If an airframe requires 17 hours of maintenance for each hour in flight, that's going to put it much farther down the list of desires than one which requires only two, or four. If an airframe requires a filtered, temperature controlled environment, it's much less desirable than one which is much more forgiving of a bit of dirt and sand.
Notwithstanding our incredible weapons systems, which do make one heck of a difference in any engagement, truthfully, it is our crews that make all the difference. The most experienced, trained, and able people on the planet, whom you can tell to take over the skies, and they will do so, with maximum effectiveness.
Until these other airframes aren't hanger queens which require 20 hours of maintenance for every hour of flight, then they're going to be nice dreams, but while they're sleeping, it's time to get up in the air and get the job done.
How many times now has the A-10 been declared a dead air frame, that the air force is no longer going to use it, in favor of some other ingredient, and then gosh, you look up and see another A-10 launching for a sortie.
I'm sure there's some argument to spend billions upon billions to upgrade all the airframes to the latest technology. Were I a pilot, I'd be looking to fly the most stable airframe that gives me not just the most likely chance of survivability, but also the most likely chance of completing the mission. The new airframes have yet to truly justify their costs, their required maintenance, nor their very pricey nature. Until they do, I'll sleep comfortable not because there's some wow-wee technology on the horizon, but because I know that the pilots that fly our planes, no matter if it's an A-10 Warthog, an F-15 Strike Eagle, or one of them fancy F-35 JSF’s, that they'll have twenty times the amount of flight hours, and infinitely more real combat experience than any opponent on the planet. I know our weapons systems far exceed the airframes they're put on, and the pilots who fly these weapon systems are ready and willing to protect each and every one of us.
Good post, thanks.
If that hour of flight can clear the air of all challengers without being touched, it is well worth it. Technology often brings overwhelming advantages easily covering the costs, in the field and in preparation. It is either on the battlefield, or in the scenarios of the war gamers, that determine the cost/benefit of your arms.
Nuclear weapons need 24 hours/day of expensive maintenance, but so far, have worked very well, and hopefully will never be "fielded".
I understand what you are saying, but my concern is that your statement is wholly dependent on the US continuing to fight the same type of opponent that the Us has been fighting for the last number of decades. That is, the Iraqs, the Afghanistans, the Grenadas, the (former) Yugoslavias, the Somalias of the world. Nations whereby systems like the A-10 Warthog, the Apache gunship, the modern variants of the Cobra, the F-16 C/D, the F-15C/E, bomb-trucks like the B-52, etc rule the roost. Well, for such countries, even F-4 Phantoms, Corsairs and Viet Nam era Cobras (as opposed to the modern variants) with a few modernized bells and whistles would have sufficed. An A-10, with its titanium bathtub, its missiles, and its huge GAU gattling monster, flying over the expanse of the Iraqi desert chewing up Soviet-era T-62s and a smattering of T-72s, or a B-52 loitering and dropping JDAMs at unwashed Jihadi who have unknowingly been targeted by some special forces who are calling in Gehenna in 500 pound measurements.
That sounds nice, and it is perfect against the Aghanistans and Grenadas of the world, but what if (and it will happen) the US has to fight against a foe that is either a near-peer (e.g. China), or that has the ability to develop and execute cogent responses?
In such a case, weapon systems like Warthogs would not only be woefully inefficient, they would not be survivable! 4th generation legacy airframes like the F-16 would also not be survivable.
Such situations and scenarios would require the next level of capability, one that can ensure not just competitive advantage (air superiority) but competitive assurance (air dominance).
I believe that the victories that the US has had has made some perceive that it is almost a given that the US will win any altercation. The truth is that those victories have been due to superior training, superior morale, superior support, superior awareness, and superior weaponry.
Strike out just one and you will lose more lives than needed to be lost.
Strike out enough of those legs and you will lose the war.
If China invades Taiwan 7 years from now, you will be facing D-E subs with AIP that are very hard to detect that are armed with Klub missiles. You will be facing an integrated air defense network that is advanced, with redudant system, and armed with a mix of S-300s and HQ9s (oh, and to those who bring up Iraq's IADS ...that was a mix-mash of old Soviet, British and French system ...called KARI ...that was supposed to be sufficient for fending off an Iranian or Israeli attack. This was after Iran had attacked Iraq's Osirak reactor in 1980, and a year later Israel had done the same. It was not meant to stand against anything than a limited one-directional attack, and definitely not against the assembled airforces of the US, NATO and allies. YET ...it still managed to bring down a number of planes! An advanced IADS with S-300s will deny the airspace to any legacy fighter ...and by this I mean F-15s and F-16s. I'll not even honor the A-10 with a mention, since reports from the Cold War did not expect it to survive the Fulda gap.
The legacy systems are important, since most of the wars (actually all) and other conflagrations the US is currently involved in currently require them. Nothing more ...a Raptor over Iraq is as useless as tits on a hog.
However, to remain competitive in the future it is imperative that the US have the ability to wage unfair fights ....anything less than an unfair fight means that families back in the US receive mail saying their son or daughter was KIA. Future weapons, that currently are 'useless' in Afghanistan, would be immense force multipliers against a near-peer adversary (and this would be the case even if they don't go to war ...the fact that Raptors may be in the air FORCES the enemy to take measures or change strategy simply because of that. For instance, had Hitler waited a couple of years until the LuftWaffe had the jet fighters and other machines that were at the moment in the conceptual and/or prototype stages, there would have been no way the allies would have bombed Berlin. Or, the mere existence of the Bismarck forced the Royal Navy to commit a lot of manpower and ships to simply tracking the ship. Its existence tied up a significant portion of the British fleet. Imagine if Nazi Germany had more than it and the sister ship ...imagine if Hitler had waited 7 more years and there were 10 of them?). Problem is the US is pursuing the same strategy that German (and Japan) did ...2 mega battleships rather than more. 187 Raptors is the same ...now, having 350, or more, would have been more along the lines needed.
Anyways, the A-10s and the like are perfect ...for the types of countries we face (read: Kalashnikov totting folk who like to have a nice evening tryst with the family camel ...maybe a donkey or three if they are not in the kicking mood. A strong kick to the gonads can knock out the will of Allah!) However, against a near-peer ....well, even if we win it will cost far more lives than it need have.