Politics

[375 Ruger Fan]

And now for some good news

Boeing (BA) has landed a big deal with Saudi Arabia.
As Yahoo Finance first reported Tuesday, the aerospace giant has secured an order for up to 121 787s from two Saudi Arabian airlines — state-owned Saudi Arabian Airlines and new national player Riyadh Air. A total of 78 planes are considered firm orders, while 43 are options to purchase more.
Of the 121 orders, 72 are from Riyadh Air. Based on the list price for the 787 of about $338 million, the deal could be worth up to an estimated $40 billion.

 

[PARA45]

Thank you! I'm afraid that due to this type of bombing from high altitude will be the death of the A10, and the air to mud type of close air support. I've never heard anything bad said about the A10 or F16s from an Army Infantry Soldier.

 

[Doug3006]

IIRC, gold was something like 400.00 in 2000... around Y2K. I remember some saying, "let's look at it 6 months from now" Even adjusting for inflation or relative $ value, I think it has increased in real value since 2000. Also, I remember some trying to catch the .com bubble wave at about that time or just prior. Many lost a lot of money in that unicorn expedition. True, the various stock indexes have shown steady long increases but unfortunately many 401Ks and many mutual funds do not mirror the indexes with some seemingly completely disconnected. There is a great difference I think between the indexes that are reported regularly and any individual investment portfolio group of funds or stocks. I learned a long time ago when the broker says, "I like such and such" or "We like such and such".... run! Having caught one in the act of peddling favored commission yielding funds after stating to me there was no connection, I have steered clear of all that since then and done my own thing with my $. It's no secret they make money on both ends of a transaction whether the equities they peddled went up or down and their clients made or lost money. That awakening was 25 years ago. Since then, I have gone the slow steady high security slog with my investments and not the hi yield, hi glamour potential joy ride. I have not lost a penny since the lessons of playing that broker's game in about 1998. Only lost about 4,000 then so consider it a very low cost education. I don't have much of a gold percentage in my investments only a small amount along with a little silver. I have them for diversity, thus a safety hedge against really serious asset devaluations. I think I have about 380.00 per ounce in the gold and about 18.00 per ounce in the silver. Overall, I sleep well, don't have a mortgage on the house, have no credit card debt and always pay cash for my cars and trucks- bought used

Hi @fourfive8. I learned the same lesson. I noticed that I was always lagging the market when it was gaining and losing more than the market when it was declining. I decided to put all of my money in index funds tied to the Dow and the S&P. Exactly the strategy that Warren Buffett recommends for small-time investors like me. Over time, few if any analysts can match the return of the broader markets. And that has certainly been my experience over the last 20 years.

By the way, I don’t mean to question anyone who thinks gold is going to rise faster than the markets. Or maintain value while the market dips. I really do mean let’s see what it does in six months. Maybe we will see gold preserving value or increasing while everything else goes to hell. I know that I don’t know the answer to that, and suspect no one does.

 

[Wheels]

 

[Red Leg]

Thank you! I'm afraid that due to this type of bombing from high altitude will be the death of the A10, and the air to mud type of close air support. I've never heard anything bad said about the A10 or F16s from an Army Infantry Soldier.

The A10 still exists only because of Army lobbying within DOD and on the Hill.

To be frank the Air Force largely hates the true close air support mission. Their "tactical" world is built in ideally as part of the Air Tasking Order. Targets for the ATO are supposed to be "nominated" 72 hours in advance. The Army will get an allocation of those sorties. However, ground forces often need steel on target in far less than 72 minutes - often 72 seconds. In fairness, generating the right aircraft with the right ordinance at the right time over the right location is a demanding process. As a result, the Army has learned to rely in medium or high intensity peer conflicts on Army Aviation and artillery for true immediate close support.

