Forum: Air Power

FDiron wrote:

Interesting point TwinTwinSingle. Some of the kills made on the Marine AAVs were made with maverick missiles. I assume they were the optical ones, not the IR. Why wasnt the distinct shape of the AAVs a dead give away to the A-10 pilots?

Also, I know everyone is hog-wild about the A-10s 30mm cannon. But it can't penetrate the front armor of even the T-55. It has to go for rear and side hits (even though the rounds hit from the top). So is it really a big advantage to have that type of cannon? (Source: A-10 manual)

A Maverick (IR or EO) shot from typical employment ranges does not permit a positive ID of an object (as either friendly or enemy). In fact, Joint Doctrine (JP 3-09.3) does not ALLOW aircrew operating in the attack role to make the determination of friendly or enemy. The responsibility for that lies with the Forward Air Controller. Can you get an idea of what it is that's in the Maverick field of view? Yes. You can determine (in most cases) that it is a tank or a truck or a building. You cannot, through the Maverick, say definatively, that it is a T-72 and not an M-1, or an AAV and not a BMP. As different as those vehicles may look in person, the differences are not readily apparent at several thousand feet slant-range.

Attack crews must, through coordination with the FAC (whether that FAC is airborne or on the ground), determine that they are indeed looking at and targeting the same thing that the FAC wants them to target. There are several procedures in place in 3-09.3 to accomplish this. However, the FAC must do the PID (positive ID) of the target BEFORE assigning it to the fighters. Without going into detail, the FAC on that fateful day made a mistake and the A-10 pilots did not catch the mistake and executed as directed.

As for the 30mm effectiveness. You are absolutely correct that it cannot execute a frontal attack on a Main Battle Tank. Tank frontal armor is designed to stop a MBT gun round (85mm and up). You won't penetrate it with any gun carried on a fighter. However, the GAU-8 round has 10x the impact energy of a 20mm round fired from the M61 gun found in most fighters. 10x more power! That's nothing to sneeze at. That coupled with the accuracy of the gun (because it and the jet were built to attack ground targets) makes it a weapon that is effective for all but a few CAS targets. So, it is the FLEXIBILITY of the gun-aircraft combination to effectively attack multiple target sets that make it the primary weapon of the A-10.

F-16.net Sponsor

bruant328 wrote:

There was a big debate in the late 80s over whether the A-10 should be replaced by a CAS dedicated version of the F-16 known as the A-16. The USArmy and the USAF wanted the A-16. I think that in a WarPac level of SHORAD, A-16 wins out. Opinions?

Against Soviet forces the A-10 might have just been a clay pigeon with its size and speed - but that threat went away and the A-10 could now thrive in a reduced threat environment which it has done.

On the issue of engine placement and IR signature - Iraqi MANPADs like SA-16s didnt have much problem hitting the A-10s in 1991 when they came down into range - some were even brought down by a single missile - its also down to luck and where you get hit.
For example even in Nam there are several photos of VNAF F-5s making it back after being hit by SA-7s.

F-16 SAM shootdowns include being hit by SA-6 and SA-2 types which have far larger warheads than MANPADs so I would dispute that an A-10 would be any more survivable if hit by one of those suckers!

Yeah, I was surprised by the loss of an A-10 in OIF due to a manpad also. The survivability of the A-10 is overplayed I think. All aircraft are fragile.

I'm not sure how much this applies, but a post-WWII study showed that the survivability of a bomber depended mainly on it's speed.

flighthawk wrote:

Against Soviet forces the A-10 might have just been a clay pigeon with its size and speed - but that threat went away and the A-10 could now thrive in a reduced threat environment which it has done.

On the issue of engine placement and IR signature - Iraqi MANPADs like SA-16s didnt have much problem hitting the A-10s in 1991 when they came down into range - some were even brought down by a single missile - its also down to luck and where you get hit.
For example even in Nam there are several photos of VNAF F-5s making it back after being hit by SA-7s.

F-16 SAM shootdowns include being hit by SA-6 and SA-2 types which have far larger warheads than MANPADs so I would dispute that an A-10 would be any more survivable if hit by one of those suckers!

I got one guy on my side!!

Anyone willing to flip the question I posed? How about a F-10? An air superiority version of the A-10. Mr. Green

CAS/SAR missions are definitely where the A-10 shows its top shelf quality, that's for sure...

I just think that the A-16 looked oh so sexy in European I camo though! In Love

flighthawk wrote:

bruant328 wrote:

There was a big debate in the late 80s over whether the A-10 should be replaced by a CAS dedicated version of the F-16 known as the A-16. The USArmy and the USAF wanted the A-16. I think that in a WarPac level of SHORAD, A-16 wins out. Opinions?

