OMG Politics, I'm over it already.
- Thread starter sunvalleylaw
- Start date
- Status
tiger roach
Urban Bovine Knievel
FenderPusher
Beardcore Apologist
These assholes will say anything to make the papers at this point.
Tig
Fucktangular
Have a nice day!
http://us.cnn.com/2016/12/22/politics/donald-trump-24-hours/index.html
Just one bit of this:
Boeing vs. Lockheed Martin
THE TIME: 5:26 p.m. ET
WHAT HAPPENED: Trump cost millions in market value to Lockheed Martin and caused thousands of people to now worry they may lose their jobs after tweeting that the Pentagon's costly new F-35 Joint Strike Fighter could be replaced with a modified version of a less expensive plane, the F/A-18 Super Hornet.
The F-35 is made by Lockheed Martin, while the Super Hornet is made by aerospace rival Boeing.
"Based on the tremendous cost and cost overruns of the Lockheed Martin F-35, I have asked Boeing to price-out a comparable F-18 Super Hornet!," Trump tweets.
Follow
Donald J. Trump
✔@realDonaldTrump
Based on the tremendous cost and cost overruns of the Lockheed Martin F-35, I have asked Boeing to price-out a comparable F-18 Super Hornet!
WHAT FOLLOWED: Lockheed Martin's stock dipped about 2% in aftermarket trading.
For Lockheed, the F-35 is its industrial future. Trump's tweet has threatened to upend Lockheed's plans just as his tweets aimed at China has rattled Boeing, which is counting on selling jets to Chinese airlines.
Biden: Clinton never figured out why she was running
For more: Go to CNN Politics
So the concept that the F-35 is new technology that should give our pilots an edge and the F/A 18 was originally 1970's technology that they have upgraded over the years does not bear on this conversation? Especially since the Russians, Chinese and I think the Indians all have their versions of the newer generation tech either developed, stolen from us or in the air already?
Just one bit of this:
Boeing vs. Lockheed Martin
THE TIME: 5:26 p.m. ET
WHAT HAPPENED: Trump cost millions in market value to Lockheed Martin and caused thousands of people to now worry they may lose their jobs after tweeting that the Pentagon's costly new F-35 Joint Strike Fighter could be replaced with a modified version of a less expensive plane, the F/A-18 Super Hornet.
The F-35 is made by Lockheed Martin, while the Super Hornet is made by aerospace rival Boeing.
"Based on the tremendous cost and cost overruns of the Lockheed Martin F-35, I have asked Boeing to price-out a comparable F-18 Super Hornet!," Trump tweets.
Follow
Donald J. Trump ✔@realDonaldTrump
Based on the tremendous cost and cost overruns of the Lockheed Martin F-35, I have asked Boeing to price-out a comparable F-18 Super Hornet!
WHAT FOLLOWED: Lockheed Martin's stock dipped about 2% in aftermarket trading.
For Lockheed, the F-35 is its industrial future. Trump's tweet has threatened to upend Lockheed's plans just as his tweets aimed at China has rattled Boeing, which is counting on selling jets to Chinese airlines.
Biden: Clinton never figured out why she was running
For more: Go to CNN Politics
So the concept that the F-35 is new technology that should give our pilots an edge and the F/A 18 was originally 1970's technology that they have upgraded over the years does not bear on this conversation? Especially since the Russians, Chinese and I think the Indians all have their versions of the newer generation tech either developed, stolen from us or in the air already?
Lerxst
spaghetti and blankets
Long but worthwhile read from reddit:
https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/5jtocu/trump_asks_boeing_for_f18_pitch_citing_tremendous/
====================================================================
Super Hornet pilot here... long fucking post ahead and I can't fucking believe the day has come when the future POTUS thinks it is fit to micromanage fighter jet procurement via popular appeal, especially when it's most likely shitty Internet posts and blog articles that give him the extent of knowledge on the F-35 or other acquisitions programs - and not, you know, secret classified briefs by the experts in this area.
And before people say that this will rein in the military-industrial complex, or that this will save us money.... read on why he's so horribly wrong.
First of all, if you are one of those guys who thinks we should support the troops, or that Obama gutted the military, or whatever - you need to tell Trump to stop with this shit. Politicians getting involved in procurement and trying to micromanage ever aspect is exactly how we end up with unnecessary procurement, aging equipment, and a persistent 'kick-the-can' down the road mentality.
