To all those half brains who deserve a thank you for your service: What is your assessment of the F-35? Are the critiques of said fighter merited in your respective military knowledge superiority guy opinions?
F-22 cool. F-35 POS. It's the tryhard @backthepack of fighter jets.
The AH-64 Apache is the perfect CAS platform. The A-10 is the gold standard in fixed-wing CAS. The F-16 is a distant second, probably tied with the F/A-18. The F-15E is a great CAS/Strike platform when guided by a competent FAC/JTAC. Drones like the Predator are decent CAS platforms, but they don’t have the firepower or weapons loading capability of either the A-10 or the F-16. The F-35 sucks donkey dicks.
The problem here goes much deeper than one airframe. The USAF has this fantasy that they can win wars all by themselves, and they’ve never been able to do that. US v Serbia was allegedly the only time that airpower actually won a war. I don’t even give them that because Serbia had withstood a month of airstrikes by an air force that roamed Serbia’s skies at will, and made no moves to back down until the US landed a brigade of paratroops from the 82nd ABN and a Marine regiment in Albania.
The reason the Army doesn’t operate fixed-wing combat assets is because of the Key West Agreement. In fact, the only reason the USAF developed the A-10 was because the Army was pursuing a super copter that would fly very much like an airplane for that purpose, called the AH-56 Cheyenne.
The AH-64 Apache is probably the best short-range CAS platform there is or ever will be, but it is a SHORT-RANGE platform.
The USAF says that they can do CAS from an F-35, but I don’t see how. The fact is that they want to get out of the CAS business all together. This points to the actual structural problems with the USAF doing CAS. Outside of the A-10 community, they primarily suck at it, and they need specialist troops on the ground to control the engagement. The USMC aviation does not have this problem because CAS is what they do. It’s their whole reason for existence.
For another example of how the USAF hates the Army, see C-27J Spartan. The problem is a structural problem with how the USAF sees itself, not as a partner force in a combined military, but as the dominant organization to whose prerogatives the organizations must surrender.
One need only look at these slides from a 2008 CSAF briefing to see that USAF considers the other services of the US military as their true adversaries, and not potential competitor forces like China. I would get the USAF out of any mission supporting the Army because they hate those missions and they do everything they can to fail at them.
If I had my druthers, the Army would take over all the currently existing A-10s and C-27 airframes. Air Force pilots rated in those types would be required to complete their current tours, and then be offered the chance to lateral transfer with rank and seniority to the Army.
Thanks for this perspective.
Kinda interesting how some of those "out of date" CAS planes that the USAF, Navy and Marines had a lot longer period of useful service than other contemporary planes. For example, we? were still flying Corsairs (my favorite piston engine plane of all time) in combat well into the jet age (Korea) and A-1 Skyraiders were being used in Vietnam. The A-10's are basically an early 70's design.
To all those half brains who deserve a thank you for your service: What is your assessment of the F-35? Are the critiques of said fighter merited in your respective military knowledge superiority guy opinions?
F-22 cool. F-35 POS. It's the tryhard @backthepack of fighter jets.
The AH-64 Apache is the perfect CAS platform. The A-10 is the gold standard in fixed-wing CAS. The F-16 is a distant second, probably tied with the F/A-18. The F-15E is a great CAS/Strike platform when guided by a competent FAC/JTAC. Drones like the Predator are decent CAS platforms, but they don’t have the firepower or weapons loading capability of either the A-10 or the F-16. The F-35 sucks donkey dicks.
The problem here goes much deeper than one airframe. The USAF has this fantasy that they can win wars all by themselves, and they’ve never been able to do that. US v Serbia was allegedly the only time that airpower actually won a war. I don’t even give them that because Serbia had withstood a month of airstrikes by an air force that roamed Serbia’s skies at will, and made no moves to back down until the US landed a brigade of paratroops from the 82nd ABN and a Marine regiment in Albania.
The reason the Army doesn’t operate fixed-wing combat assets is because of the Key West Agreement. In fact, the only reason the USAF developed the A-10 was because the Army was pursuing a super copter that would fly very much like an airplane for that purpose, called the AH-56 Cheyenne.