The Air Force has created another level of "tactical" attack originally called battlefield air interdiction (BAI), but now normally simply air interdiction (AI). These targets, such as headquarters, logistics hubs, higher level command posts, and the like lend themselves to a 72 hour planning cycle. The Army critically needs those addressed as well as part of the effort to shape the battlefield. Often Army ATACMS missile fires will support those missions by striking air defense assets.

Counter insurgency is a whole different thing. In Iraq after the first 72 hours or so, and in Afghanistan from day one we exercised air dominance. The Air Force could put anything up from an A10 or F16 to a B52 loaded with JDAMs and afford to have them loiter (well above shoulder fired missile range) while awaiting a target. That will not be the case in a high intensity conflict.

 

[Red Leg]

Realizing that nothing is said on these news discussion shows in Russia that doesn't have at least tacit Kremlin approval, this is a different tone, even angst, that we have not seen before.

https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/11rd6xu

 

[Tundra Tiger]

Sarah Palin was one of the guests on Gutfeld tonight. There was a segment about moose contributing to climate change (as per a Scandinavian university study). Palin's comment was to the effect of "taking care of the problem one pot of moose stew at a time." Gutfeld asked her if she kills moose. I love how she answered the question by not answering "Well, that is what we eat up there."

So... anyone know if the former governor has, in fact, herself, pulled the trigger on a moose? I know she's shot caribou; I'll confess I don't know about moose, but I've never seen anything about her shooting moose. Her answer sounded like a step around to the question to me.

By the way, I am disappointed she didn't point out that the short video clip they showed - purporting it to have been a moose - was actually a bugling bull elk.

 

[Ray B]

, I am disappointed she didn't point out that the short video clip they showed - purporting it to have been a moose - was actually a bugling bull elk.

Even my wife - not a particularly outdoorsey person, knew that the animal shown was a bull elk, not a moose.

 

[375 Ruger Fan]

The A10 still exists only because of Army lobbying within DOD and on the Hill.

To be frank the Air Force largely hates the true close air support mission. Their "tactical" world is built in ideally as part of the Air Tasking Order. Targets for the ATO are supposed to be "nominated" 72 hours in advance. The Army will get an allocation of those sorties. However, ground forces often need steel on target in far less than 72 minutes - often 72 seconds. In fairness, generating the right aircraft with the right ordinance at the right time over the right location is a demanding process. As a result, the Army has learned to rely in medium or high intensity peer conflicts on Army Aviation and artillery for true immediate close support.

The Air Force has created another level of "tactical" attack originally called battlefield air interdiction (BAI), but now normally simply air interdiction (AI). These targets, such as headquarters, logistics hubs, higher level command posts, and the like lend themselves to a 72 hour planning cycle. The Army critically needs those addressed as well as part of the effort to shape the battlefield. Often Army ATACMS missile fires will support those missions by striking air defense assets.

Counter insurgency is a whole different thing. In Iraq after the first 72 hours or so, and in Afghanistan from day one we exercised air dominance. The Air Force could put anything up from an A10 or F16 to a B52 loaded with JDAMs and afford to have them loiter (well above shoulder fired missile range) while awaiting a target. That will not be the case in a high intensity conflict.

This is sort of an interesting route the US Air Force is currently pursuing:

Here’s the Air Force’s plan to train armed overwatch pilots

The Air Force plans to start training new pilots to fly the OA-1K armed overwatch planes in fall 2025.

www.airforcetimes.com

 

[Areaonereal]

That OA 1 K looks like a WW II Stuka…
what’s old is new…. Can not believe the Warthog is on the chopping block.

 

[Mark A Ouellette]

Can not believe the Warthog is on the chopping block.

Along with Close Air Support (CAS) not being a glamor mission in the US Air Force as @Red Leg stated, their is another reason the USAF wants to get rid of the A-10.

The first consideration of fielding (for service) new weapons systems is personal. Who will operate, maintain, teach, and so on..

