Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #251  
Old 03-12-2016, 09:55 PM
Ravenman Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 21,969
Some media reports say that it will meet the most minimum standard of a stealth aircraft when it approaches a radar head-on. But any other aspect and it's just a fourth generation fighter. In comparison, the F-117, F-22, and F-35 are probably ten to a hundred times stealthier than this new F-15.
  #252  
Old 03-12-2016, 10:31 PM
Leo Bloom Leo Bloom is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Here
Posts: 11,584
Who knows what Elbit will come up with.
  #253  
Old 03-12-2016, 10:47 PM
Magiver Magiver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Dayton Ohio USA
Posts: 26,938
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
Israel is currently negotiating an F-15 purchase to complement the F-35s they have bought. They are paying just a little less for the F-15s.
Great. Why would WE buy new F-15's? We already have them. It's probably one of the best planes the US ever produced but again, we already have them.

And if the F-35 is so great why would Israel not just buy all F-35's at the slightly higher price?
  #254  
Old 03-13-2016, 08:30 AM
Ravenman Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 21,969
I never said the US would buy F-15s again.

The Israelis seem to want a mix of air superiority/strike fighters. The US is not eliminating air superiority fighters either.
  #255  
Old 03-13-2016, 09:49 AM
Magiver Magiver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Dayton Ohio USA
Posts: 26,938
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
I never said the US would buy F-15s again.

The Israelis seem to want a mix of air superiority/strike fighters. The US is not eliminating air superiority fighters either.
Given the price difference it doesn't say much for the F-35. Using it in stealth form it only has a payload of 3,000 lbs and there's a considerable speed/distance penalty for this feature.
  #256  
Old 03-13-2016, 03:53 PM
MichaelEmouse MichaelEmouse is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 5,882
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
In comparison, the F-117, F-22, and F-35 are probably ten to a hundred times stealthier than this new F-15.
If the plane is 10 to 100 times stealthier, that means the radar's coverage area would be 3.3 to 10 times smaller, right?


I don't know if you didn't feel like answering my question* or if you just got distracted by your best bud Magiver. If the latter, I'm still curious about what makes sophisticated air defenses too dangerous to use 4th generation fighters.




* In which case, fair enough.
  #257  
Old 03-13-2016, 04:01 PM
Ravenman Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 21,969
I'm not doing precise math in the 10-100 times remark.

As far as 4th gen, there's significant disadvantages. How many Growlers do you expect to have around for every strike package? What if the adversary has a LPI radar? What if they can target your EW with anti-radiation missiles that are longer range that your strike weapons?
  #258  
Old 03-13-2016, 04:39 PM
MichaelEmouse MichaelEmouse is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 5,882
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
I'm not doing precise math in the 10-100 times remark.
Ah, right, just orders of magnitude approximations.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
What if the adversary has a LPI radar? What if they can target your EW with anti-radiation missiles that are longer range that your strike weapons?
Right, those are good reasons to use 5th generation stealth planes over EW + 4th generation. I've always wondered how EW planes doing stand-in jamming can survive against enemies with anti-radiation missiles.

Besides LPI and greater anti-radiation missile range, how else could the Russian and Chinese air defense give a harder time to 4th generation fighters than to 5th generation ones?


Can fighters carry cruise missiles that have 1000km+ range?


On the 85M$ F-15: What makes it cost so much? An AESA nose radar is around 3M$ so what else contributes to the cost increase?
  #259  
Old 03-13-2016, 06:29 PM
Magiver Magiver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Dayton Ohio USA
Posts: 26,938
We're getting off track on this thread. It's clear they've re-written future strategies around the F-35 as a multi-role aircraft replacing the F-16, A-10, F/A-18 and AV-8B.

The A-10 is fairly unique aircraft in it's design and was purpose built for it's role. It was exceptionally good in that role. By default they've eliminated some of it's tactical attributes. It's easy to say the F-35 doesn't have the capabilities of the A-10. It doesn't. It's hard to criticize the strategies they've planned around the loss of the A-10's attributes without knowing the strategies.

