US Army News and updates general discussion

Big_Zucchini

Well-Known Member
The A-10 is a dedicated platform to a higher degree than the AH-64, making it less versatile and therefore less useful outside of a few missions US policymakers decided needed a transformation.

The modern CAS works via MUM-T = Manned UnManned Teaming.
Key to MUM-T is connectivity and situational awareness and thus persistence in the combat area. The AH-64, being a helicopter, is naturally more persistent and can maneuver better over a smaller area.

So that covered the capability to do CAS. Now onto taking a hit back.
Although the A-10 is known to be tough, it is only relative to the very extremely fragile fighters we have today. It is, in absolute terms, very fragile as well. We have no way to guarantee a MANPADS won't shoot it down, hence we just assume it would be downed in that case to avoid any surprises.
It owes its relative toughness to its layout. But we are not really armoring planes. They'll remain static in their ability to take a missile. Missiles only increase in lethality though.

If we assume both the AH-64 and A-10 likely can take a hit but we certainly want to avoid any such risks, we have to look at how they're employed.
An A-10 gets much of its effect from the idea it needs to get up close and personal to employ its weapons. There isn't really any need to do that anymore, though. Today we prefer more standoff weapons, but if we're employing standoff weapons, why even use the A-10 in that case?
An AH-64 would be better for delivering those munitions 9/10 of the times. Its flight characteristics are better for it, and the fact it has 2 crewmen means more sophisticated weapons and systems can be employed, with greater focus/attention.

Next up is the cost - keeping a plane in the air naturally costs more. Its parts go through higher stress at any given point, especially during maneuvers.


So the AH-64 has an edge in cost, firepower, survivability, and maneuverability (in most cases).
 

swerve

Super Moderator
"if we're employing standoff weapons, why even use the A-10 in that case? " - Exactly.

The only thing the A-10 can do that UAVs can't is strafe with a heavy (for an aircraft) gun.
Strafing is not seen as a useful capability now.
The A-10 is more expensive to operate than a UAV.
It carries around a lot of weight (armour & that big gun) that is pointless for anything other than low-level attacks, i.e. mainly strafing.
It needs a pilot.
 

Terran

Well-Known Member
Thanks for the response but doesn’t really make it clear…why would UASF want to retire A10 as not survivable in contested air space but the US Army and others including Australia continue to invest in AH64? Would this mean that AH64 would not operate in a contested environment? or just different approach’s and risk acceptance from USAF and US Army? I would of thought an A10 would be more survivable than an Apache?
Its not that the Apache has more potential survival. It’s that Doctrinally and practically Apache and attack choppers don’t really have a potential replacement that isn’t just a modification of the same.
I mean Apache is intended to be replaced down the line by a version of FVL. Which looks like it will be based off the V280 Valor. What would that look like? Well imagine a V280 valor with a M230 30mm gun, hard points for JAGM or SPIKE NLOS, APKWS II or other 70mm rocket pods, Common launch tubes for griffin missiles and Air launched effects. Take a step back other than being a Tiltrotor the AV-280 I just described is still an attack chopper. No matter how you much change the description it’s still an attack chopper. Even if the host isn’t V280 but is a derivative of SB-1. Or even if we change it into a V247.
Apache is vulnerable to being destroyed by IADS yes as well as shorad but it remains relevant as it’s lower speed allows it to serve as escort if ground vehicles. It’s hover means it can drop behind terrain and stay there. It’s vertical take off and landing means that any open field Or even flat roof is a potential landing zone. Because it’s army it operates closer to the troops even being organic. It’s mission is cavalry based. Now I expect that when the a Apache’s replacement is built it will sacrifice weight to more defense capabilities and sensors than Apache has but it’s still relevant. The integration of stand off munitions and loitering munitions is principal to that relevance. Because of where it’s supposed to operate in conjunction with ground units the shift to MUM-T and adapting of SOM is such that it’s more adaptable.
The base frame can stay the same with less trades to performance. because for the US Army it’s organic to them and not USAF it’s generally more closer to allied infantry forces which most generals don’t want to push far into denied airspace due to the risks their in. It may “Deep penetrate” but that deep is nothing compared to a B21 or F35 penetration mission.