The USAF needs the skilled aircraft maintenance personal to support new airframes. They can retrain an experienced avionics, airframes, hydraulics mechanics/technicians to support F-22, F-35 and other new airframes. No one and I mean NO ONE can develop experienced maintenance crew chiefs overnight!

If this doesn't resonate, think about who you'd commission to build your dread 505 Gibbs Express Rifle at $10,000 or more? A machinist who recently graduated from a gunsmithing school? More likely you'd commission your dream rifle with the experienced maker of such things who has a good reputation. The USAF equivalent is a Master Sergeant in the pay grade of E-7 or Senior Master Sergeant, E-8.

 

[mdwest]

Ive had the A10 conversation with probably a half dozen USAF flag officers (retired) and I'd guess another dozen or more retired field grades.. all of whom flew fighters during their career (the A10 is considered a "fighter" platform by the USAF.. sorta...)..

The consensus among them.. with the exception of 1 guy.. who was actually an A10 pilot for about half his career.. is that other aircraft in the USAF inventory can perform ALL of the A10 mission sets.. therefore it is a redundant platform that is aging out, has to have its own unique supply chains, its own maintenance teams, etc.. (this group also includes a guy that commanded an A10 squadron and flew them for a few years)..

The guy that flew the A10 for about 1/2 of his career is more of the Army mindset... he believes that while the F16, F35, etc.. can get pretty close to the same mission capability.. that its not a 100% solution (they fall short in a few key areas)..

Most recently, in light of the Ukraine conflict, a very senior flag officer (4 star) that I have regular contact with made the point that Russian SU25's (their aircraft that performs a similar mission) have been decimated on the battlefield.. and have not been effective against armor or infantry targets... That while the A10 proved its value yet again in Iraq and Afghanistan.. that those wars are now 20 years old (things have changed) and the US had absolute ownership of the skies pretty much from the onset of the war... the manpad threat was very different as well..

Personally.. having been the guy on the ground... Its hard for me to mentally/emotionally let go of the confidence an A10 loitering in the area provides knowing that a direct replacement platform isnt in the works... but... truth be told, as @Red Leg pointed out earlier.. even with A10's in theater, the far more reliable and quick option 99 out of 100 times was army rotary wing or artillery or mortar support when the ca-ca hit the oscillator..

While I am sure they were still flying around... the fact is I never saw an A10 on the ground or in the sky in either Iraq or Afghanistan after about 2005 or 2006.. The last time I was in either country was 2010.. I saw a TON of apaches, a handful of old USMC super cobras, F15's and F16's were always flying around.. even caught a few low flyovers from B1's on a couple of occasions.. but never an A10 after the first few years of the way... (again, Im sure they were somewhere in theater at different times.. but I never saw them).. the Marines, soldiers, SEAL's, and even the USAF guys on the ground like the TACP's and CCT's, simply learned to rely on other resources and seemed to do just fine..

 

[SaintPanzer]

Every time the Air Force says they are getting rid of the A-10, the Marine Corps says: "Well, if you're not using them anymore, we'll take them..." and suddenly the Air Force isn't getting rid of the A-10.

That is said somewhat tongue in cheek, but there is truth behind it. They've been trying to get rid of the A-10 since just after Desert Storm. But we haven't forgotten the "tricks" that were played on us in Korea, or promises made and broken, and there's a reason why Title 10 says only "excess sorties".

 

[Mark A Ouellette]

Every time the Air Force says they are getting rid of the A-10, the Marine Corps says: "Well, if you're not using them anymore, we'll take them..." and suddenly the Air Force isn't getting rid of the A-10.

I heard that and I think it was prior to Desert Storm!

there's a reason why Title 10 says only "excess sorties".

Please help me out on the "excess sorties" reference in Title 10?

