[Rokke]

All three services that employ fixed wing CAS assets use similar platforms to execute CAS. Almost all ordnance expended in a modern CAS mission is precision guided. The difference between an F-18 and a B-1 employing precision guided munitions in a CAS environment is the B-1 can loiter about 8 times as long and carry about 10 times the amount of ordnance. Want to know how A-10s employ precision guided munitions in the CAS environment? Just like the F-18 and B-1. So give up the tired interservice rivalry rhetoric. There is only one Joint Tactics manual for all the services for executing CAS. I guess they have all ignored your 1970's vintage expertise. But they aren't unique. Of all the world's military powers who make or buy ground attack aircraft, exactly none are procuring anything similar to the A-10. Why do you think that is? Could it be that the rest of the world has moved beyond Snake and Nape? Maybe you believe that modern technology has completely changed every aspect of human interaction...except on the battle field. Fortunately, you aren't in charge. The Marine Corps chose the F-35B to replace all of its current combat aircraft. As you know, a MAGTF is an independent fighting force that provides its own CAS. Again, why didn't they seek out a platform similar to the A-10? Is it possible they know something you don't?

Pat yourself on the back for your service as a FAC. That's badass. But like McCain, your expertise ran out of currency a couple decades ago. It's a new world out there and it has obviously passed you by.

[Chainmail]

"Pat yourself on the back for your service as a FAC. That's badass. But like McCain, your expertise ran out of currency a couple decades ago. It's a new world out there and it has obviously passed you by."

Proud of yourself? You have no idea what my combat history or my subsequent contributions to combined arms have been, but you feel free to throw a gratuitous slap my way for being an older veteran. Well done. How much difference between you and the average young and snotty Hillary voter?

Now a little reality; "loitering" over the battlefield for 8 hours in a bomb truck is only possible in an entirely permissive environment. The real world rarely has situations like in Afghanistan where we can fly at medium and high altitude doing donuts, sipping coffee. We get involved with a serious enemy with serious anti-air systems and there will be scattered B1B parts over several acres. Waiting around for S-300P or an S-400 to find you has limited long-term career potential. At least when you're down low in the clutter, the big boys have a harder time finding you, the munitions reach the target faster, and the ground guys can see your smiling face.

The Marine Corps picked the F-35B as we always do to try to satisfy multiple requirements and to maximize interoperability. Can't say at this point that it was the best decision; we'll see. We never picked the A-10 because we didn't envision taking on the Warsaw Pact tanks en masse and the 'Hog wasn't really suited to carrier operations.

I am a big believer in technologies - I have developed several new systems myself (I am a Program Manager for advanced weapon systems) - but I also know that we can't entirely rely on technologies in battle because systems fail, usually at the worst time possible. When they fail, we need the ability to continue the mission manually with the Mark One eyeball, down low in the grass if the ground guys need it.

Right, Kid?