If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Defense News)   "A-10..." "You sank my warthog fleet"   (defensenews.com) divider line 316
    More: Unlikely, U.S. Air Force, Boeing F-15C Eagle, McDonnell Douglas, aerial refueling, Ground warfare, Air Force Reserves, Teal Group, F-35 Joint Strike Fighter  
•       •       •

18512 clicks; posted to Main » on 17 Sep 2013 at 9:08 AM (45 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



316 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-09-17 01:30:10 PM

The Southern Dandy: dittybopper: Barfmaker: Part of the problem is the elements are being set against each other, the Air Force wants to dump the A-10's because they know the Army will scream and then maybe they'll get some extra budget for it if they keep them.

Yeah, but the Air Force never liked the A-10.  They've been trying to get rid of it for decades, it's just that there really is nothing to replace it.  And they don't *WANT* to replace it, because low and slow ground attack isn't sexy.  Problem is, it's absolutely a vital function, and because of the various agreements, the Army can't have it's own fixed-wing attack aircraft. So the Air Force gets stuck doing a job it doesn't really want, with aircraft it doesn't really want, but it can't relinquish that role to the actual military because if it does, it loses influence.

Bullshiat!

[upload.wikimedia.org image 641x362]

We got our own ships too.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 850x563]


Didn't Elliot Carver have one of those boats?

/Watched it the other night and that was the first thing I thought of
//There's no news, like bad news
///Teri Hatcher FTW
////Slashies
 
2013-09-17 01:44:50 PM

Smoky Dragon Dish: dittybopper: Fano: Carousel Beast: dittybopper: Barfmaker: Part of the problem is the elements are being set against each other, the Air Force wants to dump the A-10's because they know the Army will scream and then maybe they'll get some extra budget for it if they keep them.

...

Basically, I was saying (with tongue planted firmly in cheek) that the Air Force isn't a real military service.

How to Tell the Difference Between the Branches of the US Armed Forces!
If you give the command "SECURE THE BUILDING", here is what the different services would do:
The NAVY would turn out the lights and lock the doors.
The ARMY would surround the building with defensive fortifications, tanks and concertina wire.
The MARINE CORPS would assault the building, using overlapping fields of fire from all appropriate points on the perimeter.
The AIR FORCE would take out a three-year lease with an option to buy the building.


Marines would call in arty strike or set charges and level the building. If you want it secured from the enemy, it is only way to be sure.

/if only orbital nukes were an option.
//disclamer: I am a leatherneck
 
2013-09-17 01:45:05 PM

AFKobel: DoBeDoBeDo: AFKobel: All I know is when I call in the Warthog, it only takes three passes at the map.  It gets a good amount of kills, but come on people, you need take more than three runs at the map to turn the tide.  I'm on a team of morons!

My problem is that when the other team calls it in those three passes get minimum 5 kills a pass.  When I call it in I get 3 passes and 3/4 of the kills are TKs.

I think the pilots are against me.

Just so you are aware, someone sent me a message the other day that said, and I quote:

"Hardcoar is 4 virgins and regular play losers"

So, you should take that advice to heart.  Apparently, core play, where you can empty two magazines into someone and they can still turn and noob tube you, is better game play.

Loser.


I got reported last night because I was just screwing around playing HC Domination and some dude kept camping with 2 trophy systems and an LMG.  Pretty good setup.  So I made it my goal to kill him instead of going for the capture points.   After the 4th straight kill (I took him out then sat in his spot waiting for him to come back :) ).

He messages me that he was reporting me for "Not playing the game right".

I love gaming online.
 
2013-09-17 01:55:19 PM

DoBeDoBeDo: AFKobel: DoBeDoBeDo: AFKobel: All I know is when I call in the Warthog, it only takes three passes at the map.  It gets a good amount of kills, but come on people, you need take more than three runs at the map to turn the tide.  I'm on a team of morons!

My problem is that when the other team calls it in those three passes get minimum 5 kills a pass.  When I call it in I get 3 passes and 3/4 of the kills are TKs.

I think the pilots are against me.

Just so you are aware, someone sent me a message the other day that said, and I quote:

"Hardcoar is 4 virgins and regular play losers"

So, you should take that advice to heart.  Apparently, core play, where you can empty two magazines into someone and they can still turn and noob tube you, is better game play.

Loser.

