Search results

Foxbat also had non-flush rivets, the thing was hobbled by bad industry all the way down.

The only differences in basic structure I see, as opposed to subtle details, are the MiG-25 having fully flat wing-tips, the tail-wings being flat and mounted directly to the engine casing instead of having a longer panel, and the cockpit(s?) following a centerline tube instead of being a...

The design target was set in 1970, so the tank the GAU-8 was built to kill was the T-64, and the T-72 was still in its original configuration by the time the GAU-8 entered service, predating the T-72A, which added a considerable amount of composite armor to the turret front and sides, by two...

The T-64 came from realizing 160 mm of frontal armor was doable, and had the Soviet's first composite armor. Cite me vehicles that are not full-on tanks with that level of protection. What the fuck is there that is not a literal tank shrugging off the 30 mm autocannon?

Tomahawking every pickup with a tripod bolted on is not an economical use-case. That gun worked well against contemporary Soviet tanks, and has not magically stopped penetrating the same armor since then. Virtually everything less than a tank goes down to that gun, and the A-10 is perfectly...

That's budget bullshit, though, not a problem of the design. That is one of the single largest pieces of supporting evidence for "the air force does not want to fund A-10s so they can spend the money on more zoomies."

You've still not provided solid evidence against the A-10 in its intended role, nor evidence for your suggestions about data access being remotely plausible. I have not forgotten your completely unsourced "smart dust" bullshit. Redundancy still works in most conditions, as there is a massive...