I Wish I Had a Gun Just Like the A-10

[Francis Urquhart]

Now what about drones? Remote-controlled or fully-autonomous? Who gets to play with them?

The honest answer to the last question is everybody including the opposition. We've already lost one large and expensive drone when its flight control system was hacked in mid-air and the aircraft diverted to a now-friendly airbase. The way to look at this is by need and that is the way things are going right now. If a service can demonstrate the need for a capability that is best provided by drones, then it gets it as soon as funding is available.

The last six words are crucial. No matter how good a case is for a given system, it won't get a share of the available funding if somebody else makes a better case for their requirement. This is an on-going situation and it won't be solved by increasing funding still further. Under PDJT, we've gone from $500 billion to $733 billion and there are still serious deficiencies that have to be fixed. Then we have the problem of Congressional add-ons. Basically, every time Congress adds something the services don't need to the budget, something they do need has to be cut out. This is why service budget managers and analysts get really irritated with outsiders who try and interfere with the budget. Such people never do any good and often do a lot of harm.

On remote controlled or fully autonomous, the best answer is probably "yes". It depends on the role and environment. We're all very suspicious of the fully autonomous solution and the truth is those systems don't work very well. As a simple example, imagine a fully autonomous anti-tank drone. So far so good. only in a certain conflict, both sides drive identical models of the T-72. Now the poor drone has a target identification problem. Ah well, that's easy to solve. Give the tanks IFF systems like aircraft. Well, we've done that. Only back in Vietnam days, we had a bit of kit that triggered the IFF system installed on MiGs. So, we have an unidentified contact out of visual range. We trigger that bit of kit and up pops the IFF code for that MiG. We've now identified it as hostile, pickle off an AIM-7 and paint up the kill mark. It doesn't end there of course.

IFF has a lot of other problems, one being that it has a failure rate and a non-IFF response can be a friendly system with its IFF system down. It has happened and it has killed friendlies. The only real cure to that is a fully-integrated battlefield management system where if one element goes down others take its place and that's largely already here. Only, to make it work we need to get rid of legacy systems that don't carry the kit. Guess the prime candidate there.

In a more general sense, drones and UAVs have passed their peak now. They had their great burst of success in Iraq, primarily because we had a very urgent surveillance requirement and no assets to fill it. Drones were available and so they got used and once they were in use, people made the best of what they had. Then people outside what was really going on got all enthusiastic and made the things fill roles for which their application was dubious. As I said, its subsiding now and people's interest has moved on to other things.

 

[Deleted member]

Optionally manned systems to reduce manpower costs in low intensity conflicts while being resilient to cyberwarfare threats remain of considerable interest going forward, of course.

 

[Francis Urquhart]

Optionally manned systems to reduce manpower costs in low intensity conflicts while being resilient to cyberwarfare threats remain of considerable interest going forward, of course.

True, with the big area of opportunity being surveillance technology. Surveillance technology is a lot more pervasive than people realize now and its only going to become more so. When I was in London not long ago, I started counting official surveillance cameras (that is excluding ones installed on businesses and financial institutions). I quickly realized that there are very few populated areas that are NOT covered by police cameras.

Attack drones are another matter. It only needs one major accident by one such drone going berserk - or even simply crashing due to malfunction - and we'll see drones being banned from operating in populated areas. That's being proposed right now. I would describe the current approach as "cautious." A lot will depend on the development of anti-drone weapons. At an arms show quite recently, I handled a new anti-drone electronic pulse gun that was the size and weight of an M4 carbine. It even looked a bit like an M4. The "magazine" was actually a rechargeable battery pack, a battery recharging point is now standard equipment on AFV requirements.

 

[Deleted member]

a battery recharging point is now standard equipment on AFV requirements.

That is causing huge demand for substantially updated AFVs however because those requirements cannot be met with existing electrical systems.

 

[Francis Urquhart]

That is causing huge demand for substantially updated AFVs however because those requirements cannot be met with existing electrical systems.

Indeed so; a lot of the major AIFV upgrades going on right now are aimed at remedying exactly that problem, Its not just battery charging points though (I remember by the way when installing a two-point battery charger on the Stryker was condemned as "typical gold-plating") its the installation of added sensors, communications and battle management systems. They al guzzle power and the entire electronics systems really need to be upgraded as well. It's one of those buried things that never appear in specifications lists but are key to making a modern combat vehicle/ship/aircraft work.

