|
Post by demonnachos on May 1, 2016 4:32:22 GMT
To reduce cost? Those things cost more than 9 A-10s. The F-15 is a fairly old bird too but that thing (as of about 2011) has a kill record of 105-0. Just because they are old doesn't mean they aren't still badasses. If the ones in service are getting old just build some more.
|
|
|
Post by wordweaver3 on May 1, 2016 6:34:36 GMT
The problem with the A-10 is that it was mothballed at one point. Some military top brass got it into their heads that they will never have a need to put ground forces anywhere, so there was no point in having a close support aircraft. This is pre 9/11 mindset, folks. They honestly thought war was something we'd never have to bother with anymore. All you needed was stealth planes and bombers. When you mothball a piece of military hardware all the support for that vehicle goes away. This includes the factories and machines that build parts for it. Eventually the military realized that mothballing the A-10 was a huge mistake and hastily put it back into service, but the support was long gone, not to mention the facilities to build new ones. There's no way that congress will front the bill to build new A-10s. Basically the plane stays in the air now through cannibalism. Pulling one plane apart to keep several others in the air. There's a limit to how long you can do that so the plane needs a replacement sooner or later. The problem with the F-35 as a replacement is that the F-35 is billed as a "jack of all trades". People forget that the rest of that phrase is "master of none". The plane will do a lot of things but won't specialize in anything. Air to air it will be inferior to the F-15, air to surface it will be inferior to the A-10, and presumably as a jump jet it will be inferior or merely equal to the Harrier. Considering that the military learned the hard way that a do-all rifle was a pointless endeavor, it seems odd that they would abandon specialized aircraft. Have I told you lately how much I hate you, Renard? The H&R Model 999 is one of the pistols on my short list of "must haves". The 199 is nearly indistinguishable and I'd be more than happy to have one of those. H&R is one of the few American companies that routinely made top break revolvers. I really want one but every time I find one it's seriously overpriced or seriously abused. At 150 I wouldn't have thought about it either. I recommend a Model 60. According to Marlin it's the most popular .22 rifle in the world. Though I'm sure Ruger would disagree. Still, with a price point of a new Model 60 starting under 200 bucks and used ones going for way less, you're unlikely to be disappointed. Of course if you like having tons of aftermarket crap available you're better off with the 10/22. For some reason there isn't much aftermarket for the 60. Really they're both fantastic rifles and you could do worse than to have both. I'm thinking about getting a 10/22 Charger.
|
|
|
Post by demonnachos on May 1, 2016 6:46:40 GMT
Personally this "Jack of All Trades" bollocks is just stupid. One size does not fit all, particular if that size is so needlessly overload with pointless finnicky gizmos that one little glitch kills the whole damn plane. They would need to build all new facilities to produce the Windows Vista of aircraft, so new plants need to be built regardless. You can either go with the hunk of overpriced shit or the tested warbird you already know how to build. Unless there is a very drastic shift in technology (ie something as big as the Jet engine) the current batch of planes aren't going to be needing replacement for a long time (with the current political climate especially). Hell, I don't think the F-22 has seen a single serious combat mission that's put it to its paces and that fucker is about 10 years old now (And still riddled with bugs last I read). Meanwhile our F-15 is 105-0 with no equal on the horizon.
Worse yet, with advances in drone technology it is very likely that piloted aircraft aren't going to be around that much longer anyways. The Predator drones currently are near impossible to detect and can put a missile onto nearly any target anywhere. A dozen of those can decimate an air fleet, so there is even LESS of a reason to develop a super-advanced box of glitch.
|
|
|
Post by Horsie on May 1, 2016 15:16:46 GMT
Why the hell would anyone think ground forces would be a thing of the past? Yeah, it's a nice pistol, I've sort of been casually looking for an H&R for a while, hoping one would crop up at a gun show or a store. Personally I think I prefer the 199, not only because I'm going to have one shortly, but because I don't really have a use for the double-action capability of the 999. The one I've considered is the CZ 512, preferably the version chambered for .22mag; They're a bit more pricey though, about $600 US here.
|
|
|
Post by wordweaver3 on May 1, 2016 17:58:45 GMT
Why would someone build a fighter jet without a gun? I donno. Military folks come up with odd ideas on how battles will be fought.