I got reported last night because I was just screwing around playing HC Domination and some dude kept camping with 2 trophy systems and an LMG.  Pretty good setup.  So I made it my goal to kill him instead of going for the capture points.   After the 4th straight kill (I took him out then sat in his spot waiting for him to come back :) ).

He messages me that he was reporting me for "Not playing the game right".

I love gaming online.


Reminds me of when objective-mode gaming first started getting popular in FPS games rather than just deathmatch.
 
2013-09-17 01:59:26 PM

Anayalator: Looks more like a puma to me.


Stop making up animals.
 
2013-09-17 01:59:45 PM

belhade: Did they really put an AT4 on there? "We got an empty pylon and some leftover rocket launchers over there, make it happen"?


Pretty sure that's a LUU pod.

washington-babylon: D'aww, look at you trying to be cute. That drone can't even begin to do what the Thunderbolt can do.


Here's the thing: The Hawg can't actually do that, either. There's a reason live Mavericks aren't mounted next to the main landing gear anymore. Real-world limitations have been reducing its real-world capacity for years, but if you're towing it out to a spot for an air show, you can stuff as many dummies on it as you like.
 
2013-09-17 02:00:13 PM

DORMAMU: Smoky Dragon Dish: dittybopper: Fano: Carousel Beast: dittybopper: Barfmaker: Part of the problem is the elements are being set against each other, the Air Force wants to dump the A-10's because they know the Army will scream and then maybe they'll get some extra budget for it if they keep them.

...

Basically, I was saying (with tongue planted firmly in cheek) that the Air Force isn't a real military service.

How to Tell the Difference Between the Branches of the US Armed Forces!
If you give the command "SECURE THE BUILDING", here is what the different services would do:
The NAVY would turn out the lights and lock the doors.
The ARMY would surround the building with defensive fortifications, tanks and concertina wire.
The MARINE CORPS would assault the building, using overlapping fields of fire from all appropriate points on the perimeter.
The AIR FORCE would take out a three-year lease with an option to buy the building.

Marines would call in arty strike or set charges and level the building. If you want it secured from the enemy, it is only way to be sure.

/if only orbital nukes were an option.
//disclamer: I am a leatherneck


There are several versions of this joke I have heard or seen online.  Most of them say exactly that.
 
2013-09-17 02:00:52 PM

Tyrone Slothrop: Anayalator: Looks more like a puma to me.

Stop making up animals!

 Why don't we just call it the chupathingy?
 
2013-09-17 02:15:29 PM

WhoopAssWayne: Valiente: You can't run an empire with hand puppets, 'Murica.

Don't make us come up there and liberate your asses, beaver humper.


Sounds a bit gay, really. Good thing your education system has created a generation that has loads of self-esteem over an inability to read a map.
 
2013-09-17 02:17:34 PM
A-10 thread, no Powerglide?
images1.wikia.nocookie.net

/those feels
 
2013-09-17 02:18:09 PM

The Southern Dandy: dittybopper: Barfmaker: Part of the problem is the elements are being set against each other, the Air Force wants to dump the A-10's because they know the Army will scream and then maybe they'll get some extra budget for it if they keep them.

Yeah, but the Air Force never liked the A-10.  They've been trying to get rid of it for decades, it's just that there really is nothing to replace it.  And they don't *WANT* to replace it, because low and slow ground attack isn't sexy.  Problem is, it's absolutely a vital function, and because of the various agreements, the Army can't have it's own fixed-wing attack aircraft. So the Air Force gets stuck doing a job it doesn't really want, with aircraft it doesn't really want, but it can't relinquish that role to the actual military because if it does, it loses influence.

Bullshiat!

[upload.wikimedia.org image 641x362]



That's an attack aircraft?

I've got several friends who have both piloted and sat in the SIGINT operators positions in those aircraft.  They never told me they were *ARMED*.


/Technically, RU-21's, but the same basic airframe.
 
2013-09-17 02:21:11 PM
The A-10 is a solid aircraft, but it's not completely irreplaceable.  The Marine Corps uses AV-8B's and AH-1W's to perform the same function.  The big advantage that the A-10 has is that it is much easier to maintain than many other platforms, particularly in hostile environments.

I would always prefer air support from a Marine Corps aircraft because I think they spend more time training for air support missions, but the A-10 would be my second choice for cross service support behind the AC-130.  It's a crime that so few AC-130 squadrons exist.
 
