If they fired simultaneously, I hope we get some pictures of the exercise similar to the one above from the earlier 2003 exercise.Naval Today said:
US Military News, Reports, Data, etc.
- Thread starter tphuang
- Start date
New report pokes holes in USAF’s argument for retiring the A-10
The US Government Accountability Office (GAO) has raised doubts about a US Air Force claim that retiring the Fairchild Republic A-10C Thunderbolt II would save the government $4.2 billion over five years, and says capability gaps will emerge without the close-in attack aircraft.
In a new report sent to Congress, the GAO says that the savings estimate is “incomplete and may overstate or understate” the actual amount. The document also claims that alternative cost-saving measures raised by the air force “were rough estimates that were illustrative only and not fully considered as alternatives to A-10 divestment”.
The report comes amid a heated debate between US lawmakers and the military about the wisdom of retiring the old but effective close-air-support aircraft. sought to cut the aircraft in its fiscal year 2015 and 2016 budget requests, but so far lawmakers have blocked the move at every turn.
The report, published 25 June, says the air force will not be able to fully support the close air support (CAS) mission without the , more commonly called the “Warthog”.
“We found that air force divestment of the A-10 will create potential gaps in CAS and other missions,” wrote the report’s author, John Pendleton.
The air force says the A-10 would be phased out over several years as the mission transfers to multirole fighter jets like the F-16 Falcon and , and to the newer as it comes online. But a Department of Defense planning scenario set in 2020 concluded that divesting the A-10 increases operational risk, the report says. Details about these potential capability gaps are classified, it adds.
The A-10 is considered to be among the best CAS platforms ever produced, and it also provides air cover to helicopters conducting combat search and rescue operations. The air force also needs them to train and qualify its joint terminal attack controller (JTAC).
The air force has plans to transfer some of its more experienced CAS operators to F-16 and F-15 squadrons, and says more JTAC training can be done with simulators.
In response to the GAO report, service secretary Deborah Lee James said the cost of keeping the A-10 would be to the detriment of the air superiority and global strike missions. She says keeping the A-10 would also mean fewer aircraft maintainers will be available to support new squadrons.
“Each of the combatant commanders support fielding advanced warfighting capabilities and would rather cut the A-10 when compared to cuts to higher priority mission areas,” she said in a 3 June letter to the GAO.
The air force has considered purchasing a low-cost A-X jet, but can’t afford it. “We certainly would like to have something that operates more efficiently than other airplanes we have today, that brings more firepower [and] that we can use in a low-threat environment,” USAF chief of staff, Gen Mark Welsh, said in April.
The US Government Accountability Office (GAO) has raised doubts about a US Air Force claim that retiring the Fairchild Republic A-10C Thunderbolt II would save the government $4.2 billion over five years, and says capability gaps will emerge without the close-in attack aircraft.
In a new report sent to Congress, the GAO says that the savings estimate is “incomplete and may overstate or understate” the actual amount. The document also claims that alternative cost-saving measures raised by the air force “were rough estimates that were illustrative only and not fully considered as alternatives to A-10 divestment”.
The report comes amid a heated debate between US lawmakers and the military about the wisdom of retiring the old but effective close-air-support aircraft. sought to cut the aircraft in its fiscal year 2015 and 2016 budget requests, but so far lawmakers have blocked the move at every turn.
The report, published 25 June, says the air force will not be able to fully support the close air support (CAS) mission without the , more commonly called the “Warthog”.
“We found that air force divestment of the A-10 will create potential gaps in CAS and other missions,” wrote the report’s author, John Pendleton.
The air force says the A-10 would be phased out over several years as the mission transfers to multirole fighter jets like the F-16 Falcon and , and to the newer as it comes online. But a Department of Defense planning scenario set in 2020 concluded that divesting the A-10 increases operational risk, the report says. Details about these potential capability gaps are classified, it adds.
The A-10 is considered to be among the best CAS platforms ever produced, and it also provides air cover to helicopters conducting combat search and rescue operations. The air force also needs them to train and qualify its joint terminal attack controller (JTAC).
The air force has plans to transfer some of its more experienced CAS operators to F-16 and F-15 squadrons, and says more JTAC training can be done with simulators.
In response to the GAO report, service secretary Deborah Lee James said the cost of keeping the A-10 would be to the detriment of the air superiority and global strike missions. She says keeping the A-10 would also mean fewer aircraft maintainers will be available to support new squadrons.
“Each of the combatant commanders support fielding advanced warfighting capabilities and would rather cut the A-10 when compared to cuts to higher priority mission areas,” she said in a 3 June letter to the GAO.
The air force has considered purchasing a low-cost A-X jet, but can’t afford it. “We certainly would like to have something that operates more efficiently than other airplanes we have today, that brings more firepower [and] that we can use in a low-threat environment,” USAF chief of staff, Gen Mark Welsh, said in April.
