A10s over Kosovo

[baltic_dragon]

First of all - big hello to everyone, as I am returning to the Hog after more then one year of absence. BTW - it is incredible hom much you can forget if you don't fly on a regular basis :)

 

Anyhow, while going through the forums I found a few references to the book mentioned in the title. And as I found it to be extremely interesting, I am posting a link to it, as it seems to be available online: http://aupress.maxwell.af.mil/digital/pdf/book/b_0090_haave_haun_a10s_over_kosovo.pdf

 

P.S. Sorry if it has been posted somewhere, did a quick search and I did not findi it.

[Yurgon]

First of all - big hello to everyone, as I am returning to the Hog after more then one year of absence. BTW - it is incredible hom much you can forget if you don't fly on a regular basis :)

 

Yeah, but when getting back into the cockpit after a hiatus, I'm usually surprised how much I actually still remember and how the knowledge of the underlying concepts allows me to quickly relearn individual tasks. :thumbup:

 

Anyhow, while going through the forums I found a few references to the book mentioned in the title. And as I found it to be extremely interesting, I am posting a link to it, as it seems to be available online: http://aupress.maxwell.af.mil/digital/pdf/book/b_0090_haave_haun_a10s_over_kosovo.pdf

 

I bought it in print and never regretted that, but I think it's totally cool that it's also available for download. Great read and definitely worth every re-post. :D

[Toolboy77]

Thanks for the link baltic_dragon!

This sounds really interesting!

[baltic_dragon]

This is a really good read. They were flying the A's if I am not mistaken, but it gives you a lot of valuable info, and shows how well the DCS can model the RL actions.

[HiJack]

My easter read have arrived :D Thanks :thumbup:

[rajdary]

Thanks! It looks very interesting.

[AtaliaA1]

First of all - big hello to everyone, as I am returning to the Hog after more then one year of absence. BTW - it is incredible hom much you can forget if you don't fly on a regular basis :)

 

Anyhow, while going through the forums I found a few references to the book mentioned in the title. And as I found it to be extremely interesting, I am posting a link to it, as it seems to be available online: http://aupress.maxwell.af.mil/digital/pdf/book/b_0090_haave_haun_a10s_over_kosovo.pdf

 

P.S. Sorry if it has been posted somewhere, did a quick search and I did not findi it.

 

 

A very good read. Books on everything Jet Fighter related are posted in the Chit Chat section of the Forum here\

 

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=93077&highlight=Books

[ENO]

Really enjoy reading it and getting mission ideas from it. Read it 10+ times

[cichlidfan]

I'll and my plus to this one. Excellent book.

[DUSTY]

Ahh OAF and the A-10A - here's a great extract from that book which talks about the Warthog FAC(A) pilots and how they had to operate. We're truly spoilt with our TAD and datalink, it's amazing what they had to do in that time and environment.

 

After an A-10 AFAC located a lucrative target (Which was quite a feat in itself), he had to develop the data necessary for the FAC-to-fighter brief (9-line). To do so, while flying the aircraft, he would have to use a sequence similar to the following:

 

1. Find the general target area on a large-scale map (1:250) that had markings for each of the smaller-scale maps (1:50).

 

2. Determine which 1:50 to use.

 

3. Find the correct 1:50 among the stack of 16 such maps. (Imagine all that crammed in your helmet bag which itself is crammed in the cockpit somewhere.)

 

4. Study the terrain, roads, forests, power lines, and houses marked on the map to match the target area on the ground.

 

5. Read the coordinates, in Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) format, from the scale on the map.

 

6. Write these coordinates on the inside of the A-10’s canopy in grease pencil.

 

7. Go back to the 1:50, follow the contour lines to determine the target elevation in meters, and write that on the canopy.

 

8. Use the Inertial Navigation System to convert the UTM coordinates to latitude and longitude, and write those on the canopy.

 

9. Use the HUD to convert the elevation from meters to feet, and write that on the canopy.

 

10. Finally, read the target information to the incoming fighters over the radio.

[baltic_dragon]

Ahh OAF and the A-10A - here's a great extract from that book which talks about the Warthog FAC(A) pilots and how they had to operate. We're truly spoilt with our TAD and datalink, it's amazing what they had to do in that time and environment.

 

After an A-10 AFAC located a lucrative target (Which was quite a feat in itself), he had to develop the data necessary for the FAC-to-fighter brief (9-line). To do so, while flying the aircraft, he would have to use a sequence similar to the following:

 

1. Find the general target area on a large-scale map (1:250) that had markings for each of the smaller-scale maps (1:50).

 

2. Determine which 1:50 to use.

 

3. Find the correct 1:50 among the stack of 16 such maps. (Imagine all that crammed in your helmet bag which itself is crammed in the cockpit somewhere.)

 

4. Study the terrain, roads, forests, power lines, and houses marked on the map to match the target area on the ground.

 

5. Read the coordinates, in Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) format, from the scale on the map.

 

6. Write these coordinates on the inside of the A-10’s canopy in grease pencil.

 

7. Go back to the 1:50, follow the contour lines to determine the target elevation in meters, and write that on the canopy.

 

8. Use the Inertial Navigation System to convert the UTM coordinates to latitude and longitude, and write those on the canopy.

 

9. Use the HUD to convert the elevation from meters to feet, and write that on the canopy.

 

10. Finally, read the target information to the incoming fighters over the radio.

 

ED! Why don't we get a grease pencil in our A10s?!

