Jump to content

A-10C improvements on USAF


Silver_Dragon

Recommended Posts

because the USAF does have a point.

 

 

In this day and age of modern precision guided muntions and newer avionics the old days of Slow and low being a necessity for ground attack are over.

 

 

 

A10 is too vulnerable for modern conflicts in a contested environment against a neer peer adversary. It simply found a new life as a COIN aircraft in low intensity conflicts purely because its the cheapest fixed wing aircraft to operate that is currently in USAF inventory.

 

Sure ground attack was always going to be inherently dangerous, but since A10 is no longer in production, there is no way to sustain attrition rates in such a potential conflict. They are non replaceable if lost in combat.

 

But you know what would be even more cost effective than the A10 for bombing Jidadi Joe and his Toyotas? or also filling CAS in low threat environment?

 

a A29 Super tucano or modernized OV10 bronco.

 

people like McCain or indivuduals like Pierre SPrey were literally living in the past in their idea of what a CAS attack jet should be in the 21st century.


Edited by Kev2go

 

Build:

 

Windows 10 64 bit Pro

Case/Tower: Corsair Graphite 760tm ,Asus Strix Z790 Motherboard, Intel Core i7 12700k ,Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 64gb ram (3600 mhz) , (Asus strix oc edition) Nvidia RTX 3080 12gb , Evga g2 850 watt psu, Hardrives ; Samsung 970 EVo, , Samsung evo 860 pro 1 TB SSD, Samsung evo 850 pro 1TB SSD,  WD 1TB HDD

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

McCain did have a point about the B-1 in that video. I’m a huge Bone fan, I have a family member that worked on the program after the merge, but we can all agree it is expensive. Using it for CAS is like shooting a depleted uranium shell at a snowflake. As you said, A-29 all the way. While I’m not holding out hope for A-10 functionality upgrade, it would be warmly received

Black Shark Den Squadron Member: We are open to new recruits, click here to check us out or apply to join! https://blacksharkden.com

E3FFFC01-584A-411C-8AFB-B02A23157EB6.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be fair, one could argue that using pretty much any modern Western jet except (off the top of my head) the Harrier, A-10, AMX and L-159 (and possibly the T-X program proposals?) is way overkill for COIN type missions.


Edited by TLTeo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

With the day and age of modern precision guided muntions and newer avionics the days of need Slow and low being a nessesity for ground attack is over.

 

A10 is too vulnerable for modern conflicts in a contested environment against a neer peer adversary. simply found a new life as a COIN aircraft in low intensity conflicts purely becuase its the cheapest Fixed wing aircraft to operate.

 

But you know what would be even more cost effective than the A10 for bombing Jidadi Joe and his Toyotas? or also filling CAS in low threat environment?

 

a A29 Super tucano or modernized OV10 bronco.

Neither of those will survive an SA-6 hit though. Also, what kind of jamming and flares package do they have? Unfortunately Jihadi Joe is getting a little more sophisticated.

 

Equally, any case against the A-10 could also be made against attack helicopters too. If an A-10 is used in an environment and way where the enemy can easily shoot it down, then an attack helicopter would be even easier to shoot down.

 

The A-10 certainly shouldn't be used pre-SEAD during an offensive, nor should an attack helicopter (although it was during Desert Storm). But there is the post-SEAD environment and also the defensive battle. Some potential adversaries, not mentioning any names, have nearly 100,000 tanks, armoured vehicles and artillery units, and could easily produce way more in the event of a war. Is there a guided weapon for every single one in the event of an onslaught? What about if some miss, or get jammed, decoyed, active-killed or whatever? There's no jamming a GAU-8 and it's a good way of taking out anything less than the strongest MBTs, and can maybe mission-kill even those.


Edited by Emu
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Neither of those will survive an SA-6 hit though. Also, what kind of jamming and flares package do they have? Unfortunately Jihadi Joe is getting a little more sophisticated.

 

Equally, any case against the A-10 could also be made against attack helicopters too. If an A-10 is used in an environment and way where the enemy can easily shoot it down, then an attack helicopter would be even easier to shoot down.

