How Would You Improve the A-10?

Yes, and no.

For MANPAD systems it is not only line of sight, but what can be seen. If you can not actually see the target (night, fog, dust, etc), you can not shoot at it at all (although with a HMG you can shoot, just with almost no chance of hitting it, like the 1991 attack on Baghdad). The same for any visually tracked system (heavy machine guns, etc). In January 1991 millions of rounds were expended trying to hit the aircraft bombing Baghdad, with no effect, not a single aircraft was lost.

For the big systems like SA-2 and the like, it becomes a straight line track, even if out of range visually or obscured. Add to that the fact that many of these systems will "track", so that if the target then moves out of line of sight, they missile will still track on it, because it's own systems can continue to track it where the ground based systems have lost it (system on ground sees and fires, missile uses it's own IR-RADAR to acquire target as it rises to altitude, aircraft moves behind mountain so the ground RADAR can no longer see, but from it's higher altitude the systems on the missile still see it).

This goes right back to the issue of battlespace priorities. Low to the ground, and there is not much that can be done against it. The big systems can not engage a target that close, and the smaller systems pretty much have to have it go right overhead. Highly portable systems are designed for these low flying targets, but the crews have to be ready to fire or they miss their chance.

Interestingly enough, do you know what Soviet-Russian aircraft was the most worrysome for us in PATRIOT? It was not the supersonic fighters or the long range bombers, it was the helicopters. Specifically the HIND. Like the A-10, they operated far to low for us to even engage, which is why we had other defensive measures in place to try and take them out before they came within range to engage us.

In fact, in modern air to air scenarios, we do not actually try to engage aircraft at all, that is the job of the Air Force and Navy-Marine fighters. They are the ones who engage the enemy, well forward of our positions. We defend a specific area (an air base, a command center, etc), and are only in place in case of a "leaker" that might break through the aircraft or any missiles they might fire at our defended position.

Yes, in 2003 we did attempt to keep our major air defenses mobile, and leap-frog them with the forward elements to give them more protection. In short, it was largely a failure. PATRIOT simply could not keep up with even Infantry units, and were most of the time let well behind the forward elements. By the time we finish roadmarching our equipment (breaking it down and preparing it to move) and done RSOP on our new location (Reconnisance and preperation of the new site), the units with us had already moved 50 miles or more. Moving even once a day is a chore for PATRIOT, in combat conditions moving more then that is impossible.

But if you want an example of how poorly it worked, look no further then the 507th Maintenance Company. During a "routine" movement from one location to another, this element became cut off from the main convoy, lost, and was ambushed with 9 killed, most of their equipment destroyed, and several soldiers captured (including Jessica Lynch).

The 507th Maintenance Company no longer exists, the Army has moved away from "attaching" units to other units like that. It is in the same place, doing the same job, but with a new name. Fox Company of 5-52 ADA.

Yes, moving PATRIOT with other units was tried, and failed. Now they all sit in the back defending fixed locations, instead of trying to keep up with units in the attack. We have gone back to relying on our aircraft to defend our forces from air attack, and use ground based (like STINGER and AVENGER) to go after any that leak through those lines, or evade them by other means. But with a range of only a few miles, such units only work on those directly a threat to the unit they are defending, they can not "reach out" like the larger units can.

Remember, this actually is an area of expertiese and experience for me. I do not see it simply as different pieces of equipment, but a dance between a great many differing pieces of equipment and personnel, each with their own role to play. Segmented defense in layers, each in their place and working together as a team. In the modern battlefield in the advance, the ground units are simply more often then not left to their own devices, the majority of aircraft are simply to busy fighting other aircraft to take the time to bother with ground targets.

Which is why Attack Aircraft (CAS) are so important. Unable to go after other aircraft, they can concentrate on their primary target, enemies on the ground.

 

A two seater version of the A-10A, the A-10B N/AW (Night / All Weather) was considered. It Included an advanced inertial navigation system, a cutting edge HUD, improved radios, terrain following radar, low light TV camera, FLIR and laser targeting pods amongst other improvements. The A-10B N/AW was tested in 1979-1980 with good results, but the project was killed.

