Synthetic-aperture radar. Why isnt the A-10c (real one) equipped with one?

[GGTharos]

Modern army defense will have a bunch of ARH SAM's.[/quote[

 

Not really. Some do, but they're few and far inbetween, and right now used in BMD.

 

Not to mention decoy's. Thus HARM's would not do much good anyway, as HARM's did not do well in above mentioned conflict.

 

They'll do plenty good, when the SAM operators have no choice but to actually use their radars. That's all there is to that. (The flip side is that the SAMs will also be inflicting losses)

 

What if's ... We know that NATO tried to locate the targets on the ground. That part of the war is not talked much about, but would shed new light on everything that happened there. Nevertheless, it did not work. Therefore A-10s, and other assets including those that have same or maybe better equipment then A-10C did not do much damage to ground troop's, to Yugoslavian military.

 

Now, in the "what if ...", scenario, we could go forever with "what if's ..." which would, obviously, be speculations, and would not reflect the "what happened's ...".

 

No, this sounds like just wishful thinking on your part. Hidden vehicles are hidden. You won't see them on radar, IR, or with your eyes, that's all there is to it. Once they have to come out to fight though, hiding doesn't work quite as well.

[BlueRidgeDx]

During the Cold War, everyone knew that A-10s were going to be shot down in droves. It was expected to lose fully 20% of the A-10 force per day. It was a price we were willing to pay. does that make it ineffective? I don't think so.

 

Claiming hat the A-10 is useless against an enemy more sophisticated than cave dwelling terrorists is nonsensical. It kills things and breaks their stuff at incredible rates: even at the highest rate of attrition against the ungodly Soviet surface-to-air threat, they were still expected to produce 20 kills for each loss.

[159th_Viper]

....they were still expected to produce 20 kills for each loss.

 

That's interesting. Do you know how they came up with those numbers?

 

Frightening statistics nonetheless.

Edited February 18, 2012 by 159th_Viper

[Eddie]

That's interesting. Do you know how they came up with those numbers?

 

Many people sat in dark rooms spending all day analysing NATO exercises, intel reports, computer simulations, previous conflicts etc etc.

 

We still pay lots of people to do the very same thing.

[BlueRidgeDx]

Viper, it was an article written in the Unites States Air Force Air University's publication "Air and Space Power Journal". The author describes the equations used to generate the numbers, and presents various scenarios representing both high and low loss rates.

 

Here's a linky:

 

http://www.airpower.au.af.mil/airchronicles/aureview/1977/jul-aug/dotson.html

[Migow]

SAR is usefull when enemy put massive smoke on battle , flir ,ccd end eyeball will be useless while SAR you still see the target throught smoke cloud(bad weather) etc..

sar is worse than flir and ccd to see in normal condition ,i guess

 

in serbia most sam where sa3 there is no true computer to turn on and off radar with target prediction

no automated targeting etc..

the radar beam is too wide for mechanical radar vs phased array .

phased are less prone to be seen with harm etc...

with modern sam it's something else :D

[159th_Viper]

Here's a linky:

 

Ta Blue :)

 

Interesting read, suffice to say that one can only but be truly thankful that events unfolded so as to ensure that the veracity of those statistics were never put to the test.

[BlueRidgeDx]

Yep, if we planned to lose 100 hogs a day, I can only imagine what the projected total attrition for all air assets would have been. Of course the flip side of that is, can you imagine how many smoldering T-72's there would have been?

 

There are a few other articles that discuss how the prominent strategy at the time was to form a coherent defense to stall the Soviet advance short of Bonne while waiting for authorization to release the tactical nukes. After that, I suppose it wouldn't matter much.

 

Edit: To make this post more On-Topic, here's a linky to another article that talks about what the Hog really needs/needed. Notice that SAR isn't on the list.

 

http://www.airpower.au.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj03/sum03/ireton.html

Edited February 18, 2012 by BlueRidgeDx

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

Once they have to come out to fight though, hiding doesn't work quite as well.

