The
article linked below is about how over engineered aircraft are wasting money
when it comes to combat effectiveness. The whole concept of one aircraft, the
F-35, for the Air Force, Navy and Marines guaranteed engineering delays and
huge cost overruns. The Marines' requirement for short takeoff vertical landing
required a much bulkier and heavier airframe that makes other services' models
much less maneuverable. I remember that the F-111 was originally supposed to be
a fighter both the Navy and the Air Force would use for both interception and
tactical bombing. It ended up as a costly fiasco, which ultimately saw action
only with the Air Force and only as a bomber. We should have remembered Robert
McNamara's F-111 project was not the panacea that he promised. Instead, we
repeated the mistake with the F-35 project.
The author mentions that for the
price of one F-35, we could buy a small single purpose air to air fighter, and
a single purpose ground attack bomber like the A-10 Warthog. The maintenance
and flying costs of the combination would also be far lower that the F-35 and
the mission readiness rate would be far higher. The Pentagon believes, almost
religiously, that every airplane they buy has to be multipurpose. That's why
the Air Force is trying to retire the A-10, because it only does ground attack.
The fact that it does ground attack better than any other airplane we have in
the inventory or plan to purchase is not enough to save the A-10, since it only
does one thing. My solution is to give the A-10 in particular and the close air
support mission in general to the US Army. They really appreciate the
capabilities of the A-10.
I
know this would require a change in the law. The Army lost almost all of its
aircraft in a deal in 1948 that gave the newly established Air Force almost all
current and future fixed wing aircraft. Currently, the Army can only operate
helicopters as attack aircraft. But helicopters are a lot less capable and a
lot more expensive to operate than "Warthogs." Congress should revoke
the 1948 deal and give all the A-10 aircraft to the US Army. The Army should
also be allowed to buy other fixed wing ground attack aircraft as needed in the
future.
The author argues that while some
stealth is worth it, super stealth is wasted on fighters because most air to
air engagements are dogfights within visual range. Stealth only fools radar,
not optics. Less stealth would be both cheaper to buy and cheaper to maintain.
The
author's historical reference at the beginning of the article really backs up
his point about overly sophisticated US aircraft. He mentions that the last air
to ground casualties inflicted on US ground forces were inflicted by a PO-2
biplane. The PO-2 was a Soviet training, ground attack and crop dusting
airplane made of wood and fabric. It had so little metal and flew so low and
slow that US night fighters could not find it with radar.
No comments:
Post a Comment