My rant/fantasy regarding the A-10(A&B) Warthog.

Question: would the A10 take more hits than say the multi role would, since the multirole is typically at a much higher altitude?

Answer: the multi-role armed with standoff weapon generally would not take ANY hits, simply because it wouldn't go near enemy air defense. It would send his missiles from the long distance and go away; the main problem would be the enemy fighters.

And A-10 is completely powerless against anything like fighter aircraft.

So, the A-10 need F-15 to be anything like effective. The F-15 didn't need A-10 to be effective.

Dilandu wrote:

cheap Light weight missiles have been available since the 60s,

And what exactly that missiles in 1960th was? The visual-guided AGM-12 "Bullpup", that weight a good part of a ton? Or passive-homing anti-radiation "Shrike"?

During the 1960's the primary mobile air defense missile of the US army was a variant of the AIM-9 Sidewinder mounted on 2.5 tone trucks or tracked APCs. North Vietnam fielded something similar.

The Stinger MANPAD missile was first developed in the late 60's/early 70's.

For Air-to-ground, laser-guidance units and Electro-Optical guidance units were under development by the USAF. They were large, temperamental, expensive, and totally unsuited to Close Air Support usage.

Dilandu wrote:It would NOT come back, if the enemy have modern fighters or multi-level anti-air defense. Simply speaking - A-10 is useless without F-15 to protect it and to carry SAM suppression missions.

FWIW, The A-10s (and helicopter gunships) were used to suppress SAM sites and air defense radar sites in the first days of both Gulf Wars. The F-4/F-16 Wild Weasel teams weren't numerous enough for all of the SAM/AAA sites needing suppression.

The A-10, like every other aircraft except the F-117 and B2 Spirit, benefits from having air-superiority top-cover, but it doesn't really need close escort; it flies too low and too slow for fast fighters to stay with it.

Dilandu wrote:And A-10 is completely powerless against anything like fighter aircraft.

So, the A-10 need F-15 to be anything like effective. The F-15 didn't need A-10 to be effective.

The A-10 does have several AA "Kills" to it's credit; it isn't completely helpless.

The F-15E Strike Eagle is very accurate with smart munitions -- at a million dollars or so per shot. It can carry a huge payload of smart weapons, but that is in 2,000 lb (1000 Kg) increments, plus about 30 seconds worth of 20mm strafing (which requires low and slow with an aircraft designed for high and fast).

The A-10 OTOH, carries a mix of smart (LGB and AGM-65 Maverick) weapons and small dumb bombs (250 lb GP or 500 lb GP) or anti-personnel cluster bombs. It can deliver those "dumb bombs" with very near the accuracy of the smart weapons. A-10s deliver ordinance in hundred dollars to thousand dollar increments and can hang around a lot longer than faster multi-role Aircraft.

As aircraft go, the A-10 is far cheaper and far more survivable in the CAS environment than any multi-role fighter-bomber in service or projected service.

During the 1960's the primary mobile air defense missile of the US army was a variant of the AIM-9 Sidewinder mounted on 2.5 tone trucks or tracked APCs. North Vietnam fielded something similar.

And the USSR already have "Krug" (SA-4), "Kub" (SA-6) and "Neva" (SA-3) by the end of 1960th. The level of battlefield anti-air defense, achieved by the soviet divisions in 1970-1980 made the chances to A-10 survival... slim.

The A-10, like every other aircraft except the F-117 and B2 Spirit, benefits from having air-superiority top-cover, but it doesn't really need close escort; it flies too low and too slow for fast fighters to stay with it.

So, without the aerial superiority it would be really hard to not get you A-10 slauthered by the enemy fighters.

The A-10 does have several AA "Kills" to it's credit; it isn't completely helpless.

Yes. Against helicopters and light planes.

The IL-76 ("Candid") heavy cargo plane also have rear gun turret, and theoretically could shot down helicopter or some light plane. Doest it means that it could operate without heavy escort against enemy fighters?

Yes, the A-10 have SOME ability for air-to-air combat. But only some. Against something like modern fighter, he is completely defenseless, and even old supersonic jets like F-4 or Mig-23 could easly bring him down, just because they are a lot faster, have better suited anti-aircraft fire control and anti-air missiles.

The F-15E Strike Eagle is very accurate with smart munitions -- at a million dollars or so per shot.

