US Military News, Reports, Data, etc.


Bellum_Romanum

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.
Get a load of this user's comment which shows the user works on the said super destroyer:


MrWasabi
2h ago

Since I'm the only person on this website that works for and has any contact with the DDG1000 program itself, let me make this abundantly clear: This is NOT an issue of OPTEMPO or big navy not giving the ship time to do preservation. This IS an issue of the crew just being shit and not giving a fuck, if you think the outside looks bad HO BOY I was on that piece of shit 2 weeks ago and I can promise you the inside looks just as bad as the outside. Most people in the program will tell you, you will not find a more underwhelming crew in 3rd FLT. The Zumwalt looked exactly like it does now, 3 months ago when it came out of the yards, the crew has had nothing but time to replace PCMS tiles and paint. On the bright side: The crew of 1001 are the polar opposite, they ace all of their assessments and always go above and beyond to facilitate contract work for new equipment installs and upgrades, testing etc. This is also why 1000 has largely fallen out of favor with SURFDESRON and the program office and 1001 has largely taken up at least part of the mantle of leading development. Why the commodore or big navy hasn't stepped in to correct what is very much a failure of a proper command culture is beyond me, but also outside my job scope. Pictured: VLS Cansiter offload yesterday on 1001 right across from where 1000 was doing range runs in SD Bay.
Reply

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

Gloire_bb

Senior Member
Registered Member
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.
Devil is in the details. Capable of proudly hovering beyond the reach of MANPADs over the ME with its crystal clear skies? Yes, but, frankly speaking, any bayraktar can do the same for a fraction of the price - it's only a matter of carrying capacity. The recent Karabakh war has shown that such CAS(and battlefield observation) ends the moment weather becomes bad.
War, however, doesn't stop the moment weather becomes bad - and you're simply protecting a few lives(pilots') at the expense of many others.

Are advanced aircraft capable of using their advanced guidance systems through simple overcast? For the most part, no. And overcast in ETO is >>half a year.(where I live there are easily ~200 cloudy days per year).
They, of course, still can do the mission (there is a cockpit and they're fairly maneuverable) - but on the same conditions as a dedicated subsonic ground pounder.
If the skies are clear - both are equal, but ... high-level opponent has all the means to take down something flying high&fast. To a large degree, it's actually simpler:
-clear LOS up high (may matter less against western armed forces, but with Russian and now more and more Chinese ones - it does);
-significant loss of performance of high-performance a/c due to large suspended storage(or numerically insufficient storage for 5th gen fighters);
And so on. This is the reason why CAS mission is performed only after AD degradation/suppression.

Are advanced aircraft capable of maintaining their situational awareness if datalinks are down or there is no tactical network in the first place(CSAR)?
Again, sure, but to a large degree, this SA will be through the eyes of the pilot - because eyes are still surprisingly good for wide views.
Furthermore (also relevant for CAS) - the very nature calls for fine precision of mission. Friendlies and hostiles may very well be just over the fence, and there may be no stable datalinks and such.

The point is, to do those tasks in less than ideal conditions - modern fighter still finds itself restricted to comparable fight modes to a CAS plane, and their survivability in this situation can be maintained to a very similar degree through the very same measures(EW, decoys, ground masking, and so on). It is simply more limited at going even lower, is less nimble and more vulnerable.
When we're talking planes of the same generation(F-16:A-10) - it's pretty straightforward: loaded A-10 has more survivability over the battlefield: far more countermeasures, more durable, lower IR signature, survivable design; on the other hand, CAS-loaded F-16, with its glorious drag index and G restrictions, is still obviously much faster, but not much beyond that.
Same is true for new and emerging methods of a/c protection - say, DIRCM turrets, or active standalone decoys.
That's on top of providing worse quality of CAS in the first place.

When we're talking about different generations... well, while this isn't exactly fair (5 decades between introductions), but fact remains - comparative studies of CAS platforms remain unpublished. With the strength of the F-35 push (especially in the previous decade), no wonder why, and who could've suppressed their findings.

