Author Topic: Stupid is as stupid does...one of the few weapon systems all Muzzies fear-cut!  (Read 2016 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Libertas

  • Conservative Superhero
  • *****
  • Posts: 63641
  • Alea iacta est! Libertatem aut mori!
http://weaselzippers.us/211782-legendary-a-10-warthog-sends-isis-fleeing-even-as-it-faces-pentagon-cuts/

How's that Osprey working out?  Not so much?  How about just limping along with older weapon systems, any of those strike fear into hadjis like the A-10?

No?

Yeah, let's cut that one.

Brilliant!

/
We are now where The Founders were when they faced despotism.

Offline AlanS

  • Conservative Superhero
  • *****
  • Posts: 7908
  • Proud Infidel
Logic seems to escape those in power.
"Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem."

Thomas Jefferson

Offline Glock32

  • Conservative Superhero
  • *****
  • Posts: 8747
  • Get some!
The A-10 has to go because it's a bought and paid for platform.  It's of no use to the Military-Industrial Complex.  A boondoggle like the F-35 is much better: cost overruns, constantly changing operational specifications, etc.  It's a perfect place to churn billions of dollars, a project with ambiguous expectations and a finish line that moves around.

The A-10 is a perfect ground attack weapon in this scenario. Air supremacy is not in question, so it doesn't need speed or evasiveness. It just needs to be a rugged, high stamina, and reliable aircraft to hang ordnance on.
"The Fourth Estate is less honorable than the First Profession."

- Yours Truly

Offline Libertas

  • Conservative Superhero
  • *****
  • Posts: 63641
  • Alea iacta est! Libertatem aut mori!
Ground pounders love the thing because it raises Hell on scumbags targeting them...and pilots like them because with with iron bathtub cockpit the thing can take a beating and unleash a lot of angry ordnance.

Your info is spot on G, plus, at that price tag the F-35 will never be put into harms way...so another win for the jihadis especially, and any potential foes...nothing like a built in excuse for non-action!

Fvcking brilliant!  In a batshyt insane kinda way...
We are now where The Founders were when they faced despotism.

Offline Libertas

  • Conservative Superhero
  • *****
  • Posts: 63641
  • Alea iacta est! Libertatem aut mori!
Surprisingly...it appears Obama's "containment" of Daesh is keeping plans to retire the A-10 Warthog on the shelf for now...

http://www.weaselzippers.us/250755-air-force-delays-plans-to-retire-the-a-10-warthog-thanks-to-isis/

PS-That's a swell clip in that article!
We are now where The Founders were when they faced despotism.

Offline warpmine

  • Conservative Hero
  • ****
  • Posts: 3248
Remember when the military brass in the Pentagon screaming the F-22 was two expensive at $100 million a copy? Compare that to $185 for the F-35 money pit. The great plane of compromise, does a little bit of everything but nothing well other than line the pockets of the defense industry that continue to back up this boondoggle.

How the hell can a plane flying no lower than 10k going to help the troops below? How can they see the enemy moving at high enough speed as to avoid ground fire and turning into expensive junk?

The reason the F-22 was for air superiority over the battlefield and they canceled that because of cost ::thinking:: but alas here comes something that will make everyone happy in even in the Navy although I can't see how since it has only one engine and you know how they've insisting that all fleet defenders be equipped with two for redundancy. The 22 wasn't built for the Navy, but the 35 can try to fit their roll as all encompassing pit.

Meanwhile as mentioned previously, the A-10 Thunderbolt was designed for a purpose which was to destroy armor and lurk over the battlefield for hours giving close tactical support to ground forces is to be canceled in favor of F-35 which can't spend but 30 mins over battlefield and out of useful range. Has no reinforced titanium containment for the pilot's protection....
Remember, four boxes keep us free:
The soap box, the ballot box, the jury box, and the cartridge box.

Offline Libertas

  • Conservative Superhero
  • *****
  • Posts: 63641
  • Alea iacta est! Libertatem aut mori!
Yup.

The Navy always preferred two engine multi-mission jets because of the nature of launching and recovering at sea...if one engine goes out you can still land with one.  The height of idiocy is thinking each service branch as the same mission needs and can use one basic model...and of course that model had to be stealthy which ups the cost even more.

The Air Force should have a CONUS based F-22 fighter interceptor presence, it is still the preeminent fighter on the planet.  And they could have upgraded F-15's and F-16's to fill other mission needs, they didn't need the F-35. 

A STOVAL aircraft for the Marines makes sense...not sure they needed a zillion-dollar wonder-plane when they tend to operate in forward deployment zones...makes no economic sense to me at all...they could have had a new trimmed down mission specific design just for them, but no...more of the one size fits all stupidity.  They want the same plane and its variants here and in NATO blah blah blah...

The Navy could use a stealthy plane for specific incursions but since a carrier is not the easiest thing to hide from people, it's main defense is its aircraft screen and escort screen to ward of attack from air, surface or sub-surface, so there is no reason why one stealth squadron would not suffice and the rest of the fighter/attack role be carried out by upgraded F/A-18's which is a proven reliable and capable platform.  The F-35 is costly to build, costly to maintain and suffers so many system glitches...

I would rather the Navy go with a trimmed down stealth option if any stealth at all.  Besides, much of what could be achieved with a stealth fighter could also be achieved with a stealth drone, so perhaps stealth drones and manned aircraft of the present would be a better and more affordable option.

But money talks and good ideas get flushed with routine regularity!   ::gaah::
We are now where The Founders were when they faced despotism.

Offline Glock32

  • Conservative Superhero
  • *****
  • Posts: 8747
  • Get some!
If they want service commonality, why can't they just require commonality of certain components rather than requiring commonality of the final product?  I can see wanting to use the same engines, landing gear, avionics, etc, to the greatest extent possible.  It makes procurement, maintenance, and training simpler.  But they should be put together in configurations most appropriate for that service's mission, instead of ending up with square peg for the round hole with this service, the triangular hole with the other service, etc.  It doesn't do any of the services' missions better than their existing aircraft.

It's all politics though.  Some component of the aircraft is manufactured in so-and-so's congressional district, ad nauseam.
"The Fourth Estate is less honorable than the First Profession."

- Yours Truly

Offline Libertas

  • Conservative Superhero
  • *****
  • Posts: 63641
  • Alea iacta est! Libertatem aut mori!
That's a good point, it is basically the approach they've taken with the new Ford Class carriers - flexible compartments that can be easily converted for different uses, using similar components but on different platforms should have been an obvious strategy and in some cases it has already been done, but money, politics and prestige corrupt everything.
We are now where The Founders were when they faced despotism.