Hitting targets in bad weather?

[Supersheep]

As promised, I made a quick mission to get used to JDAM delivery.

Since I do not have too much time now, I have not tested if the rearming at Kobuleti works (or the group of F16 takes off and leaves the airfield empty.)

 

 

The TGP is loaded for the single GBU 12 and to allow you to check on the damage done in case one of my triggers does not work (This is my fist "mission" and I never used them before. They should be ok, though).

 

 

To penetrate the fog with the TGP, go to IR and adjust the gain and level settings on the TGP page (unrealistic?)

 

 

 

If you spot any errors (tested first JTAC target - ok), feel free to let me know, so I can learn about building "missions".

 

 

 

File attached.

Have fun!

Supersheep

JDAM Practice based on Siiting Ducks.miz

[159th_Viper]

...of course your targets would have to be moving...:disgust:

 

Not necessarily - You're forgetting SAR and FTI radar modes.

[topol-m]

The Apache Longbow's RADAR is mainly intended for it's Interdiction/BAI role rather than CAS. And it's not used much in Afghanistan at all, in fact AFAIK the only Apache's flying in AFG with the RADAR are the UK ones.

 

This is also not a valid point since in Afghanistan and in Iraq during the peace keeping operations the enemy has infantry with no vehicle support (in the huge number of encounters) so the radar is of no use. You can be sure that if the Apaches are needed in a conflict facing an opponent that is widely using tanks and other types of armored vehicles the Longbow radars won't be left at home.

[Eddie]

You can be sure that if the Apaches are needed in a conflict facing an opponent that is widely using tanks and other types of armored vehicles the Longbow radars won't be left at home.

 

Indeed, I've been involved in several of them. However that doesn't change the facts.

 

But it's clear you believe you know better than those who make their living designing, building, maintaining and flying aircraft. Perhaps you should present a case to the USAF/DoD on why they are wrong not to have RADAR on the A-10C.

 

I'm out.

[topol-m]

But it's clear you believe you know better than those who make their living designing, building, maintaining and flying aircraft. Perhaps you should present a case to the USAF/DoD on why they are wrong not to have RADAR on the A-10C.

 

I'm out.

 

Please don't put words in my mouth. It was a discussion in which I presented my arguments, and you yours. It would be fine with me if you don't have or don't want to say anything more on the subject but please don't do that in such a condescending manner. I've treated you with respect so far and find the assessment of my believes and the "advice" in your last post rather distasteful.

[GGTharos]

Please don't put words in my mouth. It was a discussion in which I presented my arguments, and you yours.

 

topol, just FYI - Eddie does actually know what he's talking about. You're not getting opinion.

[topol-m]

topol, just FYI - Eddie does actually know what he's talking about. You're not getting opinion.

 

ok, I trust you that he does. I take it he had a bad day then.

[nomdeplume]

I think it's just a case that the (tremendous) cost of designing, installing, testing, documenting and maintaining a radar system and associated avionics, as well as training the pilots to use it, would outweigh any benefits, given that unlike us, the USAF is not limited to deploying a single type of aircraft.

 

The A-10 is highly specialised for CAS missions. It can of course do lots of other things, but if the mission isn't CAS-related you'd normally send something else. The USAF has several all-weather aircraft equipped with air-to-ground radars already. It probably doesn't need another one, especially a very slow one. I don't know what kind of navigation systems all-weather fighters have, but I suspect you'd want to provide the A-10 with more capabilities in that regard if you're truly going to call it an "all-weather" aircraft.

 

But the main thing is that the aircraft's role is CAS, and dropping ordnance on a radar contact is pretty risky at the best of times. It's absolutely terrifying in most CAS-type operations where friendlies are likely to be close to the target. So it's probably a lot like the BVR missiles - a great idea in theory, but in actual practice the rules of engagement would likely prohibit their use 99% of the time.

[Frostiken]

Riiiiiiight. So you'll fit the radome into a pylon mountable pod, fine. What about all the other avionics to go with the radar antenna?

 

....

