What the A-10 does so well is really cheap strike / close air support. They can be very effective with cheap dumb bombs, they can get low and slow over the battlefield, they can loiter much longer than the pointy nosed alternatives, and of course their cannon is a thing of beauty.

The A-10 does only one mission really well: close air support. It's also very, very useful at nearly any job that involves being near the ground and carrying lots of munitions.

When I talk about "multi-role" fighters, I'm talking about aircraft like the E/F/A-18X super hornet. It's the Navy's plan for that to be…

I hate to be rude to my beloved DoD... but wasn't getting away from the mighty "Battle Phrog" the entire reason for spending BILLIONS on the V-22?

Now they've decided that the Phrog is useful anyway - I bet these are much cheaper than Ospreys.

I think you got that exactly backwards. We're going to lower cost (debatable) multi-roll aircraft, like the F-18, F-16 and F-35, instead of highly specialized aircraft like the Warthog.

The problem with all this multi-roll passion, is that they aircraft don't do the job as well as the specialized aircraft... and…

Imagine that... A hardcore, low tech, hardy ground attack platform being useful... Who could possibly have seen that coming?

Not that the USAF would ever be short sighted or anything...

I had the good fortune to see prototype versions of these about 3 years ago. Sikorsky brought their actual flying test bed and a military mock up to the Pentagon and set them up in the courtyard. What I found most amazing about them was how small they are! At least the flying demonstrator was strictly a one person…

There are a lot of reasons to build them locally, and as others have said, licensing designs for foreign construction is actually very common.

I love the Russian aviation industry! They really do make the coolest, and some of the most specialized stuff. That's a really pretty airplane, and the forestry service desperately needs aircraft that are younger than the ancient stuff they typically employ.

It must be a gearhead/Jalop thing, but the thought of fake engine noise makes my skin crawl.

Manufacturers! PLEASE STOP! I don't care if the motor is quiet, so long as the car is still fast.

Little known fact: Russia is Europe's Florida.

;)

I really should be more careful with the words "never," "always," 100% and such. There is pretty much always an exception unless you're talking about math.

I really wish I had the money to buy a 50th anniversary 911 - those are probably already worth more than purchase price. Oh well... opportunity lost.

No Marina Blue, no deal. (my old door tag actually said "marinblau" I loved it.)

That's more like it!

THAT IS SO AWESOME! Thanks for sharing.

The flying short bus just made my week!

:)

Ummmm... In 2004 I purchased a 1969 Porsche 911 for $6K

I've had someone offer me $30K cash for the car this month. (He seriously had a handful of $100 bills! Never seen anything like it...)

I won't sell it because it's continuing to appreciate. This car has proved to be an investment.

(For new cars you're 100% right)

I respect your arguments, and I agree with them for the most part, but there are some exceptions that are important to note:

I know this has all been said before... but it just feels like it bears repeating.

offer him $500 and run it in LeMons.

If you have enough cylinders, you can balance the engine so that you don't need extra balancing weights (like in an inline 6 or V12 engine) but they'll still have a flywheel to smooth out any vibrations."