Boogieman

You're in fantasy land now. We covered this already. No idea what you're talking about here. FL40+ is no problem for F35. . Russian MANPADS have never been this capable or this coordinated (15:35 onward). Going in circles now. Still going in circles. GAU-8 is no use if you can't survive using it. Current Russian IFV's have 30mm autocannons and the next gen (T15) will have 57mm. All of them even if AD vehicles are gone. I highly recommend you read this to get a sense of just how challenging this scenario would be for US airpower and how dangerous it would be for 4th gens, let alone one being expected to operate in close proximity to the FEBA. No, first you go out of band to laser and IR guidance at worst. You don't throw man and machine into the shredder unnecessarily.

Nope. I was simply responding to your assertion that an A10 with (hypothetical) guided 30mm could outrange 2S38 by employing GAU-8 from high altitude. This simply wouldn't work because the 57mm on the 2S38 has roughly double the max range of the GAU8's 30mm rounds. I will concede that I was not aware of this and it will definitely help - the A10's best chance of survival would be to engage from a safe distance, kill as much as it can then leave. Much easier said than done though. It's not that simple though is it? It might be in DCS but in the real world where skilled Russian crews are actively concealing their presence and using ISR data to set up ambushes etc it gets much more difficult. The A10 is a slow and non-stealthy aircraft, so the GBAD assets won't be sitting out in the open - they will be lying in wait using whatever ISR data is being fed to them. Very often. :thumbup: Not to this extent. Don't take it from me though - ask the Ukrainians just how dangerous this threat is now (15:35): 14LMmBsDw-g?t=923 (9K333 is already DIRCM hardened btw, and AFAIK there are no plans to fit DIRCM on the Hog.) It is, because I never argued the A10 SHOULD be a solve all - just that its survivability is questionable in its designated role (ie. when operating as part of a larger force package). The upgrades help - no doubt - but the best case scenario for the A10 is that it becomes a PGM truck and carries its key differentiator (the GAU) as dead weight for much of the conflict. This - again - assumes that you can consistently protect it from larger SAM systems (Buk, Triumf etc) and enemy airpower - neither of which is a given in such a conflict. As I said earlier, ISR assets like JSTARS and AWACS would get targeted aggressively by Russian heavy EW as well as MiG31 + R37. Russian missile forces and strategic air power would also be hammering the airbases that US tactical aircraft would need to operate from. It would not be a pretty fight, which is why it is not safe to assume a neat and tidy IADS rollback allowing A10 to operate at the FEBA effectively.

It's a freakin BMP3 chassis covered in fancy Russian ERA tiles - your (now low velocity) HEI will barely scratch the paint(!?). You've missed the point here - the thing will be belting your A10 with 57mm well before it gets in range to effectively employ those (currently imaginary) guided 30mm rounds (~3km for GAU8 vs ~8km for Derivatsiya-PVO). F35 sits at over 40,000ft quite happily, A10 doesn't. Nope, even in this ideal scenario you still have flare resistant MANPADS (eg 9K333) to worry about. You've beaten this straw man to death, leave it be already! !? Funny you bring that up. One of the few things that wasn't clean and clinical about Desert Storm were the losses suffered by the A10 - mostly when operating at low altitudes to single digit SAMs and AAA. Russian SHORAD has moved on in leaps and bounds since it relied on those systems - the A10 has not.

:lol: 30mm APDS rounds "falling from high altitude" would ever so gently plop down on top of it as they lose the velocity they need to penetrate anything. Range is supposed to be about ~5nm on the 57mm. Gun run this thing and it fires guided 57mm rounds down your throat, simple as that. Bear in mind this is just one system. Sosna (Strela replacement) will reach out further with a ~Mach 4 laser beam riding missile that the A10 has literally no countermeasures against. Pantsir will reach further than that and likewise for Tor-M2U. All of these systems can be expected to accompany Russian armoured formations as a matter of doctrine. No, EOTS can see and engage targets like this from MUCH further away... like over 10x further. You can add SAR Mapping via APG81 to the equation and it also makes it much more difficult for these systems to hide. Come on now - that's about as realistic as deciding to slam your plane into the target kamikaze style. Russian (and Chinese) EW is extremely dangerous, no doubt, but that is why the F35 has a modern AESA radar to give it the best possible chance of resisting enemy jamming and an inbuilt TGP like EOTS. It's also why GBU53 has IR, laser, MMW and GPS (with home-on-GPS-jam) all in the one weapon. You literally have every possible form of guidance to choose from - if one of them isn't working, you switch to one of the other 3.

Allow me to introduce you to Derivatsiya PVO, Russia's newest AAA system. It fires guided 57mm rounds that will outrange and outgun the GAU8 regardless of what it shoots. Now consider the T15 - their new heavy IFV - that also uses a stabilised 57mm cannon. Or there's Verba, the new MANPAD that is by all accounts immune to flares... Nope - like I said - trying to gun modern Russian armour is suicidal and only getting moreso as they continue to modernise.

