Dave:
I have and will continue to mainly sit back and read what you young guys think and say on the topic of future weapons systems.
But, I will offer a few quick philosophical observations:
1. World politics, us vs. them, primarily us vs. Islamic terrorists, is the setting for years, perhaps generations to come.
2. NYC was not expected to be the battleground "front" but was twice, in 1993 and on 9/11, same site, Twin Towers.
3. National war planning has been using a mix of weaponry to try to "contain" terrorism, of late, advance missle sites anticipated in Czech Republic and Poland.
4. Presumed targeting is "the terrorist camp" as supported by Iran, and maybe before too long, Pakistan. And if the terrorist persist and persevere, even Afghanistan. Point is targets change and times change. We cannot know the long term future only where we think we are today.
5. This said, it is not so easy to task the Air Force specificially to support ground ops that are somewhat vague at present and non-traditional in nature.
I'm sure you understand what I am struggling to say.
So, some ideas based on where we are now of what the geopolitical situation contingencies might or will be are necessary in deciding capital expendiures on new ground, and air (USAF related) assets.
The old A-10 with it's pilot in a titanium bathtub cockpit is still a favorite of mine, dated as I am. But, you today can kill tanks with all sorts of unmanned heatseeking missile systems so the A-10 itself is becoming and has become pretty dated.
Your System's Analyst unclassified thinking if you are so included would be interesting to now read.
Bookmarks