short-range Mavericks/few flares/deadly SAM render the A-10 obsolete

[Guest ThomasDWeiss]

I made a pack of missions for the A-10 for the 1.02 and tried to fly the same missions with 1.1 - and got quite an unpleasant surprise.

 

With a 3nm range I have now to get so close to a target that I get fired at least twice at and have to spend 6 to 9 flares/chaff before I can fire.

 

SAM are now so deadly, that many times I have to take evasive action in such a way that I am unable to fire anymore and get then get fired while flying away from the target (another 6 to 9 flares/chaff) ...

 

Against naval targets the A-10 is now useless. Against an Albatross I got shot down at high level, short level, flying head on and only when I approached astern I had a chance - not much of a chance as I got engaged by its AA.

 

In fact, the A-10 is now almost restricted to a low intensity scenario because of its short ranged Mavericks.

 

The F-15 radar is now less powerful and it seems that the A-10 has also become much less able to cope with any serious threat.

[Kula66]

I've played a few A-10 missions and reckon its still a blast down low ... I fire at about 4miles ... on-line worked fine too. Easier to operate weapons than the Su-25T.

A-10s in a naval scenario ... well, they wouldn't live long in RL would they?

 

As for the F-15 ... its definately buggered ... radar is tempremental - losing lock and not being able to re-acquire even when in the right direction and elevation not beaming, AMRAAMs go stupid during end-game, home in on the wrong targets, don't obey multi-target engagement locks ... And AA-10s can turn amazing corners ... luckily Sidewinders are still deadly - and there's always harsh language!

 

I may just reinstall 1.02 :( ... still majority of servers running that version.

 

James

[Pilotasso]

well I think the A-10 was never good at sead and ship killing. It was designed to CAS instead. Thats why the series are just crying for multirole fighters. Fortunatly it apears our wishes have been heard...to see from 2 to 3 years from now...

[Guest ThomasDWeiss]

The AMRAAM now can be used only bellow 10nm range .

 

I am having to tweak those A-10 missions otherwise anyone that tries to fly them will think I am an idiot that does not know how to build a mission !

 

Simply put - what works with 1.02 will not work with 1.1.

 

Missions balanced for 1.02 are so difficult with 1.1 that they become unplayable.

 

There is a mission I made were you have to attack a convoy, in a hazy afternoon. I could no longer acquire the targets with Maverick bellow 2 nm and that Albatross shot me down with a SA-8 Gecko time after time.

 

Over land it is OK, but I have not tried going against a Tunkuska or an OSA.

[169th_DedCat]

The AMRAAM now can be used only bellow 10nm range.

 

That's funny, I got a number of kills with the AMRAAM at the 20 mile range online last night in Flaming Cliffs.

[Guest ThomasDWeiss]

Online - If you want to be sure of a kill against AI try to get lock at 15-18nm and fire after 10nm and your chances are better.

[SwingKid]

Optical seekers are short-ranged by nature. 1-2 nm was the typical employment range for AGM-65A/B. The AGM-65D IIR Maverick has a zoomable magnification that might be more useful at longer ranges.

 

I think what you are seeing is one of the reasons that the USAF was originally determined to retire the A-10. It is arguably only with the shift in modern warfare, away from superpower conflict and towards bombing weaker opponents in unopposed conditions of friendly air superiority, that the A-10 has continued to be so successful.

 

-SK

[rekoal]

im ok with the range its at now, but i do think its alittle short:)

 

rekoal

[Guest ThomasDWeiss]

Absolutely right.

 

The problem is that in 1.1 the A-10 is now so weak as to become useless.

 

I am just starting to fly the Su-25T and I noticed that it has a better array of options.

 

We need a tweak that adds 1 nm range to the Maverick, gives you more flares otherwise the A-10 is on its way out as a flyable.

[Bug11]

The A-10 is completely unsuited for the SEAD task where there is anything better than manpad's and light AAA present.

 

This is just one of those holes in the flyable planeset for the NATO side.

 

The only way around it is to have AI perform SEAD or just not make realistic scenarios incorporating static defenses.