The fact is they're 163 billion dollars over a budget designed to replace the airplanes listed above. That means there is 163 billion less dollars that could go into those programs going forward. If their revised battle plans don't compensate for the loss of A-10 attributes then we got screwed.
  #260  
Old 03-13-2016, 07:51 PM
Leo Bloom Leo Bloom is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Here
Posts: 11,584
Magiver, don't make me read that CAS doctrine book. It's a waste in my mind, but not in yours and your excellent interlocutors...
  #261  
Old 03-13-2016, 09:13 PM
Magiver Magiver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Dayton Ohio USA
Posts: 26,938
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leo Bloom View Post
Magiver, don't make me read that CAS doctrine book. It's a waste in my mind, but not in yours and your excellent interlocutors...
I'll just wait for the movie.
  #262  
Old 03-23-2016, 11:36 PM
Leo Bloom Leo Bloom is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Here
Posts: 11,584
"Remembering the father of the A-10 Warthog"

By Zachary Cohen, CNN
Updated 1803 GMT (0203 HKT) March 22, 2016
(CNN)The unmistakable roar of the A-10's powerful engines echoed throughout Arlington National Cemetery this month as four aircraft saluted retired Col. Avery Kay for the last time with a rare flyover of the historic burial site.

Kay, 96, died on October 29 and was buried with full military honors....
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/03/22/po...yby/index.html
  #263  
Old 04-02-2016, 12:13 AM
Elendil's Heir Elendil's Heir is offline
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: my Herkimer Battle Jitney
Posts: 71,849
Not sure if it's been posted yet, but here's a short Washington Post article on the A-10's reprieve, and a nice video of prepping and flying them.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...-through-2017/
  #264  
Old 04-04-2016, 04:48 AM
MichaelEmouse MichaelEmouse is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 5,882
Anyone know how an A-10 might fare against a missile with a continuous rod warhead?


Do continuous rod warheads tend to be usable in increasingly small warhead or is there a pretty hard limit to how small it can get? Could it be used in 23mm or 30mm shells?
  #265  
Old 04-05-2016, 10:51 AM
swampspruce swampspruce is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Cold Lake, Alberta
Posts: 3,716
I'm not an Armaments expert but I suspect that spherical or shaped fragmentary effects are more important by the time you get down to cannon shells. The radius of a CR would be relatively small and you would get better bang for the buck with smaller high velocity projectiles rather than a slower "buzzsaw".
The Sidewinder uses something like a CR warhead and it sits around 25 lbs. It is the smallest class of missile I know of that does this and it is pretty effective. Would it bring down an A-10? Depends on where you hit it. I suspect in a typical scenario where the A-10 has time and terrain, that a rear aspect shot would probably damage it pretty severely but it would be able to limp home on one engine and half an empannage. It's done it before.
  #266  
Old 04-05-2016, 07:06 PM
Magiver Magiver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Dayton Ohio USA
Posts: 26,938
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelEmouse View Post
Anyone know how an A-10 might fare against a missile with a continuous rod warhead?


Do continuous rod warheads tend to be usable in increasingly small warhead or is there a pretty hard limit to how small it can get? Could it be used in 23mm or 30mm shells?
It's a really old weapon designed for large, slow moving bombers.

Last edited by Magiver; 04-05-2016 at 07:07 PM.
  #267  
Old 04-09-2016, 04:23 PM
Elendil's Heir Elendil's Heir is offline
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: my Herkimer Battle Jitney
Posts: 71,849
Here's CNN on the Air Force's plans to eventually replace the A-10. The video includes a short interview with a Congresswoman who is a former A-10 pilot and squadron commander, and strong backer of keeping the plane for now: http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/09/politi...ent/index.html
  #268  
Old 04-09-2016, 04:26 PM
Velocity Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 10,374
Given the issue of metal fatigue, how long is the maximum lifespan of the A-10? Could it be maxed out to, say, the year 2030?

