I think the point of this is not getting through. We are not winning wars with high cost high tech weapon systems.
There are two aspects to winning a war, the miliary aspect and the strategic aspect (political outcome). The military can only contribute to the military aspect and is only required to achieve the military strategic objective. I am at a loss as to how any student of history can possibly conclude that the US and coalition forces have "lost" a single war militarily since WW2. I will not discuss Korea because I am not able to provide facts and figures off the top of my head however Vietnam, US losses 50k +- N Vietnam losses 1MIL. I wont get into the many battles, of which the US never left the field defeated. Grenada? Panama? Iraq 1? Iraq 2? Afghanistan? Forgetting for the moment coalition forces never did fight a recognized military formation in Afghanistan the balance of the actions were decided in days and weeks all owing to superior technology and training. If anything past actions have born out the idea that higher technology, is highly desirable.
Nobody has addressed the Trillions wasted on these varied weapon systems. And we have lost these wars. If the A-10 were so obsolete than why have the Russians developed the SU-39. Fairly new. Put in service in 1995. It is actually better than the A-10. Easy to fly, easy to maintain and will run on regular diesel fuel.
First we would have to agree we've "wasted" money on these varied weapons systems, which we have not. As a proponent of the A10 you must at least understand it requires that air superiority be provided to it by other platforms.
I thought our pentagon was supposed to defend us from all enemies. Russia and China are the ones pulling the strings of there puppet nations. We face weapons from those nations not Iraqi, Afghanistan or Iran.
News flash Who do you think supplies these countries with their systems? Hint, it's not Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan.
Yes a -B-1 can stay on station all day. At what cost. So too can any fighter flying. But they need constant tanker support. The New KC-46 is over $200 mil a copy, an F-22 is $300 mil a copy and the missiles I quoted are $70,000 for a Hellfire and $150,000 to $260,000 for a AGM-65 Maverick depending on model. That's not chicken feed. Unless you live on Long Island or in a nice area of LA or Frisco you can buy a decent home for that. The only ones making out are the manufactures of all these systems. Are we safer because of them No.
B-1's don't stay on station every day, they are a strategic assett. You are completely remiss in having concept of aerial warfare and this thread isn't the place to start pointing out the very basic fundamentals aside from saying: Strategic platforms are a necessity and hopefully are used little if at all. Besides dropping nukes they do have the ability to deliver smart ordenance to fill a gap until; Once air superiority is accomplished (a matter of days since Vietnam) fighters are withdrawn almost completely (with the exception of occassional CAP's providing overlap for other assetts) for less expensive platforms (UAV's and Attack Helicopters) can take up constant coverage.
And while we throw good money after bad on most of these systems our nation degrades. Our astronauts go up on a 40 year old Vostock Russian Rockets at $100 million per astronaut because we can not afford our own any more. One does not have to re invent the wheel to get the job done. The Vostock put up Sputnik in the 50s. That put Washington into a tail spin. And the Vostock was there original ICBM. Not bad for an obsolete system really designed by German Rocket Scientist nearly 70 years ago. Why do we still have tanks? Just because the army wants them? Other nations I see are still buying new tanks. Israel, German and Britain have received recent orders. Is it just prestige or do they think they may need them in the future.
You are jumping from astronauts to army tanks? This piece of the thread is almost like watching an episode of Connections. If you don't know why we use/need tanks (you don't) how can you conclude we don't need them? Or was this rhetorical?
Grandsons are now flying B-52s and KC-135s. Do you see any airline flying 50 year old plane? Buffalo Airways does but that's an exception. Many A-10s have been rewinged and have newer systems. To scrap them now is another waste of money we do not have.
If you think the F22/35 is expensive imagine the cost of a new B52 type platform. It is precisely due to costs that some platforms have to go away and being the grand daddy with a tiny mission window the A10 is an obvious choice.
How much does the new F-35 really cost per. Does anybody really know. With development cost thrown in well over $330 mil apiece. Does one need supersonic speed and fancy missiles to kill a tank, a Scud Missile or some anti aircraft gun on the back of a used Toyota Pick up? The A-10 gun can to do the job for peanuts. Plus the f-35 with out tankers can't go far. Without tanker support The Marine F-35 has a choice Carry weapons or fuel. We will not always be fighting third world nations. Air and sea supremacy is in our favor now only if we go nuclear and we do not confront the big boys. I do not see using nucs but I do see down the road China and Russia confronting us at some time. Probably both together. Over oil and land ownership. We may get the chance to see what happens in a few more years with the fight over oil in the islands off of Japan and China. They all say they own the same Earth. I would say its not our problem. But you know Washington and the oil companies putting money in the politicians pockets. We will be in the middle of it saying its about somebodies freedom. Putin will not blink but our leadership now will.
Some of this has been addressed by others. I will point out however that at the point where the A10 "could" be used Apaches take over anyway and they are superior in CAS to the A10 and that's before we even start talking about the AH64E. In fact, Apaches have been used to peel the IADS onion so the A10 "could" be used and then it was for a very limited time. The Apache is the platform that paved the way for the fast movers to get into Iraq not the A10. Apaches provided CAS all the way to the bitter end in Iraq, will in Afghanistan and I suspect future conflicts as well. Lastly, given the choice the grunts would rather be supported by fellow dog faces than the AF because we believe that it is our job to support the ground pounders, the AF doesn't have that philosophy at all. Eventually even the AH64's will be relegated to the scrap yard having done all they can do, in fact I suspect they will be the last manned attack platform the Army owns.
Final disclaimer, I do not in any way intend to discredit the folks in the AF or their accomplishments. I to rely upon air superiority to do my job and I salute them for doing such a great job of providing that security.