2013-09-17 02:37:44 PM

netcentric: ModeratelyProfane: netcentric: ModeratelyProfane: ...In short; You don't need a sleek, sexy, stealthy CAS craft. You want those enemy troops to hear it coming, and immediately start shiatting themselves. The A-10, and the AC-130 have this effect. Plus it's paid for, so...added bonus.

When this story first hit fark, I'm pretty sure I saw one comment that said "USMC: We'll take'em."


Well.... that is a very grunty thing to say.   Oooo Rah!    Get down there on the deck and fly slow and GUN baby !!

"You want those enemy troops to hear it coming..."

so they can turn the AAA on you.  And shoot an SA7 up the pipe and you flip over and nose in....

Great system you got there sport....

Let's look at the results: From the GW1
A-10  kills:
More than 900 Iraqi tanks
more than 2,000 other military vehicles
estimated 1,200 artillery pieces
A-10s also shot down two Iraqi helicopters with the GAU-8 cannon. The first of these was shot down by Captain Robert Swain over Kuwait on 6 February 1991, marking the A-10's first air-to-air victory.

Total A-10 losses: Seven. Four were shot down in combat, 3 returned to base, but were written off due to the heavy damage they took.

So, yeah, My stupid plan...isn't my stupid plan....It's the USAF's and it lead to the A-10 being the single most effective combat aircraft during Desert Storm.


Sport.

Desert Storm was 20 years ago...   sorry, but time has passed you by

...sport


You know what else was fantastic?   Battleships, 8" towed guns,  A-1 skyraiders


Forgive me, but I don't see the realistic need for a 700 Billion dollar program that would drop million dollar missiles/bombs to replace an effective, proven, and more than capable airframe that does the same, better, with plain old bullets. Give me a bit I'll look up the A-10s numbers regarding combat effectiveness in the more recent conflicts. Beside the point: Yeah, a .50 sniper rifle is a damn sexy weapon, more than capable, of say...breeching a door. But would you use one with the much more durable, more portable 12 gauge Remington 870 military variant (based off of a +60 year old design) is available?

Newer isn't always better, chum.
 
2013-09-17 02:54:06 PM

ModeratelyProfane: Newer isn't always better, chum.


Kabar, as one example.
 
2013-09-17 03:01:33 PM

DoBeDoBeDo: He messages me that he was reporting me for "Not playing the game right".


How long were you banned for?  Because that's a serious charge right there.
 
2013-09-17 03:02:42 PM

Gerrok: I would always prefer air support from a Marine Corps aircraft because I think they spend more time training for air support missions, but the A-10 would be my second choice for cross service support behind the AC-130.  It's a crime that so few AC-130 squadrons exist.


Only if you're playing Call of Duty. The AC-130 has only one job, and some pretty serious limitations, which is why there are so few of them. The need for them nowadays is in a few very specific roles and nothing more. They aren't as accurate as the games make them out to be, either.

I wouldn't call the AC-130 overrated the way the A-10 is, though. It's just all the rage on the Internet thanks to MW2 onward. The A-10 on the other hand... it either needs a REAL model upgrade (the C model one is a disastrous joke) and new airframes or it needs to go away.
 
2013-09-17 03:02:51 PM

AFKobel: DoBeDoBeDo: He messages me that he was reporting me for "Not playing the game right".

How long were you banned for?  Because that's a serious charge right there.


I guess he was...
(•_•)
( •_•)>⌐■-■
(⌐■_■)
...gaming the system
 
2013-09-17 03:08:02 PM
This article means we're about to pound the fark out of some country.  They carried on about cutting the A-10 fleet for a couple years before we destroyed 1/3 of Iraq's army with them.
Who knows, maybe the airframes will start to wear out this time.
Lol.
 
2013-09-17 03:09:48 PM

2wolves: ModeratelyProfane: Newer isn't always better, chum.

Kabar, as one example.


I need someone to teach me how to fight with a Kabar. I has one and I love the thing dearly.
 
2013-09-17 03:15:43 PM

Valiente: WhoopAssWayne: Valiente: You can't run an empire with hand puppets, 'Murica.

Don't make us come up there and liberate your asses, beaver humper.

Sounds a bit gay, really. Good thing your education system has created a generation that has loads of self-esteem over an inability to read a map.


Listen Commie, the only thing that needs to read a map is our missiles, and they can do that just fine.
 