 

The A-10 certainly shouldn't be used pre-SEAD during an offensive, nor should an attack helicopter (although it was during Desert Storm). But there is the post-SEAD environment and also the defensive battle. Some potential adversaries, not mentioning any names, have nearly 100,000 tanks, armoured vehicles and artillery units, and could easily produce way more in the event of a war. Is there a guided weapon for every single one in the event of an onslaught? What about if some miss, or get jammed, decoyed, active-killed or whatever? There's no jamming a GAU-8 and it's a good way of taking out anything less than the strongest MBTs, and can maybe mission-kill even those.

 

 

Gau8 is overrated. Even with DU shells you still need high angle top down attacks against engine deck or turret top. otherwise the armor will still withstand it. Gau8 will only shred with ease lightly armored vehicles like personnel carriers or IFV's.

 

Statistically speaking most of the A10's armor kills have been with the maverick missile, not with the Gau8.

reality is Gau8 should be treated as nothing more than a backup the same way the M61 vulcan on fighter jets is a backup to its a2a missiles.

 

 

helicopters are generally vulnerable, but not as much today but not for the reasons you think they are. the reason why stuff like the Apache is deemed survivable enough for Modern conflicts is because helicopters are employed differently. With the Longbow the idea was to fire radar guided missile against ANti tank from beyond cover to not expose oneself to protecting sam threats againt a neer peer foe.

 

Since 2012 Apache also have ability to take control of drones for laser designating targets, or using thier onboard weapons system further reducing the need for exposure, whilst also being able to cover more territory. Ah64E's in turn have further sensor overhauls, plus LInk 16 intergrated making them network centric, and able to better operate with other NATO aircraft, be it fixed wing or rotary, and not just US army Longbow's/Guardian's,

 

Standoff weaponry > Guns

 

 

because its better to have a missile jammed or just totally miss its target due to random failure then unnecessarily put additional risk to pilots lives just so they can get in close enough to shoot something with their gun.


Edited by Kev2go

 

Build:

 

Windows 10 64 bit Pro

Case/Tower: Corsair Graphite 760tm ,Asus Strix Z790 Motherboard, Intel Core i7 12700k ,Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 64gb ram (3600 mhz) , (Asus strix oc edition) Nvidia RTX 3080 12gb , Evga g2 850 watt psu, Hardrives ; Samsung 970 EVo, , Samsung evo 860 pro 1 TB SSD, Samsung evo 850 pro 1TB SSD,  WD 1TB HDD

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

McCain did have a point about the B-1 in that video. I’m a huge Bone fan, I have a family member that worked on the program after the merge, but we can all agree it is expensive. Using it for CAS is like shooting a depleted uranium shell at a snowflake. As you said, A-29 all the way. While I’m not holding out hope for A-10 functionality upgrade, it would be warmly received

 

The Idea with B1's filling CAS role, is situational. A B1 bomber can be called away from a much more distant airfield, has longer loiter time than a fighter or an attack jet like the A10, and can use its targeting sensors to drop laser guided munitions or GPS based ones.

 

Guess what even B52's have been used in the fight against ISIL. I was at an airshow in London Ontario that had a B52H on display, and i talked with the crew. The pilot told me that with such a bomber they arent going to carpet bomb such a group with unguided munitions like in Vietnam. Such an aircraft allowed America to project power over Iraq/Syria from very long distances from as far as GUAM . They used precision guided munitions like laser guided bombs or JDAM's to conduct strikes strikes against ISIL in the early days of the aerial campaign before Tactical Fighter Squadrons from the USAF could be deployed to region or before the USN deployed carriers close enough to strike with thier Hornets.


Edited by Kev2go

 

Build:

 

Windows 10 64 bit Pro

Case/Tower: Corsair Graphite 760tm ,Asus Strix Z790 Motherboard, Intel Core i7 12700k ,Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 64gb ram (3600 mhz) , (Asus strix oc edition) Nvidia RTX 3080 12gb , Evga g2 850 watt psu, Hardrives ; Samsung 970 EVo, , Samsung evo 860 pro 1 TB SSD, Samsung evo 850 pro 1TB SSD,  WD 1TB HDD

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gau8 is overrated. Even with DU shells you still need high angle top down attacks against engine deck or turret top. otherwise the armor will still withstand it. Gau8 will only shred with ease lightly armored vehicles like personnel carriers or IFV's.

 

Statistically speaking most of the A10's armor kills have been with the maverick missile, not with the Gau8.

 

reality is Gau8 should be treated as nothing more than a backup the same way the M61 vulcan on fighter jets is a backup to its a2a missiles.

