PDA

View Full Version : Strike Aircraft Comparisons



SuperFlanker
07 Oct 05,, 04:52
So, which aircraft do you guys feel is the best ground attack/strike aircraft?

Acer
07 Oct 05,, 14:20
So, which aircraft do you guys feel is the best ground attack/strike aircraft?
A-10 (out of the above list)

tejas_mk
07 Oct 05,, 14:31
I'm an indian, and should have gone 4 Mig - 27 but as much as i have read about all the above listed aircrafts, i think A-10 is the best jaguar comes close. Dont know about rest. if anybody can specify which is best regarding technical specifications, :rolleyes: i would like to hear it. :)

JG73
07 Oct 05,, 15:03
Out of that list only A-10 and Tornado can compete. I've voted for Tornado because of it's uniquely terrain following radar that qualifies it to fly below enemies radar and because of it's SEAD properties (ECR).

But why are F-15E and F-117 not in the list???
And why Mirage V and not 2000???

SuperFlanker
07 Oct 05,, 17:12
F-15E and Mirage2000 are multirole fighters, not dedicated strike aircraft. The F-117 is more of a long range, high altitude bomber than a dedicated strike aircraft.

indianguy4u
07 Oct 05,, 17:21
IAF Jaguars did well in Alaska exercise some time back.

JG73
08 Oct 05,, 02:53
F-15E and Mirage2000 are multirole fighters, not dedicated strike aircraft.

F-15E is primarily a strike aircraft.


The F-117 is more of a long range, high altitude bomber...



That's the definition of a strike aircraft in my opinion. But to class F-117 is not really possible. Actualy it should be named A-117 not F-117.

JG73
08 Oct 05,, 03:04
IAF Jaguars did well in Alaska exercise some time back.


There's a reason why RAF will replace all Jaguars while Tornado will stay in service.

Acer
08 Oct 05,, 09:17
hmm, I dont see why Jaguars are on the list... they are pretty much inferior nowadays as strike aircraft...

maybe F-111 or B-1? lmao

The_Burning_Kid
08 Oct 05,, 17:59
I think you should have put the F-35 JSF on the poll.

raptor1992
08 Oct 05,, 22:15
I think you should have put the F-35 JSF on the poll.
we don't quite know the specs or actual capabilities of the JSF.

SuperFlanker
08 Oct 05,, 23:36
All the aircraft i put on the list are in the same general class...they are used almost exclusively for air to ground attack and are usually used to give clsoe air supprot to ground troops. Things liek the F-111, F-117, B-1, etc. are long range high altitude bombers and things like the F-35, M2k and F-15E are multirole aircraft that can be used for A2A or A2G effectively.

JG73
09 Oct 05,, 01:25
Things liek the F-111, F-117, B-1, etc. are long range high altitude bombers

F-111 was made to intrude adverse airspace in low level flight for not to bee seen by radar. Just like the Tornado. By the way: F-111 isn't in service anymore.
F-117's range isn't very impressiv only about 1500km. Also airforce-technology.com classifies it clear as a ground attack aircraft. B-1, B-2, B-52 are long range high altitude Bombers. Otherwise it hadn't been downed by a SA-3 during Kosovo war.



...and things like the F-35, M2k and F-15E are multirole aircraft that can be used for A2A or A2G effectively.


Even though F-15E's air to ground capabilities are much better than Jaguar's, MiG-27's or Mirage's.

B.Smitty
09 Oct 05,, 03:54
Of that unimpressive list, the Tornado is the best by a good margin.

The Mig-27 suffers from the wonders of Russian electronics and is singularly unimpressive in the munitions department.

The A-10 is slow and wheezy and only now becoming more than a fair weather CAS aircraft.

The Jaguar has had a good run, but is sorely outdated.

The combination of TIALD, Storm Shadow, Brimstone, Paveway 4, and Alarm/HARM give the Gr4 a decent weapons selection.

Other than a decent SAR/GMTI radar (AFAIK), the Tornado is a capable strike aircraft.

Sanctified
09 Oct 05,, 04:36
Why wasn't the Su-25T(Su-39) Frogfoot included?
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/row/su-25.htm

JBodnar39
09 Oct 05,, 16:43
Why wasn't the Su-25T(Su-39) Frogfoot included?
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/row/su-25.htm

Dedicated strike aircraft; lets try another list that is a bit more inclusive. We'll leave out aircraft like the A-10 and Su-25 because they are tasked for CAS not strike:

F-111
Tornado GR4
F-15E
Jaguar
Mirage 2000D
F-117
A-7
MiG-27
Su-24M

B.Smitty
10 Oct 05,, 12:59
1. F-117 - cuz it does things none of the others can.
2. F-15E - advanced avionics gives it the edge.
3.(tied) Tornado GR4/F-111 - F-111 for speed, range and payload. GR4 for advanced avionics and modern weapons.
4. Mirage 2000D - cuz it can't carry as much as far as the others.
5. Su-24M - not real partial to anything Russian-made, but it has range.
6.(tied) A-7/Jaguar - Cuz they're better than the Mig-27
7. Mig-27 - Not so good.

The_Burning_Kid
10 Oct 05,, 21:15
we don't quite know the specs or actual capabilities of the JSF.

Point taken.

raptor1992
11 Oct 05,, 06:32
to tell you my opinion i think none of the aricraft on the list is very good. i think the best if the F-15E

Raven
12 Oct 05,, 04:29
I mean not saying by any means it is the best aircraft on that list, or other strike fighters posted by you guys, but just due to the fact that the A-10 is the beast that it is, I have to go with it. For one simple reason, it is a GS plane, I mean from the 30 mm, and the fact that it can take more damage then any other aircraft on that list, I would have to go with the A-10.


Although if we are going with true strike/attack aircraft, I would have to say it's a toss up between the F-15E and the Tornado GR4.

Franco Lolan
12 Oct 05,, 05:11
You guys belittle the Jaguar; however, the Indian jaguars have penetrated our F-15C CAPs at Cope Thunder every time, this last encounter.

B.Smitty
12 Oct 05,, 13:34
You guys belittle the Jaguar; however, the Indian jaguars have penetrated our F-15C CAPs at Cope Thunder every time, this last encounter.

Yes, and they were escorted by Su-27s that outnumbered the defending F-15s, and the F-15s didn't have AWACS support.

A Mig-15 probably could've done the same, in those circumstances.

indianguy4u
12 Oct 05,, 14:10
Yes, and they were escorted by Su-27s that outnumbered the defending F-15s, and the F-15s didn't have AWACS support.

A Mig-15 probably could've done the same, in those circumstances.
So it means USAF is not even a half of its strenght without AWACS. What signal will it send to PLAAF, take out the AWACS & then USAF will fall like a pack of cards [taiwan senario]. Grow up. Did IAF fighters had AWACS support, if not then its fair fight.

Injecteer
12 Oct 05,, 14:39
B.Smitty
>>7. Mig-27 - Not so good.

the most explanatory answer I've ever seen! :)

s_qwert63
12 Oct 05,, 15:18
Whatever happened to the Su25?

TopHatter
12 Oct 05,, 16:50
Whatever happened to the Su25?


We'll leave out aircraft like the A-10 and Su-25 because they are tasked for CAS not strike

The discussion is for aircraft that typically go beyond the FEBA, and are not heavy bomber aircraft. This would exclude A-10, Su-25, B-2, etc.

BenRoethig
12 Oct 05,, 18:53
B-1, B-2, B-52 are long range high altitude Bombers.

B-52 is a high altitude bomber. The B-1 is designed for low altitude penetration.

My votes go to the F-15E and the SU-34.

B.Smitty
12 Oct 05,, 23:45
So it means USAF is not even a half of its strenght without AWACS.

Yes.

They don't call them 'force multipliers' for nothing.

indianguy4u
13 Oct 05,, 05:32
Yes.

They don't call them 'force multipliers' for nothing.
Do u what every one to believe that f16s, f15s, f18s are inferior in every respect to jags & sukhois. That they cannot take one other AF without AWACS. [not incld f22 & f35]

B.Smitty
13 Oct 05,, 13:13
Do u what every one to believe that f16s, f15s, f18s are inferior in every respect to jags & sukhois. That they cannot take one other AF without AWACS. [not incld f22 & f35]


No, the F-teens are definitely better, just not enough to consistently take on larger numbers of Jags and Sukhois without AWACS support.

indianguy4u
13 Oct 05,, 15:43
No, the F-teens are definitely better, just not enough to consistently take on larger numbers of Jags and Sukhois without AWACS support.

link (http://www.telegraphindia.com/1040818/asp/nation/story_3639382.asp)


Jaguar thunder rips US shield
SUJAN DUTTA

New Delhi, Aug. 17: Indian Air Force bombers returned to base today after war games hosted by the US in Alaska in which they claimed to have penetrated through US air defence twice, it was disclosed at a “hot debriefing” at their base in Ambala this afternoon.

The IAF had deployed six Jaguar deep-penetration strike aircraft to Alaska for the fortnight-long Exercise Cooperative Cope Thunder 04-01 that ended on July 30. The IAF had also sent two IL-76 heavy-duty transporters, its two new IL-78 refuellers and more than 200 personnel led by Group Captain S. Nanodkar.

Air force sources said the Jaguars had penetrated through defensive cover and scored “direct hits” on ground targets in ranges in Alaska. The war games involved sorties from the Eielson and Elmendorf air force bases. The war games are hosted by the US Pacific Command Air Force.

In February this year, in war games hosted by India named Cope India, IAF MiGs gave the US air force F-15Cs a hard time. It was acknowledged by a US military journal, Inside the Air Force, and by a general of the US Air Combat Command, Hal Hornburg, that the exercise had revealed that the US air force capabilities were not as vastly superior as had been presumed.

Details of war games are slow to emanate because participants do not want to comment before analysing the experience. The team was taken for the “hot debriefing” as a routine in Ambala, the home base of the Jaguars that were deployed, for the IAF top brass to assess the results of the war games.

Exercise Cooperative Cope Thunder 04-01 was a multinational Dissimilar Combat Training Exercise that involved air forces from Asia-Pacific and Nato countries — Canada, the UK, Germany, Mongolia, Singapore, Japan and Malaysia among others. Not all countries deployed fighter aircraft.

The Indian Air Force began an intensive series of international exercises with Exercise Garuda with the French in Gwalior last year. That was an eye-opener for the IAF which took a beating in the drill with French Mirages, some flown by pilots who had seen action in the skies over Kosovo. The French had superior avionics with ability to strike Beyond Visual Range.

In the India-US exercise in February this year, the Americans had deployed ageing aircraft that are part of the US air force frontline but cannot be said to be at the cutting edge, technologically.

The Indian Air Force is now preparing contingents for fresh international exercises in September and October. Next month, an IAF contingent comprising four Mirage 2000 multi-role aircraft from their home base in Gwalior will fly to South Africa for another multinational exercise hosted by the South African Air Force called Exercise Golden Eagle.

The contingent, to be led by Group Captain T.S. Ahluwalia, will leave Gwalior on September 11 and include an IL 79 heavy transporter and an IL 78 refueller. Gwalior is the base for two IAF Mirage squadrons and the Tactics and Air Combat Development Establishment that draws up plans for drills and war games. The contingent will fly to Thiruvananthapuram and is likely to touch down in Mauritius and Madagascar.

The South African Air Force is also known to fly a different variant of Mirage fighters. Also participating in Exercise Golden Eagle will be elements of the US, German and the British air forces.

In October, the IAF will engage six F-16 fighters being brought over by the Singapore Air Force.

The IAF does not have the American F-16s in its inventory but the Pakistan Air Force flies the aircraft. The exercises with the Singapore force will include sorties over Kalaikunda, Gwalior and Pokhran in mid-October.
Read the aricle & tell where the su-30s involved?

B.Smitty
13 Oct 05,, 18:24
link (http://www.telegraphindia.com/1040818/asp/nation/story_3639382.asp)


Read the aricle & tell where the su-30s involved?

Sorry, I thought you were talking about the Cope India exercise.

I don't put much faith in conclusions drawn from these types of events, without knowing the scenario details, restrictions, etc..

Remember, these are training exercises, not mini-wars. The scenarios are set up to train participants, not to find out "who's better".

indianguy4u
13 Oct 05,, 18:34
I don't put much faith in conclusions drawn from these types of events, without knowing the scenario details, restrictions, etc..Do u have article on senario undertaken at the alaska exercise.

B.Smitty
13 Oct 05,, 20:29
Do u have article on senario undertaken at the alaska exercise.

I don't. And it was undoubtably multiple scenarios, not just one. That kind of thing isn't widely published, AFAIK. You have to dig to find people who where there or people who had knowledge of the exercise.

Bluesman
17 Oct 05,, 00:56
Raven, it is the view of THIS USAF man - a REAL one, not a fake, like you - that you should really evaluate how sad a character you are, for trying to impersonate an officer and a gentleman.

You're neither. Get out of our Board, punk.

Warrior_Medic
21 Oct 05,, 08:43
I'm an indian, and should have gone 4 Mig - 27 but as much as i have read about all the above listed aircrafts, i think A-10 is the best jaguar comes close. Dont know about rest. if anybody can specify which is best regarding technical specifications, :rolleyes: i would like to hear it. :)

Mig-27? What a joke! We slaughtered those crappy things in Iraq.

Why don't you Indians buy Western equipment rather than going for the ghetto stuff.

lurker
21 Oct 05,, 08:46
Mig-27? How about Mig-15? Or Mig-1?

This stuff is 35 years old. Girls in short skirts can shoot it down.

If you are comparing A-10 - compare with Su-25 or Su-39. All Mig-27's in Russia were decomissioned long time ago.

Warrior_Medic
22 Oct 05,, 01:31
Mig-27? How about Mig-15? Or Mig-1?

This stuff is 35 years old. Girls in short skirts can shoot it down.

If you are comparing A-10 - compare with Su-25 or Su-39. All Mig-27's in Russia were decomissioned long time ago.


Dude, Communism is dead. Get rid of the Red Star on your avatar!

ASG
04 Nov 05,, 15:57
Mig-27? How about Mig-15? Or Mig-1?

This stuff is 35 years old. Girls in short skirts can shoot it down.

If you are comparing A-10 - compare with Su-25 or Su-39. All Mig-27's in Russia were decomissioned long time ago.

Nothing compares to A-10. Not even the Su-25.

Captain Drunk
11 Jan 06,, 02:15
I'd give it up for the Tornado. Apart from having the most sophisticated ECM, avionics / fighter weapons suite has the maximum ordinance - cluster bombs, etc., than all the other fighters. Also being a fast nap-of-the-earth flyer with terrain mapping radar, its not as vulnerable as an A-10 to ground fire.

canoe
11 Jan 06,, 02:28
I'd give it up for the Tornado. Apart from having the most sophisticated ECM, avionics / fighter weapons suite has the maximum ordinance - cluster bombs, etc., than all the other fighters. Also being a fast nap-of-the-earth flyer with terrain mapping radar, its not as vulnerable as an A-10 to ground fire.

