4 ms·

The F-20's problem was that it was directly competing with the F-16 (and in some ways actually outclassed it). It was always intended to compete mostly for the

The F-20's problem was that it was directly competing with the F-16 (and in some ways actually outclassed it). It was always intended to compete mostly for the foreign export market. The problem was that the USAF had already selected the F-16 and thus had a vested interest in increasing F-16 adoption to get their own costs down. The Scorpion is interesting in that it doesn't really have a domestic competitor. We're talking about a plane that that's going to cost less than a fifth what the JSF does, cost about 1/10th as much per flight hour to operate, and can fulfill a mission the JSF isn't all that well suited to in the first place. The problem they're going to run into, though, is the same one the A-10's constantly facing - the USAF doesn't really want to be in the CAS business. Personally, I'd be in favor of just axing the 60 year old Key West Agreement and giving the A-10s (and potentially the Scorpions) over to the Army.

sremani 12y ago
I agree about A-10s being transferred to Army. The A-10 ground support missions are too "unsexy" for Airforce.
vonmoltke 12y ago
> The problem they're going to run into, though, is the same one the A-10's constantly facing - the USAF doesn't really want to be in the CAS business. Personally, I'd be in favor of just axing the 60 year old Key West Agreement and giving the A-10s (and potentially the Scorpions) over to the Army. Absolutely agreed. The Air Force has three primary missions: 1) bomb shit for the Army; 2) haul shit for the Army; 3) stop the enemy air force from performing missions 1 and 2 for their army. If the Air Force would like to focus on being a giant intelligence agency with hella expensive but cool toys, than the Army absolutely should take those missions into their own hands to ensure the shit gets done properly.
- hangonhn 12y ago
  With the exception of #3, the USAF doesn't want to do any of that. The USAF has from the start believed that it can bomb an enemy into submission through strategic bombing. There is some truth to this idea but I can't recall any major war where this has worked by itself without boots on the ground. Given that, the USAF must continue to perform #1 and #2. It's kind of unsettling that the USAF continues to want to neglect the less glamorous but vital roles.

sremani 12y ago

I agree about A-10s being transferred to Army. The A-10 ground support missions are too "unsexy" for Airforce.

vonmoltke 12y ago

> The problem they're going to run into, though, is the same one the A-10's constantly facing - the USAF doesn't really want to be in the CAS business. Personally, I'd be in favor of just axing the 60 year old Key West Agreement and giving the A-10s (and potentially the Scorpions) over to the Army. Absolutely agreed. The Air Force has three primary missions: 1) bomb shit for the Army; 2) haul shit for the Army; 3) stop the enemy air force from performing missions 1 and 2 for their army. If the Air Force would like to focus on being a giant intelligence agency with hella expensive but cool toys, than the Army absolutely should take those missions into their own hands to ensure the shit gets done properly.

hangonhn 12y ago
With the exception of #3, the USAF doesn't want to do any of that. The USAF has from the start believed that it can bomb an enemy into submission through strategic bombing. There is some truth to this idea but I can't recall any major war where this has worked by itself without boots on the ground. Given that, the USAF must continue to perform #1 and #2. It's kind of unsettling that the USAF continues to want to neglect the less glamorous but vital roles.