 

 

helicopters are generally vulnerable, but not as much today but not for the reasons you think they are. the reason why stuff like the Apache is deemed survivable enough for Modern conflicts is because helicopters are employed differently. With the Longbow the idea was to fire radar guided missile against ANti tank from beyond cover to not expose oneself to protecting sam threats againt a neer peer foe.

 

Since 2012 Apache also have ability to take control of drones for laser designating targets, or using thier onboard weapons system further reducing the need for exposure, whilst also being able to cover more territory. Ah64E's in turn have further sensor overhauls, plus LInk 16 intergrated making them network centric, and able to better operate with other NATO aircraft, be it fixed wing or rotary, and not just US army Longbow's/Guardian's,

 

Standoff weaponry > Guns

 

 

because its better to have a missile jammed or just totally miss its target due to random failure then unnecessarily put additional risk to pilots lives just so they can get in close enough to shoot something with their gun.

Yeah, and there are a lot more APCs, IFVs and artillery unis than MBTs.

 

Unless you miss a MANPADS, SHORAD or guided AAA system.

 

SDB = standoff weapon.

 

Not if the enemy is about to take your airbase with tanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Neither of those will survive an SA-6 hit though. Also, what kind of jamming and flares package do they have? Unfortunately Jihadi Joe is getting a little more sophisticated.

 

Equally, any case against the A-10 could also be made against attack helicopters too. If an A-10 is used in an environment and way where the enemy can easily shoot it down, then an attack helicopter would be even easier to shoot down.

 

The A-10 certainly shouldn't be used pre-SEAD during an offensive, nor should an attack helicopter (although it was during Desert Storm). But there is the post-SEAD environment and also the defensive battle. Some potential adversaries, not mentioning any names, have nearly 100,000 tanks, armoured vehicles and artillery units, and could easily produce way more in the event of a war. Is there a guided weapon for every single one in the event of an onslaught? What about if some miss, or get jammed, decoyed, active-killed or whatever? There's no jamming a GAU-8 and it's a good way of taking out anything less than the strongest MBTs, and can maybe mission-kill even those.

 

The problem against a peer threat is that it will be difficult to ever conclude that SEAD/DEAD has been effective enough to permit A10 operations. Russia and China have such ridiculous concentrations of highly capable and mobile GBAD systems that the GAU8 in particular is going to struggle to find relevance. I just don't see how you're going to use it without first accounting for the local population of Verba, Sosna, Strela, Derivatsya-PVO, Pantsir, Tor etc etc. (good luck with that :helpsmilie:)

 

When you include the fact that all of these systems are likely to be linked together and potentially sharing a common operating picture via the broader ISR network, you're looking at a system that is able to respond and "heal" itself in response to SEAD and DEAD strikes. I just don't see operating at the low altitudes GAU8 requires as a smart move in this environment. This is exactly where the Ukrainians got smashed by Russian GBAD systems ~5 years ago.


Edited by Boogieman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, and there are a lot more APCs, IFVs and artillery unis than MBTs.

 

Unless you miss a MANPADS, SHORAD or guided AAA system.

 

SDB = standoff weapon.

 

Not if the enemy is about to take your airbase with tanks.

 

You are really grasping at straws here and ironically fail to notice what you say proves my point exactly.

 

Just because i don't name every type of ground threat outside of MBT's doesnt mean i think those are the only ground vehicle out there. And exactly why you want stand off weaponry as the first and foremost .... because you cannot guarantee you can hit every threat down to the last manpad., and therefore reduce the risk of getting hit by not getting as close.

 

All guided missiles can be considered standoff, just a matter of how much.

 

thats why using any guided muntion with standoff range> as opposed to using Gau8 to individually acquire each separate target with a single pass, and a altitudes low enough to not be attacked by manpads but anti air guns. and yes SDB's would be great at smashing anything from technicals to tanks thus still can be utilized against " an enemy that is about to take your airbase with tanks",

 

you can launch SDB's at multiple targets at once. with the upgrades the A10 is getting, it will be able to simultaneously launch up to 18 SDB at different targets. Depending on model SDB's can use either INS/GPS, Radar or IR seeker ( or combination of all of the above)

 

 

 

 

dunno about you but potentially wiping out entire armored tank company or over saturating thier mobile air defences with so many additional incoming targets to shoot down to prevent its own destruction or those advancing mechanized units, all within a single pass is quite a lethal capability. Technically more if you want to consider multiple attack runsif you recall the statement that the A10 can potentially carry up to 4 per hardpoint

 

So yeas SDB will still be a very welcome addition even for subsonic attack aircraft like the A10.