For strike missions I'd tend to agree, although the A-10 has got close air support totally locked up.

hello
23 Feb 06,, 10:02
The F-15E Strike Eagle should be on this, its the best for strike while A-10 is best for CAS.

Bill
14 Mar 06,, 00:29
Of that unimpressive list, the Tornado is the best by a good margin.
The A-10 is slow and wheezy and only now becoming more than a fair weather CAS aircraft.

You know not what you say.

I will forgive your ignorance. You have never had the opportunity to witness for yourself what kind of adversary an A-10 is.

Even in exercizes, it becomes readily apparent the first time you face A-10s in armored vehicles that you are absolutely at their mercy.

On top of that the A-10s ability to withstand battle damage is the stuff of legend.

When used in it's element for it's intended role, the A-10 is one of the most efficient and dominant killing machines ever designed.

http://a-10.org/photos/Photos69760/oct07_04.jpg

http://a-10.org/photos/Photos69760/oct07_13.jpg

http://a-10.org/photos/Photos69760/oct07_09.jpg

http://a-10.org/photos/Photos69760/oct07_11.jpg

http://a-10.org/photos/Photos69760/oct07_22.jpg



The A-10 ThunderBolt II: It Kills tanks dead.
~Fairchild republic promotional slogan

-{SpoonmaN}-
14 Mar 06,, 03:20
A-10 for CAS, it is an entirely purpose built aircraft in that sense.
Tornado for true Strike, it's got the avionics for precision and survivability, and I'm led to believe that it's also got reasonable air-to-air capabilities. Otherwise, the Mirage is rather old, the Jaguar seems past it's time, as does the MiG-27 (Which may have never been that special in the first place, isn't it built out of a 3rd Gen. interceptor?).
Maybe the AV-8 should have been included on the list, since it's all about CAS.

Bill
14 Mar 06,, 04:08
The AV-8 is almost surely the most vulnerable modern fixed wing combat aircraft operated by the west due to the location of the hot air nozzles and it's single engine design.

hello
14 Mar 06,, 12:17
The Harrier is the perfect target for IR missiles. Although, the A-10with its huge, plainly sticking out engines is too, it can take the hits and go on unaffected, while the harrier would go down. AH-64s and AH-1Zs have a better chance, but still cant take as much fire as the A-10, and are helicopters, which are more vulnerable. Now with the PE upgrade, the A-10C can now use the JDAM, WCMD, etc. as well.

Bill
14 Mar 06,, 13:07
The Harrier is the perfect target for IR missiles. Although, the A-10with its huge, plainly sticking out engines is too, it can take the hits and go on unaffected, while the harrier would go down. AH-64s and AH-1Zs have a better chance, but still cant take as much fire as the A-10, and are helicopters, which are more vulnerable. Now with the PE upgrade, the A-10C can now use the JDAM, WCMD, etc. as well.

And Paveway. Their favorite is still by far the LASTE upgraded 30mm gun. ;)

Here's some pix of an A-10 that had a run-in with SAMs(as in more than one) and still made it back to base:

Port Stb. engine pod:
http://a-10.org/photos/Photos83748/sam6.jpg
http://a-10.org/photos/Photos83748/sam2.jpg

Fuselage damage:
http://a-10.org/photos/Photos83748/battledmg_06.jpg

Stab Damage:
http://a-10.org/photos/Photos83748/battledmg_04.jpg
http://a-10.org/photos/Photos83748/battledmg_02.jpg
http://a-10.org/photos/Photos83748/battledmg_05.jpg

Some other battledamaged A10s:
http://a-10.org/photos/Photos44832/Image1.jpg
http://a-10.org/photos/Photos44832/IMG_0529.JPG
http://a-10.org/photos/Photos44832/IMG_0528.JPG
(there are literally dozens of such pix on the photos section of my website, www.a-10.org )

(There should be about a dozen BD'd A10s in this post, if they're not showing up now try back later or go right to the link i provided, for whatever reason they're not all displaying properly for me)

B.Smitty
14 Mar 06,, 13:09
You know not what you say.

I will forgive your ignorance. You have never had the opportunity to witness for yourself what kind of adversary an A-10 is.

Even in exercizes, it becomes readily apparent the first time you face A-10s in armored vehicles that you are absolutely at their mercy.

On top of that the A-10s ability to withstand battle damage is the stuff of legend.

When used in it's element for it's intended role, the A-10 is one of the most efficient and dominant killing machines ever designed.



The A-10s ability to taking battle damage is overrated, IMHO. Even if it does limp home, it's going to spand days or weeks or longer being repaired, and every day it sits out is two or more sorties lost.

It's far preferable to not get hit in the first place, meaning don't fly low - the A-10's bread-n-butter.

What happens when it's raining with low cloud cover? Does the A-10 have a radar with a high-res SAR mode? No. Terrain following radar? No. Radar? No.

Does the A-10s go deep to hit strategic targets? Can it perform SEAD? Can it carry a recc pod? Does it carry any cruise missiles? Can it carry and use a BVR AAM? Anti-ship missiles? Can it carry nukes?

All no.

Gr4s can carry up to 18 Brimstone anti-tank missiles, so they're no slouches when it comes to killing armor.

The A-10 takes almost twice as long to get to the target and back, meaning fewer daily sorties and thus fewer aimpoints hit.

The A-10 is a CAS bird with limited interdiction capabilities.

OTOH, the Gr4 can do it all.

Bill
14 Mar 06,, 13:24
The A-10s ability to taking battle damage is overrated, IMHO. Even if it does limp home, it's going to spand days or weeks or longer being repaired, and every day it sits out is two or more sorties lost.

Look at the pix above. LOL......A Tornado would've been toast. In fact, during ODS, the Tornado proved to be EXTREMELY vulnerable to ground fire, suffering the 2d highest loss rate of any type used in the war.


It's far preferable to not get hit in the first place, meaning don't fly low - the A-10's bread-n-butter.

The hog is fully capable of medium-alt ops like every other US combat aircraft.


What happens when it's raining with low cloud cover? Does the A-10 have a radar with a high-res SAR mode? No. Terrain following radar? No. Radar? No.

Does the A-10s go deep to hit strategic targets? Can it perform SEAD? Can it carry a recc pod? Does it carry any cruise missiles? Can it carry and use a BVR AAM? Anti-ship missiles? Can it carry nukes?

All no.


LOL. wow, i have hardly seen you be so wrong on so many things all at once.

Yes A10s perform SEAD. A10s have performed SEAD in COMBAT(used extensively in the role during ODS as a matter of fact).

Would you call "SCUD HUNTING" in W.Iraq 'going deep to hit a strategic target'? I would.

LASTE is a radar operated system. I bet you don't even know what it does though, lol. Because of LASTE the A-10 has the most accurate and most employable gun system of any fighter in the world.

Oh, btw....the A10 is(or at least was at one time) cleared for the B61 nuclear gravity bomb.

The Hog also performs FAC-A and CSAR too(and not just performs, but is almost TOTALLY ideal for those two roles). Should we hold it against the Tornado that it can't do either (anywhere near) as well as the Hog?

The topic is best strike aircraft. Shooting at ships is an entirely different kind of mission. Akin to saying the F15E is the better strike plane because it's a highly capable dual role A2A fighter as well.(BTW, in close and down low an A10 will outturn an F16C, and would run circles around a Tornado). I would not want to be on a ship shot full of A10 fired Mavericks and 30mm APDS rounds though. You?

If there's low cloud cover the A10 can simply fly under it. As you've seen, the A10 is fully capable of flying BELOW treetop level. :)

The A10C has all the latest passive sensor systems available.

There is simply no need for radar on a the Hog. The USAF operates the JSTARS, so if bad weather radar cueing is the order of the day, the A10 is still 100% mission capable even in zero visibility.


Gr4s can carry up to 18 Brimstone anti-tank missiles, so they're no slouches when it comes to killing armor.

The A-10 is a CAS bird with limited interdiction capabilities. OTOH, the Gr4 can do it all.

Trying to compare the CAS 'abilities'(cough, cough) of the Tornado IDS to the A-10 is LAUGHABLE.

The A-10 being low and slow has the ability to persist and put EYEBALLS on the actual target, making pass after pass to ensure that the target is destroyed or suppressed, even in the face of intense AAA and SAM fire.

As far as 'doing it all', perhaps you will point me to the Tornado IDS sqns with an air superiority misison. How about the Tornado Sqn with a FAC-A role. The Sqn with a CSAR role?

Oh......right.......they don't exist, becuase the Tornado can't 'do it all'.

Perhaps you can show me the pix of Tornados operating from rough unprepared forward airstrips like A10s routinely do?

LOL...

Can a Tornado give close escort to air assault forces like this A10 is doing?

No.

http://a-10.org/photos/Photos44832/DF-SD-04-01423.jpg
http://a-10.org/photos/Photos44832/DF-SD-04-01424.jpg
OA-10A providing close escort and defense suppression for MH-60 Pavehawk

B.Smitty
14 Mar 06,, 14:10
Look at the pix above. LOL......A Tornado would've been toast. In fact, during ODS, the Tornado proved to be EXTREMELY vulnerable to ground fire, suffering the 2d highest loss rate of any type used in the war.


The Tornado losses in ODS were due to bad tactics. Strap a JP-233 to an A-10 and have it overfly a heavily defended airfield at a wheezy 340kts and see how many of them survive. At least the Tornado could whiz past at Mach 1+.



The hog is fully capable of medium-alt ops like every other US combat aircraft.


Fully capable? It's only now getting targetting pods. It still doesn't have a radar.


Yes A10s perform SEAD. A10s have performed SEAD in COMBAT(used extensively in the role during ODS as a matter of fact).


Sure, it can kill the odd ZSU-23, but does it carry an ARM? No.



Would you call "SCUD HUNTING" in W.Iraq 'going deep to hit a strategic target'? I would.


I'd call Scud hunting a job that could've been done by a biz jet.

How many airfields did A-10s hit? How many bridges? Command and control targets?



LASTE is a radar operated system. I bet you don't even know what it does though, lol. Because of LASTE the A-10 has the most accurate and most employable gun system of any fighter in the world.


Oh please. Can LASTE generate a SAR image? Does it allow an A-10 to fly a terrain following profile in any weather? Can it even detect airborne targets? No. LASTE is only useful for gun runs and dropping dumb ordinance.


Trying to compare the CAS 'abilities'(cough, cough) of the Tornado IDS to the A-10 is LAUGHABLE.


Hardly.

The Gr4 has greater range and swing wings, so my guess is it's competitive with the A-10 for loiter performance, and it can get to and from the CAS orbit twice as fast as the A-10.

Brimstone is better than Maverick for tank plinking. It's all weather, is designed to do mutiple shots per pass, and you can carry more per pylon. How many Mavericks does an A-10 typically carry? 4-6? The normal Brimstone loadout on a Gr4 is 12.

The only thing the A-10 has is the gun. And if MANPADS are a threat, the gun is just worthless extra weight.


The A-10 being low and slow has the ability to persist and put EYEBALLS on the actual target, making pass after pass to ensure that the target is destroyed or suppressed, even in the face of intense AAA and SAM fire.


Naked eyeballs on target is hugely overrated. Give me the second crewman and the targetting pod on the GR4, looking down from the safety of altitude any day.


As far as 'doing it all', perhaps you will point me to the Tornado IDS sqns with an air superiority misison. How about the Tornado Sqn with a FAC-A role. The Sqn with a CSAR role?


There's nothing stopping a GR4 from being used for FAC-A or CSAR, they just aren't.

Bill
14 Mar 06,, 14:35
The Tornado losses in ODS were due to bad tactics. Strap a JP-233 to an A-10 and have it overfly a heavily defended airfield at a wheezy 340kts and see how many of them survive. At least the Tornado could whiz past at Mach 1+.

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.

And the fact is that a lot of the hits that downed those Tornadoes would not have killed an A10.

If left to use tactics well suited to the A/C, an A-10 would be an extremely effective platform for shutting down airfield.

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)



Fully capable(of medium alt ops)? It's only now getting targetting pods. It still doesn't have a radar.

Yep, been doing it since before ODS. It is a standard USAF tactic.

The A10 does not need a radar, the USAF operates JSTARS and the A10 has a datalink.


Sure, it can kill the odd ZSU-23, but does it carry an ARM? No.

Actually, the A10 is cleared for the AIM-122 Sidearm, but it is not employed. Typically the A10 uses cluster bombs for SEAD duty, and NO, i am NOT talking about the odd ZSU-23/4, i am talking about real SEAD on real SAM sites.
The A10 has been used extensively in the SEAD role in REAL COMBAT.


I'd call Scud hunting a job that could've been done by a biz jet.

So is dropping nuke/firing cruise missiles at the old Soviet Union, what i would call the ultimate strategic bombing mission....

The A10s scud hunt ops were strategic deep strike missions by any reasonable definition of the term.


How many airfields did A-10s hit? How many bridges? Command and control targets?

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.



Oh please. Can LASTE generate a SAR image?

Why would i want that? A10 has a datalink to JSTARs. What does it need it's own radar for?

Nothing that i can think of.

CAS sorties have almost nothing to do with having a radar anyway. They are visually cued/radio controlled missions.


Does it allow an A-10 to fly a terrain following profile in any weather? Can it even detect airborne targets? No. LASTE is only useful for gun runs and dropping dumb ordinance.

The A10 can fly under(or above of course) nearly any weather with it's Sniper(or LANTIRN) pod FLIR and NVGs.
So again, no need for radar.(Though the cancelled LANTIRN NAV pod would have given that capability anyway).



The Gr4 has greater range and swing wings, so my guess is it's competitive with the A-10 for loiter performance, and it can get to and from the CAS orbit twice as fast as the A-10.

And the A10 has far superior loiter and much more resilient to BD fixed straight wings, PERFECTLY optomized for it's mission, and completely interchangable L to R for quick battlefield turnarounds.

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.

The A10 can STAY in orbit about 5x longer than a tornado, and make about 4x the passes on a single tank of gas.


Brimstone is better than Maverick for tank plinking.

In what fantasy world is that?


It's all weather, is designed to do mutiple shots per pass, and you can carry more per pylon. How many Mavericks does an A-10 typically carry? 4-6? The normal Brimstone loadout on a Gr4 is 12.

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).

It's also faster.

The Brimstone is a superior anti-armor munition only in your obviously deluded mind.

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.

For raw armored killing power the A10 has no fixed wing peer, period.


