If not the F35 ,,, then what? The loss of air superiority will be the biggest tragedy in the history of the United States armed forces since Pearl Harbor!
We are where we are with the V-22 Osprey. We are millitarily and monetarily commited to the V-22. Remember what the Bradley Fighting Vechicle was when it was first deployed ... a disaster. We have to fix the problems with the V-22 like we did with the Bradley. The Bell XV-15 seems to be a beautiful VSTOL and I would think it could do quite nicely in the private sector if it meets expectations. We've needed a VSTOL solution that can fly like a plane for a long time so lets push on and get it done.
Why retire an air frame when it still can do the job it was designed for. We've been flying the B-52's since the early 1950's because they still work. Every time someone writes an article about retiring the A-10's I wonder what's the matter with them. The A-10 did a stupendous job during the Gulf Wars. The Infantrymen love the A-10 especially when they need ground support against armor.
There is approximately 217,490 miles of coast line and millions of square miles of littoral, intertidal water zones, and estuaries waters in our world today. To believe we no longer need an amphibious fighting force is a dangerous and ill fated belief to have in an age when world politics is such a deadly game being played by such devious governments.
The problem with using vehicle mounted direct fire chain guns is getting them to the rough terrain and high altitudes being patrolled by our ground troops who can't even get a HMMWV there. This makes it impossible to get any other vehicles to those areas with the fire power you want to use. We need enough long range direct fire to pin down the Taliban in that terrain. Our troops can also use AT4-CS and Javelins to keep them pinned down then hit them with indirect mortar fire and/or air support to pulverize them in the uneven terrain at those altitudes.
The M777 is a lighweight technological Howitzer wonder. But when the technology breaks down your not going to find a Geek Squad readily available to fix the problems. What a mobile flued Mariine Corp requires is an even smaller more easily managed howitzer artillery piece with really smart long range in-direct munitions targeted by ease of use input freindly firing solutions. Not a technological wonder artillery piece which will most definately breakdown in the field at the worst possible time.
What are we going to do with all the Armored Personnel Carriers and Armored Fighting Vehicles such as the Bradley, Stryker, MRAP Cougar, MRAP, Buffalo MRV, up-armored HMMWV, a meriad of MRAP II candidates how does the BAE Systems and Northrop Grumman’s offering for a Ground Combat Vehicle fit into the grand scheme of things? Can we afford to design, develop, service, and facilitate this Armored Fighting Vehicle with all the other in service Armored Vehicles and the development of new APC's and AFV's?
Agreed. But the Air Force only began singing praises for the A10 Thunderbolt II after Desert Storm and Iragi Freedom. Before that there were continued rumors that the A10 was going to be retired because it did not belong in a modern jet fighter ground attack air force.
For this type of mission the A-1 SkyRaider's credentials were pretty darn demonstrative. The A-1 SkyRaiders flew in so many conflicts and were so highly effective that they were flown till they were completely worn out. The Air Force has been trying discontinue the Fairchild A10 Thuderbolt II air ground attack and support asset for decades even after its sterling record in Gulf War of Desert Shield and Desert Storm, and Iragi Freedom, as well as other sandbox operations. An aircraft as the venerable A-1 SkyRaider with modern technology and avionics would be a significant asset for loitering, targeting, and attacking enemy ground as well as targeting enemy ground assets for our jet air ground attack assets. A state of of the art A-1 SkyRaider would also have an excellent ability to track down and identify our downed aviators for extraction.
By assault rifle I mean the M16A4's with 20" barrels and FNH MK 17 SCAR-S with accurized 16" barrels. If the M32 is such a piece of garbage then even more so. Ask the Marines what it was like on rugged uneven or mountainous terrain on Tarawa, Iwo Jima, Okinawa, and Korea and how important indirect fire was to get to the enemy. The US Marines used hand grenades, rifle grenade launching, mortars, small Howitzers, and air support to overcome the terrain factor. If you study military strategy you must remember the three most important things which dictate strategy and tactics ... terrain, terrain, terrain. Also required is one man high-volume small arms fire like the WWII US Marines modiifed M1919A2 Stinger and Browning BAR in 30'06. Today this would be a M60 or M240 machine gun firing the NATO 7.62X51mm caliber.
![[Avatar]](/images/avatar26.png){kind=avatar}
Company