A10 does have aspects that make it adaptable and yes you could add Stand Off Munitions and Air Launched Effects and the like but the trades make it a question of if doing so wouldn’t be better on another platform. A10 is infamously built around its gun. Loosing a radar as a result. Increasingly to terrain map you want a radar. To fly in urban you want stop and go. It gained a FLIR yes but it’s hard to name something that hasn’t.
It’s slower than an F15 sure an up for traditional CAS but if you are trying to launch JASSM as your justification that speed is a range booster. With danger close air support being based more and more on smaller cheaper more accurate precision guided munitions the need of a low altitude gun on wings is loosing ground. With advances in radar technology ground based integrated Air defense systems are more and more capable of tracking through the old concealment of foliage so terrain masking is based increasingly more on solid structures like hills mountains and occasionally stone and iron man made structures things you probably don’t want to be flying A10 to close to.
Though you could mount hypothetically up to 16 MALD on A10 a neat capacity what does it actually buy you? To use JASSM and other longer range stand off munitions the preference is higher altitudes to get max range potential where A10 is going to be very vulnerable.
All of which raises questions on if instead of A10 and it’s CAS design if instead something more like the old F111 might not have been better. As the mission shifts to Stand off munitions and performance of hard points and altitude A10 makes trade offs as it tries to keep up. Those trades aren’t needed in other fixed wing platforms, like larger low observable drones or manned multi role fighters.
To keep relevant A10 tries to adopt munitions designed to allow other faster higher flying aircraft to take its mission. So it’s increasingly just another tactical bomber. In which case it could be replaced by any number of other tactical bombers. Ergo it’s obsolete.
 

FormerDirtDart

Well-Known Member
The US Army activated the 11th Airborne Division HQs at Fort Wainwright, AK today. Essentially reflagging US Army Alaska.
1st SBCT/25th In Div, also at Ft Wainwright, will eventually lose it's Stryker vehicles and become 1st IBCT/11th Abn Div. 4th IBCT (Abn)/25th In Div based at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, AK will be designated 2nd IBCT (Abn)/11th Abn Div.
There is discussion that the 1st IBCT/11th Abn will eventually be designated as an Air Assault unit. At this time no Division Artillery (DIVARTY) has been announced and division aviation assets will for now becoming from 16th Combat Aviation Brigade HQ'd at Joint Base Lewis-McChord, WA, which has units based in Alaska.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
The US Army has finally chosen a new light tank The Army Just Selected Its First Light Tank In Decades | The Drive However its procurement history is littered with a lot of what ifs and failures to proceed so I am not holding my breath. They've been down this road before with a light tank. This one is C-130 transportable, has a 105mm gun and the hull controls and sensors are based on the latest M-1 Abrams controls and sensors. It has modular add-on armour as well. It is thought that the turret is a remote turret.

Imagery has been released of the Raider X variant for the FARA program Raider X High-Speed Helicopter Brandishes Weapons As It Takes Shape (thedrive.com). It seems that the US Army is still wedded to the 20mm gun when experience has shown that it is now out ranged, with most nations using the 30mm calibre for their ARH guns. Hopefully they will upgrade the calibre.
 

Big_Zucchini

Well-Known Member
The MPF has some questions still unanswered. Why a 4-man crew when light tanks are inherently less survivable, and when the NGCV program itself seeks to bring to its vehicles the OMFV technologies which would inherently reduce crew tasks and thus size, and require restructuring of said tasks?
One of those crewmembers might be set to become a systems operator once OMFV is online, and when RCVs are as well.
And also, is the 38 ton figure the GVW with armor added? I don't think this one was answered anywhere yet.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
The MPF has some questions still unanswered. Why a 4-man crew when light tanks are inherently less survivable, and when the NGCV program itself seeks to bring to its vehicles the OMFV technologies which would inherently reduce crew tasks and thus size, and require restructuring of said tasks?
One of those crewmembers might be set to become a systems operator once OMFV is online, and when RCVs are as well.
And also, is the 38 ton figure the GVW with armor added? I don't think this one was answered anywhere yet.
Well it's the US Army we are talking about so anything's bound to happen with this procurement :D To a certain degree they are a bit hidebound and I sometimes wonder why they haven't put out an RFI for soldiers mounted in armour on horseback.
 

Stuart M

Well-Known Member
Well it's the US Army we are talking about so anything's bound to happen with this procurement :D To a certain degree they are a bit hidebound and I sometimes wonder why they haven't put out an RFI for soldiers mounted in armour on horseback.
Well if some of the pundits are correct with with the magical powers of drones and hypersonic missiles one might think we are back to this:

 

