A-10C improvements on USAF

[Kev2go]

The scenario I presented is exactly the reason the A-10 was developed in the first place. It was a supplement to the Assault Breaker and Wide Area Anti-Armour Munitions programs. The idea is obviously to stop the enemy before they get within firing distance of your AFB. There is also an economical argument for a 30mm gatling gun.

 

 

No the way you presented it is an unwinable situation which makes the whole thing moot anyways.

 

Yes the A10 was designed for CAS and anti tank busting mass AFV formations in event of Soviets rolling over through fulda. but its a 1960s design put into service in the 1970s. Guess what its not the 1960s or 1970s anymore.

 

That being considering the soviets plans involved using nukes prior to ground forces advance its quite optimistic to assume that airpower would trump a soviet advance. Especially if your airfields in Europe are very soon giant irradiated craters along with any other strategic interests.

 

Also the Economy argument for using gau8 over anything else is moot when you consider that will result in getting close to enemy, and much closer to defending anti air defenses of mechanized forces thus resulting in more A10's being damaged and shot down diminishing the economy advantage of using Gau8 as opposed to MAvericks (or in more current times more advanced PGM's) for standoff attacks, as any saved money on use of "muh economical gau8 ammo" would have been lost repairing additional A10's or producing additional units due to greater attrition. I use the past tense because A10's havent been produced since 1984. These A10's in service today are literally irreplaceable, thus they can no longer considered an expendable asset.

Edited October 25, 2019 by Kev2go

[Emu]

No the way you presented it is an unwinable situation which makes the whole thing moot anyways.

 

Yes the A10 was designed for CAS and anti tank busting mass AFV formations in event of Soviets rolling over through fulda. but its a 1960s design put into service in the 1970s. Guess what its not the 1960s or 1970s anymore.

 

That being considering the soviets plans involved using nukes prior to ground forces advance its quite optimistic to assume that airpower would trump a soviet advance. Especially if your airfields in Europe are very soon giant irradiated craters along with any other strategic interests.

 

Also the Economy argument for using gau8 over anything else is moot when you consider that will result in getting close to enemy, and much closer to defending anti air defenses of mechanized forces thus resulting in more A10's being damaged and shot down diminishing the economy advantage of using Gau8 as opposed to MAvericks (or in more current times more advanced PGM's) for standoff attacks, as any saved money on use of "muh economical gau8 ammo" would have been lost repairing additional A10's or producing additional units due to greater attrition. I use the past tense because A10's havent been produced since 1984. These A10's in service today are literally irreplaceable, thus they can no longer considered an expendable asset.

Well that's why there were many tactical nukes as well. The A-10 was for a potential conventional scenario to avoid the use of nukes. There are similar potential scenarios in Korea over the DMZ.

 

Maybe guided 30mm rounds are a future possibility.

[Boogieman]

Maybe guided 30mm rounds are a future possibility.

 

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.

Edited October 25, 2019 by Boogieman

[The M]

Actually the 30mm gun is not tha economical if you look at the amount of ammo you use.

The price of a full magazine is about 180k. Add to that the high repair cost after each mission because of small arms fire etc.

[Emu]

So that $150 per round. Say $5250 for a half second burst and the enemy is down a $5-10m armoured vehicle, plus personnel and munitions.

[Emu]

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.

You could use it from further away against light armour and AAA if you knew every round would hit. Lofting the rounds if need be.

[The M]

So that $150 per round. Say $5250 for a half second burst and the enemy is down a $5-10m armoured vehicle, plus personnel and munitions.

Or you drop 2 mk82 s for the same price from any aircraft with some change left

[Emu]

Or you drop 2 mk82 s for the same price from any aircraft with some change left

If they land near enough. The A-10 can of course drop them too.

[Worrazen]

Yet lawmakers in Washington blocked the USAF from divesting itself of the A-10 and now the ‘Warthog’ looks safe well into the 2030s.

Yes. Yes, best news ever!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

 

Because if it was a replacement now, IMO it would probably be fast tracked and rushed the design, the airframe would probably be a gimmick into something uglier and too sci-fi looking, I rather have nothing than some joke that wouldn't improve on the original, there's no historical or cultural factor when they kinda build new versions, and no simulator commuity consideration (:clown::punk::music_whistling:) , the most aerodynamic design isn't the most appealing one, so the classic will stay for longer that's better than some half sour happy replacement, now there's more time to cook up a worthy replacement.

