NationStates

Posted: **Wed Nov 05, 2014 1:48 am**

What about you?

Argue? This is about discussion, is it not?

Why did you decide to do this whilst you are still "young" in NS?

Why does it matter? I thought this thread was about discussion?
If there is "seniority" when it comes to discussions, then I guess im at a disadvantage there.

Regardless of how your debate goes, your reputation is at stake here. I'd suggest to stop before you are ridiculed into oblivion, for your sake.

If my reputation is at stake for bringing facts into the discussion coupled with real world experience on the subject matter, then that says a lot about the quality of a few people here (not all certainly, but some).

Sometimes you need to sit back and let people who know more about the subject at hand explain it to you. Why keep at it and lose all the making of a positive reputation?

I realize that but this is not one of those subjects. You wont see me making arguments about naval warfare, for example.

Did anyone here specifically write that CAS was obsolete

Yes, Aelarus specifically said, "CAS has changed since the 70s" page 153. Also the arguments against the 30mm gun and A10 concept is also a argument against the relevancy of CAS as I mentioned before. Then there is the outright mischaracterization of my argument when it came to CAS and what defines it.

or that bombs were all that was needed to support ground operations?

Bombs and missiles, yes. Again, pertaining to the 30mm gun's supposed obsolescence.

Because, reading back through the thread, you seem to be arguing points which nobody even rose with you.

Go to 153 and up. They're there.

And either you're continually playing down the importance and ability of other aircraft now involved with ground support

No. The discussion was about the A10, not the importance of other aircraft involved with ground support. The importance of other aircraft in the inventory for specific roles cannot be overstated (to include the newer F22). While some aircraft may be flawed, that doesn't mean they are worthless. Thats stretching it too far.

or you're unaware of them, as you've consistently alluded all through this thread that the A-10 was somehow unique in more ways than one.

It is and I've already explained why, just like the other aircraft in the air force inventory are for their tasks.

Posted: **Wed Nov 05, 2014 2:14 am**

Cascadeland wrote:Did anyone here specifically write that CAS was obsolete

Yes, Aelarus specifically said, "CAS has changed since the 70s" page 153. Also the arguments against the 30mm gun and A10 concept is also a argument against the relevancy of CAS as I mentioned before. Then there is the outright mischaracterization of my argument when it came to CAS and what defines it.

By what grotesque stretch of the imagination is "CAS has changed" equivalent to "CAS is obsolete"? Seriously? Further, Aelarus is entirely correct; CAS has changed just how lots of things have changed since the 70's and brings with it a host of new requirements and new considerations while older considerations have faded into oblivion.

Further, the definition of CAS is literally as simple as aircraft supporting ground troops on the ground by eliminating direct threats. It is not limited to any specific type of aircraft nor specific type of munition.

or that bombs were all that was needed to support ground operations?

Bombs and missiles, yes. Again, pertaining to the 30mm gun's supposed obsolescence.

And again, I'm yet to see anyone who went as far to claim that bombs were all that was needed for CAS. The 30mm gun might well be obsolete, given that the new 20 and 25mm guns can do practically everything the 30mm gun can do as of the present.

Because, reading back through the thread, you seem to be arguing points which nobody even rose with you.

Go to 153 and up. They're there.

I did. I'm not seeing them.

And either you're continually playing down the importance and ability of other aircraft now involved with ground support

No. The discussion was about the A10, not the importance of other aircraft involved with ground support. The importance of other aircraft in the inventory for specific roles cannot be overstated (to include the newer F22). While some aircraft may be flawed, that doesn't mean they are worthless. Thats stretching it too far.

You can't have a discussion about the A-10 and why it's being replaced while simultaneously ignoring the biggest reasons of why it's being replaced, namely the aircraft around it. You continue to press the idea that the USAF will be lacking in ground support of a critical and obvious nature once the A-10 is retired; it's false. Between the two very different types of aircraft that will be left to share the A-10's role, there are no gaps.

or you're unaware of them, as you've consistently alluded all through this thread that the A-10 was somehow unique in more ways than one.

It is and I've already explained why,

What, you mean the saga about how A-10 pilots could benefit from the tighter-turning and slower platform by being able to pick targets out easier?

Hmmmm... I wonder which US Army aircraft would have similar attributes...

Posted: **Wed Nov 05, 2014 4:08 am**

"By what grotesque stretch of the imagination is "CAS has changed" equivalent to "CAS is obsolete. Seriously? Further, Aelarus is entirely correct; CAS has changed just how lots of things have changed since the 70's and brings with it a host of new requirements and new considerations while older considerations have faded into oblivion.

