|
The A-10 would almost certainly take high attrition, but at the same time, the guys on the ground would at least would like something above them with some punch even if it was lofting rockets at the enemy. The F-35A, not getting into the actual issues with the plane, has a ton of issue with its overall doctrine. Its internal payload is 2,600kg, that is 2 JADMs max (and even then you may not be able to stuff an AMRAAM in each pay to give them some defensive firepower). That just isn't much in terms in tactical bombing, looking at a situation like Ukraine, for example, especially due to the all the costs/logistics to fly a sortie. If you use its external rack then all the expense on its stealth characteristics is pointless, and it is just an awkward 4th gen fighter with modern avionics. 4th generation multirole arguably can be more efficient, but they are going to take losses if they aren't doing anything more than lobbing glide bombs. That is still useful (and the Russians are doing a ton of it) but that may not actually make the difference hoped for, especially if an enemy is used to that type of warfare (and has its own air force and glide bombs). At a certain point it is just going to be about the "raw boom" each side can inflict one each and the sustainability of their supply chains and launch platforms. The issue with getting rid of the A-10 isn't going to be doing badass strafing runs, but it just limits options for the projection of that firepower (there are cases where you probably want closer support that can get under AD with better coordination on the ground than just glide bombs). Ardennes has issued a correction as of 11:53 on Mar 7, 2024 |
#
?
Mar 7, 2024 11:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 19:03 |
|
|
Ardennes posted:The A-10 would almost certainly take high attrition, but at the same time, the guys on the ground would at least would like something above them with some punch even if it was lofting rockets at the enemy. Oh I generally agree, but I don't think the USAF or general public has the stomach for wasting pilots & planes on an "average" CAS mission without proper suppression of air defences, unless it's literally a "if we lose this one location, the entire war is permanently lost, period" scenario. Now, if there were an extra 500 A-10s, extra 500 F-16s, and extra 500 F-15s in the inventory, then you probably could be a bit more cavalier about loses with supporting CAS in near peer fights. I have a nasty feeling that the US Army is expecting "Pfft, we'll have the exact same CAS like in Afghanistan" and be shocked when a few SDBs is all they're going to get if they're very lucky, instead of real time re-targeting to multiple aircraft right above their heads, with a regular wave of SDBs, JDAMs, Mavericks and cannon fire when needed. Hopefully they're training for this drastic drop in aerial fire support and focusing on using artillery or mortars instead.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2024 11:54
|
|
|
Livo posted:Oh I generally agree, but I don't think the USAF or general public has the stomach for wasting pilots & planes on an "average" CAS mission without proper suppression of air defences, unless it's literally a "if we lose this one location, the entire war is permanently lost, period" scenario. Now, if there were an extra 500 A-10s, extra 500 F-16s, and extra 500 F-15s in the inventory, then you probably could be a bit more cavalier about loses with supporting CAS in near peer fights. It makes sense in terms of optics/budgetary constraints: it is an old aircraft, they would probably lose a bunch of them and their pilots in combat, and it is just taking up room on the budget for more F-35As etc. It is just there is going to be a real loss of capability there that the F-35A just can't fulfill. It is going the other way considering they probably just lost a bunch of mortars with the latest readjustment. An IBCT has got to rely on its single artillery battalion for most of its firepower. It is unclear at this point what is going to be actually be killing "all of them Russkies" beyond SLBMs.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2024 12:06
|
|
|
The MIC is mossing out on the billion dollar opportunity to turn A10 into an autonomous flying machine. The "AA-10"
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2024 12:07
|
|
|
good
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2024 12:09
|
|
|
The problem with the A-10 is the other guy can shoot back. Fair fights? No thank you, good sir.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2024 12:33
|
|
|
DancingShade posted:The problem with the A-10 is the other guy can shoot back. Fair fights? No thank you, good sir. The A-10 was designed to provide CAS in contested environments against a peer enemy. The solution providing CAS against Soviet armored columns and their mobile AA was to build 700 A-10s and expect to lose all 700 of them in two weeks or so. BearsBearsBears has issued a correction as of 13:09 on Mar 7, 2024 |
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2024 13:01
|
|
|
BearsBearsBears posted:The A-10 was designed to provide CAS in contested environments against a peer enemy. The solution providing CAS against Soviet armored columns and their mobile AA was to build 700 A-10s and expect to lose all 700 of them in two weeks or so. I don't think that's really the thinking behind the design, because the project lead was a guy who was obsessed with Nazi propaganda about Stuka aces and for years proudly said he was forcing everyone who worked with him and everyone on the project to read Nazi propaganda about Stuka aces. The A-10 is not a good aircraft. It had a good PR campaign in Afghanistan. The Soviets saw the A-10, and decided to make a good plane instead, and thus the Su-25 is very tough and much faster. The reason the US does not have a dedicated Sturmovik is that most aircraft can carry a lot of bombs. Sure, the F-35 can't, but making a stealth Sturmovik is just not a project anyone with money gets aroused by. And it would hurt sales of F-35s. So instead you'll have the C-130s firing cruise missiles out the back ramp lmao
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2024 13:27
|
|
|
stephenthinkpad posted:The MIC is mossing out on the billion dollar opportunity to turn A10 into an autonomous flying machine.  They lost out to Hasegawa.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2024 13:27
|
|
|
Zeppelin Insanity posted:I don't think that's really the thinking behind the design, because the project lead was a guy who was obsessed with Nazi propaganda about Stuka aces and for years proudly said he was forcing everyone who worked with him and everyone on the project to read Nazi propaganda about Stuka aces. It is in reality a bit goofy for a CAS aircraft, its cannon is clearly overkill, and its large size and lack of maneuverability isn't great for an aircraft that is supposed to be hugging the ground. That said, the question is if the US is losing capability with its being fully retired, and it almost certainly is especially if there isn't anything to fill in that niche. The problem with "carrying a lot of bombs" is that the enemy is going to have plenty of AD to give bomb trucks a problem, and the SU-57/MiG-31M are there specifically for interception duty. Glide bombs and cruise missiles can help to a certain extent but I don't know if I want to be infantry on the ground hoping some munitions launched 200-300kms away is heading toward the right target when the enemy is right in your face. The C-130s are yeah just a low-intensity aircraft that wouldn't be anywhere near a zero line (it just wouldn't make it there). So you don't have CAS, you don't really have a mass of artillery or mortars, perhaps you have some glide bombs; even then, it depends on how active the enemy AD is...it probably isn't going to be fun for an infantryman on the ground.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2024 13:35
|
|
|
stephenthinkpad posted:The MIC is mossing out on the billion dollar opportunity to turn A10 into an autonomous flying machine. I could swear I saw this concept before e: yep  ee: beaten
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2024 13:42
|
|
|
commanding officer of an aircraft carrier is high enough up the chain that it’s largely a political appointment, just Navy politics vs national politics. How is someone that cringe able to play internal politics well enough for that?
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2024 15:02
|
|
|
Thoguh posted:commanding officer of an aircraft carrier is high enough up the chain that it’s largely a political appointment, just Navy politics vs national politics. How is someone that cringe able to play internal politics well enough for that? Knowing the right people who are also "cringe" and probably incompetent as well.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2024 15:07
|
|
|
Thoguh posted:commanding officer of an aircraft carrier is high enough up the chain that it’s largely a political appointment, just Navy politics vs national politics. How is someone that cringe able to play internal politics well enough for that? Promoting a cringe non threatening loser is a good way to make fighting for more senior appointments or winning policy arguments easier, since rather than the position being filled by a partisan of one camp or another, it’s filled with a zero. Or, they’re a gormless idiot that owes their position to you so you can count on their backing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2024 15:09
|
|
|
like if there were eight aircraft carriers, and you had four of those captains backing you for a promotion to a fleet command, and the opposing faction had three because there was a vacancy, appointing this guy is perfect, because rather than them having four, supposing you don’t have the juice to get yourself that overwhelming five, at least you’ve taken that spot off the table and kept a majority.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2024 15:12
|
|
|
I don't understand the "aha! We will turn the A-10 into a drone!" concept because I dont think (&I could be wrong here) the cost of training a pilot is more than fuel and maintenance, plus you still need to train a pilot, they just sit on their rear end on a terminal instead of a cockpit. I guess robots don't need to maintain flight hours?
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2024 15:15
|
|
|
Livo posted:I absolutely think needs to be an A-10 like capability (long loiter time, large payload capability) for low to medium intensity conflicts for sure, and I think it's a shame the YA-10B was never adopted in the 1990s, but I don't know if it, or any of the 4th gen aircraft will be able to operate without heavy losses, casually "loitering for a long time & very close like we did in Afghanistan/Iraq" for a CAS mission in a near peer fight. SOCOM has bought a bunch of converted AT-802U planes for their special operations. Will they be very good in low intensity conflicts or limited counter-insurgency operations? Sure. Are they a full replacement for the A-10 capability? Nope. I realize buying foreign aircraft is frowned upon but lol at kludging a crop duster into a COIN aircraft when the Super Tucano exists.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2024 15:19
|
|
|
DJJIB-DJDCT posted:Promoting a cringe non threatening loser is a good way to make fighting for more senior appointments or winning policy arguments easier, since rather than the position being filled by a partisan of one camp or another, it’s filled with a zero. Or, they’re a gormless idiot that owes their position to you so you can count on their backing. Eunuchs installing the most useless royal child so they can continue doing what they want?
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2024 15:26
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:The F-35A, not getting into the actual issues with the plane, has a ton of issue with its overall doctrine. Its internal payload is 2,600kg, that is 2 JADMs max (and even then you may not be able to stuff an AMRAAM in each pay to give them some defensive firepower). The internal-only payload of the F-35A is either 2x 2,000 pound bombs (GBU-31 JDAM family) and 2x AIM-120s. That was the earliest loadout in the earliest versions of the F-35 to exist. If carrying other variants of precision munitions, that 2x GBU-31 can be swapped out for 8x GBU-53 and 2x AIM-120 internally, which gives a lot more flexibility to ragets vehicles and equipment than 2x 2,000 pound bombs does. Plus various mixes of other air to surface missiles, etc.  The program is/was a mess on the cost and reliability and timeline front, but the stuff like "it can only carry two weapons combined" or "it can't carry bombs and missiles at the same time" is not based in reality.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2024 15:30
|
|
|
Justin Tyme posted:I don't understand the "aha! We will turn the A-10 into a drone!" concept because I dont think (&I could be wrong here) the cost of training a pilot is more than fuel and maintenance, plus you still need to train a pilot, they just sit on their rear end on a terminal instead of a cockpit. I guess robots don't need to maintain flight hours? the average cost of training for an f-16 pilot is more than 5 million usd, and that price only rises for newer airframes 
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2024 15:31
|
|
|
Justin Tyme posted:I don't understand the "aha! We will turn the A-10 into a drone!" concept because I dont think (&I could be wrong here) the cost of training a pilot is more than fuel and maintenance, plus you still need to train a pilot, they just sit on their rear end on a terminal instead of a cockpit. I guess robots don't need to maintain flight hours? I think the calculation would be based on “we want the capabilities of the A-10, which we failed to reproduce in the F-35 or replace with a new aircraft, but we don’t want dead pilots (therefore headlines)”.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2024 15:40
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:The internal-only payload of the F-35A is either 2x 2,000 pound bombs (GBU-31 JDAM family) and 2x AIM-120s. That was the earliest loadout in the earliest versions of the F-35 to exist. That is why I said "may," not a definite. That said, the takeaway is the same, 2 GBU-31s or 8 GBU-53s (which has a 100lb warhead) simply isn't enough to warrant the investment considering how load-bearing the F-35A is at this point. Also, 2 AMRAAMs may not be enough in a peer-to-peer war, and they very well may have to swap out the weapon load further depending on the circumstances. At a certain point, it is about the amount of actual firepower you are going to be able to reliably apply to the battlefield. Ardennes has issued a correction as of 15:47 on Mar 7, 2024 |
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2024 15:42
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Also, 2 AMRAAMs may not be enough in a peer-to-peer war, and they very well may have to swap out the weapon load further depending on the circumstances. Yeah, that’s true and why there are programs to up the per-bay internal quantity from 2 to 3 AMRAAMs. And stuff like mixing 4th and 5th together to let 4th engage off 5th data.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2024 15:45
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Yeah, that’s true and why there are programs to up the per-bay internal quantity from 2 to 3 AMRAAMs. And stuff like mixing 4th and 5th together to let 4th engage off 5th data. I mean they are going to keep trying but it isn't going to change the fundamental issues with the doctrine, which is one of firepower that can be applied to the ground while attempting to contest the air. Even if it levels out with a peer adversary, the side that can utilize its ground forces more effectively is going to come out on top.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2024 15:49
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:I mean they are going to keep trying but it isn't going to change the fundamental issues with the doctrine.  It’s dumb, but if they started in the 90’s presumably they could have built something and not put (some) of their eggs in the F-35’s internal bay. DJJIB-DJDCT has issued a correction as of 15:52 on Mar 7, 2024 |
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2024 15:50
|
|
|
besides the Vulcan cannon which is extremely niche nothing the a-10 can do cannot be replaced by an UAV. similar or longer loiter times, and with the latest systems closing the payload gap. this is what the Chinese are considering for CAS. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2024 15:57
|
|
|
GlassEye-Boy posted:besides the Vulcan cannon which is extremely niche nothing the a-10 can do cannot be replaced by an UAV. similar or longer loiter times, and with the latest systems closing the payload gap. loving sick
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2024 15:58
|
|
|
DJJIB-DJDCT posted:
The question really becomes about the usefulness of stealth as well. The F-114 really wasn't able to achieve anything meaningful during the First Gulf War, and arguably stealth greatly helps in a friendly/neutral airspace, its usefulness is much more questionable when it becomes a contested or hostile airspace. Arguably, the F-35A could be (if it worked) a good defensive fighter, it doesn't need a huge payload to deal with intruders (since it would be working close to its own bases), and its stealth could innately give it an advantage. It is probably fine as a strike craft against weaker states without modern AD as well. It is just in a peer to peer conflict, especially when it has to approach the zero line is where the doctrine behind it falls apart. ------------- The medium/large UCAVs didn't fare well in Ukraine generally, they don't have the speed or dynamics of combat aircraft while still being plenty large of enough to target. The Chinese are focused on a bit of different strategic situation, especially around sea/littoral combat, so perhaps it is a bit more defensible. The max speed of a TB-2 is 130-150 MPH, an A-10 is 430 MPH, and an Su-25 is 606 MPH. (The SU-25 is clearly the superior CAS aircraft but it is officially unable to be loved, and must be Soviet trash. ) Ardennes has issued a correction as of 16:06 on Mar 7, 2024 |
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2024 15:59
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:I mean they are going to keep trying but it isn't going to change the fundamental issues with the doctrine, which is one of firepower that can be applied to the ground while attempting to contest the air. I don't really follow your meaning. Whose doctrine and what are you saying that doctrine is? Contesting air control and supporting ground forces have always been two things that aviation forces have had to do, unless fighting someone with zero air power and zero air defense. And already, basically every country with a semi-modern air force has aircraft that have to choose between loadouts. A Russian or Chinese aircraft can't carry both a full A2A loadout and an A2G loadout at once. But they can have some aircraft flying air patrol and others flying strike. Modern air doctrine isn't about establishing complete control; that's going to be an unlikely goal in a modern war (see: the unlikelihood someone could do that vs China in the SCS area or Russia's struggles and early failures in the air vs Ukraine). It's more about creating temporary superiority in time and space to achieve objectives than "let's simply win all the time everywhere." When you look at the big three for air power: Russia, China, the US, they all fundamentally are moving toward mixed fleets, with a heavy emphasis on lower observable aircraft in the future (SU-57, SU-75 someday maybe, J-20, J-35, etc). The other emphasis is in standoff weapons and missiles, with some arguing this is approaching the "missile age" or something. Argument against is cost, argument for is that it's looking less and less likely that manned fighters are going to roll in and steamroll an IADS early on (again, see Russia vs Ukraine). mlmp08 has issued a correction as of 16:06 on Mar 7, 2024 |
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2024 16:03
|
|
|
I keep saying one day I’ll write a paper for F-222, a glass cockpit Aardvark with modern avionics, sign it Aramarancm, and our snakeeyes will block out the sun. Bing bong so simple.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2024 16:06
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:The max speed of a TB-2 is 130-150 MPH, an A-10 is 430 MPH, and an Su-25 is 606 MPH. (The SU-25 is clearly the superior CAS aircraft but it is officially unable to be loved, and must be Soviet trash. ) SU-25 is cool and with all the $$$ of the west, maybe it could have had its weapons and avionics upgraded to be great. Pretty cool airframe, but severely limited by Russia's resource inability to keep it up to par with stuff like the A-10. Unguided rocket lobbing just isn't very good compared to the ability to deliver munitions against targets effectively. And rockets are already fairly low HE vs carry weight and size, so you don't really get the "more boom makes up for precision" bonus. Its ability to detect targets is pretty piss-poor compared to modern multiroles or CAS fighters with decent targeting pods. I guess its other downfall for CAS is that it has rather little time on station, but at least it's fast. But as we've seen over the last couple years, even MANPADS make pretty good work against these kind of attacks. Even moreso modern A2A planes like Flankers keeping Ukrainian SU-25s on their back foot. A SU-25 with the kind of funding behind it that F-16 or A-10 modernization has had over the years would be an interesting thing to behold.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2024 16:11
|
|
|
Justin Tyme posted:I don't understand the "aha! We will turn the A-10 into a drone!" concept because I dont think (&I could be wrong here) the cost of training a pilot is more than fuel and maintenance, plus you still need to train a pilot, they just sit on their rear end on a terminal instead of a cockpit. I guess robots don't need to maintain flight hours? not for nothing the us is ridiculously casualty averse and basically inculcated to think out wonderplanes simply can't get lost to enemy action anymore, full stop. losing a pilot would be headline news. losing a few in a single day would be a little 9/11
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2024 16:19
|
|
|
The Su-25T, Su-25TM and Su-25SM all seem fine, but like most of these programs, suffered from Russia being broke for almost two decades. The same applies to land and naval systems. Soviet engineers were world class, and many of the designs of 1989 just needed to be dusted off and enter production, Ka-52 and Mi-28 have shown that, but aircraft production after the fall of the USSR was also agonizingly slow so it’s not just making up for lost time but getting anything into serial production. Surprised you’re not all over this, but several New Europe countries do have NATO and Israeli led programs to modernize the Su-25, though they won’t be producing new ones (or new anything, RIP Warsaw Pact industry).
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2024 16:20
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:SU-25 is cool and with all the $$$ of the west, maybe it could have had its weapons and avionics upgraded to be great. Pretty cool airframe, but severely limited by Russia's resource inability to keep it up to par with stuff like the A-10. Unguided rocket lobbing just isn't very good compared to the ability to deliver munitions against targets effectively. And rockets are already fairly low HE vs carry weight and size, so you don't really get the "more boom makes up for precision" bonus. Its ability to detect targets is pretty piss-poor compared to modern multiroles or CAS fighters with decent targeting pods. I guess its other downfall for CAS is that it has rather little time on station, but at least it's fast. But as we've seen over the last couple years, even MANPADS make pretty good work against these kind of attacks. Even moreso modern A2A planes like Flankers keeping Ukrainian SU-25s on their back foot. The use of rockets was primary versus infantry positions and probably was more of a question of munition usage at that point of the war. Also, the SU-25 back in the late 2010s had an upgrade to its targeting (thermals/infrared/laser etc), they have been rolling out since 2019. Otherwise, I believe they usually use only a Soviet-era laser system which can work but obviously the new electro-optical system is a welcome upgrade. Ardennes has issued a correction as of 16:25 on Mar 7, 2024 |
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2024 16:22
|
|
|
DJJIB-DJDCT posted:Promoting a cringe non threatening loser is a good way to make fighting for more senior appointments or winning policy arguments easier, since rather than the position being filled by a partisan of one camp or another, it’s filled with a zero. Or, they’re a gormless idiot that owes their position to you so you can count on their backing. The Kamela Harris strategy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2024 16:23
|
|
|
GlassEye-Boy posted:besides the Vulcan cannon which is extremely niche nothing the a-10 can do cannot be replaced by an UAV. similar or longer loiter times, and with the latest systems closing the payload gap. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xvt9Bj4X41E
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2024 16:25
|
|
|
DJJIB-DJDCT posted:The Su-25T, Su-25TM and Su-25SM all seem fine, but like most of these programs, suffered from Russia being broke for almost two decades. The SU-25T is drat near vaporware, only popularly known because it's good in DCS and War Thunder. 3x prototypes, 8x production models made in the early 1990s, then abandoned as a program. Most of the SU-25 upgrades are built in essentially hand-made batch numbers and then seen in combat doing the same thing the legacy SU-25s do. There's a lot of footage from Ukraine of modernized SU-25s flying, doing the same tactics the old SU-25s are using: Flying very low and firing unguided rockets. I dunno if that's a failure of the SU-25SM avionics or just because Russia doesn't have enough SAM suppression or modern weaponry to support and arm up the SU-25SMs to do their intended missions. But the end result is that they're being used the same way legacy SU-25s are. Like here's Russian media advertising the strength of the modernized SU-25SM and how it wiped out a "stronghold", but they're advertising it lobbing unguided rockets. https://tass.com/politics/1701141 mlmp08 has issued a correction as of 16:29 on Mar 7, 2024 |
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2024 16:26
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:It is in reality a bit goofy for a CAS aircraft, its cannon is clearly overkill, and its large size and lack of maneuverability isn't great for an aircraft that is supposed to be hugging the ground. That said, the question is if the US is losing capability with its being fully retired, and it almost certainly is especially if there isn't anything to fill in that niche. Honestly, I think it's sort of an unsolvable problem. Or rather the solution is orthogonal. If the airspace is at all contested, and the enemy has air defense, then on-call CAS just doesn't work. It's going to get chewed up, and I think 2024 American airforce morale couldn't take mass attrition and good chance of dying every sortie. They've spent too long believing they're basically invincible. If the airspace is not contested, or the enemy does not have competent air defence, then it doesn't really matter what you use. You can use Predators or Reapers, or F-16s, or F-15s, or F-35s at leisure. Thus, you don't really need a dedicated Sturmovik unless you care about efficiency, which the US does not. So, the only way to run mass CAS is to either accept attrition or gain air dominance. The US is obviously banking on the latter, but they also haven't faced a real air force since... when? And they haven't faced Russian-style air defence since... Vietnam? I'm sure the F-35 is pretty good at SEAD. I'm sure that even though it's definitely oversold, it's probably better to have stealth than not, as long as you don't treat it as god mode. But it would really have its work cut out for it, and losses are inevitable.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2024 16:26
|
|
|
Thoguh posted:The Kamela Harris strategy. Yeah, basically. Do you want someone who is going to give you a hard time, like some of the carrier commanders in the 70’s and 80’s, or do you want a soy selfie guy who is preoccupied with handing out cookies?
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2024 16:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 19:03 |
|
|
Zeppelin Insanity posted:So, the only way to run mass CAS is to either accept attrition or gain air dominance. The US is obviously banking on the latter, but they also haven't faced a real air force since... when? And they haven't faced Russian-style air defence since... Vietnam? Reference the bold, I'd argue the US ground forces are not banking on the latter at all. The army and marines, starting in 2015-ish, started up all kinds of programs to augment their own organic long-range fires and artillery capability precisely because of a lack of faith that the USAF could be their on call all the time. As soon as the army saw the kinds of numbers and sortie rates expected of the F-35s combined with seeing modernizaed anti-air weapons from major competitors, they decided they required their own ability to launch high capability munitions (like precision strike missile) in support of their own troops, plus a lot of GMLRS to take the place of missions that would be too dangerous to try with A-10s or F-16s. Long range precision fires and upgraded air defense capability became two of the big six modernization efforts in 2017/18 or so for the army. That's telling.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2024 16:33
|
|