Edited by Kev2go

 

Build:

 

Windows 10 64 bit Pro

Case/Tower: Corsair Graphite 760tm ,Asus Strix Z790 Motherboard, Intel Core i7 12700k ,Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 64gb ram (3600 mhz) , (Asus strix oc edition) Nvidia RTX 3080 12gb , Evga g2 850 watt psu, Hardrives ; Samsung 970 EVo, , Samsung evo 860 pro 1 TB SSD, Samsung evo 850 pro 1TB SSD,  WD 1TB HDD

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem against a peer threat is that it will be difficult to ever conclude that SEAD/DEAD has been effective enough to permit A10 operations. Russia and China have such ridiculous concentrations of highly capable and mobile GBAD systems that the GAU8 in particular is going to struggle to find relevance.[I]I just don't see how you're going to use it without first accounting for the local population of Verba, Sosna, Strela, Derivatsya-PVO, Pantsir, Tor etc etc. (good luck with that :helpsmilie:)

[/i]

When you include the fact that all of these systems are likely to be linked together and potentially sharing a common operating picture via the broader ISR network, you're looking at a system that is able to respond and "heal" itself in response to SEAD and DEAD strikes. I just don't see operating at the low altitudes GAU8 requires as a smart move in this environment. This is exactly where the Ukrainians got smashed by Russian GBAD systems ~5 years ago.

 

exactly

 

 

 

giphy.gif

 

Build:

 

Windows 10 64 bit Pro

Case/Tower: Corsair Graphite 760tm ,Asus Strix Z790 Motherboard, Intel Core i7 12700k ,Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 64gb ram (3600 mhz) , (Asus strix oc edition) Nvidia RTX 3080 12gb , Evga g2 850 watt psu, Hardrives ; Samsung 970 EVo, , Samsung evo 860 pro 1 TB SSD, Samsung evo 850 pro 1TB SSD,  WD 1TB HDD

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

exactly

 

 

 

giphy.gif

 

You are quite welcome. Personally I am not optimistic about the A10's utility against a peer opponent in general. SDB helps when you know exactly where the GBAD threat is but the A10's sensor and countermeasures suites - in my view - simply don't cut it if you don't. Even when the bigger S300/400/500 and Buk type systems have been dealt with you could still have the smaller independent systems I listed earlier pop up and nail you fairly easily. Add enemy airpower to the equation and things get really dire.


Edited by Boogieman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem against a peer threat is that it will be difficult to ever conclude that SEAD/DEAD has been effective enough to permit A10 operations. Russia and China have such ridiculous concentrations of highly capable and mobile GBAD systems that the GAU8 in particular is going to struggle to find relevance. I just don't see how you're going to use it without first accounting for the local population of Verba, Sosna, Strela, Derivatsya-PVO, Pantsir, Tor etc etc. (good luck with that :helpsmilie:)

 

When you include the fact that all of these systems are likely to be linked together and potentially sharing a common operating picture via the broader ISR network, you're looking at a system that is able to respond and "heal" itself in response to SEAD and DEAD strikes. I just don't see operating at the low altitudes GAU8 requires as a smart move in this environment. This is exactly where the Ukrainians got smashed by Russian GBAD systems ~5 years ago.

After the long range systems have been destroyed you can fly beyond the reach of the shorter range systems. An attack helicopter doesn't have that ability.


Edited by Emu
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are really grasping at straws here and ironically fail to notice what you say proves my point exactly.

 

Just because i don't name every type of ground threat outside of MBT's doesnt mean i think those are the only ground vehicle out there. And exactly why you want stand off weaponry as the first and foremost .... because you cannot guarantee you can hit every threat down to the last manpad., and therefore reduce the risk of getting hit by not getting as close.

 

All guided missiles can be considered standoff, just a matter of how much.

