Forum: Air Power

Amen strafer. Many a 'Hog Driver owe their lives to the survivablity of the jet. Not just the ability to take a hit (a well known 'Hog attribute), but also the ability to avoid a hit via chaff/flare/maneuver (an often underrated aspect). However, the number of pilots saved by the 'Hog pales in comparison to the number of ground troops that are walking the earth today because the Pig saved their bacon.

F-16.net Sponsor

True enough, but that's also why they built them. Cheers

Salute!

I go with Twin and Stoly.

I flew the A-37 and the A-7 on actual CAS missions. Never had the oppo with the Viper. in fact, I never even practiced CAS in the beast. It was all interdiction and SEAD.

The SLUF had the computed dumb bomb capability, but it needed it as we couldn't drop down when you can "see the whites of their eyes". Speed and turn radius was a problem.

The A-37 was very maneuverable and we avoided a lot of hits due to that and the small size. We were very accurate, like the Warthog. But we were not as survivable if hit by big rounds.

The 'hog is what I would want to fly today if it had a computed dumb bomb delivery capability. Same for that awesome gun.

I thought this thread was over, dammit. those of us who have actually been there, done that and have the tee shirts seem to agree.

Let it go.

I loved the Viper. I loved the SLUF. I loved the A-37.

If I had to do it today I would take a Warthog with upgraded avionics.

Gums sends ...

Gums wrote:

Salute!

I go with Twin and Stoly.

I flew the A-37 and the A-7 on actual CAS missions. Never had the oppo with the Viper. in fact, I never even practiced CAS in the beast. It was all interdiction and SEAD.

The SLUF had the computed dumb bomb capability, but it needed it as we couldn't drop down when you can "see the whites of their eyes". Speed and turn radius was a problem.

The A-37 was very maneuverable and we avoided a lot of hits due to that and the small size. We were very accurate, like the Warthog. But we were not as survivable if hit by big rounds.

The 'hog is what I would want to fly today if it had a computed dumb bomb delivery capability. Same for that awesome gun.

I thought this thread was over, dammit. those of us who have actually been there, done that and have the tee shirts seem to agree.

Let it go.

I loved the Viper. I loved the SLUF. I loved the A-37.

If I had to do it today I would take a Warthog with upgraded avionics.

Gums sends ...

Gums, my brother, you got your wish. Sign back up and dust off that old flightsuit. The Pig has had computed delivery since the early '90's and now with the A-10C has all the latest CAS capes you could ask for. moving map, targeting pod, JDAM, LGB, data link, it's sweet. Best of all, it can still go "old school" with the map and grease pencil and get the J.O.B. done with the 30mm, WP's and 82's. You'd love it!

Been awhile and I finally read through all of this topic...and I was just going to say the same thing that Twin said... Smile

The A-10C has been modded to carry, deploy, and do almost everything the F-16 can...and more. And while they are sending many F-16s to the boneyard, more and more (until all) A-10s are being modded to A-10Cs with a lot being pulled out of the boneyard. These back from the dead "Zombie Hawgs" are even equipped with OBOGS at Spang, and soon to be on all Hogs. Something we never saw with our 19 years of F-16s at my base.

Saw some cool CAS videos from our 16s on the SIPERNET in Iraq, but I have to believe in the current climate that the Hog is better in that mission.

Just a personal observation since my base converted from F-16s to A-10s this year...

Talk to a soldier who has been on the ground in Iraq or Afghanistan. They LOVE the Hog and will shake your hand if you work or fly them. I never got that as a Falcon Fixer...even though we kicked some butt in Iraq too.

Gums, Twin, Ski and TC

Just up on this one but interesting as in 79 through 83 I was the Chief of Offensive Air Operations for all of Central Europe working out of AFCENT in the Netherlands. So there are a couple of points I'd like to offer.

First was the survivability of our Wild Weasel forces that would precede any strike forces against enemy forces either on the front lines or in the second echelon. Since there was only one 24 U.E. squadron of F-4G's in country and another 48 due in country within 72 hours it was going to be difficult breaching the SA 6, 7, and 8's but more importantly the ZSU-24's that could acquire and lockup in near nano seconds. Add to this that these assests were deployed in a layered fashion well behind the front lines. Because of this we figured that we would only have SEAD support for about the first 48 hours regardless of what profile or airspeed we flew. After that strike forces would have to go it alone until the two remaining "G" squadrons arrived from George. And with what was expected in the Fulda Gap at that time that was going to be a hellava long time for Ivan to gain valuable ground.

Next was the desire by our CINC to strike the second echelon before they crossed the Oder some miles well behind the expected forward lines. He was determined to use the F-111's out of the U.K. flying at very low level using terrain avoidance radar and flying at warp 12 and then pop on the bridges and take them out with the best guided munitions we had at the time. I had to explain to him, very carefully, that if we did that we would be very lucky if 30 per cent of that force would survive with only a 50% change of that force hitting the target because our intell, along with photos showed that revetments had been prepared for the Sam's and ZSU's at all of the bridges that could support the soviet heavy armour. I also explained that if we did realize such loses we would also lose the capability to go to the Nuc option which was also a follow up role for the 111's.