Maybe. Ultimately the accuracy of the 30mm isn't the main problem, it's the lack of range. Getting close enough to gun modern Russian armoured formations is suicidal.

So what? If it’s succeeding in its job you’ve got a serious problem. My point is that rolling back these systems might not happen cleanly on Day 1 or even Day 7, 8, 9 etc. It's highly likely that you're looking at having to operate in heavily contested airspace for some time - not the totally benign airspace found in Iraq, Afghanistan or Syria. No argument there as such. That said even a “non-stealthy”, escorted F35 using external hardpoints will still lug a serious payload (up to 8 SDB internally plus I think 16 external), all while bringing with it better sensor & EW suites, better countermeasures, better MAWS, better kinematics… better survivability in the face of advanced enemy GBAD/SHORAD assets, EW and airpower... I agree that A10 sits on the sidelines on Day 1. My question is whether it ever becomes safe for the Hog to meaningfully enter the fray at all. I’m not confident it viably joins the fight on Day 2… or 3… or 4… etc. Not really. Western/US GBAD coverage is nowhere near as dense as Russia’s. This is in the process of being addressed – to an extent – by M-SHORAD. For now it basically consists of disparate Patriot/THAAD/Aegis Ashore systems positioned to protect vital assets... that's it. On the flip side, take a look at how Ukrainian Frogfoots performed against pro-Russian GBAD in the Ukrainian Crisis. It wasn’t pretty. Bear in mind that the best Russian GBAD equipment wasn’t even being used against them, nor was Russian airpower. I am not suggesting the A10 should be able to operate alone. I am arguing that the temporal and spatial niche in which it CAN viably operate in a contested peer environment (EVEN when used as part of a larger force package) has diminished dramatically and is continuing to do so. In a European setting those other assets it needs are going to have their hands absolutely full operating from airbases that will be targeted by Russian missiles & airpower, as well as conducting other vital missions like OCA, DCA, interdiction, SEAD/DEAD etc etc. In the Pacific the Hog is going to be nigh on useless as it has next to no role in a vast maritime theatre. I’m not expecting the A10 to make a contribution on Day 1 in Europe – I’m saying/concerned it might still have to sit on the sidelines (or suffer disproportionately high losses) on Day 30+…

That's only if the SAM sites are using their own radars to cue missile shots. If they're getting targeting data from other parts of the ISR network then you're not necessarily going to be able to pin them down that easily. Set up time for S400 is something like 10mins if I remember correctly, so they're pretty damn mobile. Also bear in mind that JSTARS, Compass Call, Rivet Joint etc are all going to be aggressively targeted by the likes of Krasukha 2 & 4, Tu-214R (EA) as well as enemy airpower (MiG31 + R37) so they're not always going to be available when you need them. Granted, you need support for any 4th gen airframe in this environment, but in my view the A10 is showing its age in the peer fight. It reminds me of our F111s (RAAF) - they were great aircraft for a long time, but eventually it became evident that they needed Hornets to escort them just about everywhere they went. This nullified the range advantage it had over the bug and eventually it was time to move on to something new. Look, I'm not saying the A10 is obsolete per se, but I fear the Russian IADS would chew it up and spit it out nowadays and I doubt it would fair better with China (expansive maritime theatre). COIN ops like those in Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria are where it really shines, but they are a far cry from what a peer competitor would bring to the table.

Only if you know where they are. Newer systems like the latest Tor and Pantsir variants can still reach pretty high up, especially against a slower target like an A10. It only takes one of those to pop up at your feet and you're toast. I'd add that it's going to be really difficult to identify when the larger systems have been completely dealt with due to their mobility and their connection to other parts of the ISR network. What this adds up to is a situation in which the A10 is going to need to have its hand held by a lot of supporting assets (SEAD, fighter escort, EW etc etc) to have a hope of staying alive. Not ideal. Surrender? Honestly if things are going that badly the only solution is probably a serving of B61's, not GAU8.

You are quite welcome. Personally I am not optimistic about the A10's utility against a peer opponent in general. SDB helps when you know exactly where the GBAD threat is but the A10's sensor and countermeasures suites - in my view - simply don't cut it if you don't. Even when the bigger S300/400/500 and Buk type systems have been dealt with you could still have the smaller independent systems I listed earlier pop up and nail you fairly easily. Add enemy airpower to the equation and things get really dire.