 

thats why using any guided muntion with standoff range> as opposed to using Gau8 to individually acquire each separate target with a single pass, and a altitudes low enough to not be attacked by manpads but anti air guns. and yes SDB's would be great at smashing anything from technicals to tanks thus still can be utilized against " an enemy that is about to take your airbase with tanks",

 

you can launch SDB's at multiple targets at once. with the upgrades the A10 is getting, it will be able to simultaneously launch up to 18 SDB at different targets. Depending on model SDB's can use either INS/GPS, Radar or IR seeker ( or combination of all of the above)

 

 

 

 

dunno about you but potentially wiping out entire armored tank company or over saturating thier mobile air defences with so many additional incoming targets to shoot down to prevent its own destruction or those advancing mechanized units, all within a single pass is quite a lethal capability. Technically more if you want to consider multiple attack runsif you recall the statement that the A10 can potentially carry up to 4 per hardpoint

 

So yeas SDB will still be a very welcome addition even for subsonic attack aircraft like the A10.

But what do you do if the enemy storms forward with tens of thousands of armoured vehicles after you've ran out of missiles and they're heading for your AFB, assuming the use of tactical nukes has been ruled out?


Edited by Emu
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But what do you do if the enemy storms forward with tens of thousands of armoured vehicles after you've ran out of missiles and they're heading for your AFB, assuming the use of tactical nukes has been ruled out?

 

Of course you grasp at straws again by presenting the most extreme scenario, and very unlikely in the exact circumstances you presented it with. Like lol !. Your gau8 wont save the day if there are still "10s,s of thousands of AFV,s"

 

 

When is the last time an american afb has been steamrolled by a mechanized force by " tens of thousands of armored vehicles" that they either failed to notice or was too large to repel( assuming the airfield is even worth holding by that point)

 

Oh right.....

 

Besides all afb,s are prime targets for air attacks. You can't hide such arields from aerial recon let alone satellites.

 

Chances are your afb is already bombed out to crap by the time any sizable mechanized forces are on its doorstep( assuming use of nukes is not permitted) , and if you still havent evacuated aircraft or personnel yet, then you have far bigger problems pertaining to ones in in command than whether or not guns can save your afb. The gau8 is nothing than a backup weapon ( which is overrated as it's not a railgun) , something I already said earlier and for use when applicable. So dont change your goalpost.

 

 

And for helicopter please stop trying to compare them to fixed wing aircraft, because they dont operate the same way.


Edited by Kev2go

 

Build:

 

Windows 10 64 bit Pro

Case/Tower: Corsair Graphite 760tm ,Asus Strix Z790 Motherboard, Intel Core i7 12700k ,Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 64gb ram (3600 mhz) , (Asus strix oc edition) Nvidia RTX 3080 12gb , Evga g2 850 watt psu, Hardrives ; Samsung 970 EVo, , Samsung evo 860 pro 1 TB SSD, Samsung evo 850 pro 1TB SSD,  WD 1TB HDD

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After the long range systems have been destroyed you can fly beyond the reach of the shorter range systems. An attack helicopter doesn't have that ability.

 

Only if you know where they are. Newer systems like the latest Tor and Pantsir variants can still reach pretty high up, especially against a slower target like an A10. It only takes one of those to pop up at your feet and you're toast.

 

I'd add that it's going to be really difficult to identify when the larger systems have been completely dealt with due to their mobility and their connection to other parts of the ISR network. What this adds up to is a situation in which the A10 is going to need to have its hand held by a lot of supporting assets (SEAD, fighter escort, EW etc etc) to have a hope of staying alive. Not ideal.

 

But what do you do if the enemy storms forward with tens of thousands of armoured vehicles after you've ran out of missiles and they're heading for your AFB, assuming the use of tactical nukes has been ruled out?

 

Surrender? Honestly if things are going that badly the only solution is probably a serving of B61's, not GAU8.


Edited by Boogieman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course you grasp at straws again by presenting the most extreme scenario, and very unlikely in the exact circumstances you presented it with. Like lol !. Your gau8 wont save the day if there are still "10s,s of thousands of AFV,s"

 

 

When is the last time an american afb has been steamrolled by a mechanized force by " tens of thousands of armored vehicles" that they either failed to notice or was too large to repel( assuming the airfield is even worth holding by that point)

 

Oh right.....

 

Besides all afb,s are prime targets for air attacks. You can't hide such arields from aerial recon let alone satellites.

