PDA

View Full Version : Slighty OT...Is the A-10 the best ground-attack aircraft ever..??



MB_Avro_UK
04-21-2007, 02:48 PM
Hi all,

This sim is based upon the il2 Sturmovik which seems to be recognised as the best ground-attack aircraft of WW2.

Maybe in 60 years those that are still alive here will be playing A-10 as a replacement?

And it's been operational for maybe 30 years http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

K_Freddie
04-21-2007, 03:04 PM
The M24-Hind was supposed to be a bugger too. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

leitmotiv
04-21-2007, 03:08 PM
Probably. Despite all the Sov hype, the IL-2 had an inferior survival rate to the Su-2 according to their own statistics. When you see Gulf War I footage of A-10s making passes while receiving gunfire which sparkles all over their fuselages, it is a very impressive sight. I just read a military-industrial press story about how the British forces prefer the A-10 to their own Harriers for close support because the A-10 does a better job!

No601_prangster
04-21-2007, 03:17 PM
The A10 was designed to fight the Vietnam war. It's low speed, powerful armament and heavy armour were just what was need to fight the Viet Cong.

With the end of the vietnam war the USAF spent 20 years tring to have it replaced in the CAS role with fast jets such as the F16. It's just not survivable against a well equipped modern opponent.

What's keeping it in service is the fact that the US is now at war with Afghan tribesmen and Iraqi insurgence, situations were it's low speed and heavy armour are an asset. In that role it has a claim to be the best CAS aircraft ever, just don't take it up against a Russian tank division with modern SAMs.

It's a great attack plane

erco415
04-21-2007, 03:37 PM
Originally posted by No601_prangster:
The A10 was designed to fight the Vietnam war. It's low speed, powerful armament and heavy armour were just what was need to fight the Viet Cong.

With the end of the vietnam war the USAF spent 20 years tring to have it replaced in the CAS role with fast jets such as the F16. It's just not survivable against a well equipped modern opponent.

What's keeping it in service is the fact that the US is now at war with Afghan tribesmen and Iraqi insurgence, situations were it's low speed and heavy armour are an asset. In that role it has a claim to be the best CAS aircraft ever, just don't take it up against a Russian tank division with modern SAMs.


I've heard a very different story from the A-10 crews themselves. The guys I've talked to felt that they were very able to operate in the anti-tank role in contested airspace. Not that they felt invulnerable, just that they could do the job against the various threats ranged against them. And you don't mount the Avenger cannon if you're not planning on attacking armor. As for the sams, back when the manpads were supposed to put the 'Hog out of business, one pilot put it best: "Son," he said, "that thing has a warhead the size of my fist, do you think I'm worried about that?"
I think the A-10 is probably the best there's been, so far.

MB_Avro_UK
04-21-2007, 03:51 PM
Originally posted by No601_prangster:
The A10 was designed to fight the Vietnam war. It's low speed, powerful armament and heavy armour were just what was need to fight the Viet Cong.

With the end of the vietnam war the USAF spent 20 years tring to have it replaced in the CAS role with fast jets such as the F16. It's just not survivable against a well equipped modern opponent.

What's keeping it in service is the fact that the US is now at war with Afghan tribesmen and Iraqi insurgence, situations were it's low speed and heavy armour are an asset. In that role it has a claim to be the best CAS aircraft ever, just don't take it up against a Russian tank division with modern SAMs.

It's a great attack plane

Good point http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif This aircraft has 'survivability'. Ground attack in WW2 was a 'risky business' and lessons have been learned.

I maybe wrong, but I don't think that any A-10s have been downed by ground fire either in Iraq or Afghanistan?

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

M_Gunz
04-21-2007, 04:02 PM
Against the Viet Cong.... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif and all that VC armor I suppose?
Certainly not the NVA!

The Big Problem in those days was not Viet Nam but possible Russian invasion of Europe via
the Fulda Gap. Or at least that's what the Army geared for. And the A-10 is armed for what?
Small groups of rifle-totin terrorists, which is all the VC were?

I also seem to recall those Afgani tribesman well able to use SAM's over 20 years ago. Ask
almost any Russian if they didn't!

Oh well, education standards have slid badly since 1980.....

leitmotiv
04-21-2007, 04:03 PM
As a matter of fact, I saw a TV documentary story about an A-10 flown by one of our female pilots in Gulf War II which was caught in the blast zone of a SAM, lost an engine, and was badly riddled, but, despite being badly rattled herself, she brought it back, and landed it on its l.g. It looked like a dog's breakfast. I think it is highly competitive for a contemporary environment, furthermore, it was announced this week the venerable beast is getting a massive upgrade in electronics to keep it up-to-date.

berg417448
04-21-2007, 04:14 PM
Here are some photos of that particular damaged A-10:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft..._battle-damage01.jpg (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/images/a-10_oif_battle-damage01.jpg)

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft...-damage_mvc-004f.jpg (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/images/a-10_oif_battle-damage_mvc-004f.jpg)

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft...-damage_mvc-011f.jpg (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/images/a-10_oif_battle-damage_mvc-011f.jpg)

djetz
04-21-2007, 04:34 PM
Helicopters, anyone? Not really my field, but I'm fairly sure that ground attack choppers are popular these days. I guess it depends on what you're planning on attacking.

leitmotiv
04-21-2007, 04:56 PM
Well, after the Apaches got hammered severely by Iraqi soldiers using their rifles in an ambush situation in Gulf War II, several were shot down, many badly damaged, the reputation of choppers as ground support aircraft took a big hit.

WarWolfe_1
04-21-2007, 04:58 PM
I wouldn't go so far as to call it the best ever...but I think its proably the best serveing anywhere in the world today (and better than most of the past. I think the BestEver would more than likely go to the IL2. Th A-1 skyraider was outstanding at the job too http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif)

FritzGryphon
04-21-2007, 04:59 PM
It's certainly the best attack plane in sims, anyway. Nothing is better in a target rich environment.

I can go mavs, then guns, then bombs, to kill a dozen targets in one pass. Much more satisfying than plinking with LGBs, which takes forever.

No601_prangster
04-21-2007, 05:05 PM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Against the Viet Cong.... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif and all that VC armor I suppose?
Certainly not the NVA!

Actually the NVA did have plenty of Armour, but what I was actually saying is that the A10 was designed using lessons learned from Vietnam. These were to do with the problems of locating an enemy in a fast moving jet and in that jet surviving while loitering around the target. The A10 is the solution to these problems.


The Big Problem in those days was not Viet Nam but possible Russian invasion of Europe via
the Fulda Gap. Or at least that's what the Army geared for. And the A-10 is armed for what?

Yes the A10 was equipped with a cannon designed to kill tanks. Obviously it had a mission to stop the Soviet army in Germany.

