Rank11

Battlefield Air Interdiction. That is airstrikes against targets deeper inside enemy territory. As opposed to close air support which is performed at the points of contact between friendlies and enemies.

No, please don't do that. My wife would kill me if I accepted such an offer. God knows she's suspicious enough of what goes on at the overnights.

Nope, just a pilot. I could never do what my people in the back do. Way too hard a job.

Yeah they only used the SDB once, twice, maybe three times in combat , then no more, for a few reasons that became evident. I thought you two knew everything about CAS. What, the drawings of those girls? Talk about living in a fantasy world. I'm amusing myself here. My job leaves me plenty of free time sitting around hotels on the overnights. A pilot, a pool bar, an ipad, and a wifi connection is a dangerous thing i guess.

Ok now you're just contradicting yourself. You are the one who first said the A-10 could not be used in Libya. I merely explained why if it wasn't used there, the reason for that. I thought we were talking about about a lic too. But each time I explain to you why the A-10 is better suited for that, you seem to want to move the focus to the high intensity conflict. Which one would you like to debate? i'll let you decide. No. In fact, I don't even think the 1000lb jdam is even cleared for the A-10. The one weapon that the F-35 has for CAS is too big to use in that mission. The risk to

It's obvious you keep confusing CAS with BAI. BAI stands for Battlefield Air Interdiction. It is performed past the frontlines where troops are in contact and where CAS is performed. BAI is a mission that any aircraft that performs it stands a good chance of bring shot down because it is actually performed within the envelope of an enemy's rear air defenses. Trap? What's that. I'm guessing Tactical Recovery of Aircraft and Meow Personnel? Boy Tomcat you sure know a lot of acronyms. I'm so impressed by you. You mean 1900 aircraft, not 2400. And they do only carry 2 bombs. Both meow of

Where were our troops in contact in Libya? The A-10 is for CAS, not deep strike or BAI. Actually, not using a Ferrari to go pick up groceries is the kind of monetary commonsense sadly lacking from the 'FY budgets'. Ironically, I once was an accountant at a defense contractor. This is exactly the kind of 'FY budgets' nonsense that made up the job. Woe to you if your program came in under cost targets. You will have to make up charges to the job in order to avoid incurring penalties. So understanding 'FY Budgets' or rather governmental accounting means nothing, and is rather a detriment i

I think you gotta buy those.

Sure. You don't withdraw your forces from a conflict without having defeated your enemy. And just because a date on a calender has arrived does not mean an enemy is defeated. That is why the withdrawal from Iraq was a cut and run. America withdrew based on a calender date, not on the defeat of the enemy. That is why it was a cut and run. The job was not finished. That country is still under threat from those we fought. Those who fought and died there did so in vain because of Obama's campaign promises. And he is doing the same thing in Afghanistan. The changing of the calender from 2

It's a squanderous waste of money to make a high end do the low end. 'Lost the narrative?' What is this? The Taiidan Tomcat Talk Show? Yes, those same Lic's that we had A-10s, F-16s, F-15s, F-18s, and B-1s all supporting. None of these stupendous weapons will change anything as long as this country doesn't have the political will to fight and fight to win. LICs are the only conflicts this country's leaders are willing to fight. So yes, we better have weapons that can do that without costing $800billion.

There's probably more than a few things you haven't seen yet. There is plenty of money available. Enough to spend $800 billion already on one particular boondoggle. Plus another trillion on Obamacare. There is plenty of money to go around.

Yes. You got. Much more cost effective to use a few rounds of 30mm to accomplish the same job of a million dollar missile.

Yes, of course I was. http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/aug/8/al-qaeda-drives-iraq-toward-chaos/?page=all And the same mistake is being made in Afghanistan. Victory isn't defined by withdrawal by a date on a calender.

The A-10 has been making strafe attacks from high altitude in a near vertical dive on the target. Targets have no idea they are under attack until the rounds have landed. The profile minimizes their exposure to threats, minimizes jet noise since the engines are at idle, minimizes dispersion of rounds, maintains effectiveness of the rounds at long range due to the vertical path, and minimizes risk of collateral damage due to the small dispersal from the vertical path. I don't assume any particular type of war in the future, that us why the A-10 is necessary, because there is just as much of a

Yeah dude you missed the memo. Either that or someone's playing a joke on you. Your Commander in Chief declared it was over a few years ago. http://www.cnn.com/2011/10/21/world/meast/iraq-us-troops/ And the last troops rolled out in 2011! http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/13/world/meast/iraq-anbar-violence-holmes/

The insurgents' ied's only cost a few dollars and cents. The American response to that threat was billions of dollars. That is how the insurgents forced us to cut and run from from out recent wars. They had smarter accountants than we did. There you go with the hyperbole. War is a nasty business, but a business none the less. Despite the yellow ribbons and flags, those of us on a frontline are expendable and nothing more than part of the cost versus benefits of any conflict. That's just the cruel truth. The money saved on retiring that aircraft can be saved with less effort elsewhere.

Retiring the 300 A-10s is only going to save 3 billion since the planes are paid for and cheap to operate. Your F-35 is going to be almost a trillion dollars. If the Air Force really wants to make a least worst choice, it can give up a pair of F-35s and save the same amount of money.

Yes there will always be these types of local threats remaining. Which is one of the reasons why it would be foolish to retire the A-10 and draft newer and more ecpensive assets for the CAS mission. Purely on an accounting level, a manpad or ZU-23 hit on a F-35 would be a huge win for the adversary. As an American taxpayer, I would hope that we at least get a few years of use out of the C upgrade that I just helped pay for. If my child threw away a new toy the way our government spends on things like aircraft upgrades only to immediately throw it away, I would never buy the kid a new toy

I think your other football girl getup was prettier, tomkitty. Can you wear it again? For me?

I completely agree that survivability is not about whether a plane has armor or can fly faster anymore. That is why I questioned your comnent. The modern air defenses will knock all these planes down just the same. Survivability is going to depend on the success of the total air campaign's achievement of air superiority. And if that is not achieved, then survivability is moot no matter what aircraft. There will nit be any CAS perforned by whatever aircraft without air superiority. Therefore the arguments put forth by those who say the A-10 should be retired because it can't survive the '

I'm not sure what you mean by that. Compared with the 'more survivable' aircraft that I imagine you are referring to, such as the F-16 and F-15, the A-10 is the one with much more armor and design features for survivability. If you are thinking that those two planes can fly around unscathed over a battlefield within the heart of an SA-15 or S-300 envelope, then I think you are wrong. If you are comparing it to the promise of the F-35, then you need to realize that it only carries 2 Jdams. You will need three F-35 sorties to hit the same number of targets one A-10 has the capability of. An

That is because the Su-25 is the only aircraft in that market space. The A-10 primarily carries guided weapons like LGBs, Jdams and Maverick missiles.

The TBF had hydraulics, while the F4F and F6F were manual.

It is definitely intentional. But suicide and terrorism are not the only reasons for such an intentional act. Mental illness is also possible. They could very well have been hijacked by a mentally disturbed passenger for reasons only known within that head. The only scenario that fits the current set of accepted 'facts' is that of a mentally disturbed pax, most likely a 20-40 year old male who has had either some flight lessons and/or plays with flight simulator. This person could have gained access to the cockpit in flight simply by asking, as cockpit security is not necessarily as impor

The simple reason that nothing fits is probably because the pieces of 'fact' so far are incorrect. At this point, it seems to me at least, the Malaysian authorities in charge here just can't seem to get any of their 'facts' straight or in the right order. I would not be surprised if any of the fundamental or early 'facts' that people are basing theories on get proven as inaccurate or retracted.