 

Chances are your afb is already bombed out to crap by the time any sizable mechanized forces are on its doorstep( assuming use of nukes is not permitted) , and if you still havent evacuated aircraft or personnel yet, then you have far bigger problems pertaining to ones in in command than whether or not guns can save your afb. The gau8 is nothing than a backup weapon ( which is overrated as it's not a railgun) , something I already said earlier and for use when applicable. So dont change your goalpost.

 

 

And for helicopter please stop trying to compare them to fixed wing aircraft, because they dont operate the same way.

The scenario I presented is exactly the reason the A-10 was developed in the first place. It was a supplement to the Assault Breaker and Wide Area Anti-Armour Munitions programs. The idea is obviously to stop the enemy before they get within firing distance of your AFB. There is also an economical argument for a 30mm gatling gun.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Only if you know where they are. Newer systems like the latest Tor and Pantsir variants can still reach pretty high up, especially against a slower target like an A10. It only takes one of those to pop up at your feet and you're toast.

 

I'd add that it's going to be really difficult to identify when the larger systems have been completely dealt with due to their mobility and their connection to other parts of the ISR network. What this adds up to is a situation in which the A10 is going to need to have its hand held by a lot of supporting assets (SEAD, fighter escort, EW etc etc) to have a hope of staying alive. Not ideal.

 

 

 

Surrender? Honestly if things are going that badly the only solution is probably a serving of B61's, not GAU8.

Both of those systems are radar guided and hence detectable and locatable by JSTARS and EW assets. And I don't think anyone was proposing that the A-10 fly alone against such systems.

 

They're really not that mobile and they can't fire on the move. Any non-stealth aircraft needs EW support and even stealth aircraft too to some extent, so unless you propose getting rid of a lot of other aircraft too, this makes no argument.

 

Well I think you've lost the argument with that last comment. Basically what you're saying is that if the enemy's EW capabilities turn out to be better than expected, you propose coming out with your pants down and your a55 in the air. I would use both the GAU-8 and B61s before surrendering. I also miss those nuclear-tipped howitzer rounds. Even DoD simulations have shown that a lot of the equipment you're relying on might not work against a peer enemy, especially GPS.


Edited by Emu
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Both of those systems are radar guided and hence detectable and locatable by JSTARS and EW assets.

 

That's only if the SAM sites are using their own radars to cue missile shots. If they're getting targeting data from other parts of the ISR network then you're not necessarily going to be able to pin them down that easily. Set up time for S400 is something like 10mins if I remember correctly, so they're pretty damn mobile. Also bear in mind that JSTARS, Compass Call, Rivet Joint etc are all going to be aggressively targeted by the likes of Krasukha 2 & 4, Tu-214R (EA) as well as enemy airpower (MiG31 + R37) so they're not always going to be available when you need them.

 

Granted, you need support for any 4th gen airframe in this environment, but in my view the A10 is showing its age in the peer fight. It reminds me of our F111s (RAAF) - they were great aircraft for a long time, but eventually it became evident that they needed Hornets to escort them just about everywhere they went. This nullified the range advantage it had over the bug and eventually it was time to move on to something new.

 

Look, I'm not saying the A10 is obsolete per se, but I fear the Russian IADS would chew it up and spit it out nowadays and I doubt it would fair better with China (expansive maritime theatre). COIN ops like those in Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria are where it really shines, but they are a far cry from what a peer competitor would bring to the table.


Edited by Boogieman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

- replace ‘six-pack’ analogue flight instruments in the cockpit by a single large electronic primary flight display

In case they release it on DCS, I'll stick to the old one.

Those kind of tools can be more efficient for doing the job, but this is a hobby for me.

 

 

Gau8 is overrated. Even with DU shells you still need high angle top down attacks against engine deck or turret top.

What about the Crew ? Do they survive the shock waves ?


Edited by cercata
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's only if the SAM sites are using their own radars to cue missile shots. If they're getting targeting data from other parts of the ISR network then you're not necessarily going to be able to pin them down that easily. Set up time for S400 is something like 10mins if I remember correctly, so they're pretty damn mobile. Also bear in mind that JSTARS, Compass Call, Rivet Joint etc are all going to be aggressively targeted by the likes of Krasukha 2 & 4, Tu-214R (EA) as well as enemy airpower (MiG31 + R37) so they're not always going to be available when you need them.