The AH-64 Apache is probably the best short-range CAS platform there is or ever will be, but it is a SHORT-RANGE platform.
The USAF says that they can do CAS from an F-35, but I don’t see how. The fact is that they want to get out of the CAS business all together. This points to the actual structural problems with the USAF doing CAS. Outside of the A-10 community, they primarily suck at it, and they need specialist troops on the ground to control the engagement. The USMC aviation does not have this problem because CAS is what they do. It’s their whole reason for existence.
For another example of how the USAF hates the Army, see C-27J Spartan. The problem is a structural problem with how the USAF sees itself, not as a partner force in a combined military, but as the dominant organization to whose prerogatives the organizations must surrender.
One need only look at these slides from a 2008 CSAF briefing to see that USAF considers the other services of the US military as their true adversaries, and not potential competitor forces like China. I would get the USAF out of any mission supporting the Army because they hate those missions and they do everything they can to fail at them.
If I had my druthers, the Army would take over all the currently existing A-10s and C-27 airframes. Air Force pilots rated in those types would be required to complete their current tours, and then be offered the chance to lateral transfer with rank and seniority to the Army.
I really hate the F-35 and I'm beyond pissed that the A-10 is going away.
FTAF
As the only person on this shithole who has flown an F-35 simulator and done simulated carrier landings in it, I can say with absolute certainty that this airframe is a POS, especially as a "7th gen" fighter. If you look at the previous generations of fighters, moving left to right was usually a quantum leap in technology. Not so with the F-35. It has flight envelopes very similar to the F-16/F-18, and the same radar cross section as a F-18 Super. So basically we threw piles of money at a platform that is basically just a newer version of what we already had. A few years ago the radars weren't even substantially better. This is the problem with building "all things to all people" airframes. They end up being decent at everything but not great at anything.
You want to have a bad ass fighter? Build an F-22. Viola, you can now fuck anyones ass A2A. You want bad ass attack (CAS), then modernize the A-10 for the AF, and build a true next gen replacement for the Navy's A-6 - both the A-10 and A-6 are two of the best planes this country ever produced. But, when you go down the multi-role path you end up with the F/A-18, which was a good plane - I flew the fucker, but it wasn't great, because you can't have great at two different things like attack and A2A.
Now compound all this multi-role shit times about 10 and build an F/A replacement for 6th gen aircraft that has to work for BOTH the Air Force AND the Navy, and oh yeah, have VSTOL capability for the Marines so we can have a shittier version of a Harrier now as well. Fuck me. Ever seen landing gear on Navy jets? They are fucking huge. Why? Controlled crash into a fucking aircraft carrier every landing. They have to be. Guess what, all the hundreds of extra pounds spent beefing up landing gear, and structural supports in wing boxes to take the pounding (hehe) of landing on carriers makes planes less dynamic - so now the Air Force is worse because of design considerations for the Navy. And oh, let's add a tilt engine for VSTOL that makes the whole fucking platform worse for everyone so Marines can take off stationary on a fucking ARG.
TL;DR: We designed this thing to suck from the start, because we don't give a fuck about winning anymore, we only care about making sure we can trick taxpayers into thinking they are going to pay less for a "multi-role" fighter when really they will pay even more than just buying attack and fighter specific aircraft per service because the cost overruns of these Swiss Army Knife aircraft are never fucking ending. End rant. FUCK!
To all those half brains who deserve a thank you for your service: What is your assessment of the F-35? Are the critiques of said fighter merited in your respective military knowledge superiority guy opinions?
F-22 cool. F-35 POS. It's the tryhard @backthepack of fighter jets.
The AH-64 Apache is the perfect CAS platform. The A-10 is the gold standard in fixed-wing CAS. The F-16 is a distant second, probably tied with the F/A-18. The F-15E is a great CAS/Strike platform when guided by a competent FAC/JTAC. Drones like the Predator are decent CAS platforms, but they don’t have the firepower or weapons loading capability of either the A-10 or the F-16. The F-35 sucks donkey dicks.
