[arderkrag]

"This is a plane for large land combat engagements and for the foreseeable future, you probably won't face too many of those and there's also the budget pressure."

And there's the rub. It's a changing world, and you won't see huge mass battles like you used to. That's why our soldiers are being trained in localized urban environments - because terrorists aren't found inside fortified military bases. They're found in sleeper cells or metropolitan hubs.



(Of course, the tinfoil hatters around here are convinced it's all a vicious plot to push us to an authoritarian dystopia, but that's another story.)

[MrEdd]

Now there is a stupid statement worthy in every way of Ambrose Everett Burnside’s military accumen.

We are not seeing mass battles because at the moment the superpowers can quash them with weapons systems like these. Disarming for large scale battles makes them viable for one’s opponent again.

[thorvaldr]

“This is a plane for large land combat engagements and for the foreseeable future, you probably won’t face too many of those and there’s also the budget pressure.”

And there’s the rub. It’s a changing world, and you won’t see huge mass battles like you used to. That’s why our soldiers are being trained in localized urban environments - because terrorists aren’t found inside fortified military bases. They’re found in sleeper cells or metropolitan hubs.

Follow that argument and you don’t need any planes. Since the end of WWII the air force has gotten air superiority basically for free and only done close support. They like the fast pretty planes but they need close air support aircraft.

[Jack Hydrazine]

And if the Chinese invade America should the Warthogs stay home?

[xzins]

and you won't see huge mass battles like you used to.

First, never say never when it comes to war.

Next, the Warthog did not require "massed troops" to be a winner. All it required was a ground situation in need of air support.