"End looms for US Air Force's 'Warthog' ground-attack jet" This is Ridiculous!

What matters is the munitions and other weapons systems that can be carried by an aircraft, not the platform itself. Sensors, data links and targeting pods have as much of an impact as the weapons themselves. Multi-mission aircraft makes sense in the future rather than developing platforms for single missions. ,With the technology now available, including precision weapons, dedicated close-air support platforms are no longer needed.

The A-10 was designed for visual map-to-ground close air support. This isn't the preferred, way of delivering CAS anymore.

 

We could sell them to Hollywood and have a 'reality show' with aerial demolition derbies, I guess.

 

Well...you are Preaching to the Choir!!! LOL!!!

I am now in a European Nation...YAHOO!!!

And yes...I agree....I don't want a DRONE near me either until the new one's that allow Ground Forces to control them are available.

AboveAlpha

 

Actually, A-10s are very quiet, especially from their front aspect. If you're in combat, or with a column of vehicles, I guarantee you won't hear them until they pull off target and you're in their rear aspect.

If it were that easy, there wouldn't have been as many fratricides in Iraq or Afghanistan as there were. First, unless you have a SINCGARS radio and know what net the local FAC is on, you can scream all you want and it won't matter. We never knew what freqs the Army was using for company level C&C, so it's almost inconceivable that an individual patrol would know what nets the Air Force was using for CAS. Two, 'screaming to any FAC that it is a friendly unit' is useless because the FAC you're screaming to may not be the one controlling the A-10s rolling in on you. And even if it is, he may well have more than one flight of A-10s under his control. So what you need to do is give him your EXACT position (assuming you have the right FAC), then he will see if he has any aircraft working a target at that location, and tell them to abort their run. The thing is, this all takes time, which you don't have. Evan at only 300 KIAS, things happen very fast.

 

After the announcement for the planned retirement of the entire A-10 active inventory, the defense blogs, discussion groups and forums lit up to defend the venerable aircraft. Lost in the shuffle was also the decision to retire the entire U-2 reconnissance airplane inventory to be replaced by the Global Hawk UAS "drone." Nary a mention or discussion of the planned retirement of the U-2, the A-10 was and remains the center of attention.

It was assumed that because of budget constraints,having both options of the U-2 and Global Hawk for high-altitude intelligence, reconnaissance and surveillance (ISR) missions was not feasible, It would be easy to portray this as a contest between modernity and nostalgia. Basically pitting a cutting-edge unmanned system against a piloted Cold War relic. Phase out the 50-year-old U-2 in favor of the unmanned Global Hawk” beginning in 2016...easy decision right?

Not so fast.

The last U-2, the U-2S, rolled off Lockheed Martin's production line in the 1980s. More importantly, the key sensors, electro-optical/infrared camera, radar and signals intelligence antenna; have been upgraded in the past decade.

I'm going to present the top reasons why the U-2 is the better aircraft for the mission, and should remain in active service.

1. The U-2 has a sophisticated defensive system to protect against attack from advanced S-300 and S-400 Russian-built air-defense systems. The Global Hawk does not.

2. The Global Hawk can fly a full day longer without landing, but the U-2 can fly higher (70,000 ft.-plus compared to 55,000-60,000 ft.).

3. The U-2 can carry more payload than the Global Hawk (about 5,000 versus 3,000 lb.) and has more electrical power. Being a UAS, the Global Hawk is harder to deploy to a foreign location and operations are harder to get up and running.

4. The UAS does not have an anti-icing system, thus the Global Hawk cannot get through weather as easily.

Finally...

The Pentagon said it would cost about $1.9 billion to upgrade the UAS to “parity” with the U-2, which is almost the full amount the Pentagon says it will save in winding down the U-2.

There is no doubt that the future of air warfare belongs to unmanned systems. The RQ-180 may eventually take over the U-2 role...but history is replete with examples of systems being pressed into service before they are ready.

In conclusion, the U-2 should be kept in the active inventory for now through 2025, at which time the useful service life will be complete and the inventory of remaning aircraft duly and justifiably retired.

This is my argument put forth in defense of keeping the U-2. I ask if anyone can prepare a similar argument in defense of keeping the A-10 in the active inventory; factoring in costs, strengths and weaknesses in this decision. Convince me the A-10 active inventory should not be retired and it's mission replaced by multi-role aircraft systems.