Really? The good old JDAM cost only about 25000 per unit, the SDB - from 40000 to 250000 and only JASSM-ER - with her 1000-km range - go over the million.

Compare that with the cost of A-10, and?...

The A-10 OTOH, carries a mix of smart (LGB and AGM-65 Maverick) weapons and small dumb bombs (250 lb GP or 500 lb GP) or anti-personnel cluster bombs. It can deliver those "dumb bombs" with very near the accuracy of the smart weapons. A-10s deliver ordinance in hundred dollars to thousand dollar increments and can hang around a lot longer than faster multi-role Aircraft.

Yes, against outdated air defense for some third-rate nations.

The air defense of first, or even second-class world nations simply would not allow the A-10 to "deliver those "dumb bombs" with very near the accuracy ". The anti-air missiles and autocannons also go forward, and with advent of active-seeking SAM, the detected A-10 simply would not be able to survive long enough.

Dilandu wrote:...

I notice you skipped over the role of A-10s (and attack helicopters) in SAM/AAA suppression in the Gulf Wars.

Weird Harold wrote:I notice you skipped over the role of A-10s (and attack helicopters) in SAM/AAA suppression in the Gulf Wars.

Against already disorganised Iraq air defense.

Dilandu wrote:

Weird Harold wrote:I notice you skipped over the role of A-10s (and attack helicopters) in SAM/AAA suppression in the Gulf Wars.

Against already disorganised Iraq air defense.

Wow, We were much better than I thought!

The attacks I'm referring to were in the first hour or two of the air war when the Iraqi air defenses were undamaged and on high alert.

The A-10s and attack helicopters were tasked with opening corridors in the air defenses so the Wild Weasels Hunter/killer teams and other non-stealth assets could pass through to hit bigger, deeper targets and air defenses.

PS: The A-10 was designed specifically to face and survive the Soviet force structure in Europe in the 70s and 80s -- the same force structure you say it couldn't possible survive; I tend to think the designers weren't stupid and the A-10 could in fact survive in the environment it was designed to face.

The A-10s and attack helicopters were tasked with opening corridors in the air defenses so the Wild Weasels Hunter/killer teams and other non-stealth assets could pass through to hit bigger, deeper targets and air defenses.

As i recall, the first strikes were organized by F-117 and "Tomahawks", that took out the C3 centers of Iraq air defense. It was created on the centralized basics, so when the centers were destroyed, the whole net was desorganised. And frankly - the iraq air defense was big and well-designed, but armed mostly with outdated weapons and the personnel was badly trained.

PS: The A-10 was designed specifically to face and survive the Soviet force structure in Europe in the 70s and 80s -- the same force structure you say it couldn't possible survive; I tend to think the designers weren't stupid and the A-10 could in fact survive in the environment it was designed to face.

The designers arent' stupid, but they could made mistakes. Also, the soviet tactical air defense was greatly expanded in 1970, and the capabilites, that A-10 might survive, became generally outdated. It seems... unlikely, that it would be able to harass the soviet division without a lot of help from "Wild Weasels" and sufficient fighter cover.

As usual, everyone want's to fight the last war, but seems to forget that things have changed in the mean time. Lightweight weapons, advanced communications and powerful computing capabilities that didn't even exist in the 1990's are now facts of life for military forces everywhere.

One could wonder about the utility of ground attack aircraft in an environment where the Russians target western voters and decision makers using Facebook and RT, or the Chinese develop Anti Access/Area Denial weapons based on IRBM's and hypersonic missiles, and the sorts of targets that air forces are looking for are individual pickup trucks or small bands of fighters (even in a higher intensity war like Ukraine, there is far more activity using small bands of Spetsnaz operators leading platoon sized formations of local insurgents protected by advanced MANPADS and under the umbrella of an integrated GBAD system that can cover them from the Russian side of the border than large columns of mechanized forces).

Offensive weapons based on swarm tactics (swarms of sensors to identify and mark targets, then swarms of incoming weapons to strike targets from multiple angles) seem to be the wave of the future, and integrated and overlapping "umbrellas" of soft and hard kill weapons are the wave of the future for defense (consider Israel has "Arrow" ABM's, "David's Sling" intermediate range weapons vs cruise missiles and IRBM's, "Spider" to provide coverage vs aircraft, helicopters and UAV's, "Iron Dome" against short range rockets and "Trophy" point defense on tanks and other AFV's. A laser weapon (Iron Beam) is set to join this team soon, and several other systems are being trailed, for example a version of Trophy to protect Israeli patrol boats). And of course the Zroa HaAvir VeHahalal is flying top cover at the same time. Airspace management must be a blast in the friendly skys of the Middle East!

