Not so fast you Zoomie bastards...

[Donward]

No. See. The correct response should be "OHMY FUCKING GOD YOU SCRUB, DONT YOU KNOW ANAKIN WAS NINE YEARS OLD IN PHANTOM MENACE YOU POSER HICK CLOWNSHOW!!!!1!!!1"

And yes, the first time we have a blue-on-blue with a drone killing friendly American soldiers or - as I clearly stated in my first post - if American soldiers die because of a decision to only use drones as CAS you will see a media and political shitstorm of the likes that hasn't been seen since The Little Bighorn. If you can't grasp that simple fact of American political life then you really know anything about American politics at all.

I mean holy hell, look what a shit storm erupted over the M4 "failing" in Afghanistan. You think a DC is simply going to shrug its collective shoulders? Get with the program man.

[Zinegata]

No. See. The correct response should be "OHMY FUCKING GOD YOU SCRUB, DONT YOU KNOW ANAKIN WAS NINE YEARS OLD IN PHANTOM MENACE YOU POSER HICK CLOWNSHOW!!!!1!!!1"

And yes, the first time we have a blue-on-blue with a drone killing friendly American soldiers or - as I clearly stated in my first post - if American soldiers die because of a decision to only use drones as CAS you will see a media and political shitstorm of the likes that hasn't been seen since The Little Bighorn. If you can't grasp that simple fact of American political life then you really know anything about American politics at all.

I mean holy hell, look what a shit storm erupted over the M4 "failing" in Afghanistan. You think a DC is simply going to shrug its collective shoulders? Get with the program man.

 

Downward, I know enough about American politics that a "shitstorm" will only happen if one party can hurt the other without shooting itself in the foot. And a friendly-fire drone incident isn't going to be one of those issues because the Republicans want to portray themselves as the party of Defending Murica and they aren't about to question a program that was more successful at blowing up AQ leaders in other countries than anything Bush ever did.

 

Meanwhile, Obama already got away with blowing up two American citizens - one a terrorist and another a hostage - using drones. Do you see any "shit storm" over drones over the death of a hostage? Maybe you should consider that the party that traditionally would be complaining over this - the Democrats - are also too busy using the drone program to play up their Defend Murica credentials hence they're also letting it pass?

[Toxn]

No. See. The correct response should be "OHMY FUCKING GOD YOU SCRUB, DONT YOU KNOW ANAKIN WAS NINE YEARS OLD IN PHANTOM MENACE YOU POSER HICK CLOWNSHOW!!!!1!!!1"

And yes, the first time we have a blue-on-blue with a drone killing friendly American soldiers or - as I clearly stated in my first post - if American soldiers die because of a decision to only use drones as CAS you will see a media and political shitstorm of the likes that hasn't been seen since The Little Bighorn. If you can't grasp that simple fact of American political life then you really know anything about American politics at all.

I mean holy hell, look what a shit storm erupted over the M4 "failing" in Afghanistan. You think a DC is simply going to shrug its collective shoulders? Get with the program man.

 

Man that kid was terribly miscast. Beyond that, the whole idea of a nine year old kid meeting his teenage future lover and then having incredibly stilted dialogue to suggest that they will get down to boning in movie two is enough to sink the movie all by itself...

 

As Zin points out, the American public seems to be pretty happy with drones right now so long as they hum around killing filthy foreigners/American citizens we kind of don't like, and don't do any top-gun shit that might put all the Tom Cruise wannabes out there out of a job. I don't see blue-on-blue stuff as being either especially likely or especially troubling to the public.

 

My beef with this attitude is that drones are actually much worse platforms for making the right decision on which guy rocking a beard to splat than manned aircraft are. Manned aircraft, in turn, are much worse than people on the ground in terms of splatting the beard owner.

 

Drones, IMHO, will be amazing in the near term for air-to-air stuff (which we've already debated) and acting as an artillery surrogate guided in by a forward observer on the ground. Barring that, direct control should be performed as close in as is safely possible by dedicated control units of some sort (AWACs, drone command trucks, mini-carriers or whatever). Another use for drones is area denial: make them fully autonomous and let them go to town on anything with a human outline and heat signature in a given sector.

 

Finally, the role/usefulness of drones changes depending on what sort of war you're fighting. For the sort of low-intensity shit we're seeing now, I'd actually prefer to put a manned system in close to the ground to get a little more precision. For full-on, heavy-metal war I'd view drones as a great way to substitute productive capacity for manpower in roles where the wastage rate is too high to be sustainable. Here it should be noted that both sides during the Cold War figured on running out of aircraft and pilots within the first week.

[Sturgeon]

Zin, you're upholding a pretty low standard of posting here. Stop misrepresenting people's arguments and condescending to them. It's a habit that will take time to break, so get on it.

[Toxn]

I think it's more a case of Zin taking every statement absolutely seriously and straight-faced. Which is a different issue, as it invites trolling and subsequent escalation.

 

We should all be very careful to consider other angles and interpretations for arguments here - text is a bit low-bandwidth to tease nuance out of situations, especially when you have folk from a bunch of different cultures chatting together. And I'm obviously just as guilty as anyone else in this regard (see: arguments about American topics as understood by a dude sitting in Joburg).