The only thing the A-10 has is the gun. And if MANPADS are a threat, the gun is just worthless extra weight.

Actually, there are about 20 A10 pilots on my site that would scoff at that comment, but hey, dont let reality get in your way....

The fact is that in actual combat the A10 has proven nearly invulnerable to MANPADs(and even heavy SAM) fire.


Naked eyeballs on target is hugely overrated. Give me the second crewman and the targetting pod on the GR4, looking down from the safety of altitude any day.

You base this on your extensive experience performing CAS, or your extensive experience in calling for CAS, or your extensive experience in watching CAS delievered on target?

Or is it based on nothing in particular besides the warm fuzzy the Tornado gives you when you look at it on a poster?

The FACT is that the Mk1 eyeball is the single most effective combat sensor ever devised.

Ask ANY military man on this board if you don't believe me.

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.

LOL, i gotta say man, i'm pretty amazed you would go down this road. It's so obviously a dead end... ;)


There's nothing stopping a GR4 from being used for FAC-A or CSAR, they just aren't.

Think it has anything to do with the the fact that they're ill-suited for the role?

LOL...

B.Smitty
14 Mar 06,, 15:53
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.


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.


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.



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.




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.



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.



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.



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.



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?



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.



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?



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.



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.



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/short_studies/USAFMannedAircraftCombatLosses1990_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.



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.



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.

Simullacrum
14 Mar 06,, 16:38
Look at the pix above. LOL......A Tornado would've been toast. In fact, during ODS, the Tornado proved to be EXTREMELY vulnerable to ground fire, suffering the 2d highest loss rate of any type used in the war.



The hog is fully capable of medium-alt ops like every other US combat aircraft.



LOL. wow, i have hardly seen you be so wrong on so many things all at once.

Yes A10s perform SEAD. A10s have performed SEAD in COMBAT(used extensively in the role during ODS as a matter of fact).

Would you call "SCUD HUNTING" in W.Iraq 'going deep to hit a strategic target'? I would.

LASTE is a radar operated system. I bet you don't even know what it does though, lol. Because of LASTE the A-10 has the most accurate and most employable gun system of any fighter in the world.

Oh, btw....the A10 is(or at least was at one time) cleared for the B61 nuclear gravity bomb.

The Hog also performs FAC-A and CSAR too(and not just performs, but is almost TOTALLY ideal for those two roles). Should we hold it against the Tornado that it can't do either (anywhere near) as well as the Hog?

The topic is best strike aircraft. Shooting at ships is an entirely different kind of mission. Akin to saying the F15E is the better strike plane because it's a highly capable dual role A2A fighter as well.(BTW, in close and down low an A10 will outturn an F16C, and would run circles around a Tornado). I would not want to be on a ship shot full of A10 fired Mavericks and 30mm APDS rounds though. You?

If there's low cloud cover the A10 can simply fly under it. As you've seen, the A10 is fully capable of flying BELOW treetop level. :)

The A10C has all the latest passive sensor systems available.

There is simply no need for radar on a the Hog. The USAF operates the JSTARS, so if bad weather radar cueing is the order of the day, the A10 is still 100% mission capable even in zero visibility.



Trying to compare the CAS 'abilities'(cough, cough) of the Tornado IDS to the A-10 is LAUGHABLE.

The A-10 being low and slow has the ability to persist and put EYEBALLS on the actual target, making pass after pass to ensure that the target is destroyed or suppressed, even in the face of intense AAA and SAM fire.

As far as 'doing it all', perhaps you will point me to the Tornado IDS sqns with an air superiority misison. How about the Tornado Sqn with a FAC-A role. The Sqn with a CSAR role?

Oh......right.......they don't exist, becuase the Tornado can't 'do it all'.

Perhaps you can show me the pix of Tornados operating from rough unprepared forward airstrips like A10s routinely do?

LOL...

Can a Tornado give close escort to air assault forces like this A10 is doing?

No.

http://a-10.org/photos/Photos44832/DF-SD-04-01423.jpg
http://a-10.org/photos/Photos44832/DF-SD-04-01424.jpg
OA-10A providing close escort and defense suppression for MH-60 Pavehawk



lol yeah but one problem.....its flown by american pilots wouldnt trust them to have 'fixed eyes' as u put it on me..! lol
bad enough enemy trying to kill me....let alon having blue on blue by the yanks..! lol

leib10
14 Mar 06,, 16:49
As if friendly fire is a foreign concept to you guys too... :rolleyes:

Bill
14 Mar 06,, 17:14
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.

Not neccisarily. In many cases(such as on the defensive or in a meeting engagement) the enemy force may not have been hit at all.


Plus, CAS means the enemy is in contact with friendly ground forces, so they're probably a wee-bit distracted.

I do not know your background but i suspect you have serious misunderstandings wrt the actual usage of CAS. It is rarely employed once you're in close contact in a direct fire fight. This does occur sometimes, but it's uncommon. CAS is generally instigated at the initiation of enemy contact, while there is still as much distance as possible between the two forces(artillery too). As the target gets closer to your forces progressively fewer systems are still safe to employ.

The reason i bring that up is to illustrate the point that when a CAS aircraft begins attacking ground targets the vast majority of the time it will be the enemy ground forces main focus of fire.


When Tornados switched to medium altitude LGB strikes their losses went way down.

I guess so, it's a much safer mission profile. A-10s are also fully capable of med altitude JDAM and LGB drops.


Maybe, maybe not. At 340kts, an A-10 would've been under fire for a LOT longer.

Not neccesarily. The A10 can turn around and put its nose on target between runs much faster. At low altitude an A10 can outturn any fixed wing bird in the US/NATO inventory but the F22.

For pointy nosed jets they take such a huge turning radius to get back on target that it obviously is going to take more time per run. The A10 is also FAR better suited to taking advantadge of terrain masking than the Tornado.


Except for the fact that it takes so freakin long to get there and back.

That is more than balanced by the fact that it takes a lot less time to turn an A-10 around, and it is generally going to be a lot closer to the front.


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.

I seem to recall saying exactly that in my previous post. Point is/was, it was not a tactics problem, it was an employment problem. Just be thankful the IDS never had to operate over Europe against the WP and employ the JP.233. The entire IDS force might've been wiped out in a matter of a couple days were that the case. The JP.233 is really a terrible execution of a good idea.


For the same reason EVERY other significant strike aircraft has one, because JSTARS can't be everywhere.

Actually, JSTARS is too new to have influenced ANY of the aircraft in current use, even the F22. So your suggested rationale actually has nothing to do with anything. The A-10 didnt have a radar for the same reason the SU-25, YA-9, A-1, and A-7 didn't have one. None of them have a radar by design.

Because radars are irrelevant to CAS, and the A-10 was specifically designed to fill that(as well as the battlefield interdiction) role.

One simply does not make a radar-only drop in close proximity to friendly forces. It is just not done.

In the rationale of the USAF a radar would've simply been waste of valuable internal space, as well as greatly complicating the design(ie $$$$$). For CAS i agree, but for tactical battlefield interdiction i did not.

However, now that JSTARs(and Longbow Apache) is on the scene, a radar is absolutely unneccesary for the A10.(And i have to point out that JSTARs actually does cover a massive area of the battlefield)


Because it can't generate high-res SAR images for every strike sortie.

Who cares? With a 10 digit grid and JDAM or WCM/CBU(wind corrected dispenser cluster bomb, i cant remember the actual acronym, sorry) it doesn't even need to see the target anymore. And truth be told with JTIDS an A-10 can get a hi-res SAR image from a U-2R flying at 80k feet and over 100 miles from the target.


Because IR goggles and FLIR aren't good enough to safely fly a terrain following profile in real bad weather.

They're not good enough for roadmarching tanks in really bad weather either.
If the weather is that bad that a Sniper pod A-10 can't function(and that is BAD), then there isn't going to be anything in the way of ground combat ops going on either in almost all cases.


Yes, but this is the best STRIKE aircraft, not the best CAS aircraft. CAS is just one type of strike mission.

Yep, and we have to look at how each is fought, and how it is used as part of a team. With the full support of the USAF(JSTARs, EA-6, U-2, F-15C, etc, etc) an A-10 in USAF service is simply a more effective overall performer than a Tornado operating as part of a UK only force.


You don't always have forward airfields.

In the last five military campaigns the US has fought the early siezure of FOBs has been a key campaign goal in all of them.(OSF, OJC, ODS, OEF, OIF).


And the A-10 actually requires a LONGER runway than an F-teen or Tornado.

Only at max weights. With a full gun load and 2k lb bombload the A-10 can take off and land in a mere 1500feet.


Do you have a source to back that(A-10 loiter time) up?

You mean besides a board full of A-10 pilots and crewdogs?
Feel free to take it up with the real experts:
http://forum.a-10.org/


Mavericks carried by A-10s are normally IIR right?

It can employ all three types(EO, IIR, SALH), but typically IIR is preferred.


IIR has issues in bad weather. Brimstone uses a MMW seeker, which doesn't.

A MMW radar which can be jammed AND tracked.

And let me ask you a question you've obviously put no thought into.

What does a Tornado armed with all those radar guided brimstones do when the target is a grid square(which is the vast majority of the time), not a vehicle? I would call that a MAJOR drawback of the radar guided brimstone(and longbow hellfire).

You see, it's always a matter of compromises with these things.

I would of course add that intergrating longbow hellifre(and even a longbow radar pod such as that used on the AH-1Z) into the Hog would be no real feat if someone wanted to. Apparently no one in power thinks it's worth the effort.


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?

Did you not bring up antishipping missions? The faster the missile, the more likely it is to get through. Also, many modern land based systems are capable of taking out missiles nowadays, even ATGMs. The Russian Arena system, USMC HUMRAAM, and the new US Army land based Phalanx system(cant remember the name of it, sorry) are three examples off the top of my head. So again, the faster the missile, the more likekly it is to get through. And even if you kill a big Maverick with an Arena it's likely to still mission kill the tank because it's so big.


Can IIR Mavericks be launched indirectly, without the aircraft first seeing the target? No.

Nope. But then, an IIR mav can't be jammed either, and an IIR mav doesnt tell the enemy you're coming either.


Can an A-10 launch all of it's Mavericks in a single salvo?.

On a single pass, yes. An A-10 can certainly salvo off 4 mavs at 4 targets in one attack run(particulalry a medium alt dive-attack)


A Gr4 with Brimstones can do both.

If it's not being jammed you mean. And if the target is something you can actually lock onto with a radar you mean.


That's 12-18 shots in a single pass.

Dont believe the hype. Manufacturers sales brochure claims like that rarely live up to the test of reality. I am sure that in a perfect test environment a Tornado can do exactly what they claim, just as i am equally sure that in real combat the opportunity to do so will almost NEVER occur.



Sure, in a benign environment, the gun is a good thing. But add a significant MANPADs threat, and its value rapidly diminishes.

I suggest you go over and let the pilots on my board smack some sense into you. ;)



Invulnerable?

I seem to recall using a qualifer. Ie, "Virtually invulnerable".

Any objective study of the a-10s combat record will bear out that statement.


http://afhra.maxwell.af.mil/wwwroot/short_studies/USAFMannedAircraftCombatLosses1990_2002.pdf

Table I: USAF Manned Aircraft Combat Losses 1990-2002

2 Feb 1991 A-10A SA-16 Infrared Day
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

So of the 17 USAF aircraft lost in that period, 6 were A-10s, all were downed by SAMs, half by MANPADS.

First, the SA-13 is not a manpads. Second, the actual combat mission loss rate of A-10s is well below 0.1%, third, two of those A-10s were lost in direct attacks on said SAM sites while acting in the SEAD role(one of whom was interviewed for discovery channel in a documentary that has been aired literally hundreds of times since), fourth, because of the A-10s tremendous pilot protection and ejection friendly flight envelope all but one of those pilots lived(and all were recoverd with OA-10As providing tremendously effective combat escort and CSAR for our rescue helos), fifth, no other US Aircraft in the inventory could've managed that low a loss rate and still provided as highly effective fire(which any honest Eagle or Viper pilot would readily admit), and finally, while six were shot down, literally dozens were heavily hit by all manner of AAA, MANPADS, and even heavier SAM systems. The vast majority of those made it back to base saving the precious pilot, and of those, the majority of them were back in combat within 72 hours.


35% of USAF combat losses were A-10s.

CAS is an extremely dangerous mission for combat pilots. Probably more dangerous than any other. And SEAD is right behind it. The A-10 did both extensively.


I'd HARDLY call that invulnerable.

I didn't. I said it was virtually invulnerable, a statement which the statistics clearly supports. If you compare the total combat sortie total with the loss rate it is shockingly low, and lower than the F-16, F-15, or Tornado IDS.

That is just a fact.


I'm saying the Tornado has SIGNIFICANT CAS capabilities.

The Tornado has credible CAS capabilities. Btw, Anti-armor and CAS are two different missions entirely. Brimstone is typically for the latter, not the former. ;)


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.

The USAF has literally used the A10 for just about everything but Air superiority, and it's done it in combat.

Every role that's been thrust upon it has been handled quite nicely by the Hog.

- CAS
- Anti-Armor
- Precision Strike
- FAC-A
- CSAR
- Gunship Escort
- SEAD
- Tactical battlefield interdiction(which btw is the Tornado IDS's real strength)
- Counterbattery

The A-10 has done ALL of those missions in combat, and done them all quite well.

Your statement is therefore completely erroneous. The A-10 is an excellent all around strike aircraft.

It's also done deep strategic strike, but even i will agree that it is way out of it's element there. It still can do it, just not particularly well.

Both the Tornado IDS and the A10 do many things well. But the A10 utterly dominates in a couple of mission roles, whereas the Tornado dominates in no mission role.

To me, the A10 is the best plane on that list.

B.Smitty
14 Mar 06,, 18:34
Not neccisarily. In many cases(such as on the defensive or in a meeting engagement) the enemy force may not have been hit at all.


How many defensive or meeting engagements were there in ODS where A-10s provided CAS? How many where the enemy unit handn't alread been worked over by a variety of other strike sorties?



Not neccesarily. The A10 can turn around and put its nose on target between runs much faster. At low altitude an A10 can outturn any fixed wing bird in the US/NATO inventory but the F22.


IIRC, the profile for a JP233 run was a single, high-speed, low-altitude pass over the runway. Tornados do it at up to 900kts.

Turning back into the target after the first pass, after the waking up the defenses, would've been an extremely bad idea.

A-10s aren't going to outturn a missile or or AAA and making sharp turns just bleeds airspeed and leaves it hanging over the target.

I stand by my original assertion - A-10s doing JP233 runs over the targets hit by Tornados would've fared worse.



That is more than balanced by the fact that it takes a lot less time to turn an A-10 around, and it is generally going to be a lot closer to the front.