2013-09-17 03:17:32 PM

dittybopper: The Southern Dandy: dittybopper: Barfmaker: Part of the problem is the elements are being set against each other, the Air Force wants to dump the A-10's because they know the Army will scream and then maybe they'll get some extra budget for it if they keep them.

Yeah, but the Air Force never liked the A-10.  They've been trying to get rid of it for decades, it's just that there really is nothing to replace it.  And they don't *WANT* to replace it, because low and slow ground attack isn't sexy.  Problem is, it's absolutely a vital function, and because of the various agreements, the Army can't have it's own fixed-wing attack aircraft. So the Air Force gets stuck doing a job it doesn't really want, with aircraft it doesn't really want, but it can't relinquish that role to the actual military because if it does, it loses influence.

Bullshiat!

[upload.wikimedia.org image 641x362]


That's an attack aircraft?

I've got several friends who have both piloted and sat in the SIGINT operators positions in those aircraft.  They never told me they were *ARMED*.


/Technically, RU-21's, but the same basic airframe.


My bad!  I didn't pick up on the "attack" aspect.
 
2013-09-17 03:17:48 PM
Ever since I was little A-10s have been constantly flying overhead out of Davis-Monthan AFB. They've been doing it for decades.
It would be weird to not see them anymore.
 
2013-09-17 03:29:09 PM

C18H27NO3: Ever since I was little A-10s have been constantly flying overhead out of Davis-Monthan AFB. They've been doing it for decades.
It would be weird to not see them anymore.


It sucks, but you get used to it....

//Used to have P-3 flying overhead.
//BRAC, you suck
 
2013-09-17 03:31:27 PM

Cid_Highwind:  The A-10 on the other hand... it either needs a REAL model upgrade (the C model one is a disastrous joke)


How so? Explain.
 
2013-09-17 03:55:39 PM
www.fly-fighter-jet.com

Hai Guyz!  What's goin' on in this thread?

When F22 Raptors show up, everyone bugs out.  EVERYONE.
 
2013-09-17 03:59:39 PM

Lt. Cheese Weasel: [www.fly-fighter-jet.com image 560x340]

Hai Guyz!  What's goin' on in this thread?

When F22 Raptors show up, everyone bugs out.  EVERYONE.


The omnipresent fear that the pilot will pass out and crash on top of you tends to cause that.
 
2013-09-17 04:07:12 PM

toraque: Lt. Cheese Weasel: [www.fly-fighter-jet.com image 560x340]

Hai Guyz!  What's goin' on in this thread?

When F22 Raptors show up, everyone bugs out.  EVERYONE.

The omnipresent fear that the pilot will pass out and crash on top of you tends to cause that.


That was fixed.
 
2013-09-17 04:08:51 PM
Cid_Highwind:Only if you're playing Call of Duty. The AC-130 has only one job, and some pretty serious limitations, which is why there are so few of them. The need for them nowadays is in a few very specific roles and nothing more. They aren't as accurate as the games make them out to be, either.

I wouldn't call the AC-130 overrated the way the A-10 is, though. It's just all the rage on the Internet thanks to MW2 onward. The A-10 on the other hand... it either needs a REAL model upgrade (the C model one is a disastrous joke) and new airframes or it needs to go away.


I've never played Call of Duty.  Hell, I don't think I've played a FPS in years.

The reason why the AC-130 is so good at fire support missions is because it can take the time to figure out who is who.  All other aircraft do attack runs, but the AC-130 can spend the time to understand the field before it engages.
 
2013-09-17 04:11:54 PM
Let's see... Mothballing a depleted uranium spitting tank killer versus getting a handful of varied aircraft that can carry tank killing missiles that won't spew heavy metals into the environment.

And there's probably twice as many tank breaking missiles in our inventory as tanks in the world.
 
2013-09-17 04:30:08 PM
The AIR FORCE would take out a three-year lease with an option to buy the building.

Fark you AFRPA, you and your biatch buddy AFCEE.  Go fark yourselves.
 
2013-09-17 04:54:46 PM

dittybopper: Barfmaker: Part of the problem is the elements are being set against each other, the Air Force wants to dump the A-10's because they know the Army will scream and then maybe they'll get some extra budget for it if they keep them.

