Hitting targets in bad weather?

[topol-m]

There's a difference between 'needing', 'being useful', and 'being harmful'.

Point is, it's not just about it being technically possible or not, or being useful or not (more capabilities are almost always useful). To get an upgrade like that done would cost a lot of money, a lot of time, a lot of political will, etc. And for what? To give an aircraft capabilities it doesn't really require for its current and likely future uses, when there's already plenty of aircraft (current and planned) that will have those capabilities?

 

I agree with your post. That's what I expected to hear not some jiberish jaberish like:

1. "a radar? where are you gonna put it, it has a car-sized cannon in the nose" I never said it has to be in the nose

2. "it's a CAS so it doesn't need it" I didn't say it can't do CAS without a radar, I said the radar would increase its capabilities, gave you examples of aircraft doing CAS and using radar.

3. Whether it requires or not such additional capabilities will depend on many factors, terrain, targets, tactics, hostile air defense assets, tactics used by the enemy, availability of other types of air support, recon, etc. etc. Generalizing the CAS role without taking into account the ever-changing battlefield sounds exactly like underestimating the threat the aviation posed to ships in the early stages of the WW2, something that resulted in heavy losses.

 

On the cost-effectiveness I do agree that in the current situation, both economic and political to design and introduce such an upgrade is unlikely, unnecessary and not affordable. Looking into perspective it probably won't happen at all since the aircraft is aging and most likely will be used against an enemy similar to the enemy it is facing nowadays. I can bet though its replacement would be capable of performing many more tasks and would definitely have a use for a radar.

 

Topol -

Why don't you write to the USAF with your thoughts?

 

Very original.

Edited November 27, 2011 by topol-m

[GGTharos]

The CAS role does not require a radar. In fact, the radar should be quite useless for CAS:

 

It won't show you troops, revetted or parked vehicles, won't give you much help with IFF most of the time (though you can fuze data), won't help you pick out which building to attack.

 

For all of that, you need your eyes, your pod, and your JTAC/FAC.

 

Radar might serve just fine for BAI or strike missions, but you can do all of those just fine with the pod as well. The A-10 just has no use for a radar.

[Frostiken]

Putting a ground mapping radar on the A-10 isn't impossible and wouldn't take the overhaul you guys are acting like it would.

 

There is no problem the Department of Defense can't overcome by throwing oodles of money at contractors.

 

I've already linked you guys to a pylon-mounted ground-mapping radar that doesn't take any special LRUs to utilize, just some new wiring in the airframe and the CICU might need an upgrade for processing / new OFP size limitations. The AN/ASQ-236 isn't actually used for ground mapping for purposes of attack, but that's because the F-15E already has a terrain following radar, a targeting pod, a ground-mapping radar, and a search and track radar powerful enough to burn a hole through the sky.

 

But stop saying it's impossible, the A-10 doesn't need a nose-mounted radar. Those radars are for tracking airborne targets, not just mapping the ground (or in the case of commercial liners, weather).

 

Improbable is the word you want, not impossible.

 

The A-10 will probably not get this upgrade for two simple reasons: Age and cost. The A-10s are way overdue for the chopping block and while a replacement still has yet to be found, I think the DOD would rather funnel money into that project rather than putting fancy gadgets on a low-altitude fighter that is basically only for use in fair weather with controlled airspace anyway. I don't think they want to repeat Desert Storm where dozens of the damn things were lost, seeing as how technically every airframe is irreplaceable.

 

Besides, given the immense complexity involved in performing the task even in fair weather with clear skies, generally if the weather is shitty enough that you'd need a ground radar to see anything, you probably have no business flying in the first place.

Edited November 27, 2011 by Frostiken

[Eddie]

As you say, nothing is impossible with the necessary pile of money.

 

But you know as well as I do that it'd be pretty damn pointless to develop a GMR pod for attack purposes given that the A-10 is the only NATO combat aircraft in service without a GMR of it's own, and that as already discussed, it doesn't need one either.

