Out of the Blue

I'm really looking forward to tonight's conclusion of The Night Of, HBO's miniseries that has been gripping from the start. This is an adaptation of a BBC series which is probably even better, but they have done a great job with it. The eight-episode format is why this feels like a breakthrough to me. It bridges the gap between a series and a movie, combining a film-like arc with TV series-style character development. I'll avoid rambling further to keep from spoiling this for anyone who hasn't watched, except to say you are missing out.

Gripping Links: Thanks Ant and Acleacius.
Link: Breathalyzer Vuvuzela.
Story: Big Food Is Probably Funding Your Favorite Foodie Startups.
Media: Mac King Shows Us A Rope Trick.
Cheeky McDonald's Drive Through.
Parrot and Guitarist - Beautiful Duet.
Follow-up: Lockheed Could “Fail to Deliver” F-35 Capabilities on Time.
The Funnies: Pokemon Woe - FoxTrot.
That which divides us… « EXTRALIFE.
View : : :
28 Replies. 2 pages. Viewing page 1.
Newer [  1  2  ] Older
28.
 
Re: Out of the Blue
Aug 29, 2016, 17:14
28.
Re: Out of the Blue Aug 29, 2016, 17:14
Aug 29, 2016, 17:14
 
The last paragraph sums it up well...

"In the end, the whole A-10 debate is silly and tiring. The aircraft takes up less than 2 percent of the USAF's yearly budget, and that does not include the tens of billions of dollars the service receives in addition for highly classified “black” programs. The A-10 is paid for, already upgraded, and ridiculously effective in the wars we are fighting today—not to mention it's the most cost-effective tactical jet platform in the entire Air Force. It's clearly a capability worth keeping, as it offers great reward at little cost and should not have to compete with the F-35. Nor should the F-35 have to compete with it. That's an adversarial concept created by the USAF as part of yet another attempt to axe the A-10, nothing more."
“Extinction is the rule. Survival is the exception.” -- Carl Sagan
27.
 
Re: Out of the Blue
Aug 29, 2016, 17:06
27.
Re: Out of the Blue Aug 29, 2016, 17:06
Aug 29, 2016, 17:06
 
Good article published today on A-10 and F-35 issues.
If Russia stops fighting, the war ends. If Ukraine stops fighting, Ukraine ends. Slava Ukraini!
Avatar 22024
26.
 
Re: Out of the Blue
Aug 29, 2016, 16:07
26.
Re: Out of the Blue Aug 29, 2016, 16:07
Aug 29, 2016, 16:07
 
Creston wrote on Aug 29, 2016, 08:50:
Vall Forran wrote on Aug 28, 2016, 21:49:
I tend to agree with the "why more fighters question?" Russia and China are bypassing jets and focusing on missiles that cannot be detected. I read an article where US admirals have laughed it off because the range of the missiles isn't very far.

Err, Russian and China are bypassing jets? Yeah, not really. China is hard at work on its own Gen 5 stealth fighter, prototypes of which are already flying, and Russia is heavily adapting the existing SUs to at least some type of parity with the F-22. (or trying to, anyway.)
The Chinese J-20 (a pretty cool looking indigenous design) and J-31 (made from stolen F-35 blueprints) nor the Russian PAK-FA won't be a match for F-22 or F-35. That being said, if they reduce the kill ratio from 20 to 1 down to 3 to 1, that itself could be a deterrent.

Our existing fighters can wreck the shit out of Afghanistan. I don't really see the USA having sorties with other first world tech countries.

That's very short-sighted, and not really based in any kind of geo-political reality. A NATO member shot down a Russian jet just nine months ago. Thinking you're going to be fighting guys on goats and thus you don't need to upgrade your badly aging arsenal is a very quick way to find yourself badly outclassed in any future scenario.
The South China Sea says "Hello."

That said, the F-35 is the kind of complete idiocy that only our "Money is infinite!" military can come up with.
In its defense, the plane was conceived with the thought of saving money. It was just poorly conceived. And based on technology that didn't exist, like its integrated C & C software (probably its biggest innovation) and augmented reality helmet.

I think the biggest takeaway is designing for all three branches requires too many compromises. While there are compromises converting a dogfighter like the F-16 into a fighter bomber, they are tolerable. It's just not the case when designing for the different branches. The F-35A, F-35B, and F-35C only share 20% common components; they are in effect three different aircraft. Better that they had each designed a specific aircraft to meet their needs instead of the F-35.
If Russia stops fighting, the war ends. If Ukraine stops fighting, Ukraine ends. Slava Ukraini!
Avatar 22024
25.
 