Yeah, but the Air Force never liked the A-10.  They've been trying to get rid of it for decades, it's just that there really is nothing to replace it.  And they don't *WANT* to replace it, because low and slow ground attack isn't sexy.  Problem is, it's absolutely a vital function, and because of the various agreements, the Army can't have it's own fixed-wing attack aircraft.  So the Air Force gets stuck doing a job it doesn't really want, with aircraft it doesn't really want, but it can't relinquish that role to the actual military because if it does, it loses influence.


Technically the US Army does have a small amount of fixed wing aircraft, but they are all light transports or observation/intelligence gathering platforms.  (The C-23 Sherpa comes to mind, as does the RC-12 Guardrail), but they don't have any fixed-wing tactical aircraft.

The US Army would take those Warthogs in a flat moment if the USAF didn't want them, which the USAF doesn't want to give up.  The Air Force doesn't want the A-10 Warthog because it's ugly, slow, low-tech and completely against what the USAF loves (fancy, fast, high-tech). . .but they'd hate EVEN MORE if the US Army got fixed wing tactical aircraft.  Interservice rivalries are a biatch like that.

Rock and a hard place.
 
2013-09-17 04:58:06 PM

Lt. Cheese Weasel: [www.fly-fighter-jet.com image 560x340]

Hai Guyz!  What's goin' on in this thread?

When F22 Raptors show up, everyone bugs out.  EVERYONE.


Not everyone.

People on the ground don't give a fark.  The Raptor is an air-to-air platform only.  No close air support capability.  No ability to directly influence land warfare.  It is outstanding at air superiority, the best air superiority fighter ever built by mankind. . .but for all you rule the air, the battle is ultimately won by the boots on the ground, and for that you need soldiers and/or marines and they need air support (of which the A-10 is the most outstanding aircraft for that role ever built, it's as good for CAS as the F-22 is for air superiority).
 
2013-09-17 05:52:54 PM
I need CAS, send in a drone!

SAID NO GROUND-POUNDER EVER!
 
2013-09-17 05:53:11 PM

netcentric: Lets face it,  the military isn't going to start on any new conflicts for a couple years.   We're too broke as a country to take on any new action.

We will slowly wrap up our commitments and withdraw from current engagements.

The Army will shrink in the next 3 years
The Navy will shrink in the next 3 years
The Marines will shrink in the next 3 years
The Air Force will shrink in the next 3 years

The nations credit cards are maxed out.    We are no longer able to commit to all the programs we would like.  Cuts are going to happen (although this websource for this article is not a very good one).

This is the direction we have been headed in for several years,  it's not new.    People should have warmed up to it by now.

The peace dividend.... spend it wisely on immigration reform,  alternative energy and paying off several stimulus bills.


It is sad you really think like that.
 
2013-09-17 06:46:33 PM

jankyboy: [latimesherocomplex.files.wordpress.com image 600x328]RIP Cobra Rattler


Oh HELL yes.  My favorite GI Joe toy.
 
2013-09-17 06:52:34 PM

Shrugging Atlas: Mock26: And, Yes, the A-10 is probably more effective than all of those other weapons I mentioned, but that was not my point.  My point is that the Army is still fully capable of taking out enemy tanks without help from the Air Force.  The Air Force just makes it a lot easier for them!

So in trying to make a case for getting rid of the A-10 you just opt to ignore the single most important reason for keeping it?

"Hey, I know the A-10 excels in its role as a close air support and anti-armor platform, but here's a pile of alternatives that range from 'not an option because they no longer are in the arsenal' to 'shiatty.'  That's not terribly convincing.  Why don't you just list entire platoons of infantry equipped with nothing but SMAWs to bum rush the armor.  They can kill tanks too!


Actually, I am NOT making a case for getting rid of the A-10.  In fact, in another post I actually said that I hope that they do not get rid of it.  I was merely pointing out that if they do get rid of it that the Army does have within its arsenal the means to compensate for the loss of the A-10.
 
2013-09-17 06:58:17 PM

sultros: Smoky Dragon Dish: Mock26: Smoky Dragon Dish: Mock26: dittybopper: Barfmaker: Part of the problem is the elements are being set against each other, the Air Force wants to dump the A-10's because they know the Army will scream and then maybe they'll get some extra budget for it if they keep them.

Yeah, but the Air Force never liked the A-10.  They've been trying to get rid of it for decades, it's just that there really is nothing to replace it.  And they don't *WANT* to replace it, because low and slow ground attack isn't sexy.  Problem is, it's absolutely a vital function, and because of the various agreements, the Army can't have it's own fixed-wing attack aircraft.  So the Air Force gets stuck doing a job it doesn't really want, with aircraft it doesn't really want, but it can't relinquish that role to the actual military because if it does, it loses influence.