But all of this is, strictly speaking, secondary.
More importantly - USAF fighter communities aren't exactly dedicated specialists. This isn't an insurmountable problem - marine air goes over that(by making all combat pilots ground-pounding specialists, and specifically designing a chain of command), but subservience to lowly grunts is the worst fear of the USAF, much more than maintaining a dedicated fleet of attack aircraft. For this reason alone - A-10 will live through 2020s and even much of the 2030s.

Perhaps then drones will finally be able to overtake it (but I personally would've gone for optional manning instead).


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.
There is no Pantsir in armored regiments.
But worth pointing out, that out of that list, A-10 protection either protects it against them to some degree, or those systems don't care about your altitude at all - making CAS-loaded F-16 essentially just as vulnerable.

That isn't about A-10 not being outdated - it is. To a similar degree to F-16. But it isn't about it not being outdated - it's about the mission. Unless there is suitable replacement - even next gen of general-purpose planes struggle to displace older, but dedicated planes and a dedicated pilot community.
 
Last edited:

Anlsvrthng

Captain
Registered Member
I disagree about the unnecessary.
The US Navy decides to install hypersonic missiles on the Zumwalt destroyers in place of the 155mm AGS cannons. There is talk of 4 large silos each with a capacity for 3 missiles, making a total of 12 of them. There will still be the original 80 vertical silos, some of which will hold 4 “ESSMs” totaling more than 100 ready-to-use missiles in the 80 silos. The Zumwalt has helicopter facilities even better than those on a “Ticonderoga” and a much smaller crew, and there will certainly be room and weight reserve for other weapons and missions.
And from the price of all of the development, manufacturing and modifications they should buy 12-15 burke, each of them more capable than these ships.


The ship is stealth to get close to the shore to use its mains guns, without the cannoons the full design of the ship doesn't make sense.

Again, for the price of three aircraft carrier the USA NAVY will get three ships with Burke capability.

And I have a feeling the average forum goer has better capability to judge the issue of Zunwalts than the average congressman deciding the fundings : D
 

Suetham

Junior Member
Registered Member
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Until a program-by-program review is provided by the Defense Department, the armed services committees would limit spending on each one to no more than than 75% of its planned annual budget.​