I'm baffled how the B-52 can last 60 years when most airliners max out at 30 years; is it that airliners are flown daily?
  #269  
Old 04-10-2016, 06:27 PM
swampspruce swampspruce is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Cold Lake, Alberta
Posts: 3,716
A lot of pre CAD/CAM military aircraft are "overbuilt" relative to today's planes which is one reason why they keep flying. Keep throwing parts at it and you could pretty much fly one indefinitely. T-33s have an essentially un-lifed airframe as long as you keep up scheduled maintenance. Additionally, the maintenance carried out on military aircraft tends to be more in-depth and there are things that a civilian company would find either cost prohibitive, or simply not worth the effort like re-engining and glass cockpitting a DC-8, for example. It can be done but the money you'll spend would buy you a spanking new 737-700 with the same passenger capacity and lower operating costs. The other thing to keep in mind is that modification and maintenance tend to come from different pots of money as opposed to capital acquisitions for a lot of air forces. Buying new planes would require Federal/Congressional approval where a new capability or mod to an existing airframe doesn't.
That's one reason why Canada is still flying F-18 A/B airframes, even though capability wise they are pretty much equivalent to C/D models.
Landings are a major factor in airframe fatigue, which is why fighters tend to fatigue much faster than transports/bombers. The fact they are in different flight regimes is also a factor.
  #270  
Old 04-10-2016, 07:11 PM
carnivorousplant carnivorousplant is offline
KB not found. Press any key
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Central Arkansas
Posts: 54,384
Quote:
Originally Posted by swampspruce View Post
A lot of pre CAD/CAM military aircraft are "overbuilt" relative to today's planes
How so?
  #271  
Old 04-10-2016, 08:18 PM
smithsb smithsb is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: mid-Pacific
Posts: 2,453
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
Given the issue of metal fatigue, how long is the maximum lifespan of the A-10? Could it be maxed out to, say, the year 2030?

I'm baffled how the B-52 can last 60 years when most airliners max out at 30 years; is it that airliners are flown daily?
As you suspect, it's the take-off and landing cycles that kill the plane. A B-52 may fly long range missions so have a lot of air time but just one cycle to/from the runway. That Southwest 737 might have a dozen or more cycles each day.

Deploying through Dover AFB a few times, I'd see C-5A's shooting takeoff/landings for what I'm guessing is proficiency purposes except they wouldn't actually land. They would come in on final (absurdly slow flying), get to within a few feet of touchdown and the tower would tell them, "close enough", and they would go around for another pass. Saved wear and tear on the plane as well as not smoking the tires into oblivion.

