Mike5560

I'm curious to know these reasons. Is this some sort of internationally signed gentleman's agreement? Generally during wartime, whoever gives way in the name of comfort generally gets killed.

It's also difficult to keep the frontal armor pointed at the enemy 100% of the time when the enemy can blend in with the local populace, and flank with little indication of being hostile.

I have both modules and enjoy them both, but I find the mig-21 is much more rewarding. My play style is very air-ground centric too. Though the F-5 can carry more munitions, I really don't end up doing more damage than in the Mig. I've spent hours and hours trying to nail down good bombing/rocket profiles with the mil settings and it's tough with the F-5.....at least attacking anything that can shoot back. With the Mig, as long as you smartly pick your loadout, you can still be effective with a relatively small payload. The radar assisted CCIP point helps out a lot. The 32 rocket pods will give you 8 passes if you select a salvo of 4, and 4 is enough for any vehicles except tanks. The S-24 rockets are very powerful also. Air to air the mig has the R-3Rs, and I think the radar is easier to understand. The mig has more speed to bail out of trouble if need be and has better climb and acceleration, just inferior turning characteristics.

Engaging tanks with the gun optimally would be in the most permissive environment possible. Ideally any IFVs, APCs, AAA and SAMs are no factor. TGP helps in deciding the orientation of the tanks. Additionally, loitering close and at low altitude will trigger the tanks to train their guns on you, evenif youre outside firing range. Another thing of note, the tank's guns will (in an unthreatened state) have their guns pointed foward. This makes surprise attacks from the rear ideal as the guns have to traverse 180 degrees to fire at you. If you have three tanks close together and one is facing North and two are facing South, consider taking out the lone tank facing North with a different weapon, so you have less risk getting chewed up on your gun attacks. My typical tank kill profile is a 45 degree strafe starting at 5500-6000 feet height above target, 200-240 kts. If I have the TGP on the tank I'll roll in at 1.3 - 1.4nm slant range. The pipper should be on the target at minimum .6nm, fire and be pulling off "briskly yet smooth" at .4nm. It takes a good amount of practice to reliably line up a shot and pull off at such close distances without crashing or ripping a wing off. Alternatively, there is the 30 degree strafe which helps prevent that but you have less surface area to hit, and IRL the rounds don't penetrate as well. An A-10 pilot told me they used to train to 60 degree strafes. I didnt ask to elaborate if they still do, but I wouldnt be surprised if they stopped that as its very possible it's taken some pilot's lives.

Pretty much what you do; another technique if able, is to throw down a wp rocket as the mark persists....then the general area should be stored as markpoint Z. Oh, if only we had a HMCS.

Very handy user guide. One correction, and anyone correct me if I'm wrong, I believe the FAB- series general purpose bombs are indicated in kilograms, so a FAB-250 is a little over 500lb.

I cannot shoot down an AI mig-21 in a neutral guns only matchup. I have tried different flaps settings and seem to have no significant turning advantage. Usually the situation devolves into the two jets opposite eachother in a two circle fight while Im at 250 kts or less and the mig will zoom 5000 feet. Based on Vladimir Kondaurov's accounts, having the flaps extended was the way to go below 400kts. I will try to make some layman-scientific turning results with tacview.

The only advice I can give is if you have a pod of WP rockets you can make a slightly longer attack run and fire off a WP about 4-5 miles away to mark the target area, then set up for a roll in attack. If it is a gun attack, you dont even need to switch to guns mode as the gun pipper also shows in CCIP mode. When you come off, have your CDU mode selected to "mark" meaning markpoints. If you select the Z mark (always location of your last attack) and china hat aft long your TGP will be slewed to your last attack point.....then you will have both a visual mark (WP) for a short while and your TGP slewed in the target area. I have a habit of boresighting the TGP frequently so I dont get and annoying gimbal roll when I need it most. (Litening pod can only rotate several full turns in one direction before it needs to "unwind")

Well it'd sure be fun. Much more capability and 3x the climb rate of an L-39C....making it the most flexible and kinematic trainer to date. But there may not be much of a market for it due to the similarities to an L-39.