Don't believe me? Here's two recent examples of brilliant political meddling:
- The USS Zumwalt and her class of destroyers were envisioned due to a Congressional requirement for shore bombardment ships after the US retired the Iowa-class battleships in the early 90s. Aside from the fact that shore bombardment for mass amphibious assaults is of questionable necessity in modern warfare with the advent of precision weapons and helicopters, this class was cut to just 3 ships (with each now costing multiple billions) with unnecessary compromises (although railguns are fucking cool, tbh) and an unknown future and role
- The F-22 was originally supposed to have over 700 of them built. Citing the end of the Cold War, the US cut that order to around 380. Then in the 2000s, it was finally cut down to 187 total built because the Bush administration felt it was unnecessary and a relic of the Cold War. Fast forward to today, and we don't have enough F-22's so we've had to extend the life of our F-15s - which are aging - and now suddenly everyone now wants F-22's instead of F-35s. Oops.
But this ship has sailed. And honestly, this whole tweet just screams of populist politics from someone who doesn't know the intricacies or complexity of a modern fighter jet project or modern aerial warfare.
Cost First of all, the F-35's cost has gone way down since the project underwent reform a few years ago, with low rate production F-35A's (the Air Force model) reaching the cost of the Super Hornet already. The Aussies bought 24 Super Hornets at a price of $90 million each, and they recently bought the EA-18G Growler (the electronic attack version of the Rhino) about $110 million a piece.
Yes, the F-35B and -C versions (the Marine and Navy versions, respectively) cost more, but replacing the F-35A with the Super Hornet or a derivative of it makes no sense, unless you're reading Wikipedia and think the $60 million price tag on a Super Hornet still exists (it doesn't). Not to mention, the Advanced Super Hornet concept isn't going to cost anywhere near $60 million, not after you've added the conformal fuel tanks, stealthy weapon pods, and other equipment.
And before people say 'but the F-35 has had cost overruns!' - yes, it has, and they're inexcusable. That said, the time to cancel the program was 10 years ago, not today after the first F-35B squadron went operational a year ago, and not after the first F-35A squadron went operational this year, and not after multiple nations have their Air Force personnel in the US training on and preparing for their own inductions of these planes.
To Best Understand the F-35... Read Further I was going to try and do a point by point comparison of the F-35 and the Super Hornet, but I realized it was easier to just explain why the F-35 exists in the first place.
Back in the 1970s, the US Air Force adopted a "high-low" doctrine to replace the 8+ variants of interceptors and fighters they had in operation. That doctrine produced the "high" F-15 Eagle - a no-holds-barred air superiority fighter that was big, fast, and cost a ton of money. The "low" plane, the F-16 Fighting Falcon (Viper), was supposed to be small, cheap, and a complement to the F-15.
You see, fighter jets have gone through different 'generations' of development. The first generation of fighter jets - those designed during and right after WW2, like the German Me262, the Soviet MiG-15, and the US F-86 Sabre, had little in difference to the propeller fighters of WW2 besides having much higher speeds and engine performance.
The second generation of fighter jets, of the 1950s like the F-100 Super Sabre and the F-106 Delta Dart, pushed the aerodynamic envelope. They had big afterburning turbojet engines, were capable of supersonic flight, and were primarily focused on speed to intercept Soviet bombers as it was widely believed that any war would be determined by massive bomber formations carrying nuclear weapons to annihilate the other side.
By the end of the 2nd generation (the end of the 1950s), avionics had improved rapidly: on-board radars, data-links to ground intercept controllers, and air-to-air missiles came into existence, which created the third generation of fighter jets. The F-4 Phantom was the US's third generation fighter jet - it could fly fast, it had powerful engines, and it had a powerful radar and the latest in air-to-air missile technology. Problem was, the technology wasn't quite there yet, and the tactics (which I will cover later) weren't up to date.
In the late 60s, the US started developing the next generation of fighter jets: they had to maneuver and perform well, but would continue leveraging avionics. Thus was born the first fourth generation fighters, the F-14 Tomcat and the aforementioned F-15.
Well, avionics design and warfighting changed considerably. The F-16 - packed with modern avionics and radar - quickly took on the strike fighter role, capable of air to air combat as well as air-to-ground combat, becoming the workhorse of airstrikes in the Gulf War through today.
By the end of the Cold War, the US realized it needed to work on the next generation air superiority fighter - thus was born the F-22. In the late 90s, the US realized it needed to work on the next generation complement to the F-22 - and thus the Joint Strike Fighter project started.
