Mind you the capability itself has to be questioned. E.g. Croatia’s pilots are only qualified for good weather, day flying (and only squadron commander and test pilot are cleared for air to ground). Hence any stray aircraft flying at night or bad weather get a free pass! :dev2:

In that instance, I’d sooner outsource the capability to someone else ala Italy. It’s not really a loss of sovereignty as a handful of barely serviceable aircraft flown by pilots cleared for day flying only (and who are lucky to fly 50 hours a year) is hardly something capable of protecting sovereignty.

Sad to see F-4F go. That’ll leave only European F-4s in Greece (Turkish ones are based in Asia-Minor).

Diamond DA-40 FAB-521. FA-522, FAB-526 & FAB-527

Domestic assembled foxtrot-4 aircraft FAB-540 Gavilán

What role do these aircraft play? Are they used as trainers or are they used as observation aircraft?

Or are they just hacks used as personal taxi for high ranking officers?

It comes down to what kind of wars the US will likely fight in the future. I think it’s pretty obvious the kind of large scale COIN war we saw in Iraq and Afghanistan are unlikely to occure in the future simply because it would be madness for any American President to fight a major land war. There’s no political will for it.

Some brilliant points.

For future wars fought by US and West, look to Yemen, Philippines, Pakistan or Colombia:

1. Usage of drones
2. Usage of special forces
3. Usage of local forces
4. Usage of contractors/paramilitaries (aka Dynacorp or CIA affiliated groups etc).

Outcomes are:

a.) Low footprint
b.) Low political risk
c.) Low economic outlay
d.) Easy exit strategy.

All of these were NOT present in Iraq and Afghanistan.

As I stated in another thread, conventional air forces (as well as navies and large chunks of ground forces including anything with armour in it) are becoming the dreadnought battleships of our time – expensive to create and maintain and not used due to political risks of losing them.

I can’t see Russia intervening in Syria other than supply of arms and occassional adviser.

Russia’s military interventions for the last several hundred years have generally all had one primary goal – extension of Russia’s security buffer (usually through a belt of puppet states or occupied territory). In last century expansion to absorb chunks of Poland, Manchuria, Baltic States and Mongolia or interventions in Hungary and Afghanistan have all served this purpose.

It’s all about creating immense strategic depth.

Syria doesn’t fit that model.

Conflicts like Angola have been secondary in nature and have not resulted in massive Soviet/Russian commitment.

If you or anyone else wants to read an extremely good thread on the B-1B vs A-10 then head over to the provided link. It’s slow to get going but a superb read on the subject. These guys actually do it for real.

http://www.flyingsquadron.com/forums/index.php?/topic/1825-b-1-bone-questions/

60 hours flying a year if not deployed? Ouch.

The initial stages of OEF was a mess from the USAF standpoint. I contend there would never have been a Robert’s Ridge if A-10s had been on station when the AC-130s had to leave. We started flying from Kuwait and Pakistan right after that. In the words of the CFACC “Thanks to the arrival of the A-10s, order has been restored.” This was not because of the A-10s killing power, it was because of the A-10 pilot’s ability to CONTROL CAS in a dynamic environment, changing hats from attacking targets to providing Air Stike Control as required by the situation. It is what A-10s do.

Interesting comment about A-10s role in CAS in OEF especially switch from attacker to CAS control and coordination.

I think A-10 is probably necessary in the future, despite limited utility in a war with China (but then all short range fighters ala F-16, land based F/A-18s are limited in application especially if China is putting pressure on bases via ballistic missile volleys).

However it seems obvious to me that the USAF needs to cut deeper. I would say F-15C/D, A-10, B-1, C-5 all need to go.

Sad to see them go but there’s truth in it.

USA has to ask it self: “what is it that we want our military to do and what assets do we need to accomplish this?”