Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 djones520 wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
y

If we aren't going to take the A-10's role seriously enough to build a proper replacement then the A-10 needs to stay in service.

You mean close air support? Advances in precision guided weaponry means CAS vehicles don't need to be "low and slow".

Everyone in the military, outside of the Fighter Jocks* at the top of the Air Force disagrees with you.


*Generals raised through the ranks in an F-16/F-15 who have never been in an A-10, and never truly served the "real" CAS role that the A-10 does. Ask any ground pounder who they'd rather have providing their CAS, an F-15, or an A-10, and your answer will 10 times out of 10 be the A-10.

F-15 is a weird choice in this matter since and F-15 is an air superiority fighter. It's almost like you aren't trying to argue a real point here.

Also pretty funny because multi-role fighters preforms 80% of the CAS today.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Vulcan wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Surely the air force is clever enough to realise this and send an F35 to do the cunning stunts it is supposed to be good at, and something better at carrying bombs to do the bombing.

In theory, yes. In practice, look at the continuing efforts to scrap the A-10.

What you mean that vehicle that is only still used because of the lack of AA defense of the enemies we are fighting?

I think you're slightly underestimating the A-10's capability to say "feth you" to AA defenses.

Spoiler:

That was a direct hit from a missile, aircraft made it home just fine.




Took 450 hits from an AA gun.

Severe engine damage, and hydraulics nearly shot out, and still flew back.

It's an aircraft explicitly designed to take damage, and keep flying. It's been baptized in plenty of AA fire, and has acquitted itself better then any other aircraft out there.

It's tough, it ain't *that* tough. There's a reason it doesn't come out until after any enemy aircraft and SAM sites have been dealt with.

But regardless, why send a pilot, when a drone does just as good as job.

The A-10 was used to destroy many dedicated anti-air sites in the initial stages of the air war in Desert Storm. So... no clue where you're getting your info from, but it's wrong. There was also only 4 A-10's shot down in Desert storm. Out of 8,100 combat sorties.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
y

If we aren't going to take the A-10's role seriously enough to build a proper replacement then the A-10 needs to stay in service.

You mean close air support? Advances in precision guided weaponry means CAS vehicles don't need to be "low and slow".

Everyone in the military, outside of the Fighter Jocks* at the top of the Air Force disagrees with you.


*Generals raised through the ranks in an F-16/F-15 who have never been in an A-10, and never truly served the "real" CAS role that the A-10 does. Ask any ground pounder who they'd rather have providing their CAS, an F-15, or an A-10, and your answer will 10 times out of 10 be the A-10.

F-15 is a weird choice in this matter since and F-15 is an air superiority fighter. It's almost like you aren't trying to argue a real point here.

Also pretty funny because multi-role fighters preforms 80% of the CAS today.

F-15E buddy. F-15C was the air superiority fighter. The E model was a multi-role strike fighter, just like the F-16. I'm only a 17 year veteran of the Air Force who has spent his entire career in aviation operations, for both the Air Force, and Army. I might know a thing or two on these topics.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
We aren't going to war with China anytime soon, but it's only a matter of time before out meddling in the middle east gets us involved in another war. in 1991 that cost us 5 planes. And the A-10 hasn't gotten any better and not getting shot down. Where as their ability to shoot them down has increased dramatically.

Another war, but against who? Who in the middle east has a sufficient air defense network to survive the initial air strikes targeting it and continue to operate through the years of mopping up random "military age males" with AK-47s and suicide bombs? We've already seen how this works, the high-intensity fighting lasts for a few days until the organized military is destroyed and then we spend years pretending to be a police force with bigger guns against targets that can't shoot back.

Funny you say that, Iran bought and setup a whole SAM system from Russia. And China has been making a killing on selling military tech.

Also, a whole five planes? TBH, who cares? That's five people dead, at most. Cost of doing business, there's no point in spending obscene piles of cash to save that few lives. Throw a bunch of expendable A-10s or A-10 equivalents at the problem and accept the losses.

Heres the thing. Why not no deaths? Why not just use fast planes with precision guided weapons that we do for most CAS missions?

They don't need to, but they certainly want to, or at least the slow part. Going fast costs money, both in initial purchase price and operating costs.

That's the most slowed thing I've heard in a while.

The viable replacement for the A-10 is the various cheap and simple turboprop aircraft with a couple of hardpoints bolted on, not a supersonic fighter jet with $$$$$$$$$$$$$$ costs attached.

Which is why the AF is going for the LAAR program. To replace the A-10 in areas with no AA presence, the only place where the A-10 is really useful.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Funny you say that, Iran bought and setup a whole SAM system from Russia. And China has been making a killing on selling military tech.