Do you have any data to back that first part up? What's the average turn around time for an A-10? Tornado?



Just be thankful the IDS never had to operate over Europe against the WP and employ the JP.233. The entire IDS force might've been wiped out in a matter of a couple days were that the case.


Be thankful the A-10 didn't have to do the same.




Because radars are irrelevant to CAS, and the A-10 was specifically designed to fill that(as well as the battlefield interdiction) role.


We are talking about strike aircraft here, not just CAS.



Who cares? With a 10 digit grid and JDAM or WCM/CBU(wind corrected dispenser cluster bomb, i cant remember the actual acronym, sorry) it doesn't even need to see the target anymore.


Do you always have a 10 digit grid?



If the weather is that bad that a Sniper pod A-10 can't function(and that is BAD), then there isn't going to be anything in the way of ground combat ops going on either in almost all cases.


But strike sorties still fly even in this type of weather.


Yep, and we have to look at how each is fought, and how it is used as part of a team. With the full support of the USAF(JSTARs, EA-6, U-2, F-15C, etc, etc) an A-10 in USAF service is simply a more effective overall performer than a Tornado operating as part of a UK only force.


Ah, ok, so now you're saying the A-10 needs the rest of the USAF to be a better strike aircraft than the Tornado in UK service.

Sorry, didn't realize that was part of the original question. I thought we were just talking about the aircraft themselves.



In the last five military campaigns the US has fought the early siezure of FOBs has been a key campaign goal in all of them.(OSF, OJC, ODS, OEF, OIF).


You forgot OAF, where no forward bases were siezed.

And how many strike sorties took place BEFORE those FOBs were taken?



A MMW radar which can be jammed AND tracked.


IIR munitions can be jammed as well.



What does a Tornado armed with all those radar guided brimstones do when the target is a grid square(which is the vast majority of the time), not a vehicle? I would call that a MAJOR drawback of the radar guided brimstone(and longbow hellfire).


What's an A-10 with a load of IIR Mavericks going to do?

You realize Tornados can carry other munitions, right?


Did you not bring up antishipping missions? The faster the missile, the more likely it is to get through.


Maverick speed - 1150km/hr
Brimstone speed - up to mach 1.3 to 1.5 - 1600km/h to 1800km/h


Nope. But then, an IIR mav can't be jammed either, and an IIR mav doesnt tell the enemy you're coming either.


Where'd you get the idea that IIR can't be jammed or countered? We've been doing it for years against IIR guided SAMs.



Dont believe the hype. Manufacturers sales brochure claims like that rarely live up to the test of reality. I am sure that in a perfect test environment a Tornado can do exactly what they claim, just as i am equally sure that in real combat the opportunity to do so will almost NEVER occur.


Well, in this day and age, it seems less likely that either will face massed armor formations.



I seem to recall using a qualifer. Ie, "Virtually invulnerable".


Acutally, the exact statement was, "The fact is that in actual combat the A10 has proven nearly invulnerable to MANPADs(and even heavy SAM) fire."

6 aircraft shot down by SAMs in ODS hardly qualifies them to use the term "invulnerable".

The F-117 is "nearly invulnerable". The A-10 is not.

Jimmy
14 Mar 06,, 18:45
Naked eyeballs on target is hugely overrated. Give me the second crewman and the targetting pod on the GR4, looking down from the safety of altitude any day.



As the man said, you know not of what you speak. The people on the ground whose lives depend on CAS, and who do the BDA, disagree with you. I talked to an ALO just 2 days ago, and the A-10 is the master of battlefield support from the air.

Confirmed A-10 kills in ODS:

Tanks 987
Artillery 926
APCs 501
Trucks 1,106
Command Vehicles 249
Military Structures 112
Radars 96
Helicopters (Air to Air) 2
Bunkers 72
Scud Missiles 51
Anti-Aircraft Artillery 50
Command Post 28
Frog Missiles 11
SAMs 9
Fuel Tanks 8
Fighters (Air to Ground) 10

Bill
14 Mar 06,, 19:26
Turning back into the target after the first pass, after the waking up the defenses, would've been an extremely bad idea.

That's what Hogs do. It's how they make their living. They get in close, low and slow, and root out the enemy making pass after pass until nothing is left alive or they're out of bullets.

It's what Hogs do.


A-10s aren't going to outturn a missile or or AAA and making sharp turns just bleeds airspeed and leaves it hanging over the target.

Considering that A10s have evaded missiles in actual combat many times, and considering that they were specifically designed to withstand numerous hits from AAA 23mm and smaller, i have to ask......what are you talking about?

Seriously, you should go to my board and talk to some of the A10 pilots. Almost all of them have fought in real battle, most in 3 wars, and they would happily give you a real education, cause you are way the hell off in left field.


Do you have any data to back that first part up? What's the average turn around time for an A-10? Tornado?

You mean besides a board full of A10 pilots and crewdogs?
http://forum.a-10.org/

Ask.


Do you always have a 10 digit grid?

If you have a military grade GPS reciever and a rangefinder you do.


But strike sorties still fly even in this type of weather(in conditions so bad even the vehicles are not moving).

And there is nothing to stop an A-10 flying above the clouds from dropping JDAMs or WCMDs on a target based on a 10 digit grid supplied by the unit in contact, a GFAC or FAC-A, or targetting data supplied by JSTARs and other divorced sensor data.

The A10 is as all weather as the next plane when it's operating as part of the USAF team.


Ah, ok, so now you're saying the A-10 needs the rest of the USAF to be a better strike aircraft than the Tornado in UK service.

Sorry, didn't realize that was part of the original question. I thought we were just talking about the aircraft themselves.


Well you have to look at how they're used and supported in the real world. It's not like the two planes just exist in a vacuum.

Part of the reason the A10C didnt include any radar was because its pretty much unneccesary nowadays with JTIDS, JSTARS, and all the other high tech acronyms we got. ;)


You forgot OAF, where no forward bases were siezed.

You're correct, i did forget OAF. 5 out of the last 6 it is then. ;)


And how many strike sorties took place BEFORE those FOBs were taken?

On the actual fob, in the war, in that sector, what? You'd have to be a lot more specific, and even then, the answer is probably different for each case.


IIR munitions can be jammed as well.

Not by tanks. Aint nothing in a US or Soviet Mech inf or Armor company that can jam an IIR maverick. Least nothing that i know of.


What's an A-10 with a load of IIR Mavericks going to do?(if the target is not vehicles)

Kill them with it's gun. Drop it's cluster bombs or Mk82s on them. Hit it with it's rockets. OR, if there is a high heat/contrast point in close proximity to the foxhole, bunker, trench or whatver, you can still lock an IIR mav onto it.



You realize Tornados can carry other munitions, right?
I realize they carry a lot less than the A10. And i also realize you're the one that brought up packing 12 brimstones.

I assure you that a Tornado IDS with 12 brimstones will not have much else in the way of ordnance aboard. That pretty much leaves the gun if the target is not something the Brimmies can lock on to(which would most often be the case).



Maverick speed - 1150km/hr
Brimstone speed - up to mach 1.3 to 1.5 - 1600km/h to 1800km/h

Yep, ya got me there. I was obviously wrong about the speed of the Brim.



Where'd you get the idea that IIR can't be jammed or countered? We've been doing it for years against IIR guided SAMs.

Tanks do not have chaff/flare dispensers. Tanks are also much slower, much less agile, and generally much hotter targets.

Tanks cannot jam Maverick IIR missiles any more than they can jam Javelin IIR missiles.


Well, in this day and age, it seems less likely that either will face massed armor formations.

Probably true.


Acutally, the exact statement was, "The fact is that in actual combat the A10 has proven nearly invulnerable to MANPADs(and even heavy SAM) fire."

[QUOTE=B.Smitty]6 aircraft shot down by SAMs in ODS hardly qualifies them to use the term "invulnerable".

The F-117 is "nearly invulnerable". The A-10 is not.

Considering it's job and extensive combat experience, the A10 has one of the lowest airframe combat loss rates in the history of warfare.

Considering how many hits theyve taken in combat, and how many of them have made it home, and how many of those have returned to combat in a matter of days, i feel the term "nearly invulnerable" is appropriate.

A battleship is 'nearly invulnerable' too, but they still get sunk if you pound them enough... ;)

Bill
14 Mar 06,, 19:27
As the man said, you know not of what you speak. The people on the ground whose lives depend on CAS, and who do the BDA, disagree with you. I talked to an ALO just 2 days ago, and the A-10 is the master of battlefield support from the air.

Confirmed A-10 kills in ODS:

Tanks 987
Artillery 926
APCs 501
Trucks 1,106
Command Vehicles 249
Military Structures 112
Radars 96
Helicopters (Air to Air) 2
Bunkers 72
Scud Missiles 51
Anti-Aircraft Artillery 50
Command Post 28
Frog Missiles 11
SAMs 9
Fuel Tanks 8
Fighters (Air to Ground) 10


Heh, that's quite a list Jimmy. :)

http://a-10.org/photos/Photos27979/DF-SD-03-16371.jpg

B.Smitty
15 Mar 06,, 04:11
That's what Hogs do. It's how they make their living. They get in close, low and slow, and root out the enemy making pass after pass until nothing is left alive or they're out of bullets.

It's what Hogs do.


Riiiight. And that's why they were restricted, like everyone, else to med-altitude for much of OAF due to low-altitude SAM and AAA threats.



You mean besides a board full of A10 pilots and crewdogs?
http://forum.a-10.org/

Ask.


You make assertions like this.



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.


and this,



The A10 can STAY in orbit about 5x longer than a tornado, and make about 4x the passes on a single tank of gas.


and then you want me to go dig up proof for you?

I don't think so. You made the assertion, you find the evidence.

BTW, Tornados don't have thrust reversers for nothing. They were designed with short and rough field capabilities in mind. And I'm guessing, with swing wings, a higher Th/Wt, and thrust reversers, a Tornado can takeoff and land with a larger warload and carry it further, faster than an A-10 from a short runway.



The A10 is as all weather as the next plane when it's operating as part of the USAF team.


So without the USAF team and FOBs, the A-10 is not as good an all around, all weather striker as a Tornado. Is that what you're trying to say?



Well you have to look at how they're used and supported in the real world. It's not like the two planes just exist in a vacuum.


For the sake of this silly thread they do.

The quesiton wasn't, "What air force flying X aircraft is the superior striker?"

Jaguars, Mig-27 and Mirage V are used by many nations. Which nation do we choose to represent their team capability?



Not by tanks. Aint nothing in a US or Soviet Mech inf or Armor company that can jam an IIR maverick. Least nothing that i know of.


So do you know of a system that can jam MMW radars in use in either of those formations?

Your original assertion was that Brimstone can be jammed, making them inferior to IIR Mavericks. By what?



I realize they carry a lot less than the A10. And i also realize you're the one that brought up packing 12 brimstones.


The spec sheets say a Tornado IDS can carry 19,000lbs of stores vs 16,000lbs for the A-10. Now granted, spec sheets don't tell you squat about what they regularly carry.

Or did you mean they carry less variety?

Tornado IDSs can carry dumb bombs, Brimstones, Mavericks, Storm Shadows, Taurus, Apache, cluster bombs, Enhanced Paveway IIs and IIIs (combo GPS/INS/SALH), ALARM, HARM, Kormoran AShMs, Nukes, Sidewinders, plus JP233 and MW-1.

Sounds like a greater variety than what A-10s carry to me.



Tanks do not have chaff/flare dispensers. Tanks are also much slower, much less agile, and generally much hotter targets.

Tanks cannot jam Maverick IIR missiles any more than they can jam Javelin IIR missiles.


And yet they can jam MMW Brimstones?

hello
15 Mar 06,, 06:02
Comparing the A-10 and Tornado IDS doesn't make sense. The IDS Gr.4 is comparable to the F-15E. The A-10 can carry around 30 Mavericks or numerous Hellfires in CAS, 6 or more HARMs and Sidearms in SEAD, 4 SWs for self-defence against helicopters. Although a damaged A-10 would lose several sorties, the Tornado would never again do a sortie again with the same damage. The IDS can carry cruise missiles, ASMs and nukes and go supersonic but the F-15E can do that as well. If the target has low IR emission, WCMDs(Wind Corrected Munitions Dispensers) or Maverick TVs can be used. Against the F-15E, it has more or less equal strike capability, but the F-15E is better A2A.

By the way, even the A-10A could carry Paveways. Thats not a new PE upgrade. Although the A-10 can carry the B-61, how is it supposed to escape in time?

Bill
16 Mar 06,, 19:56
The A10C/PE package allows the A10 to target and guide it's own Paveways instead of just making 'basket drops' based on divorced Lazing signals.

The B-61 is a variable yield weapon that can be set at least as low as 5kt(i say at least as low because i know it can be set lower, i just dont know how much lower). The B-61 also has a drag chute and delayed impact fuze. If the terrain is right(ie intervening hills or mountain range, etc) yeah, the A10 could still use a B61. Hardly the ideal delivery platform, but it would work.

-{SpoonmaN}-
19 Mar 06,, 02:05
Seems to me that the A-10 is more of an 'attack' (Check the name for a start) aircraft, specialised for close air support, with the ability to carry out a bunch of other missions when needed. The Tornado seems more like a true strike aircraft designed for hitting strategic targets and penetrating defended airspace etc.
The two are meant to be used very differently and can't really be compared to eachother anymore than a Tomcat can be compared to a Blackjack.
And I'm told the JSF is going to replace the A-10, how the hell is that supposed to work?

The_Burning_Kid
19 Mar 06,, 02:32
Seems to me that the A-10 is more of an 'attack' (Check the name for a start) aircraft, specialised for close air support, with the ability to carry out a bunch of other missions when needed. The Tornado seems more like a true strike aircraft designed for hitting strategic targets and penetrating defended airspace etc.
The two are meant to be used very differently and can't really be compared to eachother anymore than a Tomcat can be compared to a Blackjack.
And I'm told the JSF is going to replace the A-10, how the hell is that supposed to work?

The USAF origionally planned that but it never got through. But what they thought was that they could replace the A-10's armor and strength with the F-35's stealth capabilities, but even with that it it still prone to attacks. hence why they got rid of that plan a while back.

Shadowsided
19 Mar 06,, 02:47
The USAF origionally planned that but it never got through. But what they thought was that they could replace the A-10's armor and strength with the F-35's stealth capabilities, but even with that it it still prone to attacks. hence why they got rid of that plan a while back.

i thnink the F 15E is the best strike aircraft considering its weapon selection( alot)
range,time to climb, etc

hello
20 Mar 06,, 04:33
And I'm told the JSF is going to replace the A-10, how the hell is that supposed to work?

