The Harrier is not a fast jet by any means of the imagination
And the prowler is a fast jet? Jk, jk, but I do know that the harrier can accelerate like a bat outta hell to like .9 Mach or something....
The Harrier is not a fast jet by any means of the imagination
Punk said:The Harrier is not a fast jet by any means of the imagination.
Punk said:The Harrier is not a fast jet by any means of the imagination.
~sigh~ More penis measurements.squeeze said:You don't know what the fvck you're talking about.
brd2881 said:And the prowler is a fast jet? Jk, jk, but I do know that the harrier can accelerate like a bat outta hell to like .9 Mach or something....
Before someone busts a vein or shorts out a fuse .... it's all about money.
It's ALWAYS about the money and politics when you are talking military procurement.
Period. ALOHA .....
What if the price comparison between the two? Honest question
ghost119 said:To put hinges of the wings to enable them to fold up for carrier use would make it a little less solid....
...I am not sure of the specifics, but I believe the A-10 should still be flyable with the outer half of each wing gone...
so the T-45 is faster, big whoop, wanna fight about it
1. XCAS
2. The AF lost (1) A-10 due to enemy fire "this trip to the sandbox" and (6) during Desert Storm. I'm no math major or anything, but I'm pretty sure 6 is a bigger number than 1.
3. At less than $10m a copy, even doubling the price makes it FAR cheaper than anything else we field for the most part.
QUOTE]
Alright Squeeze, Im not trying to have a "My ____ is bigger then yours" arguement with anybody here Im just trying to get something out of this thread other then Hey lets all post about what an invincible aircraft the A-10 is. Maybe stimulate a good point counter point discussion on just how good the aircraft is. Its like every time anybody says anything about "Maybe its time....." Hes jumped on as if he just suggested to put your dog down or something. I mean you've got guys in here argueing the merits of putting wing folds on a 30 year old design to try and custom fit it to Marine Corp operations. So seriously, Id like to hear your take since yes I am just an aviation enthusiest with a goal towards Marine Air and you and many others are already in the community.
Ok your right, I rechecked a much better source and yeah my numbers were off. Now lets look at the one loss though, the single loss we took to enemy fire in OIF was and A-10. *(Im not counting the helicopters) So maybe there is some weight to this arguement that if you dont get hit you dont need armor? And that number didnt say how many came home shot up and were down while they had to be fixed. Some of them may have come home with battle damage that a 16 or 18 wouldnt have. However would the 16 or 18 been coming home with the same battle damage at all?
Two, Im unfamiliar with the exact specifics of XCAS but I understand the concept. Does the A-10 really do this job any better then another aircraft in the inventory. How much area can an A-10 reliably be responcible for as apose to a faster aircraft.
Yes its cheaper, even with the C upgrade. But heres the thing, now we've got an A-10 with an expanded PGM capability. Ok, we already have aircraft doing that job, and doing it well. At what point do you finally just say, no you dont need more money for a mission that the other jets do really well already.
Just for the record, I've had my Prowler close to 1.2 plenty of times.And the prowler is a fast jet? Jk, jk, but I do know that the harrier can accelerate like a bat outta hell to like .9 Mach or something....