Posted on 03/10/2016 5:18:01 AM PST by sukhoi-30mki
That’s a drag.
If we’re only looking at dealing with ISIS, then I guess B-52s would do. But in anything resembling a normal fight, we would have advanced tactical airstrips within turnaround range - and carriers.
Are we writing acquisition requirements based on this administration’s version of warfare? Or are we just trying to keep our Air Force closer to the Google golf courses?
Sounds like one heckova pilot! Spherical objects the size of bowling balls..
I was buzzed at extremely low altitude by a Bone while I was participating in a Bright Star exercise in Egypt. Dang thing was huge and it arrived in a flash and sounded like thunderclap.
I was and still am impressed.
Hah...Places like Patrick AFB, FL make it possible for them to work on their surfing.
See? I knew it...
The Air Force never really seemed to be particularly interested in getting down in the mud providing close air support.
At least at the higher levels.
The SAC and TAC bomber and fighter people usually held sway and that’s where the money goes.
The wars we are now involved in are pretty much ground and low level air.
But the Air Force wanted to discontinue the most effective ground support aircraft while proceeding with the problematic supersonic F-35 fighters at $100 million a pop.
Can’t keep the A-10s flying forever. Sooner or later they will need to be replaced.
But the USAF is to dependent on stealth. They need aircraft that can perform missions in which stealth is not a factor too.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.