The contradiction in this statement couldn't be any larger.

If CAS has changed so much since the 70s, that implies obsolescence. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/obsolete

What exactly are older considerations of CAS that have faded into oblivion? I agree that new and more accurate weapons help increase the flexibility of CAS, although the basic concept of not using weapons with large casualty producing radii in close proximity to friendly forces is still a basic consideration. So, nut shell, CAS hasn't changed as a fundamental concept.

Sometimes troops get closer than 500 meters in close combat. Often times, within 200 meters. Again, the main munitions used in service, missiles and bombs, cannot be safely used within close-in distance unless you want to kill friendlies. Are there munitions that theoretically could be? I would certainly say so. They arent produced and fielded in large numbers (yet).

Like I said before, Close Air Support, which is, "is air action by fixed-wing (FW) and rotary-wing (RW) aircraft against
hostile targets that are in close proximity to friendly forces, and requires detailed
integration of each air mission with the fire and movement of those forces." http://fas.org/irp/doddir/dod/jp3_09_3.pdf

"Further, the definition of CAS is literally as simple as aircraft supporting ground troops on the ground by eliminating direct threats. It is not limited to any specific type of aircraft nor specific type of munition. "

...in close proximity. Not by distance, but by situation.

And again, I'm yet to see anyone who went as far to claim that bombs were all that was needed for CAS. The 30mm gun might well be obsolete, given that the new 20 and 25mm guns can do practically everything the 30mm gun can do as of the present.

The 30mm has more energy than 20mm and 25mm, not to mention the A10 having a higher cannon payload than fighter bombers carrying less. That is due in no small part to the A10 being purpose built to accomodate the gun.

Yes, the general argument against the A10 was the sophistication of bombs and missiles, particularly the maverick. What other alternatives are there if the A10s 30mm gun is supposedly obsolete? bombs and missiles. So implying that the gun is obsolete automatically shifts the argument in favor bombs and missiles.

You can't have a discussion about the A-10 and why it's being replaced while simultaneously ignoring the biggest reasons of why it's being replaced, namely the aircraft around it.

Which has been out of production for a time and past the lifespan for existing airframes. I already addressed this. In addition to the other issues it is being replaced in favor of the F35 when it comes to budgets. The obstacles in re-fielding A10s are currently insurmountable and the result would be an aircraft that greatly exceeds its initial 10 million dollar price tag.

You continue to press the idea that the USAF will be lacking in ground support of a critical and obvious nature once the A-10 is retired; it's false.

It will for the reasons I already mentioned about its attributes compared to, say, F16s and F35s. This is the disadvantage of a multipurpose airframe centered around aerial combat when compared to a dedicated, specialized CAS-centric aircraft. Im not arguing that those aforementioned aircraft are "bad", or that they cannot drop PGMs on designated targets if necessary. My argument is that expecting them to be as effective for CAS for ground troops as the A10 was is stretching the imagination to put it nicely.

What, you mean the saga about how A-10 pilots could benefit from the tighter-turning and slower platform by being able to pick targets out easier? *then mention of AH64*

Yes, absolutely. and the loiter time that can be used to provide overwatch for forces on the ground.

And helicopter gunships cannot completely replace CAS aircraft, namely the A10 (although they CAN provide CAS in certain situations). They dont have the survivability to resist small arms fire and the speed. See Karbala 2003. The Soviets also learned this with the SU25 vs Mi24 in Afghanistan. Gunships certainly have their place (reconnaissance and interdiction of IFVs and armor), but to replace a CAS or COIN aircraft? meh...

Posted: **Wed Nov 05, 2014 4:21 am**

This is one of the stupid debates I've ever seen.

Ever.

And thats saying something.

Posted: **Wed Nov 05, 2014 5:12 am**

First off, please learn to use the quote button. You'll see it in the bar when you go to reply to this post, two buttons to the left of the italics bar.

Cascadeland wrote:"By what grotesque stretch of the imagination is "CAS has changed" equivalent to "CAS is obsolete. Seriously? Further, Aelarus is entirely correct; CAS has changed just how lots of things have changed since the 70's and brings with it a host of new requirements and new considerations while older considerations have faded into oblivion.

The contradiction in this statement couldn't be any larger.

If CAS has changed so much since the 70s, that implies obsolescence. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/obsolete

Never in all my years have I seen someone actually quote the dictionary and still get the definition wrong.