The JSF had lofty goals - too lofty as some would say - as it wanted to combine a strike fighter replacement for the F-16, F/A-18 (which itself was derived from the rival prototype of the F-16, the YF-17), AV-8 and A-10.
It was always destined to be a HUGE project. All this talk of its 'record expense' was by design: the US alone was going to purchase 2,443 of them to replace all those airplanes, many of whom were last produced for the US decades ago (no exaggeration - the last A-10 rolled off the line in 1984).
VoidTerraFirma
Live to wine
This seems racist.
Lerxst
spaghetti and blankets
continued:
The F-35 was also going to be sold to our closest allies, just as the F-16 (of which over 4,500 have been produced) and F/A-18 were. Nations ordering them right now include the UK, Italy, Australia, Netherlands, Norway, Denmark, Korea, Japan, etc.
This isn't a minor detail either. More types of airframes adds complexity and bureaucracy throughout the military: it means more pilots required, more training programs for each individual airframe, more program management (for future upgrades to each type), and more maintenance training and parts supply lines for the different jets.
So before anyone says "well the F-35 was going to cost a trillion over its 50 year lifespan" consider the costs of having 4 separate fighter jet pipelines, much less the rising costs of trying to keep jets designed in the Cold War airworthy and relevant.
The Navy actually already 'necked down': it retired the A-7, A-6, F-14, S-3, and EA-6B.
What aircraft did it buy to replace ALL those roles? The Super Hornet (and its derivative the Growler) for fleet defense, interdiction, attack, and tanking.
The Super Hornet is - contrary to popular belief - not just an 'upgraded' Hornet. It was sold with the F/A-18 moniker to convince Congress that it wasn't a new jet, just an upgrade, but by and large it mostly does not have parts commonality and it is a much larger jet. Underlying systems architecture is similar, as are many maintenance procedures, but it has different engines and a different radar and its avionics have diverged considerably from the original Hornets.
The Rhino is what we would call a Gen 4.5 fighter - an aircraft not quite a 5th generation fighter like the F-22 or F-35, but one that incorporates all the technological advances and concepts of the 90s and puts them into a modern jet. With multiple upgradeable flight computers, advanced mission computers designed specifically to receive constant upgrades (think of yearly updates from smartphones - now, we've even benefitted from F-35 derived tech, on both fronts), and newer sensors and countermeasures as well as a concerted effort to reduce our radar cross section (and make us stealthier), we're much costlier than the older Hornet - but more survivable and more mission capable.
Our capabilities to integrate into the battlefield, the carrier battle group, and even connect with the guy on the ground or surveillance in the air makes us tactically flexible (we can choose the right tactics for the right situation), more precise, and deadlier.
Which brings me to my next point: going to the Super Hornet or a Super Hornet derived plane now for the Air Force, at least, is fucking stupid.
No Rhino pilot is going to say we're the fastest thing out there, or the most maneuverable. But we are all going to say that we are confident in our tactics and our capabilities and getting the most out of the sum of the jet, and it's one hell of a jet.
The problem with going to a Super Hornet derivative now is that the Super Hornet was designed from the start for carrier takeoffs and landings. That means a big beefy landing gear and strong arresting hook, capable of taking the shock of landing a 44,000 pound jet on a moving carrier deck flying at 140 knots through the air and bringing it to a halt in 3 seconds. That means big foldable wings to lower your approach speed and for storage on the ship. Those are all compromises the Air Force and their 1 million foot long runways (I kid, I kid) don't need.
In addition, you're talking about buying a plane that was ultimately designed over 20 years ago. Aerospace design and concepts have changed considerably today. There were design 'features' on the Rhino that, today, don't make sense or we've figured out newer and better ways to do it - and have built it into the F-35.
Stealth is built into the underlying structure of the F-35 - that can't be retrofitted.
Sensor integration is another big one. The Rhino has a ton of antennas and sensors, sure - meanwhile, the F-35 is designed to have them built in all over the airframe to give the pilot the ability to look in any direction and visually "see through" the aircraft - not to mention, to be able to detect threats from any direction as well and have a computer that can process all of this and feed it to the pilot in a digestable manner. The guys that have all flown it have raved about its situational awareness, and more situational awareness for us pilots = more mission effectiveness = we get the mission done correctly and get home safe.
The best way I can explain it is imagine having a printer built in the 1980s, and trying to get it to print wirelessly on your home network. I'm sure you can rig a solution to make it work, but at one point or another, you should just buy a new fucking printer.
