A10C tactics dependent on geography

[Conure]

Hello all,

 

I am currently reading Warthog: Flying The A10 In The Gulf War, and though I'm only half way through I already feel like I've learned a lot. Despite thinking pilots would generally spend a lot of time heads down (granted they didn't have a TGP as the book is based on the A10A - they did have FLIR capable mavericks on board) it seems they spent almost all of their time flying by looking out the window. Makes perfect sense as even on a PPL we are told to fly by looking outside and not at the instruments, but I thought maybe it was different for fighter pilots.

 

Is this still true of the A10c? When acquiring targets would you generally do this with your unaided eyes, or spend more time looking through the TGP screen? Whilst the TGP most likely significantly aids your ability to see far off targets I'd expect it severely impacts situational awareness, so I can't figure out which is used.

 

Another question I have is about attack tactics. The book suggests conventional tactics for the Warthog in a war in Europe would involve flying at 100-500ft NOE, popping up, destroying a target then diving back down. These tactics would, I believe, be more appropriate to Caucasus than the high altitude approach of desert warfare where there isn't much terrain to hide in. Again, are these valid tactics for the A10C or did the Warthog fundamentally change after the upgrades and become a high altitude CAS aircraft?

 

I also should say this book is absolutely great and read in conjunction with using the sim, it really brings the cockpit interactions and combat to life. Using DCS really lets you visualise what's going on in the cockpit. Highly recommended!

[Nu-NRG]

TGP stands for Targeting pod not search pod.

 

Yes, they still fly heads out. Any kind of excesive heads down or fixation can lead to deadly consequences over battlefield. There are some scarry stories as to what can happen...

 

Now days aided by HMCS.

 

There is a famous quote: one look is worth a thousand radar scans.

[Kippy]

Conure, this topic is one of debate from the A-10C community here at DCS.

 

Having spent over 1,000 hours in the 10C, I've learned quite a few things. I assumed, going into the A-10C, that the fundamental skills of A-10A flying such as flying visually and attacking visually were moot and out the window with the new tech. Boy was I wrong.

 

The tech of the A-10C is fantastic, and the big talk of the A-10C is her sensors. Tech like the TGP allows us to generate coordinates that are pristine and on the money. The TGP can allow us to pick out targets from 30nmi away, and that's a fantastic tool to have, especially when you compound it with guided munitions such as the GBU-38 and the GBU-12. Essentially, the A-10Cs new tech allows it to fulfill a role better than the A-10A - that of a surgical strike platform. This is great - it expands the A-10s doors further on roles like Air Interdiction and can assist the pig's effectiveness in CAS when needed.

 

However, I've found that the more I fly in combat with the A-10C, the less I use the TGP and guided munitions. While both of these things are absolutely fantastic, they truthfully don't change the overall game for CAS, the A-10s primary role. Remember that the A-10 was designed to get low and slow, for the pilot to visually assess and engage targets. This is because sensors such as the TGP have a soda-straw view of the battle-space. Sure, I can see with the vision of a hawk within a 20 meter battle-space, and that's great for things like air interdiction and surgical strikes. CAS, on the other hand... Let's say that there's additional friendly units at 35 meters, that I can't see due to the limited view of the targeting pod and the JTAC I'm talking to doesn't know are there. I could very easily cause a hazard to those units. No matter how advanced the TGP is in it's current state, it can't replace just being able to look left or right and see the battle-space around you.

 

Ultimately, the A-10 was designed for CAS. The A-10s greatest CAS tools, have been, are, and will continue to be the Mk.I Eyeball and the GAU-8/A. I've noticed this as a pilot, and as a CA JTAC. I'd much rather have the A-10 at 2,500 feet making gun passes every 20 seconds rather than have him at 10,000 feet dropping GBU-12s every two minutes. As a JTAC in CA, the first thing I do with my guys on station is to get their guided munitions on high value, hard targets such as MBTs and AAA, and then have them get low, slow, and kinetic with that gun of theirs as fast as possible, suppressing the enemy with focused, accurate gun passes every 30 seconds or so.