What I'm trying to say is that many senior USAF generals wanted it replaced even before it entered service. They even advocated that the A10's should be transfered to the Marines and replaced with F16's. The reason for this was that many saw it as lacking surviablity against the increasing threat from Soviet air defences. It was a role they thought could be better fulfilled by attack helicopters. The air force being more suited to interdiction than CAS


Small groups of rifle-totin terrorists, which is all the VC were?

I also seem to recall those Afgani tribesman well able to use SAM's over 20 years ago. Ask
almost any Russian if they didn't!

The Mujahdine in the 80's were well supplied with modern SAM's by the CIA. The Taliban don't have those kind of friends and so lack large numbers of modern and effective SAMs.

The A10 may be armoured and resonable surviable against man portable SAM's but it wont survive against an SA-19 or other double diget SAM sytems. The A10 squadrons in the first Gulf war were ordered to stay above 8000ft and although an A10 in the second Gulf war survied a SAM hit and retured to base a second A10 pliot a few days later wasn't so lucky, the pilot being forced to eject on his way home.

I'm not arguing that the A10 isn't a great plane flown by excelent pilots, I'm just saying that it's been luck to face the kinds of wars it's most suited to.


Oh well, education standards have slid badly since 1980.....

Well if you think I was educated in the 80's I must look very young for my age. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Cheers!

LStarosta
04-21-2007, 05:09 PM
To answer the original question:

Yes.

leitmotiv
04-21-2007, 05:09 PM
The IL-2 survival rate was less than the Su-2. The IL-2 had that ridiculous unarmored radiator which undermined its entire armor scheme. The IL-2 had that hapless unprotected rear gunner sitting on a strap. The best thing about the IL-2 was its numbers.

WarWolfe_1
04-21-2007, 05:12 PM
Originally posted by leitmotiv:
The IL-2 survival rate was less than the Su-2.

I didn't know that......thanx Mate http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

WarWolfe_1
04-21-2007, 05:14 PM
I'm not arguing that the A10 isn't a great plane flown by excelent pilots, I'm just saying that it's been luck to face the kinds of wars it's most suited to.


Thats true of any aircraft.....when asked to do things outside of its design it often fails.

LStarosta
04-21-2007, 05:24 PM
Originally posted by leitmotiv:
The IL-2 survival rate was less than the Su-2. The IL-2 had that ridiculous unarmored radiator which undermined its entire armor scheme. The IL-2 had that hapless unprotected rear gunner sitting on a strap. The best thing about the IL-2 was its numbers.

Hope the strap went side to side and not front to back. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

leitmotiv
04-21-2007, 05:25 PM
Heh heh---knowing Soviet logic...

jarink
04-21-2007, 05:46 PM
Originally posted by leitmotiv:
I just read a military-industrial press story about how the British forces prefer the A-10 to their own Harriers for close support because the A-10 does a better job!

I've heard the same sort of thing. There are two reasons usually given for this preference.
1. The A-10 has an absoluteley huge advantage in payload over any version of Harrier.

2. Survivability. Not only is the A-10 well armored, but the placement of the engine nozzles on the Harrier are center mass. This means any heat-seeking SAMs are going to track and explode in the worst possible place. Unfortunately, there's no way to change this on the Harrier. I think I read somewhere this was also one of the reasons why the F-35 doesn't use a Pegasus engine arrangement in the VTOL version.

horseback
04-21-2007, 08:46 PM
I think anytime the subject of close air support comes up, the Powers That Be in the USAF get a bit pale and try to change the subject. They don't like being close to the ground, they don't like flying slow, and they especially don't like ground targets shooting them down.

The A-10 was the result of studies of the late sixties that showed that Soviet/Warsaw Pact armored forces significantly outnumbered NATO armor in Europe, and it was not significantly inferior (if it was) at all. The experience in Vietnam showed that slower aircraft like the A-1E/H/J skyraiders were quite effective and relatively survivable even in a heavy AAA environment.

I don't know for sure, but I would bet that the US Army provided a big chunk of the funding and political push to develop the A-9 (Northrop's answer to the specification--it looks very similar to the Su-25 Frogfoot) and A-10. Certainly, I've never heard any Army personnel express anything but great love and affection for the Warthog.

Please note that in the late sixties, there were few if any effective man carried or even remotely portable ground to air missile systems, especially in the Warsaw Pact. Even so, the A-10 would have been very effective and enjoyed a good survival rate in any sort of CAS environment well into the nineties.

Today it is a little long in the tooth, but it was designed for minimal 'bells and whistles' in the 1960s, so an aircraft designed for the same purpose today would be (I hope) much better, stealthier, and have more capable electronics for ECM and target acquisition.

Of course, each one would cost the annual GNP of all South America...

cheers

horseback

M_Gunz
04-21-2007, 11:07 PM
Originally posted by leitmotiv:
The IL-2 survival rate was less than the Su-2. The IL-2 had that ridiculous unarmored radiator which undermined its entire armor scheme. The IL-2 had that hapless unprotected rear gunner sitting on a strap. The best thing about the IL-2 was its numbers.

You could also account for all that was thrown against them to balance the losses they took.
There was twice or more rear gunners lost than pilots meaning that at least 2 of 3 times the
pilot did get back.

Mostly though, losses without reference to conditions... can I compare D-Day units on different
beaches and say the ones with less losses were better? No, unless you want to say which was
better able to continue operations right then.

Badsight-
04-22-2007, 03:35 AM
the Hog is faster than the Me-262 no ?

leitmotiv
04-22-2007, 03:46 AM
Originally posted by Badsight-:
the Hog is faster than the Me-262 no ?

Nope:

http://www.globalaircraft.org/planes/a-10_warthog.pl

leitmotiv
04-22-2007, 03:57 AM
Horseback is right, we could build a sooper-dooper A-10 but paying for it would be impossible in this era of tax cuts and tight military budgets added to the the Air Force's aversion to anything which goes less than Mach 2 and is for close air support. There was the brief delusion the Army had that it could go it alone with the Apache/Comanche but that was sent up in smoke by the reality check in Gulf War II when Apaches humiliated by Iraqi groundfire and by the cancelling of the Comanche program.

Brain32
04-22-2007, 04:13 AM
A-10 is the perfect CAP plane, AH64's and AH1's with their Hellfire missiles are great too, but you don't send a chopper to do a planes job http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Badsight-
04-22-2007, 04:21 AM
Originally posted by horseback:
I would bet that the US Army provided a big chunk of the funding and political push to develop the A-9 (Northrop's answer to the specification--it looks very similar to the Su-25 Frogfoot) and A-10

Northrop YA-9
http://img223.imageshack.us/img223/9707/northropya9aal9.jpg

Grumman A-10 (early model)
http://img185.imageshack.us/img185/1083/a10firing1136on5.jpg

anarchy52
04-22-2007, 04:37 AM
A-10 is good for fighting opponents on the technological level of soviets of the late 1960 period or below. Soviets were aware of the possibility of losing air superiority in the possible conflict, and Arab-Israeli wars have proved just how vulnerable transports and even armor is without complete air superiority.
Soviets invested a lot into multi-layered AA defense. Armoured/mechanized formations have their AA assets as an integral part of the unit in addition to the AA provided by the higher echelons. The result is that use of A-10 as originally intended (against an opponent armed with up to date weapons) would be a lot like WWI infantry charging at machine gun nests.

