Heh repairs seem to be going well https://www.wsj.com/...-11576169299?mod=mhp

B-1s are cool, but kind of on my shit list. Low and slow approaches along I-90 into Ellsworth woke me up while trying to sleep off some college indiscretions more than a few times.

---

Pactimo brand ambassador, ask me about promo codes

You were being woken up by the sound of FREEEEEDOM WOOOOO!

:)

I’ve said this time and again but Russia is a shadow of its former self. Russia is in the midst of a full-blown demographic crisis which is impossible to reverse. They’re bleeding prime working-age and military-age males. The entire Russian education system is based on an apprenticeship program... which has many advantages... but sucks when the average life expectancy of a male is “officially” 65 (in reality it’s closer to 62). Russia’s knowledge base on things ranging from nuclear physics, to medicine, to things as mundane as welding and rudimentary electrical engineering... is literally dying out.

There’s two sides to this coin.

The good news is that the notion of the Red Army rolling across the NEP into Germany and France, invading Finland/Sweden/Norway... that’s firmly in the past. Russia simply does not have the manpower or industrial output to attempt such a campaign and they know it. However, Russia is an insecure power. They would prefer a shorter, more defensible Western border and a buffer between the Russian core territories and Western Europe. They would also like to have a “subject” population within their economic orbit and to control cities like Kiev for religious regions. In other words, Russia wants the Soviet Union back and they know if they ever want to reestablish it they have a very narrow time window in which to act.

The Kuz is just the most visible failure of Russian military hardware. Most of Russia’s road-mobile launchers are “undergoing maintenance” which is code for out of service (likely permanently). This severely weakened the land-based portion of the Russian nuclear triad. The air portion of their triad might as well not exist. That leaves just the sea-based portion of their triad... generally always seen as the most survivable... but U.S. subs are still better than their Russian counterparts and simple geography means that Russia cannot get a sub into blue water without NATO knowing about it (and tailing it). Subs are also expensive and the (operational) blue water portion of Russia’s fleet is projected to fall by nearly half by 2024. All of this means that NATO, arguably for the first time ever, is very capable of conducting a first strike and *winning* with comparatively little damage and few casualties (not that I’m advocating for such a strike).

Russia knows this and, for historical reasons, they’re paranoid. Hardliners feel they were vindicated when NATO expanded East and now those hardliners are advocating for the development of asymmetrical weapons. That nuclear accident a few months ago? That was one of two cruise missiles under development that are powered by a nuclear fuel source.

Yeah, and I get what you're saying. The thing is...we have plenty of CAS platforms for the permissive/benign threat fight. The issue we have is...CAS in a non-permissive environment. Which is why the USAF originally wanted to retire the A-10....it is becoming increasingly unsurvivable in a conflict with a peer competitor. The same with the AC-130, which may be the ultimate CAS platform, but it is very vulnerable...you may remember the AC-130 that got shot down during Desert Storm by a MANPAD because it stayed over the target area after dawn.

Bad weather doesn't hamper CAS operations with inertially aided munitions (IAMs) like the JDAM, as long as you can get good coordinates from the JTAC. I provided CAS for hours during OIF during the night of the really bad sandstorm with GBU-31s.

On call CAS that is available within minutes of anyone needing it would require many, many platforms, all dependent on the size of the area of operations. We solve that issue today somewhat by having aircraft fly "XCAS" missions, where they take off and orbit near the fight waiting to be needed. Of course, this isn't the most efficient use of resources to have them potentially just orbiting and then heading home, so it's always a balancing act of allocating enough XCAS missions to the need.

Ordinance vs ordnance:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ordinance

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ordnance

---

___________________________________________________
Taco cat spelled backwards is....taco cat.

I think this gets lost on outside observers. The pictures that have circulated of A-10s flying back missing half of a wing or riddled with bullet holes... I think that conveys an unrealistic image of their survivability. Can an A-10 absorb a hit from a MANPAD? With a bit of luck, yes. Could an A-10 absorb a 9M96 or a similar SAM? No. The A-10 has been a fine plane and served well but the sun is setting on it. The airframes are old and the money spent to keep the plane in service would be better allocated elsewhere.

https://www.thedrive.com/...it-tried-to-suppress

20 minute video well worth it

No other plane could survive those weapon strikes either, so that argument is bogus. The real argument is what aircraft can fulfill the mission the A-10 accomplishes. The answer, none currently available. The A-10 airframes can be replaced, the wings replaced, the electronics upgraded, so the aircraft can continue on mission just as the B-52's have. There are no replacements for either aircraft so they continue to fly as long as their mission exists. And close air support for Army and Marines is a very, very important mission.

Thanks for sharing that.

---

Suffer Well.

It is not bogus at all that the A-10 can't survive on the modern battlefield. That is simply fact. And we're not talking about whether or not an aircraft can take a hit and continue to fly; we're talking about not being engaged in the first place. And bolded, once again, this is just not true. It absolutely depends on the context of what is happening. Everyone wants to define the CAS mission as solely requiring a low flying airplane with a 30mm gun, and that is not true, at all. Now, sometimes it does...I will be the first to agree that there are most definitely cases where the only aircraft that will do is an A-10 with its awesome cannon. Or, sometimes what you need is something else entirely. For example, much of the SOF mission needs an AC-130 and an A-10 just won't do. But AC-130s aren't very survivable, either, which is why they fly only at night. But this notion that every single CAS engagement can only be solved by an A-10, or even a majority of situations, is bogus.

---

___________________________________________________
Taco cat spelled backwards is....taco cat.