One YA-10B was built and it sits in a museum at Edwards AFB.



A bit off topic, but if the A-10 is retired and set out to pasture, I think it would make a great severe weather penetrating aircraft, Strip it down, remove the cannon and replace with scientific instruments. It is robust, fuel-efficient, reliable and easily maintainable as the TF-34 engines have the CF-34 counterpart used in the civilian world. It can loiter for long periods of time and can withstand severe weather including hail. It would make a great storm chaser and wouldn't cost much to buy or maintain. NASA or NOAA should look into it, it would probably be free to them as they are a governmental agency.

 

Flames. Maybe a sneeze of nitrous.

 

Curious view that the inferiority of the A-10 is its advantage. Its not like the A-10 can fight other aircraft, it can only be shot down by other aircraft.

As I noted about ex military wanting to plan for the last war, your ideas are well over a decade old.

 

In the Gulf war the PATRIOT missile batteries were in fixed positions, as an example this is in Riyadh, SA (1991)and they are defending an air base.

 

Oh-ho-ho. Looks like someone failed at reading comprehension.

Indeed, quite telling.

A brick can go supersonic if you attach a proper engine onto it. Your point being exactly what?

Should I continue posting photos of supersonic aircraft with thick wings? Wanna some Tu-160 and B-1B supersonic porn?
Mushroom is wrong when he is saying that straight wing somehow prohibs an aircraft from going supersonic. It doesn't. With enought drag and enough construction's strength you can make anything supersonic.

However, the fact is that all modern supersonic aircraft have wing sweep so do most of transonic ones. That shape is optimal.
Meanwhile there are plenty of examples of "thick" wings doing their job on supersonic aircraft. Of course engeneers whant them to be as narrow as possible, but they also must make the wing strong enough to withstand the loads (hence X-37 with thick wings). And A-10 has a (*)(*)(*)(*)load of ammunition to carry under them.
Bottom line.

True.

How about a supersonic aircraft, which can perform CAS?
Su-24


Whoops, "irrelevant" swept wings

In fact if you want supersonic CAS aircraft you probably should go for variable-sweep wings. That will allow the aircraft to go supersonic when needed and will give the pilot enough manueverability during CAS attacks on subsonic speeds.

I am not really arguing with that. Aerodynamics doesn't stops anything from going supersonic. It only makes it easier and more effective.

Oh, wasn't it?

I thought that when you are quoting somebody and reffering to something as "you said..." you are actually adressing that person.
Is English your first language?

Wasn't we discussing what is more important for allowing an aircraft to go supersonic? I thought we were. Well, whatever.

That wasn't an argument "against" or "for" A-10. I simply pointed out that Mushroom is wrong, while spreading that "there is no AA systems capable of moving alongside tanks, other than heavy mashineguns and MANPADs" bull(*)(*)(*)(*).
Consequently you are confusing me with someone else.

Speaking about my first language, I thought that was obvious for anyone looking at my country flag.

 

I didn't miss the word serial, I chose to ignore it because its irrelevant to the point being discussed. Mushroom said the wing sweep was the reason it wont go faster and I said actually its not wing sweep, its the wing thickness. I've showed you aircraft can safetly exceed and operate above even Mach 1 with straight wings, so I think my point is well made. Nothing you or Mushroom have said impacts the actual point, you two have just decided that because a swept wing is better at high speeds therefore it must be the main reason - well its not, its thickness mostly. An inservice airframe that exceeds Mach 1 with a straight wing serves no purpose to combat flying or this discussion (since its not practically about going over Mach 1 anyway).

That is my point exactly LOL. You bought up that the X37 goes hypersonic to try and prove a thick wing does operate at high speeds, duh! Unless of course you think sticking rockets on an A10 is a viable solution......

They are all quite thin in comparison (in relative terms) to the A10's. If you can find a straight and thick wing (relative) then yes please do. But posting pics of swept wings which have thickness is not doing anything for anyone except making you look silly. It does not disprove my point that the limiting thing for the A10 planform is its wing thickness (not amount of sweep).