How many sites? How many missiles total? How are they defended against attacks from F-22s/B-2s/cruise missiles/etc? How will Iran be expected to keep them intact after the initial invasion so they can remain a threat during the years/decades of occupation?

Heres the thing. Why not no deaths? Why not just use fast planes with precision guided weapons that we do for most CAS missions?

Because "zero deaths" is a ridiculous goal and well past the point of diminishing returns. Look at the statistics posted: four losses out of over 8,000 sorties flown. That's a 0.05% loss rate. Can you get that to zero? In theory maybe, if you're willing to spend billions of dollars. But you'd probably get a better return on your investment by spending that money hiring designated drivers to wait outside all of the bars near our military bases and prevent our soldiers from driving drunk.

That's the most slowed thing I've heard in a while.

That's some impressive ignorance there. Look at the operating costs per hour for the A-10 and F-35, and the initial purchase price. Speed is expensive, in fuel burn, in maintenance, and in initial build cost.

Which is why the AF is going for the LAAR program. To replace the A-10 in areas with no AA presence, the only place where the A-10 is really useful.

If/when that program produces a viable replacement in sufficient numbers to do the A-10's job we can talk about retiring it. Not until then.

And it's kind of misleading to talk about "the only place where the A-10 is really useful" when that place consists of the overwhelming majority of combat operations the US is involved in. Only being useful 99% of the time is not a heavy burden to carry.

 djones520 wrote:
The A-10 was used to destroy many dedicated anti-air sites in the initial stages of the air war in Desert Storm. So... no clue where you're getting your info from, but it's wrong.

This might surprise you but we've had several other wars since the 90s.

There was also only 4 A-10's shot down in Desert storm. Out of 8,100 combat sorties.

6 actually. 5 hit with outdated SAMs (outdated for 1991 SAMs, as in the newest one used was 10 years old at the time), one hit and crash-landed killing the pilot. And this was nearly 30 years ago. Iran just got a shiny new Russian SAM system, and China has been selling military tech like hotcakes

F-15E buddy. F-15C was the air superiority fighter. The E model was a multi-role strike fighter, just like the F-16.

Then specify. But if you want to bring that up, 80% of CAS missions are preformed by those sorts of planes. so I guess some people disagree with you there..


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Funny you say that, Iran bought and setup a whole SAM system from Russia. And China has been making a killing on selling military tech.

How many sites? How many missiles total? How are they defended against attacks from F-22s/B-2s/cruise missiles/etc? How will Iran be expected to keep them intact after the initial invasion so they can remain a threat during the years/decades of occupation?

I think the point here is to be able to use CAS in the initial stages of the war, without having to put our pilots in unnecessary danger.

Because "zero deaths" is a ridiculous goal and well past the point of diminishing returns. Look at the statistics posted: four losses out of over 8,000 sorties flown. That's a 0.05% loss rate. Can you get that to zero? In theory maybe, if you're willing to spend billions of dollars. But you'd probably get a better return on your investment by spending that money hiring designated drivers to wait outside all of the bars near our military bases and prevent our soldiers from driving drunk.

Or you can use drones for dirt cheap and not have any life risked ever. Hmm I wonder.

That's some impressive ignorance there. Look at the operating costs per hour for the A-10 and F-35, and the initial purchase price. Speed is expensive, in fuel burn, in maintenance, and in initial build cost.

You may have heard of these fancy new things called "drones" that cost about a 10th to operate as an A-10 and we are already using for CAS.

If/when that program produces a viable replacement in sufficient numbers to do the A-10's job we can talk about retiring it. Not until then.

Here's the thing, it ain't a replacement for the A-10.

And it's kind of misleading to talk about "the only place where the A-10 is really useful" when that place consists of the overwhelming majority of combat operations the US is involved in. Only being useful 99% of the time is not a heavy burden to carry.

This might surprise you but having CAS 100% of the time is necessary. And when you have things that do it better for no risk, why not.

 djones520 wrote:

Spoiler:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Vulcan wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Surely the air force is clever enough to realise this and send an F35 to do the cunning stunts it is supposed to be good at, and something better at carrying bombs to do the bombing.

In theory, yes. In practice, look at the continuing efforts to scrap the A-10.

What you mean that vehicle that is only still used because of the lack of AA defense of the enemies we are fighting?

I think you're slightly underestimating the A-10's capability to say "feth you" to AA defenses.



That was a direct hit from a missile, aircraft made it home just fine.




Took 450 hits from an AA gun.



Severe engine damage, and hydraulics nearly shot out, and still flew back.

It's an aircraft explicitly designed to take damage, and keep flying. It's been baptized in plenty of AA fire, and has acquitted itself better then any other aircraft out there.

