5 ms·

>The vulnerabilities and limitations of concern are not addressed by air superiority. It lacks modern protection from more sophisticated ground threats. >Basic

>The vulnerabilities and limitations of concern are not addressed by air superiority. It lacks modern protection from more sophisticated ground threats. >Basically, the US military... Chair force types itching for a new jet. > Looking forward, they expect this level of weapon sophistication to trickle down to increasingly unsophisticated adversaries. That is a totally reasonable assumption. I agree that MANPADS may prove problematic. There is the potential to develop countermeasure for these, just not the will, which is a shame because the rotors would benefit from it as well. But, the AF doesn't care for those, either. >The A-10 lacks the power systems required to drive modern defenses and weapons. You state this as if it were some kind of objective proven fact. It isn't. It may be the case that some existing weapons system can't be bolted on; but it is not a credible assertion to say that that a suitable solution cannot be developed. >It is no different than how the US military has been planning for the obsolescence of heavy armor. It is quite different. Heavy armor is useless, everyone knows it, and to the .mil's credit they are phasing it out. The A10 fills an important CAS role that other platforms can't replace. The F35 definitely isn't going to perform well as an A10 replacement. The Apache works well, but for some reason (sortie cost / availability?) it hasn't obsoleted the A10. Some yet undeveloped unmanned drone might be able to do so, but that is yet to be demonstrated.

unsigner 12y ago
Interesting about heavy armor - can you point me at something to read?
- fnordfnordfnord 12y ago
  Sure. Here are a couple of recent news articles. > http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04/28/army-says-no-to-more-tanks-but-congress-insists/ http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04/28/army-says-no-to-m... > http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/the-end-of-the-tank-the-army-says-it-doesnt-need-it-but-industry-wants-to-keep-building-it/2014/01/31/c11e5ee0-60f0-11e3-94ad-004fefa61ee6_story.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/the-end-of-th...
  - marktangotango 12y ago
    Those articles merely state the Army doesn't want to upgrades, they want to wait until a new version of the M1 is available in a few years? I took the above conversation to mean that there's a (universal?) consensus that heavy armor's time is past. These links don't support that. At the end of the day, it's kind of hard to do a thunder run [1] without tanks. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Baghdad_%282003%29#Thunder_Runs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Baghdad_%282003%29#Th...
    - bro-kaizen 12y ago
      > " thunder run " Didn't they used to call that Blitzkrieg?
      - hga 12y ago
        Yep, but it's more like good combined arms operations (the use of multiple combat arms like armor, artillery and air, you might start with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_arms https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_arms) and a "cooperative" enemy. Like France in WWII. I get the impression that Saddam's conception of war was strictly WWI era (right down to chemical warfare, although perhaps the issue there is why it wasn't widely used in WWII (ask for details if you're interested)), although this was most relevant in the First Gulf War, where we tricked him into thinking he would receive a frontal attack, and we hooked around his right flank. This avoided the expense of a frontal attack, he was no doubt hoping would cause us problems back home or worse. For the rematch, well, he certainly had a lot less force, I would suspect the "thunder run" might vaguely resemble Patton's dash after the breakout from Normandy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_S._Patton#Normandy_breakout_offensive https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_S._Patton#Normandy_brea...), or if you want Nazi analogies, the crushing of small/relatively weak countries prior to France.
    - fnordfnordfnord 12y ago
      >I took the above conversation to mean that there's a (universal?) consensus that heavy armor's time is past. These links don't support that. No, those links don't. Forgive me, it's the most recent / best that I could find in a single web-query. I also didn't find a better link for you after searching again today. (search results too full of RTS game related junk) The tank's day is done though, and while we'll maintain a small number of them, our war strategies do no rely on them, nor should they. If that were so, then any opposing force with one (of the many available) Javelin missile[1] like capability could stop our tank forces in their tracks. Killing tanks cheaply is a solved problem. [1] See also Shershen, Metis, Spike, etc.
tim333 12y ago
>The Apache ... for some reason ... hasn't obsoleted the A10 I think the Apache's are not able to take being hit nearly as well as A10s, plus have less fire power and take longer to get places. There's an article here on the problems http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2003/04/chop_the_chopper.html http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/... And a story here where Warthogs saved 60 US soldiers in 2013, where "because people were shooting all over the place, the JTAC didn't feel safe bringing in helicopters in to evacuate the wounded personnel." http://www.af.mil/News/ArticleDisplay/tabid/223/Article/466762/bagram-pilots-save-60-soldiers-during-convoy-ambush.aspx http://www.af.mil/News/ArticleDisplay/tabid/223/Article/4667...
- fnordfnordfnord 12y ago
  >I think the Apache's are not able to take being hit nearly as well as A10s, No, they definitely can't! But they are much better at avoiding taking fire in the first place. >plus have less fire power and take longer to get places. This, and the higher maint-man/hour per flight hour. >"...the JTAC didn't feel safe bringing in helicopters in to evacuate the wounded personnel." Thanks for that link, hadn't seen it. >...the convoy's commander approved the pilots to engage "danger-close." The term is meant to clearly communicate to the ground and air forces that the need for support is so grave the ground commander is willing to accept the potential risk to the friendly unit for the life-saving employment from the air. Scheisse. Gives you chills if you really think about it.
  - bdunbar 12y ago
    My company gunny (1988) got a bronze star when, as an 19-year old mortarman in 1969, aimed his tube straight up and dropped rounds all over his company's position, saving the day. I know this because he grabbed me by the scruff of my neck and made me read it, as part of up-close and personal counseling.
    - elpachuco 12y ago
      I really don't understand what you are saying. Are you saying that he fired upon his own people and got a medal because of it?
gaius 12y ago
We keep hearing how heavy armour is useless... Then events keep happening that demonstrate otherwise. You can't hold territory from the air. You just can't. The Russians know this, and they know the psychological effect tanks have too.