WASHINGTON: Concerned about duplication among the multiple efforts underway within the Pentagon and other agencies for air- and space-based radar systems to track moving targets, House and Senate armed services committees would limit fiscal 2022 funding pending a review by the vice chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Until that review and an accompanying explanatory report are provided, all spending on
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
efforts — including any at the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) — would be limited to not greater than 75% of their planned annual budgets. This applies to both procurement and research and development spending.
GMTI radars use a pulsing technique to discriminate moving targets, such as enemy tanks and mobile missile launchers, from stationary objects and clock their velocities based on their Doppler shift.
In a
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, the two committees note that original provision was included in the Senate version of the FY22 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) NDAA, but not that of the House. The agreed text includes the Senate language with an amendment that would require “a review of all established and planned efforts to provide air- and space-based ground moving target indicator capability to identify, eliminate, and prevent redundancies of efforts across the Department of Defense.”
The VCJCS — a post currently vacant, although
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
— is to lead the review, in consultation with the secretaries of the military departments and the other agency heads recommended by Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin.
After lengthy delays due to political negotiations, the NDAA compromise language is expected to receive a vote in the House Tuesday evening, with a Senate vote to come later.
Beyond sussing out duplication, agreed text requires a report that includes an explanation of how the various efforts to develop GMTI capabilities meet the “priority target tasking needs” of the combatant commands. It also requires the VCJCS to explain how each program complies with the parameters set out by the Joint Requirements Oversight Council, including those established for implementation of
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The report further must include an explanation of how each project “will provide real-time information to relevant military end users through the use of air battle managers.”
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Space Force chief Gen. Jay Raymond revealed a previously classified program to develop a satellite-based GMTI — noting that it was part of the service’s nascent plan to take on the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Up to now, the Department of the Air Force’s primary GMTI platform has been the aging
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
aircraft fleet. The new space-based radar would be part of the solution for replacing JSTARS, a Space Force spokesperson explained at the time, providing a longer range and the capability to incorporate data into the cloud environment being developed by the department’s
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
ABMS, in turn, is the Air Force’s central effort to implement JADC2.
The GMTI project, and Space Force’s ISR push writ large, sets the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
which currently builds, buys and operates spy sats, and buys ISR data from commercial satellite providers. Further, it raises questions about the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
Are advanced aircraft capable of using their advanced guidance systems through simple overcast? For the most part, no. And overcast in ETO is >>half a year.(where I live there are easily ~200 cloudy days per year).
In case you were not aware. Well A10 lacks a radar and is limited to only Electro optical targeting F16V ,F15E and F35 have AESA radar arrays these not only operate in air to air but air to ground modes including Synthetic aperture. Meaning that over cast skies are as clear as day. In other words Those advanced guidance systems are going to work.
