Isn’t the thinking that fewer highly capable aircraft will dominate over lots of less capable ones? I think the USAF has wargamed and exercised this all out. At least I hope they have.

Yes. With the targeting pods, UAVs, and networking, soon you’ll start seeing aircraft outside the threat zone sending pictures of the area around the blue force down to the team on the ground. The team designates what they want hit and the best available asset – aircraft, artillery, helicopter- takes it out. It’s all part of the same idea: rapid targeting combined with flexible and accurate delivery made possible by information technology.

Then again, the military often prematurely declares that a particular tactic is obsolete.

All things considered, seems hard to go wrong with the F-16 at this stage. So how did they sell the Gripen to the Czechs, the Hungarians, and the South Africans, all of whom could have bought American but didn’t?

It all comes down to delivering an explosion on the ground. If you have no money to buy PGMs, you try to use a guy strapped with explosives to get to the target. For a military with money, it’s hard to come up with a scenario in which a kamikaze does that better than a guided bomb or missile.

If they’re putting new engines on C-5s, seems like it would make sense to do it for the B-52s. Both have capabilities that can’t be easily replaced without spending a lot of money the air force would rather use elsewhere. If maintenance goes down, that can save a ton of cash and up the readiness rate.

Anyone know how much re-engining would cost for 76 aircraft?

I don’t understand the concept behind the ‘stealth’ gunship. Our current gunships have to operate at night just to avoid being seen. Seems like making them invisible to rader is a bit like putting lipstick on a pig, especially when we know we’re going to be short of cash for, oh, the next forty or so years….

The strike aircraft the USAF wants has to be able to penetrate enemy air defenses from long range. Since Turkey got nasty during OIF, they’re worried about being in a position where they won’t have bases near the target. So option number 1 seems like it would fit the bill the best.

Number 2 could be accomplished using any number of platforms. Why do they need new build Js when they’ve got tons of older crap sitting around in the inventory available for conversion.

Number 3 only works if all the missions can be handled with an aircraft designed for it’s ‘bulkiest’ mission, the transport. In any case, this option sounds like it’s really, really expensive and will take decades of funding, so it’s the one the USAF will pick.

Seems like the fair thing to say is that India seems dedicated to completing the LCA, but that it hasn’t put ink to paper yet. I don’t know anything about the procurement process in India, but if the contract was signed for X number of aircraft, what would the penalty if they later cancelled the order?