That applies to both sides GG. NATO was hiding using speed, altitude and attacking targets that are not heavily defended. NATO pilot on a discovery Channel put it very nicely, he said, "we flew "smart" ...", and he talked about speed and altitude.

 

BTW ... :smilewink:

 

SAM = Stealth STOP!

[BlueRidgeDx]

Yes, because one lucky shot against a predictable target invalidates the entire stealth idea.

[tflash]

To come back to topic, an mmW radar like the one on Longbow Apache would be very useful on an aircraft like A-10, if you were to fight tank concentrations. British Tornado jets hit multiple tanks in one pass in Libya using the mmW seeker on the Brimstone missile. A modern radar can track multiple targets, assign them automatically to each individual weapon so that you can ripple launch them in a volley.

A current A-10C cannot do this in all weather like the Tornado or the Apache.

[Frostiken]

A current A-10C cannot do this in all weather like the Tornado or the Apache.

 

First of all, an Apache, being a helicopter, is not what I would call 'all-weather' in any sense of the word. Secondly, I shudder to imagine the circumstances where nothing but a fuzzy radar image is good enough to trust a computer to properly assign target profiles to 'smart' weaponry with no other visual ID. The smoke clears and you have three destroyed tanks, six blown up civilian vehicles, and a red smashed-up pulp that used to be children that died when they sheltered in the school gym, after your missile automatically targeted the air conditioner on the roof.

 

Regardless, there's almost no aircraft that can do 'anything'. The F-15E cannot carry HARMs even though it would probably do just fine in that role. That's why you have F-16s. The A-10A was truly for 'CLOSE air support' because it had literally nothing going for it except the pilot's eyeball. With the advent of the A-10C, it's no longer shoehorned into getting right into the enemy's teeth and can engage from quite a distance. Now, if you want to get up close and dirty, that's exactly what the much more flexible, maneuverable, and accurate AH-64s are for.

 

 

 

It would be 'useful' if every aircraft flew as high as the U-2, as fast as the SR-71, was as maneuverable as a Su-37, carried as many munitions as a B-52, had a radar as powerful as an E-3, the EW suite of an EF-111, the stealth profile of a B-2, the durability of an A-10, and the laser targeting system of a C-130H ATL... but that's not exactly going to be practical :D

Edited February 18, 2012 by Frostiken

[tflash]

It would be 'useful' if every aircraft flew as high as the U-2, as fast as the SR-71, was as maneuverable as a Su-37, carried as many munitions as a B-52, had a radar as powerful as an E-3, the EW suite of an EF-111, the stealth profile of a B-2, the durability of an A-10, and the laser targeting system of a C-130H ATL... but that's not exactly going to be practical :D

 

Seems like a LM description of the F-35 to me ;)

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

Yes, because one lucky shot against a predictable target invalidates the entire stealth idea.

I've never said that.

 

"SAM = Stealth STOP!" is a response to GG's sig stating the "SAM = Speed bump". Both statements are correct, when put in proper perspective.

[Buzpilot]

Have you read up on the capability of the S1?

.

 

Just an observation, to have a 10,000m altitude range, I would expect much bigger missiles. Or a booster at least.

 

And If I should believe all I read, according to DCS Encyclopedia a F/A 18C has 7G capability, but you don't see many falling down on airshows, but other 9G fighters ( according to DCS Encyclopedia ), do fall down, relative often. Just an observation.;)

[GGTharos]

Yeah, just an observation ... ;)

 

[Buzpilot]

Yeah, just an observation ... ;)

 

 

 

Not to derail this into a pissing contest, but that during practise and a F4 crash in a air show, compared to how many MIG29,SU27's during airshows, not even counting mid air pilot error crashes, too many to put up a sad list from youtube :( (I started but I gave up, too many sad vids)

[159th_Viper]

I would expect much bigger missiles. Or a booster at least.

 

The 57E6-E is two-stage, with a 20kg warhead. More than enough to thoroughly upset the breakfast-bagel.