Obama says kill the new bomber and delay the tanker

[SIG600]

Oh well, just keep doing more with less.

Until the minimum isn't good enough, then we'll raise it.

 

[AA717driver]

I think it's clear that the most imminent threat to this country is from our own politicians.

From the W.H. down to the mid-career, ladder-climbing denizens of the Pentagon (who only venture into the operational world long enough to punch their ticket...) to the halls of Boeing/LM/GD or whatever monolith the defense contractors have morphed into this week, this country is being ruined by 'special interested' politicians.

If the FB-111 works cheaply, pull it out of the desert. If the BUFF still works as a bomb truck or nuke cruise missile carrier, open up the line. Fu@k the suits at Boeing!

Too many people in the military-industrial complex (where have we heard THAT before?) have sucked billions out of our pockets on wasteful bureaucratic cluster-f#@ks with nothing to show for it.

I'm at the point where I'm going to discourage my son from entering the military because I'd go nuts if some politician got him killed for some bull$h!t reason.

Good luck to all you guys in the military out there!

TC

 

[dtfl]

Yes reffering to the KA-350, known as the C-12, I put the A there as a mission add-on. I think they are going to call it a MC-12. Supposed to hang GDAM;s on it and have loiter around the battlefield

AFAIK there are no plans to put weapons on a King Air. There are RC12s coming on the line...and there are Pilatus PC12s that have a mission designator.
The only smaller aircraft with weapons that AFSOC has announced (hence the M) are Preds and the C27s that I know of...if you don't count the gun pod on the CV22.

There is talk of an AT-6...just talk.

 

[Cobra17]

What about a C-12 outfitted with two Chuck Norris's? Would that be a violation of the Geneva convention?

 

[AA717driver]

What about a C-12 outfitted with two Chuck Norris's? Would that be a violation of the Geneva convention?

It wouldn't be a violation of the GC but, IMO, it just wouldn't be fair.


TC

 

[pilotyip]

Aw&st

AFAIK there are no plans to put weapons on a King Air. There are RC12s coming on the line...and there are Pilatus PC12s that have a mission designator.
The only smaller aircraft with weapons that AFSOC has announced (hence the M) are Preds and the C27s that I know of...if you don't count the gun pod on the CV22.

There is talk of an AT-6...just talk.

Av Week had an article a while back about the USAF getting 27 (?) MC-12's. They mentioned these would have an offensive mission capability. Same article talked about the AT-6, whcih 60 yrs ago stood for the the Advanced Trainer 6

 

[Mud Eagle]

Same article talked about the AT-6, whcih 60 yrs ago stood for the the Advanced Trainer 6

Still does....except the "A" is for "Attack" now.

 

[pilotyip]

Still does....except the "A" is for "Attack" now.

that is right and F is the designation for fighter, except I don't think there are any of them left. Everything even the F-22 has an "A" role to play. As I noticed around the ship "A" guys worked for a living, "F" guys orbited in BarCap.

 

[Oh-ryan]

Along those lines- the "F" had no business being placed in front of the 117.

 

[JFReservist]

Sure would, for people in Europe. The Marine 1 contract and the Tanker projects were both given to European manufactures by the Bush Administration and Bush's Pentagon.

It took Obama coming in and putting the skids on these projects to say enough is enough. No more of the Republicans sending all of our good high paying jobs over seas for the Brits and the Indians to get all the work while we sit here at home unemployed.

I'm just saying.....

You could gag a maggot with that whining. I've crewed on the whistling $hitcan (HH-65), which was bought by CARTER's (dem) administration with a super-majority (Dem) congress. There was a great American alternative, but it happened to be in the wrong district.

Too bad Obama wasn't around to stop that one,
I'm just saying.....