This proposal for our Air Force ignores these realities:
Pierre Sprey -- father of the A-10, co-father of the F-16 and ardent F-22/F-35 critic -- has teamed up with ex-Vietnam fighter jock Col Robert Dilger to propose a fascinating vision for an "effectiveness-based" airpower fleet. ( Read more here, pp 159-162)
--4,000 smaller, more agile A-10s = $60 billion
--2,500 turboprops as forward air controllers = $3 billion
--100 new tankers = $28 billion
--1,000 dirt-strip C-123-like airlifters = $30 billion
--1,100 smaller, faster F-16s = $44 billion
--183 F-22s already purchased
--200 F-35s redesignated as A-35s "to meet commitments to allies" = $50 billion
This seems to be a mix of the post-Cold War era where we lack an enemy able to contest our air superiority and the Cold War era where we needed to hold off hordes of Soviet armor driving west to the Rhine. I like the A-10, but the idea that we need 4,000 of these short-legged planes has no relationship to reality. And with each of our strike aircraft capable of interacting with ground troops or spotting targets on their own, just why do we want 2,5oo forward air control aircraft?
Fascinating? It's asinine. I know air power people like to say that Army and Marine types don't understand air power, but this is hardly Exhibit A for the expertise of the Air Force types.
Let the ground forces build their own organic air forces.
And make the Air Force aim high.
