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

Since my "sandbox" was Afghanistan and *we* called down fire and death on our enemies from high altitude F-15's, B-1B's, low flying Apache attack helicopters and (possibly) Reapers, I think I have a good understanding of how airpower is used in today's environment.

As a matter of fact, the "best" way to strike our enemies turned out to be well emplaced 155mm cannons firing "Excalibur" guided artillery shells, since these could arrive without too much delay, and never with any weather restrictions...

Thucydides wrote:As a matter of fact, the "best" way to strike our enemies turned out to be well emplaced 155mm cannons firing "Excalibur" guided artillery shells, since these could arrive without too much delay, and never with any weather restrictions...

Artillery has been infantry's best friend/worst nightmare since the Napoleonic wars. I'm not surprised it hasn't changed much in the sandbox.

Give me strenght...

MAD-4A wrote:Dilandu! It seems that you are simply wrong. My information on the air-to-air capability comes strait from US Airforce sources. There is NO case of any A-10 ever being shot down by an enemy aircraft,

Because the F-15 make sure that no enemy aircraft would engage them.

The A-10 is perfectly capable of holding it's own against enemy fighters.

Well, if you mean that the enemy pilot would laugh to unconsciousness by this scene...

As for the need for an escort, the US Airforce always holds air superiority if not outright supremacy they control the air and the enemy cant send anything up to to engage the A-10 even if they could see them.

So, the A-10 is just the addition to the multirole aircrafts.

Yes, the US Army currently doesn't have a SAM with that range, but then, the British Navy doesn't have a SAM with a range greater than 35 miles, does that mean that the Royal Navy CAN'T deploy a missile with a range greater than that?

The british navy have Aster 30 missile, with 120 km range.

The US Navy had the Standard SM1ER missile which could reach 150 miles,

No. They haven't. All SM-1 subtype were retried long ago, currently only SM-2 are in inventory. Moreover, the RIM-67 SM-1ER never have an VLS version or Aegis version.

And the range of SM-2ER missile (RIM-156) is only about 130 miles (240 km). Currently the SM-6 is in development.

and the current SM3 Block IIA has a range of 1350 nautical miles (2500 km)

One problem. It is anti-sattelite missile, and SM-3 simply couldn't be used against AIRCRAFT.

hit a satellite in space. don't even try to say you can stand off further than space.

Yes, i could. Because space is only about 100 km above, and there is almost no atmosphere friction above 50 km. And there isn't any horizon in space.

And the Block-II SM-3 haven't been even build yet.

To hit the aerodynamical targets on 2500 km... You need to see this target. And the horizon is standing on you way. You could build the missile that could fly over 2500 km, yes. But this took a lot of time. And the target is moving really fast; so, you need a midcourse guidance all the time.

And who would provide the terminal guidance? The forward-based radars? And how could you deter me from DESTROYING THEM FIRST, and leave your ultra-long-range SAM without a clue where my planes are?

Stealth doesn't mean invisible, the only "Heavily Stealthed" aircraft are the single role B-2 & F-117 neither are multi-role. the F-35 & F-22 multi-role aircraft are NOT "Heavily" stealthed,

The "stealthed" means, that the detection range for them is reduced to about 1/2-2/3.

And the F-35 and F-22 ARE heavy stealthed. The technology advanced, you know! The materials and geometry of F-22 and F-35 are FAR more advanced that of F-117.

they are Simi-Stealthed for "reduced" signatures. Ground clutters ground clutter even for a modern missile. IR seekers are completely useless due to the aircraft's design. so it is you who are rong on every count

[/quote]

Simply speaking - this is completely wrong. Ground clutter could be cleared by old, simple Doppler shift, that was used even on old RIM-8 "Talos" in 1960th!

And the current IR sekers are imaging seekers. They used an electro-optic matrix to make a digital image of the target, and hit it in the programmed spot. The construction of A-10 may fool IR missiles of 1970-1980; modern ones would not chase after its engines, but hit directly into the hull or wing.

To stop the nonsence about "AAM would not be able to engage A-10 because of low height".

The old russian R-60 (AA-8) have a minimal engagement altitude about 30 meters in basic modification.

The R-27 (AA-10) could engage targets as low as 20 meters in basic modifications, and as low as FIVE meters (under good condition) in R-27EM type.

The A-10, flying without escort of multirole fighters, would be just shot down by any Mig-23 or even modified Mig-21 that it could meet. The US air force were confident, that they would be able to punch through the soviet fighters screen by the superiority of US 4th generation fighters, but there is no way for A-10 to operate without escort.

Dilandu wrote:...but there is no way for A-10 to operate without escort.

A-10s operate all the time without escort. There may not even be a CAP mission airborne for indirect air cover. It's called Air Superiority or Air Supremacy.

Weird Harold wrote:
A-10s operate all the time without escort. There may not even be a CAP mission airborne for indirect air cover. It's called Air Superiority or Air Supremacy.

Seems we have a misunderstanding. I assumed that we are talking about deep penetration missions, not the frontline support?

Seems that i've been wrong.

Dilandu wrote:Seems we have a misunderstanding. I assumed that we are talking about deep penetration missions, not the frontline support?