unsigner 12y ago

Interesting about heavy armor - can you point me at something to read?

fnordfnordfnord 12y ago
Sure. Here are a couple of recent news articles. > http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04/28/army-says-no-to-more-tanks-but-congress-insists/ http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04/28/army-says-no-to-m... > http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/the-end-of-the-tank-the-army-says-it-doesnt-need-it-but-industry-wants-to-keep-building-it/2014/01/31/c11e5ee0-60f0-11e3-94ad-004fefa61ee6_story.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/the-end-of-th...
- marktangotango 12y ago
  Those articles merely state the Army doesn't want to upgrades, they want to wait until a new version of the M1 is available in a few years? I took the above conversation to mean that there's a (universal?) consensus that heavy armor's time is past. These links don't support that. At the end of the day, it's kind of hard to do a thunder run [1] without tanks. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Baghdad_%282003%29#Thunder_Runs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Baghdad_%282003%29#Th...
  - bro-kaizen 12y ago
    > " thunder run " Didn't they used to call that Blitzkrieg?
    - hga 12y ago
      Yep, but it's more like good combined arms operations (the use of multiple combat arms like armor, artillery and air, you might start with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_arms https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_arms) and a "cooperative" enemy. Like France in WWII. I get the impression that Saddam's conception of war was strictly WWI era (right down to chemical warfare, although perhaps the issue there is why it wasn't widely used in WWII (ask for details if you're interested)), although this was most relevant in the First Gulf War, where we tricked him into thinking he would receive a frontal attack, and we hooked around his right flank. This avoided the expense of a frontal attack, he was no doubt hoping would cause us problems back home or worse. For the rematch, well, he certainly had a lot less force, I would suspect the "thunder run" might vaguely resemble Patton's dash after the breakout from Normandy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_S._Patton#Normandy_breakout_offensive https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_S._Patton#Normandy_brea...), or if you want Nazi analogies, the crushing of small/relatively weak countries prior to France.
  - fnordfnordfnord 12y ago
    >I took the above conversation to mean that there's a (universal?) consensus that heavy armor's time is past. These links don't support that. No, those links don't. Forgive me, it's the most recent / best that I could find in a single web-query. I also didn't find a better link for you after searching again today. (search results too full of RTS game related junk) The tank's day is done though, and while we'll maintain a small number of them, our war strategies do no rely on them, nor should they. If that were so, then any opposing force with one (of the many available) Javelin missile[1] like capability could stop our tank forces in their tracks. Killing tanks cheaply is a solved problem. [1] See also Shershen, Metis, Spike, etc.

tim333 12y ago

>The Apache ... for some reason ... hasn't obsoleted the A10 I think the Apache's are not able to take being hit nearly as well as A10s, plus have less fire power and take longer to get places. There's an article here on the problems http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2003/04/chop_the_chopper.html http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/... And a story here where Warthogs saved 60 US soldiers in 2013, where "because people were shooting all over the place, the JTAC didn't feel safe bringing in helicopters in to evacuate the wounded personnel." http://www.af.mil/News/ArticleDisplay/tabid/223/Article/466762/bagram-pilots-save-60-soldiers-during-convoy-ambush.aspx http://www.af.mil/News/ArticleDisplay/tabid/223/Article/4667...

fnordfnordfnord 12y ago
>I think the Apache's are not able to take being hit nearly as well as A10s, No, they definitely can't! But they are much better at avoiding taking fire in the first place. >plus have less fire power and take longer to get places. This, and the higher maint-man/hour per flight hour. >"...the JTAC didn't feel safe bringing in helicopters in to evacuate the wounded personnel." Thanks for that link, hadn't seen it. >...the convoy's commander approved the pilots to engage "danger-close." The term is meant to clearly communicate to the ground and air forces that the need for support is so grave the ground commander is willing to accept the potential risk to the friendly unit for the life-saving employment from the air. Scheisse. Gives you chills if you really think about it.
- bdunbar 12y ago
  My company gunny (1988) got a bronze star when, as an 19-year old mortarman in 1969, aimed his tube straight up and dropped rounds all over his company's position, saving the day. I know this because he grabbed me by the scruff of my neck and made me read it, as part of up-close and personal counseling.
  - elpachuco 12y ago
    I really don't understand what you are saying. Are you saying that he fired upon his own people and got a medal because of it?

gaius 12y ago

We keep hearing how heavy armour is useless... Then events keep happening that demonstrate otherwise. You can't hold territory from the air. You just can't. The Russians know this, and they know the psychological effect tanks have too.