Microwave ovens have changed since the 70's, are microwave ovens obsolete?

What exactly are older considerations of CAS that have faded into oblivion? I agree that new and more accurate weapons help increase the flexibility of CAS, although the basic concept of not using weapons with large casualty producing radii in close proximity to friendly forces is still a basic consideration. So, nut shell, CAS hasn't changed as a fundamental concept.

No different to microwaves still being used to cook food I suppose Hell, if we're going to use ridiculously broad generalizations and pretend that new and more accurate air-to-ground and ground-to-air missiles aren't critically important in this sort of context then I guess the world hasn't changed since '45.

Sometimes troops get closer than 500 meters in close combat. Often times, within 200 meters.

And often times, even closer. Not that this is relevant.

Again, the main munitions used in service, missiles and bombs, cannot be safely used within close-in distance unless you want to kill friendlies. Are there munitions that theoretically could be? I would certainly say so. They arent produced and fielded in large numbers (yet).

Israel has been supporting it's troops in the Gaza with Hellfire missiles in Gaza in what could be termed "close in distance" for years, as have the British in Afghanistan. The US probably have too at some stage. Either way, this is seemingly irrelevant and I don't think guns are fading from combat any time soon even if 30mm cannons are.

And again, I'm yet to see anyone who went as far to claim that bombs were all that was needed for CAS. The 30mm gun might well be obsolete, given that the new 20 and 25mm guns can do practically everything the 30mm gun can do as of the present.

The 30mm has more energy than 20mm and 25mm, not to mention the A10 having a higher cannon payload than fighter bombers carrying less. That is due in no small part to the A10 being purpose built to accomodate the gun.

Except rather than analyzing which gun has more energy, you also need to consider how much energy we need against what drawbacks it brings. Any of those rounds will kill infantry. Any of those rounds will split open a pickup truck ranging up to a lightly armoured vehicle. None of those rounds will be effective against modern tank armor. Why would you insist on a heavier, larger gun that offers no tangible real world benefit? Especially when the drawback is requiring the gun to be mounted on a specialized platform rather than a platform which can perform many different tasks during the one operation, as an F-35 could?

Yes, the general argument against the A10 was the sophistication of bombs and missiles, particularly the maverick. What other alternatives are there if the A10s 30mm gun is supposedly obsolete? bombs and missiles. So implying that the gun is obsolete automatically shifts the argument in favor bombs and missiles.

I would have said the AH-64's Bushmaster, or the F-35's 25mm. Implying that that gun is obsolete is not the same as applying all guns are obsolete. You'd do well to address specifically what was being said rather than trying to extrapolate and argue what's most convenient for you.

You continue to press the idea that the USAF will be lacking in ground support of a critical and obvious nature once the A-10 is retired; it's false.

It will for the reasons I already mentioned about its attributes compared to, say, F16s and F35s. This is the disadvantage of a multipurpose airframe centered around aerial combat when compared to a dedicated, specialized CAS-centric aircraft. Im not arguing that those aforementioned aircraft are "bad", or that they cannot drop PGMs on designated targets if necessary. My argument is that expecting them to be as effective for CAS for ground troops as the A10 was is stretching the imagination to put it nicely.

They aren't going to be as effective for the ground troops as the A-10 was. They were never meant to be because they're only being assigned half of the role. Unlike the A-10, when these replacement aircraft were designed, it was fully expected that attack helicopters would also be providing support. Everything these aircraft cannot to that the A-10 could, the AH-64 can and vice versa. That's the logic there.

What, you mean the saga about how A-10 pilots could benefit from the tighter-turning and slower platform by being able to pick targets out easier? *then mention of AH64*

And helicopter gunships cannot completely replace CAS aircraft, namely the A10 (although they CAN provide CAS in certain situations). They dont have the survivability to resist small arms fire and the speed.[/quote]
Attack helicopters (not gunships, they aren't based off something else) are not intended to completely replace CAS aircraft as I have stated. The nature of rotary wing means they do not need to be as well protected. They are designed to stay extremely close to the ground and minimize contact with the enemy, well behind the actual front.

See Karbala 2003.

Which was a fuck-up.

The Soviets also learned this with the SU25 vs Mi24 in Afghanistan.

If the Soviets knew how many stingers and blowpipes were in Afghanistan, they would have used their Mi-24's differently.

Gunships certainly have their place (reconnaissance and interdiction of IFVs and armor), but to replace a CAS or COIN aircraft? meh...