 

They are quiet, but not silent. And a lot of that depends on terrain.

Now sad as it is, there will always be fratricide. Mistakes, misidentification, bad coordinates, even things like failures of ordinance. Things like this will always happen.

And yes, I am well aware of what is involved in contacting the aircraft. Unless you have somebody like ANGLICO with you, you have to go to higher command, you can't talk to them directly. However, when CAS and other air assets are going to be working in close proximity with ground forces, you had better believe that somebody close to the chain of command (Battalion or Brigade/Regiment level ) has a direct connection for a FAC who can route commands directly to the pilot.

And in the case of dedicated CAS like the A-10, quite often the pilot is responding to a "call for fire", and has the freq and callsign for that unit on the ground, to get directly from them the location of enemy forces, and where the friendlies are.

Trust me, I do have a clue how this works. I call Battalion, Battalion calls Regiment/Brigade, who does have an FAC. They then call out and have the attack stopped. Otherwise you would have such incidents going on for hours, not the short attacks like we have seen over the past decade of war. The A-10 or other air asset would make pass after pass after pass, strafing and rocketing the troops until there was nobody left alive.

After all, we have all seen the footage of real A-10 attacks upon enemy forces. They do not just strike once and fly away home. They loiter and linger in an area, waiting for the enemy to pop his head up again. But that is not how these accidents happen, because somebody gets on the radio and calls them off.

I know that when I worked in the Battalion TOC, I could place a single radio or phone call and be talking directly with the Corps level FAC in minutes. For my Brigade level, I could send a runner there, they were maybe 50 meters away.

 

ISR is not a glamorous mission. There are few if any video games dedicated to high flying snooping. People remember the Gary Powers shoot down in 1962 and think of the U-2 as an obsolete, vulnerable platform.

http://www.wired.com/2014/02/u2/

It's been an ISR workhorse for decades.

It is still doing it's job as I type this, monitoring the Russians and ISIS...it gives real time intel data streaming to analysts on the ground. It will be phased out at the end of 2015 and replaced by the Global Hawk drone. It's my opinion the U-2 remains the best platform for the job, and for the money...and would remain so for at least another decade. Why waste the money already invested to modernize it, when bringing the Global Hawk up to speed would cost the same as the savings achieved by retiring the U-2 now.

The RQ-180 is best choice to replace it, but that system isn't fully operational yet...in a decade it will be; at which time the U-2 would be at the end of it's service life and ready to be retired.
Keeping the U-2 in active service for another decade would allow the unmanned systems to be brought into service fully operational with all the inevitable bugs worked out.

 

And on the ambient noise level. The sound of a couple of M-1s with their engines running is plenty to mask the sound of an A-10 until it is almost on top of you. If you're already in a fire fight you'll hear the sound of their ordinance detonating before you'll hear them.

Unless the hypothetical patrol had the bad luck to wander into a kill box, which did happen a few times.

Agreed, but over the FEBA A-10s stay down low and make maximum use of terrain masking. By the time you actually see or hear them, you don't have minutes.

 

Heck, we were still building them into the 1980's.

And they may well be around until the mid 2020's. Originally planned to already be retired for the RQ-4 Global Hawk, issues with the RQ-4 have led to the U-2 to be extended multiple times. Since the retirement 26 years ago of the SR-71 (ironically the plane built to replace the U-2), they are the last true reconnaissance plane left in the US inventory.

Odds are if you have an M1 at hand, you will not need an A-10.

Remember, my experiences are of the Light Foot infantry. We generally go out on foot, on our own. No vehicles. The only assistance we can really rely upon is our unit's mortars, artillery, and CAS aircraft. If I have an Abrams, I will just go and use the phone and tell the gunner where to shoot.

 

Why is 13 y.o. underdeveloped fanboy, who is not aware of US AF asses kicked in Korea and Vietnam, calling me a "BOY"?

Oh, God.....

You said that there is no Air Defence Missile, which can operate on A-10 altitude, I told you that there are a lot of them, provided some examples, yet you are bitсhing about how I am "twisting facts and statements". You were proved to be wrong. Just. Deal. With. It.

