/xwwmpe6vp/1372492524597.jpg) maybe it would be a problem, but at that point the crews pretty screwed anyways.
Regardless, while the US certainly did lose Abrams in Iraq, if I recall correctly the posted image is of a tank that was decommissioned and set up in a training grounds in the US.
Overall they were probably the most successful AFV of the war, being much cheaper than comparable tanks while still being very effective in AT and infantry support roles. Most of the well known German aces are known for driving the Tiger or Tiger II, but actually spent most of their careers in StuGs.
Nobody believed the F-313 because, frankly, Iran simply does not have the industry to design a home grown fighter that would rival those of major world powers, and its announcement came just after the country was caught faking missile launches.
The realty is that one can't really predict the performance of a stealth aircraft simply by aircraft geometry. Anyone with an undergrad aerospace engineering degree knows how to build a UAS, so the pictured aircraft could effectively be anything from a couple of engineers' pet project they built in their free time to the most advanced aircraft ever built. China's military is notoriously opaque to the public (which has some advantages and some disadvantages), so there is no point speculating on the performance of any of its aircraft that are currently in development.
The B52 was already introduced in the 50's. A more appropriate statement would be a B52 from the 40's.
If I recall correctly, this tank was designed so it would not be knocked over if a nuke went off nearby, and that would have been seen as a benefit in the 1950's.
I've heard having the turret backward shifts the CG closer to the center of the tank and thus put less stress on the suspension.
Most T-72's still in use are encased in enough ERA that they'll have, at a minimum, a fair chance again most light infantry AT weapons, although generally they would still be worse off than Western tanks.
The Soviets followed a Cold War doctrine of overwhelming enemy ground forces with a large quantity of armor, and as a result their tanks were much smaller, cheaper and lighter than Western tanks (most Western tanks like the Abrams or Leopard II range from about 25%-50% heavier than the T-80 and T-72). While the smaller size of the tanks negates some difference in weight, the Soviet tanks were generally not as well armored as comparable western models.
Arguably this has made Soviet armor not age very well, since the type of large scale ground warfare the T-72 was built for has (thankfully) began to seem unlikely to occur anytime soon.
Russians have proven themselves quite adept at oppressing Russia :/
I think part of the problem with this and the last aircraft is that the wing is too far back for the aircraft to be stable realistically. Consciously or not, people are used to seeing aircraft that have certain layouts, and so it looks strange if those layouts are changed.
I don't care about realism, but following a realistic design can sometimes make things look more appealing.
And seriously, Call of Duty 2? FH2 has better textures than many contemporary titles, skins from a decade old game would stick out a bit.
You should look into the tournaments. I think Forgotten Honor at least has had some Italian campaigns.
It probably isn't out of the question for an official release either, since there is already plenty of equipment made for the Italian army. The only things the devs would really need to make would be maps and statics.
The Germans made plenty of strategic blunders, but all nations made their share of mistakes during the war. The worst German mistakes are nothing when compared to those made by the Soviets during the first few years of the war, for instance.
It's probably set up to only protect the crew compartment. The ERA probably wouldn't provide much protection for the sprocket wheel anyways, although it would protect the engine compartment, but it may not have been worth the extra weight and cost.
It depends where you are in the world, since most of the mod's players are in Europe, but there is usually at least one full server. You can certainly find populated servers even if you're outside of Europe, but you'll sometimes have to deal with slightly higher pings or play in tournaments, ect.
Needs a citation. I'll eat my hat if the pentagon actually had a press release saying that.
Saying the aircraft outmatches the F-16, which was designed almost half a century ago, is a little more reasonable, and that's not what people were dubious about I think.
It wouldn't work for a whole host of reasons (not the least of which is that there is only one gun actually designed for indirect fire on the entire deck), but the picture is obviously just of some sort of test fire. They probably needed a very flat ground surface or something and so they did everything over the ocean.
If you're playing on a server that's properly set up the incapacitated time should only be about 1 sec. A small time is necessary to prevent players from ragdolling weirdly when they die, but beyond that there's no point to having it.
Is it a Panther? Several were disguised to look like M10's during the Battle of the Bulge if I recall correctly.
The one on the left looks like an M36 Jackson. The suspension and turret don't match a Hellcat's and the gun seems too large for it to be an M10.
Yep, the under slung plane is the SpaceShipOne, which made headlines a while ago for making the first privately funded manned spaceflight.
With the turret turned backwards it looks kind of like a Crusader.
On modern aircraft there really is nothing that is not complex.
Presumably it's during testing and they're gauging its ability to cross shallow creeks, flooded shell holes, ect.