 

This video explains it really well.

https://youtu.be/_L_TjXXx7eQ?t=7m52s

Edited December 4, 2016 by Kippy

[Xavven]

Kippy pretty much said it. When I first started flying the A-10C, it was mostly about learning all the systems, and it's easy to spend a lot of time heads down on the TGP and guided munitions because the procedures are quite interesting.

 

My first real wakeup call was when I was flying CAS for a Combined Arms player. His convoy got flanked by an enemy tank line, and by the time I got sensors on target, the fight was practically over and I was of no help. Had I just visually acquired the target and gone in with guns, I would have gotten one or two kills during the engagement. Lesson learned -- the TGP is slow compared to performing CCIP weapons engagements.

 

From then on, I started flying heads up the majority of the time. The situational awareness you can gain from this is substantial.

 

Now that said, it all depends on the mission you're flying, your objectives, the threats, etc. The A-10C can use used to maverick a couple of static targets and then fly home, or even serve as an AFAC, and in those cases your mission profile will look much different compared to a CAS assignment.

 

As for tactics and altitude, the A-10 has this reputation of being "low and slow" but that doesn't mean they have to been in the weeds all day. For example, if you read the book A-10's over Kosovo, written by the pilots that flew in that engagement, you'll see that they weren't allowed below about 10,000 ft due to SAM concerns. They had to work hard just to negotiate that down to 8,000 ft so they could see and engage targets more easily. That war was fought with mostly air power, though, so there were no CAS missions. There are other cases where your A-10's would be best employed at lower altitudes. In other words, it turns out that the A-10 can be in the weeds, at low altitude, or medium altitude depending on the needs of the mission.

[rickberry49]

I agree with the looking out the window part but, unless your HIGH END graphics is set to max looking out the window in the sim is NOT like looking out in real life. When you have a threat like AAA or Sam standing off at 20 Miles and locking on is the way I go. Once the bit threats are gone then I love to go in and use the guns...

 

I've seen some chatter about the Starway Map Mod with better visuals, has anybody used this and does it help???

[Windsortheater]

I love the A but struggle with SAM threats using the eyeball and a launch smoke trail to locate. Is there a better way with the A or do I just stay away until a TGP equipped C or SU25t comes along to take them out at lock distances?

 

I use Starways and mustangs texture packs and neither benefit visually spotting SAMs. I don't think ground textures are a factor at lock distances.

 

Sent from my A1-860 using Tapatalk

[Aginor]

What kind of SAMs are you talking about?

- Radar SAMS: Stay out of there if possible and let SEAD do the work.

- MANPADS, Strelas, Tunguskas: Fly 12,000ft AGL if possible, that makes them unlikely to hit you. Hit vehicles with Mavericks or cluster bombs. Drop flares every 1-2 seconds when attacking low.

[The Legman]

I agree with the looking out the window part but, unless your HIGH END graphics is set to max looking out the window in the sim is NOT like looking out in real life. When you have a threat like AAA or Sam standing off at 20 Miles and locking on is the way I go. Once the bit threats are gone then I love to go in and use the guns...

 

I've seen some chatter about the Starway Map Mod with better visuals, has anybody used this and does it help???

 

The problem is not model enlargement, is that if you only look through the TGP, your situational awareness is ridiculous. It is MUCH better to try and identify visually, acquire landmarks and create markpoints using the map on the TAD based on your eyes, and then use the TGP to pinpoint a close area. But what if you don't have TGP? The A-10 didn't have TGP for many years and they did CAS pretty well.

 

I have seen people complaining on the Hog being slow, when they are carrying unrealistic and absurd loadouts. Getting realistic loadouts makes the Hog agile and wonderful to fly around at low speeds and getting used to your gun is a must. When I started flying it, i barely touched the cannon. But the cannon and rockets are bread and butter on the Hog.