Re: Out of the Blue
Aug 29, 2016, 11:58
25.
Re: Out of the Blue Aug 29, 2016, 11:58
Aug 29, 2016, 11:58
 
Creston wrote on Aug 29, 2016, 08:50:

That's very short-sighted, and not really based in any kind of geo-political reality. A NATO member shot down a Russian jet just nine months ago.

At this point NATO is a fucking joke. What's really funny is that the only ones who don't seem to get that are the US, and Russia. Turkey is at this moment fighting a ground war against the Kurds in Syria, who are BTW the only reliable allies that the US has on the ground there, yeah GO NATO!
Avatar 58327
24.
 
Re: Out of the Blue
Aug 29, 2016, 10:38
24.
Re: Out of the Blue Aug 29, 2016, 10:38
Aug 29, 2016, 10:38
 
Cutter wrote on Aug 28, 2016, 18:06:
Why do you even need fighter jets or bombers anymore with missiles and drones? They're a lot less costly to design, develop, fly/use, and maintain.

Whilst I'm quite enjoying XCOM 2 atm, I am not - as many other people have noted - enjoying how every goddamned mission is timed. It completely eliminates anything but a brute force approach. And on normal the game is woefully unbalanced compared to my squad equipment and size. It ramps up way too fast.

If you want a hand holding experience without challenge then pick a lower difficulty. XCOM 2 on Normal is very forgiving, the timers are not always mandatory and they are made to propel you forward instead of save scumming/bunny hopping every move hoping to trigger an enemy pod while you have your whole team in overwatch. If you want less timers then there are mods for that but they pretty much ruin the games balance, not to mention hamper a sense of satisfaction from actually rising to a challenge. Normal difficulty is fine balance wise, there is a squad size upgrade that you probably somehow missed and your first XCOM2 game will not be a winner anyway as you will make mistakes and need to learn from them. Go play Ironman, it is the cure to your modern gamer complacency.
Avatar 51617
23.
 
Re: Out of the Blue
Aug 29, 2016, 08:50
23.
Re: Out of the Blue Aug 29, 2016, 08:50
Aug 29, 2016, 08:50
 
Vall Forran wrote on Aug 28, 2016, 21:49:
I tend to agree with the "why more fighters question?" Russia and China are bypassing jets and focusing on missiles that cannot be detected. I read an article where US admirals have laughed it off because the range of the missiles isn't very far.

Err, Russian and China are bypassing jets? Yeah, not really. China is hard at work on its own Gen 5 stealth fighter, prototypes of which are already flying, and Russia is heavily adapting the existing SUs to at least some type of parity with the F-22. (or trying to, anyway.)

Our existing fighters can wreck the shit out of Afghanistan. I don't really see the USA having sorties with other first world tech countries.

That's very short-sighted, and not really based in any kind of geo-political reality. A NATO member shot down a Russian jet just nine months ago. Thinking you're going to be fighting guys on goats and thus you don't need to upgrade your badly aging arsenal is a very quick way to find yourself badly outclassed in any future scenario.

That said, the F-35 is the kind of complete idiocy that only our "Money is infinite!" military can come up with.
Avatar 15604
22.
 
Re: Out of the Blue
Aug 29, 2016, 07:51
22.
Re: Out of the Blue Aug 29, 2016, 07:51
Aug 29, 2016, 07:51
 
jdreyer wrote on Aug 29, 2016, 07:04:
- Can provide a morale boost to ground troops. Watch this video. Hear the involuntary expressions of joy and relief. 'Nuff said.

"Happy Brrrt Day " haha I love it

I pretty much cheer like that everytime I fire the GAU-8 in DCS
too

jdreyer wrote on Aug 29, 2016, 07:04:

As far as Iglas and Strelas go, they are dangerous. However, there is technology to deal with these. The vid (which I can't find now) is pretty awesome, with the SAM going right for the plane until it suddenly starts wiggling all over the place.


So someone finally found a use for those nuisance laser pointers

This comment was edited on Aug 29, 2016, 08:01.
_________________________________________________
"Money doesn't exist in the 24th century, the acquisition of wealth is no longer the driving force in our lives. We work to better ourselves and the rest of humanity." - Jean-Luc Picard
21.
 
Re: Out of the Blue
Aug 29, 2016, 07:33
21.
Re: Out of the Blue Aug 29, 2016, 07:33
Aug 29, 2016, 07:33
 
Heh I see all the armchair Airforce Colonels are out in force today...

