Fairchild Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II

[Foo Fighter]

More and more I wonder, why are the air forces of the world hanging on to the role of CAS?

I get inter service rivalry but I do not see how that helps get the job done and frankly the role is havving to be adapted to tech realities. Time to adapt and move with the times, more importantly, stop wasting time and money on petty jealousy. Get the tech right for the future and give the job to the Army FCOL.

Unifying the role within one service will also reduce communication issues (Chain of command) and simplify operations IMHO, of course.

That there invictus looks pretty sharp, that class of aircraft could be part of a decently integrated force with drones and electronic assets to command the zone of interest to make the job of ground forces easier.

I also believe the two seat A-10 would have been more usable and surviveable now but hindsight etc.

 

[GTX]

When will people get into their heads that Close Air Support (CAS) is about the enemy being close to the troops not the aircraft having to be close (aka A-1/A-10 style)? CAS still happens but it happens with precision guided weapons and similar and can be delivered without having to get down low and slow using Mk.1 eyeball and gun style attacks.

 

[quellish]

When will people get into their heads that Close Air Support (CAS) is about the enemy being close to the troops not the aircraft having to be close (aka A-1/A-10 style)? CAS still happens but it happens with precision guided weapons and similar and can be delivered without having to get down low and slow using Mk.1 eyeball and gun style attacks.

When the enemy is close to friendly troops is exactly when the aircraft providing CAS needs to get low, slow, and use the Mk 1 eyeball. Everyone involved needs to be certain of where friendly forces are and how the attack will be executed before any ordinance is used.

Sadly, there still are no aircraft delivered precision guided weapons that can be used very close to friendly troops. Guns can still be used closer than SDB, Griffin, etc. Explodey things have danger radius that is not small.

 

[Scott Kenny]

When will people get into their heads that Close Air Support (CAS) is about the enemy being close to the troops not the aircraft having to be close (aka A-1/A-10 style)? CAS still happens but it happens with precision guided weapons and similar and can be delivered without having to get down low and slow using Mk.1 eyeball and gun style attacks.

When the enemy is close to friendly troops is exactly when the aircraft providing CAS needs to get low, slow, and use the Mk 1 eyeball. Everyone involved needs to be certain of where friendly forces are and how the attack will be executed before any ordinance is used.

Sadly, there still are no aircraft delivered precision guided weapons that can be used very close to friendly troops. Guns can still be used closer than SDB, Griffin, etc. Explodey things have danger radius that is not small.

Very much so, the very small Hellfire has something like a 150m danger radius. Not sure what the danger radius is for a guided 70mm rocket, but given similar warhead weight to hellfire I'm guessing similar danger radius.

30mm can be called in with troops withing 50m if the JTAC is careful about the line of attack. The circle of impact is about 40 feet/12m in diameter for the GAU-8.

 

[MihoshiK]

When will people get into their heads that Close Air Support (CAS) is about the enemy being close to the troops not the aircraft having to be close (aka A-1/A-10 style)? CAS still happens but it happens with precision guided weapons and similar and can be delivered without having to get down low and slow using Mk.1 eyeball and gun style attacks.

When the enemy is close to friendly troops is exactly when the aircraft providing CAS needs to get low, slow, and use the Mk 1 eyeball. Everyone involved needs to be certain of where friendly forces are and how the attack will be executed before any ordinance is used.

Sadly, there still are no aircraft delivered precision guided weapons that can be used very close to friendly troops. Guns can still be used closer than SDB, Griffin, etc. Explodey things have danger radius that is not small.

Very much so, the very small Hellfire has something like a 150m danger radius. Not sure what the danger radius is for a guided 70mm rocket, but given similar warhead weight to hellfire I'm guessing similar danger radius.

30mm can be called in with troops withing 50m if the JTAC is careful about the line of attack. The circle of impact is about 40 feet/12m in diameter for the GAU-8.

Except the MkI eyeball is really bad unless you get so close that the enemy can literally hit you with their rifles. And as Ukraine has shown us, flying that low and close is a HILARIOUSLY unsafe environment if you're fighting a halfway competent enemy.
And it's not like the USAF doesn't know, because even back in the eighties the estimated come-back ratio of the A-10 in a peer conflict was something on the order of 50%. For the FIRST mission!

