Hacker News Reader

Comment by johan_larson | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

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?

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?

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.

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The A-10 is obsolete.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