• Taliban wore American uniforms, destroyed six fighter planes, in the raid on Camp Bastion.
    86 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Useful Dave;37688864]I'm surprised they went for the Harriers myself, although I suppose the uniforms were better suited for that than they would've been the Apaches.[/QUOTE] marines do not use the apache, so i doubt they had any there.
[QUOTE=jaybuz;37688907]Around 156 million dollars. Yeah...[/QUOTE] I wonder if you can get insurance on military vehicles... I mean, how do you even approach that? "Yeah we are going to need insurance to cover up to $200 million... risks? Well, they might get blown up. We are putting them right in the middle of a battle zone... I'm sure they will be fine, just sign the paper."
[QUOTE=FunnyBunny;37689104][img]http://juliantheaviator.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/harrier.jpg[/img] RIP (x6)[/QUOTE] [IMG]http://theassassinkillers.webs.com/photos/zkb2.jpg[/IMG] RIP (x2)
Holy shit, that's kind of awesome in a terrible way.
It's time someone should invade afghanistan
good thing we killed them
Wonder if the US Base's are going into lock down, Id checks before you enter or leave.
[QUOTE=milktree;37689680]marines do not use the apache, so i doubt they had any there.[/QUOTE] Camp Bastion is where the British Army Air Corps Apaches are assigned though, as it's a multinational camp rather than purely US Marines. [quote]Prince Harry is an Apache helicopter pilot based at Camp Bastion, but the British Ministry of Defence categorically rejected reports in Sunday's British press that he was just a few hundred yards away from the gun battle.[/quote]
Kick the beehive, why don't you I'm sure the bees will gladly crawl back inside
[QUOTE=milktree;37689680]marines do not use the apache, so i doubt they had any there.[/QUOTE] Pretty sure Bastion is the main base for the chinooks which medivac casualties. So there will be several Apaches at least, they use up to two as air cover for each chinook. Not to mention it's where Prince Harry (who is apparently relevant to all news now) is. Being a Apache gunner, I'd be surprised if there weren't any.
Good for them, hopefully they can step it up and speed up the process of pulling out NATO forces from the country.
[QUOTE=goon165;37689261]No, just No. Effective service life is VERY dependent on the specific temperaments of the hardware itself and ease of production of new units and parts for active ones. The A10 is one of the most stupidly dependable aircraft ever designed which can lose a wing and still fly, on top of that it's cheap (11mill a Plane as apposed to the 25-30mill for the Harrier) so new ones can be ordered with little issue if needed. On the other hand the F-14 Tomcat was retired in 2006 because they were so old and worn down they needed more time being repaired than actual flight time even with CONSTANT, NEAR IMMACULATE LEVELS of maintenance. The Harrier is only still around because it fills a particular role (VTOL) that right now there is no viable replacement for, this doesn't stop the airframe from aging any faster and the VTOL system itself is complex and temperamental, requiring specialized expensive maintenance to keep it working in top order, in stark contrast to the A-10 which is essentially almost indestructible and there isn't much that can be done to it that can't be fixed with a big wrench and a hammer.[/QUOTE] The A-10 is certainly an amazing plane. Unfortunately it was an amazing plane that the manufacturer never wanted to produce. The Northrop YA-9 had huge backing and was supposed to win the trials for the next close air support aircraft being held by the government. Legally though, the government can't do a no bid contract there, so Fairchild Republic, who had no desire to build more military combat aircraft, was asked to put forward a bid. Obviously the idea was that they would put forward a crappy bid. I don't know what happened, but something went terribly wrong with their plan and the guy told to produce an aircraft out of what was basically junk made the YA-10. It beat the ever loving shit out of the YA-9. Neither the USAF nor Fairchild wanted the aircraft, but a contract was in force and it obligated Fairchild Republic to produce them. The USAF hated them at first, but after they stated seeing combat, clearly that opinion changed. Anyways, this brings me to the point: Fairchild Republic doesn't exist anymore. And even if they did, they produced as few of the air frames as possible. Notice how other countries in NATO constantly use USAF close air support because of the A-10's, but never buy A-10's themselves despite the low price tag? It is because they can't. Only the USAF ever got them, and we can't even get anymore without a huge up front cost of retooling a factory to produce them. My guess is that if we still had them, everyone in NATO and their mother would have at least a few.
Screw the jets. I'm more angry about the two Marines. Those are my soon to be brothers and arms.
