re: #325 jamesfirecat

Which leads me to repeat my worry that in the name of flexibility you wind up with a creature that is neither fish nor fowl.

The problem with the F-35 as I see it, that I can’t figure out what it’s operational role is supposed to be. Is it for shooting down enemy planes/dog fighting? Isn’t that what we already have the F-22 for?

Is it for ground attack? Isn’t that what we already have the A-10 for?

What role in our combat doctrine is this thing supposed to serve that isn’t already being handled by another air craft?

If it’s supposed to do fill a role less well by being cheaper, well that ship is pretty much already sunk by all the money we invested in developing it, and didn’t we phase out that approach to a tactical doctrine with the Sherman Tank?

Except that the Air force hates having to operate the A-10 and wants to relegate close air support (CAS) to drops of smart bombs, which isn’t enough. The use of fast-movers like the F-35 for CAS is folly, but its impossible to convince the men who fly the fast moving fighters that there needs to be not as many such jets a they’d like so that the Army can be supported. They don’t care that much about what ahppens to ground pounders as long as their own fifes stay unmolested.