Scenario:
* A-10 flying nap of the earth reaches the target undetected (using terrain masking) and pops up to align for a strafing run (also needs to get a favorable angle to be able to hit the top armour of the MBTs) on a nice juicy mid 1980 soviet armoured column...

* 5-8 secs later a missile is launched by TOR-M1 (SA-15 Gauntlet) system (in auto engage mode).

* Few seconds later, Tunguska (SA-19 Grisom) launches it's missile(s) and starts tracking with quad 30mm cannons.

* Shortly before A-10 gets into range to use its gatling, 9M330 missile's 15kg warhead tears him a new one, but for the sake of the argument let's say it didn't score a hit. Tunguska's 9M311 missile arrives and for the sake of the argument also fails to kill the A-10 with it's smaller 9kg warhead. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuous-rod_warhead).

* Tor operator launches a salvo of 2 missiles which need about 4 secs to reach the A-10.

* Tunguska fires a 2 sec burst of 30mm shells (about 120 30mm shells)

* Igla operator stands down as the remains of the A-10 rain down on the ground about 1500m from the advancing column.

FrenziedAU
04-22-2007, 05:50 AM
While, yes, the A-10 would get slaughtered if it went up alone against a well defended soviet column - it should never do that.
If the attack was planned properly, wild weasel missions would already have gone through to deplete the AAA/SAM defences, giving the A-10s (multiple A-10s, I don't think they would ever fly alone into a combat zone) a much better chance of survival.

WWSensei
04-22-2007, 06:20 AM
The first Gulf War was considered a showcase for the A-10. What is little advertised is that we Viper drivers flew more sorties, destroyed more hardware, had fewer aircraft shot down, delivered more ordinance and had fewer friendly fire incidents than the A-10.

It has one advantage and that's loiter time.

My advantage was once I dropped my ordinance I could still be an effective air-to-air asset.

woofiedog
04-22-2007, 06:28 AM
Nothing like a Little Firepower. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/72/GAU-8_avenger.jpg

http://www.military.cz/usa/air/in_service/weapons/cannons/gau8/gau8_boom.gif

ploughman
04-22-2007, 06:43 AM
Originally posted by jarink:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by leitmotiv:
I just read a military-industrial press story about how the British forces prefer the A-10 to their own Harriers for close support because the A-10 does a better job!

I've heard the same sort of thing. There are two reasons usually given for this preference.
1. The A-10 has an absoluteley huge advantage in payload over any version of Harrier.

2. Survivability. Not only is the A-10 well armored, but the placement of the engine nozzles on the Harrier are center mass. This means any heat-seeking SAMs are going to track and explode in the worst possible place. Unfortunately, there's no way to change this on the Harrier. I think I read somewhere this was also one of the reasons why the F-35 doesn't use a Pegasus engine arrangement in the VTOL version. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Doubt the grunts care about the location of the Harrier's thrust out-lets. Interestingly the location of the jet outlets initially masked the jet's IR signature from an above and behind IR seeker shot. Current seekers can apparrently track hotspots such as leading edges on a plane.

The big thing the people on the ground like about the A-10 ( or so I hear) is it hangs around for a long time and its got that Gatling gun hanging off it. There is plenty of video from UK troops of A-10 cannon fire vapourising the enemy/goats/tree line in front of their postions. The Harrier Gr9 doesn't have a canon, the Gr7 had 30mm ADEN but the new 25mm jobby for the Gr7/9 was too fat and got cancelled. The appreciation of the effectiveness of the cannon in Afghanistan lead to it finally being made part of the Typhoon's load out though, after 10 years of the bean counters saying cannons are things of the past. Funnily enough, while the UK troops in Afghanistan love the A-10 but the one's in Iraq get distinctly nervous when they see one. Different context different = reaction.

leitmotiv
04-22-2007, 07:33 AM
I had no idea they swiped the Harrier's cannon. Gormstruck. That's interesting about the different reactions of the UK troops to the A-10 in Iraq and 'stan. All it takes is an inefficient unit screwing up to ruin a plane's rep---that's a possible reason---maybe it's the terrain? Right, it was the UK troops in Iraq who preferred it to the Harrier which I read about.

ploughman
04-22-2007, 08:02 AM
Leit, here's a link (http://news.independent.co.uk/world/asia/article1703801.ece)to a story that intimated that UK ground troops weren't quite so thrilled with the service they were getting from the RAF in Afghanistan.

Interestingly, it refers to Harriers strafing. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

There's some interesting stuff here (http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2006/09/the-majors-email-british-harrier-support-in-afghanistan-revisited/index.php) too.

I was a bit !!!! about the Typhoon references as, as far as I know the Tyffie's yet to see active service and is only currently deployed
in the air superiority role.

WWSpinDry
04-22-2007, 08:19 AM
Did two tours at Davis-Monthan, UPT training base for Hog drivers. On the up-side, the capabilities briefing we got bragged the Hog could lose one engine, one vertical stab, half the horizontal stab, one-third of its wing area, and everything forward of the cockpit and still bring itself home. On the downside (we flew EC-130H jammers) you never wanted to ask a drunk Hog driver how many bird strikes he'd taken--from the rear. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

erco415
04-22-2007, 10:41 AM
Originally posted by WWSensei:
The first Gulf War was considered a showcase for the A-10. What is little advertised is that we Viper drivers flew more sorties, destroyed more hardware, had fewer aircraft shot down, delivered more ordinance and had fewer friendly fire incidents than the A-10.

It has one advantage and that's loiter time.

My advantage was once I dropped my ordinance I could still be an effective air-to-air asset.