Terran

Well-Known Member
The MPF has some questions still unanswered. Why a 4-man crew when light tanks are inherently less survivable, and when the NGCV program itself seeks to bring to its vehicles the OMFV technologies which would inherently reduce crew tasks and thus size, and require restructuring of said tasks?
One of those crewmembers might be set to become a systems operator once OMFV is online, and when RCVs are as well.
And also, is the 38 ton figure the GVW with armor added? I don't think this one was answered anywhere yet.
GDLS put the Griffin 1/2 concept together based on a turret configured to emulate the Abrams for training reasons. As such the 4th man is a loader in the conventional sense. No Autoloader. The theory seems to be that They could take Abrams training equipment and schools to bring the crew up to speed on the systems above the turret ring.
NGCV is basically the portfolio with MPF at the front, Stryker and Abrams upgrades in the middle and OMFV, Robotic vehicles and the eventual Abrams replacement to the back.
MPF is meant to be today using existing systems and equipment as much as possible to try an get a turn key on the factory roll out.
OMFV is far more ambitious latest reports include Hybrid electric drive, 2 man primary crew with third man option then the infantry squad.
Bradley replacement could be the US Army’s first hybrid combat vehicle

As such it’s questionable on how much of the MPF and OMVF from GDLS would have in common. It’s possible that once OMFV rolls off whoever’s line the MPF will be considered so dated that GDLS will be pulling the turrets and rebuilding the vehicle to an extent that it’s almost unrecognizable. Like the M60A2 to M60A3.
 
Last edited:

FormerDirtDart

Well-Known Member
The US Army has finally chosen a new light tank The Army Just Selected Its First Light Tank In Decades | The Drive However its procurement history is littered with a lot of what ifs and failures to proceed so I am not holding my breath. They've been down this road before with a light tank. This one is C-130 transportable, has a 105mm gun and the hull controls and sensors are based on the latest M-1 Abrams controls and sensors. It has modular add-on armour as well. It is thought that the turret is a remote turret.
...
No it is not. The selected GDLS Griffin II MPF vehicle weighs roughly 38 tons. So, if they don't have an airfield capable of handling a C-17 it ain't flying in. Not unless they go all Japanese monster movie and have four CH-47s sling load it in.
 

Big_Zucchini

Well-Known Member
Probably worth noting that air transporting AFVs is a niche that is rarely ever used, and of little actual value today other than for very light vehicles, e.g buggies and other 4x4s.
Transport is mostly going to be via sea, and to staging areas via trucks.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
No it is not. The selected GDLS Griffin II MPF vehicle weighs roughly 38 tons. So, if they don't have an airfield capable of handling a C-17 it ain't flying in. Not unless they go all Japanese monster movie and have four CH-47s sling load it in.
It's 38 tonne if it has all of it's modular armour layers on. With only one layer its air transportable by C-130J. It takes one day to add the extra modular armour. That's what the video said in the link.
 

Stuart M

Well-Known Member
It's 38 tonne if it has all of it's modular armour layers on. With only one layer its air transportable by C-130J. It takes one day to add the extra modular armour. That's what the video said in the link.
How logistically supportable in a peer level war is any effective force of these tanks that are sent in by air though, particularly if it takes a day to get them up to their full armour rating?
Having images of Arnhem day 3/4.
 

Redlands18

Well-Known Member
How logistically supportable in a peer level war is any effective force of these tanks that are sent in by air though, particularly if it takes a day to get them up to their full armour rating?
Having images of Arnhem day 3/4.
If you want to use the Arnhem scenario then they would be up against MBTs. They are designed to overwhelm lightly Armoured forces, not go toe to toe with MBTs, suspect the outcome would be the same.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
How logistically supportable in a peer level war is any effective force of these tanks that are sent in by air though, particularly if it takes a day to get them up to their full armour rating?
Having images of Arnhem day 3/4.
That's why you have ATGM with you.
 

Stuart M

Well-Known Member
If you want to use the Arnhem scenario then they would be up against MBTs. They are designed to overwhelm lightly Armoured forces, not go toe to toe with MBTs, suspect the outcome would be the same.
Indeed, and this is the trouble with light forces without adequate support and reliance on plans going as they should, I advert readers attention to Tysons comments on plans.
 

Stuart M

Well-Known Member
That's why you have ATGM with you.
Sure, you have atgm's, and if you are reliant on a scarce, interdicatable, air corridor to supply them, and your light armour force with its combat requirements I sincerely hope the enemy is boys and old men on bicycles.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Sure, you have atgm's, and if you are reliant on a scarce, interdicatable, air corridor to supply them, and your light armour force with its combat requirements I sincerely hope the enemy is boys and old men on bicycles.
It all depends upon the plan and how long you are there for. I just use it as an example and one from memory put forward by Prof Geoffrey Till who's an expert in things like this. You make sure of good planning and good intelligence, unlike Market Garden.
 
Top