A single missile or a single AA gun aren't real anti air defenses though. AA defenses are meant to be layered, deployed in batteries integrated at brigade and battalion levels as well as in dedicated units, ideally creating an integrated air defense system covering the entire zone of operations. The A-10s in the pictures survived because they faced foes that do not possess enough equipment to mount a real anti air defense.
The A-10 is a very-well armoured aircraft (not many aircraft can take such big hits and still stay in the sky), and excellent in its role of BRRRRRRRRRRRTing the hell out of ground targets, but you don't want to send it out against when a SAM or AA-gun battery is operating in the area. But that goes for any non-stealth aircraft really, and even stealth aircraft are still at risk. That is where anti-radar missiles, artillery and cruise missiles, jamming and other tools to deal with AA come in. Ideally, you want to take care of AA before sending in any aircraft on other missions at all. Operation Instant Thunder is a great example of a capable, well-equipped military putting this in action. Because Iraqi air defenses were very outdated, they could cripple the entire Iraqi air defense system using mostly specialised aircraft while taking only minimal losses. Against a better equipped opponent, the idea is much the same, except that you would rely more on ground-based and naval assets rather than just air-based, as aircraft would be expected to suffer heavy losses (and you want to preserve them for later stages of the war).

To put another case, the USA would not want to fight the kind of anti-insurgency operations seen in Afghanistan and Iraq using only aircraft as expensive as the F35.

I can't believe some of you guys are actually crap talking the greatest CAS aircraft that ever has been or ever will be instead of everyone's least-favorite boondoggle.

It's the only thing Canadians fear, and hence the only thing standing in the way of Justin Trudeau sending his frozen legions southward to turn these United States into a hellhole of socialized medicine, poutine, and hockey.

Drones have their uses, but the operator sits behind about 500ms latency and is totally reliant on the info he gets from the drone and/or the ground presence in the area. The A10 can some in low and slow, with a pilot who decides what to shoot now. A drone capable of replacing it would need to be autonomous, and we're still not quite comfortable with giving machines the go-ahead to kill people on their own.

 Ouze wrote:
I can't believe some of you guys are actually crap talking the greatest CAS aircraft that ever has been or ever will be instead of everyone's least-favorite boondoggle.

It's the only thing Canadians fear, and hence the only thing standing in the way of Justin Trudeau sending his frozen legions southward to turn these United States into a hellhole of socialized medicine, poutine, and hockey.

We'd also send some French Canadian girls, if that makes you feel better.

 Crazyterran wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
I can't believe some of you guys are actually crap talking the greatest CAS aircraft that ever has been or ever will be instead of everyone's least-favorite boondoggle.

It's the only thing Canadians fear, and hence the only thing standing in the way of Justin Trudeau sending his frozen legions southward to turn these United States into a hellhole of socialized medicine, poutine, and hockey.

We'd also send some French Canadian girls, if that makes you feel better.

Throw in some maple syrup and I think we can work something out!

Also... A-10 is the most practical, effective and cheapest CAS asset we have... and of course, the industrial military complex want it replaced.

It doesn't make sense for CAS aircraft to be stealthy. Their role is to fly around above ground forces closely engaged with the enemy and zap them. They are going to be seen and heard.

CAS aircraft need a good pilot view, long loiter time, a large and various weapon load, and high survival rates against light anti-aircraft fire.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
It doesn't make sense for CAS aircraft to be stealthy. Their role is to fly around above ground forces closely engaged with the enemy and zap them. They are going to be seen and heard.

CAS aircraft need a good pilot view, long loiter time, a large and various weapon load, and high survival rates against light anti-aircraft fire.

Most CAS actions are done with laser guided bombs and missiles you know. And stealth isn't about "not being seen or heard" it's so that enemy air defenses (SAMs, Manpads, other planes, ect) can't pick them up on RADAR.

And why do they need a long loiter time? When the A-10 was built this was true. That's the whole reason it's so slow. That's the reason we were using the Skyraider 'till the 70s. But advances in sensor and tracking technologies, as well as guided munitions have made that no longer true.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Vulcan wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Surely the air force is clever enough to realise this and send an F35 to do the cunning stunts it is supposed to be good at, and something better at carrying bombs to do the bombing.

In theory, yes. In practice, look at the continuing efforts to scrap the A-10.

What you mean that vehicle that is only still used because of the lack of AA defense of the enemies we are fighting?

Since you are an expert, you are doubtless aware the A-10 was designed with several features to defeat battlefield AA defenses - which are optically or IR guided - and the F-35 lacks all of those features leaving it just as naked to attack as the A-10... but far less able to survive that fire.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
in 1991 that cost us 5 planes. And the A-10 hasn't gotten any better and not getting shot down.

