But when architecting the military, the #1 consideration has to be the deterrence of existential threats. That means planning for contested air space (contested everything, really).

The U.S. is the uncontested strongest military in the world. It would probably be a mistake to take that for granted, though, by making all our decisions in the context of expeditions to the Middle East.

But regarding CAS, I feel we should focus on low threat primarily and shouldn’t be using expensive jets to fill the roll. In fact, I would fund low intensity conflicts through SOCOM and let them choose the assets they want, not what big military wants to provide (i.e. the super tacano vs fighter jets).

In the event that we find ourselves in an existential threat war (really only two countries I can think of), other factors such as Nuclear, Space, Cyber, and Air Supremacy are so much more important than high threat CAS. In my mind, high threat CAS and manned Strike aren’t the best use of resources to fight this war

Destabilize the region to ensure petro-dollar existence, replace leadership who don't want to bow, sell weapons and infrastructure.

We can't plan on having air supremacy. It's nice that we've had it since Nam, but counting on it isn't always going to be an option, and we'll need to provide CAS to troops when it's necessary.

I still don’t believe F-35 is the right platform for CAS. In a medium to high threat environment, I would prefer bombers (perhaps stealthy) or drones (expendable) at altitude with a payload of JDAM and LGBs, than a fighter with just a couple. And rolling in with the gun in a fighter is silly. If the environment is that high threat, limiting collateral damage with gun runs isn’t a concern.

I feel like we are building platforms that can beat up medium threats (Iraq/Iran), won’t work against big threats (China), and bankrupt the country against small threats (counter insurgency operations). I’d favor a more diversified set of assets for specific roles and don’t think the F-35 fits the bill.