So has the F-35 had shortcomings in its development? Abso-fucking-lutely. Some legitimate, but most of the concerns you hear about on the Internet are wrong and show a huge misunderstanding of how fighter jets are developed, how aerial combat works, etc.
The F-35 was also going to be sold to our closest allies, just as the F-16 (of which over 4,500 have been produced) and F/A-18 were. Nations ordering them right now include the UK, Italy, Australia, Netherlands, Norway, Denmark, Korea, Japan, etc.
This isn't a minor detail either. More types of airframes adds complexity and bureaucracy throughout the military: it means more pilots required, more training programs for each individual airframe, more program management (for future upgrades to each type), and more maintenance training and parts supply lines for the different jets.
So before anyone says "well the F-35 was going to cost a trillion over its 50 year lifespan" consider the costs of having 4 separate fighter jet pipelines, much less the rising costs of trying to keep jets designed in the Cold War airworthy and relevant.
The Navy actually already 'necked down': it retired the A-7, A-6, F-14, S-3, and EA-6B.
What aircraft did it buy to replace ALL those roles? The Super Hornet (and its derivative the Growler) for fleet defense, interdiction, attack, and tanking.
The Super Hornet is - contrary to popular belief - not just an 'upgraded' Hornet. It was sold with the F/A-18 moniker to convince Congress that it wasn't a new jet, just an upgrade, but by and large it mostly does not have parts commonality and it is a much larger jet. Underlying systems architecture is similar, as are many maintenance procedures, but it has different engines and a different radar and its avionics have diverged considerably from the original Hornets.
The Rhino is what we would call a Gen 4.5 fighter - an aircraft not quite a 5th generation fighter like the F-22 or F-35, but one that incorporates all the technological advances and concepts of the 90s and puts them into a modern jet. With multiple upgradeable flight computers, advanced mission computers designed specifically to receive constant upgrades (think of yearly updates from smartphones - now, we've even benefitted from F-35 derived tech, on both fronts), and newer sensors and countermeasures as well as a concerted effort to reduce our radar cross section (and make us stealthier), we're much costlier than the older Hornet - but more survivable and more mission capable.
Our capabilities to integrate into the battlefield, the carrier battle group, and even connect with the guy on the ground or surveillance in the air makes us tactically flexible (we can choose the right tactics for the right situation), more precise, and deadlier.
Which brings me to my next point: going to the Super Hornet or a Super Hornet derived plane now for the Air Force, at least, is fucking stupid.
No Rhino pilot is going to say we're the fastest thing out there, or the most maneuverable. But we are all going to say that we are confident in our tactics and our capabilities and getting the most out of the sum of the jet, and it's one hell of a jet.
The problem with going to a Super Hornet derivative now is that the Super Hornet was designed from the start for carrier takeoffs and landings. That means a big beefy landing gear and strong arresting hook, capable of taking the shock of landing a 44,000 pound jet on a moving carrier deck flying at 140 knots through the air and bringing it to a halt in 3 seconds. That means big foldable wings to lower your approach speed and for storage on the ship. Those are all compromises the Air Force and their 1 million foot long runways (I kid, I kid) don't need.
In addition, you're talking about buying a plane that was ultimately designed over 20 years ago. Aerospace design and concepts have changed considerably today. There were design 'features' on the Rhino that, today, don't make sense or we've figured out newer and better ways to do it - and have built it into the F-35.
Stealth is built into the underlying structure of the F-35 - that can't be retrofitted.
Sensor integration is another big one. The Rhino has a ton of antennas and sensors, sure - meanwhile, the F-35 is designed to have them built in all over the airframe to give the pilot the ability to look in any direction and visually "see through" the aircraft - not to mention, to be able to detect threats from any direction as well and have a computer that can process all of this and feed it to the pilot in a digestable manner. The guys that have all flown it have raved about its situational awareness, and more situational awareness for us pilots = more mission effectiveness = we get the mission done correctly and get home safe.
The best way I can explain it is imagine having a printer built in the 1980s, and trying to get it to print wirelessly on your home network. I'm sure you can rig a solution to make it work, but at one point or another, you should just buy a new fucking printer.
So has the F-35 had shortcomings in its development? Abso-fucking-lutely. Some legitimate, but most of the concerns you hear about on the Internet are wrong and show a huge misunderstanding of how fighter jets are developed, how aerial combat works, etc.
Lerxst
spaghetti and blankets
continued 2
For instance, the argument about how the F-35 couldn't fire its gun. Unless you think fighter jets simply fire their guns blindly now, you'd realize that our guns are linked to our systems to give us a firing solution. It's not that the F-35 couldn't fire its gun - it's that it would be useless and a waste of bullets if our mission computers weren't fully programmed yet to give us accurate firing solutions to account for every variable.