Yep, technology has changed and if they wanted to make an A10 go faster but keep its station layout design they'd have to be able to make it thinner and stronger to carry the loads.

I'm not sure anyone wants to make the A10 multirole. The Su24's wings are quite thin too, relatively speaking.

I was talking to Mushroom about his statement about straight wing being what stopped the A10 going faster, and said it was actually its thickness. When you started telling me I was wrong with things like "You are so wrong with that. Care to find any serial supersonic aircraft with straight wing? " I then replied to you because I disagreed, and showed you why.

I know what your post was about, that is why I was agreeing with it. As to quoting you instead of Mushroom, yea well it wouldnt be the first time I mistyped a word here or there when multiple people start spouting the same nonsense at the same time. Perhaps when you read that in the first palce it might have flagged that the conversation was not just about aerodynamics, indeed it says so quite clearly it was about the A10 going 'faster'.

 

A-10s have shot down several helicopters in combat. With a couple of Sidewinders mounted it is more than capable against other jet aircraft.

 

The Air Force should give up that duty. Leave it to the Army and Marines. That is the direction the Air Force wants to go. Recently the Air Force is requiring personnel - virtually all - to also be trained in base defense and patrol. The Marines and Army should take care of ground support. In need be, the Air Force will take care of base security in return.

Only someone with eyes closed does not recognize the growing loads being placed upon the Air Force in terms of drones, missiles, intelligence, surveillance, precision strikes and grand scale war deterrence - plus continuing to maintain a clear technological advantage, now being challenged by China and Russia. The Air Force is in charge of 2/3rds of our all critical nuclear deterrent forces - which is falling behind. The Air Force no longer has sufficient resources - increasingly have to reduce staff for budgets on top of this all - to also cover the asses of the Marines and Army too.

Generally, it would be better if the Marines and Army did this themselves anyway to avoid communications and priorities conflicts between the various branches.

- - - Updated - - -

No, a couple of Sidewinders does not make an A-10 "more than capable" against fighter aircraft.

 

Aerodynamics does stop going supersonic. It is not just a question of more thrust.

 

Douglas A-1 Skyraiders considered the best CAS aircraft ever to fly shot down a couple of Mig-17's just with it's 20 MM cannons.

So it really comes down to, who's sitting in the cockpit. < http://vnafmamn.com/Skyraider_vs_MIG17.html >

Considering the high rate of fratricide incidents the A-10 Warthog has raked up in Afghanistan and the Iraq war and Iraq insurrection, it's been suggested that all Air Force A-10 pilots be temporary attached to Army infantry units for six months tour of duty to learn exactly what grunts do. Like all Marine pilots be they FA-18 pilots or KC-130 pilots or helicopter pilots all have have gone through the Marine Corps, Officers Infantry Course at Quantico.

So basically every Marine aircraft has a grunt in the cockpit, an aviator who's also been trained to lead a Marine rifle platoon into combat.

Nobody has mentioned the OA-10, a Warthog who's primary mission was a FAC aircraft (Forward Air Controller) (All Air Force OA-10's have been upgraded to the A-10 C.)

The OA-10's were flown by Air Force FAC qualified pilots and the OA-10 had laser designation and were usually just armed with phosphorus pods for target marking.

Why not a two seat OA-10 ? You would think since the OA-10 replaced all Air Force OV-10 Broncos that were the Air Force FAC aircraft before the OA-10.

A two seat OA-10, one for the pilot and an Army artillery forward artillery observer officer. When the infantry needs fire support, ground artillery is tthe choice since artillery is faster at putting ordnance on target and it's more accurate than NGFS and CAS.

The second choice is NGFS (Naval Gunfire Support) but we no longer have 16" gun battleships or 8" or 6" gun cruisers and today's cruisers only have two 5"/54 guns and destroyers only have one 5"/54 gun and not capable of multi gun salvos which is critical for area targets where all rounds have to come on target exactly at the same time. But naval guns have kinetic energy and are capable of knocking out harden targets like bunkers that ground artillery and CAS aerial bombs aren't capable of destroying. The fragment pattern of naval guns projectiles is larger than artillery rounds or aerial munitions. But the position of the ship and the "gun target line" (GTL) is extremely important to avoid fratricide incidents.