Thank you for your service, Sensei. To put your post in perspective, how many F-16 units were involved vs A-10 units? I don't have hard numbers, but my impression was that there were substantially more Vipers in the fight. Gen. Chuck Horner, in Tom Clancy's 'Every Man A Tiger', relates how the A-10 units underwent substantial mission creep. Scud hunting, strikes against SAM sites, fixed structures, logistical sites, all substantially deeper into the enemy rear that was originally planned, which resulted in greater losses, to the point that they were restricted to targets near the border. Anyway, right now, it seems from the news that the A-10 has become 'sexier' than the Viper. Try not to take it too hard... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Sergio_101
04-22-2007, 10:47 AM
Originally posted by WWSpinDry:
Did two tours at Davis-Monthan, UPT training base for Hog drivers. On the up-side, the capabilities briefing we got bragged the Hog could lose one engine, one vertical stab, half the horizontal stab, one-third of its wing area, and everything forward of the cockpit and still bring itself home. On the downside (we flew EC-130H jammers) you never wanted to ask a drunk Hog driver how many bird strikes he'd taken--from the rear. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

Yup, "Das Hoggen" is a slow ride.
Yes, a Me-262 would run away from one.
A P-51H would also run away from one.

the USAF has been trying to find new and innovative
ways to rid itself of the Hog. Every time they get
congress convinced it's got to go, another war with
a post neolithic nation breaks out and the Hog proves
itself worthy again!

Best ground attack plane is becoming a muted issue these days.
I would agree it was the best.

But now a B-52H with 40,000lbs+ of GPS guided iron bombs
can attack and have every bomb assigned a different target
and hit within inches.

Why get in low and slow when you can hit from a safe distance?

Anyway the A-10 will remain the top Hog since pilotless
fighters and bombers will render all others obsolete in the near future.

Sergio

leitmotiv
04-22-2007, 12:50 PM
Thanks for the info, Pman. The article about the A-10 I saw was in THE DEFENSE INDUSTRY DAILY last week or the week before, so we're reading the same stuff! Hadn't seen that INDEPENDENT story, tho. No cannon on Harriers, gutting the Royal Navy---what next? Using Airbuses as strike fighters?

WWSpinDry
04-22-2007, 01:46 PM
Sergio, it gets even better. The stuff we're (my work unit) simulating right now involve concepts such as every bomb having the equivalent of its own IP address so they can be "logged into" and controlled individually after drop. Pretty cosmic stuff!

Bremspropeller
04-22-2007, 02:23 PM
Hornet and Viper both are excellent attack *cough* multirole aircraft.
And they can defend themselves A-A.

leitmotiv
04-22-2007, 06:22 PM
Looks like the dream of every bullet having its billet is not far off, SpinDry.

BillyTheKid_22
04-22-2007, 07:35 PM
http://www.globalaircraft.org/photos/planephotos/a-10_2.jpg



http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif and http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/heart.gif

LStarosta
04-22-2007, 08:01 PM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
Hornet and Viper both are excellent attack *cough* multirole aircraft.
And they can defend themselves A-A.

And the A-10 can't? Typical Bundespropaganda.


My sig shows the pinnacle of A-10 munitions technology.

WWSensei
04-22-2007, 09:07 PM
Originally posted by erco415:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWSensei:
The first Gulf War was considered a showcase for the A-10. What is little advertised is that we Viper drivers flew more sorties, destroyed more hardware, had fewer aircraft shot down, delivered more ordinance and had fewer friendly fire incidents than the A-10.

It has one advantage and that's loiter time.

My advantage was once I dropped my ordinance I could still be an effective air-to-air asset.

Thank you for your service, Sensei. To put your post in perspective, how many F-16 units were involved vs A-10 units? I don't have hard numbers, but my impression was that there were substantially more Vipers in the fight. Gen. Chuck Horner, in Tom Clancy's 'Every Man A Tiger', relates how the A-10 units underwent substantial mission creep. Scud hunting, strikes against SAM sites, fixed structures, logistical sites, all substantially deeper into the enemy rear that was originally planned, which resulted in greater losses, to the point that they were restricted to targets near the border. Anyway, right now, it seems from the news that the A-10 has become 'sexier' than the Viper. Try not to take it too hard... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't take it too hard. However, Vipers were scud hunting, striking SAM sites, fixed structures, logistical sites and flew deep into enemy territory (like downtown Baghdad on day 2) long before the A-10. Why were there so many Vipers versus A-10s? Because we could do the different roles--and did, every day.

The A-10 is "sexier" because in general, people cheer for an underdog, and the reality is once the Soviet Bloc didn't threaten Europe the A-10 lost it's primary role of killing tanks in Europe.

Is it tough? Yes, because it has to be. It has a much higher incident of being hit--not because it flies more dangerous missions but because it doesn't have the ability to evade.

All that aside, when compared to even numbers, sortie to sortie the Viper was nearly twice as effective as the A-10 at destroying the enemy. That is the "harsh" reality many Warthog fans don't won't admit.

I've also heard the urban legend/false belief that fast movers are more prone to friendly fire. Check the numbers--the two aircraft with the most friendly fire incidents were the A-10 (despite being outnumbered by the Vipers and Striek Eagles) and the Apache--the two slowest aircraft with an anti-armor role. Proves speed has nothing to do with FF incidents.

The F/A-22 has the ability to knock the Viper off it's pedestal. If half of what my friends/neighbors who are Raptor drivers--and many are ex-Viper/ex-Eagle drivers--that aircraft is really going to be a dominate force. It's deployment has already allowed the F-117A to be retired since it has more capability and is more stealthy than the venerable Nighthawk.

Bremspropeller
04-23-2007, 06:26 AM
And the A-10 can't? Typical Bundespropaganda.


Just because it could squeeze off two heaters doesn't mean it could effectively defend itself.


@ Sensei:

Looks like it has six pylons in those central bays...
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1201427/L/
That would be three times the quantity of an F-117.
I guess the future will be JDAMs anyway (instead of LGBs), so there wouldn't even be a need for LANTIRN or FLIR pods.

Do the US armed forces still use AGM-65s?

ForkTailedDevil
04-23-2007, 06:51 AM
I love the A-10. Anyone ever read Red Storm Rising by Tom Clancy? I get the impression that the attack helicopter is even more vulnerable when there is a large dedicated anti-aircraft team nearby. Speaking of ground attack aircraft I think the AC-130 is pretty cool to.

Platypus_1.JaVA
04-23-2007, 09:23 AM
A-10 best mudmover? how do you want to measure that? Il-2 wasn't the best either. Those aircraft are pretty much the same in setup. But the A-10 will probably be the last aircraft of its kind. I don't think they will make another flying tank with such a big @ss gun.

At one point during the late 80's, early 90's, they intended to make an A-10 replacement based on the F-16 airframe. They probably did some math and found out that the F-16 couldn't take off with the GAU-8 installed http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

WWSensei
04-23-2007, 09:50 AM
At one point during the late 80's, early 90's, they intended to make an A-10 replacement based on the F-16 airframe. They probably did some math and found out that the F-16 couldn't take off with the GAU-8 installed Veryhappy

Not quite correct. What was done was the mission of CAS was transitioned from the A-10 to the Viper. There never was a plan to replace the A-10 with another aircraft based on the F-16. It was planned to replace the A-10 WITH the F-16 and since the late 80's it has done so.