 

Further than that, I'm keen to completely drop this line of argument about the future of CAS and design a napkin A-10/Frogfoot killer. Because mudfighters and armour and ordinance and big guns and high-bypass turbofans and oh god I think I came.

[Belesarius]

I think drones become the preferred CAS option when they are controlled by an FAC on the ground with the troops.  When the controllers ass is on the line, I think we get a pretty solid option for calling in danger close.   Recent advances in US PGM tech have knocked back the danger level of this significantly.

[Belesarius]

I think it's more a case of Zin taking every statement absolutely seriously and straight-faced. Which is a different issue, as it invites trolling and subsequent escalation.

 

We should all be very careful to consider other angles and interpretations for arguments here - text is a bit low-bandwidth to tease nuance out of situations, especially when you have folk from a bunch of different cultures chatting together. And I'm obviously just as guilty as anyone else in this regard (see: arguments about American topics as understood by a dude sitting in Joburg).

 

Further than that, I'm keen to completely drop this line of argument about the future of CAS and design a napkin A-10/Frogfoot killer. Because mudfighters and armour and ordinance and big guns and high-bypass turbofans and oh god I think I came.

I'm ok with this.

[Toxn]

Let's get the ugly-but-sexy ones out of the way first:

• Tiltrotor Osprey/Combat Helo hybrid
• Just straight up remaking the IL-102

[Belesarius]

 

Let's get the ugly-but-sexy ones out of the way first:

• Tiltrotor Osprey/Combat Helo hybrid
• Just straight up remaking the IL-102

 

I seriously am confused why the USMC hasn't been way more serious about making an escort/CAS version of the Osprey.  It literally boggles my mind why this hasn't already been done with COTS tech.

[Toxn]

Because they are under the malignant spell of the cult of the Cobra?

[Belesarius]

I want a Osprey with a center line mounted Bofors L60.  And lots of Brimstone/70mm/Hellfires.  Because reasons.

[Zinegata]

Zin, you're upholding a pretty low standard of posting here. Stop misrepresenting people's arguments and condescending to them. It's a habit that will take time to break, so get on it.

 

Before accusing me of "misrepresenting people's arguments and condescending to them" consider that you yourself admit that you never actually bothered to read the entirety of my post.

 

Anyway I'm dropping this thread. And maybe this entire forum given that it's pretty clear to me that "low standard" is synonymous with "disagreeing with Sturgeon and his favorites" because some people are too immature and who, in the face of someone seriously discussing a topic, hides behind "don't be serious" every time an argument doesn't go their way.

[Toxn]

Before accusing me of "misrepresenting people's arguments and condescending to them" consider that you yourself admit that you never actually bothered to read the entirety of my post.

 

Anyway I'm dropping this thread. And maybe this entire forum given that it's pretty clear to me that "low standard" is synonymous with "disagreeing with Sturgeon and his favorites" because some people are too immature to tell the difference between someone making a serious argument and who hides behind "jokes" when the argument doesn't go their way.

 

Dude, I'd rather you didn't leave us. And I have a well-known problem with finding about 50% of what Don says to be utter crap (the other 50% being complete genius, sadly).

But you're also a stubborn fucker (hence the faceless butcher) who doesn't respond to common debate tactics well. Making jokes and referring to previous jokey comments is, like, 50% of forum activity.

 

I don't want to turn this thread into moan-about-our-feelings page, but it's clear that sorting things out requires some of this communication malarkey that we all manfully chortle about. I suggest you, Sturgeon and whoever else might hold a stake here take it to PMs and hash it out until you have something that everyone can live with.

 

And if that ends up being that you decide to opt out, then at least it will be a thought-out decision rather than the result of simply getting pissed off.

[Donward]

Hey. I think that 50 percent of what you post is misinformed too Toxn. But since you are so typical of the gregarious, kind and open-hearted South Afrikkan who has touched the hearts of the world for three generations, I just can't help but love you!

 

As all good Internet arguments go, obviously this is a lot of wanking over something that won't happen. The US military isn't going to get rid of manned fighter jets and bombers any time soon. As for drones, I'd say they are with us for a good long while as well although, as I've mentioned, American politics is a strange thing.

 

There is a sizable portion of the population that is anti-drone. Not a majority, I don't think, but they are vocal and have clout and can do things like force the Seattle Police Department to end its drone programs. Now obviously it is a far cry comparing drones in a civilian police force to their use in the US military. But when I see folks on both sides of the political spectrum (usually more fringe types like libertarians and anti-capitalists) and when we have viable presidential candidates making anti-drone noises at times, I'm not comfortable sitting make and making grand pronouncements of what the future of air warfare will look like as I'm clacking away behind my laptop screen drinking coffee and eating leftover cornbread. 

[Belesarius]

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/this-video-will-leave-you-begging-the-usaf-to-keep-the-1703292861

[Belesarius]

Welp, this is still a thing.