The problem here goes much deeper than one airframe. The USAF has this fantasy that they can win wars all by themselves, and they’ve never been able to do that. US v Serbia was allegedly the only time that airpower actually won a war. I don’t even give them that because Serbia had withstood a month of airstrikes by an air force that roamed Serbia’s skies at will, and made no moves to back down until the US landed a brigade of paratroops from the 82nd ABN and a Marine regiment in Albania.
The reason the Army doesn’t operate fixed-wing combat assets is because of the Key West Agreement. In fact, the only reason the USAF developed the A-10 was because the Army was pursuing a super copter that would fly very much like an airplane for that purpose, called the AH-56 Cheyenne.
The AH-64 Apache is probably the best short-range CAS platform there is or ever will be, but it is a SHORT-RANGE platform.
The USAF says that they can do CAS from an F-35, but I don’t see how. The fact is that they want to get out of the CAS business all together. This points to the actual structural problems with the USAF doing CAS. Outside of the A-10 community, they primarily suck at it, and they need specialist troops on the ground to control the engagement. The USMC aviation does not have this problem because CAS is what they do. It’s their whole reason for existence.
For another example of how the USAF hates the Army, see C-27J Spartan. The problem is a structural problem with how the USAF sees itself, not as a partner force in a combined military, but as the dominant organization to whose prerogatives the organizations must surrender.
One need only look at these slides from a 2008 CSAF briefing to see that USAF considers the other services of the US military as their true adversaries, and not potential competitor forces like China. I would get the USAF out of any mission supporting the Army because they hate those missions and they do everything they can to fail at them.
If I had my druthers, the Army would take over all the currently existing A-10s and C-27 airframes. Air Force pilots rated in those types would be required to complete their current tours, and then be offered the chance to lateral transfer with rank and seniority to the Army.
I really hate the F-35 and I'm beyond pissed that the A-10 is going away.
FTAF
As the only person on this shithole who has flown an F-35 simulator and done simulated carrier landings in it, I can say with absolute certainty that this airframe is a POS, especially as a "7th gen" fighter. If you look at the previous generations of fighters, moving left to right was usually a quantum leap in technology. Not so with the F-35. It has flight envelopes very similar to the F-16/F-18, and the same radar cross section as a F-18 Super. So basically we threw piles of money at a platform that is basically just a newer version of what we already had. A few years ago the radars weren't even substantially better. This is the problem with building "all things to all people" airframes. They end up being decent at everything but not great at anything.
You want to have a bad ass fighter? Build an F-22. Viola, you can now fuck anyones ass A2A. You want bad ass attack (CAS), then modernize the A-10 for the AF, and build a true next gen replacement for the Navy's A-6 - both the A-10 and A-6 are two of the best planes this country ever produced. But, when you go down the multi-role path you end up with the F/A-18, which was a good plane - I flew the fucker, but it wasn't great, because you can't have great at two different things like attack and A2A.
Now compound all this multi-role shit times about 10 and build an F/A replacement for 6th gen aircraft that has to work for BOTH the Air Force AND the Navy, and oh yeah, have VSTOL capability for the Marines so we can have a shittier version of a Harrier now as well. Fuck me. Ever seen landing gear on Navy jets? They are fucking huge. Why? Controlled crash into a fucking aircraft carrier every landing. They have to be. Guess what, all the hundreds of extra pounds spent beefing up landing gear, and structural supports in wing boxes to take the pounding (hehe) of landing on carriers makes planes less dynamic - so now the Air Force is worse because of design considerations for the Navy. And oh, let's add a tilt engine for VSTOL that makes the whole fucking platform worse for everyone so Marines can take off stationary on a fucking ARG.
TL;DR: We designed this thing to suck from the start, because we don't give a fuck about winning anymore, we only care about making sure we can trick taxpayers into thinking they are going to pay less for a "multi-role" fighter when really they will pay even more than just buying attack and fighter specific aircraft per service because the cost overruns of these Swiss Army Knife aircraft are never fucking ending. End rant. FUCK!
When the hell did @Dardanus make you Airpower Superiority Guy?