Btw, stop putting words into my mouth.
I have never claimed S-300 is a short-range system, nor I have claimed it is intended to shot down helicopters. You were mumbling about how all those HARM missiles will destroy short-range AA systems, on which I replied that there are a counter-balance for them, the likes of S-300, but now you are making it to sound like I was saying S-300 will move in the first line with tanks and destroying A-10 and helicopters, while short-range AA are intended for that role percisely. Stop being childish.


Oh, yeah, nice comparative skills over there. ZU-23 mounted on trucks were effective against 3-rd world nation airforce, using relics from 60-th.
I wonder how effective they would be fighting multirole fighters dropping guided bombs from 7,5 kilometers altitude? Oh, sure, they would be canon fodder.

With maximum engagement altitude of 1,5 kilometers they are outperformed even by the worst of MANPADs. Any plane or helicopter simply outranges ZU-23, so it takes an unlucky/pain stupid pilot to give ZU-23 a chance.
Your competence is doubtful.

 

I second what Nightmare515 said. I had no idea they were still in service. As a matter of fact, I don't even know what command they report to or what intelligence gap they fill. I figured any "ground" they cover, both geographically and intel wise, would be covered by overhead. So they might be fine aircraft still, but I don't know what there current role they fill is and I'm unlikely to know so that's one where I hope the people make the decisions know what they're doing.

 

Most of their missions are classified and I have no doubt they prefer to keep low profiles. I know some of the equipment they carry can monitor cell phone calls. They fill the gaps where satellites tend to drift. A drone is fully capable of doing the same thing, but as an all-weather platform the U-2 does the job better. The Global Hawk is not able to de-ice and several missions have been scrubbed as a result.

 

I'm not sure that the equipment and capabilites you referenced is, per open source materials, limited to the U-2. However as you say, it's classified. That's I said I hope the people who have access know what they're doing.

 

The VNE and stall speed are only about 4 knots apart at the altitude they operate at. VNE is the never exceed speed...it is a narrow window which allows the aircraft to avoid stalling while keeping it within a speed that if exceeded might do structural damage.

It's an extremely challenging aircraft to fly. It is non-hydraulic and uses pulleys and wheels to move the flight control surfaces.

Only the best of the best fly them, it is an elite group...probably the equivalent to how we regard our special forces. Nothing would make them happier than for most of the World think they (U-2s) were grounded and retired a long time ago. Low profile missions is their modus operandi. The Global Hawk mission is compatible, and the powers that be decided there is no point in redundancy and have given the job to the unmanned system. I would only argue that the U-2 actually does the job better...a better replacement would be the RQ-180, but that isn't fully operational yet. I think we should keep the U-2 in active service until the unmanned system, which can do a comparable job, is fully operational.

 

I will tell you what.......

When you can start debating in a manner that is not confrontational, irrational and shows you have a total inability to point out the factual advantages and disadvantages within and of any Military Weapons System or Weapon whether it be Soviet, Russian, American, French, British....etc........

......and not ALWAYS......debate in a manner where reality of in action on the battlefield....Nation vs. Nation weapons systems and weapons and the personal operating them.....in your mind.....ALWAYS SHOWS THE SOVIET OR NOW RUSSIAN SYSTEM TO BE SUPERIOR AND THE U.S. WEAPONS SYSTEM TO BE OVER PRICED JUNK....although you might and are probably right about some of the price issues in Dollars we pay.....


THEN AND ONLY THEN WILL I DEBATE WITH YOU AS A MAN TO MAN in manner debate rather a MAN....ie....me.....RUSSIAN/SOVIET WEAPONS SYSTEMS CHEERLEADER...ie...YOU!!!

I do not enjoy angy debate or verbal sparing.

If there are issues in U.S. Weapons systems and I know about them or if you or anyone else can provide the necessary data to prove it....I will absolutely agree with you.....and I hope YOU and everyone else will do the same.

As example.....in Korea....the MiG-15 vs. the F-86A Saber....at the beginning of that war the MiG-15 had an advantage for a few months as Soviet Kill Ratio's were 1 to 2.2 favoring the MiG-15.

Then quickly after changing to "new solid wings" the F-86F became far superior to the MiG-15 with the kill ratio's changing to a 10 to 1 Kill Ratio in favor of the F-86F.

Now....you and I can DEBATE my post as much as you would like but we really don't need to go into name calling...either of us and after being in the Middle East for so long and I just got back 1 day ago....I AM SICK OF FIGHTING!!!

So...let's just DISCUSS things and I will admit that part of the blame for our inflamatory posts is my fault just as part of the blame is yours as well.

OK?

AboveAlpha

 

You're thinking too much like a pilot. The proper questions are not about the aircraft and what it's like to fly, but it's capabilities as an intelligence asset and if there are other assets that can fulfill those intelligence priorities.

 

We all know that the days of Manned Fighter and Bomber and Attack Flight are coming to an end....and a LOT faster than most people realise as with the advent of 100 and 1000 Quibit Quantum Computers....to help fly HUNDRENDS OF DRONES....in the role currently filled by the F-15's and F-22's as far as an AIR SUPREMACY FIGHTER....as the United States no longer just strives to maintain Air Superiority as this is what the F-15 was designed and designated as being....an AIR SUPERIORITY FIGHTER.

And the F-15 has filled that role longer and better than any aircaft in HISTORY as the first F-15A took to the air on July 27, 1972.....and the F-15 was designed out of necessity after the F-4 proved too heavy and not agile enough at specific velocities and of course we all remember the ABSOLUTE IDIOCY of not designing the F-4 with GUNS....and this was fixed by adding a GUN POD.....but this debacle also resulted in Major John Boyd of USAF Tactical Air Command (TAC) as Major Boyd was appointed to was appointed to rework the 1965 FX study and generate a workable solution.

By early 1967 Boyd had a very agile 40,000 lb fighter on paper. Requests For Proposals were released to industry in August 1967, one month after the Russians exposing the Mach 3 Foxbat. Boyd and his supporters tried to further improve FX, creating FX^2, a 33,000 lb machine with 40% better turning and 90% better acceleration performance than FX/F-15, but this was rejected as TAC was unrelenting in its demands for range and avionic capability (note that were the F-18L fitted with more powerful engines, it could fall into this class.

So...when we talk about the F-15....it's actual ON PAPER DESIGN.....came from as far back as early 1967.

1967!!! That is over 47 YEARS AGO!!!! And in all that time NEVER HAS AN F-15 BEEN SHOT DOWN BY ANOTHER ENEMY FIGHTER AIRCRAFT!!!

Then came the F/A-22 Raptor.....continued.....

AboveAlpha

 

So....with the advent of STEALTH....the USAF wanted a Stealth AIR SUPREMACY Fighter Aircraft that could also carry bombs and missiles internally as well as maintain Supersonic Flight for long periods of time without burning fuel at too fast a rate which of course would limit range....and as well as having Engine Thrust Vectoring.

As well the F-35 with varients having either CTOL....conventional takeoff and landing STOVL...Short Take Off and Verticle Landing....and VTOL......Verticle Take Off and Landing....and as well the F-35 would be Stealth.

BUT.....BUT......BBBBBUT!!!........Continued.....AboveAlpha

 

While development and building of these F-22's and F-35's began and continues....a WHOLE ENTIRELY DIFFERENT LESS EXPENSIVE, MUCH MORE LETHAL, ABLE TO FLY ON STATION SOME FOR A DAY SOME FOR A WEEK SOME FOR A MONTH OR MORE.....concept of maintaining WORLDWIDE AIR SUPREMACY WAS DESIGNED!!!!!

DRONES!!!!

Now we all know about the Raptor and Global Hawk and their successes.....but we are at a point where without the hinderence of having to have a PILOT SUPPORT SYSTEM....which really takes up a LOT of weight, thus decreases RANGE and ability to stay on station.....Drones can be built for just about every possible use or Mission and they can be built cheaper, quicker and be more reliable as well as do things any Fighter, Attack or Bomber Aircraft could ever do!!!

As it stands now as another member here pointed out....even the enjoyable and venerable F-16 has FLIGHT, TURN AND MANEUVER GOVERNORS as if the F-16 was allowed to perform such turns and maneuvers without such GOVERNORS built into the aircraft.....if a pilot were to allow the F-16 to turn and maneuver to it's full abilities IT WOULD KILL THE PILOT due to the Lethal G-Forces!!!

And that in an F-16 Aircraft that has all that weight of machinery in it including the weight of the Pilot so IMAGINE just how fast...how quick and agile....and how much range and flight time on station DRONES CAN HAVE!!!!

So as much as I peronally LOVE the A-10 Thunderbolt II....renamed by it's flyer's THE WARTHOG....because if you are on the ground trying to keep your ASS ALIVE.....and there are Mechanized Enemy...ie....say two T-72 Tanks and a few BMP's and a hell of a lot of infantry....and YOU and your TEAM.....are hiding behind some small ROCKS....and trying like HELL to blend in with the desert.....and it is early and the SUN IS COMING UP....and you KNOW....the moment it get's too light out they are going to see your ass!!!

So you make a call and just as bullets move your body when they just pass by your HEAD or other body part ....and anyone here who had had that happen to them will know that when a round fly's close to your body but does not hit you....and this is especially true if it is a .50 Caliber round....as it passes by close....it displaces air and creates for a moment a VACUUM as well a COMPRESSED COLUMN OF AIR exists in front of the .50 Caliber Round....in the case of a .50 Caliber Round just missing you....IT COULD ALSO KILL YOU DEAD!!!

Anyways.....all of a sudden you hear these ugly/beautiful A-10's coming as they are subsonic and then there is the BRRRRRRUUUUUUPPP!!

As the A-10 is just a Big Old General Electric GAU-8/A Avenger 30 mm hydraulically driven seven-barrel Gatling-type cannon that fires depleated Uranium Rounds that will KILL ANYTHING!!!

As well the A-10 has missiles and it has been used to do just about everything at one time or another!!

And My Tem and I heard that BBBRRRRRUUUUPPP!!! And hear screaming and secondary explosions and we all knew each of us had a BIG OLD SMILE ON OUR FACES!!!

Continued....AboveAlpha

 

But now....as great as the A-10 is....something even BETTER is here!!!

Imagine if you will.....having multiple sized and purposed DRONES at all altitudes....that can either be Self Autonomous Robotic....being flown by a Drone Pilot....or even in very dangerous super close combat where we are talking 50 to 100 Meters between us and the enemy......a member of a Platoon or Team.....can take control of small Self Propelled Flying Munitions that stay with us guarding us for days!!!!

Thing is....we are at the point that we can have 3 to 4 levels of Air Power Ground Force Protection....with us from beginning to the end of the Battle or Operation.

We can have close support drones....Self Flying Autonomous Munitions and Submunitions....so this Drone which is Stealth and Ultra-Light and PERHAPS EVEN SOLAR POWERED WITH BATTERY BACKUP....is hanging around us at super high altitudes above cloud levels.....and say my Team run's into a Force of 200 Bad Guy's...and I know this because another Recon Drone is telling us where these 200 bad guy's are and I use something like a SMART PHONE....and this Drone that is about 20 feet long and can't tell you how wide.....swoops down as it's wings fold in delta style and it releases Submunitions that become inert if they do not explode thus this weapon does not break the International Cluster Bomb Ban......and these Submunitions each guide themselves in an Anti-Personal use and another Drone is used for taking out Tanks and Personal Carriers....etc.

But the point is....THE DRONES ALWAYS STAY WITH US....FROM THE MOMENT WE GET CLOSE TO WHERE THE DRONES ARE NEEDED TO GUARD US....ALL THE WAY TO THE TIME WE GET PICKED UP OR WALK OUT!!!

THAT....is why one of my most beloved aircraft the A-10...has had it's day.

AboveAlpha

 

Funny, but I actually seem to give the MiG-23ML much higher marks then you do apparently.

Russia still has them in their inventory for reserves, and China still uses the J-8, an MiG-23 clone. And it is comparable to the Su-24, an aircraft that Russia still flies.

It does not require an "incompetent pilot", simply one that is flying low to the ground in an air to mud capability. Exactly what the A-10 is designed to do.

Sorry, I am about done with this. If they were dropping bombs from 7.5 kilometers away, they would not be doing a CAS mission, and friendly and non-combatant casualties would go up dramatically.

Why you are bringing altitude bombing into a discussion about CAS aircraft, I have absolutely no idea. But thank you for playing, have a good day.

 

Yeah, good. A plane with radio-guided 10 km range missile as it's best ground attack weapon. Top of the line aircraft to fight ground targets. Back in 1974.

Nope. Stop ruining your competence.

It is not a MiG-23 clone. It is an upgraded MiG-21 with some additives from F-4 and MiG-23.

Not at all. MiG-23 is not capable of lifting 8 tons of guided&unguided bombs, it can lift only 2 tons. Moreover, all Su-24 were significantly upgraded over the basic variant.

FFS, why you are comparing a fighter jet to a bomber?

It does. Upgraded versions of CAS aircraft do not require to enter ZU-23 or any other AAA effective range of fire to hit it. It comes down to detection, if ZU-23 is detected it doesn't stand a chance against any aircraft with that being CAS, multirole or helicopter. If undetected, it doesn't have any advantage over heavy machineguns or autocanons on IFVs.
MANPAD will do better.

Arguable at best.

Well, you have a short memory or just terrible at logic.

We were not discusing CAS, we were discussing ZU-23.

 

OK, first of all, a great many reference still list the MiG-23 as being in reserves for the Russian Air Force.

http://www.enemyforces.net/aircraft/mig23.htm

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/mig-27.htm

http://www.russianwarrior.com/STMMain.htm?1969vehicle_MIG23.htm&1

And there are a great many others. They also still use the MiG-27 in the same capacity.

And all the 27 basically is is the 23 with a modified nose. even NATO calls them both the same aircraft ("Flogger").

Sorry, nice try though. Can you give me a reference that states that they have retired all of the Floggers from the Russian inventory? Because I know I quite clearly said it was held in reserve. Can you prove to us that it has been retired from reserve service?

And as for the Su-24, did I not say "comparable"?

*looks back*

Yea, thought so. So what in the hell are you going on about? I did not say they were the same, I did not even imply that they are the same. So why are you acting like I said they were the same thing?

You are simply being contrary, arguing simply for the sake of arguing. And never giving any references, ever. Just arrogantly assuming that we will all believe anything you say, just because you say it. Myself, I really could not care less. I do not care to get into "my wanger is bigger" contests, I simply provide information, most of the time with references, and actually encourage people to research and think for themselves. If this threatens you, I am sorry. But I also could not care less.

If you want to just argue, go find somebody else. I am frankly bored of it, and your constant screaming "N, you are wrong because I say so!", dragging in 10 things that are outside of the argument, not even said or implied, and basically wanting to get into some kind of pissing contest. Frankly, I am sick to death of it. If you can't discuss things without trying to turn it into a fight (and especially without referencing any of your claims), then I am basically done.

I love debating things, but am disgusted with people who simply want to turn these discussions into ego boosters, or repeats of old Monty Python skits.

 

What can I say, except "your sources are BS"? Try naming a single regreement using MiG-23 for "training" or a single base, where they are "stored".

Giving links to prove an absence of smth is, well, idiotic. Nevertheless, I will try.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Air_Force

No MiG-23 in the inventory list.

A list of Russian military airfields and aircrafts they operate.

Again, no MiG-23 on the airfields. If it comes down to military service, I've served in Akhtubinsk airfield. The thing is basically a test ground for any aircraft in service. And tell you what, I've seen all types of aircraft we currently operate and there were no MiG-23 over there. Except a pair of monuments in the city.

So where are those misterious MiG-23 in reserve are located?
For example, http://russianplanes.net/ , which is one of the greatest sources to read up about anything flying in Russia lists only one MiG-23 "in reserve".

Here is it's photo:


That is right, it is a monument.

No MiG-23 in service or in reserve, unless you count monuments.
So, if you have any info about where MiG-23 are stored, be my guest.

But even then that will be only the same kind of "reserve" as Pz VII Maus.
Even if some of them are listed as "in reserve", there is no chance of going back. The youngest pilots, who have flown that thing before, should be in their early 50-th. I suspect spare parts production was cancelled as well.

One of us has severe reading comprehension problems.

You:

Me:

You:

Unless you are insisting on Stinger being "comparable" to Patriot because both of them can shot down planes, you are wrong.
Two different aircraft created for two different purposes.
I am not surprised it is coming from a man, who said "Tu-95 is a B-29 copy".

That looks like someone being overly defencive over losing an argument.

If you recall it, the whole debate stated with your "clearly supported" claim of "no AA missile can operate on A-10 altitude of flying".
This claim is wrong, as was proven by me.

Not my problem you go butthurt mode each time you are wrong.


People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

Think about it next time, when you will be "reminding" everyone and their cat that you worked on Patriot.