Seems that i've been wrong.

A10s seldom penetrate enemy air-space further than the ground forces have advanced. Their designed mission is to assist ground forces in advancing. Where in the world does "deep penetration missions" enter into that scenario?

Not to put too fine a point on it, but manned CAS is pretty darned dangerous for all concerned. Two examples from Afghanistan

Canadian troops were bombed in the Tarnak Farms by a USNG F-16 (who, although operating at great hight, seemed to think the muzzle flashes he saw far below was anti aircraft fire aimed at him and "rolled hot" onto a training range, bombing the Canadians on 17 Apri 2002.

A second incident actually involved an A-10. Through a combination of some ambiguity from the FAC and being unable to positively ID the target, the A-10 shot up a Canadian unit, essentially destroying a platoon and rendering a company combat ineffective on 4 Sep 2006.

While "smart" weapons won't eliminate that kind of danger (two US SoF soldiers died in Afghanistan when they inadvertently called in a JDAM on themselves), it is still something to consider when thinking about the utility of CAS.

On some other points. During my entire tour, the only time I ever even heard of anyone seeing the supporting aircraft was one incident where a Dutch Apache happened to be in the next valley over. The pilot rolled in over the ridge line and lit into the Taliban at cannon range (also a first). In every other incident I ever heard of, there was just a radio call, followed soon after by a large explosion....

WRT F-105 losses, the THUD was being used against the most dangerous and heavily defended targets. Wild Weasels were literally flying right at heavily fortified SAM sites (the "Star of David" pattern on the ground had multiple anti aircraft cannon at each point around the SAM itself.), and until near the end, they often had to use iron bombs, as anti radar missiles and guided weapons were still uncommon and fairly primitive.

WRT the 1973 war, the Egyptian Army was operating under the cover of an integrated GBAD system, with many of the radars and missiles on the Egyptian side of the Suez canal, but capable of covering the advancing forces a great distance into the Sinai Desert. There was a sort of one=two punch. If IAF jets came in high, they could be shot at by large, long range SAM's, but when they went on the deck, they ran into a hail of cannon fire and early MANPADS and short range SAMs. By the 1980's, when the A-10 came into service (using these lessons) the Soviet Union had also refined their GBAD based on what they learned in 1973. I think regardless, the end result of a clash in Germany between NATO and the Red Army would have been a gigantic mess. No matter how good your weapon or shield is, there will always be a game of counter and counter-counter measure.

[/quote]

Dilandu wrote:Because the F-15 make sure that no enemy aircraft would engage them.

As the multirole fighters would require as they can't operate in the ground support area while also operating in air combat.

Dilandu wrote:So, the A-10 is just the addition to the multirole aircrafts.

No, it's a specialized Close Air Support Aircraft, whose more than capable of defending itself.

Dilandu wrote:No. They haven't. All SM-1 subtype were retried long ago, currently only SM-2 are in inventory. Moreover, the RIM-67 SM-1ER never have an VLS version or Aegis version.

I said "had" & yes some idiot with more gold on his sleeve, than brains in his head, decided that he didn't like the old ships with Mk10 launchers, and had them trashed. So we lost our long range air defense envelope, but with the new missiles coming out that will hopefully be rectified shortly.

Dilandu wrote:And the range of SM-2ER missile (RIM-156) is only about 130 miles (240 km). Currently the SM-6 is in development.

yea go with wiki cause they know everything.

Dilandu wrote:One problem. It is anti-sattelite missile, and SM-3 simply couldn't be used against AIRCRAFT.

It certainly could & I was refering to range - If you can see me, I can hit you. also, standing out at 1000 miles & launching missiles is NOT providing CLOSE air support

Dilandu wrote:The "stealthed" means, that the detection range for them is reduced to about 1/2-2/3.

No it doesn't,stealth merely reduces reflection and detection cross-section it dose nothing to reduce the range of the detection device. the effect is that generally the aircraft has to get much closer to the receiver before it gets noticed. but it's still there.

Dilandu wrote:Seems we have a misunderstanding. I assumed that we are talking about deep penetration missions, not the frontline support? Seems that i've been wrong.

You were the only one, Yes Quite a bit. Clearly you have no clue as to the mission, design or capabilities of the A-10 & we'll leave it at that.

Thucydides wrote:WRT F-105 losses, the THUD was being used against the most dangerous and heavily defended targets. Wild Weasels were literally flying right at heavily fortified SAM sites (the "Star of David" pattern on the ground had multiple anti aircraft cannon at each point around the SAM itself.), and until near the end, they often had to use iron bombs, as anti radar missiles and guided weapons were still uncommon and fairly primitive.

Yes they did well in the Wild Weasel role, but they were also used heavily as light bombers attacking other ground targets. They were designed during the era when Airforce bigwigs thought the "Dogfight" was over so were not designed to be very maneuverable in the 1st place. When operating in the ground attack role, laden with bombs, they were complete pigs and targets for any enemy fighters, just as any "multi-role" aircraft would be when loaded down. The only aircraft that can hope to hold it's own while on a ground/surface attack mission is the F/A-18, & then just to defend itself.