 

 

*AHEM*

 

Granted, the fidelity of that radar array would be way too piss-poor to provide capable ground-mapping to find targets, but, hey, it's a pylon-mountable radar :D To be fair though, it's only about the same size as the dinky joke that is the F-16s radar (Trolololol)

 

EDIT: Got one more for you :). This one *is* a ground-mapping radar and could easily find targets. Unfortunately, you have to overfly them first... it's really only for all-weather intel gathering.

 

Edited November 25, 2011 by Frostiken

[Eddie]

....

*AHEM*

 

Granted, the fidelity of that radar array would be way too piss-poor to provide capable ground-mapping to find targets, but, hey, it's a pylon-mountable radar :D To be fair though, it's only about the same size as the dinky joke that is the F-16s radar (Trolololol)

 

EDIT: Got one more for you :). This one *is* a ground-mapping radar and could easily find targets. Unfortunately, you have to overfly them first... it's really only for all-weather intel gathering.

 

 

 

Indeed, but as you say the resolution of the RADAR on LANTIRN (you guys are still using that? really?) isn't even close to a GMR. RADAR Recce pods of course have the res to do the job (higher than some older GMRs), but those I've seen don't have the range due to the small antennas.

 

Perhaps with the advances being made with AESA systems and electonics getting smaller all the time that'll change, but I still can't see anyone actually developing such a pod. Because, well, who would buy it?

 

Topol-m, I'm not trying to be condescending, however look at it from another point of view. You have been told multiple times why what you are talking about is neither possible, practical or necessary. And yet you persist in argueing that it is. As I said several posts back, the fact that the USAF has never felt the need to develop a RADAR for the A-10 or even investigate the possibilty is evidence in itself that one is not required.

 

As Viper said, if the weather is such that the A-10C cannot do the job, you send in the Strike Eagle/Viper/Tornados etc etc. There are plenty of jets out there with GMRs already, there is no need whatsoever to bodge one onto a jet that was never designed to have it.

[Geert Hooghe]

Could be related, i guess !

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=82090

[Conure]

I'm quite disappointed that Topol-M was treated like he was pointlessly arguing and stating his opinion as fact. His comments seemed perfectly reasonable and were interesting.

 

It seems quite possible that a radar would be perfectly viable on the A10c, but most likely for financial reasons they just haven't been installed. It's not like all US equipment is the absolute best existing outside of budget concerns, for example I remember talks about upgrading the engines which were dropped for (I believe) financial reasons.

[GGTharos]

I'm quite disappointed that Topol-M was treated like he was pointlessly arguing and stating his opinion as fact. His comments seemed perfectly reasonable and were interesting.

 

I'm disapointed that you would say this ...

 

It seems quite possible that a radar would be perfectly viable on the A10c, but most likely for financial reasons they just haven't been installed. It's not like all US equipment is the absolute best existing outside of budget concerns, for example I remember talks about upgrading the engines which were dropped for (I believe) financial reasons.

 

And then go on to ignore what people who know what they're talking about have said.

[Conure]

I'm disapointed that you would say this ...

 

 

 

And then go on to ignore what people who know what they're talking about have said.

 

What I mean is, it seems from an theoretical point of view to be possible. It's nice to be able to debate these things and consider various possibilities.

 

Also, the poster who commented regarding the radar system may well know what he is talking about as not everything is always completely black and white. There could well be engineers/experts out there who would consider a radar system on an A10 to be perfectly viable...Just because it doesn't exist now doesn't mean it's not worth discussing, nor does it mean it'll never happen, however unlikely.

 

Anyway, I can't debate on the viability of said system because I don't know enough about it. All I know is that things can be and often are subject to change, and that I found following the discussion interesting. I thought the poster was very polite and wasn't really sure why some people were talking to him in such a disrespectful manner - they wouldn't speak to him like that in real life (unless they are particularly unlikeable individuals) so why do it on the forum?

[159th_Viper]

What I mean is, it seems from an theoretical point of view to be possible.

 

That's the point - it does not, even from a theoretical point-of-view. There just is not the required amount of space on the A-10C to put it - fullstop. No amount of generalizing and pondering will change that very fact.