Same thing with all the angst about what weapons it can drop. The reality is, EVERY single weapon is tested and delivered/dropped by test pilots in every flight regime imaginable from flying straight and level to steep 45 degree-plus dive bombing profiles. Sure it can drop them - but we won't certify them for use in training or combat until we are certain they won't miss or even hit our own aircraft because of aerodynamic issues with weapons release. And with modern smart weapons, they have to interface with our own avionics to make sure we're getting the right releases at the right parameters and that said weapons will hit the right targets at the right times.
Again, the F-35 is unprecedented in that regard. When the F-16 and F/A-18 were introduced in the late 70s/early 80s, they had to be certified for their 20mm gun, the AIM-9 Sidewinder, the AIM-7 Sparrow, dumb bombs, and some basic smart weapons and air to ground missiles. The arsenal the F-35 has to be certified for today incorporates everything from GPS-guided JDAMs, to laser-guided bombs of all sizes, to different variants of the AMRAAM and Sidewinder, as well as a new gun (which Congress dictated... again, more political meddling).
Tactics... I mentioned I'd talk about that. First of all, all those articles you read about the F-16 beating the F-35? Throw them the fuck out. We train our aircrew to fly each airframe to its advantages and limits, and to take advantage of opponent weaknesses.
The F-35 is a new airframe, and tactics for it are being developed as we speak. Even how to fight it is up for development. You fight an F-16 very differently than you do an F/A-18, and no doubt, the F-35 will fly differently from those as well.
I bring this up, because during the Vietnam War, the Air Force and Navy diverged on how to make up for the lackluster F-4 performance. The Air Force chose to add guns to their F-4 - which improved their kill ratio.
The Navy opened up TOPGUN to develop tactics for the F-4. The Navy never added guns, but increased its kill ratio even more than the Air Force did. How so? Because the Navy started teaching its pilots to fight the F-4 vertically, to utilize its power advantage over the nimbler but less powerful MiGs. When MiGs got pushed into a vertical fight, the F-4 outperformed them and shot them the fuck down.
Absolutely NONE of this shit is done willy nilly - a ton of time, effort, and money is put into all of this. And unfortunately, too many people are commenting on and getting involved in areas they have next to zero expertise in.
Ultimately, Trump's comments here are pointless and disruptive. If an Advanced Super Hornet design was being made to compete against the F-35, the Air Force, Marines, and Navy would choose the F-35 still meaning we're waisting money and time. It's not like the F-35 didn't compete - it beat the X-32 in 2000, when the Super Hornet had already been introduced, so any 'price competition' on F-35's today is going to end up with the F-35 as the only option.
Hell, the Navy has already put out RFP's for a 'sixth generation' fighter to replace the Super Hornet in the 2030's - we're already thinking ahead.
In sum:
For instance, the argument about how the F-35 couldn't fire its gun. Unless you think fighter jets simply fire their guns blindly now, you'd realize that our guns are linked to our systems to give us a firing solution. It's not that the F-35 couldn't fire its gun - it's that it would be useless and a waste of bullets if our mission computers weren't fully programmed yet to give us accurate firing solutions to account for every variable.
Same thing with all the angst about what weapons it can drop. The reality is, EVERY single weapon is tested and delivered/dropped by test pilots in every flight regime imaginable from flying straight and level to steep 45 degree-plus dive bombing profiles. Sure it can drop them - but we won't certify them for use in training or combat until we are certain they won't miss or even hit our own aircraft because of aerodynamic issues with weapons release. And with modern smart weapons, they have to interface with our own avionics to make sure we're getting the right releases at the right parameters and that said weapons will hit the right targets at the right times.
Again, the F-35 is unprecedented in that regard. When the F-16 and F/A-18 were introduced in the late 70s/early 80s, they had to be certified for their 20mm gun, the AIM-9 Sidewinder, the AIM-7 Sparrow, dumb bombs, and some basic smart weapons and air to ground missiles. The arsenal the F-35 has to be certified for today incorporates everything from GPS-guided JDAMs, to laser-guided bombs of all sizes, to different variants of the AMRAAM and Sidewinder, as well as a new gun (which Congress dictated... again, more political meddling).
Tactics... I mentioned I'd talk about that. First of all, all those articles you read about the F-16 beating the F-35? Throw them the fuck out. We train our aircrew to fly each airframe to its advantages and limits, and to take advantage of opponent weaknesses.