[S77th-GOYA]

I made an A-10 mission last night for the Hog to take out 3 Tunguskas and 1 Strela, and the AGM-65D has no problem with them. They die before they get a shot off.

 

The 15's radar is not weaker, and the range of the 120 isn't it's problem. IMO

[coldcrew]

lol I disagree! Even though I love the su25 and su25T in the a-10 I just go on a rampage. Infact I don't play the a-10 because most of the time it's too easy to dodge sams. Try dodging a missile in the su25t and the ground would be your best friend before the missile even arrives. The power and agility of the a-10 can dodge sams all day but my observations online is people don't know how to dodge missiles, they don't even use flares when a heater is fired at them.

[Guest ThomasDWeiss]

I incorporated SEAD in several missions - not an easy task as it takes a lot of effort to do it right, put a SEAD flight, add a target and start tweaking until it hits what it should, and then make it go away and not persist and get shot down.

 

The problem is that this one was tailored for 1.02 and in 1.1 I find myself stumped.

 

I already tweaked the mission - but I think that I am being more and more restricted in my mission making options.

[GGTharos]

First, are you using realistic SAM dispersement for limited conflict (wehre dedicated SEAD is not required) or are you just stuffing the place with SAMs? If the latter is true, then it's your own fault.

 

Secondly, the 65D can and will destroy anything within 8nm - it'll lock onto targets at that distance easily, barring weather. The only SAMs which can easily cope with this are the SA-11 and SA-10 (Naval SAMs nonwithstanding)

[ZoomBoy27]

I think that the only part of the A-10 would be rendered obsolete would be the AGM-65K. What you sacrifice is that you get only 4 of the D's rather than 6 of the K's. Change your load out for mixed and recognize that anti-SAM work just needs different tools than the ones you're acustomed to. You can also take the step of having a wingman use a different load-out and then send him in to do his job. For A2G they're pretty good.

 

In 1.02(in Coastal_Drive) I had a devil of a time with a Tor vs some K's. I swapped in some D's and had to work harder with the other weapons(Cannon mainly) to wreak the necessary havoc to complete the mission.

 

The K's are good for convoy work especially Shilka and you should swap in accordingly.

 

For SAM dispersal I just create a frontline of SAM circles that overlap and I also put an occasional SAM in the rear to guard strategic towns or junctions.

The enemy does not have unlimited resources and must place them where he can get the most use out of them.

[169th_DedCat]

The A-10 is completely unsuited for the SEAD task where there is anything better than manpad's and light AAA present.

 

I've regularly used the A-10 Thunderbolt II to great success in 1.1 against armoured targets defended by Shilka, Igla, Strela-10/Dog Ear, and Tor air defence units. SAMs were too easy before, 1.1 is better. GGTharos is right, if you've stuffed the place silly with SAMs and get your a** shot down, it's your own fault.

 

The Thunderbolt is a front line CAS airplane, and it works extremely well to that end; it was never intended to be used for SEAD or against armed naval targets, it could only be used for that in 1.02 because those units were a pushover in 1.02.

 

Sometimes the best way to avoid getting shot by air defences is to just to avoid them. I get a good laugh out of every time I see LOMAC pilots knowingly fly headstrong into a well defended area, and then complain when they get shot down before they've had a chance to attack the SAMs. If you ain't a SEAD aircraft, don't SEAD!

 

Patient: "Doctor, it hurts when I do this!"

Doctor: "Than don't do that!"

[GGTharos]

Yep...when you're doing SEAD you really SHOULD be paying attention tot he missiles! ;)

[Guest ThomasDWeiss]

1.1 has changed the Minimum Range/Maximum Range for the SAM, so they will try to engage a target twice as far as before, if that was not enough, they changed the rate of fire.

 

An Albatross corvette will now fire a SA-8 Gecko two times before the A-10 gets into Maverick range, then will fire a third time.

 

Even if the A-10 gets a lock and fires a Maverick, chances are that it will be shot down before it begins to evade the Gecko.

 

By changing the R(max) and R(min) and rate of fire without adjusting the Maverick range, the A-10 is no longer as effective as before.

[GGTharos]

Tried your jammer yet?