 

You have people who work on these planes day in and day out telling you that and still others argue that it is theoretically possible. Yes it is, but then the GAU-8 will have to be removed to make space for the Radar. And then what - do we still call it an A-10? Remember, it's sole purpose is to kill things with the massive cannon. It's either the Radar or the Cannon: You cannot have both, even theoretically.

 

To me as a layman, to even ponder the possibility borders on the ridiculous......I can only imagine what it is to those who actually understand and work with these planes every day and can accordingly understand their frustration when their expert opinion is ignored in favour of debating the 'theoretical possibilities'. I mean, it's entirely theoretically possible for me to relieve myself from excess water in the middle of a hurricane - does not mean I'm gonna stay dry doing so now does it? :D

[Conure]

That's the point - it does not, even from a theoretical point-of-view. There just is not the required amount of space on the A-10C to put it - fullstop. No amount of generalizing and pondering will change that very fact.

 

You have people who work on these planes day in and day out telling you that and still others argue that it is theoretically possible. Yes it is, but then the GAU-8 will have to be removed to make space for the Radar. And then what - do we still call it an A-10? Remember, it's sole purpose is to kill things with the massive cannon. It's either the Radar or the Cannon: You cannot have both, even theoretically.

 

To me as a layman, to even ponder the possibility borders on the ridiculous......I can only imagine what it is to those who actually understand and work with these planes every day and can accordingly understand their frustration when their expert opinion is ignored in favour of debating the 'theoretical possibilities'. I mean, it's entirely theoretically possible for me to relieve myself from excess water in the middle of a hurricane - does not mean I'm gonna stay dry doing so now does it? :D

 

I respectfully disagree in as much as I don't think it's ridiculous to debate theoreticals of possible application of a said technology. The majority of us are those who have never flown in the real world, let alone in a combat aircraft.

 

If pondering the possibility of something bordered ridiculous we would never make any progress - the nature of flight simulation leaves it wide open to amateurs and enthusiasts to discuss things which may or may not be possible, and one should not be berated or looked down on for not agreeing with the factual assessment of an expert (with no credentials other than the word of some on a forum, I might add).

 

Ultimately this comes down to one point; should we be encouraged to speculate and philosophize regarding the use of technology and potential applications, or should we simply accept what already is and never consider anything further. I believe that one of those things leads to stagnation and one leads to development of ideas.

[159th_Viper]

I respectfully disagree in as much as I don't think it's ridiculous to debate theoreticals of possible application of a said technology....

 

Hey, by all means debate all you want. Just have the wisdom and forethought to realise that said theoretic is just that. The moment you venture into the realms of 'It can be done', notwithstanding the fact that you have been informed that it is a practical impossibility by subject-matter experts, well then, be prepared to take your lumps as said discussions now fall squarely within the realism of 'fantasy' as opposed to constructive debate. One has to draw the line somewhere. In practical discussions of real-world implementation, theory remains just that - theory. As interesting as it might be for some to debate, absolutely useless when it comes to the practicality thereof.

 

....The majority of us are those who have never flown in the real world, let alone in a combat aircraft....

 

All the more reason to actually make an effort and listen to the people that do so for a living. But hey, as you said, it's a forum: Why listen to them that actually know as opposed to theorise? Mistake #1.

 

..If pondering the possibility of something bordered ridiculous we would never make any progress ...

 

There'a pondering........and then there's belabouring. Distinction is important.

 

....Ultimately this comes down to one point....

 

That is a Gross simplification and I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt in assuming that you know that too as any other conclusion leaves me mystified. Be that as it may, the line separating reality from fantasy couched in speculation, philosophy and theoretical debate has long since been crossed in favour of 'what if's'. Mind you, not that there is anything wrong with that per se........Each to their own :)

[topol-m]

When you look at it from a different angle, how many aircraft today are used for CAS and how many of them have radars? A-10 is used only by the USA, and even the USA are using radar-equipped aircraft for CAS. To say that CAS aircraft will never use radars cause they don't need them seems to me like denying the technological progress and the possibilities it would offer in future. The A-10 will be used for several decades more and then it will be replaced by a more capable aircraft, can you with absolute certainty say this new CAS aircraft will not have a radar?

