5 ms·

The A part of the F/A 18 means Attack. Usually Attack aircraft are capable of close air support, which is a huge and integral part of our military tactics. htt

The A part of the F/A 18 means Attack. Usually Attack aircraft are capable of close air support, which is a huge and integral part of our military tactics. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Close_air_support https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Close_air_support Without close air support, troops on the ground can't overwhelm enemies with firepower. Without air superiority, we don't provide close air support. Our strategy dictates air superiority to enable our tactics of close air support. The reason there's only been one dogfight in the past 20 years is not because these fighters aren't effective, or because they're a relic of the past. It's that they're too effective. We own the sky and nobody is capable of challenging us.

tyingq 6y ago
That's what I was getting at. Dogfighting ("that aspect") isn't all that useful for the US.
- coredog64 6y ago
  I don’t think that’s quite true. In a post Cold War world, the assumption is that it’s pointless to engage NATO forces in air-to-air combat due to the level of capability. That calculus is different where combatants are more closely matched (e.g. India and Pakistan), or it may change as opponents improve their capabilities.
  - tyingq 6y ago
    Just seems like a lot of time and money when spending less would just mean losing more (probably much cheaper) aircraft before you get air superiority.
    - simlevesque 6y ago
      how is more, cheaper planes supposed to cost less ?
      - tyingq 6y ago
        The amount we spend to have "the best", per aircraft, is exponentially higher than what "good enough" would be. And not just purchase price. Training, maintenance, longevity of the platform, etc.
    - simonh 6y ago
      Cost vs effectiveness isn’t linear though. An air superiority jet that’s far more advanced and expensive isn’t just a bit more effective, it utterly dominates cheaper less effective opponents. Also per unit costs are misleading. You can’t easily quadruple Or 10x your number of air bases, number of trained pilots and air crew, number of aircraft carriers to carry all your cheap and cheerful swarm fighters. A lot of fast jet economics is driven by getting maximum utility out of deployment capacity and support infrastructure that is itself irreducibly expensive.
CobrastanJorji 6y ago
Okay, but in that case, is it kind of weird that we keep trying to sell our fighter jets to other countries?
- DaiPlusPlus 6y ago
  They’re generally allied nations in NATO with compatible technical standards. NATO really doesn’t need member-states with planes that can’t fit American missiles - plus it saves the purchasing country the huge expense of having their own R&D programmes for domestic planes. As for other countries: it’s still in your geopolitical interests to have countries who aren’t allies using your gear - not just for the money - but because it means you already know their weaknesses and you can sell them nerfed “export editions” to ensure you have technical superiority and to lock them in to buying parts, accessories, training, and upgrades (and successors!) from your own nations’ defence contractors and you can saturate a market that your geopolitical rivals (Russia, PRC, Iran, etc) would otherwise have access to, thus weakening their sphere-of-influence. For a recent example of it going wrong, see the S-400 sale to Turkey. Arms sales are an ugly thing - but if NATO states didn’t sell arms to Saudi Arabia, Libya, Turkey, etc what would the alternative be?
  - alasdair_ 6y ago
    > Arms sales are an ugly thing - but if NATO states didn’t sell arms to Saudi Arabia, Libya, Turkey, etc what would the alternative be? Education and health care?
    - DaiPlusPlus 6y ago
      > Education and health care? I wish - I really do :/ When countries set their budgets for the year - they'll set aside, say, 15% for defense - if their DoD reports to the cabinet that none of the superpowers will sell them new toys then that government's cabinet is not going to suddenly craft a new budget and divert that money that would have gone to new fighter-planes or small-arms to other civilian areas - that money will certainly stay with their military who will find some creative use for it. ...and that's the best-case scenario - for a country that isn't expecting hostilities. What I meant by that was that if NATO doesn't sell to a third-world (using the strict/classical definition of "third-world") nation who is looking to buy arms then a rival power or superpower will - they may even give-away some amount of arms gratis to sweeten the deal and to "thank" the country for leaving or even reconsidering the NATO/OEDC sphere-of-influence - obviously Russia isn't the Soviet Union and they don't have the same expansionist goals, but I believe we're seeing the PRC making its moves. The PRC hasn't yet fired-up its export economy for defence gear yet - but I believe it's inevitable. I stress that I don't want to start-up any Sinophobic sentiment - but what I'm seeing the PRC do is exactly the same thing I'd expect to see from any rising superpower looking to preserve their unending explosive economic growth... history doesn't exactly repeat itelf, but it often rhymes: the PRC wants influence, apparently to benefit itself (and I am concerned about the signs of Han ethnonationalism being the motivation behind their foreign and domestic policy objectives - and the PRC doesn't stand for the same principles I do) - I'm concerned where it will end-up. So if it means having to sell arms to countries (as part of an socio-economic-military package) to keep them in NATO+OEDC (which _generally_ value the things that I value) with the view of keeping them out of the PRC's SoI then that's something I'll have to accept.
GarvielLoken 6y ago
Ever heard about artillery? Or even rocket artillery?