WWSpinDry
04-23-2007, 11:04 AM
One thing that's always bugged me about the Hog: the titanium bathtub. Since at it's normal operational altitude I'd expect incoming missile bursts to be above it, wouldn't the bathtub just catch shrapnel and keep it enclosed in the cockpit area?

Just saying ...

horseback
04-23-2007, 12:22 PM
As mentioned earlier, the A-10 is a 1960s design, predating the 'agile' missile environment over the battlefield. It was designed to protect the pilot from groundfire in the form of bullets and light cannon rounds.

It is also my understanding that the plexiglass used for the windshield and canopy are at least bullet resistant, which should provide some protection from overhead bursts that wouldn't do fatal damge to the aircraft.

cheers

horseback

JG53Frankyboy
04-23-2007, 12:41 PM
about guns in today's use

http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/ModFighterGuns.htm

jarink
04-23-2007, 03:27 PM
Originally posted by WWSensei:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">At one point during the late 80's, early 90's, they intended to make an A-10 replacement based on the F-16 airframe. They probably did some math and found out that the F-16 couldn't take off with the GAU-8 installed Veryhappy

Not quite correct. What was done was the mission of CAS was transitioned from the A-10 to the Viper. There never was a plan to replace the A-10 with another aircraft based on the F-16. It was planned to replace the A-10 WITH the F-16 and since the late 80's it has done so. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, it's true. I remember reading about the proposed A-16 or F/A-16. The proposed 30mm cannon was not the same gun mounted in the A-10, though. It was the GAU-13, which was a cut-down version (4 barrels instead of 7, plus other mods) of the GAU-8 Avenger.


From F16.net: (http://www.f-16.net/f-16_versions_article18.html)
A-16 Close Air Support
In the 1980's, the USAF started setting aside F-16s for the planned A-16 modification, a dedicated close air support version of the F-16. In 1989, the designation block 60 was reserved for the A-16. The A-16 Block 60 was to be equipped with a 30 mm cannon and provided with a strengthened wing structure for anti-tank weapons such as 7.62 mm min pods. This project failed because the 30 mm gun would heat up and singe the inner components of the left fuselage.

In the late eighties a number of F-16s were painted in the 'European One' camouflage scheme, as this USAF F-16C block 25, #83129 and #83144, and were tested as a possible replacement of the A-10. The proposed A-16 never came thrue (USAF photo)
There were two block 15's that were converted to this modification; they were based at Shaw airforce base. The Block 60 did not go into production and the A-16 became wrapped up in the debate about close air support. The supporters of the A-16 project wanted the USAF to replace its A-10A Thunderbolt IIs with A-16's, arguing that the A-10 was too slow to survive above a high-tech battlefield. Detractors argued that the A-16 had insufficient range and load-carrying capability to make an effective attack aircraft, and, in addition, it would be too vulnerable to enemy anti-aircraft fire.

The Army argued that the Key West agreement of 1948 (under which they were prohibited from operating fixed-wing combat aircraft) was now obsolete, and that the USAF's A-10's should be turned over to them for use alongside AH-64 Apache helicopters. In 1990, Congress decreed that some USAF A-10A's and OV-10 Broncos be turned over to the Army and Marine Corps beginning in 1991.

However, all of these plans came to naught on November 26th, 1990, when the USAF was ordered to retain two wings of A-10 aircraft for the CAS mission. No order for the A-16 was ever placed.

MB_Avro_UK
04-23-2007, 04:49 PM
Hi all,

Thanks for your informed responses http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

And it has been mentioned in this thread...the British ground forces in Afghanistan appreaciate the support of the A-10. That says a lot...

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

WWSensei
04-24-2007, 05:29 AM
Actually, it's true. I remember reading about the proposed A-16 or F/A-16. The proposed 30mm cannon was not the same gun mounted in the A-10, though. It was the GAU-13, which was a cut-down version (4 barrels instead of 7, plus other mods) of the GAU-8 Avenger.

Actually, I don't count ridiculous ideas thrown out by some Popular Mechanics or Jane's article they was never seriously considered. I was flying Vipers back in 88 and it was a very hot topic of the day in the squadron. There was no need to carry a 30mm gun since the Viper already was capable of taking out armor. With the addition of the Block 40 there simply ceased to be a need for the A-10 to do it's primary mission. It's why it was stopped in production. It's why no new ones have been built and it's why as romantic as it may seem to cheer for the ugly underdog the reality is it simply could be replaced by other multi-role aircraft more efficiently and more effectively.

M_Gunz
04-24-2007, 08:01 AM
It's a bit hard to imagine F-16's routinely getting low and slow enough to target ground armor
with any 30mm cannon when they can drop submunitions or self-guided destruction instead.

BillyTheKid_22
04-24-2007, 08:11 AM
http://www.simmarket.com/online/aerosoft/A10/02.jpg



http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif



http://www.simmarket.com/online/aerosoft/A10/05.jpg



http://www.combataircraft.com/aircraft/fa10_r.gif



www.combataircraft.com (http://www.combataircraft.com)



http://www.combataircraft.com/armament/gau8a.jpg

jarink
04-24-2007, 12:44 PM
Originally posted by WWSensei:
Actually, I don't count ridiculous ideas thrown out by some Popular Mechanics or Jane's article they was never seriously considered. I was flying Vipers back in 88 and it was a very hot topic of the day in the squadron. There was no need to carry a 30mm gun since the Viper already was capable of taking out armor.

Maybe you should do some research to back up your assertions. If it was a "Popular Mechanics" fantasy, why did the US Air Force and US Army feel the need to run a joint test program (CAS/BAI) that lasted several years featuring a modified "F/A-16" (aka "A-16" since it was never officialy type classified), modernized A-7s and A-10s? There's no denying the tests took place and featured F-16s that were optimized for the CAS role, including the trial of the GPU-5 gun pod (containing of all things, a GAU-13 30mm cannon!). I can't find any hard evidence at the moment citing if the gun was deemed unnecessary or simply dropped with the rest of the program, but it certainly would have made the F/A-16 much harder-hitting, especially in the anti-armor role.

This is from an official source (the US Army Center for Military History), maybe you could learn something from it?


Exerpted from www.army.mil (http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/books/DAHSUM/1989/CH4.htm)
In early 1989 several factors intervened to place the entire project in abeyance. The Federal Republic of Germany considered assigning the German CAS mission to its ground forces, which would have profound ramifications on interoperability of NATO CAS forces. Another factor was a growing displeasure in Congress regarding the selection of a new tactical fighter by the Air Force for its CAS mission. The Army agreed, in principle, with the Air Force's concept for a multirole aircraft to perform both CAS and BAI, as long as the aircraft could adequately perform both missions according to AirLand Battle doctrine. The Army did not suggest an alternative aircraft design. In 1986 the Air Force had planned to modernize its A-7 (A-7F) and modify F-16s for the dual CAS-BAI role and conducted demonstrations of the "missionized" F/A-16 at Fort Hood, Texas, in September 1988.