If you want accurate munitions we're no longer limited to Hellfire and above either, since we have laser-guided 70 mm rockets.

Never mind that some unguided 70 mm variants have accuracy on par with the 30 mm BRRRP gun anyway...

 

[Scott Kenny]

When will people get into their heads that Close Air Support (CAS) is about the enemy being close to the troops not the aircraft having to be close (aka A-1/A-10 style)? CAS still happens but it happens with precision guided weapons and similar and can be delivered without having to get down low and slow using Mk.1 eyeball and gun style attacks.

When the enemy is close to friendly troops is exactly when the aircraft providing CAS needs to get low, slow, and use the Mk 1 eyeball. Everyone involved needs to be certain of where friendly forces are and how the attack will be executed before any ordinance is used.

Sadly, there still are no aircraft delivered precision guided weapons that can be used very close to friendly troops. Guns can still be used closer than SDB, Griffin, etc. Explodey things have danger radius that is not small.

Very much so, the very small Hellfire has something like a 150m danger radius. Not sure what the danger radius is for a guided 70mm rocket, but given similar warhead weight to hellfire I'm guessing similar danger radius.

30mm can be called in with troops withing 50m if the JTAC is careful about the line of attack. The circle of impact is about 40 feet/12m in diameter for the GAU-8.

Except the MkI eyeball is really bad unless you get so close that the enemy can literally hit you with their rifles. And as Ukraine has shown us, flying that low and close is a HILARIOUSLY unsafe environment if you're fighting a halfway competent enemy.
And it's not like the USAF doesn't know, because even back in the eighties the estimated come-back ratio of the A-10 in a peer conflict was something on the order of 50%. For the FIRST mission!

If you want accurate munitions we're no longer limited to Hellfire and above either, since we have laser-guided 70 mm rockets.

Never mind that some unguided 70 mm variants have accuracy on par with the 30 mm BRRRP gun anyway...

But larger blast/danger area due to warhead size.

As opposed to NO explosives in the 30mm.

 

[Ainen]

Except the MkI eyeball is really bad unless you get so close that the enemy can literally hit you with their rifles.

Technology went quite far in augmenting that eyeball with augmented reality solutions.
Overall situational awareness of MkI is still unmatched, and probably won't be within decades to come.

And it's not like the USAF doesn't know, because even back in the eighties the estimated come-back ratio of the A-10 in a peer conflict was something on the order of 50%. For the FIRST mission!

Ukraine shows that USAF doesn't know indeed. Or, more likely, knows, but doesn't really want to do this.

If you want accurate munitions we're no longer limited to Hellfire and above either, since we have laser-guided 70 mm rockets.

Those are CAS weapons, however. And the best platform for their employment (of now operational) are either A-8 or A-10, which are CAS aircraft.
F-35 can't use it.

 

[MihoshiK]

Except the MkI eyeball is really bad unless you get so close that the enemy can literally hit you with their rifles. And as Ukraine has shown us, flying that low and close is a HILARIOUSLY unsafe environment if you're fighting a halfway competent enemy.
And it's not like the USAF doesn't know, because even back in the eighties the estimated come-back ratio of the A-10 in a peer conflict was something on the order of 50%. For the FIRST mission!

If you want accurate munitions we're no longer limited to Hellfire and above either, since we have laser-guided 70 mm rockets.

Never mind that some unguided 70 mm variants have accuracy on par with the 30 mm BRRRP gun anyway...

But larger blast/danger area due to warhead size.

As opposed to NO explosives in the 30mm.

Err, the PGU-13/B which is mixed in with the PGU-14/B API is most definatively HEI.

Except the MkI eyeball is really bad unless you get so close that the enemy can literally hit you with their rifles.

Technology went quite far in augmenting that eyeball with augmented reality solutions.
Overall situational awareness of MkI is still unmatched, and probably won't be within decades to come.

...That's not the MkI eyeball then, isn't it?

Ukraine shows that USAF doesn't know indeed. Or, more likely, knows, but doesn't really want to do this.

I'm not quite sure what your point is when the USAF is eager to get rid of the A-10, and has to be pressured by Congress (who love the BRRRRT apparently), to keep it flying.

Those are CAS weapons, however. And the best platform for their employment (of now operational) are either A-8 or A-10, which are CAS aircraft.
F-35 can't use it.