On the other hand, the F-35 will be a lot better at finding and killing those air defenses that put the A-10 at serious risk. Once they're dealt with, we're back to the position where the A-10 can bring more ordinance to the fight with less risk to the airframe.

Besides, the Air Force loses five aircraft a year in a good year of peacetime flying. It's called operational losses. What do you want to lose more of to operational losses - $20 million updated legacy aircraft, or $200 million F-35s?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
F-15 is a weird choice in this matter since and F-15 is an air superiority fighter. It's almost like you aren't trying to argue a real point here.

I'm guessing you missed the announcement of the F-15E Strike Eagle program...

 Vulcan wrote:


Since you are an expert, you are doubtless aware the A-10 was designed with several features to defeat battlefield AA defenses - which are optically or IR guided - and the F-35 lacks all of those features leaving it just as naked to attack as the A-10... but far less able to survive that fire.

The whole point is the F-35 won't be in the position to have Manpads and 35mm AAA shooting at them in the first place, not that we even put the A-10 in positions where those are even an danger to it these days. Anything more than a few guys with AKs we bring out other stuff.

On the other hand, the F-35 will be a lot better at finding and killing those air defenses that put the A-10 at serious risk. Once they're dealt with, we're back to the position where the A-10 can bring more ordinance to the fight with less risk to the airframe.

Sure, there's a reason we aren't just stopping all use of the machine. Their retirement plan is to slowly reduce usage, not just take a hacksaw to the lot. The retired birds will serve as spare parts for those still in service, further reducing costs, and eventually (I think the plan is like 2040) we will stop usage of them after slowly cutting numbers.

Besides, the Air Force loses five aircraft a year in a good year of peacetime flying. It's called operational losses. What do you want to lose more of to operational losses - $20 million updated legacy aircraft, or $200 million F-35s?

"Those planes would have crashed on their own anyway" really isn't the most compelling argument I've ever heard, I'll be honest. As far as I know we've lost one F-35 to an engine fire (pilot landed the plane, but it was decided to be too costly to fix). And that's it.

Well, when current gen MIGs spanked it's ass in testing, despite Lockheed's bragging about how no current gen could touch it, the response was that it wasn't meant for dogfighting anyway.

Then the a-10 spanked it's ass in close air support. So did the Bronco. It's that bad.

Since this flying turkey is supposed to replace both specialized air superiority and close air support platforms, how the hell is this a step forward?

Or will this be like the Zumwalt's where we admit after buying three that they not only don't work, but COULD NEVER WORK?

We had F/A-18's and F15's provide CAS in Iraq and Afghanistan. I take the A10 hands down for CAS. They can loiter a damn long time over an area where they are needed and have a huge selection of CAS weapons and the capability of carrying a nice size payload to assist us on the ground. Yes it might be slow and low but to PBI's on the ground its the added insurance of steel on target for maximum effect.

The F35 is design to maintain air supremacy with a capability for CAS. I much rather have the A10 as the CAS and the F35 to protect all of us from eventual enemy attempt to control to control the skies over US/Allies forces. The F35 I believe does not have a freakling bathtub of titanium to protect the pilot like the A10 has.

 BaronIveagh wrote:
Well, when current gen MIGs spanked it's ass in testing, despite Lockheed's bragging about how no current gen could touch it, the response was that it wasn't meant for dogfighting anyway.

This is also true of the F-22. Would you say the F-22? is a bad plane. They are't made for dogfighting because they don't have to
instead they are stealthy. This was a pretty big deal.

Then the a-10 spanked it's ass in close air support. So did the Bronco. It's that bad.

In environments where there were no active AA threat. Which is the whole point. It was testing to see if the LAAR program could work in those environments. And that's why we are moving ahead with it. And we have other stuff for environments where there is active AA threat. Not just guys in wooded huts with AKs.

Since this flying turkey is supposed to replace both specialized air superiority and close air support platforms, how the hell is this a step forward?

I think that's bingo.
Also what air superiority platform is it supposed to replace again?

Or will this be like the Zumwalt's where we admit after buying three that they not only don't work, but COULD NEVER WORK?

What? The issue with the Zumwalt class was that it was too expensive for the benefits over more conventional DDGs like the Burkes. They work fine, just aren't worth the cost. And the change from wanting land attack to focusing on the Aegis system (a much better choice IMO). Zumwalts were a fethup, but a cost and usefulness fethup, not a "doesn't work" fethup.

The Zumwalt-class was more victim to the Death Spiral than anything. They're what happens when a program’s unit cost rises or when there's a sudden perceived lack of mission, resulting in lawmakers punishing the program by cutting procurement numbers. Reduced numbers further raise unit costs, resulting in further procurement cuts, resulting in…programs like the B-2, with production of 21 very expensive planes.

