Quote:
|
Originally Posted by M21Sniper
I would say that low altitude front line CAS with a gun is every bit as dangerous(if not moreseo) than attacking airfields. Yet the A10 had a fraction of the loss rate of the Tornado.
|
Hmm. I'd have to disagree with you there. In most cases, front-line CAS areas have already been worked over by a LOT more strike sorties than the airfields hit by Tornados. Plus, CAS means the enemy is in contact with friendly ground forces, so they're probably a wee-bit distracted.
When Tornados switched to medium altitude LGB strikes their losses went way down.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by M21Sniper
And the fact is that a lot of the hits that downed those Tornadoes would not have killed an A10.
|
Maybe, maybe not. At 340kts, an A-10 would've been under fire for a LOT longer.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by M21Sniper
If left to use tactics well suited to the A/C, an A-10 would be an extremely effective platform for shutting down airfield.
|
Except for the fact that it takes so freakin long to get there and back.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by M21Sniper
The problem with the IDS is the JP.233, which DEMANDED that attack profile be used. It wasn't a tactical issue at all, it was an EMPLOYMENT issue.
So the fact is that the weapon the IDS was DESIGNED AROUND leaves it very vulnerable to ground fire.(the old W.German MBB MW-1 had the same problem)
|
Yes, however the Brits recognized the foolishness of this approach and switched Tornados to med-altitude LGB strikes. It's a fault of the munition, not the aircraft.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by M21Sniper
Command and control..who knows? Airfields are not the A10s tasking. I suspect it hit exactly as many of each as it was asked to.
|
Because it's ill-suited for the job.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by M21Sniper
Why would i want that? A10 has a datalink to JSTARs. What does it need it's own radar for?
|
For the same reason EVERY other significant strike aircraft has one, because JSTARS can't be everywhere. Because it can't generate high-res SAR images for every strike sortie. Because IR goggles and FLIR aren't good enough to safely fly a terrain following profile in real bad weather.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by M21Sniper
CAS sorties have almost nothing to do with having a radar anyway. They are visually cued/radio controlled missions.
|
Yes, but this is the best STRIKE aircraft, not the best CAS aircraft. CAS is just one type of strike mission.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by M21Sniper
The A10 does not require as many man-hours of maintenance between sorties and operates much closer to the front because of it's rough field capabilities, so sortie rate actually HEAVILY favors the A10 over the Tornado.
|
You don't always have forward airfields. And the A-10 actually requires a LONGER runway than an F-teen or Tornado.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by M21Sniper
The A10 can STAY in orbit about 5x longer than a tornado, and make about 4x the passes on a single tank of gas.
|
Do you have a source to back that up?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by M21Sniper
The Maverick is also all-weather, has double the range(at least- its probably closer to triple the range), and has a warhead 7-12x larger(165lb HEAT or 300lb Blast-Frag).
|
Mavericks carried by A-10s are normally IIR right? IIR has issues in bad weather. Brimstone uses a MMW seeker, which doesn't.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by M21Sniper
It's also faster.
|
Who cares? IIR Mavericks and Brimstones are fire-and-forget, so what does it matter if it takes a tad bit longer for the Brimstone to hit its target?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by M21Sniper
The Brimstone is a superior anti-armor munition only in your obviously deluded mind.
|
Can IIR Mavericks be launched indirectly, without the aircraft first seeing the target? No. Can an A-10 launch all of it's Mavericks in a single salvo? No. A Gr4 with Brimstones can do both. That's 12-18 shots in a single pass.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by M21Sniper
And you may have not realized it, but the A10s gun can load can typically kill 10-12 tanks on one ammo load(typical 2sec burst per tank), PLUS the A10s mav loadout(normally 4, but as many as 12), PLUS the 2 CBUs and 2 Mk82s the A10 typically carries.
|
Sure, in a benign environment, the gun is a good thing. But add a significant MANPADs threat, and its value rapidly diminishes.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by M21Sniper
The fact is that in actual combat the A10 has proven nearly invulnerable to MANPADs(and even heavy SAM) fire.
|
Invulnerable?
http://afhra.maxwell.af.mil/wwwroot/...s1990_2002.pdf
Table I: USAF Manned Aircraft Combat Losses 1990-2002
17 Jan 1991 F-15E AAA Night
19 Jan 1991 F-15E SA-2E Radar Night
19 Jan 1991 F-16C SA-6 Radar Day
19 Jan 1991 F-4G AAA Night
19 Jan 1991 F-16C SA-3 Radar Day
31 Jan 1991 AC-130H SA-16 Infrared Day
2 Feb 1991 A-10A SA-16 Infrared Day
13 Feb 1991 EF-111A (maneuver) Night
15 Feb 1991 A-10A SA-13 Infrared Day
15 Feb 1991 A-10A SA-13 Infrared Day
19 Feb 1991 OA-10 SA-9 Infrared Day
22 Feb 1991 A-10A SA-16 Infrared Day
27 Feb 1991 OA-10A SA-16 Infrared Day
27 Feb 1991 F-16C AAA Day
2 Jun 1995 F-16C SA-6 Radar Day
27 Mar 1999 F-117 SA-3 (Radar?) Night
2 May 1999 F-16CG SA-3 (Radar?) Night
So of the 17 USAF aircraft lost in that period, 6 were A-10s, all were downed by SAMs, half by MANPADS.
35% of USAF combat losses were A-10s.
Toss in another A-10 lost to a MANPADS in OIF.
I'd HARDLY call that invulnerable.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by M21Sniper
You know you're the only guy i have ever run accross that has ever tried to even remotely compare the Tornado IDS to the A10 as a CAS asset.
|
I'm saying the Tornado has SIGNIFICANT CAS capabilities. OTOH, the A-10 is wanting as a general-purpose strike aircraft. The USAF recognizes this, and uses F-15Es and F-16s for these jobs instead.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by M21Sniper
Think it has anything to do with the the fact that they're ill-suited for the role?
|
In the same way the A-10 is ill-suited to perform non-CAS strike roles that don't involve wandering around the empty desert looking for Scuds.