Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

7735 profile views

SchizophrenicMC's Achievements

SMS Squadron Leader

SMS Squadron Leader (11/15)



  1. Aircraft in general. I know the Block 60 is the UAE's bird. But all Grigurgeaiugrag ever talks about is cooling systems. Cooling systems on missiles, cooling systems on F-35s, cooling systems for engines, for oil, for fuel, for cooling systems. So much cooling. We get it, it's hot in the middle east.
  2. HGs have really gotten impressive in the last few years, but that thing has every advancement in the book. Let's be honest: somebody really loved the Gyan to put that level of development in.
  3. Look man, we get it, you hate cooling systems. Not every plane is spending its days in the UAE.
  4. International reception of SBY2199 was good, because everyone who cared about it watched it regardless of the Star Blazers release. With that said, there's still arguably more name recognition in the US for Star Blazers than Yamato, just like Robotech vs Macross. Marketing.
  5. With 1.3 million active members, and over $600,000,000,000 in funding this year, I'd say staffing and funding aren't the problem. We've got our fingers in too many pies. That's as much as I'll say on the topic, though. This conversation has descended into politics. A change of subject is required before mods get angry. In other news, the domestic airline industry has its one chance to unseat Southwest, thanks to delays in LUV's fleet renewal plans. Boeing can't build 737s as fast as Southwest can buy them, which has pushed the Southwest fleet renewal from Q4 2017 to at least Q3 2018. Who's going to come out the biggest winner? (It's probably not Airbus)
  6. Dammit Bandai, cut it out. Just give us regular releases, no need for this market-limiting P-bandai nonsense!
  7. So hold on let me get this straight: The one guy who doesn't care about how operating procedures dictate how assets are operated, is the one guy who's actually gotten in trouble for violating operating procedures? Please, tell me more about how breaking the rules is a good thing when multi-million dollar assets and the lives inside of them are on the line. Oh, and the MANPADS thing: they have limited range, not limited tracking ability. Even the best US-operated MANPADS only have about a 27,000-foot effective range, and foreign built units diminish rapidly from there. If you're too high and far away for the MANPADS to reach you, you're safe. If you're a gun jockey trying to get in and scare the locals, you're boned. Which is why SOPs dictate the use of stand off weapons, because they fire from farther than the enemy can. And they hit with better accuracy than some 28 year old flying on top of an overpowered pea shooter. On the topic of stores: sure the A-10 carries more than the F-35. I'm not advocating the F-35 replace the A-10. We've already done a fantastic job of that with the B-1B and B-52. The B-1 carries stores equivalent to the entire MTOW of an A-10. The Buff, hoo boy. Not to mention, the A-10 can only get itself trans-oceanic if it's carrying nothing but gas tanks. Both the big bombers have combat radiuses the size of the A-10's ferry range. The whole reason we came up with this whole "bombers can use smart bombs" CAS thing was because we could get them over to the bad guys faster than we could logistics a group of A-10s and places to refuel and rearm them. And then it turned out they were just really good at the job. All I can say is the argument I'm seeing here is purely emotional. You like the big growling gun and you don't want to see it scrapped. That's fair. But it's not a good set of reasons. The flexibility of the A-10 does not outweigh the significant cost of keeping a fleet of A-10s and their pilots in the air. The weapons platform is simply not sufficiently applicable to the modern battlefield and does not justify its continued operating cost. The US Air Force sees it that way, and if anybody's bound to be an expert on cost, operations, and tactics, I'd say it's the people who have all the facts about the plane they've been flying for the last 40 years.
