|
-Troika- posted:Gun runs are not really a thing for CAS anymore, we have precision guided munitions for a reason. Still a thing, but overvalued. Can't find the link now but there was a good A-10 gun run on liveleak where right after the run the army grunts get up all hollering with glee then immediately get back behind cover because making a bunch of cool sounds and smoke near the enemy doesn't necessarily kill them.
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 17:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 00:10 |
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Didn't they say the same thing about air-to-air combat and missiles? They said that (overconfidently) 45 years ago. Coincidentally the A-10 was built to withstand 45 year old SHORAD. There's been a lot done in regards to precision and lethality in that 45 years. Also, it was pretty easy to see the early AIM-7 and 9 were not effective enough in real combat. Lot harder to find that type of evidence against Hellfires and JDAM. Mazz fucked around with this message at 17:47 on Jun 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 17:44
|
|
|
Mazz posted:They said that (overconfidently) 45 years ago. Coincidentally the A-10 was built to withstand 45 year old SHORAD. There's been a lot done in regards to precision and lethality in that 45 years. Which makes the guy that suggested buying more Apaches all the more comical. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=159_1433424437 Guns can still be fired in closer proximity to troops than bombs but...
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 17:59
|
|
|
Not too long ago I read Warthog: Flying the A-10 in the Gulf War by William Smallwood. I scribbed some notes: In 1991, only a month into the air campaign, the airforce limited the use of the gun to "true CAS, SAR, and TIC (troops in contact) situations", as it had become clear that most of the hits taken by the hogs occurred as they pulled out of a gun run. One unfortunate side effect of the A-10''s survivability was that it put the onus on pilots to land crippled aircraft without first jettisoning their stores. This resulted in one death and a near catastrophe when a damaged hog was stopped only by it's ECM pod from running into a flightline packed with fuel, munitions, and taxiing aircraft. What the A-10's resilience did do was cut down on needed CSAR missions, and spared some pilots the experience of being tortured in Baghdad (3 hog drivers spent the war as POWs). None of the A-10 pilots who ejected were reached by CSAR, nor were there any instances of wingmen using gun runs to defend downed pilots. Something repeatedly pointed out is that rules on gun use, minimum altitude, etc. could all be broken when conducting CAS. However, the only CAS documented in the book involves Mavericks (on a related note: what's the difference between CAS and BAI in close vicinity to friendlies plus FAC support?). Both friendly fire incident involved Mavericks, not the gun. The night time incident involving a Marine AAV was claimed to be a weapon malfunction: hog driver locked up an Iraqi vehicle and fired- the missile "went stupid," broke lock, and reacquired the AAV much nearer to the firing aircraft. My trigonometry is rusty, but that seems difficult considering the Maverick seeker's limited FOV. Dilkington fucked around with this message at 18:32 on Jun 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 18:22
|
|
|
Close air support is employing air power that requires close coordination with ground forces. Air interdiction does not. So hammering enemy tanks only a couple km from friendly forces is CAS and knocking out a tank column 200 km up the road is Air Interdiction / Deep Air Support. BAI is anachronistic and referred to Air Interdiction that was still fairly close to friendly units. Say an enemy formation is moving toward friends forces at 20 kph and is only 75 km away. That's an immediate concern but doesn't require CAS levels of coordination. mlmp08 fucked around with this message at 18:41 on Jun 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 18:33
|
|
|
I imagine the gun is important in Alamo situations when aircraft run out of munitions.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 19:00
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Didn't they say the same thing about air-to-air combat and missiles? Even since the A-10 was deployed, man-portable SAMs have proliferated to every loving corner of the globe. It's not the same thing at all.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 20:08
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:I imagine the gun is important in Alamo situations when aircraft run out of munitions. The A version (which would replace the A-10) still has a gun. Probably enough ammo for 2-3 passes. But if your situation is so hosed that your CAS is winchestering out trying to keep your position from being overrun by a vastly superior enemy force, it's time to start thinking about final defensive fires rather than high angle strafing passes. The real solution would be to get more CAS assets overhead... in which case you're going to want a supersonic fighter bomber, because they can respond much more quickly.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 20:28
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:The A version (which would replace the A-10) still has a gun. Probably enough ammo for 2-3 passes. But if your situation is so hosed that your CAS is winchestering out trying to keep your position from being overrun by a vastly superior enemy force, it's time to start thinking about final defensive fires rather than high angle strafing passes. The real solution would be to get more CAS assets overhead... in which case you're going to want a supersonic fighter bomber, because they can respond much more quickly. To be fair the USAF isn't planning on getting rid of the F-15E
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 21:04
|
|
|
Any of you folks know an acceptably accurate source for the current "real" price for the F-35? Preferably the estimated price for a brand new variant of each model. Sorry if this is vague, and it probably wont be 100% accurate given the program's status and development changes. Just have a friend who's curious, and it in turn got me curious.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 21:29
|
|
|
Dandywalken posted:Any of you folks know an acceptably accurate source for the current "real" price for the F-35? Preferably the estimated price for a brand new variant of each model. I doubt the people selling the damned thing know what it actual costs. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 21:45
|
|
|
Flyaway is about $100mil/ea. If you divide the R&D cost by aircraft then you'll get some very high numbers, in the range of $300mil for each plane bought in FY2012 for example.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2015 22:03
|
|
|
Yeah, flyaway is about $100M, somewhat more for the -C model just because there aren't nearly as many of them produced at the moment (the Navy planning to be last to declare IOC has led to the JPO front-loading the first several LRIP buys with -As and -Bs). I'd expect flyaway to drop to below $90M (at least for the -A) if the Pentagon gets their 450 tail "bulk buy" that they're pushing over the next couple FYs. Flyaway is the cost you want to use at this stage in the program if you are calculating "how much does the thing cost compared to airplane 'x'" because doing the "divide by R&D" cost calculation will yield unfair numbers since the program is still in LRIP and hasn't produced anywhere near the total planned buy. Of course, if you want to figure out overall lifecycle costs then you need to factor in things like R&D as well as support equipment costs and a whole bunch of other poo poo, but that gets real complicated real quick. edit: as far as a source for the flyaway cost, try this. Yes, I know it's LM but the baseline flyaway cost figures stated there are taken straight out of what they contracted with for the government, so that is quite literally what the flyaway cost is for the most recent contracted buy. Obviously when you start factoring in other things it gets a lot more complicated and contentious, so I'm not going to cite LM for overall lifecycle costs or anything like that. iyaayas01 fucked around with this message at 04:39 on Jun 11, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2015 04:35
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Flyaway is about $100mil/ea. If you divide the R&D cost by aircraft then you'll get some very high numbers, in the range of $300mil for each plane bought in FY2012 for example. Didn't the FY2014 defense final omnibus bill had F-35 procurement funded around $5 billion dollars for 29 F-35s along with an additional $521.7 million in advance procurement?
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2015 11:03
|
|
|
AmyL posted:Didn't the FY2014 defense final omnibus bill had F-35 procurement funded around $5 billion dollars for 29 F-35s along with an additional $521.7 million in advance procurement? Yeah but only $2.9billion was for the planes, the rest was for the engines, wings, and cockpits. More seriously average purchase cost per plane over the entire usa procurement process will be about $160 million but perhaps flyaway will be cheaper for foreigners. http://www.janes.com/article/50102/f-35-procurement-cost-estimate-drops distortion park fucked around with this message at 12:07 on Jun 11, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2015 12:01
|
|
|
AmyL posted:Didn't the FY2014 defense final omnibus bill had F-35 procurement funded around $5 billion dollars for 29 F-35s along with an additional $521.7 million in advance procurement? Sadly those 29 still aren't the production version, they're paying for engineering changes which makes everything cost much more. Flyaway means that plane 30 should "just" be another 100mil.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2015 14:50
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Which makes the guy that suggested buying more Apaches all the more comical. Without getting into the specifics of the program, let me just say that the US Army's anti-manpads equipment is a bit more advanced and effective than the Ukrainian's. http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/bae-wins-14b-order-for-aircraft-irdefense-systems-02422/
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2015 15:38
|
|
|
Armyman25 posted:Without getting into the specifics of the program, let me just say that the US Army's anti-manpads equipment is a bit more advanced and effective than the Ukrainian's. And yet US helicopters still go down to 1980s era stingers and strelas, never mind modern iglas. The missiles are far ahead of countermeasures.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2015 16:34
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:And yet US helicopters still go down to 1980s era stingers and strelas, never mind modern iglas. The missiles are far ahead of countermeasures. Like anything else it's a constant evolution of measure and counter-measure. http://www.army.mil/article/145373/Laser_based_aircraft_countermeasure_provides__unlimited_rounds__against_MANPADS/ If you want you can browse http://www.armyaircrews.com/ and look at what downs aircraft. Bad weather and low illum are great hazards to flight than MANPADS.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2015 17:00
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:The A version (which would replace the A-10) still has a gun. Probably enough ammo for 2-3 passes. But if your situation is so hosed that your CAS is winchestering out trying to keep your position from being overrun by a vastly superior enemy force, it's time to start thinking about final defensive fires rather than high angle strafing passes. The real solution would be to get more CAS assets overhead... in which case you're going to want a supersonic fighter bomber, because they can respond much more quickly. Yeah but you fight with what you got not what you want.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2015 17:10
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Yeah but you fight with what you got not what you want. I have no idea what you even mean by that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2015 17:21
|
|
|
Is there some kind of Greatest Hits compilation of F-35 issues that's better or more concise than the Wikipedia one? Because it's the first option that's been floated as the replacement for the F-18C/D Hornets for the Finnish Defence Forces and I'm terrified we'll actually go through with it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2015 17:29
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:I have no idea what you even mean by that. Obviously that the F-15E will make it from one location to another before the A-10.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2015 17:32
|
|
|
Antti posted:Is there some kind of Greatest Hits compilation of F-35 issues that's better or more concise than the Wikipedia one? Because it's the first option that's been floated as the replacement for the F-18C/D Hornets for the Finnish Defence Forces and I'm terrified we'll actually go through with it. I did an effort post a while back based on the most recent DOT&E report that lists most of the major issues currently facing the program as well as providing some context as opposed to the usual "LOL THE PILOTS CAN'T SEE AND THE ENGINE RANDOMLY CATCHES ON FIRE WHAT A POS" The wikipedia article includes a lot of "issues" that were either non-issues which have been blown way out of proportion by the War Is Boring brigade (exhibit a: TRO) or stuff that has been fixed and shouldn't be a concern for anyone thinking about buying the fighter in the future (like the engine fire oopsie). The only thing I didn't address is overall life-cycle costs, which should obviously be something of concern to someone who is thinking about buying the fighter in the future...but that's way more complicated than I can address at the moment.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2015 17:44
|
|
|
pointsofdata posted:Yeah but only $2.9billion was for the planes, the rest was for the engines, wings, and cockpits. I don't know about you or LockMart, but I usually consider wings and the cockpit to be integral parts of a manned aircraft 
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2015 18:01
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Obviously that the F-15E will make it from one location to another before the A-10. I thought he was referring to that great quote by a Bush admin guy who said "You fight with the army you got, not the army you want" as a response to a question about why soldiers didn't even have body armor.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2015 19:53
|
|
|
That was not just 'a guy' saying it, that was secretary of defense Donald "H." "gently caress y'all" Rumsfeld.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2015 20:19
|
|
|
Seems appropriate for this thread: http://www.duffelblog.com/2014/02/f35-delays-sentience/
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2015 20:41
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:I have no idea what you even mean by that. It's a paraphrased Rumsfeld quote: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jPgljRvzQw
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2015 21:31
|
|
|
I understand the quote, I don't see how it's applicable to the proper application of fixed wing CAS fires in support of a position in danger of being overrun.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2015 22:28
|
|
|
I think he's saying that the A-10 is the CAS unit we have right now and the F-35 won't come. Which ignores the F-15E, F-16 and BONE.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2015 22:37
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:I think he's saying that the A-10 is the CAS unit we have right now and the F-35 won't come. Which ignores the F-15E, F-16 and BONE. The AC-130J's, U's and W's never get love in this conversation.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2015 22:56
|
|
|
The AC-130 is even slower.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2015 23:00
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:The AC-130 is even slower. And is only useful at night. And we have like 18 total or some poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2015 23:39
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:And is only useful at night. And we have like 18 total or some poo poo. More like 29, if you count the Wombats. But god drat do they hit hard against infantry in the open.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2015 23:47
|
|
|
Doesn't pretty much anything do a good job on infantry in the open?
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2015 23:54
|
|
|
A lot of munitions deal a lot of damage in a small place (anti tank, bunker busters, etc) while others deal less but still lethal damage across a large area (cluster bombs). Of course there's always the "gently caress it" option of fuel air explosives (daisy cutters, MOAB) or tactical nukes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2015 23:58
|
|
|
Jago posted:Doesn't pretty much anything do a good job on infantry in the open? Not exactly. When infantry scatter like roaches a couple laser guided bombs from an F-16 are suddenly not so super awesome. An AC-130 or some Apaches hanging out for thirty minutes and walking cannon fire all over each individual person trying to flee is pretty damned effective, particularly given how methodically and easily they can swap targets.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 00:00
|
|
|
Jago posted:Doesn't pretty much anything do a good job on infantry in the open?
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 00:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 00:10 |
|
|
AC-130 is fantastic due to being able to kill a lot of poo poo with one load of ammo and being able to bring fire in really close if needed. The minimum safe distance for the 20/25mm is really drat close. You need completely secure air space but if you can get that it's pretty awesome.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2015 09:38
|
|