The Zumwalt had extra-ordinary potential in regards to theaters like the Strait of Hormuz and the Baltic Sea. Even if one where to be dismissive of the stealth capabilities of the F-35 its sensors and data fusion technology would have made it an immense force-multiplier for the Zumwalt, feeding it targets identified through its EO-DAS and EOTS targeting pod, then allowing the Zumwalt to pelt them from stand-off ranges.

Agiel wrote:
The Zumwalt-class was more victim to the Death Spiral than anything. They're what happens when a program’s unit cost rises or when there's a sudden perceived lack of mission, resulting in lawmakers punishing the program by cutting procurement numbers. Reduced numbers further raise unit costs, resulting in further procurement cuts, resulting in…programs like the B-2, with production of 21 very expensive planes.

The Zumwalt had extra-ordinary potential in regards to theaters like the Strait of Hormuz and the Baltic Sea. Even if one where to be dismissive of the stealth capabilities of the F-35 its sensors and data fusion technology would have made it an immense force-multiplier for the Zumwalt, feeding it targets identified through its EO-DAS and EOTS targeting pod, then allowing the Zumwalt to pelt them from stand-off ranges.

Yeah the tech behind it is very solid. But we just don't need any sort of strike craft right now or in the foreseeable future. And our current Burkes to better as just a flexible machine. Hopefully we see that tech put into replacing our rapidly aging Ticos though.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
y

If we aren't going to take the A-10's role seriously enough to build a proper replacement then the A-10 needs to stay in service.

You mean close air support? Advances in precision guided weaponry means CAS vehicles don't need to be "low and slow".

Everyone in the military, outside of the Fighter Jocks* at the top of the Air Force disagrees with you.


*Generals raised through the ranks in an F-16/F-15 who have never been in an A-10, and never truly served the "real" CAS role that the A-10 does. Ask any ground pounder who they'd rather have providing their CAS, an F-15, or an A-10, and your answer will 10 times out of 10 be the A-10.

F-15 is a weird choice in this matter since and F-15 is an air superiority fighter. It's almost like you aren't trying to argue a real point here.

Also pretty funny because multi-role fighters preforms 80% of the CAS today.

It has a ground attack varient. F-15E.

It really is silly to even talk about aircraft classes. All jets can do anything. Their performance overall as an air superiority fighter actually makes ground attack easier.

Agiel wrote:
The Zumwalt-class was more victim to the Death Spiral than anything. They're what happens when a program’s unit cost rises or when there's a sudden perceived lack of mission, resulting in lawmakers punishing the program by cutting procurement numbers. Reduced numbers further raise unit costs, resulting in further procurement cuts, resulting in…programs like the B-2, with production of 21 very expensive planes.

The Zumwalt had extra-ordinary potential in regards to theaters like the Strait of Hormuz and the Baltic Sea. Even if one where to be dismissive of the stealth capabilities of the F-35 its sensors and data fusion technology would have made it an immense force-multiplier for the Zumwalt, feeding it targets identified through its EO-DAS and EOTS targeting pod, then allowing the Zumwalt to pelt them from stand-off ranges.

The problem with the Zumwalt is that any ship could do that, and the additional capabilities the Zumwalt offers over other ships does not justify the massive increase in costs. The F-35 in that regard offers more usefulness, which apparently is enough for many militaries to swallow the high costs.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Agiel wrote:
The Zumwalt-class was more victim to the Death Spiral than anything. They're what happens when a program’s unit cost rises or when there's a sudden perceived lack of mission, resulting in lawmakers punishing the program by cutting procurement numbers. Reduced numbers further raise unit costs, resulting in further procurement cuts, resulting in…programs like the B-2, with production of 21 very expensive planes.

The Zumwalt had extra-ordinary potential in regards to theaters like the Strait of Hormuz and the Baltic Sea. Even if one where to be dismissive of the stealth capabilities of the F-35 its sensors and data fusion technology would have made it an immense force-multiplier for the Zumwalt, feeding it targets identified through its EO-DAS and EOTS targeting pod, then allowing the Zumwalt to pelt them from stand-off ranges.

The problem with the Zumwalt is that any ship could do that.

Ahem.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
. They are't made for dogfighting because they don't have to
instead they are stealthy. This was a pretty big deal.

Not an F22 pilot so not qualified to say. The issue with F-35 is that it's stealth goes out the window when it actually engages targets, and it cannot be repaired in the field if it suffers any serious breach of it's fuselage. The Australians proved that current gen Russian and Chinese fighters could find and kill it under real world conditions.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
.
In environments where there were no active AA threat. Which is the whole point. It was testing to see if the LAAR program could work in those environments. And that's why we are moving ahead with it. And we have other stuff for environments where there is active AA threat. Not just guys in wooded huts with AKs.