Navy’s Final Prowler Ends Operational Service
The Navy’s last operational EA-6B Prowler electronic-attack aircraft departed NAS Whidbey Island, Wash., marking the type’s end of service in the Navy after more than 40 years, Northrop Grumman, the aircraft’s designer and manufacturer. Hundreds of spectators turned out for the aircraft’s June 27 departure from Whidbey Island, which has hosted Prowlers since 1971 when the platform entered service. The EA-6B is “the longest-serving carrier-based aircraft in history,” states the company’s release. "Northrop Grumman salutes the sailors, naval aviators, and maintainers whose service and sacrifice shaped the remarkable career of the Navy EA-6B Prowler," said Pat McMahon, company vice president for military aircraft systems. With the retirement of the Navy’s Prowler fleet, the sea service’s electronic-attack workhorse is the EA-18G Growler, built by a Boeing-led industry team. The Growler entered service in 2009. The Marine Corps plans to keep flying Prowlers through 2019.
High Res
Farewell to this brave old warrior but right now for USN only
The Navy’s last operational EA-6B Prowler electronic-attack aircraft departed NAS Whidbey Island, Wash., marking the type’s end of service in the Navy after more than 40 years, Northrop Grumman, the aircraft’s designer and manufacturer. Hundreds of spectators turned out for the aircraft’s June 27 departure from Whidbey Island, which has hosted Prowlers since 1971 when the platform entered service. The EA-6B is “the longest-serving carrier-based aircraft in history,” states the company’s release. "Northrop Grumman salutes the sailors, naval aviators, and maintainers whose service and sacrifice shaped the remarkable career of the Navy EA-6B Prowler," said Pat McMahon, company vice president for military aircraft systems. With the retirement of the Navy’s Prowler fleet, the sea service’s electronic-attack workhorse is the EA-18G Growler, built by a Boeing-led industry team. The Growler entered service in 2009. The Marine Corps plans to keep flying Prowlers through 2019.
High Res
Farewell to this brave old warrior but right now for USN only
Jura The idiot
General
Brumby
Major
The kicker in the article is that out of the total inventory of 84 Aegis ships, only 3 currently are fully Aegis BMD capable i.e. at Baseline 9.
I would not word it that way at all. That is a very, IMHO, down playing view.
As of January 1, 2015, there were 33 BMD capable vessels, meaning 30 of those are not Baseline 9. But that in itself is a tremendous achievement and the existing later baseline vessels have a very capable system.
For BMD engagement, Baseline 7 and 8 vessels specifically received the complete transfer to COTS processing, added the Tomahawk fire control system upgrade, added Theater-Wide BMD (in addition to earlier BMD capabilities), introduced third-generation SPY-1D(V) radar providing major performance enhancements against stealth threats and all threats in the littoral environments, the capability for network-centric operations, the ability to employ the in-flight reprogrammable Tactical Tomahawk and to bring COTS and open architecture to Baseline 2 equipped Aegis cruisers, tailored upgrades for more Burke DDGs, and giving AEGIS cruisers greater capacity for technical data collection and enhanced area air warfare and cooperative engagement.
.
It is true that only three to date have the latest software upgrade to Baseline 9, which itself is primarily a new software environment creating a true open-architecture computing framework. Common source code shared among Baseline 9 variants will enhance software development, maintenance and re-use, and greatly boost the capability to support combat system interoperability improvements and enhanced capacity and functionality.
But the earlier baselines for BMD are already very, very capable ships.
Brumby
Major
I realise this is a news thread and I do not intend to unnecessarily extend the conversation. The key feature of Baseline 9 as I understand it is that it provides the Aegis system the capability to handle multiple type threats simultaneously. This is a qualitative strength that optimise deployment numbers both in light of fiscal constraint and in the limited number of vessels available. My comments were not in any way meant to downplay the Aegis capabilities.
I was surprised though that the number of fully Baseline 9 vessels are only 3 to-date.
Yes...but your wording "only 3 currently are fully Aegis BMD capable" implied that the others were less BMD capable...and this is not the case.
Those with Baseline 7 AEGIS capabilities are in fact pretty much fully BMD capable.
These earlier baselines will also allow those vessels to engage multiple threat types. Simultaneous is a fairly subjective term when you are dealing with a system that can be set to automatically engage. Earlier baselines do not lock AEGIS out of other types of engagements...they just get queued up according to threat.
Baseline 9 is a new, better architecture that is going to allow for much better future maintenance and computing capabilities.
As to only three being Baseline 9 right now...I honestly do not know. It is a moving target as more are being upgraded as they come in for that scheduled maintenance...but I am not sure which ones get it when. I do know that more and more are going to get it.