Surprised to see this idea back in the news, but some of the comments from Maya Carlin have merit. Here are some thoughts and counterpoints:
- For some situations, using the A-29 would work. For pennies on the dollar, it provides capable ISR, rapid response fires, persistence, and reasonable performance. Not if we buy it like the SOCOM Air Tractor, though. Terrible, bloated acquisition plan.
- The A-10, contrary to AF myth, is survivable in many near peer situations. No, it will not fight toe to toe with a SU-57. Neither will an F-35 or F-22. We don't fight that way. We fight in a complementary, force multiplier way. We don't field 11 quarterbacks, as that would be stupid. We field a team.
- While nice to have in many situations, 2-seat aircraft are not a guarantee of more capability. Add the manpower to match the mission, not just because you have the space.
- The comments about the A-1, F-4 and F-111 are simply incorrect. The CAS workhorse for Vietnam was the F-100. Not designed for CAS, but with the focus the pilots did well. Yes, the A-1 was slow, but with its weapons load it was a beast and and very effective. F-4s flew a good bit of CAS, but the F-111 would have an only flown CAS as an accident.
- It is short-sighted and foolish to think the days of significant ground forces are a thing of the past. That is a 1950's argument, and we see where that led us.
#closeairsupport #USAF #AirPower