To all those half brains who deserve a thank you for your service: What is your assessment of the F-35? Are the critiques of said fighter merited in your respective military knowledge superiority guy opinions?
F-22 cool. F-35 POS. It's the tryhard @backthepack of fighter jets.
The AH-64 Apache is the perfect CAS platform. The A-10 is the gold standard in fixed-wing CAS. The F-16 is a distant second, probably tied with the F/A-18. The F-15E is a great CAS/Strike platform when guided by a competent FAC/JTAC. Drones like the Predator are decent CAS platforms, but they don’t have the firepower or weapons loading capability of either the A-10 or the F-16. The F-35 sucks donkey dicks.
The problem here goes much deeper than one airframe. The USAF has this fantasy that they can win wars all by themselves, and they’ve never been able to do that. US v Serbia was allegedly the only time that airpower actually won a war. I don’t even give them that because Serbia had withstood a month of airstrikes by an air force that roamed Serbia’s skies at will, and made no moves to back down until the US landed a brigade of paratroops from the 82nd ABN and a Marine regiment in Albania.
The reason the Army doesn’t operate fixed-wing combat assets is because of the Key West Agreement. In fact, the only reason the USAF developed the A-10 was because the Army was pursuing a super copter that would fly very much like an airplane for that purpose, called the AH-56 Cheyenne.
The AH-64 Apache is probably the best short-range CAS platform there is or ever will be, but it is a SHORT-RANGE platform.
The USAF says that they can do CAS from an F-35, but I don’t see how. The fact is that they want to get out of the CAS business all together. This points to the actual structural problems with the USAF doing CAS. Outside of the A-10 community, they primarily suck at it, and they need specialist troops on the ground to control the engagement. The USMC aviation does not have this problem because CAS is what they do. It’s their whole reason for existence.
For another example of how the USAF hates the Army, see C-27J Spartan. The problem is a structural problem with how the USAF sees itself, not as a partner force in a combined military, but as the dominant organization to whose prerogatives the organizations must surrender.
One need only look at these slides from a 2008 CSAF briefing to see that USAF considers the other services of the US military as their true adversaries, and not potential competitor forces like China. I would get the USAF out of any mission supporting the Army because they hate those missions and they do everything they can to fail at them.
If I had my druthers, the Army would take over all the currently existing A-10s and C-27 airframes. Air Force pilots rated in those types would be required to complete their current tours, and then be offered the chance to lateral transfer with rank and seniority to the Army.
I really hate the F-35 and I'm beyond pissed that the A-10 is going away.
FTAF
As the only person on this shithole who has flown an F-35 simulator and done simulated carrier landings in it, I can say with absolute certainty that this airframe is a POS, especially as a "7th gen" fighter. If you look at the previous generations of fighters, moving left to right was usually a quantum leap in technology. Not so with the F-35. It has flight envelopes very similar to the F-16/F-18, and the same radar cross section as a F-18 Super. So basically we threw piles of money at a platform that is basically just a newer version of what we already had. A few years ago the radars weren't even substantially better. This is the problem with building "all things to all people" airframes. They end up being decent at everything but not great at anything.
You want to have a bad ass fighter? Build an F-22. Viola, you can now fuck anyones ass A2A. You want bad ass attack (CAS), then modernize the A-10 for the AF, and build a true next gen replacement for the Navy's A-6 - both the A-10 and A-6 are two of the best planes this country ever produced. But, when you go down the multi-role path you end up with the F/A-18, which was a good plane - I flew the fucker, but it wasn't great, because you can't have great at two different things like attack and A2A.
Now compound all this multi-role shit times about 10 and build an F/A replacement for 6th gen aircraft that has to work for BOTH the Air Force AND the Navy, and oh yeah, have VSTOL capability for the Marines so we can have a shittier version of a Harrier now as well. Fuck me. Ever seen landing gear on Navy jets? They are fucking huge. Why? Controlled crash into a fucking aircraft carrier every landing. They have to be. Guess what, all the hundreds of extra pounds spent beefing up landing gear, and structural supports in wing boxes to take the pounding (hehe) of landing on carriers makes planes less dynamic - so now the Air Force is worse because of design considerations for the Navy. And oh, let's add a tilt engine for VSTOL that makes the whole fucking platform worse for everyone so Marines can take off stationary on a fucking ARG.
