Hacker News Reader

Comment by Blackthorn | Hacker News Reader

They don't hate it because it's ugly. I think the simplified version here is they hate it because they don't want to fulfill the role it does.

View on HN

It's not that the Air Force doesn't want to fulfill the CAS role, they wan't the F-35 to do so instead which won't be truly CAS capable in a high threat contested environment for at least another 4-6 years. So, they want the F-15 and F-16 community to take over the role in the meantime -- a job the A-10 was built for and better equipped to handle (which is why it's the most requested asset for CAS). The Army would have been a much better place for these rugged jets, but they have no budget capacity for it and the Air Force is not going to allow them to have a fixed-wing CAS aircraft.

The RAF is the same; they would much rather the nation not even have a capability at all, than allow the Army or Navy to operate it.

Which is baffling. It's your job, guys. Your entire organization with all its staggering budget exists to provide certain specific services to the nation. Deciding which of those services you feel like providing is not in your job description.

Every air force in the world is run by fighter pilots. Even well-meaning serious-minded people tend to emphasize what they know best. Hence air superiority tends to get far more attention than any other aspect of air combat operations.

Frankly, I think the US might be better off allowing the US Army to set up its own units for close air support. I suspect if they were allowed free choice of equipment they would operate some type of rugged STOL fixed-wing airplanes for that purpose.

The US Air Force was created by the strategic bomber boys, though, and they held the reins for a long time, even when long-range bombers became the weakest leg of the nuclear triad.

See also how many hundreds of bombers and thousands of crew were lost to Messerschmitts over Germany before the Army Air Force would admit that, yes, they did need fighter escorts. https://warisboring.com/arrogant-u-s-generals-made-the-p-51-...

Does anyone else think that the whole idea of different branches of the military is a stupid one? Why have different chains of command for different pieces of hardware used in the same mission?

Politically Starship Troopers is problematic in many ways, but one thing I do like about it is that generals in the military had to qualify as an officer in both the army and the navy on the basis that it gives them the required insight into what's involved on both sides.

Canada tried merging the different branches and found that it didn't work too well.

Well of course if you shove it on them after the fact it won't go well. Everyone gets their egos ruffled. You would have to start from scratch.

I'm assuming you're talking about this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unification_of_the_Canadian_Ar...

Isn't the US Navy basically fulfilling all branches to some extent?

Redundancy is a feature. What happens if army brass go off the rails?

The A-10 is obsolete. It is too vulnerable to ground-to-air missiles and too slow to get to the right place to drop smart bombs on pickup trucks.

I get your point, but it seems to be an unfair comparison. Of course the A10 is not suitable for roles that it was not designed for. But that does not inherently mean the particular capabilities are obsolete. Or that the F35 does not have significant comprimises in its own design.

The role that the A10 was designed for no longer exists. An attack helicopter can hide behind cover, everything else needs to fly high enough to avoid MANPADS which means that the big gun is just dead weight.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com