  8. Fact is, the A-10 was designed to withstand small arms fire, flak, and dumb AAA. These are things that will struggle to penetrate the titanium tub or cause significant internal damage to the A-10. It was not, however, designed to withstand fire from modern advanced MANPADS weapons, which have proliferated in places we would not have considered likely 20 or 40 years ago. The only way to realistically avoid damage from such weapons systems is to stay out of their limited range. That isn't possible when doing gun runs. Staying out of that danger is actually pretty easy with the use of smart ordnance and standoff weapons, just because aircraft-laded weapons can be granted greater range than man-portable systems. That's dictated air support doctrine for the last 15 years, and by and large it's worked. However, that doctrine doesn't rely on a gun platform. Anything that can carry these weapons- and that's most of the air fleet- can play just as effective a role, without being tied to a platform built around an aging, outdated weapon. Which again brings us to the heavy use of medium and heavy bombers in the CAS role for the last 15 years. You want loiter time and payload capacity? Can't beat the Buff. And that's a plane that flies high enough while doing its job that it's immune to the air defenses we've been dealing with. Again, I don't want to make the F-35 seem like it's the solution to any of our problems, but it's pretty clear: the A-10 isn't the solution we need anymore. That isn't likely to change. I, for one, would strongly consider sending the Thunderbolt II to Davis Monthan. Maintain a small group of trainers but stow the rest for possible future redeployment. No need to scrap them, having the ability to put them back together in a pinch isn't terribly costly and leaves the option available. But maintaining a whole airfleet of A-10s for a dubious level of efficacy, that's more money than I feel we should be spending on the platform. Obviously, people feel strongly about this, but you just have to ask: how many times has the GAU-8 been fired in anger in the last 10 years? That's the one thing that really separates this aircraft from the rest of the fleet, and it's not even really applicable to SOPs anyway. As for the F-35, Lockheed failing to deliver on a military contract is a big deal in my opinion, and I'd be demanding my money back, if I had any say. I think the Luftwaffe is right in demanding reparations for the A400M fiasco, and I feel like the F-35 justifies similar response. But you know, lobbyists and such. I'm still butthurt we never got Advanced Super Tomcat.
  9. People keep talking about the A-10 like "oh the gun, oh the gun! OH THE GUN!" as if SOPs allow the use of the cannon. Hah.
  10. The problem is campaign finance in the US. LM has lobbied Congress heavily to provide funding for the F-35 that the DOD otherwise would not have been so freely willing to provide to a project and manufacturer that consistently goes overdue and determine problems that determine more problems. Unfortunately we've painted ourselves into a corner with this program, then proceeded to dig ourselves into a hole. Not only is this affecting US force deployment, but also that of the numerous allies who have signed on to buy the aircraft and then never got it. Now those militaries are seeking other options, many of them non-US, because they need availability now, not in 6-12 years, and not for the ever-rising price of the F-35.
  11. I tend to agree that the F-35 represents capabilities that aren't relevant, and that it still doesn't have functioning anyway, and much of the aircraft's design was dictated by those capabilities, leading to fundamental compromises. If you want to stay stealthy, you have to forego significant weapons stores. If you want to use the fancy radar, you have to send in multiple ships. If you want to get its full range, you have to give stealth and weapons both a miss. If you want it to land on an aircraft carrier, you have to mess with even more stuff. It's 10 years overdue, has cost more money than it should have, will continue to cost even more money, and will continue to be delayed for at least 6 more years, and the key point: it isn't out there blowing stuff up in support of whatever nebulous goals we have for blowing stuff up. All of its international competition already is, and at far lower cost. And much of the proposed benefits of the aircraft have either been developed for other planes (especially various avionics systems) and at its new cost, the cost-cutting measures imposed upon its design (like that single engine) don't make sense anymore. After all, similar-performing twins are cheaper and offer improved reliability. Of course I'm also of the opinion the A-10 isn't the right weapon for the modern battlefield either. Feature creep is causing the F-35 problems, but the A-10 is a blunt stick in a battlefield where our one advantage is technological. I mean, it was a debacle when Shinakasu delayed a reaction turbine, holding back the VF-1 rollout for 9 months. Imagine the heat Stonewell-Bellcom would be under if they pulled a Lockheed Martin and spent 10 years with their dicks in their hands. It would literally be apocalyptic.
  12. Eh, I think the GM plant in Arlington, a city over, is more impressive. At least they can actually make the product they've been trying to sell for the last 10 years.
  • Create New...