Combat records and accounts from Afghanistan and Iraq profoundly disagree with you.

Posted: **Wed Nov 05, 2014 5:46 am**

Cascadeland wrote:If CAS has changed so much since the 70s, that implies obsolescence. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/obsolete

This is the best quote 2014.

Posted: **Wed Nov 05, 2014 6:04 am**

Cascadeland wrote:If CAS has changed so much since the 70s, that implies obsolescence. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/obsolete

You mean the 1b definition? I've never heard of obsolete being used for old fashioned, I also consulted OED, 1b is an Americanism. Obsfuscating people with language differences is bad and you should feel bad.

Posted: **Wed Nov 05, 2014 6:52 am**

What's up with this lot then?

Posted: **Wed Nov 05, 2014 7:47 am**

Cascadeland wrote:Yes, Aelarus specifically said, "CAS has changed since the 70s" page 153. Also the arguments against the 30mm gun and A10 concept is also a argument against the relevancy of CAS as I mentioned before. Then there is the outright mischaracterization of my argument when it came to CAS and what defines it.

...

As for your previous comment on the USAF, why try so hard for one airframe?
Why not think, just for a bit, if we were replacing the F-35 with the A-10. Would it make sense?

Posted: **Wed Nov 05, 2014 9:58 am**

Cascadeland wrote:Even more words

Look, read this:
I adlibbed a bit here, but nevertheless

Hyperspatial Travel wrote:Here's the thing. You're the new guy. And this isn't a particularly friendly society to people who don't follow the (largely unspoken) rules. If you walk into highschool on your first day with your pocket protector at the ready, your suspenders tightened, and your Batman underpants worn back-to-front for good luck, you might cop some shit.

If you do that, walk in, and loudly declare "I'M THE FUCKAN BEST GAIZ, YOU JOCKS SHUT UP AND LISTEN TO ME I CAN KICK YOUR ASS!", you're going to get your head flushed. And you're going to spend your entire time hiding in the library with the other unpopular kids, two of whom are unpopular only because they shit their pants on a daily basis. You're going to want to leave, but you won't be able to. After awhile, you'll convince people you want to be there. That you really love the way shit smells. Especially Jeremy's shit, because he has a balanced diet and doesn't consume many dairy products.

It won't be true. And you'll have a bit of fun. But every time you venture out of that library, you're going to find yourself hair-deep in the one shit Jeremy managed to take in the toilet today before it gets flushed all over your face.

So here's what you do.

You conform.

Wait, what? Isn't conformity bad? Doesn't conformity make you like all those dickheads who you hate?

Well, yeah. It kinda does. But once people respect and like you, you can more-or-less do what you want. Here's the rub, though. You need to be respected and liked first.

So after a little humility, you end up being on the football team. Sure, you're not the quarterback, but you never get flushed. You may not be the most popular guy in town, but you're invited to all the parties, and you don't have to huddle up to Jeremy of a morning and hope that the jocks don't decide to wander into the library for a little sport.

And after a few months, people will just assume you're a fairly decent player and you deserve to be on the same level as them. You don't have to go around declaring that you're equal to the cool kids - nobody who's powerful ever needs to declare it. People just grant you equality by default.

Posted: **Wed Nov 05, 2014 10:39 am**

But really, we've been arguing about CAS for how many pages now? Can't we just, I don't know, move the fuck on?

Posted: **Wed Nov 05, 2014 10:41 am**

The United Remnants of America wrote:(Image)

But really, we've been arguing about CAS for how many pages now? Can't we just, I don't know, move the fuck on?

You underestimate the power of NSG.

Posted: **Wed Nov 05, 2014 10:45 am**

Vancon wrote:
Cascadeland wrote:Even more words

Look, read this:
I adlibbed a bit here, but nevertheless
Hyperspatial Travel wrote:Here's the thing. You're the new guy. And this isn't a particularly friendly society to people who don't follow the (largely unspoken) rules. If you walk into highschool on your first day with your pocket protector at the ready, your suspenders tightened, and your Batman underpants worn back-to-front for good luck, you might cop some shit.

If you do that, walk in, and loudly declare "I'M THE FUCKAN BEST GAIZ, YOU JOCKS SHUT UP AND LISTEN TO ME I CAN KICK YOUR ASS!", you're going to get your head flushed. And you're going to spend your entire time hiding in the library with the other unpopular kids, two of whom are unpopular only because they shit their pants on a daily basis. You're going to want to leave, but you won't be able to. After awhile, you'll convince people you want to be there. That you really love the way shit smells. Especially Jeremy's shit, because he has a balanced diet and doesn't consume many dairy products.