Last choice is Close Air Support. Just not the most expensive of fire support options but the most dangerous for friendly troops.

 

Nuclear weapons



http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/the-lethal-10-warthog-nuclear-bomber-13736

 

You have to be (*)(*)(*)(*)ing kidding me, Russian bicycle bombs ???

That's the best Russia can do ?

At least the U.S. Navy out classed the Russians with their toilet bombs.

http://www.midwaysailor.com/midwayva25bomb/

 

Rather than the costs of building 50 year old design 2 seat A-10s, it would be much cheaper to build B-25 Mitchells. Just put sidewinders on them and they could take on any fighter too.

And what a great idea. Just put tracks on big gun heavy naval cruisers so they can drive to within range of the target. Blimps with sidewinders can provide air support.

Old ex soldiers are the worst obstacle any military faces. It is why France - with a significantly larger military - was easily overrun by the German military. Everyone controlling the French military were old WWI commanders. Old military guys can only plan for the last war with tactics and equipment of the last war - never for future wars.

Old military opposed aircraft. Opposed tanks. Opposed submarines. Opposed giving up ships powered by sails. Opposed aircraft carriers. Opposed mechanical transportation. Old military leaders with old tactics cause nations to lose wars. Ex military and old military are pigheaded. Study the GREAT military leaders in history. Virtually without exception what you find is that they were young.

 

There was already two seat A-10's, the A-10B Night/All Weather CAS aircraft.

It's already has been done, the M-107 175 MM self propelled gun. A navy cruiser on land and it had tracks.

Are you referring to "Old ex soldiers" Paul Ludwig Ewald von Kleist ??? An aristocrat and senior commander in World War I. Commander of tank armies in the German Army in World War II. Fought in most of the actions involving blitzkrieg techniques.

Now you are just making (*)(*)(*)(*) up.

Who opposed coal burning warships ? There was a logistical problem, navy coaling stations had to be established all over the world and soon a new class of auxillary, the coalier, today comparable to the fleet oilers that replenish today's warships.

The Sandwich Islands (Hawaii), Samoa, Guam and Subic Bay P.I. were all originally U.S. Navy coaling stations. By the the time of the Mexican-American War most of the navy's warships were dual powered, sail and coal burning ships. Once their was coaling stations established, the sailing mast came down. Nobody opposed the coal fired ships except those politicians who thought that America was becoming to imperialistic of establishing advanced naval stations.

"Old tactics" ??? Example please.

There are no new tactics just old tactics. During the 1980's when it was discovered that the U>S. Army and NATO couldn't defeat the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact nations in land combat in Europe without resorting to tactical nuclear weapons, the U.S. military decided to fall back on a very old tactic, maneuver warfare and that is the tactics that will be used if the USA finds itself in a shooting war with a nation that has a real army, navy and air force. Napoleon used maneuver warfare.

What about when you are fighting a mob armed with AK-47's ? What kind of tactics are jused for fighting a "small war" ? The U.S. Marine Corps wrote the book on tactics to be used in fighting small wars, the "Small Wars Manual." Considering that U.S. Marines and Navy blue jackets had been used over 150 times fighting small wars and during the Banana Wars they started writing the book.

Should be noted that U.S. Marines were the first to control aircraft from the ground using signal flags to control close air support for Marine riflemen during the Banana Wars. And it was German military attaches who observed how Marines used CAS and it would be incorporated into the German Blitzkrieg tactics used during the early years of WW ll.

But the day after December 7th, 1941 the Marine Corps "Small War Manual" would be put on the book shelf at Marine Corps HQ's and collected dust for seventy years until right after 9-11-01 some Marine office, don't know if he was a butter bar or some old General noticed a dust book and picked it up, the cover of the book said "Small Wars Manual." Those tactics and SOP described in the manual would be the same tactics used to fight the Taliban in Afghanistan until Obama became CnC and started issuing "modern" political correct rules of engagement that would cause American troops to bleed and die on the battlefield.