.22 mag aside, I'm pretty sure the 512 is pretty much on par with either a Model 60 or a 10/22 at the cost of both. The 512 also doesn't have hold open on the bolt for last shot. Something that the Model 60 has had standard since the 80s and the 10/22 can be easily modified to have. I also don't care for the CZ 512s profile, it reminds me of a BB gun.
|
|
|
Post by Horsie on May 1, 2016 18:16:54 GMT
I just read another article about the F-35 and it seems that while it will have a gun (not usable until about 2019, when the software to operate it is released for front-line use), it's only going to have a supply of 180 or 220 rounds depending on the configuration of the aircraft, enough ammunition to fire the gun for a fraction of a second. They really would be better off just removing the gun entirely in that case.
It's also too heavy to manoeuvre and accelerate to be useful in close-in air-to-air combat, which means that it can only take on enemy aircraft in over-the-horizon situations, and from the sounds of it the F-35 won't just be ineffective as a ground support aircraft, it may even be dangerous as it's only capable of using GPS guided bombs, so it either can't provide support when friendly troops are in close proximity to the enemy, or the pilot will have to risk killing friendly troops. I read that it's supposed to be operated from high altitude, and since the bombs are basically fire and forget and the pilot can't come in close to check the targets, and it seems likely that they'd end up dropping bombs on friendly troops if the situation on the ground is very fluid.
I suspect at this point that they've spent so much money on developing the aircraft that they're afraid to admit it's not going to work.
I don't much care for the 10/22, I've used quite a few of them, but they just don't do it for me. Having a hold open is nice, but I like the look of the CZ a lot more, and I'm not particularly fond of tube mags. More likely than not I won't end up getting one anyway, I've got a list of other things I "need" before I'd consider hunting down a semi-auto 22.
|
|
|
Post by demonnachos on May 1, 2016 18:25:02 GMT
It all around is just a garbage design based on old philosophies that are long since proven wrong with a massive over-reliance on finicky technology. The AC-130 is an old bird but there is no greater angel in the sky for our ground troops (you will always need grunts to do the legwork, you can't hold a hill with a bomber). Simple and reliable is what wins wars.
|
|
|
Post by wordweaver3 on May 1, 2016 18:52:12 GMT
The AC-130 is pretty much delegated to nighttime support. It's really big and easy to shoot down. The A-10 can support during the day because it can take a beating. There's also the benefit that it will draw attention away from your ground troops, something the F-35 won't do given it's operating altitude.
It's also fucking horrifying. Sometimes all that's needed is a flyby to break morale and scatter the enemy.
If the A-10 is retired I'm pretty sure what will happen is they'll find the F-35 unsuitable for its role. Even worse that will force them to use attack helicopters to try and fill that role. Helicopters are more vulnerable to small arms fire, are slower, have shorter operating range, and carry a lower weapon payload. It will also likely drive the military to operate primarily at night where ground troops are less effective and collateral damage is higher.
|
|
|
Post by demonnachos on May 1, 2016 19:08:25 GMT
If the enemy has close air support and you don't, you get the hell out of there. One volley of BRRRRRRRTTT! is all it takes to rout the enemy really, because if you hear this scream (Which may not be an A-10 specifically as the title implies, the sound is not quite right) you are not going to want to stick around:
|
|
|
Post by wordweaver3 on May 1, 2016 20:13:50 GMT
What are you? A pinko commie? What's more American than a .22 with a 50 round drum magazine? I like tube mags because they can have higher capacities without mucking up the lines of a rifle. My Model 60 has 18 rounds and I can shoot it from a rest without having to accommodate a big banana mag sticking out the bottom. They're also very reliable and integrated into the firearm so you don't gotta feel the need to purchase spare mags. If you want fast loading they make speed loaders that are cheap and work great.
|
|
|
Post by Horsie on May 1, 2016 21:24:20 GMT
But I'm not American, I don't even like apple pie!