 

The real life A-10C is way thinner than I thought, this seemingly fanatic need for lowering weight is just not worth it in the end, I would just give it, it doesn't have to mean more space would be used for heavy armor, and all that extra would be handled by much more modern engines, so I would simply make it like 50% larger in every axis at minimum, for this type of setting to make pilot comfortable because there's a big gun, larger cockpit, even more redundancy by basically duplicating everything that isn't, this means double APU, double GUNs, there would be special hardpoints for attaching double sensor/fuel/EMC pods without taking space for weapon pods, larger wings for even more lift and glide ability, the modern powerful engines would blance and power through that drag, and probably some slight 5-7,5 degree fixed backward wing sweep, additional armor around guns and underbelly, deployable airbags incase of many layers of landing gear failure (this aircraft would be able to go slow and still fly so it's not too far fetched some military-grade airbag would help save airframe and prevent damage and save repairs, if you bend or skew the airframe who the heck knows what could be affected down the line, the whole thing is a writeoff then more or less), additional armor around APUs and (not mentioning the main engines and everytihng else being buffed)

 

Each APU would be able to power up any engine, and each APU would have , the APUs themselfs would be bigger and able to power more systems, perhaps some kind of engine cleanup procedure, which would require main engines shut down, the APUs would keep power on and feed some kind of debris-clearing but also fire gousing capabilities, ...

 

And I would strap another engine on top at the center, perhaps a smaller version, like a 60% the size.

 

There's a hundred more things I could think of, now this is from some imagination, if I had a deeper thought I would be a bit more realistic, but I'm not considering financial status, timeline, and any such factors, only what's the best for the other factors. The realists could borrow a few thoughts ... double GUNs BABY!!!

Edited October 26, 2019 by Worrazen

[Boogieman]

You could use it from further away against light armour and AAA if you knew every round would hit. Lofting the rounds if need be.

 

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.

Edited October 25, 2019 by Boogieman

[Emu]

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.

Well what is the range? Guided 30mm rounds falling from high altitude would surely out range it, otherwise even the F-35 would be vulnerable if it flew within EO/Thermal range. We have no idea how accurate this thing is and as soon as it starts firing it makes itself a target.

 

You might not have any choice but to gun it if you don't have enough PGMs, or if your PGMs don't work. Russian EW also continues to modernise.

[Worrazen]

Sen. Mc Cain about the A-10. I just found this on YT coincidentially.

 

It's from 2014 but still funny and still up to date.

 

 

[/Quote]

 

It is working, you just didn't properly fill out the youtube section, it takes only ID without the URL and must not put URL quotes around it.

 

 

But yeah this is probably the thing I'd agree on with McCain very much, the military types sound very ridicolous, there's no such thing that I heard ever talked about from Russian military, this is back in the Obama days when soldiers were ordered to join marches for LGBT, glad it's over with.

 

And the OPS from syria, close was always heli, those Migs and Sukois were dropping old dumb munitions many many miles away from front line, most of the time quite accurate but would see things going offcourse, or perhaps purposelly to not completle damage buildings, I've followed Syria events extremly and that's the idea I got, I've watched all the documentaries too.

 

 

 

There were mostly special forces spotting for the aircraft from a far away, way inside the frontline, I don't think that's considered CAS, but they may have different kind of ways.

Edited October 26, 2019 by Worrazen

[Boogieman]

Well what is the range? Guided 30mm rounds falling from high altitude would surely out range it, otherwise even the F-35 would be vulnerable if it flew within EO/Thermal range. We have no idea how accurate this thing is and as soon as it starts firing it makes itself a target.

 

: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.

 

You might not have any choice but to gun it if you don't have enough PGMs, or if your PGMs don't work. Russian EW also continues to modernise.

 

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.

Edited October 26, 2019 by Boogieman

[Emu]

: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.

Why would you need DU rounds against light armour, 30mm HEI will do.

 

If its range is 9.2km and it detect thermal/EO that far, then any aircraft flying below 30,000ft will be vulnerable, F-35 included. It's also passive, so SAR assets will have to pinpoint them for SDBs or other PGMs, like JAGM or Brimstone, which could also be fitted to an A-10. Once these are removed, then armour can be gunned.

 

I could of course turn this thing around and say, what is the point of the 2S38 since it can't out-range an SDB?

 

Okay, so an F-35 can target these assets and leave A-10s to work on other stuff afterwards, or it can target them for A-10 SDBs. JSTARS could also pick them out. Once again, the A-10, like the Su-25 and AH-64 are part of the puzzle, not the whole thing.