The JSF is not going to replace the A-10, that's what the A-10C/PE program is. It upgrades the A-10As with modern smart weapons and targetting devices, allowing it to stay in service till 2028 or beyond.

B.Smitty
20 Mar 06,, 13:03
i thnink the F 15E is the best strike aircraft considering its weapon selection( alot)
range,time to climb, etc


Hmm, well if we're not constrained to the list, how 'bout the B-2A? (Up to 40,000lbs of munitions to a 3000nm radius, unrefueled, with a high degree of all-aspects stealth. That's 80 500lb JDAMs - almost 9 F-15E equivalents.)

-{SpoonmaN}-
20 Mar 06,, 13:25
Hmm, well if we're not constrained to the list, how 'bout the B-2A? (Up to 40,000lbs of munitions to a 3000nm radius, unrefueled, with a high degree of all-aspects stealth. That's 80 500lb JDAMs - almost 9 F-15E equivalents.)

Like I said, the thread needs to be split between Close Air Support 'attack' and Strategic Deep Strike.

So A-10, MiG-27 etc. - Attack

F-15E, Su-34, Tornado etc. - Strike.

B.Smitty
20 Mar 06,, 13:37
Like I said, the thread needs to be split between Close Air Support 'attack' and Strategic Deep Strike.

So A-10, MiG-27 etc. - Attack

F-15E, Su-34, Tornado etc. - Strike.

That is a bit arbitrary, don't you think?

B-1Bs and B-52s have regularly provided CAS in recent conflicts, and as M21Sniper has pointed out, A-10s have performed interdiction/strike missions.

Plus, the Mig-27 is really closer in concept to the Tornado and F-15E than it is to the A-10.

Garry
22 Mar 06,, 13:07
Today Commander of Russian Air Force stated that by 2010 one of its regiments will change old Su-24 to Su-34. Su-34 are stricke aircraft made on Flanker's platform. It is expected that this unification would reduce operating costs.
http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/su34/

hello
23 Mar 06,, 11:31
Like I said, the thread needs to be split between Close Air Support 'attack' and Strategic Deep Strike.

So A-10, MiG-27 etc. - Attack

F-15E, Su-34, Tornado etc. - Strike.

MiG-27 is an attack? I always thought that that was the Su-25/Su-39 Frogfoot.

Bill
23 Mar 06,, 17:10
MiG-27 is an attack? I always thought that that was the Su-25/Su-39 Frogfoot.

Mig27 is a multirole fighter.

-{SpoonmaN}-
24 Mar 06,, 01:40
Mig27 is a multirole fighter.

I thought it was a redisigned MiG-23 pitched for tank-busting and ground attack. And yeah the Frogfoot seems to be a pretty similar concept to the A-10.
By the way, how many A-10s are in service right now? I would have guessed the program would have been cut back a bit after the cold war, so how may does the USAF and USAFR retain?

Bill
24 Mar 06,, 01:55
The US has about 300 A10s still in the inventory. They're all being upgraded to C models.

The frogfoot is a copy of the Northrup A-9, loser of the A-X competiton that produced the A-10.

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b343/m21sniper/A10pilotTeethRT.jpg

-{SpoonmaN}-
04 May 06,, 01:28
An interesting bit of trivia I notived the other day when I was watching the new version of 'War of the Worlds':
I'm pretty sure an A-10 can be seen flying in overhead when Ray (Tom Cruise) tries to talk his son Robbie out of joining up with a bunch of US Army and Marine personel who are fighting a pitched battle with a bunch of Alien Tripods over the hill. You also catch a glimpse of an F-22 and two F-16s, and three Stike Eagles can be seen shooting a few missiles at the Tripods once they get over the hill.
I guess Mavericks werent designed with 100m tall Alien War Machines in mind.

Shadowsided
04 May 06,, 01:39
I'd say the F117 its a strike AC.

Captain Drunk
04 May 06,, 03:09
Apart from ground based fighting, tactical reconnaissance, and multirole - Tornado had massive cannon power better than the rest of the lot, hence my vote. It's cluster bomb pods were the biggest any fighter could carry.

Shadowsided
04 May 06,, 03:36
F117 is the most surviveable strike fighter hands down.

longcat
04 May 06,, 04:26
Apart from ground based fighting, tactical reconnaissance, and multirole - Tornado had massive cannon power better than the rest of the lot, hence my vote. It's cluster bomb pods were the biggest any fighter could carry.
The A-10's Gau-8 cannon was a better cannon.

-{SpoonmaN}-
04 May 06,, 04:41
The A-10's Gau-8 cannon was a better cannon.

Of course it is, it's bigger than a VW beatle

Bill
04 May 06,, 05:35
Of course it is, it's bigger than a VW beatle

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b343/m21sniper/BUGvAvenger.jpg

It most certainly is... :)

-{SpoonmaN}-
04 May 06,, 09:53
I was actually basing my assertion on the very same picture, I just couldn't be bothered posting it.

Garry
04 May 06,, 10:18
Now when Su-34 is in service (first 4 aircraft are in Army) I would vote for it. Read an article recently and loved the machine.

Su-34 has maximum range of 4,000km with internal fuel - something close to strategic Tu-22M.... it has standard 30mm cannon with 180 shells. This Bomber Flanker can carry up to 8-tons of precision stricking load a, it can defend itself from interceptors with its PESA Leninets radar, which has electronic and mechanic streering, and 2 R-73 and R-77 missiles. I can fly supersonic at altitude of just 100m automatically using terrain scanning radar. Its cockpit is large enough for pilits to be there more than 10 hours. I guess this is a unique asset so far......

ps. the cockpit is large as in a strategic bomber allowing pilots to stand and to lay down.

canoe
04 May 06,, 11:26
Now when Su-34 is in service (first 4 aircraft are in Army) I would vote for it. Read an article recently and loved the machine.

Su-34 has maximum range of 4,000km with internal fuel - something close to strategic Tu-22M.... it has standard 30mm cannon with 180 shells. This Bomber Flanker can carry up to 8-tons of precision stricking load a, it can defend itself from interceptors with its PESA Leninets radar, which has electronic and mechanic streering, and 2 R-73 and R-77 missiles. I can fly supersonic at altitude of just 100m automatically using terrain scanning radar. Its cockpit is large enough for pilits to be there more than 10 hours. I guess this is a unique asset so far......

ps. the cockpit is large as in a strategic bomber allowing pilots to stand and to lay down.

Its maximum combat radius with normal combat load on internal fuel is 600 kilometers.
Its maximum combat radius with limited combat load with external tanks is 1,130 kilometers.
Its maximum ferry range at altitude in a clean configuration (non combat effective) with external tanks is 4,500 kilometers.

The external tanks take up 3 of the heavy hardpoints. It has a maxium take off load weight of up to 8 metric tons not including external fuel.

Its still a good bird, but its definately a medium range light bomber.

Garry
04 May 06,, 16:40
Its maximum combat radius with normal combat load on internal fuel is 600 kilometers.
Its maximum combat radius with limited combat load with external tanks is 1,130 kilometers.
Its maximum ferry range at altitude in a clean configuration (non combat effective) with external tanks is 4,500 kilometers.

The external tanks take up 3 of the heavy hardpoints. It has a maxium take off load weight of up to 8 metric tons not including external fuel.

Its still a good bird, but its definately a medium range light bomber.

OK. I just reposted from the newspaper article. It may be wrong!
I don't have much information on it but will try to read more when get some time. So far I like it.

Am I right if I divide the combat RANGE by two to get estimation of combat RADIUS? In your figure it is actually by more than 2!

Bill
04 May 06,, 16:54
Now when Su-34 is in service (first 4 aircraft are in Army) I would vote for it. Read an article recently and loved the machine.

Su-34 has maximum range of 4,000km with internal fuel - something close to strategic Tu-22M.... it has standard 30mm cannon with 180 shells. This Bomber Flanker can carry up to 8-tons of precision stricking load a, it can defend itself from interceptors with its PESA Leninets radar, which has electronic and mechanic streering, and 2 R-73 and R-77 missiles. I can fly supersonic at altitude of just 100m automatically using terrain scanning radar. Its cockpit is large enough for pilits to be there more than 10 hours. I guess this is a unique asset so far......


So it is in nearly all ways inferior to the F-15E(let alone K or SG or even the old F-111F or FB-111A), yet in your world it's the Best, eh?

LOL......wow.

F-15SG: AESA radar, 12 ton max bombload(24k lbs), 62k lbs thrust and a max gross weight P/W ratio of 0.77:1!!!!!

In a real world operational AAW configuration(call it 60k pounds), with a full AAM load(4 AIM120, 4 AIM9x, 3 600gal tanks, and 3/4 internal fuel) it has a PW ratio of about 1.03:1!!!!

PS: That 4000km range is one way self-ferrying range, that IS NOT a combat range figure.

Captain Drunk
04 May 06,, 17:31
PS: That 4000km range is one way self-ferrying range, that IS NOT a combat range figure.

And the SR-71 without carrying any combat missiles had a combat range of only 1,400 km more, being 2,900 nm (5,400 km), hardly intercontinental :confused:

Bill
04 May 06,, 18:08
And the SR-71 without carrying any combat missiles had a combat range of only 1,400 km more, being 2,900 nm (5,400 km), hardly intercontinental :confused:

This is an accurate observation.

Now......compare the USAF tanker fleet with that of the Soviet Union.

The USAF fleet of the cold war era is what.....literally 1000% larger?

highsea
04 May 06,, 18:15
That 2,900nm is with a 10% reserve.

canoe
04 May 06,, 20:04
OK. I just reposted from the newspaper article. It may be wrong!
I don't have much information on it but will try to read more when get some time. So far I like it.

Am I right if I divide the combat RANGE by two to get estimation of combat RADIUS? In your figure it is actually by more than 2!

The combat ranges stated reflect the added weight and drag of external weapon stores. It also reflects that given the aircraft is designated for strike it will not be flying at optimal altitiude to conserve fuel. Aircraft flying at low altitude burn alot more fuel. The combat radius is generally the distance from its airfield that the aircraft can engage in combat action while still having enough fuel to get home.

Shadowsided
04 May 06,, 21:18
OK. I just reposted from the newspaper article. It may be wrong!
I don't have much information on it but will try to read more when get some time. So far I like it.

Am I right if I divide the combat RANGE by two to get estimation of combat RADIUS? In your figure it is actually by more than 2!
Congratulation your first source! You're making rpogress with backed up statements.!! Now you need to learn how to post links! :biggrin:

canoe
04 May 06,, 21:41
Congratulation your first source! You're making rpogress with backed up statements.!! Now you need to learn how to post links! :biggrin:

Cut the guy some slack, I'm sure it was just something he read in a news release.

Russian weapons manufactures frequently exaggerate or push the performance specs they release to the media outlets to the max. Its good advertising for them, their industry needs foreign sales to survive or they die. It doesn't happen so much in the States because your government provides your arms industries with enough cashflow they don't need foreign sales to survive.

Its simply good buisness from their perspective.

Garry
05 May 06,, 09:44
Cut the guy some slack, I'm sure it was just something he read in a news release.

Russian weapons manufactures frequently exaggerate or push the performance specs they release to the media outlets to the max. Its good advertising for them, their industry needs foreign sales to survive or they die. It doesn't happen so much in the States because your government provides your arms industries with enough cashflow they don't need foreign sales to survive.

Its simply good buisness from their perspective.

I went to Sukhoi site but found only Su-32.... (in english version I noticed there
one translation error - the translated maximum combat radius as maximum range. So in their table it is combat radius (1,100 km))
http://www.sukhoi.org/eng/planes/military/su32/lth/

Wikipedia is rather optimistic on Su-34 specs and they do exceed that of F-15SG (which should be same as F-15K?)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-34

If Wikipedia is at least close to their optimistic expectations, Snipe, then you are wrong regarding advantage of F-15SG in terms of range and load.

The maximum ferry range of F-15K (should be same for SG) is 3,900 - slightly less that that of Su-32 (or 34). For maximum bombload which you stated aircraft would have to have much less intenal fuel.... and hence much shorter range.

Look the maximum take off weight of Su-34 is larger by around 9 tons (45.100kg) while its empty weith is not known. If we assume it to be around that of Su-30KMI (24.900kg) meaning it can carry up to 20.2 tons of fuel and combat load.

http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/f15/f-15k/f15spec.htm

The same for F-15K (and SG) was 36.700 kg (maximum take off) and 20.411 kg (empty) meaning it can carry 16.3 tons of fuel and combat load. The difference is in favor of S-34 (wikipedia version :) vs F-15K (boeing site) unless we assume dramatically higher efficiency of engines and drag in Sukhoi.

OK. Having found all that I actually don't trust it..... probably Wikipedia is wrong..... I made some internet search and learned that each further modification has higher empty weitht in both F-15 and Flankers. So sources sometimes mess up different versions..... I guess.

I guess these two must have very close takeoff-empty weights and very close in terms of combat load..... a match. It can not be the 50% difference (12tons vs 8tons) as you stated. Knowing Sukhoi people I know - THEY NEVER RELEASE THEIR BIRDS INFERIOR TO USA ALTERNATIVE IN TERMS OF FLIGHT SPECS

hello
05 May 06,, 15:26
OK, here's a little Su-34 vs F-15E based on specs from GlobalSecurity.

F-15E:

Payload: 24,500lb
Combat Radius: 685nm, 790 miles, 1270km on internal.
Speed: M2.3-2.5, 1,650mph, 2655km/h
Weapons: All AG weapons in US inventory, 20mm cannon w. 512 rounds and upto 8 AMRAAMs & 4 SWs for self-defence and escort.
Price: $55 million per plane

Su-34:

Payoad: 8000kg, roughly 16000lb
Combat Radius: little less than 2000km seeing range is 4000km
Speed: M1.8, 1300mph, 1900km/h
Weapons:

1 GSh-30-1 30mm cannon with 150 rounds
R-27/R-73 AAMs
Kh-29T/Kh-31P/Kh-59M ASMs
bombs, rockets, drop tanks
ECM pods carried on twelve external points Su-37
14 x Air-to-Air missiles: AA-10, AA-11, AA-12

Price: $35 million per plane

F-15E has better speed, payload, weapons and maneuverability. Su-34 has better combat radius, AAMs and costs less. However, with F-22s supporting F-15Es, carrying less AAMs isn't a problem.

canoe
05 May 06,, 17:09
The combat range for the Su-34 is definately closer to 1000km, the stated value I found on the long table was 1,130km. That included external fuel tanks and about a half load of armament.

The Su-34 is roughly compariable to the F-111 I'm not sure why the wing loadout on the Su-34's is so low though, given the size of the aircraft and its engines I'd have expected it to carry more.

