5 ms·

> Unless, of course, you're interested in strafing what's on the ground My (very limited) understanding is this: Against far inferior enemies such as ISIS and

> Unless, of course, you're interested in strafing what's on the ground My (very limited) understanding is this: Against far inferior enemies such as ISIS and the Taliban, strafing works fine. But against peer enemies, such as the Russians, we'll never get close enough to strafe. Also, guided munitions are so much more accurate than unguided ones (such as bullets) that the number of hits is comparable. What we could do with hundreds (thousands?) of unguided munitions before, we now can do with 1-2 guided ones fired from a thousand miles away. We lack the resources to develop and buy everything we want; we can't afford it and the sequester enforced by the GOP makes it even worse. If we invest in tools to defeat ISIS, we'll get crushed by peer enemies. We need to invest in beating our peers; we will defeat ISIS regardless (at least on the battlefield), even if the tools aren't optimal for the task.

jleyank 12y ago
"If we invest in tools to defeat ISIS, we'll get crushed by peer enemies" As I see it, the only peer enemies of the US are Russia and China. As both of these countries are nuclear powers, war between any of them risks terrible escalation. FWIW, the A-10 was designed to fight Soviet tanks in Europe, and I doubt the top armour of tanks has thickened that much since then. And there's lots of APC's and other semi-hard targets that would be killed just fine. Better 10-100 A-10's than 5-10 F-35's. For pretty much any conflict without nuclear overtones the loiter time, inherent survivability and weapon delivery systems on the "old, boring" A-10 is the way to go.
- hackuser 12y ago
  > the A-10 was designed to fight Soviet tanks in Europe, and I doubt the top armour of tanks has thickened that much since then. And there's lots of APC's and other semi-hard targets that would be killed just fine. From what I understand, the A-10 was designed for that role as it was envisioned in the 1970s, 40 years ago. The air defenses have greatly improved since then and planes like the A-10 won't get near the battlefield.
  - mcguire 12y ago
    In Europe, perhaps. In Syria?
    - tim333 12y ago
      They took out about 900 mostly Russian made tanks in Gulf War 1. Plus over 3000 other targets. Four A-10s were lost, shot down by surface to air missiles of the large, non man portable variety. A-10s are effective if you can remove the serious air defences first. Syria apparently has a lot of serious air defences which could be taken out but it would be a major effort.
vacri 12y ago
But against peer enemies, such as the Russians, we'll never get close enough to strafe. How many times have US forces fought the Russians since 1776? Also, given that the US military budget is bigger than the next ten combined, it's probably possible that both situations can be covered. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_e...
angersock 12y ago
What we could do with hundreds (thousands?) of unguided munitions before, we now can do with 1-2 guided ones fired from a thousand miles away. By this logic, we should only be deploying snipers instead of infantry. Look, once you've run out of guided munitions and SAMs and things, you're going to really, really, really hope that the technologically inferior aircraft hadn't packed something as obsolete as a machinegun. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superiority_%28short_story%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superiority_%28short_story%29

jleyank 12y ago

"If we invest in tools to defeat ISIS, we'll get crushed by peer enemies" As I see it, the only peer enemies of the US are Russia and China. As both of these countries are nuclear powers, war between any of them risks terrible escalation. FWIW, the A-10 was designed to fight Soviet tanks in Europe, and I doubt the top armour of tanks has thickened that much since then. And there's lots of APC's and other semi-hard targets that would be killed just fine. Better 10-100 A-10's than 5-10 F-35's. For pretty much any conflict without nuclear overtones the loiter time, inherent survivability and weapon delivery systems on the "old, boring" A-10 is the way to go.

hackuser 12y ago
> the A-10 was designed to fight Soviet tanks in Europe, and I doubt the top armour of tanks has thickened that much since then. And there's lots of APC's and other semi-hard targets that would be killed just fine. From what I understand, the A-10 was designed for that role as it was envisioned in the 1970s, 40 years ago. The air defenses have greatly improved since then and planes like the A-10 won't get near the battlefield.
- mcguire 12y ago
  In Europe, perhaps. In Syria?
  - tim333 12y ago
    They took out about 900 mostly Russian made tanks in Gulf War 1. Plus over 3000 other targets. Four A-10s were lost, shot down by surface to air missiles of the large, non man portable variety. A-10s are effective if you can remove the serious air defences first. Syria apparently has a lot of serious air defences which could be taken out but it would be a major effort.

vacri 12y ago

But against peer enemies, such as the Russians, we'll never get close enough to strafe. How many times have US forces fought the Russians since 1776? Also, given that the US military budget is bigger than the next ten combined, it's probably possible that both situations can be covered. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_e...

angersock 12y ago

What we could do with hundreds (thousands?) of unguided munitions before, we now can do with 1-2 guided ones fired from a thousand miles away. By this logic, we should only be deploying snipers instead of infantry. Look, once you've run out of guided munitions and SAMs and things, you're going to really, really, really hope that the technologically inferior aircraft hadn't packed something as obsolete as a machinegun. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superiority_%28short_story%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superiority_%28short_story%29