Another thing that the A10 does pretty well, due to the specific pilot training is AFAC, or Airborne Forward Air Control.

I recently read "A10s over Kosovo", great book if you want to learn about the capabilites of this particular plane, and its amazing pilots. This was before Iraq or Afghanistan, this was probably the last US intervention that actually made a difference to the people on the ground and that was done within a well planned and thought out long term plan for the region. In other words the Kosovar Albanians to this day consider the US and its troops allies and friends.


Avatar 58327
20.
 
Re: Out of the Blue
Aug 29, 2016, 07:04
20.
Re: Out of the Blue Aug 29, 2016, 07:04
Aug 29, 2016, 07:04
 
While it's true that the A-10 only provides about 20%-25% of CAS missions, it has unique capabilities not provided by any other aircraft.

- Slower on station, but faster to orient. It takes a JTAC a minute or two to orient an A-10 so he can start providing CAS. It takes 10 minutes to orient a fast mover, and 20 minutes to orient a drone. So, while they might take longer to get there, they can start being effective right away.

- Dedicated to the CAS mission. This is the pilot's main focus, and they're incredibly good at this mission. This focus allows them to not only be more effective, but able to respond to a fluid situation in realtime. They've got a multitude of tactics, strategies, and experiences they can draw on to protect ground forces that pilots with more general training might not have.

- Best at "Danger Close" CAS. Danger Close is when CAS really matters, because ground force lives are threatened by close contact with the enemy. The A-10's weapons and training are especially well suited to this kind of support. They can be oriented by the JTAC, view the situation first-hand outside the canopy, and respond in real-time with multiple sequential passes faster than any other aircraft in inventory. And while that massive 30mm cannon has a rep as a tank killer, it really excels at danger close CAS due to its small explosive radius.

There's a story of a US convoy that hit an IED with multiple wounded in Afghanistan, which was then ambushed by 100 Taliban fighters. A couple of A-10s provided CAS the for 8 hours until they could be rescued, draining their cannons to nothing and expending all of their ordinance. Because of their long loiter time (hours vs. minutes for fast movers) and high ordinance load, they could stay on station, leaving only momentarily a couple of times to refuel. No other aircraft would have been able to provide this kind of support, and had their been no A-10s, the after action report said the convoy would have easily been overrun and the platoon captured by the enemy with many KIA.

- Can stop fights before they start. There have been multiple stories of contact broken by the enemy by having A-10s do low-level passes over the AoE. The enemy withdraws in the face of this show of force instead of getting torn to shit. Can't do that from 20,000 feet. Only the A-10 can risk this kind of fly by, due to its armor and redundant systems. The aircraft has an unmatched psychological impact on the enemy. The Iraqis referred to it as the "Silent Death," and the Taliban call it "The Dragon."

- Can provide a morale boost to ground troops. Watch this video. Hear the involuntary expressions of joy and relief. 'Nuff said.

None of this says that high altitude CAS should go away. Of course not. B1-Bs, F-15s, etc provide the bulk of CAS and do things that that A-10 can't, and vice versa as I've just pointed out. They complement each other, and getting rid of one or the other would be detrimental to soldiers on the ground. But there is still a vital need for low-level CAS.

And nothing against combat helos; again they can do things no other aircraft can. They are extremely vulnerable though. They have suffered many factor higher combat losses than the A-10 in combat like 50 to the A-10s 7.

As far as Iglas and Strelas go, they are dangerous. However, there is technology to deal with these. The vid (which I can't find now) is pretty awesome, with the SAM going right for the plane until it suddenly starts wiggling all over the place.
If Russia stops fighting, the war ends. If Ukraine stops fighting, Ukraine ends. Slava Ukraini!
Avatar 22024
19.
 
Re: Out of the Blue
Aug 29, 2016, 05:51
19.
Re: Out of the Blue Aug 29, 2016, 05:51
Aug 29, 2016, 05:51
 
jdreyer wrote on Aug 29, 2016, 04:33:
bigspender wrote on Aug 28, 2016, 23:52:

I'm only guessing, but I would say that their line of thinking is that even a small country can potentially buy advanced Russian or Chinese technology. While we are almost free to bomb right now, it would only take ISIS to buy some 80s-90s soviet tech from an ex-soviet country to completely change the game.
Because that worked out so well for Iraq during Desert Storm and Iraqi Freedom?