The F-15's are compariable. I'd say the F-15's have the edge in A2A whereas the Su-34's probably have more time on station and are a more effective bombing platform.

The saving grace for the F-15's imo is they have better avionics and they have a combination of extremely accurate GPS guided munitions and very accurate targeting pods. Avonics can be upgraded on both aircraft however.

highsea
05 May 06,, 17:25
...whereas the Su-34's probably have more time on station and are a more effective bombing platform.

The saving grace for the F-15's imo is they have better avionics and they have a combination of extremely accurate GPS guided munitions and very accurate targeting pods. Avonics can be upgraded on both aircraft however.This seems like a contradiction to me...The F-15 is capable of employing both GPS and laser guided munitions, where the Sukhoi is limited (AFAIK) to LGB's and dumb bombs.

I would argue that this makes the F-15 a more effective bombing platform, since it's not limited by visibility to hit the target, it can hit multiple targets simultaneously, and it can release JDAMs from standoff ranges.

Shadowsided
05 May 06,, 21:09
I went to Sukhoi site but found only Su-32.... (in english version I noticed there
one translation error - the translated maximum combat radius as maximum range. So in their table it is combat radius (1,100 km))
http://www.sukhoi.org/eng/planes/military/su32/lth/

Wikipedia is rather optimistic on Su-34 specs and they do exceed that of F-15SG (which should be same as F-15K?)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-34

If Wikipedia is at least close to their optimistic expectations, Snipe, then you are wrong regarding advantage of F-15SG in terms of range and load.

The maximum ferry range of F-15K (should be same for SG) is 3,900 - slightly less that that of Su-32 (or 34). For maximum bombload which you stated aircraft would have to have much less intenal fuel.... and hence much shorter range.

Look the maximum take off weight of Su-34 is larger by around 9 tons (45.100kg) while its empty weith is not known. If we assume it to be around that of Su-30KMI (24.900kg) meaning it can carry up to 20.2 tons of fuel and combat load.

http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/f15/f-15k/f15spec.htm

The same for F-15K (and SG) was 36.700 kg (maximum take off) and 20.411 kg (empty) meaning it can carry 16.3 tons of fuel and combat load. The difference is in favor of S-34 (wikipedia version :) vs F-15K (boeing site) unless we assume dramatically higher efficiency of engines and drag in Sukhoi.

OK. Having found all that I actually don't trust it..... probably Wikipedia is wrong..... I made some internet search and learned that each further modification has higher empty weitht in both F-15 and Flankers. So sources sometimes mess up different versions..... I guess.

I guess these two must have very close takeoff-empty weights and very close in terms of combat load..... a match. It can not be the 50% difference (12tons vs 8tons) as you stated. Knowing Sukhoi people I know - THEY NEVER RELEASE THEIR BIRDS INFERIOR TO USA ALTERNATIVE IN TERMS OF FLIGHT SPECS
Good job! Im not kidding.

canoe
05 May 06,, 22:15
This seems like a contradiction to me...The F-15 is capable of employing both GPS and laser guided munitions, where the Sukhoi is limited (AFAIK) to LGB's and dumb bombs.

I would argue that this makes the F-15 a more effective bombing platform, since it's not limited by visibility to hit the target, it can hit multiple targets simultaneously, and it can release JDAMs from standoff ranges.

I suppose I'm splitting hairs. But I was considering the aircraft platforms alone (without including avoinics and weapons). Obviously I agree if you include the American avoinics and precision guided munitions any Amercian aircraft will pick up a huge advantage. But in terms of just range, payload time on station and crew the Su-34 has some very positive aspects.

hello
06 May 06,, 08:11
How does the Fullback have a payload advantage? 16000lbs is about the same payload as the JSF A and C variants, which are light fighters. The F-15E has 24,500lbs payload. 3 of these can top a B-52. Oh yeah, and I forgot to say, both the F-15E and Su-34 have a two person crew. The F-15E has the pilot in front and WSO as a "backseater", similar to the F-14, while Su-34 has side-by-side seating configuration, resulting in the wide, flattened nose.

Garry
06 May 06,, 08:41
This seems like a contradiction to me...The F-15 is capable of employing both GPS and laser guided munitions, where the Sukhoi is limited (AFAIK) to LGB's and dumb bombs.

I would argue that this makes the F-15 a more effective bombing platform, since it's not limited by visibility to hit the target, it can hit multiple targets simultaneously, and it can release JDAMs from standoff ranges.

I think that GLONAS is operating already on Estern Hemisphere up to equator.... but there are no munitions created to use GLONAS guidance. At least I did not hear about it. Could you please comment how can SU-34 have HIGHER total payload but have less combat load and less radius? I guess global security org is comparing differents sets of data... While searching around I got impression that people mess up different versions of F-15 and Flankers..... Fron what I understoon F-15K and SG for example has MUCH HIGHER empty weight than first F-15C.... Same for Su-34 vs Su-27UBK. TOTAL PAYLOADS OF SU-34 AND F-15K / SG MUST BE ALMOST SIMILLAR. Meaning that any difference in COMBAT PAYLOAD and RANGE would be explained by tradeoff in either of them (more combat payload = less range and vice versa). F-15K AND SG HAVE SAMLE (slightly smaller) FERRY RANGE WITH SU-34. What do you think of that?

Hei Jgetty, can you give us your comment here?


The combat range for the Su-34 is definately closer to 1000km, the stated value I found on the long table was 1,130km. That included external fuel tanks and about a half load of armament.

The Su-34 is roughly compariable to the F-111 I'm not sure why the wing loadout on the Su-34's is so low though, given the size of the aircraft and its engines I'd have expected it to carry more.

The F-15's are compariable. I'd say the F-15's have the edge in A2A whereas the Su-34's probably have more time on station and are a more effective bombing platform.

The saving grace for the F-15's imo is they have better avionics and they have a combination of extremely accurate GPS guided munitions and very accurate targeting pods. Avonics can be upgraded on both aircraft however.

Agreed on RADIUS (sorry but I feel that some may mess up radius and one way range) but I got impression that it is 1,130km on INTERNAL FUEL. Will get PRESICE reply today on what load it can carry for 1,130km. As for comparison of combat load - 12tons for F-15K and SG would be VERY small combat radius. Both aricrafts are very close to each other in terms of take off weight and empty weight... unless we assume ABNORMALLY high difference in engine efficiency, or drag ration (which is unlikelly) they must have very close TOTAL payload.... However one may redistribute FUEL vs COMBAT LOAD.... So in case when F-15K takes 12tons it must have much less INTERNAL FUEL for that mission... If we add that take off normally consumes up to 15-20% of internal fuel we may expect it to have VERY VERY SMALL range with combat load of 12tons.

Garry
06 May 06,, 09:03
OK, here's a little Su-34 vs F-15E based on specs from GlobalSecurity.

F-15E:

Payload: 24,500lb
Combat Radius: 685nm, 790 miles, 1270km on internal.
Speed: M2.3-2.5, 1,650mph, 2655km/h
Weapons: All AG weapons in US inventory, 20mm cannon w. 512 rounds and upto 8 AMRAAMs & 4 SWs for self-defence and escort.
Price: $55 million per plane

Su-34:

Payoad: 8000kg, roughly 16000lb
Combat Radius: little less than 2000km seeing range is 4000km
Speed: M1.8, 1300mph, 1900km/h
Weapons:

1 GSh-30-1 30mm cannon with 150 rounds
R-27/R-73 AAMs
Kh-29T/Kh-31P/Kh-59M ASMs
bombs, rockets, drop tanks
ECM pods carried on twelve external points Su-37
14 x Air-to-Air missiles: AA-10, AA-11, AA-12

Price: $35 million per plane

F-15E has better speed, payload, weapons and maneuverability. Su-34 has better combat radius, AAMs and costs less. However, with F-22s supporting F-15Es, carrying less AAMs isn't a problem.



How does the Fullback have a payload advantage? 16000lbs is about the same payload as the JSF A and C variants, which are light fighters. The F-15E has 24,500lbs payload. 3 of these can top a B-52. Oh yeah, and I forgot to say, both the F-15E and Su-34 have a two person crew. The F-15E has the pilot in front and WSO as a "backseater", similar to the F-14, while Su-34 has side-by-side seating configuration, resulting in the wide, flattened nose.

In my view this is all are just wrong comparisons of wrong versions.

F-15E (K and SG) have SAME ferry range as SU-34. The have around SAME total load (maximum take off less empty weight). ANY DIFFERENCE IN COMBAT LOAD AND RANGE IS A RESULT OF TRADEOFF BETWEEN AMOUNT OF FUEL AND BOMBS.

There is alternative but less likelly explanation - F-15K and SG engines are consuming less fuel for ton/km or F-15K and SG have better aerodynamics and less drag.... I consider this UNLIKELLY

PS. I will get back to you regarding issue wheather Su-34 has TVC.... but even without that their maneuvrability is a same as F-15K

canoe
06 May 06,, 10:30
Agreed on RADIUS (sorry but I feel that some may mess up radius and one way range) but I got impression that it is 1,130km on INTERNAL FUEL. Will get PRESICE reply today on what load it can carry for 1,130km. As for comparison of combat load - 12tons for F-15K and SG would be VERY small combat radius. Both aricrafts are very close to each other in terms of take off weight and empty weight... unless we assume ABNORMALLY high difference in engine efficiency, or drag ration (which is unlikelly) they must have very close TOTAL payload.... However one may redistribute FUEL vs COMBAT LOAD.... So in case when F-15K takes 12tons it must have much less INTERNAL FUEL for that mission... If we add that take off normally consumes up to 15-20% of internal fuel we may expect it to have VERY VERY SMALL range with combat load of 12tons.

I beleive internal fuel doesn't count against external payload in either aircrafts case. External fuel however does, the more external fuel loaded the less payload can be carried. Its possible the F-15K may have more fuel efficent engines the Amercians have been moving that way for awhile with the F22 and 7E7 on the commercial side. I'd have to look into that though.

*update* (numbers taken from globalsecurity)
Current F-15E

Ferry range with conformal fuel tanks and 3 drop tanks in clean configuration: 5745 km
Range with just drop tanks: 4445 km

Combat radius armed with drop tanks? or CFT?: 1,853 km
Combat radus (fully armed) no external fuel: 1270 km

Looks like the Strike Eagle definately has more range especially on internal fuel. I'm not sure if it stores more fuel interally or the engines are just more fuel efficent.

13,123 lb (5952 kg) internal
21,645 lb (9818 kg) in two CFTs
up to three 610-US gal (2309-liter drop tanks)

Maybe you could check out the Su-34 and see how its fuel capacity compares, should tell you if its just carrying less fuel or if its engines use more gas.

Garry
06 May 06,, 12:27
I beleive internal fuel doesn't count against external payload in either aircrafts case. External fuel however does, the more external fuel loaded the less payload can be carried. Its possible the F-15K may have more fuel efficent engines the Amercians have been moving that way for awhile with the F22 and 7E7 on the commercial side. I'd have to look into that though.

*update* (numbers taken from globalsecurity)
Current F-15E

Ferry range with conformal fuel tanks and 3 drop tanks in clean configuration: 5745 km
Range with just drop tanks: 4445 km

Combat radius armed with drop tanks? or CFT?: 1,853 km
Combat radus (fully armed) no external fuel: 1270 km

Looks like the Strike Eagle definately has more range especially on internal fuel. I'm not sure if it stores more fuel interally or the engines are just more fuel efficent.

13,123 lb (5952 kg) internal
21,645 lb (9818 kg) in two CFTs
up to three 610-US gal (2309-liter drop tanks)

Maybe you could check out the Su-34 and see how its fuel capacity compares, should tell you if its just carrying less fuel or if its engines use more gas.

I got the figures from intenet now.... where such mess is in figures. I will give all the links which I viewed below and you will see some different estimations on all of them. What is sure is something wich Boeign and Sukhoi post on their web sites (though few). And thisi information gives that MAX take off less EMPTY weights are close. (For Sukhoi no data on Su-34 but on Su-32, and empty weight is not stated and estiated using MKI figure)
http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/f15/f-15k/f15spec.htm
http://www.sukhoi.org/eng/planes/military/su32/lth/

As for the influence of internal fueld I guess it still has importance... empty weight assumes no internal fuel. Even without drag, internal fueld takes some of the take off potential.

As for engines, I know that F-15SG engines are infereior in terms of fuel efficiency to AL-31F, from Sukhoi (probably not most objective source:) )

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-34
http://www.danshistory.com/su34.html
http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/su34/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-15K
http://www.answers.com/topic/f-15e-strike-eagle-1
http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/Frtypen/FRF-15K.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-15-specs.htm
http://www.military.cz/usa/air/in_service/aircraft/f15/f15_en.htm

see.... how many different figures for things like - range,..... weights and etc! So taking any of the sources other than Boeign and Sukhoi would be tricky

Bill
08 May 06,, 22:02
Wikipedia is rather optimistic on Su-34 specs and they do exceed that of F-15SG (which should be same as F-15K?)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-34

If Wikipedia is at least close to their optimistic expectations, Snipe, then you are wrong regarding advantage of F-15SG in terms of range and load.

The SG has more powerful and efficient GE engines than the K model, and is also significantly lighter.

Every model of F-15 since the E has had a max theoretical bombload of 24,000lbs and is rated for 9g sustained operations in aaw configuration.

When considering range it must be considered that the F-15(all models) typically mount 3x 600gal external tanks that almost double range vs listed internal fuel specifications, not to mention the massive fuel load that the CFTs can embark.

Bill
08 May 06,, 22:21
Fron what I understoon F-15K and SG for example has MUCH HIGHER empty weight than first F-15C

The F-15SG has switched(for the first time) to GE engines. The GE F110s are several hundred pounds lighter(each) than the PW F100s of previous eagle models. The F-15SG also has the newer APG-63(V)3 radar vs the APG-70 of the early E model or the APG-63(V)2 of the USAF's "AESA Eagles". The APG-63(V)3 radar antenna is about 250lbs lighter than those of previous models.

Another little known change that saved several hundred pounds vs the original eagle models was the OBOGS system that uses engine bleed air for oxygen generation vs the old system of maintaining several very heavy onboard oxygen tanks.

Also, the 'turkey feather' Panels on the sides of early Eagles were removed(and deleted in production models starting with the K). This was done to reduce maintenance time, but it also saved quite a lot of weight, probably at least 100lbs worth.

Also, the F-15SG most likely uses somewhat more composite materials than earlier models(if for no other reason than to save manufacturing costs vs obsolete 'old school' aluminum.). So whatever 'listed' weights are out there, it's a very safe bet that the SG is in actuality at least 800 or more lbs lighter than an 'original spec' F-15E, or even K, and probably about the same weight as a circa 1980 F-15C when first delivered.

jgetti
08 May 06,, 22:23
The SG has more powerful and efficient GE engines than the K model, and is also significantly lighter.

