A-10 in the gulf war compared to DCS and user scenarios

[BlueRidgeDx]

Hypothetically of course, what would the doctrine be today against systems with a 15 ft AGL minimum target engagement zone?

 

The reality is that brave men would get in jets and fly toward targets knowing that they probably weren't coming home. I thought you saw the USAF's anticipated A-10 attrition rate numbers in the Fulda Gap scenario? I posted them a few months ago; it was about a 50% loss per day.

 

It's like asking what the doctrine would be for B-17's over Nazi occupied Europe; the answer is you suck it up and take the fight to the enemy. And lots of good people will die in the effort.

 

For some reason, people seem to think that OEF/OIF represent the new "normal", and that we don't have to worry about things like SAMs and MiGs and flak anymore. Imagine the horror these people will feel when we have to go downtown through no-shit denied airspace, and we start losing jets.

 

The guys who fly the jets train and are prepared for that eventuality, I think we should be too.

[Snoopy]

The reality is that brave men would get in jets and fly toward targets knowing that they probably weren't coming home. I thought you saw the USAF's anticipated A-10 attrition rate numbers in the Fulda Gap scenario? I posted them a few months ago; it was about a 50% loss per day.

 

It's like asking what the doctrine would be for B-17's over Nazi occupied Europe; the answer is you suck it up and take the fight to the enemy. And lots of good people will die in the effort.

 

For some reason, people seem to think that OEF/OIF represent the new "normal", and that we don't have to worry about things like SAMs and MiGs and flak anymore. Imagine the horror these people will feel when we have to go downtown through no-shit denied airspace, and we start losing jets.

 

The guys who fly the jets train and are prepared for that eventuality, I think we should be too.

 

Exactly....different subject but I think a lot of people, even high up in the US military think that..

[159th_Viper]

I thought you saw the USAF's anticipated A-10 attrition rate numbers in the Fulda Gap scenario? I posted them a few months ago; it was about a 50% loss per day.

 

Yes, I saw those numbers.

 

I assumed that, having regard to the present-day threats as opposed to the threats they would have faced, that that doctrine would have been revised insofar as the A10 is concerned, hence the query.

[BlueRidgeDx]

a-10c has never been in anything other than low intensity conflicts. that's just a fact. anything else is hypothetical/fantasy.

 

 

Seriously? So tell me, why was the A-10 designed to fly at 100' AGL? Why does in have an "H" tail? Why does it have MRFCS? Why does it have a titanium bathtub? Why is the canopy designed to take hits? Why are the engines so widely deparated?

 

Oh wait, I know! It's because planners envisioned it tooling along at Angels 25 in a perpetual right bank, using the TGP to stare at Hajji taking a crap in his front lawn.

 

Or.....

 

Maybe it was because everyone knew the A-10 couldn't survive the soviet IADS, and had to fly low. Very low. Where kids with slingshots were a valid threat.

 

So, to say that A-10s flying in a high-threat scenario is unrealistic is without any merit whatsoever. That is the sole reason it exists. Just because we don't need it to perform in that role doesn't mean it can't or won't.

[BlueRidgeDx]

Yes, I saw those numbers.

 

I assumed that, having regard to the present-day threats as opposed to the threats they would have faced, that that doctrine would have been revised insofar as the A10 is concerned.

 

Revised to what? Don't shoot at an advancing enemy until/unless they can't shoot back?

 

That works nicely against threats like Iraq and Afghanistan, but what happens if the Chonger decides to come across the DMZ?

 

When called upon to do so, we will sacrifice jets and lives to accomplish the mission. We are lucky that the current mission does not require such a sacrifice, but that doesn't mean we won't find ourselves in that situation in the future.

[159th_Viper]

Revised to what? Don't shoot at an advancing enemy until/unless they can't shoot back?

 

If I knew I would not have asked ;)

 

I am however certain that any training pilots get stating that flying under 100ft AGL to avoid potential SAM threats as stated previously, is in this day and age about as useless as tits on a bull. In my opinion, of course.

[BlueRidgeDx]

To this day, A-10 pilots fly Low Altitude Training (LOWAT), Low Altitude Tactical Navigation (LATN) and Low Altitude Step Down Training (LASDT) sorties. Each A-10 pilot is assigned a LOWAT category, where Category I is no lower than 500ft, Category II is no lower than 300ft, and Category III is no lower than 100ft.

