You really think the A-10 has done more damage than the B-29, or the Lancaster, or the B-52?
The A-10 is very good at its particular role; close air support. There’s lots of things involving blowing stuff up on the ground for which it clearly is NOT suited, such as precision bombing of large targets, or area denial bombing, or various other things.
As to whether or not the US Armed Forces, at a strategic level, is interested in dealing with reality, study the horrfying example of the Millennium Challenge Exercise. Not that many countries’ armed forces are any better.
The Air Force and Navy are stuck in the cold war, and we won’t be out of that malaise for the next 25 years. However, in that time we’ll see much less relevance in fancy fighters and Aircraft carriers. These multi-billion dollar projects will be slowly phased out for a military based on more nimble projects to fight assymetrical enemies. The giant armies facing off across the desert fantasy is a bit anachronistic at this point.
I seem to remember an anecdote that when the Air Force was first considering retiring the A-10, either the Army or Marines said that if they did, they might buy the A-10’s and start training pilots for them themselves.
Perhaps the Marines. The Army is prohibited by law from mounting a weapon on a fixed wing aircraft. (I exaggerate by only the tiniest amount.) That was part of the deal the USAAF got when they talked Congress into creating the USAF. That is also why the Army invested so heavily in (relatively more) vulnerable attack choppers rather than putting weapons on the OV-1 Mohawk or buying the OV-10 Bronco, themselves.
Fancy fighters maybe, but I think carriers will always be around. They are a very powerful tool, and we have the best of them. Mobile airbases will always be useful as long as there are seas and oceans with countries that border them.
I have always thought so too, given it’s role and constant proximity to and communication with Army or Marine ground forces.
And add me to the list of people that think that flying steel bathtub is fucking kick-ass.
I always loved seeing/hearing them. That gatling gun sounds like a giant belching.
Too late, as is witnessed by the wildy expensive (and wildy expensive to maintain) F-22. Fun to watch, but at $1 million for an LO paint job every time it gets dinged, is it really worth it?
The F-22 isn’t exactly a weapon without a purpose. Excercises against reasonably trained OPFOR in SU-27s have resulted in an unfavorable (around .7:1 IIRC) kill ratio for the F-15s. The F-22 dramatically improves the situation, bringing it up to 15:1 or greater.
Wont happen , neither party would trust that other party was complying. You would probably see a repeat of the treaty of london, better what we have now and everyone stays wary.
Well, I would agree in principle except there’s that sticky wicket of trust and verification. Countries like China and Russia have enough mountains and rugged terrain to hide treaty-violating weapons programs from spy satellites.
But then again, so do we, I suppose.
Hmm…guys named FoieGrasIsEvil and ChefGuy are talking about the merits of a military aircraft…all is indeed well within the Universe!
Are you actually a chef…in Alaska?
No. As it turns out, it was probably a poor choice of username. While I’m a pretty accomplished cook, I’m not now nor ever have been a chef. I picked the name because of some vague notion of stirring the pot on a variety of topics.