Every model of F-15 since the E has had a max theoretical bombload of 24,000lbs and is rated for 9g sustained operations in aaw configuration.

When considering range it must be considered that the F-15(all models) typically mount 3x 600gal external tanks that almost double range vs listed internal fuel specifications.

Also, depending on which CFT's are put on the aircraft (air-to-air or air-to-ground) the CFT's enhance performance. Naturally, the air-to-ground CFT's have more drag due to the additional weapons stations.

Shadowsided
08 May 06,, 22:37
Idk I'd say F117 or JSF due to thier surviveability and lethality. However this affects payload performance.

Garry
10 May 06,, 09:49
Also, depending on which CFT's are put on the aircraft (air-to-air or air-to-ground) the CFT's enhance performance. Naturally, the air-to-ground CFT's have more drag due to the additional weapons stations.

Hi Jgetti, I made search on internet and got so much contradicting specs for F-15K and Su-34 as I listed above. Probably every next model was getting heavier empty weight and larger total max take off weight..... and higher range. So analysts must have messed up specs from different versions resulting into lot of contradictions in load/weight data.

I feel that Su-34 is at least same in terms of load/range specifications. Unfortunatelly my source is in business trip and will come back only next week. Anyway Snipe points that there is no sense in taking F-15K as a proxy for F-15SG as the later has better engines, and fuel injection. You probably have data for both F-15SG and Su-34...... can you compare their range/load specs for us? What are your view on that?

jgetti
10 May 06,, 15:45
Hi Jgetti, I made search on internet and got so much contradicting specs for F-15K and Su-34 as I listed above. Probably every next model was getting heavier empty weight and larger total max take off weight..... and higher range. So analysts must have messed up specs from different versions resulting into lot of contradictions in load/weight data.

I feel that Su-34 is at least same in terms of load/range specifications. Unfortunatelly my source is in business trip and will come back only next week. Anyway Snipe points that there is no sense in taking F-15K as a proxy for F-15SG as the later has better engines, and fuel injection. You probably have data for both F-15SG and Su-34...... can you compare their range/load specs for us? What are your view on that?


Unfortunately at this point in the contract with Singapore, I cannot elaborate on technical specifications for the SG as nearly any such information at this point is considered a technical export, and is forbidden.

As far as the Su-34 is concerned, I haven't personally seen such information, at least no more than you can probably find on the web.

Garry
10 May 06,, 15:57
Unfortunately at this point in the contract with Singapore, I cannot elaborate on technical specifications for the SG as nearly any such information at this point is considered a technical export, and is forbidden.

As far as the Su-34 is concerned, I haven't personally seen such information, at least no more than you can probably find on the web.

Thanks Jgetti, I respect your professional integrity.

Doug97
18 May 06,, 15:25
Why no SU-25T?

Why do these idiotic polls never have all the choices?

hello
18 May 06,, 15:57
They only contain however much choices the thread starter knows. That's why I've never started a poll, cause I might leave out some choices making the poll incomplete.

Garry
18 May 06,, 18:32
I beleive internal fuel doesn't count against external payload in either aircrafts case. External fuel however does, the more external fuel loaded the less payload can be carried. Its possible the F-15K may have more fuel efficent engines the Amercians have been moving that way for awhile with the F22 and 7E7 on the commercial side. I'd have to look into that though.

*update* (numbers taken from globalsecurity)
Current F-15E

Ferry range with conformal fuel tanks and 3 drop tanks in clean configuration: 5745 km
Range with just drop tanks: 4445 km

Combat radius armed with drop tanks? or CFT?: 1,853 km
Combat radus (fully armed) no external fuel: 1270 km

Looks like the Strike Eagle definately has more range especially on internal fuel. I'm not sure if it stores more fuel interally or the engines are just more fuel efficent.

13,123 lb (5952 kg) internal
21,645 lb (9818 kg) in two CFTs
up to three 610-US gal (2309-liter drop tanks)

Maybe you could check out the Su-34 and see how its fuel capacity compares, should tell you if its just carrying less fuel or if its engines use more gas.

I checked Russian sites and come back with Su-34 specs. First of all Su-34 = Su-32FN = Su-32 = TB10

The spects of Su-34 Fullback is less than what you stated above for latest F-15E versions (though I had seen less figures in various sites). I checked the internal fuel and it turns that Fullback has more of that => latest Eagle must have efficiency of engines beter by at least TWICE (or data is misinterpreted or it has more internal fuel that you stated). The internal fuel of Fullback is 15,000 liters (around 11,800 kg)..... and it is enough for 4,500km.

So empty weight is 22,500 kg
Max take off weight is 45,100 kg
NORMAL take off weight of 39,000kg

Hence max payload is 45100-22500=22,600kg while normal payload is 39000-22500=16,500kg.
The INTERNAL fuel load is up to 11,800 kg – hence weapon load can wary from 4,700kg to 8,000kg. Besides that Su-34 cockpit is ARMORED by titanium plates making it heavier. Moreover it has got a room behind the seats for one pilot to stand up or sleep.

Maximum ferry range WITHOUT refueling is 4,500km, not 4,000km which was stated initially. Maximum ferry range with ONE in-flight refueling is 7,000km. Combat RADIUS without refueling is 1,130km.

Another difference of Su-34 to F-15E is that Fullback has capability to take off and land to bad run ways….. for that it sacrificed its maximum speed and part of the weight. As all Flankers Su-34 has got two radars – additional in the rear with capability to track and target missiles back. This is quite an important difference to all Eagle versions.


I got much of my figures from a friend and web sites. But again we have lots of contradicting data! I guess we will see them soon compared somewhere and it will be interesting to read!!!

Bill
28 May 06,, 18:52
The F-15SG has switched(for the first time) to GE engines. The GE F110s are several hundred pounds lighter(each) than the PW F100s of previous eagle models. The F-15SG also has the newer APG-63(V)3 radar vs the APG-70 of the early E model or the APG-63(V)2 of the USAF's "AESA Eagles". The APG-63(V)3 radar antenna is about 250lbs lighter than those of previous models.

Another little known change that saved several hundred pounds vs the original eagle models was the OBOGS system that uses engine bleed air for oxygen generation vs the old system of maintaining several very heavy onboard oxygen tanks.

Also, the 'turkey feather' Panels on the sides of early Eagles were removed(and deleted in production models starting with the K). This was done to reduce maintenance time, but it also saved quite a lot of weight, probably at least 100lbs worth.

Also, the F-15SG most likely uses somewhat more composite materials than earlier models(if for no other reason than to save manufacturing costs vs obsolete 'old school' aluminum.). So whatever 'listed' weights are out there, it's a very safe bet that the SG is in actuality at least 800 or more lbs lighter than an 'original spec' F-15E, or even K, and probably about the same weight as a circa 1980 F-15C when first delivered.


EDIT: Correction: the F-15K also uses GE engines, but at a lower thrust setting(29k max each)

resiak
29 May 06,, 02:25
Id have to go for the A-10 after what it did to the Iraqi ground forces in the gulfwar

nutter
06 Jun 06,, 18:31
What, no F16? :D

I'm actually semi-serious... versatile enough to launch most a/g weaponry, and agile enough to fight it's way out afterwards :D

edit:
Not serious as in suggesting it's THE strike aircraft. Just curious that it hasn't been brought up at all yet :)

Zaphael
06 Jun 06,, 19:26
What, no F16? :D

I'm actually semi-serious... versatile enough to launch most a/g weaponry, and agile enough to fight it's way out afterwards :D

edit:
Not serious as in suggesting it's THE strike aircraft. Just curious that it hasn't been brought up at all yet :)

I'll go with the F-15SG or any Strike Eagle variant over any variant of F-16 for the BEST strike aircraft nomination.

Good strike aircraft are always twin-engined. =)

Captain Drunk
09 Jun 06,, 13:26
I'd say just one plane : Su-32 FN :rolleyes:

Su-32"FN" was characterized by Sukhoi as a "specialized strike fighter" and "a reliable guardian of sea borders". It is, according to Western terminology, a "missionized reconnaissance-maritime-strike platform" intended for around the clock operations to search for, detect, classify, and then destroy, if necessary, waterborne or submarine targets. It is boldly advertised as the potential successor to the Su-24, EF-111A, S-3A, RF-4E, A-6E, EA-6A, Tornado GR4, and the F-15E, beating them all.

Garry
09 Jun 06,, 13:43
Id have to go for the A-10 after what it did to the Iraqi ground forces in the gulfwar

I guess it was discussed up in the thread that A-10 is not really a strike aircraft - it is a CAS. Am I right?

-{SpoonmaN}-
09 Jun 06,, 13:43
'missionised'. So why would you buy it if that mission doesn't matter to you? Or if you only have the budget for a certain number of birds and you can't afford to have one of them being optimised for one type of operation to the deterement of others?

Bill
09 Jun 06,, 18:33
I guess it was discussed up in the thread that A-10 is not really a strike aircraft - it is a CAS. Am I right?

If you were a grunt calling for an airstrike, what other plane would you rather have?

None.

Which is obviously why the A-10 is walking away with this poll. ;)

B.Smitty
09 Jun 06,, 21:05
If you were a grunt calling for an airstrike, what other plane would you rather have?

None.

Which is obviously why the A-10 is walking away with this poll. ;)

Dunno, a B-52 with a Sniper pod would be pretty nice too.

PubFather
09 Jun 06,, 21:56
Or


Poll: Which is the best dedicated strike/ground attack aircrafT?

B.Smitty
10 Jun 06,, 19:04
The B-52 is certainly a dedicated strike/ground attack aircraft.

It strikes targets, on the ground.

Dago
10 Jun 06,, 19:37
Or a AC-130 would be just as nice.

HistoricalDavid
10 Jun 06,, 19:52
Or a AC-130 would be just as nice.

Costs something like 10 times an A-10, and something like 10 times rarer.

I wonder what an AC-17 Badass Globemaster would be like? An M777 and GAU/8 at least should be feasible considering its size.

jgetti
19 Jun 06,, 23:21
Costs something like 10 times an A-10, and something like 10 times rarer.

I wonder what an AC-17 Badass Globemaster would be like? An M777 and GAU/8 at least should be feasible considering its size.


Several engineers here have fantasized about that. You could unleash some hellacious firepower!

nutter
25 Jun 06,, 04:00
By the way: F-111 isn't in service anymore.

*cough*

Australia raises it's hand... :D

Garry
28 Jun 06,, 08:23
I checked Russian sites and come back with Su-34 specs. First of all Su-34 = Su-32FN = Su-32 = TB10

The spects of Su-34 Fullback is less than what you stated above for latest F-15E versions (though I had seen less figures in various sites). I checked the internal fuel and it turns that Fullback has more of that => latest Eagle must have efficiency of engines beter by at least TWICE (or data is misinterpreted or it has more internal fuel that you stated). The internal fuel of Fullback is 15,000 liters (around 11,800 kg)..... and it is enough for 4,500km.

So empty weight is 22,500 kg
Max take off weight is 45,100 kg
NORMAL take off weight of 39,000kg

Hence max payload is 45100-22500=22,600kg while normal payload is 39000-22500=16,500kg.
The INTERNAL fuel load is up to 11,800 kg – hence weapon load can wary from 4,700kg to 8,000kg. Besides that Su-34 cockpit is ARMORED by titanium plates making it heavier. Moreover it has got a room behind the seats for one pilot to stand up or sleep.

Maximum ferry range WITHOUT refueling is 4,500km, not 4,000km which was stated initially. Maximum ferry range with ONE in-flight refueling is 7,000km. Combat RADIUS without refueling is 1,130km.

Another difference of Su-34 to F-15E is that Fullback has capability to take off and land to bad run ways….. for that it sacrificed its maximum speed and part of the weight. As all Flankers Su-34 has got two radars – additional in the rear with capability to track and target missiles back. This is quite an important difference to all Eagle versions.


I got much of my figures from a friend and web sites. But again we have lots of contradicting data! I guess we will see them soon compared somewhere and it will be interesting to read!!!

On weekends, met my good old friend. We talked a lot about aviation. He was participating on the tender to Singapore. So he clearly stated that SG version of Eagle has LESS payload with SAME internal fuel load than MKI flanker. He also stated that maximum weapons payload which was stated is not really practical for Eagle, range is then reduced dramatically to less than 1000km (less than 500km radius).

As for range he explained that MKI and SG had almost similar ferry range, though MKI had 100km surplus. He also explained that it is not practical to compare loaded aircraft as drag may vary significanly with different types of weapon load. Normal loads do not exist..... For example R-77 gives significant drag and would reduce range if many of this are loaded. He also outright declined idea that F-15SG engines have higher fuel efficiency. In his view, R-33D has problems with fuel consumption but not AL-31F series. We talked about comparison of AL-31F series vs GE F110 series. He admited that AL would require much earlier servicing in its current version (not 117C upgrade). But in terms of thrust AL-31F is much beter in terms of thrust per kg of the engine weight... He did not study any new developments but back in 2004 F-15SG did not have any stated advantage in fuel efficiency. They were at par, but SG would have longer period until first engine repair.

As for the Su-34/32FN he knows less about them, as it was done by different project team. He just learned that fuel efficiency was core in that aircraft in exchange for less thrust much less speed. They made a trade off. Also no TVC as it adds to weight but not that required for bomber. In his personal view additional armor on Su-34 is a waste of weight reserve. He believes that - either aircraft is CAS..... or it is a bomber. It can not be both..... hence there is no need to add armor to the cockpit of a bomber, which would take its missions from high altitude.

So that is basically all.

Archer
28 Jun 06,, 10:21
Did he mention anything about avionics, ie MKI radar etc? Would be interesting to hear.

jgetti
28 Jun 06,, 13:55
As for range he explained that MKI and SG had almost similar ferry range, though MKI had 100km surplus.


I'd disagree.

Garry
28 Jun 06,, 14:33
I'd disagree.

I know what you mean. I also pointed to this problem. And I got reply that this is mismatch in classification.

When Sukhoi states its ferry range it assumes INTERNAL fuel. When Boieng states ferry range it is with additional tanks. In terms of internal fuel MKI has more of that inside and its engine is on par in terms of fuel efficiency.

Is this correct?


Did he mention anything about avionics, ie MKI radar etc? Would be interesting to hear.

Yes but this completelly different story!

In general he loves his bird and probably we are both not that objective to it. Still nobody proven to me with facts that it is crap!

Zaphael
28 Jun 06,, 18:16
Woah. Has the MKI started to carry external fuel tanks already? Heh, Im kinda outdated in this. Last i recalled, flankers n fulcrums didn carry external fuel tanks. Any information off any site i can read up abt the flanker's external fuel tanks?