Or, and hear me out here, you employ unmanned platforms. Amazing idea, and I'm not sure if it will catch on, but in case that doesn't work and we've got a permissive enough airspace that slow flying planes won't get murked immediately, you could also deploy a modified crop spray.... Naah.

 

[Ainen]

...That's not the MkI eyeball then, isn't it?

Two of them wearing an HMDS. But the base still is our eyesight...

I'm not quite sure what your point is when the USAF is eager to get rid of the A-10, and has to be pressured by Congress (who love the BRRRRT apparently), to keep it flying.

My point is that USAF wanted to offload A-10s since 1980s, basically as soon as army finally truly gave up on their own properly flying things. It isn't a new thing, just a continuation of what they always wanted to do.

Right now, knowing how routinely low&close missions fly to the frontlines in high-intensity 2020s air combat, doing CAS - USAF 40-yrs argument looks quite vulnerable.
By now there are Ukrainian(not even Russian!) ground attack pilots with ~400 combat missions under their belt, against Russian battlefield AA. That's a model "peer threat".

Or, and hear me out here, you employ unmanned platforms.

Unmanned platforms for some reason became this "oh, that's cool future!" buzzword.

Survivable, CAS-capable(in high-intensity scenarios) unmanned platforms don't exist. Probably won't for quite a while.

Survivable, attritable strike platforms are only starting to appear - but by their nature they're only delivery platforms - so they need stand-in sensor/decision-making platform. That's only a part of a new CAS ecosystem.

Non-survivable CAS platforms have proven themselves completely harmless to the opponent the moment GBAD engagement restrictions were lifted somewhat. Their survivability compared to completely outdated 1980s aircraft is an utter joke.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Except the MkI eyeball is really bad unless you get so close that the enemy can literally hit you with their rifles. And as Ukraine has shown us, flying that low and close is a HILARIOUSLY unsafe environment if you're fighting a halfway competent enemy.
And it's not like the USAF doesn't know, because even back in the eighties the estimated come-back ratio of the A-10 in a peer conflict was something on the order of 50%. For the FIRST mission!

If you want accurate munitions we're no longer limited to Hellfire and above either, since we have laser-guided 70 mm rockets.

Never mind that some unguided 70 mm variants have accuracy on par with the 30 mm BRRRP gun anyway...

But larger blast/danger area due to warhead size.

As opposed to NO explosives in the 30mm.

Err, the PGU-13/B which is mixed in with the PGU-14/B API is most definatively HEI.

? Bugger. You only hear about the PGU-14 DU rounds...

And it's a very hard number to find, the filler weight of a PGU-13/B... can find projectile weight (362g), and even propellant weight (150g), but not filler weight.

 

[GTX]

Survivable, CAS-capable(in high-intensity scenarios) unmanned platforms don't exist. Probably won't for quite a while.

Arguably this isn't a concern. One of the advantages of uninhabited platforms is they don't need to be survivable for more than one mission. If they do that's a bonus.

 

[GTX]

My point is that USAF wanted to offload A-10s since 1980s, basically as soon as army finally truly gave up on their own properly flying things. It isn't a new thing, just a continuation of what they always wanted to do.

Not this garbage again.

 

[publiusr]

Perhaps A-10s can fly along a salient, scissoring into an opponent’s front. Risky…but that’s what it is for.

We’re I in a ditch and opposing forces were closer—wave the A-10 off and use mortars.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Perhaps A-10s can fly along a salient, scissoring into an opponent’s front. Risky…but that’s what it is for.

We’re I in a ditch and opposing forces were closer—wave the A-10 off and use mortars.

A gun run from an A-10 can be called in very close to your own position, especially when they can run parallel to your lines. I think the JTAC book says within 50m in that situation. Can't drop mortars that close.

 

[isayyo2]

Resposting @jsport article from the F-16 thread. The “Stop divest to invest” and “Guard and Reserve” sections work well with the A-10 argument.

New Study: USAF Needs Big Cash Infusion to Overcome Aging Fighter Fleet

WIthout a surge in funding for newer, better, and larger numbers of fighters, the USAF fighter fleet could “collapse,” a new paper argues.

www.airandspaceforces.com

 

[aonestudio]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1678722811567677440

View: https://twitter.com/US5thFleet/status/1678722811567677440

 

[Jeb]

Two of them wearing an HMDS. But the base still is our eyesight...

