Quote Originally Posted by 120mm View Post
So the question remains: "How come the Air Force isn't hounding Congress to fund their COIN CAS aircraft, exportable air-transportable hospital packages and additional funds for cargo airframes?" The answer, I believe, is that no matter how many airmen they put on perimeter or convoy security, is that the USAF doesn't give a stroke and a crap about the current fight.
First of all, I'm going proceed on the assumption that comments like "apple-polishing" are not referring to the vast majority of rank-and-file USAF personnel. Secondly, different services and, indeed, different people have divergent perspectives on these issues. It's one thing to argue that the USAF's efforts are misdirected - it's quite another to impugn motives. From my perspective claims that essentially boil down to "the USAF doesn't give a ####" are more about perception than reality as are, I believe, claims that "relevance" is the only motivation the USAF seems to possess. I'm frankly always reticent to join into these discussions because too frequently such perceptions are regarded as both foundational and self-evident truths and therefore tend to result in an unconstructive discussion. Regardless, I might suggest that impugning motives, especially in a broad-brush fashion, is counterproductive to the stated intent of changing the USAF's position on one's issues of concern and it only serves to reinforce the service's attitude you do not like.

So the question remains: "How come the Air Force isn't hounding Congress to fund their COIN CAS aircraft, exportable air-transportable hospital packages and additional funds for cargo airframes?" The answer, I believe, is that no matter how many airmen they put on perimeter or convoy security, is that the USAF doesn't give a stroke and a crap about the current fight.
I'll take these one-at-a-time:

1. From my perspective the AF's position is that the A-10 along with UAV's will best fill the COIN CAS role. The A-10's are currently in a SLEP program to upgrade them to the C model - you can google the details if you wish - and extend the airframe's life out to around 2030. Army thinking on UAV's actually seems pretty close to the Air Force. The Army's version of the predator/warrior is slated to do armed reconnaissance/target acquisition and serve as a C3 platform for BFT, radios, etc. for the ground force. The Air Force version is going to be more focused on ISR and as a long-endurance precision strike platform. Together I think they will be a nice compliment.

Now many have suggested a turboprop, like the Texan or Tucano is needed and I'm assuming this is what you mean in your question above. In my view, the only role these aircraft can perform that an A-10/UAV combination cannot is superior MK1 eyeball recon as opposed to utilizing sensors. From the limited conversations I've had with guys on the ground side of things, it seems to me that most prefer the live data-link and video capability. Additionally, many, including me, feel a turboprop aircraft is too vulnerable - it won't have the armored protection and system redundancy of the A-10 and Apache and it operates in the sweet spot for both manpads and SA/lt AAA. Finally, weapons employment is arguably worse from these aircraft since precision air-dropped ordnance is best delivered from medium altitude. Low-altitude options like guns, rockets and some guided missiles can be done by A-10's and helo's. I do think they'd be a good aircraft for indigenous forces we're supporting but, imo, they don't provide enough additional capability to justify adding another airframe to the inventory.

2. Aeromedical evac is not my thing, but the AF did develop EMEDs in the late 1990's which are, I believe, used today. Beyond that, I'm not sure what the problem is - if you could expand on that point a bit more it would be helpful.

3. The Air Force would like to buy more cargo aircraft and has been quietly fighting for a few years now to buy more C-17's beyond what the DoD wants based on the latest joint mobility capabilities study. Additionally, it's trying to decide if it's better to upgrade the C-5 or retire the C-5 and buy more C-17's to replace that capability which is a tough decision actually. As for the C-130, the service is reluctant to buy a bunch more of these aircraft right now because new requirements imposed by FCS means a new airlifter will have to be built to carry those vehicles. FCS seems to be falling apart, however, so maybe that will change.