 

Why are you attacking a military ship with an A-10 anyway? O.o

[D-Scythe]

While the AGM-65D does not provide an *absolute* stand-off capabilty against ground defenses, it's range is long enough so that you should be able to close in for a shot before being forced defensive by the first long-range SAM shot. Sure, the SAM's are gonna get off the first shot, but they can't dodge your Mavs ;)

 

I advise scouting the target area for a few minutes, getting a rough idea of what the defenses are like, then attack full out with your wingmen. No point in rushing in to get killed. AGM-65Ds have more than enough range to get you kills before you're defensive.

 

BTW, I don't think the AGM-65K should be the AGM-65K in Lock On. It's way too undermodelled - no zoom function, no nothing. It's modelled like an AGM-65A, a 1970s weapon. The AGM-65K is basically an AGM-65G with a EO seeker - and both are some of the newest variants of the Maverick in U.S. military service.

[GGTharos]

I already asked for the bigger warhead for teh K and we might well get it ;) Watch out naval assets and bunkers ;)

[Guest ThomasDWeiss]

In 1.02 I could engage that ship and disable it - in 1.1 not.

 

In this scenario I have to sink a convoy - those are the warships I have to avoid in order to do it.

 

In Jane's F-18 I used Mavericks to disable frigates before I hit them with a Harpoon.

 

I agree with you D-Scythe, the Maverick is way under-modeled in LO, now it is not only that, it lost any edge it had over the defenses.

[ZoomBoy27]

1.1 has changed the Minimum Range/Maximum Range for the SAM, so they will try to engage a target twice as far as before, if that was not enough, they changed the rate of fire.

 

An Albatross corvette will now fire a SA-8 Gecko two times before the A-10 gets into Maverick range, then will fire a third time.

 

Even if the A-10 gets a lock and fires a Maverick, chances are that it will be shot down before it begins to evade the Gecko.

 

By changing the R(max) and R(min) and rate of fire without adjusting the Maverick range, the A-10 is no longer as effective as before.

 

Don't know about fire rates.

There's been some changes in effective ranges according to the threat circles

Strela-10 range == v1.02 - 4.9km, v1.1 - 5.0

Tor 931 range == v1.02 - 12km, v1.1 - 16

S-300PS Site == v1.02 - 74km, v1.1 - 115

 

So far I don't see them affecting my missions - except for possibly Feodosija Blocker but that's a over-powering hornets' nest of SAMs even in 1.02.

The big SAMs in my missions are avoided altogether - little change.

 

With no terrain to mask on water these are important difference. Just adjust the types of missions you can do. Bit of a bummer if you want to directly transfer A-10 SEAD and anti-ship strikes to 1.1. How is it for CAS? How is it for AAA?

[bear.is.flying]

The A-10 was designed to go up against Soviet tank divisions. Typically, these tank columns would have very little air defense. Armed with the GAU-8, It was basically a big flying anti-tank gun. The Pentagon planners were not stupid though, and it was given a very limited anti-AAA and anti-SAM capatibility, mainly to defend against Shilkas and other integrated air-defense units.

 

This does not mean that the A-10 pilot can fly into a nest of SA-6 sites and expect to engage the SAMs with Mavericks and live for long. SAM sites are designed for one purpose: to kill aircraft. The A-10 was designed for one purpose: to kill tanks, not SAM sites. Using an A-10 for SEAD would be like using a F-1 racecar for a demolition durby.

[GGTharos]

In 1.02 I could engage that ship and disable it - in 1.1 not.

 

In this scenario I have to sink a convoy - those are the warships I have to avoid in order to do it.

 

In Jane's F-18 I used Mavericks to disable frigates before I hit them with a Harpoon.

 

I agree with you D-Scythe, the Maverick is way under-modeled in LO, now it is not only that, it lost any edge it had over the defenses.

 

First of all: The K's warhead is now what it shoudl be. The D's warhead is what it should be, and it's also inadequate for anti-ship works. The K's is BARELY adequate (if it had the 300lbs warhead)

 

Second: THe A-10 is not an anti-ship rig. Never was, likely never will be.

 

Third: Jane's F-18 didn't model everything perfectly, either.

 

Fourth: Don't use 1.02 missions.