Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 AustonT wrote:
What may I ask do you like about the Hornet, and I'll be honest I'm asking because I pretty much love to point out how its inferior in nearly every way to the aircraft it has replaced.

Except for the one that matters...maintenance!

 Peregrine wrote:

Yeah, I actually would. If the CIA had to use explosive cigars or attack helicopters they'd actually have to think carefully about their targets instead of just deciding that any sufficiently large group of "military age males" is a terrorist camp and blowing it up.

Well, to be fair, to my knowledge the CIA doesn't have much direct control over drone activity. Even in Yassin's case it was a matter of existing intelligence being fed to multiple arms of the IDF. Intelligence fed to them by the Mossad, who have no qualms about killing people and blowing things up in a notably public manner.

Intelligence agencies generally establish where targets are, and occasionally orchestrate operation to attack particular ones, but they don't directly send in drone strikes because there is a large cluster of possible insurgents. That tends to be a matter of the drone operator's interpretation of his orders which, in the the case of Afghanistan/Pakistan, tend to be based on highly generalized information.

Bwah ah ha ah ha ahahaha. Do you know what the radar cross section of a Predator is? How about an F-16, F-18, etc. You clearly have no idea what type of warfare drones are good for, or how capable they are in the modern battlefield. More of you sourcing your ass.

A big one considering it's a giant ass slow moving prop plane. Are you a radio telemetry physicist now? Materials expert? Is big 'ol Auston T sitting on a weapons tech think tank these days? Boy you seem to have a lot of jobs beyond sitting in a chair. Good on ya.

Maybe it has to do with you making up whatever sounds good to you and then stamping your feet when people disagree, pretty much like every other thread you are in except in this case when you do it it's glaringly obvious to me and from the looks of it others as well.

Says the guy whose primary contribution to this and most other threads is two sentence complaints, free of context.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

kalishnakov_marine wrote:As far as I know the Marine Corps was NEVER slated for the F-22. If it can't go on a carrier (and more specifically an LHD) then we don't want it. The F-35B's been our baby and is going active next year with successful sea trials, and plenty of flight trials and weapons trials under it's belt. It also hasn't to my knowledge caused any naval aviators to pass out...

Yeah, it looks like they dropped that role when they were developing methods of production. Probably linked to the F-35. That'll teach me to read Lockheeds promises as anything more than pretty words. The thing had a hell of a development period, I'd be surprised if it wasn't considered for every role possible at one point or another.

Bored now.