tyingq 6y ago

That's what I was getting at. Dogfighting ("that aspect") isn't all that useful for the US.

coredog64 6y ago
I don’t think that’s quite true. In a post Cold War world, the assumption is that it’s pointless to engage NATO forces in air-to-air combat due to the level of capability. That calculus is different where combatants are more closely matched (e.g. India and Pakistan), or it may change as opponents improve their capabilities.
- tyingq 6y ago
  Just seems like a lot of time and money when spending less would just mean losing more (probably much cheaper) aircraft before you get air superiority.
  - simlevesque 6y ago
    how is more, cheaper planes supposed to cost less ?
    - tyingq 6y ago
      The amount we spend to have "the best", per aircraft, is exponentially higher than what "good enough" would be. And not just purchase price. Training, maintenance, longevity of the platform, etc.
  - simonh 6y ago
    Cost vs effectiveness isn’t linear though. An air superiority jet that’s far more advanced and expensive isn’t just a bit more effective, it utterly dominates cheaper less effective opponents. Also per unit costs are misleading. You can’t easily quadruple Or 10x your number of air bases, number of trained pilots and air crew, number of aircraft carriers to carry all your cheap and cheerful swarm fighters. A lot of fast jet economics is driven by getting maximum utility out of deployment capacity and support infrastructure that is itself irreducibly expensive.

CobrastanJorji 6y ago

Okay, but in that case, is it kind of weird that we keep trying to sell our fighter jets to other countries?

DaiPlusPlus 6y ago
They’re generally allied nations in NATO with compatible technical standards. NATO really doesn’t need member-states with planes that can’t fit American missiles - plus it saves the purchasing country the huge expense of having their own R&D programmes for domestic planes. As for other countries: it’s still in your geopolitical interests to have countries who aren’t allies using your gear - not just for the money - but because it means you already know their weaknesses and you can sell them nerfed “export editions” to ensure you have technical superiority and to lock them in to buying parts, accessories, training, and upgrades (and successors!) from your own nations’ defence contractors and you can saturate a market that your geopolitical rivals (Russia, PRC, Iran, etc) would otherwise have access to, thus weakening their sphere-of-influence. For a recent example of it going wrong, see the S-400 sale to Turkey. Arms sales are an ugly thing - but if NATO states didn’t sell arms to Saudi Arabia, Libya, Turkey, etc what would the alternative be?
- alasdair_ 6y ago
  > Arms sales are an ugly thing - but if NATO states didn’t sell arms to Saudi Arabia, Libya, Turkey, etc what would the alternative be? Education and health care?
  - DaiPlusPlus 6y ago
    > Education and health care? I wish - I really do :/ When countries set their budgets for the year - they'll set aside, say, 15% for defense - if their DoD reports to the cabinet that none of the superpowers will sell them new toys then that government's cabinet is not going to suddenly craft a new budget and divert that money that would have gone to new fighter-planes or small-arms to other civilian areas - that money will certainly stay with their military who will find some creative use for it. ...and that's the best-case scenario - for a country that isn't expecting hostilities. What I meant by that was that if NATO doesn't sell to a third-world (using the strict/classical definition of "third-world") nation who is looking to buy arms then a rival power or superpower will - they may even give-away some amount of arms gratis to sweeten the deal and to "thank" the country for leaving or even reconsidering the NATO/OEDC sphere-of-influence - obviously Russia isn't the Soviet Union and they don't have the same expansionist goals, but I believe we're seeing the PRC making its moves. The PRC hasn't yet fired-up its export economy for defence gear yet - but I believe it's inevitable. I stress that I don't want to start-up any Sinophobic sentiment - but what I'm seeing the PRC do is exactly the same thing I'd expect to see from any rising superpower looking to preserve their unending explosive economic growth... history doesn't exactly repeat itelf, but it often rhymes: the PRC wants influence, apparently to benefit itself (and I am concerned about the signs of Han ethnonationalism being the motivation behind their foreign and domestic policy objectives - and the PRC doesn't stand for the same principles I do) - I'm concerned where it will end-up. So if it means having to sell arms to countries (as part of an socio-economic-military package) to keep them in NATO+OEDC (which _generally_ value the things that I value) with the view of keeping them out of the PRC's SoI then that's something I'll have to accept.

GarvielLoken 6y ago

Ever heard about artillery? Or even rocket artillery?