Through its participation in the DOD Close Air Support Mission Area Review Group (CASMARG), the Army monitored Air Force design efforts . In January 1989 the CASMARG recommended that a number of A-10s and F-16s be upgraded with new avionics to improve target acquisition, navigation, communications, and night capabilities to enhance their CAS capabilities to support the AirLand Battlefield. For the near term, the Air Force proposed upgrading some A-10s and the F-16 to improve target acquisition and night capabilities. Acting Secretary of Defense William Howard Taft IV approved the proposal in February 1989. DOD deferred a decision on modifying the newer F-16 to an A-16 for a CAS role, but subsequent review by the CASMARG prompted DOD to agree to modify newer F-16s by hardening their surface to reduce their vulnerability to advanced man-portable antiaircraft missiles and by the addition of forward-looking infrared heat sensors to improve target acquisition, digital terrain systems for low-altitude flight and advanced night attack capabilities, and automatic target hand-off equipment to improve air-to-ground coordination. The Army in August 1989 endorsed the A-16 as the preferred CAS aircraft, but DOD had not made a final acquisition decision by the end of FY 1989.


From the 174th Fighter Wing's site: (http://www.nysyra.ang.af.mil/recruiting/html/units.htm)
1980 - The first F-16A Fighting Falcon fighter aircraft arrived and the 174th TFW became the U.S. Air Force test unit with the 30mm gun pod for the close air support role of the F/A-16. The unit received the U.S. Air Force's Outstanding Maintenance Squadron Award that year.

Lastly, there's this. Though it's not an official US military source, it does cite some interesting specifics:

From habu2.net (http://www.habu2.net/vipers/lizard/intro.html)
In late 1978 and early 1979 TAC experimented with a Euro One style camouflage on two early Block 01 F-16s, F-16A 78-0008 and F-16B 78-0096 with the 388 TFW at Hill AFB, tail code HL. The scheme was known as the "Charcoal Lizard" and the "Pickle". The Lizard scheme was effective over forest canopy but made the jets more visible than the standard gray scheme against other terrain or the sky. The jets were re-painted in the standard three-tone gray after the test.
In the fall of 1988 TAC performed a CAS/BAI (Close Air Support / Battlefield Air Interdiction) test with FSD #8 F-16B 75-0752 and seven Block 25 F-16Cs. Six of the F-16Cs were 83-1128, 83-1129, 83-1130, 83-1131, 83-1132 and 83-1144. All but one of the F-16Cs were from Luke AFB, the seventh (83-1144) was from Shaw AFB. All eight aircraft were painted in a scheme very similar to the Charcoal Lizard scheme. The F-16B was equipped with an internally mounted, head-slaved FLIR system called Falcon Eye, a digital terrain matching navigation system (TerProm), an Automated Target Handoff System (ATHS), and a Martin Marietta Pathfinder FLIR pod on the right side of the inlet (STA 5). The seven F-16Cs were equipped with AN/AAS-35 PAVE PENNY laser tracking pods on the right side of the inlet (STA 5R) and GPU-5/A 30mm gun pods carried on the fuselage centerline (STA 5). All seven F-16Cs wore WA tailcodes during the trials. After the trials 83-1144 returned the Shaw and the WA was replaced with the SW tailcode. All seven F-16Cs were later re-painted in the standard three-tone gray.

FSD #8 F-16B 75-0752 retained it's CAS/BAI camouflage paint and was used as a demonstrator/test aircraft by General Dynamics. At some point the tailcode GD was added to the jet.

WWSensei
04-24-2007, 02:03 PM
30mm Gunpods aren't the same as modifying the entire airframe to fit a modified GAU-8. We already had the gunpods in a variety of sizes (both 20mm and 30mm). That's what I meant by saying the CAS mission was moved from the A-10 to the F-16. Your Army.mil reference actually supports exactly what I said. The CAS role was added to the capabilities list for the F-16.

What was asserted was that some modified GAU-8 was to be put into some sort of F-16 airframe. That was never the case. You haven't pointed or said anything I didn't already say. Mounting gunpods to external hardpoints is no different than adding an AGM-65 for tank busting roles.

The modifying of the F-16 to an "A-16" was a mission change and many of the additions seen in the Block 40--as you listed--mainly involving the addition of FLIR pods--that was not the development of a whole new airframe for carrying a new gun--it was primarily changes to avionics packages--not significant airframe changes.

As for me "learning something"--I guess I didn't learn much actually flying the Viper for 8 years. FWIW, most of that time was instructing Viper pilots in A2G tactics and procedures--hence the callsign of "Sensei". Most of my flight time was spent in Block 30s/40s.

sgilewicz
04-24-2007, 04:14 PM
Sensei you've walked the walk and I salute you for your service but....I just finished Hal Moore's "We Were Soldiers Once and Young" and he makes it explicitly clear that after coordinated artillery, the most effective support came from the A-1E Skyraiders. He mentions several times that this was not because they were more accurate, or carried more ordinance than the fast movers, but because they could loiter over the battlefield for hours. Moore placed great value on this as he could request support and get it literally within seconds. I'd rather fly "fast movers" but my guess is if you are the guy in the dirt you would prefer that long loiter capability. Any comments or critique of what Hal Moore states?

jarink
04-24-2007, 09:06 PM
Originally posted by WWSensei:
As for me "learning something"--I guess I didn't learn much actually flying the Viper for 8 years.

11 years in the Army (including front line service in Gulf War I) taught me the difference between opinion and fact. You could do well to learn that, plus a little humility when you're shown that you're mistaken. Well, perhaps we can keep things civil from here on?

I would say that this is opinion:

Originally posted by WWSensei:
Actually, I don't count ridiculous ideas thrown out by some Popular Mechanics or Jane's article <span class="ev_code_yellow">they was never seriously considered.</span>
(Unless, of course, you were one of the decision makers in the CAS/BAI project) http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

The text I quoted in my previous post is fact from a reliable source.

I hate to do it since it might make me seem like some other nitpickers around here, but let me break a few things down.


30mm Gunpods aren't the same as modifying the entire airframe to fit a modified GAU-8.

I agree. The only reference I've seen that suggested that an attempt was made to use the gun internally is from a non-official site that I can't confirm and thus subject to some suspicion.


We already had the gunpods in a variety of sizes (both 20mm and 30mm). That's what I meant by saying the CAS mission was moved from the A-10 to the F-16. Your Army.mil reference actually supports exactly what I said. The CAS role was added to the capabilities list for the F-16.

No, it states that at that time, no decision was made in favor of modifying F-16s to a F/A-16 or A-16 configuration that was dedicated to the CAS/BAI mission. CAS was not "moved" from the A-10 to the F-16. The USAF still flies the A-10, almost 20 years later. If it isn't a dedicated CAS aircraft, I don't know what is.