The problem against a peer threat is that it will be difficult to ever conclude that SEAD/DEAD has been effective enough to permit A10 operations. Russia and China have such ridiculous concentrations of highly capable and mobile GBAD systems that the GAU8 in particular is going to struggle to find relevance. I just don't see how you're going to use it without first accounting for the local population of Verba, Sosna, Strela, Derivatsya-PVO, Pantsir, Tor etc etc. (good luck with that :helpsmilie:) When you include the fact that all of these systems are likely to be linked together and potentially sharing a common operating picture via the broader ISR network, you're looking at a system that is able to respond and "heal" itself in response to SEAD and DEAD strikes. I just don't see operating at the low altitudes GAU8 requires as a smart move in this environment. This is exactly where the Ukrainians got smashed by Russian GBAD systems ~5 years ago.

AIM260 is already in the pipeline, so it wouldn't surprise me in the least to see this or something like it get fielded. The crazy thing about it is that the F35 would be able to use DAS to track its targets and cue its missile shots in any direction within the WVR domain. Turns the whole WVR fight on its head. (I know over-the-shoulder missile shots have already been demonstrated by ASRAAM & MICA users, but AFAIK this has been using off-board targeting via datalink. AN/AAQ37 allows you to do it autonomously).

Throttle to idle, pop flares, defensive break.

Just a quick aside here, but has anyone else noticed that LACQ mode only seems to lock targets when used off-boresight? Whenever I try to use it via the HUD nothing happens, but if I use it to lock an off-bore target with JHMCS it works fine..?

Right. I mean based on the RCS of the munitions and the power of the radar systems in question I would have expected: 1) S300 to detect & engage regular free fall bombs at the greatest range, then; 2) Tor to detect and engage regular free fall bombs next, then; 3) S300 to detect and engage JSOW, then; 4) Tor to detect and engage JSOW at the shortest range (if at all) ...in that order. (I guess you could argue for swapping numbers 2 & 3 depending on RCS values vs radar output but I don't want to overcomplicate things TOO much :smilewink:).

Recently I've been playing around with the air to ground side of the Hornet and noticed a few things: - The JSOW - a VLO/LO weapon - never seems to be engaged by larger/theatre level SAM systems like the S300 - The AGM154 is regularly engaged and shot down by the point defence SA15 - No GBAD systems seem to react to JDAM/GBU/dumb bombs at all This strikes me as perculiar, since the JSOW should have a smaller radar signature than a regular free fall bomb and therefore be detected and engaged later. Moreover, I would have expected theatre level SAM systems (with their much more powerful radars) to have the best chance of picking up and engaging a low RCS target like JSOW - better than a smaller point defence system like the Tor. Is this consistent with other people's experience or am I off base here? Happy to be corrected if so.

Depends on the sophistication/sensitivity of the ESM system listening for it I guess, but the trend has definitely been towards passive MAWS (at least in 5th gen). I know that the L/MWIR based AN/AAQ37 on F35 is supposed to be capable of missile tracking (ie. even after motor burnout) presumably by looking for frictional heating of the missile body itself. All classified stuff in the end though. Anyway, I won't go too far off topic. I hope this and the rest of the RAZBAM modules continue to go from strength to strength!

Yes and IIRC your video from earlier in the thread showed a MICA being fired over the shoulder at a target behind the launch aircraft (LOAL shot presumably). Scary stuff. Passive IR/UV based MAWS seem to be a standard feature in 5th gen aircraft. F22, F35, Su57 and J20 all seem to have them in one form or another. Better than an RF based system to preserve EMCON/low observability.

They did, it just fell by the wayside after the Cold War ended AFAIK. The AIM95, for example, was an early attempt at producing a HOBS IR missile, while the AIM152 (Phoenix successor) was slated to have an IR terminal seeker as well. If I was a betting man I would also put some money on the forthcoming AIM260 (AMRAAM replacement) having a combination of an AESA paired with an IIR seeker. Something similar to the setup on the Israeli Stunner perhaps.

AIM9X Block I (the version modeled in DCS) doesn't have LOAL. That came in with AIM9X Block II. ASRAAM/AIM132 does have LOAL and I have heard that its range performance also compares roughly with early model AMRAAMs. The 6inch dual pulse motor is a bit of a beast apparently. I would love to have it on the F/A18C to round out my RAAF Hornet dreams but alas, it is not to be :smilewink: Interesting, I always assumed MICA was smokeless. Still, I think MICA IR would be extremely dangerous in DCS. The agility, range performance and flare resistance from the imaging infra-red seekerhead would make for a very nasty missile.

This is great news. I am a die hard Hornet driver but I am really looking forward to mixing it up with Mirages that have MICA available. I think the MICA IR will catch a lot of people by surprise - like an ET without the give-away smoke plume (and better flare resistance).

^ Same for me! Haha. Thanks - problem solved.

Hi all. Not sure if this is the right spot for this but I have just received my Warbrd base and am combining it with a TM Warthog Grip. Unfortunately when I go to update the firmware it gets stuck on "Step 1/5 Waiting for Bootloader". I was careful to specify the correct path to the required .hexc file before starting. Any ideas?