And eyesight works perfectly well when you're looking through a helmet-mounted display from a zoomed-in high-res camera providing overlays of friendlies' IR beacons, heat signatures from the bad guys, and whatever other data the computer can fuse into the display, looking down from a safe 10K AGL perch as the JTAC sends you the coordinates and vector for weapons delivery.

 

[Scott Kenny]

And eyesight works perfectly well when you're looking through a helmet-mounted display from a zoomed-in high-res camera providing overlays of friendlies' IR beacons, heat signatures from the bad guys, and whatever other data the computer can fuse into the display, looking down from a safe 10K AGL perch as the JTAC sends you the coordinates and vector for weapons delivery.

Would work even better if the JTAC's gear would let him draw on his electronic map for the line he wants the CAS to fire/drop on, and send the line up to the CAS to let them see his wants.

 

[Ainen]

And eyesight works perfectly well when you're looking through a helmet-mounted display from a zoomed-in high-res camera

It does. But if you rely only on it - you only really see the picture that camera provides. up to 200x150 degrees of your sight don't really work.
It's the same difference between 360 degrees of tank commander's rotating cupola(or panoramic sight) vs. simply sticking ur head out. And it's the same reason we still accept translucent cockpits instead of oblique covers.

The whole point of augmented reality - you make no sacrifices, you don't even sacrifice the ability to view things from other perspectives(video input) when you can't or don't intend to operate stand-in.

 

[Volkodav]

When the enemy is close to friendly troops is exactly when the aircraft providing CAS needs to get low, slow, and use the Mk 1 eyeball. Everyone involved needs to be certain of where friendly forces are and how the attack will be executed before any ordinance is used.

Sadly, there still are no aircraft delivered precision guided weapons that can be used very close to friendly troops. Guns can still be used closer than SDB, Griffin, etc. Explodey things have danger radius that is not small.

190th Fighter Squadron, Blues and Royals friendly fire incident - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The Mk 1 eyeball failed dismally in this case.

These days you are probably safer being supported by standoff capabilities with a superior battlefield picture. In fact, these days, ideally, a junior leader on the ground would be directly designating the target for the standoff system rather than being killed by well intentioned, friendly fire.

 

[Jeb]

It does. But if you rely only on it - you only really see the picture that camera provides. up to 200x150 degrees of your sight don't really work.
It's the same difference between 360 degrees of tank commander's rotating cupola(or panoramic sight) vs. simply sticking ur head out. And it's the same reason we still accept translucent cockpits instead of oblique covers.

The whole point of augmented reality - you make no sacrifices, you don't even sacrifice the ability to view things from other perspectives(video input) when you can't or don't intend to operate stand-in.

"360 degrees" - my friend, unless you're particularly walleyed to the point of being deformed, your field of vision is only about 180 degrees without moving your head.

 

[Scott Kenny]

190th Fighter Squadron, Blues and Royals friendly fire incident - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The Mk 1 eyeball failed dismally in this case.

These days you are probably safer being supported by standoff capabilities with a superior battlefield picture. In fact, these days, ideally, a junior leader on the ground would be directly designating the target for the standoff system rather than being killed by well intentioned, friendly fire.

That is a particularly egregious failure of the normal systems of control.

Not least because those A-10s were never cleared to attack by a JTAC and so never should have fired at all.

That said, controlling aircraft is a specialist skill, not one that a junior ground officer would have or should be expected to have. Marines have aviation trained officers on their shore rotations assigned as JTACs (or rather, TACPs, because there's nothing Joint about Marines controlling Marine aircraft from the ground). And even being a specialist skill doesn't prevent things like having to replace the battery and not realizing that the target designator box went from displaying lased target location back to the default of units current location!

Yes, that's a fault of the target designator box design in two ways. First is that it's hard to tell whether the box is displaying lased target or unit position. Second that it doesn't remember what mode it was last in.