Well, yes, only in situations where the AA was simulated rather than actual, but the A-10 spanked it again there, which is why the airforce suddenly decided to keep it 'for now'. And you're Moving ahead with it because it's become so expensive that to NOT move ahead with it, heads would roll.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
.
Also what air superiority platform is it supposed to replace again?

Specifically the F-16 is being replaced by the F-35A, and most likely also replacing the short lived F-22 (since they stopped buying those at about 200 units).

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

]What? The issue with the Zumwalt class was that it was too expensive for the benefits over more conventional DDGs like the Burkes. They work fine, just aren't worth the cost. And the change from wanting land attack to focusing on the Aegis system (a much better choice IMO). Zumwalts were a fethup, but a cost and usefulness fethup, not a "doesn't work" fethup.

https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2018/04/19/advanced-gun-system-was-holding-back-the-navys-new-stealth-destroyer/

According to testimony in Congress, no, the AGS did not work. Even with the million dollar plus LRLAP it failed to meet it's targets. In more ways than one.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

The problem with the Zumwalt is that any ship could do that, and the additional capabilities the Zumwalt offers over other ships does not justify the massive increase in costs.

According to the Navy's own numbers, it takes about 15-20 Zumwalts to equate the firepower of one Iowa class battleship. The Iowa cost about a billion dollars, adjusted for inflation, the Zumwalt costs 3-4 billion. Iowa takes a staggeringly higher amount of firepower to mission kill compared to a Zumwalt.

Problem being that the 16-inch guns can only reach out to little more than 20 nautical miles. Quite well within range of visual identification by a maritime patrol helicopter (and certainly within range of even a C-802 anti-ship missile) whereas the LRLAP gave the Zumwalt a range in excess of 80nm, and it's low-observable qualities means on radar it's indistinguishable from a civilian fishing trawler (and the standoff means some other platform like a fighter or ERAM-equipped CG or DDG could nail an MPA before it can V-ID the Zumwalt).

Agiel wrote:


Problem being that the 16-inch guns can only reach out to little more than 20 nautical miles. Quite well within range of visual identification by a maritime patrol helicopter (and certainly within range of even a C-802 anti-ship missile) whereas the LRLAP gave the Zumwalt a range in excess of 80nm, and it's low-observable qualities means on radar it's indistinguishable from a civilian fishing trawler (and the standoff means some other platform like a fighter or ERAM-equipped CG or DDG could nail an MPA before it can V-ID the Zumwalt).

And, according to Congressional testimony is where it failed, it's range was nothing like the numbers the Navy had targeted. It's effective range was not actually significantly greater than the 16"/50.

Also, C-802 can be carried by aircraft, however, given it's characteristics as a kinetic penetratior, and the fact it aims for the waterline, an Iowa class is effectively immune to it. Only a Granit has a screaming prayer, among anti ship missiles, of penetrating an Iowa where her belt's thickest, and even it's a bit iffy. Remember battleships are, in theory, armored against their own weapons. A 16"/50 firing a super heavy round can pen 30 feet of concrete. The next highest, Granit, can pen about 20 feet and only recently have the Russians refitted heavy bombers to carry a single missile aloft. It's THAT big.

Many current Gen Anti ship missiles would struggle with the configuration of Iowa's armor, with an internal belt and outer skin. This effectively acts as spaced armor, and most antiship missiles depend on a shaped charge to get the missile into the ship, so...

However, even a pop up that drops the missile on deck would find issues with a battleships bomb deck. (Remember many BBs were built to take hits from plunging shots and bombs, so there's a space where, in theory, even an AP bomb would explode.) Bombings were attempted against Tirpitz, but only succeeded when they missed, hydro-static shock from a bunker buster buckling the hull.

Remember that Roma, the only battleship killed with a precursor to smart bombs, actually died from an electrical failure that shut off all firefighting gear and set every magazine on fire. And, before you say 'that was X years ago' the Iraqis tried Silkworm on Mighty Mo. It didn't work.

 BaronIveagh wrote:


Not an F22 pilot so not qualified to say. The issue with F-35 is that it's stealth goes out the window when it actually engages targets, and it cannot be repaired in the field if it suffers any serious breach of it's fuselage. The Australians proved that current gen Russian and Chinese fighters could find and kill it under real world conditions.

Again, not really. This is literally the same gak that goes on with the F22. They are stealth fighters, they are disigned to kill enemy fighters from standoff range before maneuvering even becomes relevant. And it's worked quite well on the F22.