I bring these up to re-enforce a couple of things I have been tying to get across in the other COIN thread. And that being first you need a bird that has a high degree of survivability in any Airland battle scenario because the bad guys are going to take all the necessary steps to take us out and it ain't going to be like Iraq where we had air superority in the first hour. And the things that are going to give you that survivability is speed and maneuverabilty anything else is BULL!!!! After these couple of primary considerations you can put whatever weapons systems you want to to get the job done.

Snake

Snake: This is a very informative response, clearly from someone who was in the thick of it!

What of the J-SEAD Army/AF initiative?

Tests at Ft Hunter Liggett by the ALFA in the late 1970s had army choppers working in concert with A-10s to suppress shorter ranged enemy air defenses and conduct CAS. The acronym for these mixed teams was JAAT – joint service air attack teams. Many consider this to be one of the highpoints of Army/AF Cold War cooperation, although whether it would have actually been effective in the confusion of Europe is open to debate.

At longer ranges, Army MLRS and ATACMS would have worked in conjunction with F-4Gs against the leading edges of second echelon air defenses, but this initiative never really got off the ground in a big way. Control and coordination issues reared their head again. Besides, although Army artillery could reach pretty far, it certainly couldn’t reach the Oder river! At some point the AF was going to have to do it on its own.

Ski

First of all you've got to remember that my info is now almost thirty years old and we've come a long way in advanced weapons and systems to deliver those weapons. HELL!!! i get lost very easily now with almost all the acronyms that are used throughout these threads. But way back in my era basic lessons were learned and still survive the test of time when confronting a determined enemy.

One of the basic's of the SEAD operation was you almost have to have a positive enemy weapons system signature before you can become a threat to it and lock it up and fire at it. In the early days of Wild Weasel SEAD operations in the Thud and F-4c we had systems that gave us azimuth only (no range) so it was a gamble that our AGM 45's or 78's would have the range to hit it. And when we launched the enemy would get the launch signal and shut down thus making the missile go ballistic and we'd be lucky if we got anywhere near the target. When we got the F-4g with the advanced weapons system we could set up the system to prioritize the threats, map out their positions in both azimuth and range, put them into memory,and then dertermine the best ingress and egress routes to strike a target with minimum exposure for the strike force against those high threat weapons systems. THe system also told us when one of these enemy systems locked up on our force so we, as Weasels could turn into that threat to shut it down, or kill it. The problem was that there was so many threats that the possibility of shutting them all down was just impossible. And the deeper you went into injun country you faced more and more threats thus the high attrition rate for Weasels and strike forces. The optimim solution here would be stand off weapons fired from well beyond enemy acquisition range and take out as many enemy systems as you could before any strike package got anywhere near the front lines. Or as you say use a joint Army/Air Force SEAD action to suppress the enemy defenses as deep into enemy lines as far back as possible before the Air Force picks up the tasking of second echelon defenses. But as for what we have today I'm totally in the dark and guessing.

Snake

Ah the Fulda Gap, brings back memories..

Sorry, caught me reminiscing Smile

I was a 19K (M1 tanker) in West Germany (stationed at Sullivan Barracks in Mannheim), pre-reunification.

I take it the ZSU-23-4 was pretty good at radar-directed fire control. Its real vulnerability was its range which is why the Soviets were moving to a larger caliber and a much higher muzzle velocity cannon. I always wondered how the 76mm Sky Sweeper would have fared in a self-propelled platform. You have to watch out when you increase caliber size as the energies increase drastically with an increase in muzzle velocity. I'm guessing that it wouldn't have fared well when jamming became the norm which is why they probably dropped the systems with such large calibers altogether.

Rat

I once had the opportunity to view a short film that we got our hands on showing the ZSU in operational tests and evaluations. Depending on the range of the target against the gun the longest time was in the acquisition phase of the intercept, i.e. the further away the longer the acquisition. But if it was in ZSU range it could acquire and lock up in about four to five seconds and be able to track and lead its target with extremely accuracy. And when it started firing all four barrels were active.

Now, knowing that, imagine a 111 just above the blades of grass having to pop to an adequate pull down attitude for release of a smart weapon of that era and you are talking about anywhere between 30 seconds to a minute. By the time he was five seconds in his pull up he was a statistic and he might as well keep climbing cause he was going to his maker. And against a heavily defended target it wouldn't be one 24 that opened up on you but several. And all the weapons that we had at the time required that you get in close before you could expend them properly.

In the Weasels you had to really get down among the trees and weeds to survive and when we popped to acquire a target it was a quick pull up roll inverted and get back in the weeds as quickly as we could. And when we popped to fire it was almost the same but just long enough to get the weapon off.

HELL!!! How do you think I got my call sign?? If you were higher then me you were meat on the table.

Snake

Good to know.

Forum: Air Power

A-16 Close air Support vs. A-10