 

[aonestudio]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1710656606306742301

View: https://twitter.com/CENTCOM/status/1710656606306742301

https://twitter.com/x/status/1713563330483269969

View: https://twitter.com/USAFCENT/status/1713563330483269969

https://twitter.com/x/status/1712492087893999880

View: https://twitter.com/CENTCOM/status/1712492087893999880

 

[aonestudio]

F-35 and A-10 Close Air Support Flyoff Report

POGO obtained a copy of the A-10 and F-35 flyoff testing report and, unsurprisingly, the F-35 did not come out as the clear winner.

www.pogo.org

https://twitter.com/x/status/1717846802299576634

View: https://twitter.com/svXwunjkknbmZYw/status/1717846802299576634

 

[FighterJock]

So much for the F-35 going to replace the A-10 in the CAS role it lost out to the A-10 in a fly off. So what happens now to the F-35 and the future or CAS?

 

[Scott Kenny]

So much for the F-35 going to replace the A-10 in the CAS role it lost out to the A-10 in a fly off. So what happens now to the F-35 and the future or CAS?

F-35 does Battlefield Air Interdiction missions that the A-10 really kinda sucks at.

And we probably end up designing a replacement A-10.

 

[MihoshiK]

So much for the F-35 going to replace the A-10 in the CAS role it lost out to the A-10 in a fly off. So what happens now to the F-35 and the future or CAS?

They didn't even bother with a fly-off in a non-permissible environment. That should tell you everything you need to know about the future of the A-10 in regards to CAS.

It's the kind of heavily redacted report that is hailed by a VERY biased source as supporting their position... Whereas it really doesn't.

 

[Scott Kenny]

They didn't even bother with a fly-off in a non-permissible environment. That should tell you everything you need to know about the future of the A-10 in regards to CAS.

It's the kind of heavily redacted report that is hailed by a VERY biased source as supporting their position... Whereas it really doesn't.

Not sure the F-35 would do much better in a non-permissive environment, due to limited capacity. Yes, it's got 8x SDBs packed in there. But IIRC if you wanted a HARM it would eat half of those SDBs, HARMs don't go on the AMRAAM pylons.

So if your assumed CAS mission needs more than 8x SDBs, then the F-35 loses stealth.

 

[MihoshiK]

Not sure the F-35 would do much better in a non-permissive environment, due to limited capacity. Yes, it's got 8x SDBs packed in there. But IIRC if you wanted a HARM it would eat half of those SDBs, HARMs don't go on the AMRAAM pylons.

So if your assumed CAS mission needs more than 8x SDBs, then the F-35 loses stealth.

If you have one plane available in theatre, then yes. And even then we're talking "loses stealth" vs. "BRICK SHOUTING AT YOU".

One let's you plan around the limitations. The other... doesn't.

 

[kaiserd]

The somersaults of non-logic and non-fact being undertaken in the latest bit of this discussion are atrocious.

In a permissive environment a F-35 wouldn’t need to carry or use HARMs etc.
(And for that matter the A-10 has never and could never carry or use HARMs).
And F-35s can help render an environment significantly more permissive by tackling relevant threats.

And in a theoretical permissive environment why would it matter if a F-35 temporarily sacrificed some of it stealth characteristics for a greater weapon load?
And in a non-permissive environment wouldn’t the internal bomb load of a F-35 be an order of magnitude more useful than a zero load because the A-10 got shot down or was never sent in the first place?

And the A-10s can now only operate in the most permissive of environments, and the prevalence of such environments has and. likely to continue to markedly decline.
And for many of those surviving permissive environments the A-10 is either over-kill and/ or there are already alternative better-matched platforms. It’s simply not the case of the A-10 or direct A-10 equivalent/replacement versus the F-35.
And A-10s likely can’t help render an environment significantly more permissive.

I’m more positively disposed to the A-10 then these comments may suggest but the arguments being put forward by many of its most ardent proponents are not very good.

 

[Scott Kenny]

If you have one plane available in theatre, then yes.

I was actually assuming only one plane available in that spot, because everyone across the front is screaming for CAS and the CAS equivalent of a Fire Direction Center assigned one plane.

And even then we're talking "loses stealth" vs. "BRICK SHOUTING AT YOU".

One let's you plan around the limitations. The other... doesn't.

That really gets into a question of just how big the fully loaded RCSs are. Is the F-35's beast mode RCS 1/10 that of the A-10? 1/2? Without having a clue about that, we can't really argue the point.


==========

But seriously.

