[Who Would have Guessed This 12 years Ago]

Re: The French Navy

Distinctly possible, but unlikely. The thing is no one besides the US or France can sortie a fighting force capable of projecting real power over distance. The Russian Navy is in sorry shape (Kuznetsov task forces always sail with a tug because the carrier keeps breaking) and China can't project a meaningful fleet that far, yet. So the RN could handle pretty much anything that could conceivably come (thanks to some excellent submarine forces) until the US or France showed up. England doesn't have any Maritime Patrol aircraft anymore, so even land based support wouldn't help much.

[Who Would have Guessed This 12 years Ago]

That has actually been discussed. I'm all for it. Give me something different.

The jolly old UK has just been gutted too hard and too totally. The RN today should have Nelson rolling in his grave. The decision to not include a CATOBAR system on their new carriers (if the second one is even commissioned) when the F-35B goes tits up will bite them in the ass, and they can't afford to send any reasonable surface group out. Hell if memory serves, when the Kuznetsov group (itself a joke of a platform) dawdled off Scotland, the UK had all of one destroyer in home waters. That happened to be in the English channel, so talk about a serious shortage. It's sad really.

[Modern-day Korea]

Here's some excellent analysis on the "Sea of Fire" claim Pyongyang likes to make about Seoul.

http://nautilus.org/napsnet/napsnet-special-reports/mind-the-gap-between-rhetoric-and-reality/

[ECM thoughts--From VT to PD?]

They don't, this thread is suggesting they should.

[ECM thoughts--From VT to PD?]

So, what does this have to do with the game?

EW level would effect the effectiveness of airburst artillery shells.

[Other Tanks]

I remember reading in Newsweek (or Time?) that training, equipping, transporting, and caring for a US Infantryman in Iraq cost $1 Million. Having been inside the military I totally believe that. I also believe you could do it for much less, but you get what you pay for. The only time such shortcuts would be made is in a WW3 scenario where Russia decides Europe has been naughty. By comparison, my flight training from API to the fleet has been estimated as $2-3 million, depending on who you ask. That doesn't include the capital costs of the aircraft, carrier, airfield, etc. If you look up the per day costs of USN carrier deployments you will be amazed. They're not cheap.

As for the argument that a Javelin costs $80k or whatever, that doesn't stop anyone. The infantryman is not going to be worried about the economic burden of his shot, only if he needs to take it to survive/carry out his mission. Javelin is and was used against infantry and technicals and all sorts of soft targets in Iraq and Afghanistan all the time. The cost of the missile is the problem of someone in the Pentagon or the Capitol, and they're not going to call you up and tell you to not blast some guy planting an IED 2 km away.

[Modern-day Korea]

The incorporation of China would make for the most interesting aspect. Those who assume they are still using human wave tactics would be in for a severe shock due to the recent and heavy modernization efforts done in both tactics and material recently. I would feel confident saying the Category A units of the PLA would give Russian forces a run for their money.

Seeing as the DPRK would be a lot like stock CMSF Syria, why not a Sino-Russo conflict instead? That would be a much more interesting dynamic.

[Now that Black Sea has Been out For a While]

I still think the 30mm system used on the A-10, mounted on surplus M1 hulls and mated with a modern but KISS fire control system would be a real winner.

Pointless.

The GAU-8 has a high rate of fire because even a slow aircraft like the A-10 only has seconds in which to target and fire. The RoF means that in those seconds, you will theoretically get enough hits to score a kill or disable the target. A ground based system wouldn't have anywhere close to that targeting constraint. A gun that fires slower and more accurately while using the same rounds would be more effective as it wouldn't burn through it's ammo load in <10 bursts. And the GAU-8 is not an easy or fast system to reload.

The only benefit would be the use of it for demoralization purposes due to the distinct noise, but if you were in an armored vehicle you wouldn't notice.

[Why doesn't the US Air Support roster in CMBS have the A-10 on it?]

Yeah you can get JDAMs and LGBs out of it, so it's as capable as any other jet we have in CMBS.