[159th_Viper]

....To say that CAS aircraft will never use radars cause they don't need them seems to me like denying the technological progress and the possibilities it would offer in future....

 

The discussion related to the A-10 and the A-10 only. You should know that as it is your comment that started the discussion:

 

I wonder why didn't they think of implementing a radar on the A-10

 

Cannot now change the goalposts to include all present/future CAS aircraft ;)

[topol-m]

It did start on the A-10 and then there were arguments stated that since it is a CAS aircraft it doesn't need a radar, just one of the arguments I don't agree with.

[ALDEGA]

It doesn't need radar because it's a dedicated CAS aircraft designed to operate in an environment where SEAD and CAP are handled by other aircraft. My 2 cents.

[topol-m]

Then why are the European nations using radar-equipped aircraft for CAS? Cause they can't make a radar-less version of these aircraft? Or when the USAF or NAVY are using aircraft for CAS different then the A-10 do they perform the tasks without using the radar at all? Or when the Apache Longbow has to do CAS and the enemy is using vehicles not just AK-47s, is the crew specifically instructed not to use the radar cause they could do their job without it?

Edited November 27, 2011 by topol-m

[nomdeplume]

There's a difference between 'needing', 'being useful', and 'being harmful'. Many of the militaries using radar-equipped aircraft for CAS don't have a dedicated CAS aircraft in the first place. Of course they're not going to say "oh no this aircraft has a radar, it can't do CAS!". So I don't know what point you're trying to make.

 

I don't know what current doctrine is, but I would guess that for most cases in present conflicts the radar would only be useful for navigational purposes, given that most of the hostiles are infantry and they probably have ROE requiring them to get visual before engaging. For example Ed Macy's books talks about their ROE restricting them to engaging people who they have actually seen with weapons in their hands. So even though they do have an awesome radar at their disposal, they still need to get visual before they can do anything with it. And at that point, you may as well just aim visually.

 

In that light, the upgrades made to the A-10C make a lot of sense for current requirements. A ground engagement radar would be more useful in the scenarios the A-10 was originally designed for, but I don't think that's a particularly compelling way of selling an upgrade anymore.

 

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?

 

So, I'm sure it's been thought of, but decided it's not necessary, not worth the cost, etc. Same thing with e.g. not certifying HARMs to be carried on the A-10. Sure it'd be useful [for us], but the return on investment isn't there. Platform flexibility is always good, but then again, so is having the flexibility to deploy multiple platforms.

 

Also, don't forget that different aircraft have the ability to work together, so in the rare occassion where radar is actually required, they could always have A-10s working with F-16s or F-15Es or whatever - with the radar-equipped aircraft handing off targets to the 'hogs.

 

Or to put it one last way: why not certify the A-10 to carry every single weapon in the US arsenal? Surely there's cases where it could sometimes be useful for them to have Hellfires or Tomahawks or AIM-120s or tactical nukes or etc. etc. Hopefully the absurdity of trying to bolt every possible thingy onto a single platform is evident, and it's obvious you'd do a cost/benefit analysis and eliminate anything that didn't provide a sufficient return. The Air Force no doubt at least considered a radar, and decided it didn't provide sufficient return. It's merely one of many, many things that the A-10 (or any other platform) could have, but doesn't.

[Eddie]

Well, let's see shall we.

 

Dedicated CAS A/C;

 

A-10A/C - No RADAR

Harrier GR1-GR9 - No RADAR

SU-25 - No RADAR

 

So what does that tell you.

 

And the fact that GMR equipped A/C are used in the CAS role adds nothing to your argument.

[WynnTTr]

Topol -

 

Why don't you write to the USAF with your thoughts? I'm sure they'll find it most enlightening and will be slapping their heads as to why no-one there thought of it before. I'm sure the idea of deploying a radar a la targetting pod would be a revelation.

 

ED are just developers that have delivered a faithful re-construction of what exists in the military.

 

If you want to know why there's no radar, go to the source itself.