☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmygrad.ml to news@hexbear.netEnglish · 21 days agoThe risks to U.S. forces would be far greater in an operation against Iran, which boasts a formidable arsenal of missiles. The US fully expects Iran to retaliate, leading to back-and-forth strikes.www.reuters.comexternal-linkmessage-square26linkfedilinkarrow-up180arrow-down10cross-posted to: [email protected][email protected][email protected][email protected]
arrow-up180arrow-down1external-linkThe risks to U.S. forces would be far greater in an operation against Iran, which boasts a formidable arsenal of missiles. The US fully expects Iran to retaliate, leading to back-and-forth strikes.www.reuters.com☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmygrad.ml to news@hexbear.netEnglish · 21 days agomessage-square26linkfedilinkcross-posted to: [email protected][email protected][email protected][email protected]
minus-squareOutdoor_Catgirl [she/her, they/them]@hexbear.netlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up21·21 days agoIn-air refueling has limits. Unless you want to be doing operation black buck shit where you have like 10 tankers refueling other tankers to get 1 bomber there, having a carrier dramatically reduces the range your jets need to fly.
In-air refueling has limits. Unless you want to be doing operation black buck shit where you have like 10 tankers refueling other tankers to get 1 bomber there, having a carrier dramatically reduces the range your jets need to fly.