 

Not really, no. The round is guided but I bet it is proximity fused and rarely gets a direct hit. The A-10 is better equipped to deal with shrapnel than most planes. Of course, air defence targets would be prioritised and taken out first if possible, but don't expect everything to be as clean and clinical as Desert Storm. All technology is vulnerable.

[Boogieman]

Why would you need DU rounds against light armour, 30mm HEI will do.

 

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).

 

If its range is 9.2km and it detect thermal/EO that far, then any aircraft flying below 30,000ft will be vulnerable, F-35 included.

 

F35 sits at over 40,000ft quite happily, A10 doesn't.

 

It's also passive, so SAR assets will have to pinpoint them for SDBs or other PGMs, like JAGM or Brimstone, which could also be fitted to an A-10. Once these are removed, then armour can be gunned...

 

Nope, even in this ideal scenario you still have flare resistant MANPADS (eg 9K333) to worry about.

 

Once again, the A-10, like the Su-25 and AH-64 are part of the puzzle, not the whole thing.

 

You've beaten this straw man to death, leave it be already!

 

Not really, no. The round is guided but I bet it is proximity fused and rarely gets a direct hit.

 

!?

 

The A-10 is better equipped to deal with shrapnel than most planes. Of course, air defence targets would be prioritised and taken out first if possible, but don't expect everything to be as clean and clinical as Desert Storm. All technology is vulnerable.

 

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.

Edited October 26, 2019 by Boogieman

[Emu]

You massively overestimate the strength of its armour. And the A-10 also has Maverick and could be equipped with Hellfire/JAGM/Brimstone very easily, it's also getting a SAR pod I believe.

 

http://syntheticapertureradar.com/a-10-warthog-new-sar-payload/

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aHypMTemjQU&t=280s

 

Dispatch the AD and then move on to APCs and IFVs. Or the F-35s could focus on things that are a threat to the air while the A-10 focuses on things that are a threat to the ground.

 

How often does it fly that high though?

 

A-10s have survived hits from MANPADS before, and this is why you have eyes on the ground. Flare resistant is not flare immune and you also have DIRCM that could be fitted. MANPADS have always been a threat, this is nothing new.

 

It's not a straw man, no one aircraft or piece of equipment is solve-all. The A-10 does some things well, and that is why it is still in service, ditto for the Su-25.

 

Think about it, why the 120rpm RoF if every round gets a direct hit?

 

One A-10 was lost for every 1,000+ enemy armoured units destroyed. An F-35 would require a dozen sorties to destroy the same number of armoured vehicles an A-10 can in one sortie. An F-35 is a fantastic aircraft but it is not suitable for rapid armour removal roles.

 

I would say SAR and SDBs, LJDAMs, CBU-95/105 and LITENING pod upgrades since then are significant. Many systems that could out-range Maverick are no longer safe. I'm sure they could fit an ARM system but growling is best left to Growlers.

[Boogieman]

You massively overestimate the strength of its armour.

 

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.

 

it's also getting a SAR pod I believe.

 

http://syntheticapertureradar.com/a-10-warthog-new-sar-payload/

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aHypMTemjQU&t=280s

 

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.

 

Dispatch the AD and then move on to APCs and IFVs. Or the F-35s could focus on things that are a threat to the air while the A-10 focuses on things that are a threat to the ground.

 

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.

 

How often does it fly that high though?

 

Very often. :thumbup:

 

A-10s have survived hits from MANPADS before, and this is why you have eyes on the ground. Flare resistant is not flare immune and you also have DIRCM that could be fitted. MANPADS have always been a threat, this is nothing new.

 

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's not a straw man, no one aircraft or piece of equipment is solve-all.

 

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).

 

One A-10 was lost for every 1,000+ enemy armoured units destroyed. An F-35 would require a dozen sorties to destroy the same number of armoured vehicles an A-10 can in one sortie. An F-35 is a fantastic aircraft but it is not suitable for rapid armour removal roles.

 

I would say SAR and SDBs, LJDAMs, CBU-95/105 and LITENING pod upgrades since then are significant. Many systems that could out-range Maverick are no longer safe. I'm sure they could fit an ARM system but growling is best left to Growlers.

 

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.

Edited October 27, 2019 by Boogieman

[Emu]

Oh, and what is the maximum range of a 30mm HEI round fired upwards at 45deg from an altitude of 20,000ft?

 

It never has been that simple, hence why pilots undergo intensive training.

 

That just isn't the case though. Routine ops aren't flown at 40,000ft.