 

[Wheels]

 

[fourfive8]

I don't know. Is the A-10 currently considered obsolete for real combat against a serious opponent. Are there artillery or rotary platforms or some other fixed wing or guided munitions that can realistically fill the tactical battlefield niche of the A-10? I really don't know. Also is there a turf war going on in the Pentagon over budgeting and deployment readiness and branch assignments for the A-10? Unfortunately, I wouldn't think the experiences in Kuwait, Iraq or Afghanistan can be used as a realistic historical comparison by which to judge the overall readiness of US tactics and arms against a heavyweight opponent like Russia or China. Hey, but no worries, we be woke... scary thoughts.

 

[Wheels]

 

[CJW]

I don't know. Is the A-10 currently considered obsolete for real combat against a serious opponent. Are there artillery or rotary platforms or some other fixed wing or guided munitions that can realistically fill the tactical battlefield niche of the A-10? I really don't know. Also is there a turf war going on in the Pentagon over budgeting and deployment readiness and branch assignments for the A-10? Unfortunately, I wouldn't think the experiences in Kuwait, Iraq or Afghanistan can be used as a realistic historical comparison by which to judge the overall readiness of US tactics and arms against a heavyweight opponent like Russia or China. Hey, but no worries, we be woke... scary thoughts.

I wouldn't consider the A10 obsolete at all as long as it is updated as necessary. It is also as rugged and safe of a plane as you could ever build. One could make the argument that the Apache could fill the role, but one could also argue that it isn't quite as good as far as munitions capability and intimidation factor. The Apache is also a maintenance nightmare in sandy environments.

I'm still not sure what to think about the Air Tractor deal. It is certainly no titanium tubbed A10. I also can't help but think it makes us look like a third world country that is just making do with what it has at hand.

 

[SaintPanzer]

I heard that and I think it was prior to Desert Storm!


Please help me out on the "excess sorties" reference in Title 10?

Well, it's a slightly convoluted path, but...

What Title 10 actually says is:
(a)
The Marine Corps, within the Department of the Navy, shall be so organized as to include not less than three combat divisions and three air wings, and such other land combat, aviation, and other services as may be organic therein. The Marine Corps shall be organized, trained, and equipped to provide fleet marine forces of combined arms, together with supporting air components, for service with the fleet in the seizure or defense of advanced naval bases and for the conduct of such land operations as may be essential to the prosecution of a naval campaign. In addition, the Marine Corps shall provide detachments and organizations for service on armed vessels of the Navy, shall provide security detachments for the protection of naval property at naval stations and bases, and shall perform such other duties as the President may direct. However, these additional duties may not detract from or interfere with the operations for which the Marine Corps is primarily organized.

The bit about "together with supporting air components..." has been rationalized in Joint Doctrine (which is now completely behind a firewall) to mean the Marine Corps dedicates all their assets to MAGTF operations, and these sorties will be included in the ATO, and any excess sorties will be given to the JFACC for further tasking. The most fun argument I witnessed in Afghanistan was when a certain 4 star tried to break up a MAGTF, and the discussion went all the way to the SECDEF level. The MAGTF was not broken.

 

[fourfive8]

I wouldn't consider the A10 obsolete at all as long as it is updated as necessary. It is also as rugged and safe of a plane as you could ever build. One could make the argument that the Apache could fill the role, but one could also argue that it isn't quite as good as far as munitions capability and intimidation factor. The Apache is also a maintenance nightmare in sandy environments.

I'm still not sure what to think about the Air Tractor deal. It is certainly no titanium tubbed A10. I also can't help but think it makes us look like a third world country that is just making do with what it has at hand.

Thanks for the reply. That 802 Tractor is interesting and would fill some niche but I have no idea about comparing it's toughness like the tub armor of the A-10. I assume it wouldn't compare... single engine and no armor. Reason I'm asking about the A-10 is I'm not up on all the latest details of tactics and arms capabilities of primarily our manned aircraft. If the A-10 were dropped with no comparable replacement, seems like there would be a very wide gap between say an Apache and an F-16. Simplistic view I know but that is what's in my head. Of course there's probably some thinking/planning of more and more drone use. ??