4 ms·

A specific scenario to optimize for. The A10 was designed to swiss cheese just enough Russian tanks and to buy the time for C5s (designed to transport main bat

A specific scenario to optimize for. The A10 was designed to swiss cheese just enough Russian tanks and to buy the time for C5s (designed to transport main battle tanks) full of M1s (meant to kill Russian tanks) to make it to France before the Russians could steamroll Germany. The F117 was designed to slip past and strike infiltrate Russian air defense systems so our bombers could make it to the target. All the weapons systems of the cold war era were built to fight a specific peer adversary first and needed to fit into that portfolio. Capability to handle other tasks was pursued (especially during and after Vietnam) but at the end of the day systems had to be able to fit into a strategy in which we fight the Russians or if not they had to have some other specific and narrowly tailored purpose (e.g. AC130). Right now the armed forces are in this weird state where they have to be able to handle anything from some rowdy poppy farmers to WW3 in no particular order of priority and that manifests itself as poorly thought out feature bloat.

theseadroid 7y ago
You could say in some degree that not only the military needs a purpose. The deteriorating of infrastructure, the lack of vision of politicians, the increasing inequality are probably all the result of a lacking of a purpose.
- vincent-toups 7y ago
  Maybe absent the purpose, we don't need quite this much military. Its a rather frightening prospect, the other way round.
- kevin_thibedeau 7y ago
  The purpose is jobs. Well functioning results aren't a requirement.
greedo 7y ago
While the C5A has the ability to carry a single M1, it's not really intended for ferrying armored vehicles that large. REFORGER relied largely on both pre-positioned stocks of arms as well as merchant vessels to carry the heavy gear.
- dsfyu404ed 7y ago
  You're right. Air is a terrible way to move tanks around because you have to do it one at a time. Being able to do it in a pinch is very important. It won't be cheap or without risk (which you care about for exercises) but when there's T72s pouring through the Fulda gap you pull out all the stops because you don't get a do-over.
  - greedo 7y ago
    In that case I'd be flying over Apache AH-64s (three at a time) instead of a tank with no supporting equipment, fuel or ammo.
yborg 7y ago
>make it to France before the Russians could steamroll Germany. Wat. France left NATO in 1966, there would be no C5s landing in France with anything. The A10 was in fact intended to offset the Soviet Union's vast advantage in numbers, but there was no believable scenario in the 1980s in which the Soviets would have failed to force the Fulda Gap with armor within 48 hours ... absent use of tactical nukes. This is why the German people were extremely unhappy about the presence of Pershings in West Germany, because the only way to prevent the Russians from overrunning West Germany was to nuke West Germany.
- joey_bob 7y ago
  France left the joint military structure in 1966, it was still bound by the military alliance. It would be ridiculous to think they would honour the alliance, but refuse to allow American planes to land in France in the event of war.

theseadroid 7y ago

You could say in some degree that not only the military needs a purpose. The deteriorating of infrastructure, the lack of vision of politicians, the increasing inequality are probably all the result of a lacking of a purpose.

vincent-toups 7y ago
Maybe absent the purpose, we don't need quite this much military. Its a rather frightening prospect, the other way round.
kevin_thibedeau 7y ago
The purpose is jobs. Well functioning results aren't a requirement.

greedo 7y ago

While the C5A has the ability to carry a single M1, it's not really intended for ferrying armored vehicles that large. REFORGER relied largely on both pre-positioned stocks of arms as well as merchant vessels to carry the heavy gear.

dsfyu404ed 7y ago
You're right. Air is a terrible way to move tanks around because you have to do it one at a time. Being able to do it in a pinch is very important. It won't be cheap or without risk (which you care about for exercises) but when there's T72s pouring through the Fulda gap you pull out all the stops because you don't get a do-over.
- greedo 7y ago
  In that case I'd be flying over Apache AH-64s (three at a time) instead of a tank with no supporting equipment, fuel or ammo.

yborg 7y ago

>make it to France before the Russians could steamroll Germany. Wat. France left NATO in 1966, there would be no C5s landing in France with anything. The A10 was in fact intended to offset the Soviet Union's vast advantage in numbers, but there was no believable scenario in the 1980s in which the Soviets would have failed to force the Fulda Gap with armor within 48 hours ... absent use of tactical nukes. This is why the German people were extremely unhappy about the presence of Pershings in West Germany, because the only way to prevent the Russians from overrunning West Germany was to nuke West Germany.

joey_bob 7y ago
France left the joint military structure in 1966, it was still bound by the military alliance. It would be ridiculous to think they would honour the alliance, but refuse to allow American planes to land in France in the event of war.