 

To advance from one category to another, there is a very specific training and evaluation process. If you want to read the actual rules, check out AFI 11-2OA-10V1 Aircrew Training here:

 

http://www.e-publishing.af.mil/shared/media/epubs/AFI11-2A-OA-10V1.pdf

[Sierra99]

When called upon to do so, we will sacrifice jets and lives to accomplish the mission. We are lucky that the current mission does not require such a sacrifice, but that doesn't mean we won't find ourselves in that situation in the future.

I spent 22 years in the U.S. Air Force as a flyer… I can tell you for FACT it was NEVER policy to plan a mission expecting to sacrifice the aircraft and aircrew to accomplish the mission. Missions are planned specifically to maximize the capabilities of the assets available vs. a specific target and the threats present at the time. THEN specific steps are taken to MINIMIZE the threats encountered by the crews actually executing the mission.

It’s a simple matter of numbers.

 

A.) We can’t afford to PLAN to lose people and aircraft when we never know how long a war will last.

B.) MOST pilots are smart people… You tell one “Hey go bomb this target… OH BTW we’re sacrificing YOUR jets and YOUR live to accomplish the mission…” they are going to tell you to pound sand and re-plan the mission to better their chances of survival.

 

About the only real exception to was in the case of SAR missions where yes, you might find aircraft in a threat environment we normally wouldn’t put them in

[BlueRidgeDx]

Sierra,

 

Thanks for your service. It's great to have flyers here contributing.

 

I understand what you're saying, and I think perhaps you're misunderstanding what I'm trying to say. I don't mean "sacrifice" as in purposeful wasting of jets and lives. It goes without saying that the SPINS, WG/SQ leadership, MPC, Flight Lead and even Blue 4 will attempt to minimize the risk as much as possible; that's why I didn't say it. What I'm saying is that history shows us that pilots and crews will hack the mish despite the odds.

 

I think its reasonable to point out the the 8th AF PLANNED on losing bombers, yet the crews did what their country asked of them. My dad was a Thud driver in SEA, and they went downtown every day despite the threat; according to the almighty Wikipedia, 382 F-105's were lost, but they continued to hit targets. A-10 pilots in Europe knew the life expectancy of a hog above 100' was about 30 seconds, but they still stepped to the jets. It's been said that they fully expected to have to walk home, and they also knew that there would be no CSAR. Here's a link to an Air University article from 1977 that outlined the expected A-10 combat losses: http://www.airpower.au.af.mil/airchronicles/aureview/1977/jul-aug/dotson.html. For the record, I remembered incorrectly up above...it was 20% losses per day.

 

What I'm saying is that when the chips are down, fighter pilots with their fangs out are not a timid bunch. They are by no means reckless, but if given the choice, they'll do what they were sent there to do.

Edited May 22, 2012 by BlueRidgeDx
spelling...added link.

[Snoopy]

To this day, A-10 pilots fly Low Altitude Training (LOWAT), Low Altitude Tactical Navigation (LATN) and Low Altitude Step Down Training (LASDT) sorties. Each A-10 pilot is assigned a LOWAT category, where Category I is no lower than 500ft, Category II is no lower than 300ft, and Category III is no lower than 100ft.

 

To advance from one category to another, there is a very specific training and evaluation process. If you want to read the actual rules, check out AFI 11-2OA-10V1 Aircrew Training here:

 

http://www.e-publishing.af.mil/shared/media/epubs/AFI11-2A-OA-10V1.pdf

 

I see it everyday I'm on reserve duty, you can see the range from the Flightline and 90% of the training on the range is as Blue stated above.

[Sierra99]

Sierra,

 

Thanks for your service. It's great to have flyers here contributing.

 

I understand what you're saying, and I think perhaps you're misunderstanding what I'm trying to say. I don't mean "sacrifice" as in purposeful wasting of jets and lives. It goes without saying that the SPINS, WG/SQ leadership, MPC, Flight Lead and even Blue 4 will attempt to minimize the risk as much as possible; that's why I didn't say it. What I'm saying is that history shows us that pilots and crews will hack the mish despite the odds.

 

I think its reasonable to point out the the 8th AF PLANNED on losing bombers, yet the crews did what their country asked of them. My dad was a Thud driver in SEA, and they went downtown every day despite the threat; according to the almighty Wikipedia, 382 F-105's were lost, but they continued to hit targets. A-10 pilots in Europe knew the life expectancy of a hog above 100' was about 30 seconds, but they still stepped to the jets. It's been said that they fully expected to have to walk home, and they also knew that there would be no CSAR. Here's a link to an Air University article from 1977 that outlined the expected A-10 combat losses: http://www.airpower.au.af.mil/airchronicles/aureview/1977/jul-aug/dotson.html. For the record, I remembered incorrectly up above...it was 20% losses per day.

