New High-Tech Helmet For Pilots Costs $400k

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
This is one badass helmet. While I don't know if it is worth $400,000, it sure looks like a million bucks. :cool:

All the information pilots need to complete their missions – airspeed, heading, altitude, targeting information and warnings – is projected on the helmet’s visor, rather than on a traditional Heads-up Display. This approach greatly reduces the pilot’s workload and increases responsiveness. Additionally, the F-35’s Distributed Aperture System (DAS) streams real-time imagery from six infrared cameras mounted around the aircraft to the helmet, allowing pilots to “look through” the airframe. The helmet also provides pilots night vision through the use of an integrated camera.
Click to expand...
 
The only reason that costs $400,000 is because its being sold to the US government!

Its just like the $37 screws, $436 hammer, $7,600 coffee-maker, or $640.09 cheap fiberglass toilet seat covers used for the Navy's P-3 Antisubmarine Warfare (ASW) aircraft, to the most recent fiasco in 2011 with Boeing charging the Army $1,678 a piece for rubber cargo-loading rollers that actually cost $7 each and its purely a matter of fraud where government procurement agents are wined and dined ("please come for two weeks all expenses paid to Hawaii first class for a seminar so we can showcase you our product; BTW the seminar is 1 hour long and bring condoms"). Or heck the $7 billion worth of equipment destroyed rather than sell it or ship it back home from Iraq and Afghanistan, with $4 billion + essentially given away to domestic police forces in order for the DoD to justify requiring new equipment for our troops... cuz we don't have anything, see! And they couldn't answer why they keep buying spare parts, when an audit revealed they have over $7 billion in spare parts already in inventory. Same with the Army just recently announcing plans to replace its camouflage pattern, which was introduced in 2004 and cost $5 billion to develop, with a new one will cost $4 billion... which is not only ridiculous, but isn't likely to make one lick of a difference.

No one seems to get pissed about this stuff (or fired for that matter).
 
Ducman69 said:
The only reason that costs $400,000 is because its being sold to the US government!

No one seems to get pissed about this stuff (or fired for that matter).
Click to expand...

I do.

This has been going on for a long time. The numbers you quoted ($436 dollar hammer, etc) were actually uncovered back in the mid 80's by the Project on Government Oversight. Those of us over the age of 30 remember all the jokes on late night television about it. And then....nothing. It all went away, swept under the rug. I don't imagine the situation has improved since then.
 
All this tech and still getting their asses kicked by the guys with vintage AKs and Toyota pickups.
 
the-one1 said:
All this tech and still getting their asses kicked by the guys with vintage AKs and Toyota pickups.
Click to expand...
Our kill ratio owns theirs, and they can't project power like the US can in air, sea, land thousands of miles away from home. So that's a bit apples and oranges.

But that is a bit of the point though; what superpower is such a high tech helmet meant to combat? We have air superiority already in all theaters.

Don't get me wrong, I believe its very important to have a strong military, and that can be a deterrent in its own right, but at some point enough is enough and bang for the buck matters.
 
the-one1 said:
All this tech and still getting their asses kicked by the guys with vintage AKs and Toyota pickups.
Click to expand...

The U.S. backed and equipped Iraqis are getting their asses kicked, but it is not due to equipment or funding, but to a whole bunch of other factors.

The Daesh are terrified of U.S. air power, and those are (currently) the only U.S. forces in the region. The Kurds can call upon this air power when needed and have been very successful.
 
Gweenz said:
The U.S. backed and equipped Iraqis are getting their asses kicked, but it is not due to equipment or funding, but to a whole bunch of other factors.

The Daesh are terrified of U.S. air power, and those are (currently) the only U.S. forces in the region. The Kurds can call upon this air power when needed and have been very successful.
Click to expand...

1) Love that you're using the right name for those asshats.
2) Daesh are getting pounded by a plane that cost $7 million a pop and can loiter for hours. The same A-10 that isn't fast enough, pretty enough, pointy enough or provide enough kickbacks for the fighter brass to give a shit about.

You can do a LOT of strafing runs with 1150 rounds of 30mm. Couple that with the loiter time and you can all but freeze a ground based enemy in place for as long as you can leave planes on station.

