Not a waste of money if it saves American soldiers and Marines lifes and is able to provide forward air control missions for U.S. attack aircraft who are providing close air support missions for ground troops. These aircraft usually provide escorts for helicopter assaults and provide CAS during combat search and rescue missions like the A-1 Skyraiders (Sandy) did during the Vietnam war.
The Marines were the last to operate a light attack/observation aircraft, the OV-10 Bronco. It was retired in 1995. The Marines, Navy and Air Force all operated the OV-10 during the Vietnam War.
The problem here is that a lot of people seem to equate being the newest and fastest with being the best.
When you are talking about observation and CAS aircraft, being fast is actually a bad thing. You want to be going as slow as possible, so you can accurately spot and engage your target without accidentally firing on your own side. Helicopters are actually a great choice for this role, but they are to slow and vulnerable to linger over any kind of contested battlefield. Plus they lack the higher speeds needed to travel any kind of distance to get to troops in trouble on the ground.
And I remember the Bronco very well. Force Recon absolutely loved those things, and I saw them many times flying over Lejeune, Pendleton and Okinawa. Probably the last real COIN aircraft we had, they could actually airdrop 4-6 Marines from the back (they nicknamed the small back area the "Party Room"). And their short takeoff and landing distances let them operate from carriers with little modification.
And thanks about letting me know about the Super Tucano getting the nod. I knew that both that and the FMA Pucara were being looked at for that role, and I had thought the Pucara was in the lead.
Sounds like more military waste to me. Just because the military ordered it, does not mean they actually need it. The Bradley FLV and Future Warrior program are prime examples.
Actually, yes they do need it. A good CAS aircraft is of vital importance to the Army and Marines.
As for your "prime examples", you obviously have no idea what you are talking about.
First of all, I have no idea what a "Bradley FLV" is, are you talking about the Bradley IFV perhaps? This was a very badly needed vehicle, an APC that could keep up with the new M1 tank. It also replaced the aging M-113 (which was over 20 years old by that time). And now the Bradley is over 30 years old and due for a replacement as well. Believe it or not, our stuff does wear out and needs to be replaced. That is why they often order so damned many and then they sit in supply dumps for decades. That is our only source of many parts and replacements until they finally build a replacement vehicle.
And "Future Warrior" is hardly an example of military waste. That is a concept and R&D program that has given us a great many things.
Yea, everybody always tends to focus on the more glamorous parts like the exoskeleton and HUD helmet. But they forget that the current combat helmets that we use today, as well as our newest body armor, flame retardant uniforms, MOLLE equipment system, DAGGER personal GPS system, and countless other things we use on a daily basis all came from this program. Future Warrior - Land Warrior has had attempts to kill it for several years now by idiots that really do not understand what it is. And every time the screams of the Army (as well as the threat that they will just continue it anyways and not share the products developed) had kept it alive.
I can only imagine that you consider a single dollar spent on the military to actually help keep them alive to be "waste". Myself, I do not see it that way at all.