Meh, the Army already has within its arsenal more than enough weapons to compensate for the loss of the A-10.

<citation needed>

Anti tank missiles.
Artillery.
Tanks.
Mines.

You do realize that mines are no longer part of the DoD arsenal, right?
The whole point of the A-10 is to save tanks from engaging tanks.
Artillery?  Ok, if you want to hit one tank at a time from 20km away... assuming you can hit it.  With Excalibur, OK, you can do this pretty well..... with a non-moving target.
Anti-tank missiles.  Launched from what?  An even slower heli?

Don't bother. If they dont even understand close air support, you cant even discuss this with them. There is NOTHING in the U.S. arsenal that can replace the A10. CAS has always been fulfilled by ugly, old, but tough aircraft like the A-1 skyraider and the P-47 Thunderbolt. The A-10 has already been retired once by those who want pretty and high tech, only to get egg in the face and have to bring them out of mothball.


I fully understand close air support.  I was merely pointing out that if the A-10 is removed from service that the Army would be able to compensate for the loss of that particular weapon's platform.  In fact, if you go through and read all of my posts you will note that not once did I say that the military should get rid of it.  There is a huge difference between saying "The Army does not need it!" and "The Army will be able to manage without it."   So lighten up, Francis, and unbunch your panties.
 
2013-09-17 07:01:32 PM

Ricardo Klement: Mock26: This, too, can take out a tank from the air:


And, it can be mounted on a drone!

The first shot fired in the Iraq War in 2003 was an Apache that fired one of those and hit an M-1. The M-1 needed some paint.



img.photobucket.com
 
2013-09-17 07:06:47 PM

GardenWeasel: How so? Explain.


It added a bunch of items of questionable value that like to break. The A-10 is a mechanically robust aircraft, but it's really rough on its own electronics every time the gun fires (vibrations, plus the cooling fans suck in gun gasses). That by itself doesn't have to be a major issue, but it doesn't seem like a lot of care was put into engineering the upgrade, so swapping out a malfunctioning part is much more time-consuming and difficult than it should be. That, and at this point the jets are 30+ years old. The spare parts they're repaired with have been repaired and sent back out many times over. Stuff breaks just 'cause it's old. They are operating well past their design life. To put it another way, "we're stuffing more electrons in these jets than they know what to do with."

IMO, if we're to keep the A-10, the best approach would be to go whole-hawg (sorry) and start checking into the feasibility of producing new ones, eliminating obsolete equipment (that's still there just because removing it from existing aircraft would be more expense than it's worth), modernized for better compatibility with current upgrades, with more modularity and better engines.   Oh, and build a two-seat version. Heresy, I know, but freeing up the pilot to fly the jet while the WSO handles the pod work will do wonders for bombing accuracy and overall lethality.

But that's pretty much a pipe dream. The Air Force is hell-bent on making the F-22 and F-35 work, and for that, they're crapping on their workhorses like the F-15 and A-10. As old and dodgy as the A-10 is, the F-35 is no replacement for it.
 
2013-09-17 08:15:36 PM
LesserEvil:As for ground combat... again, eyes have very little to do with it. Nonetheless, these aren't fully autonomous drones we are talking about. Pilots are controlling some aspects that AI (can probably do, but) can't be fully trusted to do.

From someone's linked article:
Flying low and slow, the A-10s strafed the Taliban. The aviators' eyesight-and the bird's-eye view through the Warthog's big round canopy-was instrumental. "Even with all our top-of-the-line tools today, we still rely on visual references," the pilot said.

THE major drawback to drones is the lack of situational awareness. Solve that with more bandwidth and sensors, and we can discuss the other merits of the platform, but the tech isn't there yet.

That said, I think there IS an argument for designing a drone that fills the AC-130 mission profile.

// CSB:  I spent the day in the woods with an awesome sensor system, but I had to turn off the automatic features and do the work manually. I love it when it works, but there are still no substitutes for the Mk1 eyeball with a brain behind it.
 
2013-09-17 08:37:26 PM

Kittypie070: 2wolves: ModeratelyProfane: Newer isn't always better, chum.

Kabar, as one example.

