That should make our enemies cringe, right?
Wonder how a 200 mph plane would stand up to surface-to-air missiles? /sarc
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-29 next last
To: markomalley
...yawn. Gates is a twit.
2 posted on
08/27/2009 7:18:57 AM PDT by
VaBthang4
(He Who Watches over Israel will Neither Slumber nor Sleep.)
To: markomalley
Article starts out with blatant dishonesty, and goes downhill from there.
Par for the course over at Slime magazine, though.
3 posted on
08/27/2009 7:19:27 AM PDT by
ArrogantBustard
(Western Civilization is Aborting, Buggering, and Contracepting itself out of existence.)
To: markomalley
Bring back the A-10 Warthog!
4 posted on
08/27/2009 7:20:52 AM PDT by
SpeedRacer
(Where's your records, B-HO? What are you hiding?)
To: markomalley
I have no doubt there is a place in our military for prop driven planes but we should also have the cutting edge technology.
Anyone who thinks we should give enemies and potential enemies a level playing field is a moron.
5 posted on
08/27/2009 7:21:13 AM PDT by
cripplecreek
(Seniors, the new shovel ready project under socialized medicine.)
To: markomalley
6 posted on
08/27/2009 7:22:10 AM PDT by
Vaquero
("an armed society is a polite society" Robert A. Heinlein)
To: markomalley
Poor little Luddite!!
8 posted on
08/27/2009 7:23:09 AM PDT by
org.whodat
(Vote: Chuck De Vore in 2012.)
To: markomalley
News flash -in an effort to cut Defense spending, Obama announced Chariots to replace M-1A1 Abrams Battle Tanks.
10 posted on
08/27/2009 7:23:37 AM PDT by
Apercu
("A man's character is his fate" - Heraclitus)
To: markomalley
"The first squadron to use the A-10 went operational in October 1977. In total, 715 airplanes were produced, the last delivered in 1984"
"Cruise speed: 300 knots (340 mph, 560 km/h)"
15 posted on
08/27/2009 7:27:28 AM PDT by
Paladin2
(Big Ears + Big Spending --> BigEarMarx, the man behind TOTUS)
To: markomalley
since no other nation is building such a plane to challenge it (clears throat, raises hand) "How about the new MIG-35?"
20 posted on
08/27/2009 7:33:05 AM PDT by
Dumpster Baby
(Bacon,smokless powder,and boobs are proof that God loves us.)
To: markomalley
the skyraider was a kick ass aircraft....for the role of hunting and fighting insurgents and close ground support role, it is an excellent platform...just because it is not a jet does not render it useless by any means...i say buy a few hundred of them and turn them loose..
22 posted on
08/27/2009 7:33:35 AM PDT by
joe fonebone
(When you ask God for help, sometimes he sends the Marines.)
To: markomalley
most likely prop-driven — that it can use to kill insurgents today and use to train local pilots — such as Afghans or Iraqis — tomorrow. Prop driven, really? Nice fact free article.
24 posted on
08/27/2009 7:34:42 AM PDT by
Lx
To: markomalley
Wonder how a 200 mph plane would stand up to surface-to-air missiles? A prop aircraft might not have enough IR signature for many man-portable SAMs to lock on.
32 posted on
08/27/2009 7:39:28 AM PDT by
PapaBear3625
(Public healthcare looks like it will work as well as public housing did.)
To: markomalley
The Air Tractor...yep...thats right...the famous crop duster is being looked at for light attack and intel/time on station recon duty.
Its beating the pants of its competition.
33 posted on
08/27/2009 7:40:10 AM PDT by
Tainan
(Cogito, ergo conservatus)
To: markomalley
I hate to agree with these folks when we really DO need more F-22s...
But, when was the last time an enemy shot a SAM at us?
It doesn’t make any sense to use a $350 million F-22 for “air to mud” in an environment where we have air dominance. It DOES make sense to use a slow, cheap aircraft with a good loiter time. We need NCO pilots and something equivalent to the A-1 Skyraider for COIN air support. Another aircraft that would be perfect would be a buffed-up OV-10 Bronco.
35 posted on
08/27/2009 7:41:10 AM PDT by
Little Ray
(Obama is a kamikaze president aimed at the heart of this Republic.)
To: markomalley
UCAVs armed with latest AAMs coupled with Raptor-like long-range look-up, look-down early detection sensors, etc.
36 posted on
08/27/2009 7:41:15 AM PDT by
cranked
To: markomalley
We already have prop-driven aircraft being used to fight insurgents, currently being produced in large numbers. They're called Predator UAVs:
39 posted on
08/27/2009 7:45:28 AM PDT by
PapaBear3625
(Public healthcare looks like it will work as well as public housing did.)
To: markomalley
Sounds like the Il-2 Sturmovik or the tank-busting version of the JU-87 Stuka. Not sure that this kind of aircraft is going to survive with radar-guided guns and MANPADS.
I guess it’s “Back to the Future” at Gates’ Pentagon.
43 posted on
08/27/2009 7:46:38 AM PDT by
Tallguy
("The sh- t's chess, it ain't checkers!" -- Alonzo (Denzel Washington) in "Training Day")
To: markomalley
48 posted on
08/27/2009 7:49:56 AM PDT by
RobinOfKingston
(Democrats, the party of evil. Republicans, the party of stupid.)
To: markomalley
The Obama Fighter:
59 posted on
08/27/2009 7:58:13 AM PDT by
sticker
To: markomalley
Wonder how a 200 mph plane would stand up to surface-to-air missiles? /sarc They won't need a surface-to-air missile. At 200 MPH, the ragheads will be able to shoot them down with light automatic weapons and those 37MM Soviet anti-aircraft guns. Low and slow. They won't even make it to the target area.
It sounds to me as if Gates thinks pilots are expendable.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-29 next last
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson
