11–20 of 233 posts
I am still shocked the Navy is ok with a single engine fighter.
And that didn't deter then from doing it again later with the A-7, A-4 and F-8.
It is just inconceivable that we have a multi-decade program to develop a new fighter to fill all these roles, and what we've produced is either equivalent to or worse than the incumbent in all cases, is not safe to fly in combat situations, and is more expensive to boot. I mean we've seen this sort of thing happen on a smaller scale before, but versions of this plane are supposed to replace, like, everything in mult…
With the concept of strategic bombing being a moot point, replaced by unmanned guided missiles and our moral unwillingness to strike at population centers, the only real purpose of the Air Force is close-air-support. Even air superiority is, really, an adjunct to that role, in that it protects the troops on the ground against enemy ground-attack aircraft and provides cover for our ground attack aircraft. Seeing, argu…
What I don't understand is why the various services care so much about what the other services do or don't do. Why does the AF insist on managing the A-10 when they clearly do not and never have wanted it? The Army wants it, let them have it. We're obviously not that concerned with duplication or waste given how much money we've spent on this and the F-22 for, apparently, no gain.
It is just inconceivable that we have a multi-decade program to develop a new fighter to fill all these roles, and what we've produced is either equivalent to or worse than the incumbent in all cases, is not safe to fly in combat situations, and is more expensive to boot. I mean we've seen this sort of thing happen on a smaller scale before, but versions of this plane are supposed to replace, like, everything in mult…
Unless the primary goal was to transfer tax dollars from the unwashed to the privileged.
With the concept of strategic bombing being a moot point, replaced by unmanned guided missiles and our moral unwillingness to strike at population centers, the only real purpose of the Air Force is close-air-support. Even air superiority is, really, an adjunct to that role, in that it protects the troops on the ground against enemy ground-attack aircraft and provides cover for our ground attack aircraft. Seeing, argu…
What I don't understand is why the various services care so much about what the other services do or don't do. Why does the AF insist on managing the A-10 when they clearly do not and never have wanted it? The Army wants it, let them have it. We're obviously not that concerned with duplication or waste given how much money we've spent on this and the F-22 for, apparently, no gain.
There are good reasons for specialization, of course. But the institutional politics can't be ignored.
I've heard that the Marines actually have really good air support, because they have their own planes and the generals make damn sure those pilots put the bombs where the grunts need them. I doubt the Air Force likes that. But the Marines are part of the Navy, and the folks running the Navy aren't interested in ground combat. They've already got an air role, on the carriers, and a strategic bombing role, in the missile subs, so they aren't likely to encroach much on the Air Force. Since the Navy puts a cap on how far the Marines' mission would grow, the other services can live with the Marines mixing things up a bit.
It also helps that the Marines have a PR operation unlike anything anywhere on the planet.
And they might be a natural home for the A-10, right? But you can't fly an A-10 off a carrier.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What I don't understand is why the various services care so much about what the other services do or don't do. Why does the AF insist on managing the A-10 when they clearly do not and never have wanted it? The Army wants it, let them have it. We're obviously not that concerned with duplication or waste given how much money we've spent on this and the F-22 for, apparently, no gain.
The services guard their missions jealously. They don't want competition within their various roles -- those roles are their justifications for budget, status and involvement. There are good reasons for specialization, of course. But the institutional politics can't be ignored. I've heard that the Marines actually have really good air support, because they have their own planes and the generals make damn sure those p…
The A-10 is a magnificent brute of a plane and does exactly the job it was designed to do, very well... so of course they want to mothball it.
I wonder how hard it would be to make it carrierable, or how hard it would be to string a bunch of barges together to make a floating airfield for it (and use a standard carrier for mechanical support).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What I don't understand is why the various services care so much about what the other services do or don't do. Why does the AF insist on managing the A-10 when they clearly do not and never have wanted it? The Army wants it, let them have it. We're obviously not that concerned with duplication or waste given how much money we've spent on this and the F-22 for, apparently, no gain.
The services guard their missions jealously. They don't want competition within their various roles -- those roles are their justifications for budget, status and involvement. There are good reasons for specialization, of course. But the institutional politics can't be ignored. I've heard that the Marines actually have really good air support, because they have their own planes and the generals make damn sure those p…
Why can't the army buy the same planes, are they not being manufactured any more?
It is just inconceivable that we have a multi-decade program to develop a new fighter to fill all these roles, and what we've produced is either equivalent to or worse than the incumbent in all cases, is not safe to fly in combat situations, and is more expensive to boot. I mean we've seen this sort of thing happen on a smaller scale before, but versions of this plane are supposed to replace, like, everything in mult…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The services guard their missions jealously. They don't want competition within their various roles -- those roles are their justifications for budget, status and involvement. There are good reasons for specialization, of course. But the institutional politics can't be ignored. I've heard that the Marines actually have really good air support, because they have their own planes and the generals make damn sure those p…
So get rid of the USAF / fold it back into the Army, this way the Navy has an air wing, and the Army has an air wing. Large sky battles are unlikely to happen ever again... the USAF was designed to deal with those, right around when they had become obsolete. Hooray for Parkinson's laws. The A-10 is a magnificent brute of a plane and does exactly the job it was designed to do, very well... so of course they want to mo…
What it can do is provide reasonable close air support against Toyota pickups and infantry, but replacement parts for the plane or the molds to create them don't exist. The A10's titanium airframe will soon need wholesale replacement as it reaches its fatigue limit, so the entire plane would need to be remanufactured.
A drone-based replacement would be far more cost efficient. I don't see why mothballing the A10 is a poor decision.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The services guard their missions jealously. They don't want competition within their various roles -- those roles are their justifications for budget, status and involvement. There are good reasons for specialization, of course. But the institutional politics can't be ignored. I've heard that the Marines actually have really good air support, because they have their own planes and the generals make damn sure those p…
So get rid of the USAF / fold it back into the Army, this way the Navy has an air wing, and the Army has an air wing. Large sky battles are unlikely to happen ever again... the USAF was designed to deal with those, right around when they had become obsolete. Hooray for Parkinson's laws. The A-10 is a magnificent brute of a plane and does exactly the job it was designed to do, very well... so of course they want to mo…
I think it still is. Sure, there is less nuclear tension. But the idea was always to ensure that no general, no matter how drunk, could imagine actually succeeding with a first strike. That's still the right posture.
If anything, I'd worry that some Russian might think _we_ might successfully launch first, and so jump the gun in a "use them or lose them" decision. MAD only really works when _both_ sides are demonstrably convinced they can't strike first.
Also: I bet the A-10 too underpowered for carrier launch. It's designed to loiter, not dogfight -- it probably doesn't have the acceleration to lift from a carrier deck.