LOCAS would have done it but it was cancelled. Presumably it didn’t work that well.

ESGs have to be close to shore to carry out it’s mission and allow for a swarm to work.

It can a carrier but only in very limited scenarios.

Paul, I’ll let you and everyone else in on the secret. Especially since Tyler is wisely ignoring this post exists. :)

Nobody ever said Russians were stupid. :)

Yes, it is the primary weapon but its a design requirement born from near-desperation as planners looked at potential missile loads/inventory and the number of Russian tanks that could flood the Fulda Gap.

It’s not 1965 anymore. And I didn’t write that...just modified it...

Well, I’m sure Tyler is too smart to respond to this well written piece by an intelligent author...its a no win scenario. (Note: It’s not me).

DoD Directive 3000 would have to go away first or you still need pilots in near proximity to provide human guidance. UCAV doctrine is still evolving since we aint really got any yet. The only UCAV engagement with manned aircraft was not exactly illustrative. :)

The A-10 is really intended to kill tanks with Mavericks. Using the GAU-8 is kinda a desperation move on the part of the US because if you can reach out and touch a T-80 a ZSU can reach out and touch you back. The idea is you could take 4-5 A-10s and demolish a soviet tank battalion with guns.

There’s a bit of lag there as the door opens before the first round is fired. I guess it doesn’t matter if you pull the trigger and the gun doesn’t actually fire until the computer decides it will hit the target.

Mmm...1992 a Peruvian fighter shot up a US C-130. In 1999 a Ethiopian Su-27 killed an Eritrean Mig-29 with guns.

Below the cut line in critical functionality for IOC delivery. Sure, it’s probably just a couple man months of effort to code and a few more to test but it’s months they didn’t want to spend. Remember the A model follows the B model and the B model doesn’t have a gun. While I’m sure the Marines would like a gun at IOC…

This is a repost since it got completely buried in the earlier F-35 thread...but I’m curious how Tyler would rebut it (Note: this is significantly plagerized):

Synopsis (aka TL;DR)

And if you look at that study you realize the authors excluded the F-4 and the A7 and then calculated the O&S cost growth based on three times the F-22 costs which will be much cheaper than that of a 5th gen land based fighter + 5th gen carrier fighter + 5th gen STOVL fighter.

Sure. But not many hours in a f-35.

I cannot stress enough how inconsequential the F-35 vs F-16 BFM report was without knowing the exact limitations for the BFM engagements.

I cannot stress enough how inconsequential the F-35 vs F-16 BFM report was without knowing the exact limitations for the BFM engagements.

Wanna bet that many of the F-35 detractors were screaming Craptor at the top of their lungs just a few years ago and now it’s all “they should have bought more F-22s”