 

Forget about Hogs with 4, or even worse, 6 mavericks and stuff like that.

[Oscar Juliet]

I teach people how to fly the A10c and the number one issues is that they are heads down in the cockpit. They have zero situational awareness because they want to bring all sensors up on both MFDs.

 

With my experience most online servers will give you a coordinate of a city with some basic information of targets. You'll know what kind of SAM/AAA threats to expect but you won't know where they are exactly.

 

I prefer to use my knowledge of distance from target to be safe from the SAM/AAA threats while orbiting at a decent altitutde so I can scan for targets. If JTAC is available that would be great but in my experience 90% of the time there is no real or AI JTAC.

 

I always keep my TAD on my left MFD and my TGP on my right. If I'm using mavericks I will toggle my right MFD off of TGP to MAV. I always keep my TAD open for situational awareness when my face is in the cockpit. But at a moments notice I should have no issue looking out of my cockpit and finding the target.

 

If you are so heads down you don't have a picture of the world around you and can't find a target by looking out of the cockpit you have done something wrong. It will mess you up and can get you killed. Especially if you become engaged and have to forget your sensors and actually fly.

 

Also being heads up out of the cockpit is nice because you can look and make your turns. See the area you are shooting at. Judge much better distance on visual for your own needs to turn back on target.

 

Rarely do I have to come in very low. I would only use that tactic if I knew based on JTAC or other info where a target is. Numerous times I've taken out SAM threats with guns this way. Pop up and blast it and then go back down.

 

If you use a proper balance of the TAD and outside view you will always know exactly where you are.

[Grandad]

I know the A10C's systems inside out by now, but have never had much luck operating it in hostile enviroments.

Finally this thread brings some light as to why that is, thank you all....

[StandingCow]

My biggest lesson on why being heads down is a bad thing was during the blueflag event.

 

We had just one more tank to kill at the Krasnodar Center (an area I wasn't familiar with since I never really flew up there before). I was heads down in the TGP looking at where I thought the tank should be, between the runway and taxiway... I didn't even notice the entire other runway which is where the tank actually was.

 

At that point everyone starting trying to yell out directions which caused sensory overload and the next thing I know when I looked up I was headed nose down into a lake.

 

So, while the mk1 eyeball isn't as dependable in the sim as it is in real life, it is still the best way to keep your situational awareness high. You can often catch smoke trails, tracer fire, and sometimes ground units... not to mention if your autopilot has disengaged and you didn't hear the "ding" sound. The TGP is too small of an area to scan around looking for targets unless you have a good general idea of where they are.

 

Some of what lead to my bad habit was playing on servers with static ground objects that never moved. It wasn't really until blueflag and later on the Operation Piercing Fury campaign that I really started keeping my head up and trying to keep my situational awareness high.

Edited December 7, 2016 by StandingCow

[David OC]

The A-10 was built for the cold war in Europe, so flying high was not a possibility in the slow moving A10.

 

The A10 was built to get up low close and personal to the front lines and that's why it needed such great redundancy systems, protection, Such as the Titanium Bathtub the pilot sits in and a crap load of flares for MANPADS.

 

A-10 airplane is as little as 1/10 as vulnerable as other operationally equivalent airplane types, depending on the threat encountered.

 

Found an old guide on Sim HQ.

Hog Basics: RAF Bentwaters Tactics Guide written back in the LOMAC days!

 

Here's a snip from the article above.

"So…for high threat, low altitude ops…plan on navigating at about 300’ and 300kias…in the attack itself, you can drop down to a lower altitude as conditions permit and push it up to max speed (but don’t hold your breath!). Think 300/300 and you’ll be OK! Now…back to the actual attacks…"

 

It's fun to make mission where you need to be low and have your head outside majority of the time. Bunyap had some videos at one stage with the A-10A doing this sort of thing, not sure if there still around tho, flying racetracks between hills etc, then popping out for the attack.

