[QUOTE=Warfish;4235974]Indeed. Usefulness all depends on whom you're fighting, and what they're flying/firing at you.
The Harrier gives up alot of air-to-air capabillity for it's takeoff/landing flexabillity. As long as it's protected by other aircraft, and works (generally) in an Air-to-ground mission profile, it's probably fine all things considered. Of course, we have existing (and expensive) rotary-aircraft for that work I thought.
It's a post-WWI design, but the point stands. The Browning has yet to be surpassed in-total by more modern designs.
Like I said, all depends on whom and what you're up against. A WWII Machine Gun may get it done, a WWII Aircraft, not so much.
The question has to be asked first and foremost.....who are we expecting and planning for a possible conventional War with? Thats who you have to defeat equipment and training wise.
So....who is that, exactly?[/QUOTE]
You really don't have an appreciation for the Harrier and the forward projection capabilities it provides.
The only rotary aircraft I've seen that is capable of landing and takeoff without an actual airfield is the Osprey and it's 1) a piece of crap and 2) used mostly for transport.
C-130's and other rotary fixed wing aircraft need an airfield. Harriers don't which is an enormous advantage. As far as air-to-air capabilities with our pilots who are the best in the world besides the Israelis they match up pretty well with MIGs which is the presumed adversary. They would be more than capable of providing fire support to ground forces.
Kiowa Warriors are actually a fine attack helicopter the main problem is not enough armor to defend the pilots.
[B]But yes going to your question who are we going to fight and how do we somehow blame this on Obama?[/B]