US Military News, Reports, Data, etc.


TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
It’s generally a question of Congress. The army really doesn’t have a lot of say in what the Air Force does. For the USAF the A10 is an Apendex. Its missions could easily be done by other aircraft and in a peer v peer it’s exceptionally vulnerable. It’s the best Coin aircraft ever designed but used by an Air Force that frankly doesn’t need Coin aircraft in numbers.
 

clockwork

Junior Member
Registered Member
The US Navy decides to install hypersonic missiles on the Zumwalt destroyers in place of the 155mm AGS
Interesting, looks like a small-diameter (just under 1m) ballistic missile/HGV system? But that seems pretty dumb/inefficient for a ship, if they insist on arming it with hypersonics why not much smaller HCMs? Has america not developed hypersonic cruise missile tech?
 

Temstar

Major
Registered Member

Gloire_bb

Senior Member
Registered Member
It’s generally a question of Congress. The army really doesn’t have a lot of say in what the Air Force does. For the USAF the A10 is an Apendex.
Case of carmic return.
USAF for last 70 years had so much to say on what army may or may not operate, that it has ultimately painfully bitten them back.

Its missions could easily be done by other aircraft
That's the exact problem. They can't.
This is why USAF stumbles to offload them, study after study. May have developed a proper replacement by now, twice over, but guess that's a question of pride at this point.
 

FairAndUnbiased

Major
Registered Member
Awkward American moment:


Could you imagine their reactions if brand new PLAN ships looked like this. It's kind of symbolic of the whole country though: A decaying, overhyped, astronomically overpriced yet unnecessary piece of military industrial complex junk.
Legend has it that when an Imperial Japanese Navy officer found rust on the barrels of Qing Beiyang Fleet guns, they reported to the emperor that wiping out the Beiyang Fleet would be extremely easy.
 

Suetham

Senior Member
Registered Member
From what I’ve heard the Air Force wants to ditch the A-10 but due to resistance from the Army as well as states that benefit from servicing the A-10, they have to retain it.
The USAF wants to retire the A-10, but Congress vetoed it, not even a withdrawal of 40 A-10s passed by lawmakers. I disagree with this total retirement of the A-10 as the USAF wants it, but the service wanted to retire only a part, leaving a limited number for operations, even though Congress vetoed it, the USAF arguments are quite clear. The downsizing of Centcom's operations and the return of competition from major powers has simply made this platform obsolete. Just to mention it, the A-10 was forced to fly at high altitudes in the First Gulf War, even after air superiority was established. Even the Iraq of 1991 was too dangerous for the A-10. As it also lacked adequate sensors at the time, the F-16s had to act as advanced air controllers (FAC) for it. This is ironic, as one of the A-10's sales pitches was able to act as a FAC by providing CAS. The A-10 is an obsolete platform. The USAF knows this, but a lot of politics is taking place and lawmakers on account of its industrial bases and its electoral cable are not letting the aircraft retire with a view to developing new technologies to ensure the advantage against new adversaries, undermining national security . Aircraft such as the F-16 and F-15E are excellent aircraft with a proven CAS record during Desert Storm. There's no need to keep a slow like the A-10 in service to perform this same function. The fact that the service does not present an alternative to the A-10 can be considered a mistaken failure of the USAF approach, but there are other reasons for considering the reduction of the A-10 or the total withdrawal from service, but the biggest reason for Congress refusing any discussion on the subject is electorate.

I even agree that the A-10 as a CAS function is paramount and essentially the most capable aircraft, but the increasingly demanding maintenance, shortage issues and readiness get worse every year, with the CAS mission suffering a significant reduction in its demand due to the reduction of troops in Iraq and the total withdrawal from Afghanistan, they made the A-10 an expensive asset to maintain with all the problems, but as shown in the Gulf War in 1991, other aircraft can cover the CAS function without capacity reduction, while the USAF has a modern replacement aircraft to put into service, freeing up money for other projects.
 

Suetham

Senior Member
Registered Member
Interesting, looks like a small-diameter (just under 1m) ballistic missile/HGV system? But that seems pretty dumb/inefficient for a ship, if they insist on arming it with hypersonics why not much smaller HCMs? Has america not developed hypersonic cruise missile tech?
The hypersonic missile to be installed on the Zumwalt as on any other ship in the USN surface fleet will be the IR-CPS, the CPS is a hypersonic boost glide missile. The IR-CPS is a missile that will be derived from the joint project of the LRHW of the US Army, there are still studies in search of a terminal radar, the missile will have a range of 1725 Miles or 2700 km.

If all 80 vertical silos are filled, speculating can have the following combination:
.
48 SM2 and SM6 the latter also with better anti-ship capability;
24 Tomahawks “V” for ground attack and naval targets over 1500 km range.
32 ESSM, 8 silos with 4 missiles each;
08 ASRoc.

The SM-6 will also have an important anti-ship capability so counting with the “Tomahawks V” you can have more than half of the 80 silos reserved for these 2 missiles.

The Zumwalt has hull and towed sonar, in addition to the MH-60R helicopter, plus 2 unmanned so with the exception of torpedo tubes considered short-range weapons it will not be at a disadvantage when compared to other ships in terms of defense against submarines.
 

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
Case of carmic return.
USAF for last 70 years had so much to say on what army may or may not operate, that it has ultimately painfully bitten them back.


That's the exact problem. They can't.
This is why USAF stumbles to offload them, study after study. May have developed a proper replacement by now, twice over, but guess that's a question of pride at this point.
Wrong.
The A10 and the Su25 are pointless. The fact is that they mission they fulfill today is primarily that of missile and PGM dispensers. The gun when used vs Close air defense system is pretty much a suicide run. In actual operations from the gulf which was the last actual engagement vs air defenses A10 performed okay but the same missions were preformed to a higher sortie rate at less rates of loss or damage by F16, F15 using stand off munitions.
The C in Close air support doesn’t refer to “close to the ground” it means dropping “ordinance close to allied forces”. To do that requires precision and controlled effects of potential casualty inducing splash and effects to keep it on the opposing forces well off the allied even if said forces are virtually on top of each other.
F15E, F16C, F35A even strategic Bombers are capable of such a mission when equipped with PGMs either gravity or propelled and guidance targeting systems. F35 has a growing list of munitions for this mission set from SDB to JAGM to JDAM to JSOW.
Look at the most popular CAS platform of our times the A29 Super Tucano turboprop engine aircraft what makes it super effective isn’t a huge payload or powerful 30mm gun. It lacks both. It isn’t armored like A10 either. What makes it effective is the precision attack capabilities it does have. What makes it relevant is it’s prime targets are armed with small arms and infantry weapons. Weapons that to it are targets it can plink from the safety of high altitude.
A10 is beyond obsolete. It was obsolete when it was brand new. It’s probably the best Coin aircraft ever built, But vs an armored regiment of the Soviet Union in the Cold War equipped with Air defense systems it was going to take heavy losses. ZSU 23, Buk, Tor, Tunguska, Pantsir would have chewed up the Hogs like bacon. Vs modern IADS A10 or aircraft like it don’t stand a chance. That’s the USAF’s logic no replacement is possible that build along its lines would be survivable either.
 

Top