Quote:
Originally Posted by wabpilot
Because the army has a different mission and does not want to become the USMC.
Certainly the air force could be reduced by the A-10 squadrons without doing any real harm. I would call the A-10 a light attack aircraft. Others have suggested the air force be relieved of its ICBM force as this is really just fixed artillery. Artillery is something the army is very good at. That really just leaves medium attack, strike, air defense and air transport as meaningful air force missions. If we do away with strike (nuclear) or transfer it to the navy (where it belongs) the air force becomes nothing but a very big cargo airline. I don't subscribe to that theory, other than moving nuclear strike to the navy and closing up the ICBM force. We should bargain these away as quickly as our diplomats can round up some arguably sober Russians to negotiate with. But, that is a different discussion for a different day.
|
That's what I'm talking about, like Army having control of those A-10s and CAS mission seems to make more sense to me. I actually think the Soviets worked sort of based on such a model, only a lot more Army-centered.