Edited December 7, 2016 by David OC

[MRaza]

I know the A-10C's systems very well, but I'm not very good during combat lol. I think I have the same issue as others with keeping my head in the pit too much. Anyone else have any other tips for me?

 

 

Some of what lead to my bad habit was playing on servers with static ground objects that never moved. It wasn't really until blueflag and later on the Operation Piercing Fury campaign that I really started keeping my head up and trying to keep my situational awareness high.

 

I fly on the 104th where all targets are static, so I usually end up loading up 6 mavs, 4 gbu-12s, and sitting back at angels 15 picking off targets, which I don't think will help me get better at low altitude combat. :\

 

Just signed up for BlueFlag tho, can't wait for the next Caucasus campaign

[Kippy]

Hey MRaza, let's take a step back and analyze what's going on with your situation.

 

In order to improve your low altitude combat, we should first talk about when to be low and when to be high.

 

When should I decide it's time to get low?

 

You should be low when the mission requires it. As a general principle, the A-10 stays lower and slower to allow the pilot a good view of the battlespace and to increase their situational awareness. This is incredibly important when absorbing information, making sense of it, making a decision, and enacting it needs to be an especially efficient and fast process. Being low allows the pilot to make decisions and get kinetic quickly during times when it matters. The classic example of this is Close Air Support.

 

Another good time to be low is when you're in a target rich environment with no AAA or SAM threats. The classic example of such an environment for Hawg drivers is a load of Urals, IFVs.. just generally things of that sort that won't chew you to pieces. It's important to know that the gun should always be your first choice of weapon as an Hawg driver, all other options are simply backups for when the gun won't do. Choosing to use the gun when applicable will allow you to save your valuable Mavs and GBUs for potentially more important targets.

 

Of course, you do not want to be low in a threat environment that's too mean. Any presence of surface to air missiles or AAA should be an immediate sentence to no less than a 10,000ft AGL hard deck until those threats are confirmed neutralized or you've departed hostile airspace.

 

When should I decide to be high?

 

Flying low sometimes simply isn't practical to the mission. Most any time when your actions are not time sensitive or when you're not employing the gun is a good time to be high. The best example of a "high altitude" mission is an air interdiction sortie where you're striking briefed targets (such as buildings or fortifications) with precision munitions.

 

Higher altitudes also provide needed protection from AAA and light, tactical SAM systems.

 

Now that we've discussed when to be high and low, let's talk about ways to improve your performance once you're in the weeds.

 

Low altitude etiquette

 

Rule number one of the two biggies when flying low with the Pig: You are not a turtle. Get your head out of the proverbial shell and look out of the cockpit. When circling a target area low and slow making gun passes, the targeting pod is simply little more than dead weight. You are going to have to find and engage your targets visually. This means you need to be good at maneuvering the jet while looking out of the cockpit. If you do not have Track IR, good luck with this. You will need it. Also, it will help a lot to bind view zoom to an axis on your stick. If you have a TM Warthog, I recommend the friction lever.

 

Rule number two of flying low with the Pig: Yes honey, those six Mavericks, 4 GBUs, and full fuel tanks do make you [look] fat. In order to get good performance out of the jet, you're going to have to lighten up the payload. A-10s hardly carry more than two Mavs in real life as far as my understanding goes, which makes sense because those suckers are heavy and the racks produce quite a lot of drag. I recommend carrying only two AGM-65Gs. Carrying 4 GBUs is fine, but try to stick to the smaller GBU12s and GBU38s. Fuel is heavy! Lighten up the fuel load. There's no reason to carry more than you need plus some decent reserves.

 

Those are really the two big ones, but there's plenty more...

 

Ultimately, you will get better at performing at low altitudes as you do it more. Hope this brief post gave you some food for thought MRaza.

 

-Kip

[MRaza]

You are going to have to find and engage your targets visually. This means you need to be good at maneuvering the jet while looking out of the cockpit. If you do not have Track IR, good luck with this. You will need it.

