side point, you could theoretically put the fold in a spot that wouldn't cripple the Hog. that tough bastard can still fly with 2/3 of the wing shot away, so maybe only fold the outer 1/3 in.

interesting note, the Bronco might be getting a new lease on life.

its the launching and landing, and i honestly dont know if the Hog could survive this long term. however, i do know its capable of taking off under its own power unloaded from a flat top, so it might not need as much launch speed from a cat to get airborne as say a Hornet would.

as for a folding wing, yes it would be…

like i said, went and looked it up. there was an agreement made between the AF and the Army where the Army gave up its control of basically all fixed wing aircraft in exchange for greater control over Choppers. there isnt a role the Hog could fill that wouldn't violate this, so the army still no can has.

solution to…

had to dig a bit, but apparently the rule is fixed wing aircraft in general

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnson-M…

found it, and it applies to fixed wing aircraft in general.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnson-M…

right, but to use it as only that would be a huge waste of the airframe. and the moment it goes on a sortied loaded to bear, the AF would have a screaming shit fit.

i cant find the exact piece, but i do know it is a rule within the Military about who gets what when it comes to the Army vs Airforce.

which is why it…

why the hell not?

the problem with that is the tooling has long been destroyed. spare parts are coming from those sitting in the bone-yard, so that's an unrealistic and expensive option.

what we could do however, is a full upgrade program to completley overhaul the existing aircraft (as has been discussed in the comments on other…

except by the rules, the Army cant operate fixed wing strike aircraft.

then explain it to me, why a smart?

different doesn't mean good, and the Smart is an excellent example of just that.

its impractical, underpowered, for its size inefficient, not particularly safe despite that crash cage they love to brag about, rather unreliable, and butt ugly to boot.

it only makes sense for people who dont need cars here, so why…

i believe the Japanese idea of guided weapons involved someone at the controls... yeah i went there.

and over penetration is always an issue. question there is can the Tomahawk sense when its into the spot spot of anything and go off.

its also a gutless piece of shit, BEGONE WITH IT!

a question of what sort of armoring (the US had at least 2 different types in service by the end of the war, basically full armor and armoring the core of the ship but leaving the rest out to save weight) and whether or not that armor could take a hit from a modern penetrator. The Navy has a bunker busting model, im…

of course the Japanese would do it in reverse.....

i can see sticking a nuke on an unguided air to air rocket like the Genie, but why would they need one on a guided missile?

Firstly, thank you very much for your service.

and second, ill wilfully admit my own ignorance on this one. i have no idea the actual mission capabilities of those vessels because i believe a good chunk of it is still classified. so do feel free to educate away as much as you can.

hummm, wrinkles wrinkles everywhere

ahhhhh!