I'll take a completely re-furbished, re-winged updated A-10 for $21 million a pop over a shiny new $135 Million F-35 any day of the week.
 
splattered said:
Perhpas it is because they are all in bed together and no one cares anymore in this corporate dictoracy we all didn't vote for.
Click to expand...

It's the same all over. A couple of years aback a company won a Govt. contract to handle the refund of money to those that were dumb enough to buy a UK Identity card. The scheme was abandoned so they setup a scheme to refund anyone that had paid £30.

The contract was such that if just 50% of those that bought a card bothered to ask for their £30 back it would have cost £30000 per £30 refunded.

Genius.

There have been several cases of smaller Govt. contracts that failed costing say £80 million that when the investigators went in there were no records of where any of the £80 million was spent. Nothing.

No one was investigated, no one was charged. Now that's either fraud or mass incompetence but where is the punishment? There isn't any.

BAE is building us two aircraft carriers that will cost three times as much as they quoted and arrive several years late. Now if that was a builder you asked in then you would never use that company again. However, next time we need a new addition to the fleet, guess who gets the contract yet again?

Bent!
 
The F-35 program is a scam , that much is true , you do have to remember that the JSF has no HUD in the cockpit so the helmet took the HUD`s budget.

and i`m sad my country also chose to buy F-35 instead of getting more 4.5th gen fighters
( Air force has alot of influence over Security budget here)

As for the A-10`s , they are perfect for the CAS mission, and its a shame the USAF is so adamant about retiring them without a proper replacement , modern A-10C with suite 7 updates are so powerful its crazy.
 
webdev511 said:
1) Love that you're using the right name for those asshats.
2) Daesh are getting pounded by a plane that cost $7 million a pop and can loiter for hours. The same A-10 that isn't fast enough, pretty enough, pointy enough or provide enough kickbacks for the fighter brass to give a shit about.

You can do a LOT of strafing runs with 1150 rounds of 30mm. Couple that with the loiter time and you can all but freeze a ground based enemy in place for as long as you can leave planes on station.

I'll take a completely re-furbished, re-winged updated A-10 for $21 million a pop over a shiny new $135 Million F-35 any day of the week.
Click to expand...

A-10's are great for the ground-and-pound with guerrillas that can't hit back, but when the US ever fights a real war the F-35 is what's going to be needed. If you're not going forward you're going back.
 
dmonkey said:
A-10's are great for the ground-and-pound with guerrillas that can't hit back, but when the US ever fights a real war the F-35 is what's going to be needed. If you're not going forward you're going back.
Click to expand...

Lately though, it's been the guerrillas we've been fighting, not any superpower with technological parity to the US. We should keep a portion of the A-10s flying, and bring in the F-35s as well when they are ready. Not retire the A-10 outright.
 
I say the A-10s should stay in service as well. They have their place.

As for the F-35 helmet, take these things into account.

1. Material cost is not the only thing that makes up a product.
2. R&D - how much time/money has been spent working on this?
3. Assembly
4. Testing and certification - this is not cheap.
5. How many of these helmets are going to be produced? This is not like some movie or video game that costs millions upon millions to make and then there are millions of people who pay for them.

Just because the raw material cost may not be that much, you have to take into account everything else that goes into a product.
 
dmonkey said:
A-10's are great for the ground-and-pound with guerrillas that can't hit back, but when the US ever fights a real war the F-35 is what's going to be needed. If you're not going forward you're going back.
Click to expand...
Makes me wonder what happened to the battle blimp, the one that was supposed to be able to stay up for weeks at a time, for 24x7 surveillance, signal relaying for ground forces, and able to accurately direct ground rocket and artillery fire wherever was needed (which can hit targets in a 25 mile radius).
 
webdev511 said:
1) Love that you're using the right name for those asshats.
2) Daesh are getting pounded by a plane that cost $7 million a pop and can loiter for hours. The same A-10 that isn't fast enough, pretty enough, pointy enough or provide enough kickbacks for the fighter brass to give a shit about.

You can do a LOT of strafing runs with 1150 rounds of 30mm. Couple that with the loiter time and you can all but freeze a ground based enemy in place for as long as you can leave planes on station.

I'll take a completely re-furbished, re-winged updated A-10 for $21 million a pop over a shiny new $135 Million F-35 any day of the week.
Click to expand...

