Why doesn't the A10 have radar?

[Archaic]

It seems odd to me that a tank killer wouldn't be outfitted with radar.

 

My speculation would be that the physical position of the gun and its associated vibrations would have an impact on proper functioning, but does anyone know for sure?

[Neon67]

The main purpose of the a10 is ground attack, not intercept.Also i m not sure that when the original a10 was develloped , ground radar was already available

The gun also takes a lot of place in the nose, leaving no extra room for such system

[Shadow KT]

why do u need a radar ? even if u have one... what will you use with it when most of the missiles are longer than your wing it will just look out of place...you dont need a radar for ground attacking...which is the primary objective of the all mighty A-10 and to be honest it packs a lot of punch even without radar and radar missiles in air 2 air combat

[mvsgas]

Many aircraft designed for ground attack do not use a radar. Harrier ( Some versions) Jaguar, SU-25, MIG-27, etc. Radar would add unnecessary complexity, would increase maintenance, cost of development and maintenance. The Gun in the A-10 is also a factor. AFAIK, they try to add a radar to YA-10B for all weather and night operations ( in a pod). Not sure what where the results.

[Eddie]

This has already been discussed at length.

 

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=85454&highlight=A-10+RADAR

[Pepec9124]

It was meant to be cheap CAS aircraft. Radar is not cheap.

[EtherealN]

The main purpose of the a10 is ground attack, not intercept.Also i m not sure that when the original a10 was develloped , ground radar was already available

The gun also takes a lot of place in the nose, leaving no extra room for such system

 

To be more precise: it is a CAS aircraft; Close Air Support. Radars are not quite as useful there, especially since the optical Mavs do already offer fire-and-forget capability - and actually even better such capability as far as EMCON goes.

 

Radar tech has progressed since then, and they can be more useful now than they were back then, but for CAS you would still be relying on a FAC (Forward Air Controller) towards ensuring that your weapons go where the ground troopers want them. Since the CAS scenario typically entail dropping munitions onto positions in very close proximity to your own ground forces, having a radar would not remove the need for said FAC direction; especially since you will often be engaging hostile infantry, not just tanks.

 

Real-world A-10C engagement:

 

[Iberian]

why do u need a radar ? even if u have one... what will you use with it when most of the missiles are longer than your wing it will just look out of place...you dont need a radar for ground attacking...which is the primary objective of the all mighty A-10 and to be honest it packs a lot of punch even without radar and radar missiles in air 2 air combat

 

Actually, A-10 is larger than an F-16 :P

[samueel]

The A10's always fly in formations of 2 or 4, and usually with other aircrafts like the F15 etc. for A2A defense.

[lobo]

What do you think would happen to a radar dish located inches above the gun, when that bad boy is fired? ;)

[Scrim]

What I'm wondering is slightly OT, but why has nothing been done to upgrade the Mavericks with the C version? I just feel that they're a pain in the ass to use compared to any other weapon, with no continuous ground lock or such. Only being able to get a ground lock when not moving it around doesn't really help.

[NeilWillis]

I guess a similar question would be why did they never fit brakes on a torpedo?

 

Unless all vehicles are fitted with IFF, your biggest problem would still be hitting the baddies, and not adding to the friendly fire statistics. The mark 1 eyeball - on the ground, at the sharp end - does at least mean you'll not be wasting missiles, and your comrades lives through indiscriminate, gung-ho target practice. It gets very messy down in the mud.

[towsim]

An airborne radar, directed to the ground , makes no sense. The only image the pilot would see is a lot of ground clutter which makes the expected targets disappear. The reflected energy cannot smell metal, wood or human beings. The only information received is reflected energy with a continuous changing amplitude. For some extraordinary objects like buildings, towers or bridges, the pilot would recognize the type. There is no chance to see vehicles or persons in an average modeled terrain. Another case is the usage against flying objects. There is no other background which causes clutter on the screen. However, even here there is no possibility to recognize the type of object on a simple analog screen. Therefore the usage of the TGP is way more effective. An airborne radar can be compared to a TGP with 100 by 100 pixel resolution. In the past, the reconnaissance fighter like F4 used the so called side looking radar. It produced a black and white image on which the terrain was shown like on a picture. Even here, it was difficult to see small object. The dream of a radar engineer is to produce a screen like the TGP offers.

