Forum: Modern Military Aircraft

medicdwpa wrote:

Witch... it's... here... the end all beat all... their... strait... it's... plain

F-16.net Sponsor

BITE ME ! I am not the best speller!!!!!! WTF

medicdwpa wrote:

Can anyone tell me how many A-10's we lost in kosovo? I didn't here of any at the time. I do know we lost a F-16 or 2 and A (F-117) Shocked

Have you bothered to do any research into A-10 losses and severe damage in other conflicts? Have you checked the types of missions and environments that the A-10 has operated in compared to an aircraft like the F-117? Have you checked to see how A-10s often fly with restrictions about where they operate?

Its very important to put things in context. For example, multiple A-10s were downed and severely damaged in the first Gulf War, while the F-117 never got a scratch.

Even when A-10s take damage and make it home its not guaranteed that the air frame will ever fly again (it has happened a couple times)

Those who say scrap the A-10 don't really fully understand the role of CAS. That is all.

flighthawk128 wrote:

The engineers who designed the A-10 was told to mount the biggest gun they could find, put it on an aircraft that could withstand about 40% of its structure and control surfaces to be shot up and still return back to base, and to carry as much air-to-ground munition it could carry. I haven't seen another aircraft that can carry a 30mm cannon on its nose and scare the living crap out of anybody it cluster bombs.
Best attack plane Ever!!!

There's only really the MiG-27's GSh-6-30 and the Su-25's GSh-2-30 cannons. The later is probably the closest to the A-10 in terms of role, plus the armoured airframe.

The GSh-6-30 fires at 6000spm and the GSh-2-30 fires at 3000spm. The GAU-8 was restricted to 3900spm (orignally 4200spm). The GAU-8 has more KE but the 30x165mm HE projectile is larger than the 30x173mm HEI projectile and has a higher filling weight, making it more effective on soft targets. Either is like being hit with 50-100 rifle grenades at Mach 3 every second. Cluster bombs are only really needed for modern MBTs when you have one of these cannons.

Quote:

Cluster bombs are only really needed for modern MBTs when you have one of these cannons.

I really can't tell what you mean by this statement.

Last edited by mcraptor on Jan 16, 2013 - 07:38 PM; edited 1 time in total

count_to_10 wrote:

I really can't tell what you mean by this statement.

Whilst 30mm gatling guns could maybe disable a modern MBT, it's not an efficient process and it's not worth the risk of a .50cal in the engine at the sort of ranges you'd need to be at.

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a522397.pdf

Quote:

US research on uses of aircraft A-10 with gun GAU-8/A against a Soviet tank company simulated by combat loaded M-47 or T-62 tanks are conducted from February 1978 to December 1979. The pilots making the firing passes attacked at low altitude and used correspondingly low dive angles in order to simulate movement through a hostile air defense system [31-37, 42]. In Air Force tests, the A-10 Thunderbolt flew at an altitude about 60 m, an angle of 1.8 to 4.4 degrees, and a slant range of 800 m to 1300 m. The weapon effects on the hard target were 72-90 % miss and 10-28 % percent hit with a 1,7-3,8 % kill. During these tests tanks were attacked with 40-160 ammunition PGU-14 in every aircraft swoop.

The thing is, can the F-35 / F-22 do A-10's job of CAS better than the A-10?

I'm pretty sure that the A-10 being designed to accomplish CAS will do that role better than the F-35 / F-22.

Ofcourse the A-10 is a better CAS. It is a dedicated CAS platform, and the F-35 is not.. never mind F-22 Smile

Easy question, easy answer.

Than why does this topic even exist, both aircraft have their roles to perform, we need both, plain and simple.

The only times F-22 / F-35's would be needed for ground attack is to clear out Radar / SAM / AA Gun nests before sending in A-10's to support the ground forces.

Two different mission profiles.

The F-35 will do it's primary tank-plinking from high up and far away using JAGM, SDBI/II, and Spear3.

Yep, thats right. The F-35 uses very costly weapons system to take out some cave men, sound uber costly to operate the F-35 in such a role.

Use the A-10 for criest sake, its proven its self more than enough on many different conflict. It doesn't have to chase down armoured units, it can support ground troops just as well. And at a much cheaper cost rate vs F-35.

The gun, SDB I, and PGM-Hydra (LOGIR, APKWS, DAGR, etc) will be fine at taking out "cave men". I was talking about tanks (which are usually accompanied by AAA).

Did you notice that even the A-10C is going higher and will be using more PGMs?

btw, The F-35 is not replacing the A-10 in the short or mid term as the A-10 will be around for 20+ more years.

---------------------------------------------------

Here is a thought to leverage the benefits of high-altitude situational awareness with the low cost of bolt-on PGMs (LOGR, precission mortar & artillary fuzes, etc) in the F-35:

Create a container that can fit in the bay of the F-35B (A2G station). Mount pnumatic launch tubes that eject 120/81mm mortars, 70mm warheads (DAGR-type with small tail & no motor), etc downward or at a slightly forward angle (maximizing the amount of munitions that can be carried).

Put 4x SDB/JAGM in the right bay and one of these in the left (maximizing versatility and matching weapon to threat while keeping collateral damage down).

I want the A-10 to stick around for another 50 years.

Such a great CAS aircraft, best of it's type.

Just like the fact that the F-22 is the ultimate air superiority fighter.

The F-35 will become the ultimate multi-role fighter.

kamenriderblade wrote:

The thing is, can the F-35 / F-22 do A-10's job of CAS better than the A-10?

I'm pretty sure that the A-10 being designed to accomplish CAS will do that role better than the F-35 / F-22.

Of course it can. There's also not much point in designing a stealth aircraft and then flying it within eyesight of the enemy repeatedly.... with only one engine.... and no armor.

SpudmanWP wrote:

The gun, SDB I, and PGM-Hydra (LOGIR, APKWS, DAGR, etc) will be fine at taking out "cave men". I was talking about tanks (which are usually accompanied by AAA).

Did you notice that even the A-10C is going higher and will be using more PGMs?

btw, The F-35 is not replacing the A-10 in the short or mid term as the A-10 will be around for 20+ more years.

---------------------------------------------------

Here is a thought to leverage the benefits of high-altitude situational awareness with the low cost of bolt-on PGMs (LOGR, precission mortar & artillary fuzes, etc) in the F-35:

Create a container that can fit in the bay of the F-35B (A2G station). Mount pnumatic launch tubes that eject 120/81mm mortars, 70mm warheads (DAGR-type with small tail & no motor), etc downward or at a slightly forward angle (maximizing the amount of munitions that can be carried).

Put 4x SDB/JAGM in the right bay and one of these in the left (maximizing versatility and matching weapon to threat while keeping collateral damage down).

70mm probably won't kill an MBT. A 127mm laser-guided Zuni could though. I imagine that GBU-44 Viper Strike munitions could also be loaded onto either the A-10 or the F-35. Brimstone and JAGM are also possibilities. An MBT is an expensive bit of kit, so a missile is financially justifiable. Of course you also have sensor-fused 1000lb cluster bombs like the CBU-97 and inertially guided CBU-105 already in use on the A-10. I believe there were such things as laser-guided cluster bombs too (GBU2/6/7) for moving convoys.

For soft-targets the A-10 with 1150 rounds of 30 mike-mike HEI is just the ticket. 70 flying grenades per second is a very bad day.

Forum: Modern Military Aircraft

A-10 or F-22 witch one are they wrong about!