 

What I'm saying is that when the chips are down, fighter pilots with their fangs out are not a timid bunch. They are by no means reckless, but if given the choice, they'll do what they were sent there to do.

 

Ahhhhhhh...you were referring to the Cold War when I thought you were referring to the wars that came later... Absolutly correct in that case. We always (jokingly) referred to the A-10s in Europe as " speed bumps"... Since all they were gonna do was slow the Soviets down. (FWIW... During the same period, a B-52 could pull up behind a -135 heading for its target and politely "Ask" for ALL of the tankers fuel... We got to keep juuuuuust enough to remain straight and level until the crew bailed out). I also vividly remember the estimates of 25-30% Tanker losses leading up to Iraq I. Thank gawd that didn't pan out.

 

ALL AF Aviators have fangs!:smilewink: And youre right, when the chips are down crewdogs will hack it to get the mission accomplished...All of them.

[roob]

I'm just reading the book "Warthog - Flying the A-10 in the gulf war" (by William L. Smallwood)

 

Terrific book! I recommend the one about the Strike Eagles as well if you haven't already picked it up. :)

[Hamblue]

Revised to what? Don't shoot at an advancing enemy until/unless they can't shoot back?

 

That works nicely against threats like Iraq and Afghanistan, but what happens if the Chonger decides to come across the DMZ?

 

QUOTE]

They couldn't shoot back because their "state of the art" defenses were shot up in previous days.

Time and time again defense analysts and guides have been proven wrong when they size up military hardware. What looks like an even match or even being superior is proven wrong when the shooting starts. Ask the ghosts of the iraqi pilots in their high end fighters who were dispatched a couple at a time, and the surviors who ran.

The A-10 survives and kicks butt because it is used correctly, after it's biggest threat has mostly been removed from the field or neutralized.

 

And Chonger coming accross the DMZ would be less a threat. They use the same equipment and share the same tactics that the iraqi's did. They would fall just as quickly.

[Speed]

I wouldn't draw too many lessons from the Gulf War, we are not simulating the A-10A, and we are not simulating the Iraqi army. Different aircraft, different enemy, different tactics. Most significantly,the A-10C allows much better night operation of the A-10 than the A-10A does, and furthermore, it also allows much more effective operation from high altitudes, where the aircraft is safe from AAA/IR SAMs. Further, as this is a video game that does not fully simulate the level of ground clutter/IR contrast variations/camouflage/sneaky tactics real enemy forces would use, it is very easy to find targets from high altitudes.

 

Even if you want to simulate exactly like real life, the information we have available to us indicates that the USAF has A-10s fly at high altitudes IRL when significant low altitude enemy air defenses are expected.

Edited May 23, 2012 by Speed

[BlueRidgeDx]

They couldn't shoot back because their "state of the art" defenses were shot up in previous days.

 

And you believe that we'll have the same luck in Iran, or Korea, or China?

 

Time and time again defense analysts and guides have been proven wrong when they size up military hardware. What looks like an even match or even being superior is proven wrong when the shooting starts. Ask the ghosts of the iraqi pilots in their high end fighters who were dispatched a couple at a time, and the surviors who ran.

 

And you believe that the Iranians, Koreans, or Chinese will be equally incompetent?

 

The A-10 survives and kicks butt because it is used correctly, after it's biggest threat has mostly been removed from the field or neutralized.

 

Again, we had the luxury of being able to wage a 100 day air war against a purely defensive enemy, following a 6 month build up of forces, and we started it on our terms.

 

What do suppose will happen when the enemy tanks start moving at an H-hour of their choosing, and the only forces we have to respond with are the ones in theater? Do you think we won't fly CAS because the threat is too high?

 

And Chonger coming accross the DMZ would be less a threat. They use the same equipment and share the same tactics that the iraqi's did. They would fall just as quickly.

 

The last time I checked, the bulk of the Iraqi army was too busy trying to surrender to passing helicopters to put up much of a fight. Do you think the same can be said for Iran, Korea, or China?

 

For the love of Pete, the DPRK plan to clear the DMZ minefields is to send in human waves to step on all the mines...and they're all too happy to sacrifice themselves for Dear Leader.

 

"Quantity has a quality all its own."