TL;DR: We designed this thing to suck from the start, because we don't give a fuck about winning anymore, we only care about making sure we can trick taxpayers into thinking they are going to pay less for a "multi-role" fighter when really they will pay even more than just buying attack and fighter specific aircraft per service because the cost overruns of these Swiss Army Knife aircraft are never fucking ending. End rant. FUCK!
To all those half brains who deserve a thank you for your service: What is your assessment of the F-35? Are the critiques of said fighter merited in your respective military knowledge superiority guy opinions?
F-22 cool. F-35 POS. It's the tryhard @backthepack of fighter jets.
The AH-64 Apache is the perfect CAS platform. The A-10 is the gold standard in fixed-wing CAS. The F-16 is a distant second, probably tied with the F/A-18. The F-15E is a great CAS/Strike platform when guided by a competent FAC/JTAC. Drones like the Predator are decent CAS platforms, but they don’t have the firepower or weapons loading capability of either the A-10 or the F-16. The F-35 sucks donkey dicks.
The problem here goes much deeper than one airframe. The USAF has this fantasy that they can win wars all by themselves, and they’ve never been able to do that. US v Serbia was allegedly the only time that airpower actually won a war. I don’t even give them that because Serbia had withstood a month of airstrikes by an air force that roamed Serbia’s skies at will, and made no moves to back down until the US landed a brigade of paratroops from the 82nd ABN and a Marine regiment in Albania.
The reason the Army doesn’t operate fixed-wing combat assets is because of the Key West Agreement. In fact, the only reason the USAF developed the A-10 was because the Army was pursuing a super copter that would fly very much like an airplane for that purpose, called the AH-56 Cheyenne.
The AH-64 Apache is probably the best short-range CAS platform there is or ever will be, but it is a SHORT-RANGE platform.
The USAF says that they can do CAS from an F-35, but I don’t see how. The fact is that they want to get out of the CAS business all together. This points to the actual structural problems with the USAF doing CAS. Outside of the A-10 community, they primarily suck at it, and they need specialist troops on the ground to control the engagement. The USMC aviation does not have this problem because CAS is what they do. It’s their whole reason for existence.
For another example of how the USAF hates the Army, see C-27J Spartan. The problem is a structural problem with how the USAF sees itself, not as a partner force in a combined military, but as the dominant organization to whose prerogatives the organizations must surrender.
One need only look at these slides from a 2008 CSAF briefing to see that USAF considers the other services of the US military as their true adversaries, and not potential competitor forces like China. I would get the USAF out of any mission supporting the Army because they hate those missions and they do everything they can to fail at them.
If I had my druthers, the Army would take over all the currently existing A-10s and C-27 airframes. Air Force pilots rated in those types would be required to complete their current tours, and then be offered the chance to lateral transfer with rank and seniority to the Army.
I really hate the F-35 and I'm beyond pissed that the A-10 is going away.
FTAF
As the only person on this shithole who has flown an F-35 simulator and done simulated carrier landings in it, I can say with absolute certainty that this airframe is a POS, especially as a "7th gen" fighter. If you look at the previous generations of fighters, moving left to right was usually a quantum leap in technology. Not so with the F-35. It has flight envelopes very similar to the F-16/F-18, and the same radar cross section as a F-18 Super. So basically we threw piles of money at a platform that is basically just a newer version of what we already had. A few years ago the radars weren't even substantially better. This is the problem with building "all things to all people" airframes. They end up being decent at everything but not great at anything.
You want to have a bad ass fighter? Build an F-22. Viola, you can now fuck anyones ass A2A. You want bad ass attack (CAS), then modernize the A-10 for the AF, and build a true next gen replacement for the Navy's A-6 - both the A-10 and A-6 are two of the best planes this country ever produced. But, when you go down the multi-role path you end up with the F/A-18, which was a good plane - I flew the fucker, but it wasn't great, because you can't have great at two different things like attack and A2A.