 

If GMR equipped jets barely use their RADARs while on CAS sorties, why bodge a RADAR onto a jet that was never intended to have one.

 

The nature of CAS requires the pilot to be able to visually identify the target the vast majority of the time, so at most the RADAR would be used to cue the LDP onto the target area.

 

Could a GMR be useful in the interdiction role? Of course, but then as has already been said, if you really need a RADAR to carry out a task, you send a jet that has a RADAR. You don't bodge a RADAR onto a jet that was never intended to have one.

 

And all this ignores the fact that RADARs in the real world are not the all seeing magic eye that many flight sim players believe them to be. In many cases trying to find a target with a GMR would be just as difficult as it would be with the LDP, if not more so.

 

 

gave you examples of aircraft doing CAS and using radar.

 

No, you gave examples of RADAR equipped aircraft performing CAS. Just because they have a GMR, does not mean they always use it. GG listed some of the reasons why above.

Edited November 27, 2011 by Eddie

[Zenga]

Topol-M, I trust you have a lot of knowledge about CAS. But I don't hesitate to recommend the faboulous book "Joint Force Harrier". Just read it and you learn a lot about how the non-RADAR equipped Harrier does their job in Afghanistan. And you will learn, the author (Harrier pilot) never complains about not having a GMR and yes, there is bad weather in Afghanistan as well.

 

That's what CAS is like today and - although I lack the crystal ball - I don't believe any A-10 will ever be put into a mission where it is has to fight against a large group of armor. These Cold War scenarios are long gone (perhaps that'll change when Uncle Sam will find some "100% sure" proofs for weapons of mass destruction in a state somewhere next to Iraq, just as they did there....:cry: but that's another story)

[lobo]

Ok back to the OP question of hitting targets in bad wx... I made a mission with a solid overcast layer at about 1600'. In the mission editor I placed WP1 directly over the enemy control tower at Nalchik. Took off climbed up through the overcast layer and leveled off on top at 15,000'. I then made my TGP SOI, slewed TGP to WP1, made a SPI at this point and then dropped a GBU-38 GPS guided JDAM through the clouds and had a direct hit on the target. Very kewl.

 

My question is this... is this the correct use of the TGP to use the JDAM though cloud cover? The TGP cannot "see" through the clouds, but am I correct in that even though it cannot see through the clouds, it knows the exact coordinates of where it is aimed at the ground? TGP info goes to the JDAM, and target goes boom.

 

Cheers

[159th_Viper]

My question is this... is this the correct use of the TGP to use the JDAM though cloud cover? The TGP cannot "see" through the clouds, but am I correct in that even though it cannot see through the clouds, it knows the exact coordinates of where it is aimed at the ground? TGP info goes to the JDAM, and target goes boom.

 

Cheers

 

Do not need the TGP - all you need to know are the coordinates. In your case, the steerpoint could have been your SPI. The IFFCC then uploads the coordinates to the processor in the JDAM/WCMD when you hold the weapons-release button and the GPS does the rest, or the INS in the case of the WCMD's.

[Phill318]

You don't even need to use the TGP in this situation. If the waypoint is directly over the target and the steerpoint is set as SPI (TMS aft long) then you can just use the steerpoint position as the place you're aiming for.

 

EDIT

Sniped

[lobo]

Do not need the TGP - all you need to know are the coordinates. In your case, the steerpoint could have been your SPI. The IFFCC then uploads the coordinates to the processor in the JDAM/WCMD when you hold the weapons-release button and the GPS does the rest, or the INS in the case of the WCMD's.

 

Sweet. Thanks for the clarification.

[Frostiken]

And yes, the TPod can "see" coordinates through clouds, because its based on slant range and DTS data.

[Lobo_63]

And yes, the TPod can "see" coordinates through clouds, because its based on slant range and DTS data.

 

Thanks Frostiken. I was going to ask for clarification on that. :thumbup: