It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Night Court is coming

page: 1
22
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+9 more 
posted on Sep, 4 2019 @ 10:50 AM
link   
Hold on to your hairpieces kids, the new Secretary of Defense has ordered the Pentagon to study capabilities and figure out which legacy systems can be divested. The acting SecAF has announced "controversial changes" are coming in the 2021 budget request. His directive states ‘no reform is too small, too bold or too controversial to be considered.'

The Air Force has previously considered retiring the Global Hawk, U-2, and A-10. This comes just after awarding a contract worth up to $1B to Boeing to replace the wings on the existing A-10 fleet. When the SecDef was in charge of the Army, he began what was called Night Court, which performed this process for that service. This is the first time it's been done DoD wide, and could prove interesting.

www.defensenews.com...




posted on Sep, 4 2019 @ 11:01 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

excellent

Something like this should have been done by the previous Administration when they shifted from the GWOT to the Pacific.



posted on Sep, 4 2019 @ 11:54 AM
link   
I often wonder if the a-10 can be replaced by the light attack program. I mean sure it won't be as "romantic", but isn't the a-10 pretty much doing that job?

It loiters, it is "cheap", it delivers in places where there is complete air control. Are we still needing something to defend the fulda gap in particular? Maybe we sell all of them to Poland and Romania or something like that?

I am not sure, I love the A-10, but its purpose was to kill tanks in the first couple of days of a major war with a country that has/had a major tank force. Are we still looking at that? Is that still a reality?



posted on Sep, 4 2019 @ 11:56 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

A question; did the A-10 do that in the first Gulf War? How many Iraqi tanks did they kill?



posted on Sep, 4 2019 @ 12:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Fools

Previous wars are irrelevant, but they were credited with 987 tanks or armored vehicles, and 1,027 artillery pieces.



posted on Sep, 4 2019 @ 12:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Fools

The reasons to retire the A-10 all revolve around money. Nothing can directly replace the capability. But at some point the cost outweighs the utility. You can save something like ~$5-7 Billion over five years by retiring them and eliminating the training, maintenance, supply lines, etc. The savings when you axe an entire line of aircraft ie immense. It lets you put those people and the cash into programs where they might be more needed.

That's why they should also axe the Eagles instead of buying new ones...



posted on Sep, 4 2019 @ 12:56 PM
link   
The A-10 is an awesome plane, but the kinds of battles the U.S. is facing are changing, and a lot of fights are coming in which air supremacy cannot be taken for granted. Tough and low-flying though it may be, the A-10 is vulnerable to increasingly prevalent and sophisticated ground and air threats.

As much as old-timers may roll their eyes, the era of the autonomous drone is upon us, and redirecting the cost of the A-10 and other older programs to provide a range of alternatives for ground attack missions (and not just drones) is likely to improve overall combat effectiveness.

Assuming competent program management, of course, which is hardly a foregone conclusion -- but just as unlikely in legacy programs.



posted on Sep, 4 2019 @ 01:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Majic

Its probably just a matter of time before the drone fighter and/or interceptor is upon us.



posted on Sep, 4 2019 @ 01:17 PM
link   
a reply to: TonyS

They are already in the works, and in the wars soon to come the surest way to lose is worrying more about which congressional district gets more pork than giving our warfighters every advantage they need to win.



posted on Sep, 4 2019 @ 01:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Fools

Previous wars are irrelevant, but they were credited with 987 tanks or armored vehicles, and 1,027 artillery pieces.


That is incredible, but could it be replicated against say China in modern times?

Is there any reason they can't be sold to Poland or say South Korea? They would seem to be more beneficial in their needs. Clean up could easily be handled by light attack.

Right?
edit on 4-9-2019 by Fools because: ..sp..



posted on Sep, 4 2019 @ 01:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: RadioRobert
a reply to: Fools

The reasons to retire the A-10 all revolve around money. Nothing can directly replace the capability. But at some point the cost outweighs the utility. You can save something like ~$5-7 Billion over five years by retiring them and eliminating the training, maintenance, supply lines, etc. The savings when you axe an entire line of aircraft ie immense. It lets you put those people and the cash into programs where they might be more needed.

That's why they should also axe the Eagles instead of buying new ones...



I disagree with your assessment of the EX. There is a need for air defense and I have read much on the f-35 and it just is not the bird for that. It really isn't. I love it and think its a wonderful aircraft - but it just cannot do a large area defense.

SOrry for sidetracking from the OP.



posted on Sep, 4 2019 @ 01:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Fools

Actually, it'll be amazing for wide area defense, it just might need a little back stopping.



posted on Sep, 4 2019 @ 01:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: TonyS
a reply to: Majic

Its probably just a matter of time before the drone fighter and/or interceptor is upon us.

With autonomous AI firing capabilities. Oh, I saw that movie already.



posted on Sep, 4 2019 @ 01:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Fools

In theory, yes. But they'll have the same problem. When the A-10 entered service, the big threat was the ZSU-23 and shoulder fired missiles. There weren't many truly effective, deadly, mobile SAM systems. They would have to follow along behind the frontline forces. Now, there are systems that can swat the A-10 at treetop level, and can outrun the first wave of forces.



posted on Sep, 4 2019 @ 01:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Fools

Longer -range, better endurance, cheaper acquisition cost, cheaper operations cost, far greater survivability.

The only advantage the EX has is a bigger magazine and probably a slightly better sustained turn rate.



posted on Sep, 4 2019 @ 02:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Fools
That is incredible, but could it be replicated against say China in modern times?

Is there any reason they can't be sold to Poland or say South Korea? They would seem to be more beneficial in their needs. Clean up could easily be handled by light attack.

Right?



No. Yesterday is not today. Capabilities have changed on all sides. The capabilities of SHORAD systems have increased dramatically since the end of the Cold War. As a result, the A-10 is not a viable tool against a near peer opponent or in an high intensity conflict in general. It simply lacks survivability on the modern battlefield.

On the other side of the equation capabilities of TacAir in general have increased even more. Thanks to the introduction of ever more capable Air to Ground ordnance and targeting equipment, a single 4.5+ or 5th Gen Fighter Jet is many times as efficient as it's predecessors at the end of the Cold War.
To offer an example, the F-15E Strike Eagle had it's first combat deployment during Desert Storm. There was written a great book about it - Flying the F-15E in the Gulf War - by William Smallwood, describing the challenges and limitations of employing a 4 Gen Fighter Jet in a pretty intensive conflict. Back then they weren’t even certified for LGBs and targeting pods and only received them as a wartime measure.
The F-15Es of today have little in common with the F-15Es of 1990. Today those jets have the capability to carry no less than 28 GBU-53/Bs, more than twice the maximum LGB loadout of 1990. And needless to say, 90s LGBs and the latest iterations of the SDB are not even remotely comparable.
So long story short, today a single fighter jet equipped with the latest AtG ordnance could conceivably take out an entire armor battalion in a single sortie. Provided it could get through air defenses which the F-15E just like the A-10 won’t be able to anymore. At least not against near peer opponents with acceptable casualty rates.
Hence the shift towards stealth and UAVs. There's is just no other solution.

Lastly a third point that needs to be made is - there are no soviet tank armies threating to push to the Fulda Gap anymore. There are no more tank armies period. Yes, Russia could field a respectable number of armored formations in a conflict with the West, but the numbers would be a far cry from what was commonplace during the Cold War. There is simply no need for a dedicated anti tank platform to combat endless columns of tanks on streets in Eastern Europe. If they were tanks to combat in Eastern Europe at some point, they wouldn’t deploy in massed formations but move in small groups through dense vegetation at night. Anything else is simply suicidal.

So no, Poland doesn’t need them. The US doesn’t need them either. You don’t fight a Ground War in China. And the South Koreans wouldn’t even want them. As explained, their Eagles are a far more versatile tool to fight off any armored advance the North might be capable of mounting against them.

edit on 4-9-2019 by mightmight because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 4 2019 @ 03:22 PM
link   
An aside here as well, recently read that the USAF is looking into the TX for light attack as well as back end air defense. Is the aircraft that impressive? I am thinking it might be since there is alot of hush about it. Normally there would be massive propaganda about any new inventory. The news on the TX seems to be rather quiet.

Maybe a way that the USAF gets its own Griffin? We could use something like the Griffin if you ask me. Then again I have no real idea since my knowledge is less than arm chair to be honest.



posted on Sep, 4 2019 @ 03:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: mightmight

originally posted by: Fools
That is incredible, but could it be replicated against say China in modern times?

Is there any reason they can't be sold to Poland or say South Korea? They would seem to be more beneficial in their needs. Clean up could easily be handled by light attack.

Right?



No. Yesterday is not today. Capabilities have changed on all sides. The capabilities of SHORAD systems have increased dramatically since the end of the Cold War. As a result, the A-10 is not a viable tool against a near peer opponent or in an high intensity conflict in general. It simply lacks survivability on the modern battlefield.

On the other side of the equation capabilities of TacAir in general have increased even more. Thanks to the introduction of ever more capable Air to Ground ordnance and targeting equipment, a single 4.5+ or 5th Gen Fighter Jet is many times as efficient as it's predecessors at the end of the Cold War.
To offer an example, the F-15E Strike Eagle had it's first combat deployment during Desert Storm. There was written a great book about it - Flying the F-15E in the Gulf War - by William Smallwood, describing the challenges and limitations of employing a 4 Gen Fighter Jet in a pretty intensive conflict. Back then they weren’t even certified for LGBs and targeting pods and only received them as a wartime measure.
The F-15Es of today have little in common with the F-15Es of 1990. Today those jets have the capability to carry no less than 28 GBU-53/Bs, more than twice the maximum LGB loadout of 1990. And needless to say, 90s LGBs and the latest iterations of the SDB are not even remotely comparable.
So long story short, today a single fighter jet equipped with the latest AtG ordnance could conceivably take out an entire armor battalion in a single sortie. Provided it could get through air defenses which the F-15E just like the A-10 won’t be able to anymore. At least not against near peer opponents with acceptable casualty rates.
Hence the shift towards stealth and UAVs. There's is just no other solution.

Lastly a third point that needs to be made is - there are no soviet tank armies threating to push to the Fulda Gap anymore. There are no more tank armies period. Yes, Russia could field a respectable number of armored formations in a conflict with the West, but the numbers would be a far cry from what was commonplace during the Cold War. There is simply no need for a dedicated anti tank platform to combat endless columns of tanks on streets in Eastern Europe. If they were tanks to combat in Eastern Europe at some point, they wouldn’t deploy in massed formations but move in small groups through dense vegetation at night. Anything else is simply suicidal.

So no, Poland doesn’t need them. The US doesn’t need them either. You don’t fight a Ground War in China. And the South Koreans wouldn’t even want them. As explained, their Eagles are a far more versatile tool to fight off any armored advance the North might be capable of mounting against them.



I do not think I can disagree with any of your points. Thanks.



posted on Sep, 4 2019 @ 03:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
Hold on to your hairpieces kids, the new Secretary of Defense has ordered the Pentagon to study capabilities and figure out which legacy systems can be divested. The acting SecAF has announced "controversial changes" are coming in the 2021 budget request. His directive states ‘no reform is too small, too bold or too controversial to be considered.'

The Air Force has previously considered retiring the Global Hawk, U-2, and A-10. This comes just after awarding a contract worth up to $1B to Boeing to replace the wings on the existing A-10 fleet. When the SecDef was in charge of the Army, he began what was called Night Court, which performed this process for that service. This is the first time it's been done DoD wide, and could prove interesting.

www.defensenews.com...



I also saw that the loyal wingman will have drone swarm capability (or already does). Weird that is seems Australia will be the first to field it. I suppose that is a great remote location to keep things quiet until they are ready.
edit on Wed Sep 4 2019 by Jbird because: bbcode



posted on Sep, 4 2019 @ 03:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Fools

The AT-38 has provisions for some ground attack capability for testing purposes. They're also used for aggressor aircraft. The aggressor role is going commercial, but they're looking at the T-X for it largely due to its systems improvements. It's not unprecedented for a trainer to have other roles, but the light attack role, if it goes ahead, will almost certainly be given to the A-29 or AT-6.







 
22
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join