THIS, All Day E'ery Day. If the AF doesn't like them, chop them to the Army and the Key West Agreement be damned.
 
aardvark sandwich said:
Bad guy kills or innocents kills?
Click to expand...
In my opinion, for the most part in those theaters you have the bad guy actual combatants, and the rest are "innocents" that support the combatants with food, housing, transportation, medical aid, money, etc.
 
splattered said:
Perhpas it is because they are all in bed together and no one cares anymore in this corporate dictoracy we all didn't vote for.
Click to expand...

In every single election cycle there are is an array of candidates running for office. In some rare cases there are honest Democrats running for office, and even more rarely, honest Republicans. Sometimes there are even challengers to the re-nomination of current party incumbents. And there are always plenty of independents, libertarians, and greens running for offices. All of these candidates speak out against big corporations' corruption and influence in government and have a history of walking the walk and not just talking the talk.

Yet in every cycle, the people of the United States always vote for the vast majority of opponents of those candidates in all local, state, and federal offices. Just like politicians, the people say one thing and do another. They absolutely have long voted for and continue to vote for the advancement of a corporate dictatorship.
 
dmonkey said:
A-10's are great for the ground-and-pound with guerrillas that can't hit back, but when the US ever fights a real war the F-35 is what's going to be needed. If you're not going forward you're going back.
Click to expand...

...except that nobody wants the F35, and I'm talking about our own military here. It's just not a good plane. This is just not my opinion, but the opinion of pilots, engineers, and aircraft designers. See, what they tried to do was please everyone with a plane that could fill all roles, and when you try to do that you only succeed in pissing everyone off. If they would ditch the VTOL requirement the project could be salvageable, but at this point they are too far in to give up. So we will continue to pour money into the project until it is ready 10 years from now. But again, nobody wants it.

Our current catalog of fighter planes was so far ahead of everyone else and their costs were (comparitively) low because of familiarity with the airframes and availability of spare parts. We had zero reason whatsoever to green-light the F35 project but our economy is so heavily based around military and so much money is involved nobody can stop it.
 
Gweenz said:
...except that nobody wants the F35, and I'm talking about our own military here. It's just not a good plane. This is just not my opinion, but the opinion of pilots, engineers, and aircraft designers. See, what they tried to do was please everyone with a plane that could fill all roles, and when you try to do that you only succeed in pissing everyone off. If they would ditch the VTOL requirement the project could be salvageable, but at this point they are too far in to give up. So we will continue to pour money into the project until it is ready 10 years from now. But again, nobody wants it.

Our current catalog of fighter planes was so far ahead of everyone else and their costs were (comparitively) low because of familiarity with the airframes and availability of spare parts. We had zero reason whatsoever to green-light the F35 project but our economy is so heavily based around military and so much money is involved nobody can stop it.
Click to expand...

It's definitely a boondoggle, but then again what the hell isn't. Is bombing these people half a continent away really in the best interests of the American people in the first place? Besides, waiting for people to catch up before you start going again is a sure way to get beat. Honestly the only thing propping up American superpower in this day and age is the fact that we're always ahead and we have been since the atom bomb.
 
Working as a "defense" contractor is where the real money is at, it would appear. And with the US now in a perpetual state of war, the government will be hemorrhaging cash at ideas like this forever.
 
Boondoggle the F-35 may be, we still need a replacement for our F-16s. Those air frames are WAY past their engineered lifetime and soon will be flying apart like the F-15s started to do 5-6 years ago. The main issue is that the F-35 isn't a much better plane than the F-16 block 50 as far as conventional combat capabilities go. The only things that sets them apart is stealth (which is totally unnecessary for an ENTIRE fighter fleet IMO), this helmet mounted HUD, and a better radar. Creating a jack of all trades aircraft was a horrible idea, but it's what we have now and we don't have time to develop another suitable replacement. Eventually it will be a bad-ass aircraft...after many years of expensive updates. Maybe next time a lesson will be learned and we develop specialized planes for specific roles. In the long run that ends up being cheaper and more flexible.
 
Ducman69 said:
The only reason that costs $400,000 is because its being sold to the US government!
Click to expand...

Not exactly, the real cost is the software. I actually saw this thing in development about a decade ago and they already pretty much had the hardware down (though they kept running into motion sickness issues like Oculus and other VR helmets for a while).

