CNN really hyped up the situation big-time. They made it sound like our nation was defenseless, the F-22 was useless. They made it sound like a major national security threat and F-22 was useless. CNN was using negative hype to dramatize the situation to try to keep viewers attention. So they have all this negative misleading hype for about a half an hour before the interview. They finally have an interview with the military, and the military dispels their hype real quick. As usual there was no apology from CNN for misleading the public.
CNN would be the best media outlet if they did not have such a far lean to the left, if they did not hype things, if they would be more technically and factually correct. If they would stop stating their opinions as facts.
CNN should stop manipulating the news politically, and just stick to the facts. They are supposed to report the news, not manufacture it.
Every aircraft in history has had glitches when it first entered service and some throughout its life span, the F-22 is no exception. Having a few glitches is typical of one off an aircraft’s first deployments, there is nothing surprising about it.
Despite the fact it is typical to have technical problems, particularly early in a program, it is not surprising for the media and people with a political agenda to try to capitalize on it.
— There’s a reason none of our military personel watch CNN.
… The same reason they made Hillary Clinton’s callsign aircraft (helicopter or otherwise) “the Broom” … witch. :diablo:
1. An Apache? Great helicopter, no doubt, but it can’t take the punishment or fly as fast as aircraft, simple as that.
2. Anyone’s idea of “more modern” or “bigger threats” etc., etc., is really invalid.
As I’ve said somewhere else, in reply of someone’s saying, “potential growing threats”, I said, “You mean like, North Korea, China, and Iran?” None of our ‘enemies’ are really getting more sophisticated nor a great deal ahead in technology.
Yes, we’ve lost A-10s, but your wording there is almost singular (an A-10).
As for an AA missile being able to destroy a tank, yes, with a superb direct hit. Its rare that a missile is going to get that against a target, even if its moving slow. AA missiles use shrapenel, not kenetic energy or explosives, to destory targets. Why? All the targets are pretty flimsy, and trying for direct hit missiles is terribly expensive.
The sometimes senseless bombing in Iraq showed, that there is always a lack of intelligence. The bombing capabilities had outpaced the recce and verification capabilities by a big margin. All that against a well-known enemy with little capabilities left.
— That’s an interesting point. In the first Gulf War, 49% of the bombing was laser/radar/opticial guided. In the second, however, that upped to closer to 70-80% (don’t remember what that number was, but it was much better than 49%.)
You must have just returned from the model shop. The artwork showing A-10s carrying lots of stuff isn’t all that accurate unless it is very very close to home base.
Those are nice models from the shop. 🙂
Hardpoints: 8× under-wing + 3× under-fuselage pylon stations = 11. I got that information from my love of research, not screaming out like a maniac because I love the plane.
A nice non sequitur but that is about it. Mission up times for the other fast movers have been more than good enough in the desert. They have only had 30 years to figure that out with the teen fighters.
— You talk to the soliders out there on a regular basis? From what I hear, the military-issued 9milis are a pitiful pain-in-the-@$$. The M-16 (from men in Vietnam and around the world I’ve talked with) is also pitiful. Some of them said they preferred to have a .45 Colt pistol rather than an M-16 any day. But let us not ask the soldiers… they don’t know anything. There’s a reason our men and women in the military don’t watch CNN.
You believe 6 AIM120s, 2 AIM-9M, and 480 rds of 20mm will not take down an A-10?
— Yup. I know what its armed with, don’t tell me (its common information, right?).
Firstly, you can discard the 20mm machinegun. I’m pretty sure that’s worthless and the pilot wouldn’t use it anyway (simple training says stay as far away as possible, I thought it was more of a last resort weapon).
Secondly, as I’ve said before, unless you get enough direct hits (or near direct hits) overriding its chaffs/flares, you’re not taking it down that easily. Remember, it was DESIGNED to get shot the hell out of, that’s what the A-10 is all about: becoming a target, getting shot at.
And they will be supported by the likes of fast mover high altitude legacy aircraft and someday the JSF. Supported very well.
Compare the price of the F-35 and the A-10. Also, if I were a soldier, I’d rather have an A-10 that is willing to fly so low, the pilot can see me than a F-35 trying to drop bombs over 10,000ft at near supersonic speeds.
That’s why our military keeps holding onto the A-10.
“Oh, but we’ve got all this equipment like optical sighting, etc.” Yes, at a terribly expensive cost. As for not having night vision capabilities, we’ve got aircraft to do that job and a night sky for cover.
Other aircraft can avoid this and still accomplish the mission. There is no comparison to the A-10 and other fast movers when other aircraft can accomplish most of the mission sets that previously before cheap PGMs the A-10 had a greater mission set that belonged only to it. No more. The P.E. package will help, but still won’t save it from something like a Tor 1, or a few other threats for that matter.
— Why do you think we still have them? Why do you think we haven’t gotten rid of them yet, and why do you think the military likes ’em so much? Because an aircraft flying at 15,000ft and at near supersonic speeds isn’t as good as flying treetop level and almost as slow as a helicopter.
I’m also talking in broad daylight where the enemy can see. You wouldn’t dare send an expensive JSF on CAS missions in broad daylight when the ground is full of enemies.
Also, do this with those JSF (crash land that much intact)…
Even the flight manual said that type of landing was impossible (wheels up, hard stick landing), but here it is, done.
consider this….a relatively small missile like the Maverick (AGM-65) series can knock out any tank…including 70+ ton monsters. An A-10 is no tank, regardless of how much titanium you say it has. Sure, you may say the warhead is different…but flying that slow lot’s of things will be hurled at you regardless of their design targets of choice.
90% of those Mavericks launched in the Gulf War were from A-10s. Just a weird FYI. Also, out of 8100 sortie missions, the A-10 had a 95.7 success rate. That’s pretty good considering that war lasted less than 3 months.
**Oh yeah, checked my references I read a while back while studying the AMRAAM and found a few ” > ” 😀 . Glad that wasn’t caught on my paper.**
Oh yeah.
Sign In