Unfortunately, I don't have a track IR :(

 

A-10s hardly carry more than two Mavs in real life as far as my understanding goes, which makes sense because those suckers are heavy and the racks produce quite a lot of drag. I Recommend carrying only two AGM-65Gs.

I think the Hog can handle more than two Mavericks, but the reason it doesn't IRL is because the target density out in the real world is low. An A-10 in Afghanistan will probably not see that many targets which require Mavs, as opposed to DCS, where you can engage over 3 AAA sites in one flight. This is why I usually take 6 Mavs, because of the high target density in DCS

 

Regardless, thank you very much for the good advice:thumbup::)

[mastersetter]

Indeed, Hogs operating in Syria, only carry one Maverick. GPS guided bombs make up most of the payload, inc gbu-31 2000lb with gbu-38's & 54's..

[Maverick_]

Ultimately, you will get better at performing at low altitudes as you do it more.

 

When I am teaching I tell students practice wont make you perfect, but it will sure make you better.

[MRaza]

I have seen people complaining on the Hog being slow, when they are carrying unrealistic and absurd loadouts. Getting realistic loadouts makes the Hog agile and wonderful to fly around at low speeds and getting used to your gun is a must. When I started flying it, i barely touched the cannon. But the cannon and rockets are bread and butter on the Hog.

 

Forget about Hogs with 4, or even worse, 6 mavericks and stuff like that.

 

Personally, when I fly on the 104th, I take 6 mavericks and 4 GBUs because I like to just climb high, rifle/pickle them off on as many high priority targets as possible, and then get low once I'm a bit lighter and the high priority targets are dead. Is this a feasible excuse for taking such a heavy payload?

[lefty1117]

TrackIR is a complete game-changer - highly recommended even over the latest fancy HOTAS.

[Kev2go]

The A-10 was built for the cold war in Europe, so flying high was not a possibility in the slow moving A10.

 

The A10 was built to get up low close and personal to the front lines and that's why it needed such great redundancy systems, protection, Such as the Titanium Bathtub the pilot sits in and a crap load of flares for MANPADS.

 

A-10 airplane is as little as 1/10 as vulnerable as other operationally equivalent airplane types, depending on the threat encountered.

 

Found an old guide on Sim HQ.

Hog Basics: RAF Bentwaters Tactics Guide written back in the LOMAC days!

 

Here's a snip from the article above.

"So…for high threat, low altitude ops…plan on navigating at about 300’ and 300kias…in the attack itself, you can drop down to a lower altitude as conditions permit and push it up to max speed (but don’t hold your breath!). Think 300/300 and you’ll be OK! Now…back to the actual attacks…"

 

It's fun to make mission where you need to be low and have your head outside majority of the time. Bunyap had some videos at one stage with the A-10A doing this sort of thing, not sure if there still around tho, flying racetracks between hills etc, then popping out for the attack.

 

 

Thats true however this was before modern Targeting pods exited and before laser guided bombs were widespread and before the advent of GPS guided munitions, and also before Manpads were ubiquitous. This was the A10A.

 

A-10 "C" were a set of Precision engagement upgrades was so it could fly mid- high altitudes, and be stay out of effective range from low level surface to AIr defenses whilst still being able to target and employ guided munitions effectively.

 

 

One of the few reasons to fly low is if there are any radar guided SAMS ( using terrain masking to reduce thier ability to target you) , because then flying high is very dangerous.

 

 

IF there are just manpads , low level sams, and SPAA threats like the shilka you can afford to play it safe and orbit at 10,000 feet ( or more) to be out of their effective range. We all know the A10 is a survivable platform but its preferable to never get hit in the first place.

 

With a modern targeting pod that is the lightening 2 means you are able to search out and observe targets without having to aquire targets with your eye which in reality is hard even at low levels.

 

 

 

IN Syria this is how A10's are being used. Flying Above 10K feet and only making ocasional and breif Incursions below 10K feet, and not staying low any longer than they have to.

 

perhaps staying likely too long below 10K feet resulted in them getting engaged by ISIL firing Manpads.