Use the F-35 for Battlefield Air Interdiction and maybe even SEAD/DEAD strikes on the bigger long range SAMs to make the battlefield permissive for A-10s to do their thing, and at the same time we start designing a replacement for the A-10. Airframes are 40+ years old, and they do all their flying at low altitudes which is murder on the plane.

 

[Jeb]

I can't lay hands on the citation but I remember seeing somewhere that an F-35 pilot said that the AIM-9X on the outer wing pylon didn't contribute "notably" to increased RCS. That's not full beast mode, of course, but I think it hints to the program office putting more than a little work into cutting RCS even when loaded.

And wishing for a "true" A-10 replacement with a monster gun and tons of pylons is wasted time.

 

[Kat Tsun]

Not sure the F-35 would do much better in a non-permissive environment, due to limited capacity. Yes, it's got 8x SDBs packed in there. But IIRC if you wanted a HARM it would eat half of those SDBs, HARMs don't go on the AMRAAM pylons.

So if your assumed CAS mission needs more than 8x SDBs, then the F-35 loses stealth.

Eight SDBs is enough to destroy a major probing attack by an enemy armored battalion, but given the force densities in Ukraine, it might actually be enough to halt a brigade's major attack. There are no more attacks by entire battalions anymore, and haven't been since like...2003? It's more like three to nine tanks and a similar number of IFVs, and about 20 total armored vehicles including breaching vehicles.

A pair of F-35s would be able to ruin the day of 47th and 33rd Mechanized Brigades back in June. Of course, the 47th and 33rd Mechanized Brigades had their days ruined by a interlocked fire sac of Kornets, land mines, and 122mm guns.

Those two F-35s would be better used in a Six Day War style offensive counter-air operation to destroy a fighter squadron's operating base, with another pair of F-35s with HARMs for defense suppression, and maybe four for CAP and escort. Alternatively they could tear down part of an IADS or something, as eight SDBs would probably be able to knock out a S-300PMU battery.

That is not a small bomb load. It's two dead tank platoons per plane.

Well, I mean I guess it could, but only as long as you're willing to eat a silly amount of aircraft lost per so many sorties. Certainly more than what the Central Front expected, since air defense has evolved significantly since the 1980's, but probably to the point not "total tank buster death" amounts.

In any "non-permissive" environment the priority of ATF and JSF is to break the enemy air force, smash the air defenses, which allows the much more numerous and readily available F-15s, F-16s, and A-10s to roll in and crush the enemy's surviving battalions and the Army to win the war.

In a "permissive" environment, literally nothing matters, because it's permissive.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Eight SDBs is enough to destroy a major probing attack by an enemy armored battalion, but given the force densities in Ukraine, it might actually be enough to halt a brigade's major attack. There are no more attacks by entire battalions anymore, and haven't been since like...2003? It's more like three to nine tanks and a similar number of IFVs, and about 20 total armored vehicles including breaching vehicles.

A pair of F-35s would be able to ruin the day of 47th and 33rd Mechanized Brigades back in June. Of course, the 47th and 33rd Mechanized Brigades had their days ruined by a interlocked fire sac of Kornets, land mines, and 122mm guns.

Those two F-35s would be better used in a Six Day War style offensive counter-air operation to destroy a fighter squadron's operating base, with another pair of F-35s with HARMs for defense suppression, and maybe four for CAP and escort. Alternatively they could tear down part of an IADS or something, as eight SDBs would probably be able to knock out a S-300PMU battery.

That is not a small bomb load. It's two dead tank platoons per plane.

Well, I mean I guess it could, but only as long as you're willing to eat a silly amount of aircraft lost per so many sorties. Certainly more than what the Central Front expected, since air defense has evolved significantly since the 1980's, but probably to the point not "total tank buster death" amounts.

I guess my mind is still stuck on "There are 10x Motor Rifle Regiments advancing across 100km of front"

 

[Kat Tsun]

I guess my mind is still stuck on "There are 10x Motor Rifle Regiments advancing across 100km of front"

Ten MRRs have something like 400 tanks and 1,200 BMPs, so 40 tanks and 120 MRRs per 10 km.

Nowadays it's more like a dozen tanks and BMPs, put together, across 10 km of front. Which means like 4 tanks and BMP/BTR in a probe, 12 tanks and BMPs/BTRs if it's a major reconnaissance in force, and like closer to 20-30 of all types (tanks, BMP, IMRs) if it's a main effort or deliberate attack.