 

[Deleted member]

Indeed so; a lot of the major AIFV upgrades going on right now are aimed at remedying exactly that problem, Its not just battery charging points though (I remember by the way when installing a two-point battery charger on the Stryker was condemned as "typical gold-plating") its the installation of added sensors, communications and battle management systems. They al guzzle power and the entire electronics systems really need to be upgraded as well. It's one of those buried things that never appear in specifications lists but are key to making a modern combat vehicle/ship/aircraft work.

The gap is a nightmare right now, yes.

 

[PsihoKekec]

It only needs one major accident by one such drone going berserk - or even simply crashing due to malfunction - and we'll see drones being banned from operating in populated areas.

One of the more interesting bans is that in Alpine Skiing World Cup, where they started using drones for filming races, but banned them when one crashed and nearly hit World Cup Champion.



As purchase and building of drones becomes more attainable we will see more limitations and countermeasures, be it EW, hunter drones and AA weaponry. It's possible we will see renissance of light AA guns to deal with small drones, as well as development of micro MANPADS, for use on distances under 1000 meters.

 

[Doomsought]

The problem of the A-10 is that it is a gunship. Just like the AC-130 it is a type of aircraft that has a somewhat narrow niche, but is worth having if you have large enough of an air-fleet to afford that sort of specialization because it is very effective in its role. There is also a mistake to only look at its mechanicle capabilities and forget the effect it has on morale for both enemies and allies.

 

[Francis Urquhart]

The problem of the A-10 is that it is a gunship. Just like the AC-130 it is a type of aircraft that has a somewhat narrow niche, but is worth having if you have large enough of an air-fleet to afford that sort of specialization because it is very effective in its role.

It's worth noting that the AC-130 gunship is being abandoned in favor of a replacement that is equipped only with precision-guided munitions that can be released from above the low-altitude envelope. That is a direct result of the level of risk to which these aircraft are exposed and their declining effectiveness. A good example is that we lost an AC-130 as long ago as ODS when the crew stayed in position too long, were caught by dawn and, without the cover of night, were shot down. Aircraft like the A-10 and AC-130 were effective in the CAS role once but that efficiency has declined to the point where their loss-rate in a non-permissive environment is prohibitive. The simple summary is that we now have assets that can do the same job at lower cost and with less risk to our own people.

There is also a mistake to only look at its mechanical capabilities and forget the effect it has on morale for both enemies and allies.

Again, once a valid point but the increasing efficiency of air defenses has eroded that effect. The aircraft that has the most devastating effects on enemy morale and the most beneficial on friendly morale is the B-52. Fortunately, the Gray Lady is likely to be around for a long time

 

[Deleted member]

@Francis Urquhart would you actually say that the past twenty years have served primarily to mask the gross obsolescence of large areas of the US military because we were operating in a permissive environment?

 

[Francis Urquhart]

@Francis Urquhart would you actually say that the past twenty years have served primarily to mask the gross obsolescence of large areas of the US military because we were operating in a permissive environment?

That's exactly right although the problem was compounded by the "Transformation" idiocy and then further exaggerated by the Obama years. The end result is the technology advantage we enjoyed once has now been severely eroded and in some areas, we are behind the curve. Keeping obsolete systems in the inventory for what, in the final analysis, are sentimental reasons is adding still further to the problem.

On Transformation, by the way, the actual original idea was quite good. To take a hard look at emerging technologies and see which ones allow us to do things better and which ones make existing operational arts obsolete. Unfortunately what started as a good idea degenerated into "if its new, it must be good".

 

[Aaron Fox]

Actually, I must correct you @Francis Urquhart on the AH-56. What really killed it was the twin-engine requirement for all new helicopters, the adoption of digital fire control, and a crash of one of the prototypes that killed its crew because of the rotors vibrating the wrong way (which was almost fixed before it was canceled).

The Airforce simply helped it along with what I can account for.

It actually came up when I was researching helicopter designs for several settings that I was working on.

 

[PsihoKekec]

In the honor of starting lap 2 let us sing this song

 

[Zachowon]

As someone in the Army, stationed in Korea, where we have a fleet of A-10s, even though the enemy has SA and the like, the Koreans still use T55 and T62s...

The Army loves it because as others have said, it is a dedicated CAS fast mover. Yes we have Apaches, Blackhawks and the like. They can only do so much though.

Plus knowing a bomb isnt going to be miss dropped because someone fat fingered a coordinate helps a lot, which is why the BBBBRRRRRTTTT is such reassuring sound.

The A10 is useful after you destroy SA 2-5 platforms and what ever North korean more advanced SAM exist. Once you do that, the A10 isnt such a bad thing anymore.

So yeah.

Oh there is also the I creased budget if the Mikitary thanks to Trump.