 

Edited to add the following excerpt to illustrate my point:

 

 

 

"FROM DESERT STORM TO 2025: CLOSE AIR SUPPORT IN THE 21ST CENTURY"

 

When comparing the 23,400 strike sorties to the 42 total days of the entire war, ground strike sorties represent an average of approximately 550 sorties per day. The same analysis of CAS sorties over the period of the 100-hour ground offensive results in an average CAS sortie rate of approximately 430 sorties per day. The lesson should be clear. When ground forces are placed at risk, CAS assets are heavily tasked to provide support for their operations. Desert Storm also demonstrates that when such CAS requirements exist, air power will be required to fight in the low altitude environment.

 

As mentioned above, prior to the beginning of the ground offensive, strike aircraft employment altitudes were restricted to avoid AAA and IR threat systems. This limitation made inherent sense during the days prior to the ground war. Since precision weapons could be employed accurately from long distances, altitude restrictions probably prevented the needless loss of many strike aircraft. Yet, as soon as ground troops were employed, Lt. Gen. Charles A. Horner (Commander, Air Force Component, Central Command) summarily lifted this restriction.

 

It was clearly recognized that the low altitude environment would be required to separate friendly from enemy forces and ensure effective CAS operations. In this case, the threat presented by AAA and IR SAM systems had to be weighed against the possible losses of ground units that might be experienced if not adequately supported from the air. The magnitude of this situation as a lesson for CAS can not be understated. When ground forces are placed in harms way, CAS aircraft will be expected to take the fight to the enemy regardless of the threat situation at lower altitudes.

 

When this fact is combined with the information presented in Table 1 and 2, the critical lesson emerges. CAS aircraft must be able to fight and survive in AAA and IR SAM environments. This lesson held true even in Desert Storm’s political atmosphere of minimizing aircraft losses. The reason for this fact can be found in the need to ensure the safety of friendly troops when employing air power in close proximity to their locations.

 

 

Read the whole thing here: http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA425408

Edited May 23, 2012 by BlueRidgeDx

[Wichid]

Yep many missions have you calling fighter cover and sead.

 

I've seen some videos of a-10s engaging with guns and not going below 7000 ft. It's not as effective though I guess. They also killed a British soldier by accident.

 

Most mp missions are made to be action packed and full of challenges. Killing targets is otherwise quite straight forward.

 

Further to this I made a quick vid strafing from 7-5,000 ft. Good fun with the new explosions.

 

[Hamblue]

And you believe that we'll have the same luck in Iran, or Korea, or China?

Not luck but results in the first 2. I don't believe we would ever attack china. Would probably spark a nuclear exchange.

 

 

And you believe that the Iranians, Koreans, or Chinese will be equally incompetent?

The Iraqi's weren't incompetent, just not as good. But Yes I believe the Iranians, Koreans, and Chinese forces would suffer the same fate. The iranians couldn't defeat the Iraqi's and their forces that entered Iraq were easily mopped up by the Coalition.

 

 

Again, we had the luxury of being able to wage a 100 day air war against a purely defensive enemy, following a 6 month build up of forces, and we started it on our terms.

 

They didn't start out purely defensive, we made them that way. And starting it on your own terms is simply having better generals.

 

What do suppose will happen when the enemy tanks start moving at an H-hour of their choosing, and the only forces we have to respond with are the ones in theater? Do you think we won't fly CAS because the threat is too high?

You assume that the same people that kicked sadam's and taliban ass haven't thought of these scenario's as well and aren't ready for it. I would give the people who flew and fought in the coaliton at least some credit. Their training, bravery and mastery of the weapons they employed won the battle. If Iran thought they could do any better they would have tried long ago.

 

 

 

The last time I checked, the bulk of the Iraqi army was too busy trying to surrender to passing helicopters to put up much of a fight. Do you think the same can be said for Iran, Korea, or China?

After the beating they took I would say Iran would do the same. Korea or China would keep fighting. They did that before. The only reson it was a stalemate the first time around was politics and handcuffing the armed forces.

 

For the love of Pete, the DPRK plan to clear the DMZ minefields is to send in human waves to step on all the mines...and they're all too happy to sacrifice themselves for Dear Leader.

 

True. With part of their population starving, it would leave less mouths to feed. Once again, if they thought they could succeed they would probably have tried it.

 

"Quantity has a quality all its own."

Yup, proven by the Soviets in WWII. That's why cluster bombs were invented.

 

 

We can agree to disagree but history is all we have to go by at the moment. This agrees the Israeli's success against large odds.

Edited May 24, 2012 by Hamblue
Highlighting answers in blue

[BlueRidgeDx]

We're untouchable. Copy.