Next Obviously I was using it to indicate a system that would be a threat to a CAS platform. Well F16 and F15E both carry jamming systems A10 has limited jamming capabilities and limited defensive suites. There isn’t a need for a “Suitable Replacement” if the mission set as operated is Obsolete. The A10 rarely actually gets into the weeds because it’s a high casualty potential on the A10. It’s Survivability is actually significantly lower and costs of operations are significantly higher with lower actual rates of return. As it is modeled on the idea of trying to take a pounding. It’s ability to do so though like all aircraft or vehicles is limited. It’s an illogical mission, basically a Kamikaze run. To try and attack a target by charging down the guns and hoping that the pilot can kill them before they kill him. The results are that even if the aircraft and pilot live to tell the tale the aircraft is grounded well undergoing extensive repairs. Well faster higher flying aircraft like F35 and F16 pick off the same targets safely return to base rearm and refueling with only standard maintenance requirements meaning that they get dozens more sorties into operations.
That’s why A10 is obsolete. It’s horses cavalry in the age of World War One. A dive bomber in Vietnam. It’s mindset of attack in low level CAS is oriented to Korean War or Vietnam war doctrine of precision attack when the only way was to come in close. For a COIN aircraft this would be fine. The adversary lacking a sufficient air defense capabilities beyond heavy machine guns. This was mostly the case on both Korea and Vietnam as well as earlier conflicts even World war 2 where the anti aircraft capabilities were primarily manually aimed slow firing largely ineffective. In the modern era with the proliferation of Integrated layered air defenses systems to even sub peer class forces A10 is not survivable. Su25 Is not survivable.
 

Gloire_bb

Senior Member
Registered Member
In case you were not aware. Well A10 lacks a radar and is limited to only Electro optical targeting F16V ,F15E and F35 have AESA radar arrays these not only operate in air to air but air to ground modes including Synthetic aperture. Meaning that over cast skies are as clear as day. In other words Those advanced guidance systems are going to work.
F-16V, F-15E, F-35 are multipurpose aircraft; a2g modes there are just part of the deal - especially for CAS(not ground attack in general).
Adding podded radar is actually quite simple (was done back in ww2) - much simpler than making self-contained optics.
Problem is that it doesn't make cast skies clear as day, and isn't competitive with optics. As a matter of fact - ground attack aircraft (drones, helicopters) still routinely forego radars in the 2020s. A-10C and Su-25SM3 are just the most prominent examples in this list.
I.e. answer is complete no. For CAS missions, radar can replace neither eyes nor optics(can't even approach). At best it can supplement them (and is often not seen as valuable enough to even bother on dedicated aircraft).
Even for less demanding tasks(interdiction, strike) it typically only works as a part of the combination.
Well F16 and F15E both carry jamming systems A10 has limited jamming capabilities and limited defensive suites.
A-10 has ~comparable onboard electrical network capacity, more internal volume, more suitable stations, far milder operating conditions(vibration, thermal regime), and less concern for disrupting aerodynamics.
I.e. there are no physical limitations to make all parts of its self-defense suite to be at least as effective as fighter suite - but more robust for less money.
There isn’t a need for a “Suitable Replacement” if the mission set as operated is Obsolete.
Grunts need close air support, like it or not. If you won't provide it - they are going to die. Are their families are less important?
If USAF isn't ready to provide it, and only wants to hover in the heavens in their very own private war - that's okay, give the army the right to operate itself what it needs. But as a matter of fact, USAF does everything in its power to not let go of the obsolete mission.
To try and attack a target by charging down the guns and hoping that the pilot can kill them before they kill him.
This is not how CAS aircraft operates. The point of the gun on the a/c is not to charge yelling "drive me closer" - it is to use it at an appropriate time. It was the same in the 1940s, it is more or less the same in the 2020s. It doesn't even depend on the type of conflict.
Gun is a precision instrument, mixing together a high count of projectiles(repeated attempts/suppression), high precision, very low collateral damage, and significant penetrative power. Nothing more, nothing less.
Btw, F-35s and F-16s are fully intended to provide gun support, if you have something against the gun in particular. ;p
In the modern era with the proliferation of Integrated layered air defenses systems to even sub peer class forces A10 is not survivable. Su25 Is not survivable.
The problem is that mission doesn't go away. It's just a matter of whether you're doing it with suitable aircraft or with unsuitable aircraft.
p.s. integrated layered air missile defenses appeared in the 1960s. By the mid-1980s they essentially achieved their modern form, from that point onwards they were only further integrated and networked, all the layers were in place.
 