OK yeah fair point in the end it didn't make a whole lot of difference, but it changes the game in terms of cost, time, and the way missions were approached.
_________________________________________________
"Money doesn't exist in the 24th century, the acquisition of wealth is no longer the driving force in our lives. We work to better ourselves and the rest of humanity." - Jean-Luc Picard
18.
 
Re: Out of the Blue
Aug 29, 2016, 04:33
18.
Re: Out of the Blue Aug 29, 2016, 04:33
Aug 29, 2016, 04:33
 
bigspender wrote on Aug 28, 2016, 23:52:
Vall Forran wrote on Aug 28, 2016, 21:49:
I tend to agree with the "why more fighters question?" Russia and China are bypassing jets and focusing on missiles that cannot be detected. I read an article where US admirals have laughed it off because the range of the missiles isn't very far.

Our existing fighters can wreck the shit out of Afghanistan. I don't really see the USA having sorties with other first world tech countries.

I'm only guessing, but I would say that their line of thinking is that even a small country can potentially buy advanced Russian or Chinese technology. While we are almost free to bomb right now, it would only take ISIS to buy some 80s-90s soviet tech from an ex-soviet country to completely change the game.
Because that worked out so well for Iraq during Desert Storm and Iraqi Freedom?

Some countries also have large arsenals of less sophisticated aircraft, the best way to counter that is not with another large airforce and have a fair fight where each side has similar losses, but rather a technological advantage where one friendly plane is capable of taking out 10 enemies. Moral and public support comes into it as well. Right now it's not an issue, but I'm thinking of in terms of something like WW1 where other countries got dragged into the conflict.
Right, and the F-35 excels at that, at least in simulation. And there's actual combat precedent for that, like Operation Mole Cricket, in which the Israeli AF shot down 86 enemy aircraft with zero losses.

The "undetectable missiles" is a very good reason to develop stealth technology on the planes. Because if you can't see a missile coming, then it's best not to be fired on at all.
It's also good to be under the radar so an S400 can't lock on you from 100 miles out. Planes like the A-10 are designed for very low level flying, unlike the F-35 or multipurpose jets.


If Russia stops fighting, the war ends. If Ukraine stops fighting, Ukraine ends. Slava Ukraini!
Avatar 22024
17.
 
Re: Out of the Blue
Aug 29, 2016, 03:58
17.
Re: Out of the Blue Aug 29, 2016, 03:58
Aug 29, 2016, 03:58
 
Mr. Tact wrote on Aug 28, 2016, 19:22:
The thing about the A-10 is, it does a perfect job of ground support and tank killing. No other aircraft does the job half as well.

I was told once in the USAF, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." is not an acceptable mindset. They want, "If it ain't broke, what can I do to make it better?" While I understand the point they are striving for, it fails to allow for a situation like this were there really isn't a better solution.


They've been making the A-10 better. The A-10C upgrade added a slew of features to improve the aircraft including an F-16-style HOTAS, PE for all-weather operations, upgraded communications suite, new fire control computers, new MFDs, etc. etc. Same tough shell and guns, new better brains and eyes. And none of those upgrades include things like sniper pods which can be attached externally.
If Russia stops fighting, the war ends. If Ukraine stops fighting, Ukraine ends. Slava Ukraini!
Avatar 22024
16.
 
Re: Out of the Blue
Aug 29, 2016, 03:14
16.
Re: Out of the Blue Aug 29, 2016, 03:14
Aug 29, 2016, 03:14
 
Cutter wrote on Aug 28, 2016, 18:06:
Why do you even need fighter jets or bombers anymore with missiles and drones? They're a lot less costly to design, develop, fly/use, and maintain.

Funny you should say that. The Navy had autonomous stealthy drones that worked in tandem to eliminate enemies and complete missions more than 10 years ago. Then for some reason they mysteriously stopped development. Now the only autonomous drone they're deploying is a tanker. And while the USAF has plenty of drones, none are autonomous. Very odd that the program was shut down. Probably pushback from some general romanticising the fighter pilot.

Whilst I'm quite enjoying XCOM 2 atm, I am not - as many other people have noted - enjoying how every goddamned mission is timed. It completely eliminates anything but a brute force approach. And on normal the game is woefully unbalanced compared to my squad equipment and size. It ramps up way too fast.

There's a mod for that (TM).
If Russia stops fighting, the war ends. If Ukraine stops fighting, Ukraine ends. Slava Ukraini!
Avatar 22024
15.
 