[Mouse]

China is a major trade partner with the US, so it seems odd to think we would ever come into direct conflict with them. Their current economy is much stronger than Cold War USSR or Nazi Germany, let alone Iran, Iraq, North Korea or Vietnam. It's only getting stronger too.

 

North Korea's military is probably a joke compared to Iraq's. The real danger North Korea poses is their proximity to urban areas in South Korea. They would probably be able to do a lot of civilian damage before they were stopped. For that reason no one will ever provoke North Korea. Everyone hopes they will slowly deflate and collapse. If North Korea were to start a serious conflict without provocation, I would be very surprised if China supported them.

 

China won't let North Korea collapse right now, however, because they enjoy importing its natural resources at low cost, and neither China nor South Korea wants to deal directly with hundreds of thousands of starving refugees.

 

On the other hand, Iran would have defeated Iraq during the Iran-Iraq War if the international community hadn't stepped in. They seem the most likely country to be in direct conflict with NATO countries in the near future, but would that be significantly different from the conflicts in Iraq?

 

If you're looking to create realistic scenarios, I think history is right now offering some pretty compelling situations with the Arab Spring. Missions inspired by these civil conflicts can offer challenges other than just dodging SAMs. The trick, I think, is figuring out just what can be done about that in the DCS mission editor on a map of Georgia. I've never made a mission before and I'm still a DCS newbie, but I've lately been tempted to try.

[theghost]

mmmm,

As one who has been in three wars i will Telling you that,

If this happens then:

1.Iran = Conventional war

2.North Korea = Nuclear War

3.China = Nuclear War

How I came to this conclusion?

Quite simply, the balance of forces and weapons,The day when nuclear weapons will be Active Is already at the door..

By the way, if it eventually happens, Israel is going to surprise the world, that's for sure.All comparisons are done in front of the Gulf War is not correct.

[theghost]

 

If you're looking to create realistic scenarios, I think history is right now offering some pretty compelling situations with the Arab Spring. Missions inspired by these civil conflicts can offer challenges other than just dodging SAMs. The trick, I think, is figuring out just what can be done about that in the DCS mission editor on a map of Georgia. I've never made a mission before and I'm still a DCS newbie, but I've lately been tempted to try.

 

 

:thumbup: You're absolutely right,

I alone can make you at least 50 mission.:smilewink:

[BlueRidgeDx]

My interest is waning, but I'm curious as to why you think fictional involvement in some Arab Spring scenario is "realistic", while flying in the high threat scenario the A-10 was specifically designed, built, and trained to fly in is "unrealistic"?

[Mouse]

I'm not sure that's what ghost or I ever said, BlueRidge. I don't know if it's your intent, but you come off as a bit hostile to the discussion here.

 

The OP was comparing the Gulf War to actual DCS scenarios. There's certainly a valid interest in that with regards to DCS. What missions has the aircraft been performing historically? What was it designed to perform? What can it do if backed into a corner? Those are all useful questions, especially for people who want to create believable, challenging missions.

 

We got involved in Libya and there is still a huge problem in Syria that could lead to military intervention in some way, so I'm not so sure you need quotes around the word realistic with regards to Arab Spring-inspired missions. It seems a great source of hypothetical missions for all of the modern aircraft in DCS.

[theghost]

I'm not sure that's what ghost or I ever said, BlueRidge. I don't know if it's your intent, but you come off as a bit hostile to the discussion here.

 

The OP was comparing the Gulf War to actual DCS scenarios. There's certainly a valid interest in that with regards to DCS. What missions has the aircraft been performing historically? What was it designed to perform? What can it do if backed into a corner? Those are all useful questions, especially for people who want to create believable, challenging missions.

 

We got involved in Libya and there is still a huge problem in Syria that could lead to military intervention in some way, so I'm not so sure you need quotes around the word realistic with regards to Arab Spring-inspired missions. It seems a great source of hypothetical missions for all of the modern aircraft in DCS.

+1

[BlueRidgeDx]

People keep saying that given current threats, A-10's can only be used - and will only be used - at medium altitude, and only after eliminating the radar SAM threat.

 

I'm saying that in the past, we have been fortunate in that our enemies have allowed us ample time to build up forces and roll back the air defenses before it became necessary to commit A-10's to flying low altitude CAS.

 

I'm also saying that past fortune is not something we should plan on having in the future. If the DPRK comes across the DMZ, you can bet your ass that A-10's will be raging at low altitude as necessary to support the guys on the ground.

 

Finally, I'm saying that despite the fact that losses would be high in such a scenario, the pilots train for it; they know it can happen, and if called upon, they'll fly the mission.