 

https://theaviationist.com/2016/10/20/isis-claims-they-have-shot-down-a-u-s-air-force-a-10-in-syria-pentagon-denies/

 

Officially US denies any aircraft was shot down. So perhaps this was either near hit, Or if hit the pilot limped the damaged A10 back to base.

 

 

Either way manpad threat is significant enough that they are being instructed to keep at 10,000 feet or above, as a confirmed example when an A10 was shot at by 4 Strela Man pads.

 

 

https://theaviationist.com/2015/01/19/a-10-strela-iraq/

Edited September 14, 2017 by Kev2go

[Snoopy]

Comparing A-10 operations and tactics over Syria and iraq the last couple years to how it would be used against China or Russia is pointless. Two completely different operations. I can tell you our pilots do a lot more low altitude training than high altitude flying in a circle looking through the straw that is the TGP.

[Kev2go]

Comparing A-10 operations and tactics over Syria and iraq the last couple years to how it would be used against China or Russia is pointless. Two completely different operations. I can tell you our pilots do a lot more low altitude training than high altitude flying in a circle looking through the straw that is the TGP.

 

No one was briging up russia or china.

 

Your right its pointless. Its because against Russa or China the A10 fleet would be grounded.

 

:megalol:

 

 

at least until there's nothing more than a handfull of troops left to mop up. Ok ok maybe not. but still you understand right? A10's far more vulnerable today. More so than multi role fighters from the 4th generation.

 

Say what you will about that "Straw". Its the future. 5th gen aircraft like the F35 will be even more reliant on Targeting sensors alibiet itl have greater view due to the 360 viewing angles throuh its Helmet HUD.

 

Even back in the gulf war. A10 took the highest amount of casualties, of any US operated aircraft because of low N slow attacks and was pulled from attacking the Republican Guard. That was against a 3rd world military. You really think an A-10 will fare better against the latest in surface to air technology that Russia and China have? I think not.

 

Not that i dont believe you. Operating at low altitude against such foes is less risky. better to risk Manpads than getting detected on radar, and Targeted by SAM sites. Hence why even in my post, Ackolwedge that its dependant on the situation. Flying low only if there are such aforementioned lethal air defenses.

 

THe A10 is obsolete for what it was envisioned , if applied today in a conventional shooting war, even with current C model and suite upgrades.

 

ITs really just kept around because its an inexpensive CAS AC thats able to provide long loitering time in permissible environment, and filling in shoes as a COIN attacker for the type of low intensity Mid east wars that we have seen in A -stan , Iraq and Syria. This is practically the only argument that kept it from being retired ( that and that the troops love it). The top brass and defense experts seem to agree that its just too vulnerable for direct use in confrontational shooting war against the likes of China and Russia. I know its not the first time A10 has been slated for retirement. But this time, they were legitimate concerns that could have warranted a sealed deal.

Edited September 15, 2017 by Kev2go

[Snoopy]

No one was briging up russia or china.

 

Your right its pointless. Its because against Russa or China the A10 fleet would be China have? I think not.

 

Actually in an earlier post someone did (post 12 for one), and I can promise we wouldn't be grounded. I love when people who have never served think they know exactly what would happen in a conflict. Conflict with russia or China would have hug losses for all aircraft.

 

The expected loss rate of the A-10 was always high, nature of the beast.

Edited September 15, 2017 by Snoopy

[Kev2go]

Actually in an earlier post someone did (post 12 for one), and I can promise we wouldn't be grounded. I love when people who have never served think they know exactly what would happen in a conflict. Conflict with russia or China would have hug losses for all aircraft.

 

The expected loss rate of the A-10 was always high, nature of the beast.

 

and you as an aircraft technician do? please. I can say you dont know either because you arent a policy maker or a member or the Top Brass. However Its the most logical conlusion. A10s are no longer in production. A10'S slow speed is a weakness. High tech sensors, Matter more than Low N slow Vietnam Aproach.