At least if Mariupol tells us anything.

This is mostly because air forces and artillery are ultra lethal now.

Whether Western armies can maintain major assaults, at least in the face of heavy resistance (not Gaza), on the scale of the 2003 Thunder Runs (i.e. division to corps level reconnaissance-in-force using battalions and brigade-sized forces) is for the future to reveal.

 

[Foo Fighter]

I'll drop this here because I have not seen it mentioned, for a while at least.

The mission of stealth capable aircraft was described as an "Aircraft capable of destroying the ability of enemy aircraft and radar/missile systems from destroying your support and ground attack assets".

I took it to mean all assets including fixed and rotary wing. It was one of the missions undertaken by AH-64's back in Op Granby days too.

I am aware that the environment has changed and UCAV are pretty proliferate these days too so the ;mission' is gaining depth. What does this mean going forward? Well, basically I see a growth in miniturisation and as with any combat sector there will continue to be grey area's.

Why the US army is not running its own ground support and area denial aircraft I will never work out. Is it entirely due to political grandstanding between the army and USAF?

 

[Firefinder]

Why the US army is not running its own ground support and area denial aircraft I will never work out. Is it entirely due to political grandstanding between the army and USAF?

Yes.

The Army is outright unable to have any combat fix wings, attack or support types, by two laws cause by the Chair Farces having performance anxiety.

Of course those laws also allows the Army sole use of rotorary attack craft and some cargo support. But even those occasionally gets bludgeoned to death by the Air idiots as seen by the entire Cheyenne and the very recent Spartan saga.

Hell I occasionally hear grumbles that the Air Force is making side eye looks st the V280 Valor attack version.

That entire frame works needs a proper rework.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Why the US army is not running its own ground support and area denial aircraft I will never work out. Is it entirely due to political grandstanding between the army and USAF?

Yes. Key West Agreement, that defined the split of roles and missions between the Army and the former US Army Air Force. Army cannot operate any armed fixed-wing aircraft, USAF does not own the airborne divisions/ground troops outside of those protecting air bases.

Hell I occasionally hear grumbles that the Air Force is making side eye looks st the V280 Valor attack version.

That entire frame works needs a proper rework.

USAF tries that one and I think the Army will finally learn how to politic. Not point in having your assault transport escorts under a different chain of command entirely.

 

[Foo Fighter]

As I see it, I know laugh or I'll cry, ALL ground support should be unified so a properly coordinated manouvre can happen. Shirley would be blubbing into her G and T by now if this was the real world and/or an industrial cause celebre.

Has anyone seen the advert on the idiot box (Banking I think) where a veg barrow selling veg states that all p[urchase MUST be in crypto currency only? Very apropos to the management of the vast majority of defence issues.

Unless rotary and fixed wing of ALL variety, are unified we are going to go backwards and fail the GOTG (Grunt On The Ground) into the future. Going further, command and control, how on earth can air force C&C assets control ground units and why no army equivalent?

I am going to accompany my elderly neighbour to hospital shortly so I shall shut up and leave this before my brain boils over.

 

[Scott Kenny]

As I see it, I know laugh or I'll cry, ALL ground support should be unified so a properly coordinated manouvre can happen. Shirley would be blubbing into her G and T by now if this was the real world and/or an industrial cause celebre.

Has anyone seen the advert on the idiot box (Banking I think) where a veg barrow selling veg states that all p[urchase MUST be in crypto currency only? Very apropos to the management of the vast majority of defence issues.

Unless rotary and fixed wing of ALL variety, are unified we are going to go backwards and fail the GOTG (Grunt On The Ground) into the future. Going further, command and control, how on earth can air force C&C assets control ground units and why no army equivalent?

I am going to accompany my elderly neighbour to hospital shortly so I shall shut up and leave this before my brain boils over.

Yes, I think that the USMC have the correct organization for that and the Army doesn't. Just not enough helos, as a reinforced battalion (MEU) has 3x UH1 and 4-6x AH1, plus 6x fast jets.

For whatever reason, the USMC has always focused on larger helicopters or tiltrotors as opposed to "squad size" transports. Admittedly, a UH1 is only going to carry half a USMC squad at full strength, but a 24pax Sea Knight or Osprey is only carrying one squad plus some attachments. Not two complete squads.