The air-ground radar provides precise, accurate all-weather targeting. There are limitations due to the resolution. For example, trucks won't be able to be identified as trucks with the radar, it's likely to show up only as a dot. However, large features such as roads, runways and buildings (especially metal) show up very well and are fairly identifiable. You mentioned GBUs. GBU stands for Guided Bomb Unit and encompasses either coordinate dependent (JDAMs) or laser guided (LGBs). Since the radar is capable of accurate targeting, you could lock up a point on the radar and release a JDAM with a high degree of accuracy as JDAMs guide directly on coordinates. You could still release an LGB off of a locked target on the radar, as the coordinates will be inputted into the jet and the jet will provide a firing solution, but without a laser to terminally guide the weapon, it is virtually identical to dropping a dumb bomb in CCRP mode. No air-ground capable jet really needs a radar per se; it is another tool in the toolbox. It is more or less useful depending on the mission variables. For example: A flight of F-15Es are tasked with destroying a bridge. Let's say the bridge is surrounded by tactical SAMs and AAA, and it is a cloudy day with a low ceiling. The radar could prove invaluable as it can see through clouds where a TGP cannot. The fact that a bridge is a radar significant object, as well as the water surrounding it, as well as land on both sides of the river makes it easy to identify the bridge. The flight does not need to resort to low altitude flight, exposing themselves to enemy fire. If the F-15E is in Afghanistan, supporting troops taking fire from personnel in high, rocky terrain, the radar is likely of little use. First, rocky terrain just looks like a big jumble of clutter and second, individual people are pretty much impossible to identify, let alone even show up on the radar. A TGP with a clear line of sight would be a better tool.

https://tacairnet.com/2016/03/01/f-35-can-dogfight-says-norwegian-test-pilot/

Or say perhaps, SA-21s like the ones with coverage in Syria across the Turkish border. Or SA-22s with their anti-PGM capability in a more tactical, mobile role could spell a significant challenge even for LO jets.

Assuming flight as the crow flies with 270 KIAS as the average, then that checks with a 415KTAS at about 34,000 feet cruising altitude.

Desert Storm, OAF, OIF and OEF are not the end-all be-all evidence that we would be able to maintain air superiority or knock out IADS to an incapable measure throughout a conflict with a so called "near peer" enemy, which the Iraqis, Serbs or Taliban were not. Even if we were able to, those "nifty gizmos" on the F-35 are not useless. A 360 degree EO/IR view would prove invaluable in terms of mutual support for those pesky MANPADS that won't go away with growlers and HARM shooters....or maybe just identifying anything with a significant heat source at the turn of a head. Or what about the highest resolution AESA air to ground radar ever put on a jet? The war doesn't stop with a cloud deck at 5,000 feet, and targeting pods would need to get within MANPADS range to see.

I understand there are counter-arguments to what I'm about to say, but I'm only playing devils advocate. SDBs, specifically laser SDBs have a few limitations in regards to CAS in close proximity to troops compared to a 30mm strafe: One is a longer time for weapons effects on target. SDBs have a longer time of flight than forward firing munitions or even traditional JDAMs. These could be critical seconds when troops are in close contact. Laser weapons in general are dependent upon clear skies. Or at least require a cloud deck to be above X feet above the target. Broken/scattered clouds could complicate or delay employment. Of course the weapons could be released on a steerpoint only (like GBU-39/B), but that is a whole other discussion when enemy troops are moving, adverse weather, etc. The 30mm can cover a fairly large area of troops in one strafe pass, and even more 15 seconds later when number two gets an adjustment from the JTAC. Multiple laser guided bombs spaced out in say, a 50m for simultaneous employment require detailed coordination. Even if the pilots can clearly see a dispersion of enemy troops and don't require a detailed description from the JTAC on where both bombs should go, there are a lot of things that need to happen. The flight lead is thinking: "I need to have my wingman join close formation for a simultaneous release" "I need to coordinate separate laser codes for both bombs and lasers" "I need to talk my wingman's eyes or sensors onto his intended aimpoint" "I should set up at a slant range and speed that allows the shortest time of fall for the bomb" and "We need to be in position, after we release to be able to lase the last 20-10 seconds as to where there are no clouds blocking our lasers, my pod or EOTS isn't masked and be able to adjust my crosshairs possibly for moving troops." -All while someone on the radio is potentially panicking with gunfire being heard. To abort a laser guided weapon mid-flight requires that a Post Launch Abort plan be established prior to employment...something that a JTAC will probably not bother discussing when time is of the essence. Whether or not an A-10 can operate and perform CAS in a non-permissive environment is highly situation dependent, although strong fanboys for or against the A-10 may argue otherwise.

