Charles Lindbergh <spirit@stlouis.invalid> wrote in
news:9ftm5alias5v7tm9n6k0ll185fhojput1m@4ax.com:
> On Wed, 05 Nov 2014 21:56:02 -0800, "Bob (not my real pseudonym)"
> <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 05 Nov 2014 13:58:17 +0000, Charles Lindbergh
>><spirit@stlouis.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 04 Nov 2014 21:51:33 -0800, "Bob (not my real pseudonym)"
>>><invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>Now, that's putting lipstick on a pig!
>>>
>>>I am curious, why do you think the Apache is a "pig"?
>>
>>Not intending to be derogatory, but the Apache will never win a beauty
>>contest. It does, however, look like it means business and nothing
>>but.
>>
>>It was just that (those) fancy Dutch paintjob(s) after seeing all the
>>"boring" US Army olive drab that surprised me.
>>
> I figured that out after I posted the question.
>
> The Apache is ugly, but it is so beautiful in it's utility, somewhat
> like the A-10.
>
> Although, I don't find the A-10 as unattractive as do so many others.
> In fact, I feel it is so perfect in it's design I would love to see it
> brought back into manufacture in an updated version.
What can an A-10 do that a drone strike
cannot, with less exposure of a pilot to
danger?
|
|
')){kind=link}