The attached picture shows a pilot flip chart for night low level flying. The right side on the map shows the radar picture for the current leg. It can be compared to the current image on the radar screen to support the orientation. So someone my try to find any interesting object on the radar picture.

[Yurgon]

An airborne radar, directed to the ground , makes no sense. The only image the pilot would see is a lot of ground clutter which makes the expected targets disappear.

 

I tend to disagree. I don't have any RL experience, but the AG radar was very efficient in Falcon 4.0 (last time I flew was around the SuperPAK 4 era) with "Ground Map" and "Ground Moving Target" modes for non-moving and moving objects respectively. Coupled with a targeting pod, this could be an extremely valuable instrument.

[Flagrum]

What I'm wondering is slightly OT, but why has nothing been done to upgrade the Mavericks with the C version? I just feel that they're a pain in the ass to use compared to any other weapon, with no continuous ground lock or such. Only being able to get a ground lock when not moving it around doesn't really help.

The Mavericks are an independent weapon system - they have nothing to do with the changes A-10A -> A-10C. What you see at the MFD MAV page is basically controlled and generated by the electronics of the MAV. So, what a Maverick can do and what it can't do is defined by the Maverick, not the aircraft that carries it.

 

But besides that, have you looked up "Ground Stabilize" and "Force Correlate Mode" in the manual, yet? :o)

[Scrim]

I know, but I sort of reckoned that it had to be independent back when the A-10 was designed due to the lack of the current sensors. Now though, I feel it'd make sense to integrate it into the modern systems.

 

Know about ground stabilize, but that breaks every time I move the aim again. What's Force Correlate Mode, and how do I activate it?

[aaron886]

Actually even today, for the kind of missions the A-10C performs, good datalink and good imaging are far more relevant than radar. SAR is going to be an important technology in the mud-moving business, but regardless of updates, the A-10 isn't designed to pick its targets, it's designed to be told which things to kill.

[towsim]

@ Yurgon

I have to admit, that my knowledge could be antiquated as you can see with may banner and avatar. The question is, what reliable information can be forwarded to a pilot with a minimum interpretation procedure expressed in time. I can remember situations when my ATC radar showed me an enemy mass attack while it was only a bird flock interpreted by my digital target extractor. Or a helicopter was overtaken by another object undercutting the separation minima when it turned out it was overtaken by an ICE. The difference from that what the engineers praised to the real usage was very often a surprise. Nevertheless, I appreciate it if you found the usage in the Falcon very effective.

Regards,

Mike

[Flagrum]

I know, but I sort of reckoned that it had to be independent back when the A-10 was designed due to the lack of the current sensors. Now though, I feel it'd make sense to integrate it into the modern systems.

 

Know about ground stabilize, but that breaks every time I move the aim again. What's Force Correlate Mode, and how do I activate it?

Mavericks are used on many aircrafts and they work well (enough), it seems. So I guess, it makes not too much sense (cost wise?) to integrate them tighter into the A-10C as that would also would require changes on the MAV side - and thus on all other aircraft as well.

 

Force correlate: see p. 353, p. 571

[tflash]

A millimeter-wave radar such as the Apache Longbow can be useful for anti-tank missions: you can prepare your attack from a safe distance and engage multiple targets at once, as is also being done by the Tornado GR4/Brimstone combo.

 

But this works best if your enemy is a regular force using tanks of which the signature can be positively identified. Such a Radar cannot easily see the difference between a truck loaded with peasants and a truck loaded with militants.

 

Rules of Engagement will nowadays mostly require visual ID and then you might as well use optical systems such as a Litening pod. Those have seen their usable range evolve in such a way that you can engage the enemy tanks stealthily from safe distance also.

 

Adding the Litening pod to the A-10 essentially saved it from becoming obsolete in comparison to mmw-equipped aircraft. But a Radar will always be an advantage in adverse weather. UK Apaches almost always fly with the Longbow radar.