Many things that are passive can be jammed, like radio frequencies, GPS receivers, IR missile seekers, Electro Optical devices....etc.

Based off of the things I have been reading and hearing from actual pilots, rather than defense analysts....I think the maneuverability won't be an issue....granted, it won't be an F-22, but that doesn't mean it won't hold its own. http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/verbatim/4/168984/first-norwegian-f_35-pilot-recounts-flight-impressions.html "Overall, flying the F-35 reminds me a bit of flying the F/A-18 Hornet, but with an important difference: It has been fitted with a turbo." https://tacairnet.com/2016/03/01/f-35-can-dogfight-says-norwegian-test-pilot/ I think the maneuverability argument could be likened to F-4 or F-14 fans complaining about the new Hornet in the late 70s.....its max speed is somewhere around 1.8 mach, which may have sounded like blasphemy at the time. We learned that max speed wasn't so important (beyond a certain degree) with the evolution of fighters. Now, it's all about situational awareness, low observability and advanced datalink networking. If two aircraft merge it's more than likely that one of the two will be killed by a third party who can internalize the picture and develop a plan of attack at 1G.

Long winded video, but lots of information.

http://airman.dodlive.mil/2016/04/the-perfect-storm/

A few things not considered: Air to ground radar (SAR). 4th gen aircraft, if equipped with a capable enough radar to perform CAS with it (F-15E), need to fly out 15-20 miles to map the ground at an ideal resolution. The F-35 can do this from a near overhead CAS orbit, and it's the highest resolution A-G radar out there. Consider this is an all weather capability, where IR spectrum sensors are hindered. Also, higher accuracy coordinates for targeting are acquired from much, much farther away than with a TGP lasing for coordinates. Outside of identifying personnel hidden in trees, the DAS system is a huge SA builder for both a pilot and JTAC. Imagine flying the A-10 and being able to put the targeting pod wherever you look. Now, the scorpion hmcs will and does help the hawg drivers do this, but one must take the TGP off of a point of interest to examine another area. The EOTS on the F-35 will be able to stay on an area of interest while the pilot can scan elsewhere, as slightly less fidelity, yet with IR, with the DAS. This can help greatly with talk ons and mutual support (SAM/AAA fire), where now the pilot no longer needs to look "over the rail" to identify such things. The integrated ELINT sensors help the F-35 geolocate radars, similar to the harm targeting system on the F-16. The F-35 will still retain more stealth capability with external stores than any other aircraft in an A-G role. The A-10 excels in several areas: The pilots, having a solely air-ground role, have more experience and understanding with the ground maneuver picture. They are excellent at CAS procedures and frequently act as a safeguard to freventing fratricide...because, not all JTACs are created equal. The GAU-8 is excellent for protecting troops where many times bombs are too dangerous. I know someone who was 20 meters from taliban, and a burst of 30mm saved him and his team. IMO, it's hard to compare loiter times. The F-35(A) carries much more fuel, but of course burns more. As far as payload, an A-10 carrying more than 4 500lb class bombs, 2x maverick and a pod of WP rockets is a bit of a rarity. The jet is very survivable, and can get in close to protect troops effectively. Single hits from MANPADS have killed A-10s before, however.

It's always been a hurdle, especially for the large scale war missions. The only thing you can do is compromise. You can turn off the "allied flight reports" in the sim options and be able to hear more streamlined JTAC comms, at the expense of missing out on the flight reports for SA.

I'm pretty sure any details about the ALQ-184 are classified; it isn't unique to the A-10C, though. Though his point illustrates that the A-10 is a great aircraft, currently in service, to have modeled in a sim with little restrictions on classified capabilities. I'm away from my sim PC now, but is the "prepare mission" feature still available? I think it had some bugs, but the point of it was you could, IIRC, set up your DSMS profiles and so on....like a data cartridge from the mission editor.

No. AFAIK, the four digit PRF codes are a NATO standard. I don't know if Russian designators have selectable codes, or if they're coincidentally four digit either.

AFAIK, F-15 pilots wear G-suits. Unless you're suggesting the G-LOC onset is like not wearing one.

So a RU ground-based LTD (Laser Target Designator) exists, but no knowledge if the SU-25A/T has LST (Laser Spot Track) capability. This is what the Pave Penny did on the A-10A (LST only), which has been replaced by targeting pods.