FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Exactly, and when the public just sucks it up while ignoring the facts -
Same thing happened to the V-22
How Safe Is the MV-22 Osprey?
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
FlyboyJ many people in the media are paid to write in the "media" writing about supposed waste of government money always gets a good audience, just dont let facts interfere with a story.
Exactly, and when the public just sucks it up while ignoring the facts -
Same thing happened to the V-22
How Safe Is the MV-22 Osprey?
Sweden was indeed neutral on the paper, people fail to see the thousands of volunteers that signed up for the allied cause....would like to see what other countries would do in the same situation...
Parsival and Michaelmaltby are you saying that only people in Sweden made a profit in the second world war. Considering Sweden was sandwiched between the 3rd Reich and the Soviet Union it is remarkable tat the allies got one ball bearing or scientist out of Sweden and as I understand it Sweden allowed the Allies to buy up all their ball bearings after the Schweinfurt raids to cut off supplies and make those raids worthwhile. It is possible to reproach many for their conduct in WW2 and no one is blameless from what I have read in the blame game Sweden comes out about as good as the best.
During the war, when the French realized they were not as important to the world as they thought, the French also got into bed with the enemy. Its a variation of Churchills saying "the enemy of my enemy is my friend...sort of "the friend of my enemy is my enemy".....
8,700 Swedish volunteers went to the aid of Finland in their hour of need...that's over twice the number of all the other volunteers combined.Sweden was indeed neutral on the paper, people fail to see the thousands of volunteers that signed up for the allied cause....would like to see what other countries would do in the same situation...
Sorry if this has been covered.
My knowledge of modern systems and aircraft are quite limited. I'm wondering if one of the main reasons for the F-35 replacing the A-10 is proliferation and use of newer MANPAD systems.
A common criticism of the program is that cheaper, tried-and-true systems like the A-10 are being phased out - and air support in future operations similar to Iraq and Afghanistan will be done with the vastly more expensive F-35.
But, as I alluded to above - will the threat of a relatively low-tech enemy with MANPADs be enough to make current inexpensive systems (Predator drones, A-10s, etc.) unworkable compared to new expensive systems such F-35.
Not to mention an A-10 can't be shot down by an RPG-7 worth roughly 60$. Aircraft like the Hog, Frogfoot, and AMX will always have a place.
In the short term you're probably correct, but eventually those airframes will have to be replaced, especially considering the A-10s mission, IMO there will always be a necessity for an aircraft like the A-10 and I would also consider putting such an aircraft under the control of the army(it's been suggested before) but that is contrary to current operational military doctrine.Flyboy, don't necessarily disagree with your statement about putting the A-10 back into production. I just don't know how viable that would be from a cost perspective given the ripple effect into planned force structures. We had similar discussions about other specialized platforms (like EF-111, Wild Weasels etc) that lacked direct, like-for-like replacements. From a pure capability perspective, it makes sense to retain the A-10 but not so much from a cost-effectiveness perspective.