[NineLine]

Buy your own, write it on your monitor.

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

A 10's did not do much over Yugoslavia. This book clearly states that. There was several large scale attacks of Albanian military with A-10 CAS, which I don't remember was describe in the book. But none of those attacks was successful because A-10 did not fly low enough to do anything really useful. Only few mobile equipment tanks and APC's were hit, and that was mostly because of the KLA FAC's working on the ground.

[NineLine]

A 10's did not do much over Yugoslavia. This book clearly states that. There was several large scale attacks of Albanian military with A-10 CAS, which I don't remember was describe in the book. But none of those attacks was successful because A-10 did not fly low enough to do anything really useful. Only few mobile equipment tanks and APC's were hit, and that was mostly because of the KLA FAC's working on the ground.

 

 

I guess that is a matter of opinion as I got a different feel for their effectiveness from that book, although I am just partly into it.

[NineLine]

But their ability to operate was severely restricted, if not completely stopped... they had to change the way they operated greatly. So... again... its how you look at it.

[FSKRipper]

Great reading. Thanks for the post :thumbup:.

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

I guess that is a matter of opinion as I got a different feel for their effectiveness from that book, although I am just partly into it.

Here's another opinion, specifically dealing with mobile targets, Tanks and APC's and etc. And, that was the A-10 job, that's what the A-10 were built for. And this is not a Serbian newspaper nor Serbian propaganda. It was a Newsweek magazine, which I use to have the original copy of. And I gave it to a person to read the article and he lost it ... Anyway, take a look at this Newsweek article from May of 2000:

 

http://www.newsweek.com/kosovo-cover-160273

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

The point is that A-10s were not allowed to operate according to doctrine, thus their effectiveness was adversely affected. Kinda like how we "lost" vietnam. The improper application of ROE prevented success. When the gloves are off, things go much better.

I agree with you. Also, that Newsweek article clearly states that as well. Well, NATO had no stake whatsoever in this use of military power, therefore, targets were chosen so as to completely eliminate possible loss of NATO aircraft. Same with ROE's. Thus, A-10 flew lot's of missions doing nothing.

[NineLine]

Here's another opinion, specifically dealing with mobile targets, Tanks and APC's and etc. And, that was the A-10 job, that's what the A-10 were built for. And this is not a Serbian newspaper nor Serbian propaganda. It was a Newsweek magazine, which I use to have the original copy of. And I gave it to a person to read the article and he lost it ... Anyway, take a look at this Newsweek article from May of 2000:

 

http://www.newsweek.com/kosovo-cover-160273

 

 

Well for one, its a media report... take that for what it is worth. Two, that was a report on the overall effectiveness of the entire campaign, not just the A-10s. Also, see Noodle's comment... that is an important factor as well.

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

Well for one, its a media report... take that for what it is worth.

It is a media report based on obtained, official military report. Factually, that Newsweek article was very accurate.

 

Two, that was a report on the overall effectiveness of the entire campaign, not just the A-10s.

As Nikola properly noted, by simple mathematics, that makes A-10 effectiveness even worse.

 

Also, see Noodle's comment... that is an important factor as well.

I already agreed with Noodle's comment (see my response to his comment above).

 

So... again... its how you look at it.

Yes, one can say that the glass is 1% full of water, and play dumb when the question is posed about how empty it is. Indeed, a lot depends on how you look at it. But objective observer will say that the glass is 1% full and 99% empty.

[ENO]

Yes, one can say that the glass is 1% full of water, and play dumb when the question is posed about how empty it is. Indeed, a lot depends on how you look at it. But objective observer will say that the glass is 1% full and 99% empty.

 

By objective observer I assume you mean one that agrees with your opinion 100%?

 

And this is not a Serbian newspaper nor Serbian propaganda. It was a Newsweek magazine, which I use to have the original copy of.

 

WOW. Now THAT, sir, is some credentials! Don't bother debating with this guy... he'll have it all covered.

 

So back to what we were saying about objective observers... there are none here so stop dismissing everyone's opinion like you're an authority on the subject.

Edited April 14, 2014 by ENO

[NineLine]

That makes A-10s score even worse.

 

 

I didnt realize it was a game, but their score looks pretty good if you calculate assists, CSAR and losses...

Edited April 14, 2014 by NineLine

[NineLine]

 

Yes, one can say that the glass is 1% full of water, and play dumb when the question is posed about how empty it is. Indeed, a lot depends on how you look at it. But objective observer will say that the glass is 1% full and 99% empty.

 

I am gonna go out on a limb here and say you arent the best judge of objective observer.... anyways, the book is a great read for A-10 fans. I am enjoying it. Any other discussion is much like pissing in the wind.

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

WOW. Now THAT, sir, is some credentials! Don't bother debating with this guy... he'll have it all covered.

Don't debate me. Let us debate the facts in that article. And compare them with the "A-10's Over Kosovo" book. It seems that the Newsweek article and the A-10's Over Kosovo book are pretty equal in their assessment.

 

The fact is, and it says numerous time throughout the book that A-10 were flying high. And the Newsweek article has a very good explanation on why.

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

.... anyways, the book is a great read for A-10 fans. I am enjoying it.

I do agree that the book is a great read. I did not enjoy it, however.