The only thing that secured victory in Bosnia/Serbia was NATO's overwhelming air power. Norway cannot gamble on always having that advantage. The U.S. can afford to upkeep a multi-thousand fleet of combat aircraft. We have 50 old planes. We're buying 50 new planes to replace them. We want them to be the best we can get for our money.
Are you privy to the details of the F-35's complexity and practicality, or are you basing your opinion on what the media is feeding you?
I do not have the info, therefore I do not nitpick the fine details of where they installed the cup-holder and whether or not the coffee will spill at 4.5 G. My issue is with the fundamental concept of this plane. It is an over-design for almost all of its missions and at the same time a pile of compromises due to the very different requirements to do these missions. Some missions tend to have such requirements where the same platform can do both well. For example, air superiority planes tend to be decent at deep surgical strikes, because they are fast, capable of defending themselves and dont need to carry lots of bombs, or special means of delivery. Close air support? It has nothing in common with the other missions. They have got to put this in as a joke.
GSholz, I don't want this to sound insulting or anything, but 50 planes, which is two squadrons is nothing more than national pride. It is enough for a token participation in the attack of insignificant European countries, or 3rd world countries that are geographically incapable of a direct conflict. They will have very little impact on a full scale ground war. 50 interceptors would have been somewhat useful for actual defense of Norway. Focus on one mission you can select the plane best for this mission and train the pilots accordingly and efficiently. But then they would not be needed/sent to missions abroad and given the lack of actual aerial threats, be labeled parade army.
AH64 is painfully slow and has silly servicing requirements.
There aren't a lot of them available and we very often had to rely on US to provide air support.
Not wishing to harp on but DECOMMISSIONING THE HARRIER WAS THE SINGLE MOST STUPID MOD MISTAKE OF MODERN TIMES!
Soldiers are dying as a result of getting rid of a proven force multiplier without a replacement available
AH64 is not close air support. They are tank/vehicle hunters. They are near useless against scattered troops (worse against dug in) and against fortifications. They are also very vulnerable. Much of their role will be taken by drones in the near future.
Close air support is changing. It is no longer a plane coming in with GP bombs and diving in through the acks on enemy positions. Instead, most of this role will be done by bomb trucks that can release the ords from distance while still flying over friendly territory and often not even guiding the munition themselves. Think science fiction orbital strike. For this you need a plane with long loiter time, lots of lifting capability and good avionics. Almost sounds like a B-52 will be ideal, except that you want a much quicker response time and a minimal ability to defend itself from fighters and SAMs (even though it is supposed to operate under friendly cover). F-35 does not have the loiter time, nor the carrying ability. Stealth is not needed, internal bays are not needed, thrust vectoring is not needed. The mission can be done by a much simpler (reliable, cheaper) plane. If someone insists on a classic close range support F-35 will be a total disaster, though almost no modern plane is well suited for this job - so why risk a shining new expensive plane? use the old attack planes for this role. They will do it just as good/bad.
