4 ms·
tl;dr : Replacements in mostly uncontested deployments, with a focus on a relatively inexpensive and easy to maintain aircraft, with additional roles as recon a
by jpitz 8y ago
tl;dr : Replacements in mostly uncontested deployments, with a focus on a relatively inexpensive and easy to maintain aircraft, with additional roles as recon and trainer aircraft. NOT an all-out fleet replacement for the Warthog.
- dingaling 8y agoThe role for which the USAF used to have the Cessna A-37, also an adapted trainer but twin-jet. Ironically it was widely exported to South America where the Super Tucano is now cleaning-up as a replacement in the absence of anything else. Every 30 years the USAF rediscovers the need for a cheap close-air- support aircraft.
- rbanffy 8y ago> Every 30 years Interesting pattern that repeats across multiple fields. I wonder how that compares to the average USAF career duration.
- greedo 8y agoNot sure why you're getting downvoted. None of the replacements (nor the A-10) are survivable in an area protected by fighters or modern SAMs. In the 80's, A-10s were expected to last less than a few weeks in Germany had the balloon gone up.
- secfirstmd 8y agoWeeks? More like hours or days
- greedo 8y agoI was referring to the entire deployed force, and assuming their airbases weren't nuked.
- masklinn 8y agoThat seems fine considering all the wars the US has fought in the last 50 years or so have been ridiculously asymmetrical. The USAF has to prepare for a war against technologically equivalent countries, but it also needs to do a much better job at preparing for the wars it's actually fighting right now.
- greedo 8y agoAh, I think the USAF is doing a fine job with what it's been dealt with. It's made a few procurement decisions that have been a bit questionable, but much of that was driven more by the Executive Branch than the Pentagon. Airpower is really quite limited. Boots on the ground will always be required, and that's something the US has grown tired of providing.