That B-52 wing is strong but flexes a huge distance over it's long width. The A-10 wing is a short stubby thing, very robust to take damage from close air support, and take a much larger number of cycles. The flex of the B-52 is one of the reason's for the unusual landing gear. Unusual in that the all the gear angles down the runway so the plane angles into cross-winds, the wings stay level/don't have to bank.The plane may be facing left but the gear is pointed down the runway.
  #272  
Old 04-10-2016, 08:47 PM
Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Dogpatch/Middle TN.
Posts: 30,616
$10 says the Air Farce Force paints a fighter green, & calls it a ground attack plane.
__________________
It's not too difficult to become a military criminal.
Not shaving, dirty boots, calling a sergeant "darling" or selling your Bren Carrier.
~~~Spike Milligan
  #273  
Old 04-11-2016, 09:56 AM
swampspruce swampspruce is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Cold Lake, Alberta
Posts: 3,716
Quote:
Originally Posted by carnivorousplant View Post
How so?
Aircraft designers in the 50s, 60s, and 70s didn't have access to the modelling software, powerful computers and materials that came about in force in the 80s and onward. As a result of that they had to rely on making the airframes more robust to compensate. That does not mean that all airframes built in the period are eternal by any stretch.
  #274  
Old 04-12-2016, 09:47 PM
Leo Bloom Leo Bloom is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Here
Posts: 11,584
Quote:
Originally Posted by swampspruce View Post
A lot of pre CAD/CAM military aircraft are "overbuilt" relative to today's planes which is one reason why they keep flying. Keep throwing parts at it and you could pretty much fly one indefinitely. T-33s have an essentially un-lifed airframe as long as you keep up scheduled maintenance....
A similar comment, and subsequent hijacked thread, was started a long time ago about a warship. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus

Also, the Allman Brothers Band.
  #275  
Old 04-13-2016, 10:06 AM
swampspruce swampspruce is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Cold Lake, Alberta
Posts: 3,716
That; made me smile!
  #276  
Old 04-13-2016, 08:55 PM
Velocity Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 10,374
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
Okay, you're asking, so why don't we just have pilots fly those missions? Why not have a remotely piloted drone replace the A-10? Because remotely piloted vehicles depend on radio signals, typically from satellites, to command them. It is trivial to jam these signals. Every significant military has enough electronic warfare capability to put out signals strong enough to create real problems in satellite communications near the battlefield. For example, the idea of Predator-like UAVs operating anywhere near, say, hostile Russian forces today or in the near future is just a joke. Those Predators would be mincemeat.
This answers a question I'd been wondering forever; why the US didn't just phase out all manned aircraft and fly an entire fleet of UAVs from control rooms in Nevada. It seemed that that would 1) avoid putting human lives at risk; 2) allow for extreme G-maneuvers since there's no human pilot to suffer the effects of high G, and 3) avoid the "will an autonomous drone kill innocents due to programming" worry issue since there'd be human controllers flying it.

This answer makes perfect sense, thanks!

Last edited by Velocity; 04-13-2016 at 08:58 PM.
  #277  
Old 04-14-2016, 08:39 AM
carnivorousplant carnivorousplant is offline
KB not found. Press any key
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Central Arkansas
Posts: 54,384
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
This answers a question I'd been wondering forever; why the US didn't just phase out all manned aircraft and fly an entire fleet of UAVs from control rooms in Nevada.
There is a time delay of a couple of seconds. That would make a dog fight rather difficult. I believe control is usually relatively close radio communication without satellites.
  #278  
Old 04-14-2016, 08:55 PM
carnivorousplant carnivorousplant is offline
KB not found. Press any key
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Central Arkansas
Posts: 54,384
Well, I killed that.


This forum requires that you wait 60 seconds between posts. Please try again in 4 seconds.
  #279  
Old 04-27-2016, 04:01 PM
Elendil's Heir Elendil's Heir is offline
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: my Herkimer Battle Jitney
Posts: 71,849
For the true A-10 fan (graphics on both front and back): http://www.historicaviation.com/A-10...tinfo/0065657/
  #280  
Old 04-28-2016, 09:37 AM
Elendil's Heir Elendil's Heir is offline
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: my Herkimer Battle Jitney