[QUOTE=GunFox;37691835]The A-10 is certainly an amazing plane. Unfortunately it was an amazing plane that the manufacturer never wanted to produce. The Northrop YA-9 had huge backing and was supposed to win the trials for the next close air support aircraft being held by the government. Legally though, the government can't do a no bid contract there, so Fairchild Republic, who had no desire to build more military combat aircraft, was asked to put forward a bid. Obviously the idea was that they would put forward a crappy bid. I don't know what happened, but something went terribly wrong with their plan and the guy told to produce an aircraft out of what was basically junk made the YA-10. It beat the ever loving shit out of the YA-9. Neither the USAF nor Fairchild wanted the aircraft, but a contract was in force and it obligated Fairchild Republic to produce them. The USAF hated them at first, but after they stated seeing combat, clearly that opinion changed. Anyways, this brings me to the point: Fairchild Republic doesn't exist anymore. And even if they did, they produced as few of the air frames as possible. Notice how other countries in NATO constantly use USAF close air support because of the A-10's, but never buy A-10's themselves despite the low price tag? It is because they can't. Only the USAF ever got them, and we can't even get anymore without a huge up front cost of retooling a factory to produce them. My guess is that if we still had them, everyone in NATO and their mother would have at least a few.[/QUOTE] i bet those guys who created it were all like "i created a monster" and then fairchild republic suicided
[QUOTE=Fire Kracker;37691927]i bet those guys who created it were all like "i created a monster" and then fairchild republic suicided[/QUOTE] I always picture them telling some aerospace intern they had been using for coffee delivery to make a plane. He skitters off to a cubicle somewhere and produces the A-10 out of spite.
Fun fact: Camp Bastion is where Ed Macy was based out of. Ed Macy was an Apache pilot who [url=http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=88d_1297869730]fucking strapped an injured troop and two other guys to his Apache helicopter[/url] (Apache by Ed Macy is a great book by the way)
[QUOTE=GunFox;37691835]Notice how other countries in NATO constantly use USAF close air support because of the A-10's, but never buy A-10's themselves despite the low price tag? It is because they can't. Only the USAF ever got them, and we can't even get anymore without a huge up front cost of retooling a factory to produce them. My guess is that if we still had them, everyone in NATO and their mother would have at least a few.[/QUOTE] You think by now, someone would have wizened up and said, "Hmm.. Perhaps I should design a new ground support plane, designed for only ground support." It's pretty obvious, given how old they are, and that they see constant use, that the niche is one that needs a dedicated plane. Heck, a little while back the USAF announced the F-35 would not be replacing the A-10. That makes it the second time a replacement for it has been cancelled (first was a version of the F-16). The expected replacement date now is somewhere past 2028 now, 50 years after it first flew.
[QUOTE=Ogopogo;37693771]You think by now, someone would have wizened up and said, "Hmm.. Perhaps I should design a new ground support plane, designed for only ground support." It's pretty obvious, given how old they are, and that they see constant use, that the niche is one that needs a dedicated plane. Heck, a little while back the USAF announced the F-35 would not be replacing the A-10. That makes it the second time a replacement for it has been cancelled (first was a version of the F-16). The expected replacement date now is somewhere past 2028 now, 50 years after it first flew.[/QUOTE] [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Aircraft_A-67_Dragon]People have been looking for less costly designs forever[/url]
[QUOTE=smeismastger;37691711]Good for them, hopefully they can step it up and speed up the process of pulling out NATO forces from the country.[/QUOTE] Are you advocating the death of innocent people? It doesn't matter why we're there. No one, especially friendly soldiers, deserve to die.
Congratz Taliban, now you're not just terrorists, you're war criminals.
-$220,000,000 [editline]17th September 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=certified;37693972]Congratz Taliban, now you're not just terrorists, you're war criminals.[/QUOTE] Actually they aren't, since they aren't conventional combatants. I'm.. pretty sure war crimes only constitute in situations where two nations have declared war on each other, which is not the case here since these are irregular fighters.
[QUOTE=certified;37693972]Congratz Taliban, now you're not just terrorists, you're war criminals.[/QUOTE] Like they were not already?
[QUOTE=draugur;37694061]Like they were not already?[/QUOTE] Like we are not already?
[QUOTE=Disotrtion;37688746]BBC confirms the 6 fighter jets were American and not British.[/QUOTE] Why the fuck are people rating this funny and winner?
[QUOTE=.FLAP.JACK.DAN.;37694382]Why the fuck are people rating this funny and winner?[/QUOTE] I dunno. I thought the Brits still had Harriers in service, but I guess not.
[QUOTE=Disotrtion;37694489]I dunno. I thought the Brits still had Harriers in service, but I guess not.[/QUOTE] They do, but not "AV-8B" Harriers, also known as the USMC's variant.
[QUOTE=Killuah;37694221]Like we are not already?[/QUOTE] Yeah because we totally flew planes into highly populated civilian and government structures, bombed buses and tunnels, oh and attacked embassies all in the name of a religious faith? What's that? No, we didn't do that? Huh.
[QUOTE=draugur;37694648]Yeah because we totally flew planes into highly populated civilian and government structures, bombed buses and tunnels, oh and attacked embassies all in the name of a religious faith? What's that? No, we didn't do that? Huh.[/QUOTE] don't forget about how we bombed a destroyer in 2000
[QUOTE=Disotrtion;37694710]don't forget about how we bombed a destroyer in 2000[/QUOTE] Or how we failed at bombing the place we flew the planes into in 2001, in 1993.
[QUOTE=draugur;37694880]Or how we failed at bombing the place we flew the planes into in 2001, in 1993.[/QUOTE] or how we beheaded journalist Daniel Pearl
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.