Well, yes, only in situations where the AA was simulated rather than actual, but the A-10 spanked it again there, which is why the airforce suddenly decided to keep it 'for now'. And you're Moving ahead with it because it's become so expensive that to NOT move ahead with it, heads would roll.

The air-force is doing exactly what it is allowed to do with the A-10. Which is to say, slowly bringing down numbers until they retire it fully (in about 2040).

Specifically the F-16 is being replaced by the F-35A, and most likely also replacing the short lived F-22 (since they stopped buying those at about 200 units).

F-16 is mutli-role, same as the F-35 mate. Also it isn't replacing the F-22 by a longshot, I agree we should get some more of them, but they will be serving for years.

https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2018/04/19/advanced-gun-system-was-holding-back-the-navys-new-stealth-destroyer/

According to testimony in Congress, no, the AGS did not work. Even with the million dollar plus LRLAP it failed to meet it's targets. In more ways than one.

I mean it did work (although it took some fiddling), we just stopped developing ammunition for it, and aren't producing any new. But this is also a non-issue. Because the Vcells and stealth are the whole point of the ship.

Also LRLAP was fine, just (again) canceled because it wasn't worth the cost.

According to the Navy's own numbers, it takes about 15-20 Zumwalts to equate the firepower of one Iowa class battleship. The Iowa cost about a billion dollars, adjusted for inflation, the Zumwalt costs 3-4 billion. Iowa takes a staggeringly higher amount of firepower to mission kill compared to a Zumwalt.

This is true of *every single naval vessel still active* other than CVNs. What it does have is much longer range and accuracy. You know, the whole reason we stopped putting massive guns on ships anymore. Unless you are suggesting

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

F-16 is mutli-role, same as the F-35 mate. Also it isn't replacing the F-22 by a longshot, I agree we should get some more of them, but they will be serving for years.

Not originally, and not in certain configurations. Hence the 'F' rather than 'F/A'.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

I mean it did work (although it took some fiddling), we just stopped developing ammunition for it, and aren't producing any new. But this is also a non-issue. Because the Vcells and stealth are the whole point of the ship.

Also LRLAP was fine, just (again) canceled because it wasn't worth the cost.

While the AGS did shoot, it did not out-range a standard 155 without LRLAP, falling Grossly short of the Navy and Congress' requirements for the program. The LRLAP also did not meet the range requirements of the program, as stated under oath.

And the 'whole point of the ship' was to provide an alternative to battleships for NGS for the marines. Not to create worlds most expensive anti-aircraft destroyer. In fact, it was the Navy's big excuse to allow them to pull battleships from active duty.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

This is true of *every single naval vessel still active* other than CVNs. What it does have is much longer range and accuracy. You know, the whole reason we stopped putting massive guns on ships anymore. Unless you are suggesting

Apparently it does not have longer effective range (and, just, fyi, I'll draw your attention to Bull's 16"/100 that managed a 280km shot on the whole big gun thing) because it was specifically brought up in testimony. The cost of the shells was being driven up for the same reason the ship itself was, more development had to be done to try and make it meet the target requirements, With fewer and fewer being bought to deal with rising development costs per round.

The reason that big guns are not put on ships anymore is that the Navy effectively murdered 42 men to make damn sure o it.

 BaronIveagh wrote:


Problem being that the 16-inch guns can only reach out to little more than 20 nautical miles. Quite well within range of visual identification by a maritime patrol helicopter (and certainly within range of even a C-802 anti-ship missile) whereas the LRLAP gave the Zumwalt a range in excess of 80nm, and it's low-observable qualities means on radar it's indistinguishable from a civilian fishing trawler (and the standoff means some other platform like a fighter or ERAM-equipped CG or DDG could nail an MPA before it can V-ID the Zumwalt).

Yeah and they canceled it *during dev* because it was too expensive. Again it was cost cutting. Each round cost roughly $1M a piece. We elected to instead just use Tomahawk cruise missiles, which cost as much as 2 rounds.

Also, C-802 can be carried by aircraft, however, given it's characteristics as a kinetic penetratior, and the fact it aims for the waterline, an Iowa class is effectively immune to it. Only a Granit has a screaming prayer, among anti ship missiles, of penetrating an Iowa where her belt's thickest, and even it's a bit iffy. Remember battleships are, in theory, armored against their own weapons. A 16"/50 firing a super heavy round can pen 30 feet of concrete. The next highest, Granit, can pen about 20 feet and only recently have the Russians refitted heavy bombers to carry a single missile aloft. It's THAT big.

Many current Gen Anti ship missiles would struggle with the configuration of Iowa's armor, with an internal belt and outer skin. This effectively acts as spaced armor, and most antiship missiles depend on a shaped charge to get the missile into the ship, so...