The decision was made, however, to improve the capabilities of new-build F-16s for the CAS mission. CAS has been a part of the F-16's mission capability from darn near day one, but I don't think it was ever it's primary role.


What was asserted was that some modified GAU-8 was to be put into some sort of F-16 airframe. That was never the case.

Again, I don't have any firm references one way or the other. Do you? Without proof, anything you or I say is conjecture. It seems to me an internal gun, if possible, would make a lot more sense for several reasons than a podded gun, though.


You haven't pointed or said anything I didn't already say. Mounting gunpods to external hardpoints is no different than adding an AGM-65 for tank busting roles.

Yes, I have. The whole basis of my original post was to point out that there was, indeed a proposed variant of the F-16 that would have been optimized for the CAS/BAI role, the idea of which you dismissed as a Popular Mechanics fantasy.



The next section after what I previously quoted of that army.mil article makes an interesting side note: http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

The amendment mandated that DOD study the feasibility of transferring the CAS mission to the Army and directed evaluations of alternative CAS aircraft. The Army sought to limit the evaluations to the issue of fixed-wing close air support because it did not want to address wholesale changes in roles and missions. <span class="ev_code_yellow">Early in 1989 the JCS directed the Army to develop a concept for assuming the CAS mission.</span> TRADOC envisioned a transfer of CAS over a ten-year period without the transfer of Air Force personnel and equipment. Should Congress direct the Army to assume the mission by FY 1992, TRADOC proposed that <span class="ev_code_yellow">the Army absorb the A-10/forward controller forces intact from the Air Force</span>. The Army would organize CAS forces into battalions and brigades and assign them to corps or higher Army commanders for employment as organic tactical forces.

Now, we know that didn't happen, but it's interesting to postulate what CAS would look like today if it did. Frontal Aviation, anyone? Sure as heck, there wouldn't be an overly complex and expensive F-35 fleet in the works.

M_Gunz
04-24-2007, 09:34 PM
Yeah Sensei, they could just tuck a GAU 30mm cannon in the empty space up front of the Viper!

LOL! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/partyhat.gif

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif Might be a squeeze getting two of them in, ya think? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

HamishUK
04-25-2007, 05:43 AM
Originally posted by WWSensei:
The first Gulf War was considered a showcase for the A-10. What is little advertised is that we Viper drivers flew more sorties, destroyed more hardware, had fewer aircraft shot down, delivered more ordinance and had fewer friendly fire incidents than the A-10.

It has one advantage and that's loiter time.

My advantage was once I dropped my ordinance I could still be an effective air-to-air asset.

Whilst I agree with the fewer friendly fire incidents and flying more sorties I think you have failed to seperate the targets tasked between the two aircraft. Both aircraft had some crossover in their assigned roles but the A10 was tasked with pure CAS. The F16 had a much larger contingent out on operations and as a result any stats are skewed in it's favour in terms of sheer numbers.

The A10 destroyed more hardware than the F16 in terms of tanks and military ground vehicles. The F16 may well have destroyed more industrial facilities and total targets. Although the APG-66 was never very effective at sorting out ground clutter for a truly effective anti-armour CAS aircraft.

As a result he majority of F16's in the first Gulf War were equipped with dumb bombs at around 12-20'000 feet and would drop them almost hap-hazardly to avoid AAA and SAM's. Accuracy was at best described as trying to hit a dartboard while pissed.

Whilst I respect the F16 and have served with pilots who have flown this fine aicraft; even they admitted it's shortcomings in the early 90's at it being tasked in the CAS role. Better software and targetting suites have improved their capability but as an out and out targets destroyed in terms of hardware your statement is flawed.

Rattler68
04-25-2007, 03:14 PM
One of the reasons why the F-16 was chosen to replace the A-10 is that while the A-10 is designed to take hits and survive, the F-16 is designed not to get hit.

Aren't most surviving A-10's now called OA-10's? Basically doing the work of the OV-10 Bronco Co-in role?

LStarosta
04-25-2007, 03:21 PM
Originally posted by Rattler68:


Aren't most surviving A-10's now called OA-10's? Basically doing the work of the OV-10 Bronco Co-in role?

No.

HamishUK
04-26-2007, 09:37 AM
Originally posted by LStarosta:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Rattler68:


Aren't most surviving A-10's now called OA-10's? Basically doing the work of the OV-10 Bronco Co-in role?

No. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

He is partly correct but it depends on their mission role for the area of operation.

For example during the Bosnia / Kosovo ops many of the OA-10's were performing that very role. The A-10 used to have a much longer loiter time and be able to spot the targets at much lower level than any other aircraft (bar Helo's).

As a result the OA-10's were tasked with target marking for strike packages of Harriers, F-16's and Jaguar's in our sector. A function they performed admirably in very difficult terrain and weather conditions.

M_Gunz
04-26-2007, 10:26 AM
Originally posted by jarink:
11 years in the Army (including front line service in Gulf War I) taught me the difference between opinion and fact. You could do well to learn that, plus a little humility when you're shown that you're mistaken.

<snip>

The text I quoted in my previous post is fact from a reliable source.

<snip>

The only reference I've seen that suggested that an attempt was made to use the gun internally is from a non-official site that I can't confirm and thus subject to some suspicion.

<snip>

Again, I don't have any firm references one way or the other. Do you? Without proof, anything you or I say is conjecture. It seems to me an internal gun, if possible, would make a lot more sense for several reasons than a podded gun, though.
[QUOTE]

Opinion from Fact.

When I went into Basic in 1976 I got some advice:
Don't believe 90% of what you hear or 50% of what you see.

Had there been internet back then it would have included not believing 99% of web information.

And you want to tell an Officer involved directly in F-16 CAS that trained others in CAS what
was going on at the time he was there in that role that he is wrong based on what?

[QUOTE]11 years in the Army (including front line service in Gulf War I) taught me the difference between opinion and fact.

Unless of course it is your opinion?

LStarosta
04-26-2007, 10:33 AM
Originally posted by HamishUK:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LStarosta:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Rattler68:


Aren't most surviving A-10's now called OA-10's? Basically doing the work of the OV-10 Bronco Co-in role?

No. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


He is partly correct but it depends on their mission role for the area of operation.

For example during the Bosnia / Kosovo ops many of the OA-10's were performing that very role. The A-10 used to have a much longer loiter time and be able to spot the targets at much lower level than any other aircraft (bar Helo's).

As a result the OA-10's were tasked with target marking for strike packages of Harriers, F-16's and Jaguar's in our sector. A function they performed admirably in very difficult terrain and weather conditions. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


My point is that it isn't the case for "most" A-10s. Case in point: A-10C. By no means are A-10s being delegated primarily to forward control and observation roles. They are still very much in the business of CAS.