I need someone to teach me how to fight with a Kabar. I has one and I love the thing dearly.


Find a non-SCA medieval group that does live steel.  Your profile says you're in Hell, aka Ohio, so look about.  You may want to see if there is a fencing group around for the footwork and balance (not kendo).
 
2013-09-17 08:45:27 PM

Kittypie070: 2wolves: ModeratelyProfane: Newer isn't always better, chum.

Kabar, as one example.

I need someone to teach me how to fight with a Kabar. I has one and I love the thing dearly.


Hold round end.  Make sure pointy end is towards the bad guy.  Stab.  Stab.  Stab.  Stab.  Stab.  Clean blade.  Go home.
 
2013-09-17 08:49:33 PM

Mock26: Ricardo Klement: Mock26: This, too, can take out a tank from the air:


And, it can be mounted on a drone!

The first shot fired in the Iraq War in 2003 was an Apache that fired one of those and hit an M-1. The M-1 needed some paint.


[img.photobucket.com image 500x271]


upload.wikimedia.org
 
2013-09-17 08:52:10 PM

Cid_Highwind: But that's pretty much a pipe dream. The Air Force is hell-bent on making the F-22 and F-35 work, and for that, they're crapping on their workhorses like the F-15 and A-10. As old and dodgy as the A-10 is, the F-35 is no replacement for it.


The F-22 is a spectacular aircraft. The F-35 is primarily a replacement for the F-18 and also a replacement for the Harrier. It's really being driven by the Dept. of the Navy, not the Air Force.
 
2013-09-17 09:17:36 PM

Lt. Cheese Weasel: [www.fly-fighter-jet.com image 560x340]

Hai Guyz!  What's goin' on in this thread?

When F22 Raptors show up, everyone bugs out.  EVERYONE.


TOO FAST

/waves nicely to the eltee
 
2013-09-17 09:51:19 PM

Silverstaff: Lt. Cheese Weasel: [www.fly-fighter-jet.com image 560x340]

Hai Guyz!  What's goin' on in this thread?

When F22 Raptors show up, everyone bugs out.  EVERYONE.

Not everyone.

People on the ground don't give a fark.  The Raptor is an air-to-air platform only.  No close air support capability.  No ability to directly influence land warfare.  It is outstanding at air superiority, the best air superiority fighter ever built by mankind. . .but for all you rule the air, the battle is ultimately won by the boots on the ground, and for that you need soldiers and/or marines and they need air support (of which the A-10 is the most outstanding aircraft for that role ever built, it's as good for CAS as the F-22 is for air superiority).


Nice newslettter, in a cyan green, Hope you likeee.
 
2013-09-17 09:57:58 PM

Kittypie070: Lt. Cheese Weasel: [www.fly-fighter-jet.com image 560x340]

Hai Guyz!  What's goin' on in this thread?

When F22 Raptors show up, everyone bugs out.  EVERYONE.

TOO FAST

/waves nicely to the eltee

clydewoman.files.wordpress.com
Too fast? ermagherd.  Slow downs.....
 
2013-09-17 10:05:25 PM

A10Mechanic: I need CAS, send in a drone!

SAID NO GROUND-POUNDER EVER!


THIS
 
2013-09-17 10:15:00 PM

Lt. Cheese Weasel: A10Mechanic: I need CAS, send in a drone!

SAID NO GROUND-POUNDER EVER!

THIS


What I suspect is the absolute best use of drones, from a ground-pounder's perspective, is overwatch while they're sleeping out on patrol. Just another pair of eyes to make sure they're not slaughtered because some green meat fresh in from the world needs to catch up on his beauty sleep.
 
2013-09-17 11:23:26 PM

Ricardo Klement: Mock26: Ricardo Klement: Mock26: This, too, can take out a tank from the air:


And, it can be mounted on a drone!

The first shot fired in the Iraq War in 2003 was an Apache that fired one of those and hit an M-1. The M-1 needed some paint.


[img.photobucket.com image 500x271]

[upload.wikimedia.org image 229x354]


OK, fair enough.  But that proves nothing except that in that situation a Hellfire missile barely scratched an M-1 tank.  I am pretty sure that in that particular war our troops were not going up against M-1 tanks.  Now how does the Hellfire fare against the tanks of other nations.  THAT is the question that truly matters.  How it fares against our own tanks is irrelevant.
 
Displayed 50 of 316 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report