I mean when you can just fling 80 rim-66s and watch it die in fire, with no possible counter attack. Or 80 Tomahawks. Turns out VLS is sort of OP.

However, even a pop up that drops the missile on deck would find issues with a battleships bomb deck. (Remember many BBs were built to take hits from plunging shots and bombs, so there's a space where, in theory, even an AP bomb would explode.) Bombings were attempted against Tirpitz, but only succeeded when they missed, hydro-static shock from a bunker buster buckling the hull.

Sorry to break this to you mate but Tallboys aren't AP bombs

Remember that Roma, the only battleship killed with a precursor to smart bombs, actually died from an electrical failure that shut off all firefighting gear and set every magazine on fire. And, before you say 'that was X years ago' the Iraqis tried Silkworm on Mighty Mo. It didn't work.

Roma died from a direct hits first to her boilers and then to her engine room and forward magazine. No battleship is surviving that. I sort hate to break it to you, but most ships sunk during WWII didn't get hit then explode. They sunk because the crews couldn't put fires under control or contain flooding and scuttled the ships. This was a very normal way for a ship to die from AP bombs. The only difference is these were glide bombs, and thus were able to do it despite the extreme range preventing the Roma from actually using it's AAA in defense.

Also the missile didn't even hit the Missouri, it was taken down by her escort, while she continued to do jack gak but look pretty.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

F-16 is mutli-role, same as the F-35 mate. Also it isn't replacing the F-22 by a longshot, I agree we should get some more of them, but they will be serving for years.

Not originally, and not in certain configurations. Hence the 'F' rather than 'F/A'.

Not the one it's replacing though.

IWhile the AGS did shoot, it did not out-range a standard 155 without LRLAP, falling Grossly short of the Navy and Congress' requirements for the program. The LRLAP also did not meet the range requirements of the program, as stated under oath.

No it didn't reach range requirements. This is quite a bit different than "didn't work". And they canceled further developemnt because they decide d it wasn't worth the cost.

And the 'whole point of the ship' was to provide an alternative to battleships for NGS for the marines. Not to create worlds most expensive anti-aircraft destroyer. In fact, it was the Navy's big excuse to allow them to pull battleships from active duty.

What? The last iowa class was retired more than 10 years before any work began on the ship. Hell the BBs were retired before the program that led to the Zumwalt program. And it was a failure from an economic standpoint, we've been over this. That's why further development was canceled. Also the fact that that sort of fire support has been superseded by aircraft and DDGs. Hell even back in WWI, marines working through the islands in the pacific much preferred destroyers and light cruisers as support. They were more accurate at short ranges, much faster to respond, and allowed for much closer direct support.

Apparently it does not have longer effective range (and, just, fyi, I'll draw your attention to Bull's 16"/100 that managed a 280km shot on the whole big gun thing) because it was specifically brought up in testimony. The cost of the shells was being driven up for the same reason the ship itself was, more development had to be done to try and make it meet the target requirements, With fewer and fewer being bought to deal with rising development costs per round.

The testimony stated it did not reach range requirements (80 mi). A little research is that it got a range of 68 mi. Still way beyond the 24 mi maximum range of 16"/50 on the iowa. And even more specifically, well beyond the effective maximum range. Just because you can fire your gun at a 45 degree angle doesn't mean you can hit a damn thing at that range. The longest hit with a naval gun ever was 14 mi. The 16in iowa guns had a hitrate against a broadside target at 11 mi of 10%. A tomahawk has a hitrate of about 90% at up to 1500 mi.

The reason that big guns are not put on ships anymore is that the Navy effectively murdered 42 men to make damn sure o it.

What? Do explain?

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
I mean when you can just fling 80 rim-66s and watch it die in fire, with no possible counter attack. Or 80 Tomahawks. Turns out VLS is sort of OP.

I'm a bit curious how you think either of those would even disable it RIM-66 is just going to detonate on the surface. Tomahawks with submunitions might seriously damage it's antenna arrays, but since it's guns can fall back to the optical and calculated fire, it's only reducing it's accuracy.

Battleships in combat with destroyers and cruisers might be hit hundreds of times by non penetrating shots.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

Roma died from a direct hits first to her boilers and then to her engine room and forward magazine

Incorrect. The first hit was between frames 100 and 108 and penetrated the ship entirely, exploding under her keel, and caused flooding in her aft engine room and two boiler rooms. The second hit landed between frames 123 and 136 hitting the forward engine room. This started, among other things, an electrical fire in turret 2's magazine, which then detonated, blowing turret 2 completely off the ship. Which then sank, for obvious reasons. I refer you to the findings following her loss and the discovery of the wreck.

Further, the fritz X was unusual in that it had a remote control system so the bombardier could guide it to the target. It was not 'just' a glide bomb.