The Marine Corps and Army's current "Small War Manual" is almost a copy and paste of the original "Small Wars Manual," nothing new, all proven tactics that were used by U.S. Marines from the Barbary Pirate Wars of the early 1800's to the 1930's.

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/swm/ch02.pdf

http://www.eiu.edu/historia/2012Griffith.pdf

 

Add some JATO's for quick escape after surprise strafe run.....

 

Really? In what way is that, may I ask?

More over, I am not "ex military", I am still serving.

And that is pretty much unchanged from how we set up today.

The "Mobile PATRIOT" trying to keep up with the front line units as I said was a concept they tried in 2003, and pretty much failed. They were simply unable to keep up with the front line units, and quickly overextended their logistical trains. A battery of PATRIOT is only able to carry with it a total of 4 reload canisters, so that is all they can take with them on the march. Once in place they would have to somehow get more missiles, and set up a secure location for storing any others. That was something else that was realized in the after action critique.

The main missile resupply method is cargo aircraft, with the missile haulers only able to carry 4 cans at a time. And each battery only has a single missile hauler. So even if a unit was somehow able to keep up with the front line troops, in the event they were needed they would likely find themselves quickly out of missiles, and sitting ducks to any attack.

 

Sorry, big mistake here, lots of them.

"Old military" did not really oppose any of the things you listed, they simply did not know how to use them yet, something common any time new technology enters the battlefield.

Take the tank. It was not that they opposed them, they simply did not understand them yet. That is why they were spread out along the front, the idea was that they were nothing but "mobile pillboxes". Plus they were not very reliable, moved slowly, and took 8 men to keep them operating in combat.

Ships powered by sails? Yea, of course they did. The first steam ship was tested in 1787. But the first trans-Atlantic crossing by a steam only powered ship was not until 1838, over a half a century later. It took decades for the technology to improve to the point that they could cross without sails at all. And wind power is free, to operate a steam ship in that era, you had to have a large logistical chain in order to have coal available wherever you needed to be. In order to conduct a military operation on steam power without sails, you had to be sure you could carry enough fuel to go to your target, conduct any operations, then make it home while carying all of the fuel needed. That was not really capable until the late 19th century.

That is why "coaling stations" were so damned important into the early 20th century. And for decades you had navies operating "combination ships", with both sail and steam. It was not opposition, it was realism that dictated that.

I can go on and on, but hopefully you can see the point here. You are confusing early opposition because of technological conditions or early tactical theories with opposition, which was not true at all.

 

You mean like this?

 

I think he means "anybody not brilliant enough to see what a military genius he is".

Apparently I am an "old ex soldier" from an earlier comment he made about me. Even though I am still in uniform and hope to be so for another decade.

 

Has the A-10 ever operated against an opponent supplied with SHORAD class missiles (Roland, Crotale, their various Chinese or Russian equivalents?)

AAA and MANPADs are the biggest threat.

This vehicle, the ZSU-23-4 Shilka, is quite capable of shooting down an A-10...those are four liquid-cooled 23-mm automatic cannons mounted on top and they are radar guided. The technology is not new, these were used effectively during the Yom Kippur war in 1973.



In order to defend against this the aircraft would need the AGM-88 HARM....which the F-35 can carry but not the A-10.

The A-10s primary defense is the robustness of the airframe and built in system redundancy...it can take a punch and not be knocked-out. Frankly that's not a realistic defense tactic any more given modern air defense systems.

 

Yes and the F-35 is precisely that...a BVR platform. Long before a AAA crew sees or detects the F-35 they would be toast. The A-10 needs to eyeball what they are shooting at. The F-35 is theoretically a much more survivable CAS capable aircraft than the A-10 factoring in modern air defense systems. That's not to say the F-35 will even work in actual combat, it could be a white elephant as far as any of us know, but the A-10 is old technology no matter how you slice it.

 

The F35 is a POS. All you need to do is enlarge the Harrier air frame and get it a modern and bigger thrust to weight ratio engine and arm it with the 30mm gun. Give it a modern avionics suite and you're good to go. The more missions types you try to add to a single airframe, the more complex it becomes. The more complex it becomes the more problems you have from development to operation (eg the F-35).