I'm 100% biased for obvious reasons, but the Super Hornet and the Growler are very capable platforms.  Maneuverable, high payload, great sensors, etc.  They only lack in acceleration (which new engines could fix - and be a whole lot cheaper than a new fleet of jets) and their range is average.  They are also the stealthiest non-stealth aircraft in the US arsenal (I'd claim the world but I won't go that far) incorporating a lot of RCS reducing features.  And then you get the Advanced Super Hornet which adds a stealth weapons pod, conformal fuel tanks, and new engines to overcome all those weaknesses.  And you could still buy 2-3 per F-35, on a new and proven airframe.  Plus 2 engines is always better than one when your only alternative is swimming.

And it has a gun.

So yeah, the F-35C sucks.
 

[Why doesn't the US Air Support roster in CMBS have the A-10 on it?]

As of 2017 the worst thing to happen to the US Military since Pearl Harbor F-35 will only be able to use JDAMs and LGBs.  SDBs and the gun aren't going to work until like 2019-2022.  It's a really bad aircraft and it's supposed to reach IOC at the end of the year.  I do not want to set foot near it.  Fortunately the Navy hates them too and is only buying them because they have to.

Semi-related:

Why doesn't NATO assign different reporting letter schemes for Ground Attack aircraft besides "F"?  Examples: Frogfoot and Fantan.  I know A is taken, but why not throw them under B for Bomber (similar role) or like I for interdictor.

Edit:  I've done some research.  F-35 will be able to use its gun in 2017 (Block 2B upgrade).  The SDB is still stuck until 2022 (Block 4), leaving the good ol' GBU-12 and GBU-38.

Source on SDB: http://thediplomat.com/2015/03/oops-us-close-air-support-bomb-doesnt-fit-on-the-f35/
Source on gun: http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space/strike/2015/01/07/f35-gun-on-track/21401907/

[Question...I thought the TOW missile could engage targets other than armor.]

I stand corrected. Even then, it still appears to require command guidance from the launcher so he's just as vulnerable. This would just prevent the various wire faults possible.

[Question...I thought the TOW missile could engage targets other than armor.]

I wouldn't think it would be suicide. First the guys have to see the missile fired and in a combat zone inside a buttoned up in the tank that's not the easiest thing to do. You also have to identify that the missile has been fired with enough time left for you to bring weapons to bear on the operator. secondly I believe some of the newer generation tow missiles are no longer wire-guided

The W in TOW stands for wire guided, so all TOWs have wires. They are a type of SACLOS missile which essentially means they need the operator to track the target the whole time. There are benefits and downsides of this, including the need to stay in place. There are other ATGMs that do not have this constraint, but true fire and forget man portable systems are exceedingly rare (Javelin is the only one I can think of right away).

Additionally, there are all types of sensors out there to detect and warn of launched missiles. Stealth is definitely not a sure thing in the modern battlefield regarding ATGMs

[Armata soon to be in service.]

"strongly discouraged"

I'm curious about how that's actually brought up in tanker training/within a command. Like is there a power point slide saying "yes we call them crunchies but don't find out why" or do you just wait for an E-1 to inevitably ask or what?

[Question...I thought the TOW missile could engage targets other than armor.]

I'm pretty sure if you use the Target command, they'll use javelins. I have the problem of my infantry squads wasting them on infantry when I use target. Maybe it was too close? If memory serves you need 50m.

[Why doesn't the US Air Support roster in CMBS have the A-10 on it?]

I recently completed FRS and transferred to a squadron with CVW-9. I fly the Super Hornet "E" model. For my own reasons I will leave it at that.

Besides a "Mad Dog" launch (again these are rare), the appropriate brevity for an AMRAAM is "Fox 3". It's before my time by quite a bit, but I believe it was the same for the Phoenix. The AMRAAM has also been called the Slammer, but that just seems to be a nickname as I've seen AMRAAM more often. I've also heard "long stick" (sidewinder being short stick). The Mr. AMRAAM remark I made up was inspired by the saying "when the pin is pulled, Mr. Grenade is not our friend." Seemed fitting for the Mad Dog. And I'd much rather take my chances with an actual pit bull than a missile doing the same!

[Why doesn't the US Air Support roster in CMBS have the A-10 on it?]

Re: sensors.I won't elaborate on specifics of the USN tech I work with, but rest assured 2015 is not 1985. As for Russians, all I know is from Intel briefs.