Posts: 71,849
The Pentagon is going to pit the A-10 and the F-35 against each other in tests: http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/28/politi...own/index.html
  #281  
Old 05-18-2016, 09:03 AM
Elendil's Heir Elendil's Heir is offline
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: my Herkimer Battle Jitney
Posts: 71,849
Admit it - you've always wanted shot glasses made from genuine Warthog 30mm shell casings:

http://www.sportys.com/wrightbros/a-....html?___SID=U
http://www.sportys.com/wrightbros/a-....html?___SID=U
  #282  
Old 05-18-2016, 09:58 AM
swampspruce swampspruce is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Cold Lake, Alberta
Posts: 3,716
Aw, they cut them down too much. I was hoping it would be the whole length of the casing. (I may have issues...)Cool find, though!
  #283  
Old 06-23-2016, 10:02 PM
Elendil's Heir Elendil's Heir is offline
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: my Herkimer Battle Jitney
Posts: 71,849
A-10s land near the Russian border: http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/23/politi...nia/index.html
  #284  
Old 09-16-2016, 10:44 AM
Leo Bloom Leo Bloom is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Here
Posts: 11,584
This may be against the spirit of SD vs the world, but Quora has a decent discussion, with decent cites, Could-todays-most-heavily-armored-main-battle-tanks-withstand-a-strafing-run-from-an-A-10-Warthog https://www.quora.com/Could-todays-m.../Kenneth-Reese
  #285  
Old 09-16-2016, 10:54 AM
Chimera Chimera is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: In the Dreaming
Posts: 21,638
Eh, disabling 5 of them isn't horrible, but no, the gun isn't magic, enabling it to slice through inches and inches of modern armor. Its no katana

Your trucks, field artillery, rocket tubes, apcs? Dead dead dead.
  #286  
Old 01-08-2017, 03:06 PM
Elendil's Heir Elendil's Heir is offline
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: my Herkimer Battle Jitney
Posts: 71,849
Here's a DVD about the warplane, for those who might be interested: http://www.historicaviation.com/Fair...ctinfo/700103/
  #287  
Old 03-25-2017, 05:32 PM
Elendil's Heir Elendil's Heir is offline
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: my Herkimer Battle Jitney
Posts: 71,849
What if an A-10 took on a P-51 in a dogfight?: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/...d.php?t=821857
  #288  
Old 04-10-2017, 10:25 PM
Elendil's Heir Elendil's Heir is offline
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: my Herkimer Battle Jitney
Posts: 71,849
More A-10 gear....

Cap: http://www.sportys.com/wrightbros/a-10-warthog-cap.html
Steel sign (lower left): http://www.sportys.com/wrightbros/le...aft-signs.html
  #289  
Old 05-22-2017, 12:07 AM
Elendil's Heir Elendil's Heir is offline
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: my Herkimer Battle Jitney
Posts: 71,849
The Air Force will be testing three planes (two of them prop-driven) this summer to potentially replace the A-10: https://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2017/..._medium=190254
  #290  
Old 05-22-2017, 10:50 AM
lazybratsche lazybratsche is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 3,683
Is that basically the LAAR/LAS program still stumbling on? There's an Air Force press release here. I don't see any mention of a counter-insurgency role, or details of what "light attack" roles these aircraft are being considered for.
  #291  
Old 05-22-2017, 11:33 AM
JRDelirious JRDelirious is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Displaced
Posts: 14,700
And these would in no way be a real replacement for the A-10 except at the very low end of the mission spectrum -- nowhere near the survivability or payload IMO. The one who has been adopted by some air forces (the Super Tucano) is mostly a light COIN platform.
  #292  
Old 05-22-2017, 11:40 AM
Leo Bloom Leo Bloom is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Here
Posts: 11,584
"COIN?" All I know is the Counter-Insurgency acronym.
  #293  
Old 05-22-2017, 01:48 PM
LSLGuy LSLGuy is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Southeast Florida USA
Posts: 20,752
Yep - counterinsurgency = COIN. In UASF speak it's the lightly armed reconnaissance and light attack and forward air control roles all done in a permissive environment.

IOW, flying around looking for bands of suspicious looking dudes or suspicious looking constructions. Followed shortly thereafter by blowing them up using any ordnance delivery means to hand: on board, artillery, death ray from space, whatever you've got on call.

AUIU it's a mission mostly done with drones now in the permissive environments. And not much done at all in non-permissive environments.

Last edited by LSLGuy; 05-22-2017 at 01:51 PM.
  #294  
Old 05-22-2017, 03:10 PM