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
F-16V, F-15E, F-35 are multipurpose aircraft; a2g modes there are just part of the deal - especially for CAS(not ground attack in general).
Adding podded radar is actually quite simple (was done back in ww2) - much simpler than making self-contained optics.
Problem is that it doesn't make cast skies clear as day, and isn't competitive with optics. As a matter of fact - ground attack aircraft (drones, helicopters) still routinely forego radars in the 2020s. A-10C and Su-25SM3 are just the most prominent examples in this list.
I.e. answer is complete no. For CAS missions, radar can replace neither eyes nor optics(can't even approach). At best it can supplement them (and is often not seen as valuable enough to even bother on dedicated aircraft).
Even for less demanding tasks(interdiction, strike) it typically only works as a part of the combination.
first I recommend looking at the openly available images of SAR from such. they are remarkably clear and highly detailed. Father IR is also excellent at cutting through over cast. But then you add in Sensor fusion where in multiple feeds are combined to create an augmented view. These do make your sky clear as day. They don’t replace anything they augment it.
Next CLOSE Air Support is still offered and if anything more so with fast jets as opposed to slow and limited A10. Farther neither aircraft (A10 or Su25) has said podded radar or the ability as of yet to mount it.
A-10 has ~comparable onboard electrical network capacity, more internal volume, more suitable stations, far milder operating conditions(vibration, thermal regime), and less concern for disrupting aerodynamics.
I.e. there are no physical limitations to make all parts of its self-defense suite to be at least as effective as fighter suite - but more robust for less money.
First not as much as you think. They can only add so much to an aircraft of that age. Additionally modern systems you described above as well as the EO pods trades off payload more and more. Additionally A10’s primary armament is increasingly dated. Centered around the Maverick missile. There are plans at adding more to the A10 but more lipstick on a pig isn’t going to make it better vs what we are looking at.
Grunts need close air support, like it or not. If you won't provide it - they are going to die. Are their families are less important?
If USAF isn't ready to provide it, and only wants to hover in the heavens in their very own private war - that's okay, give the army the right to operate itself what it needs. But as a matter of fact, USAF does everything in its power to not let go of the obsolete mission.
without A10 Grunts would still get air support. Ah64E, AH1Z, AC130J, F16C,F15E,F35A, B1B, B52 even F22 are all used for CAS missions. Hell could add in all the Reaper drones to. Historically fighters have provided air support more effectively and in larger available numbers than dedicated CAS platforms. Hell the A10’s official name Thunderbolt II doesn’t refer to a dedicated CAS plane it was a Fighter the Republic P47. In WW2 fighter performed the majority of CAS missions followed by bombers. With the clear understanding that they were available in significant numbers, could self defend or chase off adversary aircraft and once air superiority was achieved really had little other missions.
This is not how CAS aircraft operates. The point of the gun on the a/c is not to charge yelling "drive me closer" - it is to use it at an appropriate time. It was the same in the 1940s, it is more or less the same in the 2020s. It doesn't even depend on the type of conflict.
Gun is a precision instrument, mixing together a high count of projectiles(repeated attempts/suppression), high precision, very low collateral damage, and significant penetrative power. Nothing more, nothing less.
Btw, F-35s and F-16s are fully intended to provide gun support, if you have something against the gun in particular. ;p
The bulk of A10’s legacy armament is the Gun or rocket pods with GBU either HE, wind corrected, Cluster or incendiary and then Maverick missiles.
In the last update to the A10 The USAF having tried to again retire the aircraft were forced address survival of the platform as best they could. How did they? They added JDAM, SDB, APKW. All of these are common weapons on the F16C. All of them are stand off munitions. All are common on any number of other platforms in US Inventory, Multi role fighters are better suited to their use anyway as they were designed to make up for the limitations of fast jets and drones as CAS platforms. They mean that these aircraft have far more precision options without needing to get into the weeds. An SDB can drop into an enemy foxhole and clear it out without risk to the allied one a few meters away. Farther there smaller size means that far more could be carried per hard points both internally or externally significantly increasing payload well duel blast mode warheads mean it could be used vs armor or infantry just as effectively.
A10 was built around its gun and large ammunition capacity yet the gun is the “Drive me closer so I can shoot them” weapon. The gun is a fall back option not the main mission. Yet on A10 it was the driver. Strafing runs vs enemy forces in close hand don’t demand long bursts but short controlled ones. If you do need gunfire on target rather than large capacity it’s either surgical precision or high effects. The 25mm on the F35 is just as effective as the big 30mm in that. The 20mm in the F15E or F16 do the job vs infantry and light vehicles just fine. If you need more it’s hard to imagine a bomb wouldn’t be better suited. Hell even the lates AC130J trades off the old guns for stand off munitions.
The problem is that mission doesn't go away. It's just a matter of whether you're doing it with suitable aircraft or with unsuitable aircraft.
I said the means to the ends that are obsolete not the mission. A10 is the means to the ends but as time has progressed it’s not doing what it was designed to do and has become just another stand off munition dispenser on wings.
The mission is more than covered from
The Army and Marine’s own attack choppers to multi role fighters to UCAV. JDAM and ATGM are plentiful, SDBs and more. We have munitions today that can be launched from a fighter that would level a armored regiment in a single shot with reduced risk of residual explosive causing future civilian casualties. Or nearby allied forces.
p.s. integrated layered air missile defenses appeared in the 1960s. By the mid-1980s they essentially achieved their modern form, from that point onwards they were only further integrated and networked, all the layers were in place.
Hence why I said A10 was probably obsolete when it was introduced. Today though they are proliferating in numbers where in the past nations like the Soviets had only a few for themselves. With it being more and more common particularly the lower ends, the A10 and aircraft like it face the fact that the one way to survive is to stand back and take targets via ranged distance shots.
The Apache for example doesn’t charge into fights. It’s highly survivable well armored for its class Yet, it tries to hide in the weeds miles away from its targets and snipe them via precision attack. Plinking enemy tanks with precision from up to 8 km away via the current Hellfire II. The ginsu version of that missile fired by drones lacks a warhead and is landing in the front passenger’s lap of a Toyota Land Cruiser. That’s precision. Low collateral to but high value.
Missiles like the Israeli Spike NLOS mean that tanks can be killed by a chopper over 32km away. JDAMs are being dropped on pin point targets from up to 28km, SDMs are hitting moving targets at 72km able to kill armor and infantry. If that’s happening and if that’s how the Air support mission is both survivable for the aircraft and crew as well as the ground forces. Then what does the A10 do that really justify it?
If you are able to drop munitions from stand off to support allied forces, the. What is the point of the Titanium bathtub? I mean who is shooting at you with what that it would protect you from at over a mile? What is the point of “Low IR signature” if the only enemy able to shoot at you are fighters? fighters you can’t shoot back at or out maneuver. What does the slow loiter speed give you that a Mq9 doesn’t have? How is an A10 closer and more able to deploy to the troops than an AH64E?
 

Top