The high cost for these projects is because they were on the bleeding edge when they got started and development times have been increasing drastically as we push further and further ahead. The F-35 is not an outlier, aircraft costs have been growing substantially over time. There are various reasons for this: consolidation of the aerospace industry, lower procurement numbers, and greater complexity.

That's the conclusion Rand reached, anyway:
These trends all imply that the main source of cost escalation for aircraft is customer-driven factors or, ultimately, the increased performance and capability that has proceeded from decade to decade. This increased capability has come, in some cases, at a considerably increased cost. By contrast, economy-driven factors have remained fairly consistent across the aircraft types.

...

Industry representatives we interviewed indicated three areas that have contributed to cost escalation for fixed-wing aircraft: (1) a diminishing industrial base (both at the prime and supplier levels), (2) increased military capability, and (3) broader government regulations. The second point is in agreement with our observations from the previous chapter—that customer-driven factors heavily influence the magnitude of the cost escalation. The other two areas, although important but difficult to quantify, are also viewed as contributing to price changes. However, the analysis presented in the chapters above suggests that these areas are less important to cost escalation.
Click to expand...
 
DeathFromBelow said:
The high cost for these projects is because they were on the bleeding edge when they got started and development times have been increasing drastically as we push further and further ahead. The F-35 is not an outlier, aircraft costs have been growing substantially over time. There are various reasons for this: consolidation of the aerospace industry, lower procurement numbers, and greater complexity.
Click to expand...

Not entirely. When these projects are budgeted they look back at costs of similar previous projects while tacking on some extra for inflation, technological advancements, and so on. This makes sense, but the problem is when those projects go over budget due to internal corruption and fleecing by contractors, THOSE costs are the costs used when calculating the next project. So what happens is corruption and overcharging get baked right into the next projects budget. That budget then overruns, repeat ad nauseum. Military contracting is a dirty business and is notoriously corrupted. There simply isn't enough oversight.
 
dmonkey said:
A-10's are great for the ground-and-pound with guerrillas that can't hit back, but when the US ever fights a real war the F-35 is what's going to be needed. If you're not going forward you're going back.
Click to expand...

Real war? LOL. A-10 is battle tested and is probably one of the most durable and safe planes ever built. It is capable of flying minus one engine and missing half a wing at the same time. Many times, it did exactlythat.

Pound for pound, the A-10 is one of the most versatile and hard hitting planes in our inventory. The only thing it can't hold its own against is actual Fighter planes, even then they equip them with a couple of sidewinders now so at worst they distract the enemy fighter just long enough for them to escape. They also wouldn't send them in without fighter escort if they needed it.

What will happen with the JSF? It too needs fighter escort, can't carry as much armament, is less durable, and more dangerous to its pilots due to lack of armor. The A-10 may be an ugly bitch, but its pretty damn graceful at what it does while weilding firepower that would make Thor jealous.

I don't care how many JDAM's you can shove onto a JSF. It doesn't make a damn bit of difference when it comes to CAS roles. When you have enemy troops in danger close situations, you don't use explosives due to friendly fire. You use a machine gun. The JSF has a gun with barely 150 rounds of ammo, which would be fine for one strafing run...except for the fact that they still haven't made the gun fire.

The JSF program is a fucking joke. I love the amazing tech that has been developed for it, but when you create a jack of all trades, it becomes master of none. They could have developed better individual aircraft for each role in the same time frame and for less money than what the JSF program has become.
 
A friend of mine works for Lockheed and said he saw one of the people who works with these things (not a pilot) accidentally drop one of these from the stair/ladder thing to get into the aircraft. Very quick way to burn nearly a half million dollars.
 
webdev511 said:
1) Love that you're using the right name for those asshats.
2) Daesh are getting pounded by a plane that cost $7 million a pop and can loiter for hours. The same A-10 that isn't fast enough, pretty enough, pointy enough or provide enough kickbacks for the fighter brass to give a shit about.

You can do a LOT of strafing runs with 1150 rounds of 30mm. Couple that with the loiter time and you can all but freeze a ground based enemy in place for as long as you can leave planes on station.

I'll take a completely re-furbished, re-winged updated A-10 for $21 million a pop over a shiny new $135 Million F-35 any day of the week.
Click to expand...

QFTMFT!