 

You are unable to have an unbiased approach due to you association to said aircraft.

 

You have never heard of analysis then have you? So your saying civilian analysts are all full of **** then? OR are you going to deny that past history of how the A10 performed at low altitude is false also, and in no way help predict of how Future tactics may be applied? ITs only logical the A10 would be grounded if it sustained large losses ( or if they have actually learnt something from history) perhaps its likely multi role aircraft first, because they are less vulnerable due to higher energy. More energy means more room to outmaneuver an incoming missile. Speed is a form of defense on its own.

 

Flying low is more dangerous than ever. AFAIK A10 only has IR sensors which only give warning against IR based manpads. Doesn't work squat against newer gen ones witch are electro optical seekers. back to square one, because an A10 pilot wont be warned. And flares don't fool electro optical seekers.

 

SO please cut the the ad hominum argument that if person doesn't serve, it automatically means they don't know anything.

 

 

Point in case made here : ( made by an actual service guy from his respective field) that service guys generally aren't the sort all knowing ( my word is final) maestros they make out to be.

 

 

Edited September 15, 2017 by Kev2go

[WildBillKelsoe]

Hello all,

 

I am currently reading Warthog: Flying The A10 In The Gulf War, and though I'm only half way through I already feel like I've learned a lot. Despite thinking pilots would generally spend a lot of time heads down (granted they didn't have a TGP as the book is based on the A10A - they did have FLIR capable mavericks on board) it seems they spent almost all of their time flying by looking out the window. Makes perfect sense as even on a PPL we are told to fly by looking outside and not at the instruments, but I thought maybe it was different for fighter pilots.

 

Is this still true of the A10c? When acquiring targets would you generally do this with your unaided eyes, or spend more time looking through the TGP screen? Whilst the TGP most likely significantly aids your ability to see far off targets I'd expect it severely impacts situational awareness, so I can't figure out which is used.

 

Another question I have is about attack tactics. The book suggests conventional tactics for the Warthog in a war in Europe would involve flying at 100-500ft NOE, popping up, destroying a target then diving back down. These tactics would, I believe, be more appropriate to Caucasus than the high altitude approach of desert warfare where there isn't much terrain to hide in. Again, are these valid tactics for the A10C or did the Warthog fundamentally change after the upgrades and become a high altitude CAS aircraft?

 

I also should say this book is absolutely great and read in conjunction with using the sim, it really brings the cockpit interactions and combat to life. Using DCS really lets you visualise what's going on in the cockpit. Highly recommended!

 

CAVEAT: I am not a pilot, A-10 pilot or otherwise. This is my opinion. I could be 100% wrong. Sorry about that.

 

You spolied the book for me as I am also reading it these days. :megalol: . I also highly recommend A-10s over Kosovo book which really puts you in the cockpit.

 

As to the tactics I am certain that at some point in the book were reading, a medium altitude floor of 10,000-15,000 feet or thereabouts was set by the brass to avoid SAMs and reduce AAA chance of hitting, for bombing targets, especially for desert environment and because Saddam had too much SAMs.

 

The A-10 folks like to make their own charts iirc because they have better SA and also fly 150 feet roughly 50 meters above deck, thats a three-story building high, doing navigation with sights and fixes on their maps and marking pop-up points.

 

You do know the A-10A is in FC3 and I popped a thread about why I chose to fly it rather than the C (for its then SFM now turned AFM), and the idea of looking outside the cockpit is much greater in emphasis and this really gets you looking out and not into instruments.

 

 

In Caucasus, because were afforded mountainous terrains, especially in Georgia proper, the old doctrine of pop up can be used. I guess its safe to assume that its not the only doctrine where if youre for instance in the Gulf region, you'd have to stay high because the sand is rough on your engines and there is practically no elevations. I guess it depends on the mission and conditions.

 

 

One thing that puzzles me, is that if the A did not have PAC how did the pilots focus rounds on targets. Time to read some more.

Edited September 15, 2017 by WildBillKelsoe