Unless they already overmatch any likely near-peer enough that the near-peers are all seriously worried that the 90% is more than sufficient to allow the 10% to chew their mechanized forces to pieces.
The US obviously divides its total platforms among various types (F, B, A, C, etc). Which near-peer forces the US is likely to fight are of a size that would put pressure on the US to downsize the As?
The US obviously divides its total platforms among various types (F, B, A, C, etc). Which near-peer forces the US is likely to fight are of a size that would put pressure on the US to downsize the As?
Given the nature of near-peer threats the higher the percentage of aircraft that can't be used in that fight in any substantial capacity, the harder what's left has to work. That's absolutely a handicap. And while the GWOT was on, nobody cared about that percentage. Not so anymore.
Sure the A-10 will eventually be replaced. But it's highly unlikely to be a slow tank busting aircraft built around a gigantic autocannon. Nor is the percentage for a dedicated CAS platform that would be parked for most of a near-peer fight likely to be anywhere close to what it is today. Especially given that there will 4th gen platforms (F-15EX) that can bring most of the requisite capability and still do other things that make them useful against the pacing threat.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.