I loveeeee the A-10 since I was a kid... I wanted to be an A-10 pilot way back in the 80s...
 
webdev511 said:
1) Love that you're using the right name for those asshats.
2) Daesh are getting pounded by a plane that cost $7 million a pop and can loiter for hours. The same A-10 that isn't fast enough, pretty enough, pointy enough or provide enough kickbacks for the fighter brass to give a shit about.

You can do a LOT of strafing runs with 1150 rounds of 30mm. Couple that with the loiter time and you can all but freeze a ground based enemy in place for as long as you can leave planes on station.

I'll take a completely re-furbished, re-winged updated A-10 for $21 million a pop over a shiny new $135 Million F-35 any day of the week.
Click to expand...

The current A-10 air frames also need to be retired. It's a miracle some of them are still flying. I wouldn't be opposed to making a whole bunch of new ones though. There is a brutal elegance to that death machine that can last generation or more.
 
The F35 is a joke. Way over budget and way behind schedule. Most partner countries either cancelled or reduced their orders for them, however my country seems intent to squander billions on these failures.
 
Cool! You would have to be really good though to not go into information overload. :D I like how this is and what it is accomplishing. We sure have come a long way in a short time in my opinion. Draxx, what do you suggest, we go back to the F4?
 
Yeah the A-10 is a great aircraft, but there are many factors that go into consideration when retiring an aircraft. No doubt politics are involved but beyond the politics there are legitimate reasons.

Its not always possible to upgrade an airframe for new capabilities and sometimes its not cost-effective to do so. Radar cross section is something to consider. The F-35 is going to be stealthier then an A-10.

Maintenance cost - with the F-35 being used by three branches of the US military as well other countries availability of parts is going to be abundant for quite some time. With so many airframes in the field the quality of tech is doing to be better. This should leave less down for maintenance. For anyone that has maintained aircraft most will tell you the older the airframe gets the more of a PITA it is to maintain. Its not uncommon for a part to break and the part is no longer being manufactured. This is probably the only real argument you'll have for retiring the A-10 that is not political.
 
CaptNumbNutz said:
Real war? LOL. A-10 is battle tested and is probably one of the most durable and safe planes ever built. It is capable of flying minus one engine and missing half a wing at the same time. Many times, it did exactlythat.

Pound for pound, the A-10 is one of the most versatile and hard hitting planes in our inventory. The only thing it can't hold its own against is actual Fighter planes, even then they equip them with a couple of sidewinders now so at worst they distract the enemy fighter just long enough for them to escape. They also wouldn't send them in without fighter escort if they needed it.

What will happen with the JSF? It too needs fighter escort, can't carry as much armament, is less durable, and more dangerous to its pilots due to lack of armor. The A-10 may be an ugly bitch, but its pretty damn graceful at what it does while weilding firepower that would make Thor jealous.

I don't care how many JDAM's you can shove onto a JSF. It doesn't make a damn bit of difference when it comes to CAS roles. When you have enemy troops in danger close situations, you don't use explosives due to friendly fire. You use a machine gun. The JSF has a gun with barely 150 rounds of ammo, which would be fine for one strafing run...except for the fact that they still haven't made the gun fire.

The JSF program is a fucking joke. I love the amazing tech that has been developed for it, but when you create a jack of all trades, it becomes master of none. They could have developed better individual aircraft for each role in the same time frame and for less money than what the JSF program has become.
Click to expand...
Let me be clear: I love the A-10. But even I have to admit that the A-10 is no longer needed. It's nice to have it but it's not mission or capability critical. Here's why:
1567563_-_main.jpg

That's a Daesh fighter armed with a Chinese FN-6 MANPAD that's a generation or two better than the old SA-7 and Stinger MANPADs against an Iraqi M-35. It has a max altitude of 3,800 meters. The max effective firing range of the GAU-8 Avenger is 1,220 meters with a max firing range of 3,660 meters. This is Daesh we're talking about here, not a state created military force. So imagine how a near peer or future American adversary that's actually a state would be armed? Remember that all four A-10s that were lost during the First Iraq War were lost via SAMs.

With the F-35, you don't necessarily need dedicated fighter support to protect F-35s on a ground or a CAS mission since the F-35 is capable of defending itself. The A-10 can mount Sidewinders but if our enemies are using fighters that can shoot missiles with BVR capability, the A-10 is dead meat. It's akin to leaving a newborn child alone at home VS a teenager at home. The former will result in at least serious injury for the newborn but the teenager has a better chance of taking care of themselves. Neither are ideal situations that a parent should be in but shit happens.