So a traditional "low and slow" aircraft coming in for an attack run will need some pretty powerful help to blast through the various defensive screens (and even the incoming bombs can be targeted by C-PGM systems). Even traditional air combat will be changed; something as simple as replacing the rocket motor on a AAM with a tiny turbojet will allow the fighter to fly the missile(s) a long distance ahead of the plane, setting up engagements when the missile can pick up the target with the on board sensors and light the rocket for the final run in (or if no suitable target appears, fly the missile into an identified ground target). Having an A-10 analogue swatted out of the sky by a fighter plane a hundred nautical miles away would suck for the ground commander....

What is needed in the short to medium term are ways of increasing the numbers of sensors to comprehensively cover the area of operations, and inexpensive ways to increase the number of weapons available to attack identified targets. The USMC has a "kit" that can be attached to a C-130 cargo plane and allow the crew to launch Hellfire missies against identified targets; changing the Hellfire for a longer range weapon like BRIMESTONE is a logical next step. Adding small diameter glide bombs to UCAV's is another way to generate swarms of incoming weapons; if 5 different "Reapers" drop 5 bombs from 5 different angles it may be possible to overwhelm a target (or cause him to expend GBAD ammunition and clear the way for the incoming smart bombs from an F-35, for example).

20 years from now there will be a thread decrying the passing of "swarm" weapons and claiming they are simply indispensable and teleportation weapons don't do the same job.....

Dilandu wrote:And what exactly that missiles in 1960th was? The visual-guided AGM-12 "Bullpup", that weight a good part of a ton? Or passive-homing anti-radiation "Shrike"?

Did you bother to read a history book, or even wiki before asking this? The A-10 was not designed to face American AA.
“9K32 Strela-2 SA-7 Grail entered service in 1968
Egypt: Jane's credits the first combat use of the missile as being in 1969 during the War of Attrition by Egyptian soldiers. The first 'kill' was claimed on 19 August 1969. A 102nd Squadron, A-4H Skyhawk was hit with a shoulder-fired missile 12 miles west of the Suez Canal and pilot SqL Nassim Ezer Ashkenazi captured. Between this first firing and June 1970 the Egyptian army fired 99 missiles resulting in 36 hits.” Last time I checked 1968 was in the '60s and that was 1-in-3 success from Egyptian troops!

Dilandu wrote:In what exactly situations? P.S. WHAT situation do you speak about? Please describe this "special situation".

Baking bread while trying to wash dishes...what situation are we talking about? oh...yea...Fling into heavy air defense. The situation that cost all those cited SU-25 pilots their lives!

Dilandu wrote:Well, then simply build a WEAPON that could handle the situation, and let the general purpose aircraft carry it to the target.

The A-10 is the Weapon to handle the situation & doesn't need to be carried.

MAD-4A wrote:Did you bother to read a history book, or even wiki before asking this?

Did you bother to understand, what i'm talking about?

Seems that no.

Well, let's go to the beginnign.

posting.php?mode=quote&f=13&p=178873

Dilandu wrote:Generally speaking, the A-10 represent still worthy, but too costly solution to the tactical problems. UCAV's and multirole fighters are better suited due to appearance of cheap, lightweight guided missiles and bombs in 1990-2000th..

I was talking about the air-launched bombs and air-to-surface missiles as the standoff armament.

Then:

posting.php?mode=quote&f=13&p=178953

cheap Light weight missiles have been available since the 60s,

Because i was talking aboout the AIR LAUNCHED MISSILES AS THE STRIKE ARMAMENT, i assumed that you are talking about some lightweight aircraft air-to-surface missile, avaliable in 1960th.

I knew only one such missile, the AGM-87 "Focus", but it appeared later. So i asked:

posting.php?mode=quote&f=13&p=178989

And what exactly that missiles in 1960th was? The visual-guided AGM-12 "Bullpup", that weight a good part of a ton? Or passive-homing anti-radiation "Shrike"?

WOULD YOU READ AND UNDERSTOOD FIRST, AND ONLY THEN POST AN ANGRY ANSWER, PLEASE?