Re: Out of the Blue
Aug 28, 2016, 23:52
15.
Re: Out of the Blue Aug 28, 2016, 23:52
Aug 28, 2016, 23:52
 
Vall Forran wrote on Aug 28, 2016, 21:49:
I tend to agree with the "why more fighters question?" Russia and China are bypassing jets and focusing on missiles that cannot be detected. I read an article where US admirals have laughed it off because the range of the missiles isn't very far.

Our existing fighters can wreck the shit out of Afghanistan. I don't really see the USA having sorties with other first world tech countries.

I'm only guessing, but I would say that their line of thinking is that even a small country can potentially buy advanced Russian or Chinese technology. While we are almost free to bomb right now, it would only take ISIS to buy some 80s-90s soviet tech from an ex-soviet country to completely change the game.

Some countries also have large arsenals of less sophisticated aircraft, the best way to counter that is not with another large airforce and have a fair fight where each side has similar losses, but rather a technological advantage where one friendly plane is capable of taking out 10 enemies. Moral and public support comes into it as well. Right now it's not an issue, but I'm thinking of in terms of something like WW1 where other countries got dragged into the conflict.

The "undetectable missiles" is a very good reason to develop stealth technology on the planes. Because if you can't see a missile coming, then it's best not to be fired on at all.

The F-35 has a similar thing too, where the radar randomly changes it's frequency, so that the enemy plane does not detect a radar pattern, and therefore doesn't know it's being locked onto (the radar on the plane guides the missile most of the way to the enemy). So for the an enemy, the first sign of conflict will be when the wingmen start exploding At least that's the theory.
_________________________________________________
"Money doesn't exist in the 24th century, the acquisition of wealth is no longer the driving force in our lives. We work to better ourselves and the rest of humanity." - Jean-Luc Picard
14.
 
Re: Out of the Blue
Aug 28, 2016, 21:49
14.
Re: Out of the Blue Aug 28, 2016, 21:49
Aug 28, 2016, 21:49
 
I tend to agree with the "why more fighters question?" Russia and China are bypassing jets and focusing on missiles that cannot be detected. I read an article where US admirals have laughed it off because the range of the missiles isn't very far.

Our existing fighters can wreck the shit out of Afghanistan. I don't really see the USA having sorties with other first world tech countries.
13.
 
Re: Out of the Blue
Aug 28, 2016, 20:54
13.
Re: Out of the Blue Aug 28, 2016, 20:54
Aug 28, 2016, 20:54
 
Cutter wrote on Aug 28, 2016, 18:06:
Why do you even need fighter jets or bombers anymore with missiles and drones? They're a lot less costly to design, develop, fly/use, and maintain.

And you can fly them from your home country! Just drive to work like a normal job. That's so strange, but really cool.
_________________________________________________
"Money doesn't exist in the 24th century, the acquisition of wealth is no longer the driving force in our lives. We work to better ourselves and the rest of humanity." - Jean-Luc Picard
12.
 
Re: Out of the Blue
Aug 28, 2016, 20:36
12.
Re: Out of the Blue Aug 28, 2016, 20:36
Aug 28, 2016, 20:36
 
jdreyer wrote on Aug 28, 2016, 13:02:
RoboNerd wrote on Aug 28, 2016, 11:49:
Re: Lockheed Could “Fail to Deliver” F-35 Capabilities on Time.

I vote for killing off this turkey and building more A-10s. Salute2

Lesson learned: build the plane for the mission, and stop with the Swiss army knives already.

It does seem like a bad idea, because we're used to thinking with the "Jack of all trades, master of none".
But just about all planes currently in service, have been turned into Swiss army knives to keep them in service. So it makes a lot of sense that any new plane would be a multi-role plane from the ground up, instead of making it mission specific, like the A-10, F-14, F-16, F-15 and then retro-fitting them with multi-role capabilities to keep them relevant over their lifespans. It's not only more engineering, logistic and maintenance, but also pilot training time as well, when you keep adding on bits and pieces.

Where as the F-35 has all of these systems are integrated with a consistent pilot experience, meaning less training, fewer logistics issues and costs with spare parts etc. They've done the hard work up front, instead of having to go back to the drawing board every half decade to add bits on, and retrain pilots.

The F/A-18's were also built as Swiss army knives from the ground up, and nobody complains about them now. Although I think they did initially way back when, for the same reasons, it didn't go as fast, shoot as far, have as many weapons etc. It did have trade-offs. However with the F-35 it doesn't really have any trade offs - as far as I'm aware it does everything better than the current set of aircraft - apart from stealth. (It's less stealthy than the B-2's and F-22's, but these have their own set of maintenance issues, like climate controlled hangers, and other trade offs such as B-2's usually have to fly at night)


I guess the F/A-18s didn't go 10 years over time and over budget though haha!