With the F-35, its higher speed, lower RCS, and better electronics will allow to survive in contested airspace. The A-10 basically needs complete utter control of the air-space to survive.

Not to mention the logistics advantages alone. As the U.S showed during WW2, even if your enemy is equipped with far better rifles, machine guns, tanks, and even straight up futuristic jet fighters and rocket fighters, if you can spam "good-enough" weapons, you can still win. That's basically the point of the F-35. It may not be the best dog-fighter, air-superiority fighter, CAS fighter, or strike fighter but it's still "good enough" that can lower maintenance costs and boosts up fighter availability. It's akin to what happened with the F/A-18 when it replaced both the F-14 in the fleet defence role and the A-6 in the ground attack role. The F/A-18 didn't outperform either of those fighters in their respective roles but offered so much maintenance advantages that the USN adopted it anyway.

Would it have been cheaper up-front to develop multiple fighters to fit a single role? Yes. But in the long-run? No as maintenance costs are key. The F-35 is suppose to be replacing the F-16, A-10, F/A-18 (older models), and AV-8B Harriers. That's four different sets of jet engines being replaced by just 1 to 2 jet engines. That not only simplifies logistics, it also makes it easier as well to transfer critically needed spare parts between branches in theatre. Again, the F/A-18 replacing the single role F-14 and A-6 fighters is a key example of that potential benefit. Even the F-16 transformed from a light air to air fighter of the early 1980s into a heavy-duty multi-role fighter that we all love today. The high development costs of the F-22 for it's single basic role is another example that single role fighters may not be cheaper.

This picture demonstrates one of the main selling points of the F-35:
phpv141Z8.jpeg


Unexploded said:
"but when the US ever fights a real war the F-35 is what's going to be needed."
Really? Everything I've read paints the F-35 Lemon as problem-prone money pit that ranks dead last in all categories save cost.

http://www.ausairpower.net/jsf.html
Click to expand...
Not a credible source there. From another website that I frequent:
AusAirpower isn't a think tank. It's a web site that Carlo Kopp used to contribute on. The man's a freaking a cell phone engineer with dreams of being a military analyst for crying out loud. It has about the same resemblance to reality as one of Mike Spark's Gavin fanboy sites. The man has zero experience and even less in terms background credentials in defense.

He started in the 80's writing "technology explained" pieces in Australian Aviation - where his good technical writing skills and ability with electronics allowed him to do a good job explaining elements of on board aircraft technology. through this work he made some contacts and steadily branched out in his pieces covering wider and wider topics, letting his ego get the better of him until in the early 2000's he started writing completely absurd uber waffe articles so embarrassing even AA dropped him. Hence his branch out into website "Thinktanks". I don’t know if you have ever read "Defence Today" but I certainly would never buy it.

Some of his better idea's:

--The RAAF should buy a dozen 747's second hand a cheap and convert them into killer AA tankers.
--The RAAF should rebuild the F-111 that even the USAF retired more than a decade ago with F-22 avionics/engines and reduced RCS to produce a new 2000m+ long range stealth bomber.
--The RAAF needs the F-22 so badly that anything else would be a complete travesty.
--The RAN Collins class is a good platform but can only fire 20 torpedoes before it needs reloading. Therefore the ships should be modified into long range sonar reconnaissance assets that transmit the locations of enemy ships, via a masthead continuous satellite data link (he specified the band and data capacity) cueing FB-22's dropping 2000lb bombs cued for under the keel bursts like the Mk-48
--AAW destroyers are an oxymoron - what you really need are FB -22's that can both do air defence, and are unstoppable strike assets.

All of these were published in AA, and aren’t hard to find. All of them would get him laughed out of any serious audience.

We should move on to where he challenges LM and the USAF on the JSF RCS based on his own work with a pack of crayons and some fish and chip paper.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
I never understood why people get a huge boner for the A-10's GAU-8. It's purpose was to let them keep killing Soviet tanks when more expensive munitions ran out. Survivability drops considerably when you have to get in close like that even if you're flying in an armoured bathtub. In a WWIII scenario where munitions shortages were bound to be an issue it made sense. Nowadays not so much, especially against modern AA.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top