 

http://www.jqpublicblog.com/congress-issues-air-force-sharp-rebuke-bars-a-10-retirement/

[Sturgeon]

I say it's a good thing, not necessarily because we should retain the A-10, but because the Air Force needs a good slap upside the head.

[Xlucine]

The elements of the A-10 follow on study that congress are demanding read like a laundry list of "how not to do engineering design".

 

 

(e) STUDY ON REPLACEMENT CAPABILITY REQUIREMENTS OR
MISSION PLATFORM FOR THE A–10 AIRCRAFT.—
(1) I
NDEPENDENT ASSESSMENT REQUIRED
.—
(A) IN  GENERAL.—The Secretary of the Air Force shall
commission an appropriate entity outside the Department
of Defense to conduct an assessment of the required
capabilities or mission platform to replace the A–10 air-
craft. This assessment would represent preparatory work
to inform an analysis of alternatives.
( ELEMENTS.—The assessment required under
subparagraph (A) shall include each of the following:
(i) Future needs analysis for the current A–10
aircraft mission set to include troops-in-contact/close
air support, air interdiction, strike control and recon-
naissance, and combat search and rescue support in
both contested and uncontested battle environments.
At a minimum, the needs analysis should specifically
address the following areas:
(I) The ability to safely and effectively conduct
troops-in-contact/danger close missions or missions
in close proximity to civilians in the presence of
the air defenses found with enemy ground
maneuver units.
H. R. 1735—31
(II) The ability to effectively target and destroy
moving, camouflaged, or dug-in troops, artillery,
armor, and armored personnel carriers.
(III) The ability to engage, target, and destroy
tanks and armored personnel carriers, including
with respect to the carrying capacity of armor-
piercing weaponry, including mounted cannons
and missiles.
(IV) The ability to remain within visual range
of friendly forces and targets to facilitate respon-
siveness to ground forces and minimize re-attack
times.
(V) The ability to safely conduct close air sup-
port beneath low cloud ceilings and in reduced
visibilities at low airspeeds in the presence of the
air defenses found with enemy ground maneuver
units.
(VI) The capability to enable the pilot and
aircraft to survive attacks stemming from small
arms, machine guns, man-portable air-defense sys-
tems, and lower caliber anti-aircraft artillery
organic or attached to enemy ground forces and
maneuver units.
(VII) The ability to communicate effectively
with ground forces and downed pilots, including
in communications jamming or satellite-denied
environments.
(VIII) The ability to execute the missions
described in subclauses (I), (II), (III), and (IV) in
a GPS- or satellite-denied environment with or
without sensors.
(IX) The ability to deliver multiple lethal firing
passes and sustain long loiter endurance to support
friendly forces throughout extended ground
engagements.
(X) The ability to operate from unprepared
dirt, grass, and narrow road runways and to gen-
erate high sortie rates under these austere condi-
tions.
(ii) Identification and assessment of gaps in the
ability of existing and programmed mission platforms
in providing required capabilities to conduct missions
specified in clause (i) in both contested and uncontested
battle environments.
(iii) Assessment of operational effectiveness of
existing and programmed mission platforms to conduct
missions specified in clause (i) in both contested and
uncontested battle environments.
(iv) Assessment of probability of likelihood of con-
ducting missions requiring troops-in-contact/close air
support operations specified in clause (i) in contested
environments as compared to uncontested environ-
ments.
(v) Any other matters the independent entity or
the Secretary of the Air Force determines to be appro-
priate.

 

They have no idea what "solution neutral" means, and I'd love to know just how often re-attack times are an issue. Also, since when did the US airforce have to slum it & use roads as runways? The only time that'll be an issue is in a nuke fight with russia, and CAS will of marginal utility in that scenario

[Priory_of_Sion]

I think what they are looking for is an attack helo. 

[Sturgeon]

MZW weighs in on the A-10's retirement.

I would have to check my figures again, but I'm pretty sure the M14 was like 1.1 times as expensive as the M1, not 3 times as expensive. It was mediocre, though.

F-35 will hopefully not be that bad. It at least isn't a warmed over, like, F-117 or something. 

 

In general, though, his argument checks out.

[Belesarius]

http://www.duffelblog.com/2015/03/op-ed-i-sexually-identify-as-an-a-10-thunderbolt/

[Sturgeon]

I am officially hijacking this thread. It is now about posting the absolute dumbest A-10-related shit you can find. We'll start off with this classic:

 

Huh, it looks like they've basically whitewashed everything an F-15C can do, and they've basically restated "CAS/Strike" a bunch of different ways for the A-10. That sounds like fun, I want to try!

[Donward]

So we better swap over all of our planes to Piper J3s?

 

At which point Alaska suddenly has the most powerful air force in the world. On paper at least...

 

Also. That I-sexually-identify-as-an-A-10-Thunderbolt link. He must now always make the sound BRRRRrrrrrrttt when engaging in CAS with his sexual partner.

[Toxn]

Things get rocky when it sexually identifies as a tunguska.

[Belesarius]

Increased 'demand signal' (Jeeze, buzzword much?) has the Chair Force considering delaying the A-10's retirement.

 

http://www.janes.com/article/55895/usaf-considers-a-10-retirement-delay