 

Granted, you need support for any 4th gen airframe in this environment, but in my view the A10 is showing its age in the peer fight. It reminds me of our F111s (RAAF) - they were great aircraft for a long time, but eventually it became evident that they needed Hornets to escort them just about everywhere they went. This nullified the range advantage it had over the bug and eventually it was time to move on to something new.

 

Look, I'm not saying the A10 is obsolete per se, but I fear the Russian IADS would chew it up and spit it out nowadays and I doubt it would fair better with China (expansive maritime theatre). COIN ops like those in Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria are where it really shines, but they are a far cry from what a peer competitor would bring to the table.

Then the other part of the ISR network will be targetable. 10 minutes to setup, 10 minutes to unsetup, X minutes to move from A to B. Basically, it has to be largely stationary to provide effective air defence.

 

The A-10 leaves other jobs like SEAD and air superiority to fighters better equipped for that role, rather than trying to have an F-35 running SEAD, CAS and air superiority at the same time. The load carrying ability of the F-35 is also much smaller when used in a stealth configuration.

 

An intact Russian IADS would definitely chew-up A-10s operating alone, or F-16s, or Apache, or Cobras, or F-15s, or F-18s. That isn't my argument at all. They certainly aren't suitable for a day 1 offensive air operation, but that isn't the role they'd be used in, or the role they were intended to be used in.

 

Look at it this way, I could make all the same arguments about an Su-25. I think you're making the mistake of assuming 1 plane should be standalone. No equipment is standalone. I mean, why have artillery, since they are useless against air power, ditto for infantry? They all have a role and do not operate in isolation, so why make an argument that they should be able to?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What about the Crew ? Do they survive the shock waves ?

What about the exposed optics and armament on the roof, or the tracks? No need to destroy a tank if you can turn it into a useless tin can for anti-tank personal, friendly MBTs and ATGM-equipped IFVs to dine on. Mr. TOW, Mrs. Javelin and Mr. M829 will be happy to finish them off.


Edited by Emu
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm alittle surprised the A-10 isn't getting any updates to the engines. That said, SDBs on the Hawg is an interesting thought. :thumbup:

 

 

I think the USAFs issues don't lie with the A-10 as much as they still lack a true medium bomber/interdiction aircraft since retiring the F-111. The B-1 is too heavy and the Strike Eagle doesn't quite fill the same mold that the Vark did so well. I think they had an opportunity with the proposed FB-22 and even the revised YF-23 design for air-to-ground.

F/A-18C; A-10C; F-14B; Mirage 2000C; A-4E; F-16C; Flaming Cliffs 3

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then the other part of the ISR network will be targetable. 10 minutes to setup, 10 minutes to unsetup, X minutes to move from A to B. Basically, it has to be largely stationary to provide effective air defence.

 

So what? If it’s succeeding in its job you’ve got a serious problem. My point is that rolling back these systems might not happen cleanly on Day 1 or even Day 7, 8, 9 etc. It's highly likely that you're looking at having to operate in heavily contested airspace for some time - not the totally benign airspace found in Iraq, Afghanistan or Syria.

 

The A-10 leaves other jobs like SEAD and air superiority to fighters better equipped for that role, rather than trying to have an F-35 running SEAD, CAS and air superiority at the same time. The load carrying ability of the F-35 is also much smaller when used in a stealth configuration.

 

No argument there as such. That said even a “non-stealthy”, escorted F35 using external hardpoints will still lug a serious payload (up to 8 SDB internally plus I think 16 external), all while bringing with it better sensor & EW suites, better countermeasures, better MAWS, better kinematics… better survivability in the face of advanced enemy GBAD/SHORAD assets, EW and airpower...

 

An intact Russian IADS would definitely chew-up A-10s operating alone, or F-16s, or Apache, or Cobras, or F-15s, or F-18s. That isn't my argument at all. They certainly aren't suitable for a day 1 offensive air operation, but that isn't the role they'd be used in, or the role they were intended to be used in.

 

I agree that A10 sits on the sidelines on Day 1. My question is whether it ever becomes safe for the Hog to meaningfully enter the fray at all. I’m not confident it viably joins the fight on Day 2… or 3… or 4… etc.

 

I could make all the same arguments about an Su-25.

 

Not really. Western/US GBAD coverage is nowhere near as dense as Russia’s. This is in the process of being addressed – to an extent – by M-SHORAD. For now it basically consists of disparate Patriot/THAAD/Aegis Ashore systems positioned to protect vital assets... that's it.

 

On the flip side, take a look at how Ukrainian Frogfoots performed against pro-Russian GBAD in the Ukrainian Crisis. It wasn’t pretty. Bear in mind that the best Russian GBAD equipment wasn’t even being used against them, nor was Russian airpower.

 

I think you're making the mistake of assuming 1 plane should be standalone. No equipment is standalone. I mean, why have artillery, since they are useless against air power, ditto for infantry? They all have a role and do not operate in isolation, so why make an argument that they should be able to?

 

I am not suggesting the A10 should be able to operate alone. I am arguing that the temporal and spatial niche in which it CAN viably operate in a contested peer environment (EVEN when used as part of a larger force package) has diminished dramatically and is continuing to do so.

 

In a European setting those other assets it needs are going to have their hands absolutely full operating from airbases that will be targeted by Russian missiles & airpower, as well as conducting other vital missions like OCA, DCA, interdiction, SEAD/DEAD etc etc. In the Pacific the Hog is going to be nigh on useless as it has next to no role in a vast maritime theatre.

 

I’m not expecting the A10 to make a contribution on Day 1 in Europe – I’m saying/concerned it might still have to sit on the sidelines (or suffer disproportionately high losses) on Day 30+…


Edited by Boogieman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what? If it’s succeeding in its job you’ve got a serious problem. My point is that rolling back these systems might not happen cleanly on Day 1 or even Day 7, 8, 9 etc. It's highly likely that you're looking at having to operate in heavily contested airspace for some time - not the totally benign airspace found in Iraq, Afghanistan or Syria.

 

 

 

No argument there as such. That said even a “non-stealthy”, escorted F35 using external hardpoints will still lug a serious payload (up to 8 SDB internally plus I think 16 external), all while bringing with it better sensor & EW suites, better countermeasures, better MAWS, better kinematics… better survivability in the face of advanced enemy GBAD/SHORAD assets, EW and airpower...

 

 

 

I agree that A10 sits on the sidelines on Day 1. My question is whether it ever becomes safe for the Hog to meaningfully enter the fray at all. I’m not confident it viably joins the fight on Day 2… or 3… or 4… etc.

 

 

 

Not really. Western/US GBAD coverage is nowhere near as dense as Russia’s. This is in the process of being addressed – to an extent – by M-SHORAD. For now it basically consists of disparate Patriot/THAAD/Aegis Ashore systems positioned to protect vital assets... that's it.

 

On the flip side, take a look at how Ukrainian Frogfoots performed against pro-Russian GBAD in the Ukrainian Crisis. It wasn’t pretty. Bear in mind that the best Russian GBAD equipment wasn’t even being used against them, nor was Russian airpower.

 

 

 

I am not suggesting the A10 should be able to operate alone. I am arguing that the temporal and spatial niche in which it CAN viably operate in a contested peer environment (EVEN when used as part of a larger force package) has diminished dramatically and is continuing to do so.

 

In a European setting those other assets it needs are going to have their hands absolutely full operating from airbases that will be targeted by Russian missiles & airpower, as well as conducting other vital missions like OCA, DCA, interdiction, SEAD/DEAD etc etc. In the Pacific the Hog is going to be nigh on useless as it has next to no role in a vast maritime theatre.

 

I’m not expecting the A10 to make a contribution on Day 1 in Europe – I’m saying/concerned it might still have to sit on the sidelines (or suffer disproportionately high losses) on Day 30+…

 

Exactly.

 

not to mention such hypothetical attrition can no longer be sustained because the A10 is no longer in production, unlike some members of the teen series which have retained low rate production. Not that i think it would necessarily be practical to mass reproduce F16's or Super Hornets instead of just buying more F35's , but at least is an option on the table.


Edited by Kev2go

 

Build:

 

Windows 10 64 bit Pro

Case/Tower: Corsair Graphite 760tm ,Asus Strix Z790 Motherboard, Intel Core i7 12700k ,Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 64gb ram (3600 mhz) , (Asus strix oc edition) Nvidia RTX 3080 12gb , Evga g2 850 watt psu, Hardrives ; Samsung 970 EVo, , Samsung evo 860 pro 1 TB SSD, Samsung evo 850 pro 1TB SSD,  WD 1TB HDD

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...