Comments on: The notion of integrating stand-off weapons (SOWs) on the A-10 was first hatched 10 years ago

By: Lucklucky

Lucklucky — Wed, 15 Jun 2022 04:45:02 +0000

Quite bad math in that MALD account between F-16 and A-10, even worse the differences with mission profile range, cruise speed etc.

The A-10 is an obsolete plane that can be useful in some circumstances. Just that. I find it quite bizarre the strange attachment some people have to it, some sort of medieval sword.

By: TRX

TRX — Wed, 15 Jun 2022 04:02:37 +0000

“The A-10C has up to 10 weapons stations available.”

A fully-equipped Warthog looks like a flying junkyard.

Of course, it’s not really an airplane. It’s just a high-speed “mobility platform” for the GAU-8, the gun so awesome they put wings on it.

By: roo_ster

roo_ster — Tue, 14 Jun 2022 14:57:53 +0000

“Quantity has a quality all its own.” Supposedly said by J Stalin. Looks like the A-10 may be able to do the heavy lifting newer fighters can not.

US air dominance is still not assured in the face of contemporary Russian anti-air and air power, but this sort of thing might help if our leaders are so foolish as to involve us in such a conflict.

By: Gavin Longmuir

Gavin Longmuir — Sat, 11 Jun 2022 21:48:29 +0000

Aircraft carriers will continue to be useful for colonial-type actions against under-armed goat herders.

Apart from that, why might China be interested in building aircraft carriers? One analog might be the USSR’s space shuttle — which flew only once. USSR scientists had followed NASA announcements about building a “reusable” space shuttle, and quickly worked out that the “reusable” shuttle was going to be much more expensive than throw-away rockets.

So what were those devious Yankees up to? USSR scientists thought that they must be missing some important factor which NASA was not talking about. So the USSR built its own space shuttle — and confirmed that it was indeed a less economical way of getting into space.

Perhaps the only way China can learn fully about the strengths & weaknesses of nuclear-powered aircraft carriers is to build & operate one themselves?

By: Kunning Drueger

Kunning Drueger — Sat, 11 Jun 2022 16:18:24 +0000

Ezra, I think PLAN is pursuing carriers for the utility they provide for invasion as an extension of air support, not as a blue water navy in the same way the US uses them. The carriers are specifically for the first island chain in terms of offense, and delivering strike packages for Special Operations and Police Actions in theaters they control, like the East Coast of Africa. This is just conjecture on my part. It could very well be the case that the Carrier Project was initiated long ago, and now it continues due to bureaucratic inertia, not strategic logic.

By: Ezra

Ezra — Sat, 11 Jun 2022 13:46:38 +0000

People, so-called experts, since the 1920′s have been announcing the demise of the tank, too. Anti-tank guns at the time and ATGM now.

If the aircraft carrier is so vulnerable with modern weapons, why are the Chinese building them in bigger and bigger classes?