A-10C Thunderbolt II makes a comeback

[Smitty-48]

Ospreys are scary, rube goldberg device, balancing on the head of a pin, so many things to go wrong, and no margin for error if it does, multiple crash vector design flaws, any one of which is death if it comes a cropper on you.

The Osprey is a classic Widowmaker.

[brewster]

Ospreys are scary, rube goldberg device, balancing on the head of a pin, so many things to go wrong, and no margin for error if it does, multiple crash vector design flaws, any one of which is death if it comes a cropper on you.

The Osprey is a classic Widowmaker.

I agree, but isn't the Osprey an example of what you say the F-35 is, one platform to do all tasks rather than get in theater in a C-130 and then to the operation in a Chinook? I'm not well read on the tech, but how is it that much different from the inherently unstable fighter platforms?

[Smitty-48]

Ospreys are scary, rube goldberg device, balancing on the head of a pin, so many things to go wrong, and no margin for error if it does, multiple crash vector design flaws, any one of which is death if it comes a cropper on you.

The Osprey is a classic Widowmaker.

I agree, but isn't the Osprey an example of what you say the F-35 is, one platform to do all tasks rather than get in theater in a C-130 and then to the operation in a Chinook? I'm not well read on the tech, but how is it that much different from the inherently unstable fighter platforms?

Well, first of all, fighter planes are meant to push the envelop into the danger zone, that's why fighter pilots get the big bucks and you only put one of them in the seat and that seat is an ejection seat. Troop carrying helicopter is a completely different job.

But, no, the design flaws of the Osprey are entirely related to the design, and it doesn't actually have multiple purposes, it's sole purpose was to deliver Marines over the beach from beyond the horizon, a Blackhawk is multipurpose, the Osprey is a single purpose rube goldberg device.

It doesn't do the job of either the Chinook nor the Hercules, that's totally inaccurate.

[Smitty-48]

There's no design flaw in the F-35, it's just that what the F-35 is meant to do is literally revolutionary, and it has to be for the price of a souped up F-16, so that's actually hard, the issues with the F-35 are related to the incredible complexity of doing what the F-35 does, being made simple, which is rocket science territory, it's not a straight up replacement for the F-16, it's a whole generation ahead of that, so the timeline for getting this done was simply too optimistic, what Lockheed Martin was told to do, was rewrite the rules of air warfare, 5th generation, on a 4th generation budget, on a tight schedule, which are competing imperatives which were inevitably going to cause delays.

In terms of flight safety, the F-35 is the most forgiving and flyable fighter plane ever devised, you could literally fly the thing, with a day of training, you couldn't fight it, but you could fly it, it practically flies itself, it's largely a hands free operation for the pilot, who spends most of his time fighting the enemy rather than having to fly the plane. All part of the revolutionary concept.

But if you tried to fly the F-35 out of control, it would recover you, if you tried to fly the F-35 into the ground, it would stop you, if you told the F-35 to land, it would land for you. The F-35 has passed all of its flight test points with flying colours, at this point it's the super complex stuff which is delayed.

Rather than design flaw, with the F-35 I would say program flaw, the program was simply way overly optimistic, they over promised what could be done within the tight schedule, reality bites, it's taking longer than was promised, but in the end, so what? It costs what it costs, it takes as long as it takes, like rocket science, you can't fulfill promises which were unrealistic to start off with.

Instead of saying from the get go what they should have said, which is that this is going to be hard, they said it was going to be easy, so now they're getting the heat which comes from over promised under delivered.

[Smitty-48]

And by they I mean Congress and the Air Force, Congress asked for the moon, the Air Force said this is what the moon looks like, and they all said "ain't no thang", at which point, it's not realistic to expect the defense contractors, either LockMart or Boeing, to come out and say "they are totally full of shit", that's not the role of the defense contractor, the defense contractor's job is to shoot for the moon upon request.

Was the program flawed? Yes.

Was every single thing that was promised possible within the budget and schedule, once they tried to do it? No.

Is that Lockheed Martin's fault? They shot for the moon, they're going to get there, it's not going to be exactly as promised, but it's still going to be the moon as per the statement of requirements.

It does all the big things it promised to do, it will re-write the book of air warfare, some of the bonus features which were intended to make it very cheap to operate, were simply a bridge too far once they tried to do it.

Full spectrum dominance, with minimal American casualties, cannot be done on the cheap, politicians would all be better off if they just said that, instead of trying to bullshit people.

[ssu]

Fuck that.

Just get the old B-52 specs from 1960, update them a little, and build new ones.

You what's the problem?

The problem is that you cannot make the specs of the bomber to fit reality: that is the USAF needs a endurable low-cost long-range aircraft that can haul the most tonnage of bombs and drop them on some poor bastards in some rotten country where the so-called terrorists just have a few WW-2 era heavy machine guns if not even them to defend themselves.

But nope, billion dollar super-duper B-21s that basically just enrich the shareholders of the Company that makes them. Smitty is happy.

But why are the A-10s in Afghanistan?

The A-10's are in Afghanistan because there are congressional patrons who do not want to give up their A-10's, it's pork in the districts, and nostalgia for 4th generation air war.

...and then there reasons like it's the cheapest combat aircraft to operate (apart from drones) and can survive far better hits from small arms fire than some puny single motor prop, like the A-29. The USAF was actually thinking of deploying the A-29 Super Tucano, but then thought it was better to give to the Afghans (the 81st Fighter Squadron basically trains the Afghans). If you put American pilots to fight the Taleban, I would opt also for the A-10s rather than Super Tucanos. Which one is easier to shoot down is obvious.

(Here note the flight hour expenses. A-10 is cheap!)



So not only is the A-10 the safest to fly, low maintenance and reliable, but also the cheapest! Aside the fact that it can deliver a huge load of ordinance and it can operate from Afghanistan (not Guam).

Warthogs with a Columbian Super Tucano:

[Smitty-48]

But nope, billion dollar super-duper B-21s that basically just enrich the shareholders of the Company that makes them. Smitty is happy.

NOC had a nice quarter, they're stingy with the dividend tho, more of a buy back firm, but it's been awhile.

[Smitty-48]

Just remember folks, defense contracting is low margin, they're recession proof dividend paying stocks, but the margins average 5%, so most of the money is going to American products made in America by American workers, the people who oppose this are scumbag hippie peaceniks and free rider lolbergs, if that's who you want to side with, so be it, but don't come crying to ol' Smitty when you put Americans out of job for self righteous grandstanding ant-military crusades to nowhere.

When the dollars are spent on Americans in America, why Americans would be so gung-ho to cut the defense budget is beyond me, seems like they're just getting taken in by the liberal media narrative, and Eurofaggots who want the busines to European defense firms instead.

16,000 Americans working for Lockheed Martin in Fort Worth, but I'm quite sure the socialist unions in France would love for you to send that business their way instead, if you don't want to sell F-35's, they are more than happy to fill that vacuum with Dassault Rafale's.