Posted on 08/27/2016 7:24:01 PM PDT by DUMBGRUNT
How long until the Russian Air Force tries to kill it in order to fund an aircraft they don’t really need?
They take a licking and keep on ticking...
Where else can you find a rifle that can double as a paddle, a club, a tent pole and an entrenching tool and then go back to being a rifle without missing a beat?
I had a lapse of internet mania there.
Keep a linking. Really.
It is missing a ton of the A10 features for close air support
US planes like Swiss watch, drop watch-watch stop.
Turn the CAS mission over to the USMC. (The Army is still stuck with the Key West Agreement)
Higher order thinking, as per your example, is best left to the pros!
To help the Ruskies along, I suggest we send them our very best, 435 congressmen and 100 senators. And they can keep them!
Yes, we would do this in the name of Whorled Peas and the children!
They wish.
The gun isn’t nearly as accurate or powerful as the A-10.
IN addition, engine performance was crap and unreliable.
>Actually I think the A-10 was specifically designed by the tank busting role, while the Su-25 was developed for close air support, thought there is a tank buster version.
There’s a lot of debate about that. Lots of people think they sold the A-10 as a tank killer because the airforce wouldn’t have gone for a strictly CAS plane. Even in the 80s the A10 wouldn’t have done all that well against Russian MANPADs and SAMs when attacking tank formations. In the first Iraq war the A10 did poorly in anti-tank strike missions, so I tend to believe the plane was designed to be CAS and they talked it up as a tank killer to get the airforce on board.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.