It won't be true. And you'll have a bit of fun. But every time you venture out of that library, you're going to find yourself hair-deep in the one shit Jeremy managed to take in the toilet today before it gets flushed all over your face.

So here's what you do.

You conform.

Wait, what? Isn't conformity bad? Doesn't conformity make you like all those dickheads who you hate?

Well, yeah. It kinda does. But once people respect and like you, you can more-or-less do what you want. Here's the rub, though. You need to be respected and liked first.

So after a little humility, you end up being on the football team. Sure, you're not the quarterback, but you never get flushed. You may not be the most popular guy in town, but you're invited to all the parties, and you don't have to huddle up to Jeremy of a morning and hope that the jocks don't decide to wander into the library for a little sport.

And after a few months, people will just assume you're a fairly decent player and you deserve to be on the same level as them. You don't have to go around declaring that you're equal to the cool kids - nobody who's powerful ever needs to declare it. People just grant you equality by default.

>Implying the seniors of this thread are "cool"

Anyways, What's the possibility of equipping a WW2 battleship with lots of anti-ship and anti-air missiles?

I'm going to show Padnak Battleships are still cool n stuff.

Posted: **Wed Nov 05, 2014 10:46 am**

Korouse wrote:Anyways, What's the possibility of equipping a WW2 battleship with lots of anti-ship and anti-air missiles?

I'm going to show Padnak Battleships are still cool n stuff.

Posted: **Wed Nov 05, 2014 10:47 am**

might be of use to you in your quest

Posted: **Wed Nov 05, 2014 10:50 am**

why must battleships look so cool but be so useless in modern combat

Posted: **Wed Nov 05, 2014 10:51 am**

Erusuia wrote:why must battleships look so cool but be so useless in modern combat

Because modern military commanders are incapable of moving close to a shore and bombarding kebabs.

Posted: **Wed Nov 05, 2014 10:53 am**

Korouse wrote:
Erusuia wrote:why must battleships look so cool but be so useless in modern combat

Because modern military commanders are incapable of moving close to a shore and bombarding kebabs.

Oh ya,

A while back, Pad and I took the whole remove kebab rant and played it back via google translate's voice thing, and we played Japanese pop music in the background.

Needless to say, it was hilarious.

You should all try it.

Posted: **Wed Nov 05, 2014 11:05 am**

Korouse wrote:
Erusuia wrote:why must battleships look so cool but be so useless in modern combat :(

Because modern military commanders are incapable of moving close to a shore and bombarding kebabs.

One Tallboy hit reduced Tirpitz to a floating battery. The steel on the warhead of the Shipwreck missile is pretty much the same thickness of a Tallboy, and it's hitting you at mach 2 instead of mach one. You do the maths.
Battleships as a surface-to-surface action platform are also heavily dependent on airborne assets telling them where to shoot, because even if you mounted a radar 50 m's up in the air it's not going to get more than 50 km's of actual detection range.

Posted: **Wed Nov 05, 2014 11:11 am**

Whats the best way to counter hostile SEAD operations?

Posted: **Wed Nov 05, 2014 11:14 am**

Erusuia wrote:Whats the best way to counter hostile SEAD operations?

Keep your SAM sites on the move, use decoys, perhaps even use decoys as baits next to hidden SAM sites.

IIRC that's what the Serbs did in the 90's against NATO.

Posted: **Wed Nov 05, 2014 11:15 am**

Erusuia wrote:Whats the best way to counter hostile SEAD operations?

Air Superiority fighters.
Attack whatever is launching strikes.
Etc.

Posted: **Wed Nov 05, 2014 11:15 am**

Erusuia wrote:Whats the best way to counter hostile SEAD operations?

Have air superiority.

Posted: **Wed Nov 05, 2014 11:16 am**

Erusuia wrote:Whats the best way to counter hostile SEAD operations?

Shooting down their planes with your planes. Only turn radar on right before you shoot then turn it back off again after shooting. Have observers placed so that you can spot enemy air operations without having to use radar, or try and break their communications for a similar effect. Move around your Air Defense batteries so they are less likely to be found and targeted.

Posted: **Wed Nov 05, 2014 11:37 am**

many thanks :lol:

NationStates

NS Military Realism Mk. 7: NO