It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
The US Air Force will likely have to cut entire fleets of aircraft to comply with the Congressional sequestration law, says a top service official. In order to retain a force capable of operating across the spectrum of operations, the USAF will have to sacrifice single-mission aircraft in order to preserve multirole machines.
“The only way you really save money is to make entire weapons systems go away,” says Gen Mike Hostage, commander of the USAF’s Air Combat Command. That is “so that the whole logistics train, the whole support infrastructure that goes with it goes away.”
Though eliminating single-mission aircraft is the most efficient way to save money while preserving military capability, the problem is politics, Hostage says.
For example, the L-3 MC-12 Project Liberty aircraft has excellent capability, if funding was not an issue, Hostage says. Other single-mission aircraft that might be sacrificed include the Fairchild Republic A-10.
Zaphod58
reply to post by EA006
It's the specialized loss of capability that is worrisome. The F-35, B-1 and others can perform the A-10 mission, but poorly. There was a recent A-10 sortie in Afghanistan where two A-10s expended every bomb they had, and 2400 rounds of ammunition while staying overhead for several hours. No other aircraft could even have come close to that. The end result is that three Americans were injured (all suffered when their vehicle went off the road). The F-35 that is supposed to replace the Warthog carries 800 rounds of ammunition, and flies twice as fast.
Zaphod58
reply to post by EA006
It's the specialized loss of capability that is worrisome. The F-35, B-1 and others can perform the A-10 mission, but poorly. There was a recent A-10 sortie in Afghanistan where two A-10s expended every bomb they had, and 2400 rounds of ammunition while staying overhead for several hours. No other aircraft could even have come close to that. The end result is that three Americans were injured (all suffered when their vehicle went off the road). The F-35 that is supposed to replace the Warthog carries 800 rounds of ammunition, and flies twice as fast.
Zaphod58
reply to post by AlliumIslelily
Not even remotely close. The Navy has 3700+ aircraft, including ASW, transports, and cargo aircraft. The USAF had over 5500 as of September of 2012.edit on 9/18/2013 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)
CarbonBase
Seriously? "our enemies" ? Who the Klingons? The Canadians ? Godzilla ?
If we need an air force, then it should be designed to protect the U.S.
So, how many Taliban fighter aircraft do we engage over A-stan every day? What the heck are we doing in A-stan in the first place (like that is the ALL TIME no brainer question if there ever was one!)
Why can't we just use drones instead ?
What country in the known Universe has the capability right now to engage the U.S. in air combat over our own territory?
also, I have one last word that makes the idea of using aircraft as weapons - SPACE BASED LASER, coming to a maniacal despot near you !