The F-35 is a new airframe, and tactics for it are being developed as we speak. Even how to fight it is up for development. You fight an F-16 very differently than you do an F/A-18, and no doubt, the F-35 will fly differently from those as well.
I bring this up, because during the Vietnam War, the Air Force and Navy diverged on how to make up for the lackluster F-4 performance. The Air Force chose to add guns to their F-4 - which improved their kill ratio.
The Navy opened up TOPGUN to develop tactics for the F-4. The Navy never added guns, but increased its kill ratio even more than the Air Force did. How so? Because the Navy started teaching its pilots to fight the F-4 vertically, to utilize its power advantage over the nimbler but less powerful MiGs. When MiGs got pushed into a vertical fight, the F-4 outperformed them and shot them the fuck down.
Absolutely NONE of this shit is done willy nilly - a ton of time, effort, and money is put into all of this. And unfortunately, too many people are commenting on and getting involved in areas they have next to zero expertise in.
Ultimately, Trump's comments here are pointless and disruptive. If an Advanced Super Hornet design was being made to compete against the F-35, the Air Force, Marines, and Navy would choose the F-35 still meaning we're waisting money and time. It's not like the F-35 didn't compete - it beat the X-32 in 2000, when the Super Hornet had already been introduced, so any 'price competition' on F-35's today is going to end up with the F-35 as the only option.
Hell, the Navy has already put out RFP's for a 'sixth generation' fighter to replace the Super Hornet in the 2030's - we're already thinking ahead.
In sum:
- Cost - the F-35 isn't necessarily more expensive than the Super Hornet, and it is a cheaper beast going forward than standing pat with what we have
- The time to cancel the F-35 was a decade ago, not today, after the F-35 has already reached operational status
- The F-35 has had cost overruns and delays, yes, but those are in the past. It's pointless to start a competition now for a fighter jet we decided on 16 years ago
- The Super Hornet isn't the right plane for the Air Force, and is reaching its upgrade limits a lot quicker than the F-35 will
- The F-35 is the cornerstone of American airpower for the next few decades, and will be the cornerstone of Western airpower as well. This affects a whole lot more than a tiny fraction of the US budget
- Most people don't know shit about aerial combat, military procurement and testing and development, but all feel fit to comment anwyays
VoidTerraFirma
Live to wine
Fixed.
You think?
mongooz
.
the one program that should NOT get moth balled is the A-10. the F-35 may be able to do a lot of things, but close air support, really close air support and staying over the target area for literally a couple hours, is not one of them. the A-10 can and is doing that role in the middle east right now. but we're down to about 150 air force wide. and none are getting built from here on, because the pentagon is dead set on replacing it with the F-35.
that pilot's rant above is all about the navy. the navy doesn't have 'close air support' as a primary mission. the air force does.
is the F-35 program a giant money suck. sure is. but more importantly, IT is the reason DoD is using to discontinue air craft that are much better at what they do, much cheaper to keep flying and are absolutely proven in battle.
just sayin'
that pilot's rant above is all about the navy. the navy doesn't have 'close air support' as a primary mission. the air force does.
is the F-35 program a giant money suck. sure is. but more importantly, IT is the reason DoD is using to discontinue air craft that are much better at what they do, much cheaper to keep flying and are absolutely proven in battle.
just sayin'
OGG
Master of the Meh
You forgot to mention that the Warthog can take crazy battle damage and still get the pilot home. The F-35 can't.
mongooz
.
well....yea, that too. i wasn't going to list every reason the A-10 is better in it's role than the F-35......i'd be here all day.
i get that DoD wants to have aircraft that are multi-role capability, it saves money and any military flyer trained in one can fly other branches planes.
but what they're trying to do is the equivalent of making a Ferarri take on the role of a Jeep CJ-5. ain't gonna happen.
LeftyTom
I am not just another pretty face.
The aquifers are underground water, not Great Lakes.two aquifers??
Superior, Erie, Huron, Michigan, Ontario....i'd say a bit more than aquifers.
mongooz
.
my point was that the midwest of the USA has one of the biggest fresh water supplies on the planet.
Chad
Slender Hobbit
Please tell me that is an Onion like website.
PunkKitty
Horny bag of electric meat
It's not. It's a left wing news site. But the news is real.
Well, this is the ABC news twitter accout where they discuss it: https://twitter.com/WKBW?ref_src=twsrc^tfw
- Status