 

Sure it was, MANPADS and SHORAD was always massively present in Soviet forces. DIRCM hardened is not DIRCM proof, and DIRCM could be fitted.

 

Its designated role is not SEAD though. And SAR will pick off most of the passive systems, possibly even these MANPADS guys, we don't know that it can't.

 

The GAU-8 is never dead weight, the PGMs are there to pick off key threats before using the GAU-8 to MOP up anything less capable than 23mm AAA, and there are a lot of such vehicles. BMPs, BTRs, BMDs, artillery, MLRS etc. There are tens of thousands of the latter and you do not want to have to PGM every last one, especially with the contents of an internal weapons bay while they're advancing.

 

The better enemy EW works, the more you need the A-10 I would argue.

[Boogieman]

Oh, and what is the maximum range of a 30mm HEI round fired upwards at 45deg from an altitude of 20,000ft?

 

You're in fantasy land now. We covered this already.

 

That just isn't the case though. Routine ops aren't flown at 40,000ft.

 

No idea what you're talking about here. FL40+ is no problem for F35.

 

Sure it was, MANPADS and SHORAD was always massively present in Soviet forces. DIRCM hardened is not DIRCM proof, and DIRCM could be fitted.

 

. Russian MANPADS have never been this capable or this coordinated (15:35 onward).

 

Its designated role is not SEAD though. And SAR will pick off most of the passive systems, possibly even these MANPADS guys, we don't know that it can't.

 

 

Going in circles now.

 

The GAU-8 is never dead weight, the PGMs are there to pick off key threats before using the GAU-8 to MOP up anything less capable than 23mm AAA, and there are a lot of such vehicles. BMPs, BTRs, BMDs, artillery, MLRS etc. There are tens of thousands of the latter and you do not want to have to PGM every last one, especially with the contents of an internal weapons bay while they're advancing.

 

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.

 

The better enemy EW works, the more you need the A-10 I would argue.

 

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.

Edited October 29, 2019 by Boogieman

[Emu]

This is one of those debates that will go back and forth for 300 pages with neither one convincing the other, so I'm calling it here before anymore time and bandwidth are wasted.

[Boogieman]

This is one of those debates that will go back and forth for 300 pages with neither one convincing the other, so I'm calling it here before anymore time and bandwidth are wasted.

 

Fair enough :thumbup:

[Worrazen]

Wanted to add more here since I whizzed by this story too fast.

 

Why is this good news:

 

• Continued service means continued use and perhaps newer software for training just like devs did before, easier to continue on existing prior contracts
  
• Which in turn means we could get the public version of some of the stuff, easier than public only I guess.
  
• More upgrades to A-10C means some of the existing stuff will be less sensetive, easier to be negotiated for DCS
  
• Continued service means A-10C might get more upgrades in future, like engines, topping off this legendary airplane in it's best light prior to retirement.
  
• The communities, and the military spirit around this airplane will continue to live and extend into the future, means more DCS A-10C fliers
  

 

An upgrade to DCS: A-10C besides the textures just gotta happen, it's a perfect plane that will benefit from the new damage model the most, with it's redundancy and recovery options, I just love that aspect a lot!!! I've grown up in a garage taking things apart and repairing them, most likely that's the root of the interest.

 

 

... but in the real world where skilled Russian crews ..

 

14LMmBsDw-g?t=923

 

Except what "Russian" troops are we talking about? Because the area is highly complicated with many Russians living all over the place, Donbass is over half Russians AFAIK but not Russian Federation Citizens, then Crimea, it's over 70% Russian people AFAIK, but were not Russian Federation Citizens, they are now, and I'm following the construction of Crimean highways and railroads and if there was tension or protests I would know about it, if the people actually genuinely want it then that's all okay according to UN charter of self determination.

 

 

 

So which Russians does the Doctor mean? Russians in Donbass, Russians in Crimea, Russians in Russian Federation, Russians elsewhere in Ukraine? You got to be more specific than that.

 

I mean, that's a huge difference, the Donbass self defense forces most likely don't have all the past ukrainian equipment and certainly not the modern equipment of the Russian Federation, nor the expertise and skill of the modern Russian Federation military.

 

And you know, the Ukrainian weapons look very similar, they're usually the same or slightly different, that's another whole mix of factors, so when "an igla MANPAD has struck a Helicopter ..." it's WHO DUN IT?

It's irresponsible to point to a specific group without a load of context behind it, that's my point.

Edited November 23, 2019 by Worrazen