BillyTheKid_22
04-26-2007, 10:39 AM
http://www.philippecolin.net/A10C/head.gif



A-10C!!



http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c130/hdspray/pic0210.gif

general_kalle
04-26-2007, 10:53 AM
B52 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

HuninMunin
04-26-2007, 11:27 AM
Do-335B...

jarink
04-26-2007, 03:57 PM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
And you want to tell an Officer involved directly in F-16 CAS that trained others in CAS what was going on at the time he was there in that role that he is wrong based on what?

When he's wrong about the facts, yes, I will tell him. Especially when I presented those facts from a reliable source (The US Army Center for Military History) and his 'source' was apparently what he had heard around the water cooler.


When I went into Basic in 1976 I got some advice:
Don't believe 90% of what you hear or 50% of what you see.

That's why I quoted only reliable and verifiable sources when the facts were called into question.

Frankly, I'm amazed at all this. My initial contribution to this thread was to correct a mistake (that there was no such thing as a proposed "A-16" or "F/A-16"). However, som people seem to want to ignore the facts that I have presented and call my integrity into question. If you carefully read what I wrote, you would find it very easy to separate the facts I presented from my opinions. Yes, it is my opinion that WWSensei was acting in very un-officer like manner with his replies. I frankly don't give a rat's behind what he flew or for how long, <span class="ev_code_yellow">he had his facts wrong</span>.

I guess the old adage is true: "You can tell a fighter pilot, but you can't tell him much." http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

M_Gunz
04-26-2007, 06:07 PM
Originally posted by jarink:
That's why I quoted only reliable and verifiable sources when the facts were called into question.


Originally posted by jarink:
The only reference I've seen that suggested that an attempt was made to use the gun internally is from a non-official site that I can't confirm and thus subject to some suspicion.


Originally posted by jarink:
Again, I don't have any firm references one way or the other.

Just going by what you post; on the issue of internal GAU modifications which is what Sensei
did object to, not the gunpods... your source on that is so reliable you can't confirm it?

By what you posted there only I just find some doubt of any 'fact'.

Nimits
04-26-2007, 07:04 PM
But now a B-52H with 40,000lbs+ of GPS guided iron bombs
can attack and have every bomb assigned a different target
and hit within inches.

Yep.

The "Buff," now that is a real plane . . . You notice, you never see an F-16 take off with one engine at idle . . .

One of these days, the USAF will wise up and load up the B-52 with an APG-63 and 50 AIM-120s . . . That's air superiority the heavy bomber way.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

jarink
04-26-2007, 09:16 PM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Just going by what you post; on the issue of internal GAU modifications which is what Sensei
did object to, not the gunpods... your source on that is so reliable you can't confirm it?

By what you posted there only I just find some doubt of any 'fact'.

Huh? An internal gun was never an issue. Here, I'll save you a little reading so you can understand what facts are actually in question:


Originally posted by ME:
My initial contribution to this thread was to correct a mistake (that there was no such thing as a proposed "A-16" or "F/A-16").


Originally posted by WWSensei:
Actually, I don't count ridiculous ideas thrown out by some Popular Mechanics or Jane's article they was never seriously considered.


From the US Army's Center for Military History:
(What I would consider a very reliable source)
In 1986 the Air Force had planned to modernize its A-7 (A-7F) and <span class="ev_code_yellow">modify F-16s</span> for the dual CAS-BAI role and conducted demonstrations of the "missionized" <span class="ev_code_yellow">F/A-16</span> at Fort Hood, Texas, in September 1988.
...
DOD deferred a decision on <span class="ev_code_yellow">modifying the newer F-16 to an A-16 for a CAS role</span>


Get the idea? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/compsmash.gif

luftluuver
04-27-2007, 04:32 AM
So how does the Su-25 stack up?

http://www.aviapress.com/engl/zvd/zvd7227_1.jpg

M_Gunz
04-27-2007, 07:12 AM
Originally posted by jarink:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWSensei:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">At one point during the late 80's, early 90's, they intended to make an A-10 replacement based on the F-16 airframe. They probably did some math and found out that the F-16 couldn't take off with the GAU-8 installed Veryhappy

Not quite correct. What was done was the mission of CAS was transitioned from the A-10 to the Viper. There never was a plan to replace the A-10 with another aircraft based on the F-16. It was planned to replace the A-10 WITH the F-16 and since the late 80's it has done so. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, it's true. I remember reading about the proposed A-16 or F/A-16. The proposed 30mm cannon was not the same gun mounted in the A-10, though. It was the GAU-13, which was a cut-down version (4 barrels instead of 7, plus other mods) of the GAU-8 Avenger.


From F16.net: (http://www.f-16.net/f-16_versions_article18.html)
A-16 Close Air Support
In the 1980's, the USAF started setting aside F-16s for the planned A-16 modification, a dedicated close air support version of the F-16. In 1989, the designation block 60 was reserved for the A-16. The A-16 Block 60 was to be equipped with a 30 mm cannon and provided with a strengthened wing structure for anti-tank weapons such as 7.62 mm min pods. This project failed because the 30 mm gun would heat up and singe the inner components of the left fuselage.

In the late eighties a number of F-16s were painted in the 'European One' camouflage scheme, as this USAF F-16C block 25, #83129 and #83144, and were tested as a possible replacement of the A-10. The proposed A-16 never came thrue (USAF photo)
There were two block 15's that were converted to this modification; they were based at Shaw airforce base. The Block 60 did not go into production and the A-16 became wrapped up in the debate about close air support. The supporters of the A-16 project wanted the USAF to replace its A-10A Thunderbolt IIs with A-16's, arguing that the A-10 was too slow to survive above a high-tech battlefield. Detractors argued that the A-16 had insufficient range and load-carrying capability to make an effective attack aircraft, and, in addition, it would be too vulnerable to enemy anti-aircraft fire.

The Army argued that the Key West agreement of 1948 (under which they were prohibited from operating fixed-wing combat aircraft) was now obsolete, and that the USAF's A-10's should be turned over to them for use alongside AH-64 Apache helicopters. In 1990, Congress decreed that some USAF A-10A's and OV-10 Broncos be turned over to the Army and Marine Corps beginning in 1991.

However, all of these plans came to naught on November 26th, 1990, when the USAF was ordered to retain two wings of A-10 aircraft for the CAS mission. No order for the A-16 was ever placed. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

How could I ever have gotten the idea that internal guns was ever something you said?

horseback
04-27-2007, 11:21 AM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
So how does the Su-25 stack up?

http://www.aviapress.com/engl/zvd/zvd7227_1.jpg Nobody knows, as the Frogfoot has never faced an armor heavy opponent with a sophisticated air defense system (or a formerly sophisticated air defense system).

However, it does sport a LOT of cool camoflage schemes...

cheers

horseback