Against Soviet forces the A-10 might have just been a clay pigeon with its size and speed - but that threat went away and the A-10 could now thrive in a reduced threat environment which it has done.

On the issue of engine placement and IR signature - Iraqi MANPADs like SA-16s didnt have much problem hitting the A-10s in 1991 when they came down into range - some were even brought down by a single missile - its also down to luck and where you get hit.
For example even in Nam there are several photos of VNAF F-5s making it back after being hit by SA-7s.

F-16 SAM shootdowns include being hit by SA-6 and SA-2 types which have far larger warheads than MANPADs so I would dispute that an A-10 would be any more survivable if hit by one of those suckers!

I see it that way too. The SHORAD threat has become much more potent over the years. No doubt the Iraq experience directly contributed to the upgraded Warthog with long-range sensors and precision-kill capability.. There's safety/reaction time in distance. The A-10 was conceived in the cold war envisioning an all-out war vs the Soviet tank fleet. The A10 would dish out heavy punsihment, and help blunt the armored juggernaut but would no doubt suffer very heavy losses in the process.. but that was acceptable if they could buy time for NATO to respond.

Sensors and additional precision weapons capability was added to the A-10 to increase its flexibility and allow it to do its job (supporting the ground commander) better. Little survivablity has been gained by these improvements. It has added the ability to accurately deliver a weapon and stay out of the SA/AW and (some) MANPADS engagement zones, so there has been some survivability increase. The ability to "stiff-arm" a radar threat, however, is not realistic. In addition, the needs of the ground commander don't always lend themselves to high-altitude deliveries. This requires the A-10, or any CAS airplane, to come down into the threat to effectively accomplish CAS. This is where the A-10 makes its money. It can deliver LGB and J-series weapons with the same or better accuracy of its pointy-nose brethren AND can accurately/proficiently deliver close-range weapons (30mm, rockets, unguided bombs) AND can accurately/proficiently deliver anti-armor weapns (AGM-65, 30mm). This is a flexibility in the CAS mission set that other jets/pilots simply do not have. That's why I contend that, if you look at the ability of the aircraft to accomplish missions across the spectrum of CAS, there is no comparison to the A-10. This coming from a guy who doesn't fly the thing anymore.

Yup, I did A-10’s from 80-82 / 94-98 / 07-08/ … other than LASTE {when I got back on them}, the C model upgrades are totally sick! MPDs, MFD’s, but that Digital Clock Rocks!
And like the 1911 .45, the GAU 8 will be with us for some time!

Good jet, ranks #3 with me because it doesn't go fast enough! Very Happy

Salute!

I really like the way this guy Twin talks.

Sounds like he's been there, done that, has a tee-shirt or two.

Back when the Earth was still cooling and the Viper was operational for a year or two I tried the Fast FAC mission with it using BDU-33 smoke versus WP rocks. I could maneuver lots better than the SLUF, not as good as the Warthog or A-37. My feeling was the Viper would make an excellent Fast FAC.

I am constantly disturbed by the Nintendo generation and Viper pilot wannabes here that are enamored with high tech and pretty planes. Hell, with about 2500 hours in planes with short, stubby noses, it was cool to fly one with a pointy nose, heh heh.

The Warthog has proven itself with respect to basic ack and such battle damage while flying down amongst them. And as Twin-breath says, ya gotta get down amongst them for many of the CAS/CSAR and COIN missions. Target ID is important, and reaction time is measured in seconds. Something the drones can't do.

I am a proponent of advanced avionics, and the days of TLBR ( that looks 'bout right) weapon delivery are gone, except for the cannon.

15 years ago I did the cockpit display and weapon control algorithms for the millimeter wave Maverick and had a point-and-shoot mode for the 'hog pilot or Viper pilot to use. The manufacturer had not thought of that. Sheesh. The seeker could easily pick out a tank or BTR or .....

I also did the same thing for the initial Harpoon for the Viper.

The CAS and CSAR missions require flexibility and quick reaction times more than speedy, neat-looking jets. We have plenty of avionics systems to put on old airframes to help accomplish the mission. We cannot afford a huge buy of F-35's, and I sure wouldn't place them in a relatively low threat environment when some gomer could hose one down because he was down in the weeds trying to support a grunt platoon or special ops bunch in a Third World location.