Smaller mags means I go through my ammo a bit slower, which is nice since I like to use Lapua and Eley match grade ammo.
|
|
|
Post by wordweaver3 on May 2, 2016 3:33:00 GMT
Smaller mags means I go through my ammo a bit slower, What strange and foreign concepts. Y'know a funny thing? I thought when I got a revolver that I'd use less ammo because it has a lower capacity. Turns out that's not true at all. Plunking those shells into the cylinder is so easy and therapeutic that it's not unusual for me to burn through 100 rounds in fifteen minutes if I don't pace myself. The thing about the new 92 I got is loading is kinda slow so it's not as expensive to shoot in the same given range time. Prolly if I pick up a revolver with a loading gate instead of a swing out cylinder that would change. I almost never shoot match grade .22lr. It seems to defeat the purpose of a .22 if you're shooting ammo that cost as much or more than 9mm. Plus I've rarely been unhappy with the performance of bulk .22lr. Sure, some off brand garbage sometimes disappoints, but the big brand stuff is usually fine.
|
|
|
Post by Horsie on May 2, 2016 3:50:35 GMT
That's a problem I have with revolvers too I find my CZ455 doesn't group very well with bulk .22LR, or at least not as well as I would like. It would probably group better if I used it at 50yds, but the only things I use at less than 100yds are pistols. I can get match .22LR from a place in town for a good price though, still cheaper than other ammunition I buy. I might actually see what it'll do at 200yds this weekend, wind permitting.
|
|
|
Post by wordweaver3 on May 2, 2016 4:37:33 GMT
Ah, well that might be the difference. I'm happy if my .22s perform well at 50 yards and don't go out to 100 very often. On a separate issue I finally found my camera that I lost last summer. Turns out it fell behind a piece of furniture I rarely move. I figured I'd pop up a bunch of pictures of guns I've bought but never posted pics of. The Rossi 92. If you look closely you can just make out a bit of discolor at the butt from water damage. Not a big issue though. I painted the rear sight, polished the brass front sight, and wrapped some paracord around the lever to make it more comfortable to use. I'll eventually swap the cord for leather. The Walther SP22. My big, goofy, Robocop gun. I wanna toss that scope and do some work on the trigger. Still, it shoots quite well with all the weight holding it down. The little joy to shoot Taurus 94. I swapped out the cheap rubber grip for this fine little wooden one. It feels like it belongs in my hand. Interestingly I just learned that Taurus discontinued the model 94 this year. This caused a modest jump in prices for these little revolvers that are still in stock. The Taurus Poly M25. I'll probably trade this one in eventually for a steel frame .25acp. The thicker poly frame makes it easier to shoot cuz it fills the hand better, but it sorta defeats the purpose of a .25 if it's fat. The 100 dollar Cobra .38 special and the 50 dollar Italian switchblade. I thought these two looked pretty good together. Like things you'd find in a mobsters vest pocket. Still afraid to shoot the cheap Cobra. Might frame these two as a conversation piece. The two tone Bersa Firestorm. This is a sweet little shooter. Very accurate, very manageable, very reliable. This is the gun I would recommend for anyone new to shooting. It's not scary and it makes you feel very confident. The Flobert .22 Long gallery gun. It's in pretty nice shape for a gun from the 19th century. Still haven't taken it to the gunsmith to have him okay it for shooting. I'm pretty sure it would be fine, but it's always nice to have someone else gauge the risk for you.
|
|
|
Post by Horsie on May 2, 2016 14:55:15 GMT
I can't see the discolouration, maybe it's something you only really notice if you know where to look?
I had to look up what that barrel weight was, at first I thought there was a set of roller bearings on the frame of your pistol!
I like the grip on your Taurus, I really ought to look for a set for my M66. How much have you seen the M94s going for now?
That M25 is pretty fucking small. Does it have a tip-up barrel?
Didn't you say you had some issues with the trigger on the Cobra? You had to lift and pull it or something?
The recently released a version of the .22LR Bersa Thunder here with an extended barrel (to make it legal), I've been thinking of buying one if one turns up at a local shop.
I saw a couple of rifles like that at a recent gun show. You're clearly safer than I am, when it comes to low pressure firearms I tend to just load it and pull the trigger with my face turned away.
|
|