3 ms·

It has nothing to do with sex appeal. A prop plane used for CAS/COIN will siphon funds away from the F-35. That's fine, as long as you don't need to engage in c

by greedo 7y ago

It has nothing to do with sex appeal. A prop plane used for CAS/COIN will siphon funds away from the F-35. That's fine, as long as you don't need to engage in combat with a near peer competitor like China/Russia etc. Planes like the Tucano (and the A-10) will NOT survive against a modern AD. Nor will Apache etc; witness the performance of the Apache when used in 2003. When assaulting the Republican Guard positions at Karbala (with rudimentary AD), the Apaches suffered an incredible amount of casualties: "Of the 29 returning Apaches, all but one suffered serious damage. On average, each Apache had 15-20 bullet holes. One Apache took 29 hits. Sixteen main rotor blades, six tail blades, six engines, and five drive shafts were damaged beyond repair. In one squadron only a single helicopter was fit to fly. It took a month until the 11th Regiment was ready to fight again. The casualties sustained by the Apaches induced a change of tactics by placing significant restrictions on their use.[11] Attack helicopters would henceforth be used to reveal the location of enemy troops, allowing them to be destroyed by artillery and air strikes.[3]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_attack_on_Karbala https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_attack_on_Karbala

hindsightbias 7y ago
The A-10 was designed for a hot war in Europe and would have been nothing more than a “speed bump” for a Soviet invasion in the Fulda Gap, let alone a modern peer. The problem is really casualty aversion - we lost 10’s of thousands of airmen in WW2 and that’s not sexy. The fighter mafias in the USAF and USN are real things, driving the specification of unrealistic capabilities in fiscally constrained universes. Fiscally affordable wars are going to require less bling and a higher tolerance for losses. Extending your thought we should expect F-35 shortcomings to lead to tactical limitations due to operational risks leaders will be unwilling to take when facing a real peer.
- greedo 7y ago
  Yes, we've imposed tactical (and strategic) limitations due to operational risks in our current wars/engagements. The B-2 for example, will never fire a shot in anger since there are so few airframes. It'll be retired in short order after the deployment of the B-21. Same with the F-22. Other than a token deployment to the Mideast with a sortie or two in Syria, they won't see combat unless we get in a hot war with a peer. And until recently, they lacked the required capabilities to attack ground targets. No need to risk them for bomb truck missions. My real worry is that our risk aversion will cause a conventional war to go nuclear in short order, when a more robust conventional military would be able to prevent that. Imagine if we lost a CVN to the Chinese? 5000+ sailors and airmen dead.
throw0101a 7y ago
> Planes like the Tucano (and the A-10) will NOT survive against a modern AD. That wasn't in their design briefs. They're for low- (and maybe medium-) risk areas; they're not for Day 0 (or perhaps even 1) operations. But "victory" is often achieved after a bit of a slog over hill and dale, and high-end gear may not be need for for all of it. Yes, the tip of the spear may need pricey kit, but the baseball bat of suppression may be able to do with a bit less.
- greedo 7y ago
  As long as your wars are expeditionary in nature you're fine with a low end force. But in a peer conflict, these are useless. And they siphon away pilots (something the USAF is short of), while simultaneously making it easier to get into an expeditionary fight.

by greedo 7y ago

hindsightbias 7y ago

The A-10 was designed for a hot war in Europe and would have been nothing more than a “speed bump” for a Soviet invasion in the Fulda Gap, let alone a modern peer. The problem is really casualty aversion - we lost 10’s of thousands of airmen in WW2 and that’s not sexy. The fighter mafias in the USAF and USN are real things, driving the specification of unrealistic capabilities in fiscally constrained universes. Fiscally affordable wars are going to require less bling and a higher tolerance for losses. Extending your thought we should expect F-35 shortcomings to lead to tactical limitations due to operational risks leaders will be unwilling to take when facing a real peer.

greedo 7y ago
Yes, we've imposed tactical (and strategic) limitations due to operational risks in our current wars/engagements. The B-2 for example, will never fire a shot in anger since there are so few airframes. It'll be retired in short order after the deployment of the B-21. Same with the F-22. Other than a token deployment to the Mideast with a sortie or two in Syria, they won't see combat unless we get in a hot war with a peer. And until recently, they lacked the required capabilities to attack ground targets. No need to risk them for bomb truck missions. My real worry is that our risk aversion will cause a conventional war to go nuclear in short order, when a more robust conventional military would be able to prevent that. Imagine if we lost a CVN to the Chinese? 5000+ sailors and airmen dead.

throw0101a 7y ago

> Planes like the Tucano (and the A-10) will NOT survive against a modern AD. That wasn't in their design briefs. They're for low- (and maybe medium-) risk areas; they're not for Day 0 (or perhaps even 1) operations. But "victory" is often achieved after a bit of a slog over hill and dale, and high-end gear may not be need for for all of it. Yes, the tip of the spear may need pricey kit, but the baseball bat of suppression may be able to do with a bit less.

greedo 7y ago
As long as your wars are expeditionary in nature you're fine with a low end force. But in a peer conflict, these are useless. And they siphon away pilots (something the USAF is short of), while simultaneously making it easier to get into an expeditionary fight.