"Mad Dog" is the radio brevity term for that type of launch (boresight), hence why I used it (it's how we communicate it to each other). The name is fitting, it's a mad dog off the leash (trivia: "Pit Bull" is the call you make on radio when Mr. AMRAAM goes from inertial to active guidance). You do not get said tone, you don't get any tone.* The missile comes off the rail, activates its radar, and goes after the very first contact it sees. It's incredibly dangerous because of this. So conceivably a Warthog could use it, but a sidewinder is a better option because you have more feedback and control and the shorter range keeps it from targeting someone you don't see. There are other datalink options potentially available to the Warthog but at the end of the day if you're putting slammers on hogs, you have already lost the war.

*It's been a while since I trained with AMRAAM in that mode, you may get a "shoot cue" but I definitely don't recall any sort of indication as to actually who you will be shooting.

[Question...I thought the TOW missile could engage targets other than armor.]

TOW 2B is basically useless against anything but tanks. Two down-firing platter charges, overflight profile. There isn't even a contact fuse.

I'm going to go with 12 lbs of explosives going off in your face attached to a screaming missile are going to cause a bad day no matter what you're in, especially in a confined space like a building.

[Why doesn't the US Air Support roster in CMBS have the A-10 on it?]

An A-10 could kill a fastmover in only the most optimum of conditions like you stated. Modern AESA radar and IRST sensors have no problems picking out jets in the mud. The big issue is terrain masking, you still simply can't see through a mountain. Helicopters tend to do better at hiding from fighters than low jets, but both die when they're detected. And there are enough BVR missiles that a flight wouldn't even need to descend to engage said bandit.

And if a war ever reaches a point where A-10s are carrying AMRAAMs (and pilots totally unsure on how to use them), we'd have already run out of A-10s. The "Mad Dog" mode you talk about is appropriately named, because once that missile is off the rail it will find and kill the first thing it sees friend or foe. Dedicated air to air platforms are hesitant to use that mode, I would hate to have something not designed for the kind of target classification pulling the trigger.

[US delivers armor to baltics]

In the interests of standardization if nothing else, why don't the Marines operate the same type of Abrams as the Army? The notion of voluntarily choosing not to have a CITV strikes me as insane. Or worse.

I'm sure there's enough mechancial similarity between the Marine and Army Abrams that spare parts isn't an issue. As for why they don't use the exact same tank, that's primarily due to the low slice of the budget the USMC gets. Combine that with "every mean a rifleman," the expeditionary role as envisioned and now returning to, and the belief that the Army would always supply the endless fields of tanks, the Marines have never focused heavily on their tank forces. If memory serves, your average MEU of 3000 Marines only has a platoon of tanks assigned.

Edit: That said, I'm sure the HC FEP is a very capable platform.

[Valley of Death (spoilers)]

I played that mission as the Russians attacking and between the TOWs and Abrams I probably lost a company and a half of tanks. The US Optics pretty much always guaranteed they'd spot and fire first. So I think it's just bad luck for you.

[T-14 might be appeared... sooner than May.]

If you hear sawing noises and hammers from behind those obscuring curtains, those are just advanced targeting systems. Honest

[Breach by tank?]

Uncle Creighton laughs at the tea cart on treads

Nationalism aside, I'll defer to the experts. I do wish we had the option at least, with all the risks it entails.

[MANPADS in vehicles]

I'm assuming that most of the time, the MANPADS operator would dismount.  I believe the capability to fire from the vehicle is more for a situation when a column is ambushed and there is no time to dismount and get the vehicle to cover.  That said, seems totally reasonable for CMBS.

[Russian Air Support Needs AI Change]

Shooting guns to strip a tank first means it's going to go to ground behind cover right afterwards.

[Wild speculation: APS on helicopters and aircraft.]

Most, but not all, anti-air missiles do not actually impact the aircraft, but rather explode in proximity and hurl nasty shrapnel at the aircraft. This means that you need to either intercept every fragment (not feasible) or to intercept the missile before it explodes. Doing this second part necessitates a bigger interceptor due to range. This then creates a weight issue, and possibly an aerodynamic compromise. Aircraft don't exactly have a lot of free space left over. So a laser or a spoofer is a much better option than a hard kill.