Now compound all this multi-role shit times about 10 and build an F/A replacement for 6th gen aircraft that has to work for BOTH the Air Force AND the Navy, and oh yeah, have VSTOL capability for the Marines so we can have a shittier version of a Harrier now as well. Fuck me. Ever seen landing gear on Navy jets? They are fucking huge. Why? Controlled crash into a fucking aircraft carrier every landing. They have to be. Guess what, all the hundreds of extra pounds spent beefing up landing gear, and structural supports in wing boxes to take the pounding (hehe) of landing on carriers makes planes less dynamic - so now the Air Force is worse because of design considerations for the Navy. And oh, let's add a tilt engine for VSTOL that makes the whole fucking platform worse for everyone so Marines can take off stationary on a fucking ARG.
TL;DR: We designed this thing to suck from the start, because we don't give a fuck about winning anymore, we only care about making sure we can trick taxpayers into thinking they are going to pay less for a "multi-role" fighter when really they will pay even more than just buying attack and fighter specific aircraft per service because the cost overruns of these Swiss Army Knife aircraft are never fucking ending. End rant. FUCK!
When the hell did @Dardanus make you Airpower Superiority Guy?
To all those half brains who deserve a thank you for your service: What is your assessment of the F-35? Are the critiques of said fighter merited in your respective military knowledge superiority guy opinions?
F-22 cool. F-35 POS. It's the tryhard @backthepack of fighter jets.
The AH-64 Apache is the perfect CAS platform. The A-10 is the gold standard in fixed-wing CAS. The F-16 is a distant second, probably tied with the F/A-18. The F-15E is a great CAS/Strike platform when guided by a competent FAC/JTAC. Drones like the Predator are decent CAS platforms, but they don’t have the firepower or weapons loading capability of either the A-10 or the F-16. The F-35 sucks donkey dicks.
The problem here goes much deeper than one airframe. The USAF has this fantasy that they can win wars all by themselves, and they’ve never been able to do that. US v Serbia was allegedly the only time that airpower actually won a war. I don’t even give them that because Serbia had withstood a month of airstrikes by an air force that roamed Serbia’s skies at will, and made no moves to back down until the US landed a brigade of paratroops from the 82nd ABN and a Marine regiment in Albania.
The reason the Army doesn’t operate fixed-wing combat assets is because of the Key West Agreement. In fact, the only reason the USAF developed the A-10 was because the Army was pursuing a super copter that would fly very much like an airplane for that purpose, called the AH-56 Cheyenne.
The AH-64 Apache is probably the best short-range CAS platform there is or ever will be, but it is a SHORT-RANGE platform.
The USAF says that they can do CAS from an F-35, but I don’t see how. The fact is that they want to get out of the CAS business all together. This points to the actual structural problems with the USAF doing CAS. Outside of the A-10 community, they primarily suck at it, and they need specialist troops on the ground to control the engagement. The USMC aviation does not have this problem because CAS is what they do. It’s their whole reason for existence.
For another example of how the USAF hates the Army, see C-27J Spartan. The problem is a structural problem with how the USAF sees itself, not as a partner force in a combined military, but as the dominant organization to whose prerogatives the organizations must surrender.
One need only look at these slides from a 2008 CSAF briefing to see that USAF considers the other services of the US military as their true adversaries, and not potential competitor forces like China. I would get the USAF out of any mission supporting the Army because they hate those missions and they do everything they can to fail at them.
If I had my druthers, the Army would take over all the currently existing A-10s and C-27 airframes. Air Force pilots rated in those types would be required to complete their current tours, and then be offered the chance to lateral transfer with rank and seniority to the Army.
To all those half brains who deserve a thank you for your service: What is your assessment of the F-35? Are the critiques of said fighter merited in your respective military knowledge superiority guy opinions?
F-22 cool. F-35 POS. It's the tryhard @backthepack of fighter jets.