For interdiction missions and pre-planned strikes, I love the JDAM and other new things we have. But for close support and rapid reaction I want something like the Warthog that has some new avionics and easy-to-use computed weapon delivery systems. I almost got kicked outta the Air Force back in 1974 for bringing up this idea for the A-10. The thing needed the same system as the SLUF had, but too many 'hog proponents claimed it could do the job using TLBR weapon delivery, no inertial, no map display, no nothing. Hell, they wanted a jet-powered A-1.

I need Snake to comment here.

Gums sends....

Interesting debate here. It’s tough to beat the A-10 as a pure CAS platform.

But this debate, back in the 1980s, was not really about CAS but rather about BAI/AI. And this, the Air Force contended, the A-16 could do much better. Under the Army’s extended non-linear battlefield concept (think AirLand Battle), the preponderance of air force support missions shifted away from CAS (30%) to the deeper BAI (70%) type missions for which the A-10 was not considered suitable in a Fulda Gap type environment.

Both the Army and Air Force supported the A-16 not because they thought it was better at CAS than the A-10 but because it was better at BAI and could do a decent job of CAS. There was a bit of subterfuge involved here as the actual requirements for the A-10 replacement changed from a primarily CAS platform with secondary low to mid intensity BAI capability to a primarily BAI platform that could do a good job of CAS. Both the DOD and the GAO called the Air Force on this but in the end it didn’t matter because the Cold War ended and no A-16’s were bought anyway.

What saved the A-10 was not so much its performance in the Persian Gulf but rather the dissolution of that high-intensity WarPac threat. If we weren’t going to be fighting WWIII, then the A-10 could stay.

Salute!

Good points, Ski.

I would much rather to have flown the Viper in the mid-80's for the BAI and interdiction missions than the 'hog.

We didn't need a lot of cosmic avionics back then for those missions as there would not have been FACs or drones or grunts to help us, It would have been "search and destroy" or a quick low level to a bridge or something else.

When I got my letter of reprimand in 1974 I was proposing both the Warthog and the SLUF - both! We SLUF jocks could do much better than the Warthog on interdiction and such. The 'hog could fly circles around us on CAS or CSAR, except it didn't have a computer-assisted weapon delivery capability. Trust me, a simple inertial and well-integrated HUD would have made the Warthog cosmic. And that was not an expensive mod even then

USAF wanted the thing really badly and testified before Congress that it didn't need fancy computers. So Congress made USAF bite the bullet. All of us that had flown the SLUF and Hun and Thud and Skyraider knew better. So to get the Warthog, USAF sacrificed the SLUF and made stoopid claims about the Warthog's capability.

As we are seeing, and as Ski has pointed out, we still have a requirement for planes in a low-intensity conflict at austere locations.

I have talked about this with Ski privately, and extensively. The dude knows a lot about these things, and has published thoughts in various journals.

+++++++++++++++++

For the techno-geeks here, I incorporated helmet sights in all of my designs for the attack planes/helos. Same for simple point-and-shoot computed cannons/rocks and eggs. Hell, we're talking 1970's technology. The Pave Penny and similar sensors even back then could acquire a laser spot and project the point on the HUD, even the original Warthog.

The Maverick is about what Twin has said. The IIR version was able to pick out a tank much further away than the original EO ones, especially in the Fulda Gap scenario. The original Mavericks were so crappy in a forest that you could acquire a tank visually and strafe it before getting a Maverick to lock on. The MMW one I worked on was intended for a FAC or grunt clearance, then the pilot could hose the sucker off from 3 or 4 miles away. The point-and-shoot mode was good if you saw the tgt visually, as you didn't need to look at the TV presentation and lock on.

later,

Gums sends...

I agree with what Gums, Twin, and Ski have been saying. The RPAs have good eyes, but no speed. The Viper has the speed, but isn't as survivable as the Warthog. The Warthog can't fly as fast as the Viper, but the C model upgrades have ensured that it will stick around.

I'm hoping that the AF will take a serious look at the OV-10X. It too is limited in speed and survivability, but it will provide some good standoff capability for other aircraft, i.e., "Buddy Lasing", and will have sensors on par with the newer RPAs on the market. Plus, it will have the austere runway capability which Gums speaks of.

Just watch this video, imagine if this was an A-16. I highly doubt that an A-16 would have survived and return home:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1BecNTYPYbU

Thank you for the kind words Sir Gums! I feel my head swelling already. But, yes, I have benefited much from our conversations. I will be sending my doctrine project over to you for some advice later this month.

The funny thing about the A-7 is that if the Air Force had gotten its way, we’d have seen the A-16/A-7F duo replace the A-10 in the Air Force and Guard respectively, leaving just over a hundred (O)A-10s to serve in the FAC role.

Forum: Air Power

A-16 Close air Support vs. A-10