MichaelEmouse MichaelEmouse is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 5,882
I'd expect that for (comparatively) low-cost COIN attack aircraft, drones and armed trainer aircraft would be sufficient.


What elements contribute most to a high cost per flight hour?

Last edited by MichaelEmouse; 05-22-2017 at 03:10 PM.
  #295  
Old 05-22-2017, 04:59 PM
JHBoom JHBoom is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: The 12th floor
Posts: 306
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelEmouse View Post
What elements contribute most to a high cost per flight hour?
Generally speaking, the more complex the aircraft, the higher the cost-per-hour will be. Complexity, in this case, is referring to the number of systems installed on the aircraft; i.e. sensors, radios, data links, targeting systems, countermeasures equipment, etc. Also, a single-turboprop aircraft will generally have a lower cost per hour than a twin-turbofan (even small turbofans), due to lower fuel burn rate and less maintenance required.
  #296  
Old 05-22-2017, 05:09 PM
Leo Bloom Leo Bloom is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Here
Posts: 11,584
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elendil's Heir View Post
The Air Force will be testing three planes (two of them prop-driven) this summer to potentially replace the A-10: https://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2017/..._medium=190254
Huh--the foreign-made Super Tucano aircraft in the US arsenal. Never would've thought it in a million years.

No way they win the "A-10 Contract."

Last edited by Leo Bloom; 05-22-2017 at 05:10 PM.
  #297  
Old 05-22-2017, 05:17 PM
Leo Bloom Leo Bloom is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Here
Posts: 11,584
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
This answers a question I'd been wondering forever; why the US didn't just phase out all manned aircraft and fly an entire fleet of UAVs from control rooms in Nevada. It seemed that that would 1) avoid putting human lives at risk; 2) allow for extreme G-maneuvers since there's no human pilot to suffer the effects of high G, and 3) avoid the "will an autonomous drone kill innocents due to programming" worry issue since there'd be human controllers flying it.

This answer makes perfect sense, thanks!
Warbot Ethics, just posted on The Strategy Bridge, with a link to this extraordinary public DOD document/"Directive" on "Autonomy in Weapons Systems."
  #298  
Old 05-22-2017, 05:59 PM
LSLGuy LSLGuy is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Southeast Florida USA
Posts: 20,752
The article is a good find and well worth reading.

You'll note the DoD document dates from 2012.

After you cut through the bureaucratic stuff it says autonomous weapons will only be switched on by people. And will be carefully designed to not malfunction. And won't be designed to target people; just facilities and machines. Including facilities and machines containing people. And all bets are off in cyberspace, regardless of the number of people an autonomous weapon may harm indirectly.

Yes, there's actually a lot of ethical thinking going on with all this stuff down in the bowels of DoD. IMO that directive amounts to approximately zero of it.

Last edited by LSLGuy; 05-22-2017 at 06:02 PM.
  #299  
Old 05-24-2017, 10:50 PM
Elendil's Heir Elendil's Heir is offline
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: my Herkimer Battle Jitney
Posts: 71,849
The USAF now says the A-10 will remain in service for the foreseeable future: http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/24/politi...get/index.html
  #300  
Old 05-25-2017, 02:35 AM
FoieGrasIsEvil FoieGrasIsEvil is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Land of Cheese Coneys
Posts: 16,198
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elendil's Heir View Post
The USAF now says the A-10 will remain in service for the foreseeable future: http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/24/politi...get/index.html
And the U-2. I saw that earlier today and thought of this thread, but I knew that this being the Dope, that someone would beat me to the punch.

It's awesome news though, especially in light of the fact that there's really not an available replacement for the Warthog's role (which as the article notes, is increasingly important in our current skirmishes with ISIS).

I'll never forget being in Germany in the US Army and being on a range near where those things were staging practice. That massive chain gun would go off and my friend at the time said "It sounds like a giant burping or farting". It kinda does sound like that!
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:47 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@chicagoreader.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright 2017 Sun-Times Media, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017