The AH-64 Apache is the perfect CAS platform. The A-10 is the gold standard in fixed-wing CAS. The F-16 is a distant second, probably tied with the F/A-18. The F-15E is a great CAS/Strike platform when guided by a competent FAC/JTAC. Drones like the Predator are decent CAS platforms, but they don’t have the firepower or weapons loading capability of either the A-10 or the F-16. The F-35 sucks donkey dicks.
The problem here goes much deeper than one airframe. The USAF has this fantasy that they can win wars all by themselves, and they’ve never been able to do that. US v Serbia was allegedly the only time that airpower actually won a war. I don’t even give them that because Serbia had withstood a month of airstrikes by an air force that roamed Serbia’s skies at will, and made no moves to back down until the US landed a brigade of paratroops from the 82nd ABN and a Marine regiment in Albania.
The reason the Army doesn’t operate fixed-wing combat assets is because of the Key West Agreement. In fact, the only reason the USAF developed the A-10 was because the Army was pursuing a super copter that would fly very much like an airplane for that purpose, called the AH-56 Cheyenne.
The AH-64 Apache is probably the best short-range CAS platform there is or ever will be, but it is a SHORT-RANGE platform.
The USAF says that they can do CAS from an F-35, but I don’t see how. The fact is that they want to get out of the CAS business all together. This points to the actual structural problems with the USAF doing CAS. Outside of the A-10 community, they primarily suck at it, and they need specialist troops on the ground to control the engagement. The USMC aviation does not have this problem because CAS is what they do. It’s their whole reason for existence.
For another example of how the USAF hates the Army, see C-27J Spartan. The problem is a structural problem with how the USAF sees itself, not as a partner force in a combined military, but as the dominant organization to whose prerogatives the organizations must surrender.
One need only look at these slides from a 2008 CSAF briefing to see that USAF considers the other services of the US military as their true adversaries, and not potential competitor forces like China. I would get the USAF out of any mission supporting the Army because they hate those missions and they do everything they can to fail at them.
If I had my druthers, the Army would take over all the currently existing A-10s and C-27 airframes. Air Force pilots rated in those types would be required to complete their current tours, and then be offered the chance to lateral transfer with rank and seniority to the Army.
Comments
Kinda interesting how some of those "out of date" CAS planes that the USAF, Navy and Marines had a lot longer period of useful service than other contemporary planes. For example, we? were still flying Corsairs (my favorite piston engine plane of all time) in combat well into the jet age (Korea) and A-1 Skyraiders were being used in Vietnam. The A-10's are basically an early 70's design.
You want to have a bad ass fighter? Build an F-22. Viola, you can now fuck anyones ass A2A. You want bad ass attack (CAS), then modernize the A-10 for the AF, and build a true next gen replacement for the Navy's A-6 - both the A-10 and A-6 are two of the best planes this country ever produced. But, when you go down the multi-role path you end up with the F/A-18, which was a good plane - I flew the fucker, but it wasn't great, because you can't have great at two different things like attack and A2A.
Now compound all this multi-role shit times about 10 and build an F/A replacement for 6th gen aircraft that has to work for BOTH the Air Force AND the Navy, and oh yeah, have VSTOL capability for the Marines so we can have a shittier version of a Harrier now as well. Fuck me. Ever seen landing gear on Navy jets? They are fucking huge. Why? Controlled crash into a fucking aircraft carrier every landing. They have to be. Guess what, all the hundreds of extra pounds spent beefing up landing gear, and structural supports in wing boxes to take the pounding (hehe) of landing on carriers makes planes less dynamic - so now the Air Force is worse because of design considerations for the Navy. And oh, let's add a tilt engine for VSTOL that makes the whole fucking platform worse for everyone so Marines can take off stationary on a fucking ARG.
TL;DR: We designed this thing to suck from the start, because we don't give a fuck about winning anymore, we only care about making sure we can trick taxpayers into thinking they are going to pay less for a "multi-role" fighter when really they will pay even more than just buying attack and fighter specific aircraft per service because the cost overruns of these Swiss Army Knife aircraft are never fucking ending. End rant. FUCK!
My tweets are the best
Your family must be proud
Feels good, man