Don't get me wrong, the F-35's development has been a complete farce which is no surprise with the cocky asshat manufacturer, but I think the plane, once finished will be very capable, assuming of course it does things how it's supposed to.(It's definitely got some issues, but all military aircraft have teething issues) Feel free to prove me wrong, I'm not an F-35 fanboy(despite how it might sound lol) so happy to read more about it, but everything I've read about the F-35's problems so far seem to be sensationalist, or simply inaccurate. E.g. when they reported it was less maneuverable than current fighters, it wasn't even a maneuverability test, despite what the headlines said. Or you have Pierre Sprey saying that the wings are too small to generate lift, because he doesn't understand that a lot of the lift on the F-35 is generated by the body as well. And so on.

It would have definitely been cheaper to create completely separate and mission specific aircraft in the short term, no doubt. But you lose all of the flexibility. With a multi-role plane you have all of your fighters, bombers, SEAD, CAS etc everywhere all the time, at every airbase.

This comment was edited on Aug 28, 2016, 20:57.
_________________________________________________
"Money doesn't exist in the 24th century, the acquisition of wealth is no longer the driving force in our lives. We work to better ourselves and the rest of humanity." - Jean-Luc Picard
11.
 
Re: Out of the Blue
Aug 28, 2016, 19:50
11.
Re: Out of the Blue Aug 28, 2016, 19:50
Aug 28, 2016, 19:50
 
RoboNerd wrote on Aug 28, 2016, 11:49:
Re: Lockheed Could “Fail to Deliver” F-35 Capabilities on Time.

I vote for killing off this turkey and building more A-10s. Salute2

I thought the same thing because I thought the loiter capability was a useful thing. Upon reading more about it, it turns out the A-10's already drop only a small percentage of the bombs.

Most of the close air support is performed by fast moving jets like the F-16, F-15E etc, since they are able to respond much, much, much faster. These fast movers also have ground radar, so target identification is easier - try finding a Shilka in the middle of a suburb with your eyeballs or purely optical means, it's quite tedious and time consuming.

And if loitering is required then it's performed better by helicopters and drones, since they can both loiter for longer, but helicopters also provide sustained fire power without having spend 30-60 seconds turning around for another pass.


The A-10 is also quite vulnerable to man-portable infrared missile systems like IGLA's or stingers. Where as a fast moving jet fly's out their effective height range and/or at such speeds that by the time someone has aimed and and fired a shoulder mounted missile, and by the time the missile gets to the right altitude, the fast jet will be out of range.

I love the A-10, I've probably got 500hrs in it as a virtual pilot in DCS. But it has a very specific set of circumstances where it becomes the most effective aircraft to use.
_________________________________________________
"Money doesn't exist in the 24th century, the acquisition of wealth is no longer the driving force in our lives. We work to better ourselves and the rest of humanity." - Jean-Luc Picard
10.
 
Re: Out of the Blue
Aug 28, 2016, 19:22
10.
Re: Out of the Blue Aug 28, 2016, 19:22
Aug 28, 2016, 19:22
 
The thing about the A-10 is, it does a perfect job of ground support and tank killing. No other aircraft does the job half as well.

I was told once in the USAF, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." is not an acceptable mindset. They want, "If it ain't broke, what can I do to make it better?" While I understand the point they are striving for, it fails to allow for a situation like this were there really isn't a better solution.

“Extinction is the rule. Survival is the exception.” -- Carl Sagan
9.
 
Re: Out of the Blue
Aug 28, 2016, 18:06
9.
Re: Out of the Blue Aug 28, 2016, 18:06
Aug 28, 2016, 18:06
 
Why do you even need fighter jets or bombers anymore with missiles and drones? They're a lot less costly to design, develop, fly/use, and maintain.

Whilst I'm quite enjoying XCOM 2 atm, I am not - as many other people have noted - enjoying how every goddamned mission is timed. It completely eliminates anything but a brute force approach. And on normal the game is woefully unbalanced compared to my squad equipment and size. It ramps up way too fast.
"Van Gogh painted alone and in despair and in madness and sold one picture in his entire life. Millions struggled alone, unrecognized, and struggled as heroically as any famous hero. Was it worthless? I knew it wasn't."
28 Replies. 2 pages. Viewing page 1.
Newer [  1  2  ] Older