Well the strike eagle/ F-15Sg, carries external fuel tanks cos most of the internal space is stuffed with electronics n stuff. Hence, additional fuel has to go into the CFTs and the external fuel tanks.

Garry
29 Jun 06,, 07:23
Woah. Has the MKI started to carry external fuel tanks already? Heh, Im kinda outdated in this. Last i recalled, flankers n fulcrums didn carry external fuel tanks. Any information off any site i can read up abt the flanker's external fuel tanks?

Well the strike eagle/ F-15Sg, carries external fuel tanks cos most of the internal space is stuffed with electronics n stuff. Hence, additional fuel has to go into the CFTs and the external fuel tanks.

Hi Zahael, both MKI and MiG-29M2 can carry external fuel tank not CFT, but drop tanks.

The twist here in fuel configuration. Canoe was referring to this, but then I did not understood then where is difference.

MKI carries INTERNALLY between 5270kg and 9640kg of fuel, when it reduces fuel it can carry UP TO 8000kg of weapons.

Wraith601
29 Jun 06,, 08:24
Is the F-15SG a multirole fighter like the F-15E, or does it favor strike or air superiority?

Garry
29 Jun 06,, 10:15
Is the F-15SG a multirole fighter like the F-15E, or does it favor strike or air superiority?

As far as I understood F-15SG is a version close to F-15K. Jgetti would be more competent to reply.

However I now understand that F-15SG does not have any advantage in terms of engine efficiency nor payload over Su-34. Twist was in CFT fuel.

Su-34 and F-15SG are very close in terms of TOTAL PAYLOAD (Su-34 has slighly more), while F-15SG has 2,000 higher TOTAL PAYLOAD than MKI, and less than Su-35 prototype. That is because MKI has large amount of steel parts while F-15SG has larger share made of titanium, while Su-32/34 and Su-35 which were redesigned in mid-1990-es have larger share of titanium.

OK. Back to the issue. Su-34 has INTERNAL fuel of 11800kg and can cary another 2,000 in drop tanks. F-15SG carries 6000kg INTERNALLY and UP TO 3000kg in CFT (this figure is given by my source - Canoe stated up to 9818 kg in CFT). If this figures correct => Su-34 has more internal fuel than F-15SG has internal + CFT.

When Snipe pointed 12 tons combat load this assumed F-15SG having NO CFT and only part of its internal fuel => extremelly low range/radius. CFT installed combat load should be much lower.

So, this aircraft are actually match in basic load/range parameters but SG has HIGHER flexibility in this trade off. It can vary its weapon load UP TO 12tons, against 8 tons in Su-34. It has LESS maximum fuel load comared to Su-34 which can have total fuel of almost 14tons (with drop tanks).

In terms of engines..... I know so few that would be interested to hear your oppinion on AL-31F vs GE-F110-200

ps. Jgetty please correct me if I made wrong statemets or mistakes!

jgetti
29 Jun 06,, 16:22
Is the F-15SG a multirole fighter like the F-15E, or does it favor strike or air superiority?

All E variants are multi-role aircraft.

Internal fuel is 5952kg, and external fuel totals 9818 kg (4423kg in CFT's and 5395 kg in drop tanks).

Johnekgun
29 Jun 06,, 16:50
The A-4 was a pretty good strike platform in its day. It is still in use by two navies that I can remember off the top of my head. Its been said it could carry its wieght in bombs. I am not sure about that but it surely carried alot of bombs ( both smart and dumb varieties ) for such a light aircraft.

The A-1 Skyraider outlined in design by the same man that led the design team for the A-4 Skyhawk was also a pretty good strike platform for a prop job.

Garry
29 Jun 06,, 16:53
All E variants are multi-role aircraft.

Internal fuel is 5952kg, and external fuel totals 9818 kg (4423kg in CFT's and 5395 kg in drop tanks).

Then F-15SG would have more MAXIMUM FUEL and MAXIMUM LOAD giving wider trade off.

Su-34 TOTAL MAXIMUM fuel is 13800 kg = (INTERNAL 11800 + DROP tanks 2000)

F-15SG TOTAL MAXIMUM fuel is 15770 kg = (INTERNAL 5352+ CFT 4423+ DROP tanks 5395)

Engines are comparable in terms of fuel efficiency. So it is matter of fuel loaded instead of weapons.

Hence in line with above the two are a match for range/load parameters, with F-15 having wider range in fuel vs load tradeoff.

Is it now objective estimation on this two parameters?

Zaphael
29 Jun 06,, 18:20
Frankly speaking, i would never pick the Su-34 over the F-15SG no matter what u say. The aircraft we operate are majority from USA or NATO, hence all our weapons and technologies were to be integrated with all our aircraft that way.

There is no way we could load a JDAM, or even AMRAAM on the Su-34. Acquiring an Su would be stabbing ourselves in our logistics operations for the airforce. And its the logistics that keep our a/c in the air.

So as far as I'm concerned, the F-15SG is the best strike fighter.

SRB
29 Jun 06,, 23:08
If there is in poll A-10 where is Su-25 or upgrade version Su-39 which is today best CAS plane in world especially because A-10 is not longer in production.
If Su-39 use DU rounds it can be good tank buster but it is guided missile tank buster.
Simple if there is A-10 than there must be Su-39 :mad: .

Garry
03 Jul 06,, 07:00
Frankly speaking, i would never pick the Su-34 over the F-15SG no matter what u say. The aircraft we operate are majority from USA or NATO, hence all our weapons and technologies were to be integrated with all our aircraft that way.

There is no way we could load a JDAM, or even AMRAAM on the Su-34. Acquiring an Su would be stabbing ourselves in our logistics operations for the airforce. And its the logistics that keep our a/c in the air.

So as far as I'm concerned, the F-15SG is the best strike fighter.

Yes, that is why F-15SG was priced twice more. Once you get yourself a strategic supplier switching cost becomes too high.... hence this strategic supplier can price you up. Moreover.... US would support Singapore in case of agression while Russia would be just happy to sell weapons to both Singapore and Malaisia.

usplanefan67
18 Jul 06,, 10:26
I think you should have put the F-35 JSF on the poll.

I think he was shooting for aircraft in service

A-10 above all else.. :) :biggrin:

Captain Drunk
19 Jul 06,, 16:04
Simple if there is A-10 than there must be Su-39 :mad: .

The Yak 141 would be better than them both.

FORCEXXI
28 Jul 06,, 16:55
Out of that list, easily the A-10. A nice GAU-8 cannon, and JDAM capability. Carries full-sprectrum of weapons.

I am quite surprised the F-15E wasn't mentioned. The F-15E is probably the better strike aircraft out of all of them.

master_fx
29 Jul 06,, 16:59
Tornado Gr.4!

PubFather
29 Jul 06,, 22:50
Are you insane?? GR4 is a decent bird but by no means anything special - its a medicore bomb truck these days - due to the conversion from low-level penetrator to medium level bomber....

usplanefan67
21 Aug 06,, 08:11
Are you insane?? GR4 is a decent bird but by no means anything special - its a medicore bomb truck these days - due to the conversion from low-level penetrator to medium level bomber....


I may sound stupid but whats a GR4???

Bill
21 Aug 06,, 17:53
A Tornado IDS.

troung
23 Aug 06,, 05:56
A-10 Warthog, MiG-27, SEPECAT Jaguar, Mirage V, Tornado Gr.4

Sorta apples and oranges with the MiG-27, Jaguar and Mirage-5 being more in the same class then the A-10 and Tornado.

But hell the A-10 is the best. It is not fair to class the others with the A-10.

proeurope
24 Aug 06,, 13:08
being british I should have gone for the jaguar, but the A-10,
is just to good, there was a story in the first gulf war that an A-10
was hit by two iraqi anti-aircraft missiles in the same wing and still managed to fly to safety

Bill
26 Aug 06,, 20:09
This one took a sam direct hit. SA-6 i think it was...

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b343/m21sniper/A10samdirecthit.jpg

Il Duce
26 Aug 06,, 23:19
Idiots putting down Russian aircraft which have proven to be not only as good as those of the West but in many cases superior. Bloody Americans think only they can build excellent aircraft yet the Soviets were world-beaters in this area. Some of their warplanes lacked some sophisticated electronics on purpose. They were too costly.

Il Duce
26 Aug 06,, 23:21
This one took a sam direct hit. SA-6 i think it was...

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b343/m21sniper/A10samdirecthit.jpg

Impossible. The SA-6 dates back to the 1973 Yom Kippur War. That was a SAM which literally destroyed the entire IAF on its own. You clearly have not a clue what it is you are talking about. I would suggest silence on your part in future.

usplanefan67
27 Aug 06,, 04:01
A Tornado IDS.

ok Thanks

Bill
27 Aug 06,, 07:28
Idiots putting down Russian aircraft which have proven to be not only as good as those of the West but in many cases superior. Bloody Americans think only they can build excellent aircraft yet the Soviets were world-beaters in this area. Some of their warplanes lacked some sophisticated electronics on purpose. They were too costly.

Sure hasn't worked out that way in combat Comrade "Banned in seven posts".


Impossible. The SA-6 dates back to the 1973 Yom Kippur War. That was a SAM which literally destroyed the entire IAF on its own. You clearly have not a clue what it is you are talking about. I would suggest silence on your part in future.

What's impossible is for you to retort my next observation...

You're a twit... :)

sukhoi
02 Oct 06,, 20:11
Hold on a sec.

Btw where is Sukhoi Su-25 Frogot in that Poll:frown: . The Su25 was a good apable attack, close air support, and anti-tank aircraft designed which is comparable to the A-10 Thunderbolt II

gunnut
04 Jan 07,, 00:10
These 5 planes do different things. It's really not possible to say which one is the best.

A-10 can probably take the type of punishment which will bring down the other 4, but it's not good at deep penetration raids like the Tornado. And A-10 is also unique in that it's the only dedicated tankbuster out of the 5. It's built for loitering.

Tornado is built for deep penetration raids, hence its unique terrain following radar and inertial guidance system.

Mig-27, Mirage V, and Jaguar are more like interdiction bombers, designed for hitting army formations and support columns.

bfng3569
04 Jan 07,, 19:31
Oh how i miss the F-111

glyn
04 Jan 07,, 19:45
Oh how i miss the F-111

After an inauspicious beginning the type developed into the finest of its age. I saw the Australian F-111 at the Wanaka display last year. How can the RAAF find a replacement that can do all the Aardvaark did?

Ruskiy
04 Jan 07,, 20:05
Where's my dear SU-25? :frown:
It's the best of all the listings above (in vote) but it's not mentioned...

gunnut
04 Jan 07,, 20:13
Where's my dear SU-25? :frown:
It's the best of all the listings above (in vote) but it's not mentioned...

I think the SU-25 is in the same class as the A-10. Cheap, flies low and slow, effective at killing targets of opportunity, but not really made for battlefield interdiction and deep strike missions.

Ruskiy
05 Jan 07,, 05:26
I think the SU-25 is in the same class as the A-10. Cheap, flies low and slow, effective at killing targets of opportunity, but not really made for battlefield interdiction and deep strike missions.

Yes, but SU-25 is aslo armored aircraft.

Jimmy
05 Jan 07,, 15:31
Yes, but SU-25 is aslo armored aircraft.

I think if the A-10 is in the list, the Su-25 should be also...but the poll is just too vague here. If we're talking CAS, that's one thing. If we're talking deep strike, that's completely different, and a completely different set of aircraft.

Stan187
05 Jan 07,, 20:31
Yes, but SU-25 is aslo armored aircraft.

And the A-10 isn't armored?

Ruskiy
06 Jan 07,, 00:24
And the A-10 isn't armored?

I don't know, but the info I read about SU-25 on Sukhoi website seems quite good for an old aircraft.

Jimmy
06 Jan 07,, 05:25
Well, they're not going to advertise something they built as a piece of crap, even if it is.

I'm not saying the Frogfoot sucks, at all. Its certainly capable of doing its job. I think the A-10 is superior, but the Su-25 isnt really a slouch.

Shipwreck
06 Jan 07,, 13:55
Well, they're not going to advertise something they built as a piece of crap, even if it is.

:biggrin:

Shipwreck
06 Jan 07,, 18:18
wrong place.

Mod delete please.

usplanefan67
14 Jan 07,, 08:02
I suppose I'm splitting hairs. But I was considering the aircraft platforms alone (without including avoinics and weapons). Obviously I agree if you include the American avoinics and precision guided munitions any Amercian aircraft will pick up a huge advantage. But in terms of just range, payload time on station and crew the Su-34 has some very positive aspects.


Then why even do it, the SR-71 had enormous range but wouldnt have been worth anything on a bombing run. My vote would go to the A-10 while it lacks in looks it sure can carry alot of destruction and then hang around to make sur ethe job is done.:biggrin:

Ruskiy
01 Mar 07,, 20:14
Well, they're not going to advertise something they built as a piece of crap, even if it is.

I'm not saying the Frogfoot sucks, at all. Its certainly capable of doing its job. I think the A-10 is superior, but the Su-25 isnt really a slouch.

Isn't A-10 build some time later than SU-25? If the plane is yanger it (in most of the times) means it have something better. My point is that SU-25 was a "pioneer" in strike aircrafts and A-10 came on the stage later.

BD1
01 Mar 07,, 21:10
No vice versa : A-10 - first flight 1972, entered service 1977 ; Su-25 - 1975, service entry 1981

GGTharos
01 Mar 07,, 23:36
A-10 and Su-25 do not fulfill the same role - the A-10's role is to kill tanks and mechanized infantry to a large degree.

The Su-25's role is to attakc infantry positions and light vehicles.

Neither is a strike aircraft, either - they are both CAS aircraft.

If you want a good strike aircraft, look the way of the F-15E and Su-32/34 or one of the modern Su-30 versions.

Ruskiy
02 Mar 07,, 00:05
Ok, I will look for them =)

Glosters UK
17 Mar 07,, 11:42
The A10 and S25 are indeed both very capable aircraft however apart from the same old better western avionics story the Su25 is cabable of higher speeds just under mach 1 where as the A10 is rather alot slower that that!

Obvioulsy it does not have the cannon that the A10 has but does it need it??

I think that both aircraft are pretty close in capabilities and should both indeed be on the list.

(plus it looks better than the A10)

GAU-8
12 Apr 07,, 17:30
...where as the A10 is rather alot slower that that!

Obvioulsy it does not have the cannon that the A10 has but does it need it??

I think that both aircraft are pretty close in capabilities and should both indeed be on the list.

(plus it looks better than the A10)

YouTube - A-10 "Warthogs from hell" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJSk2Xc3Eq4)

When I flew the A-10, I found the option of having the gun quite handy. It can be employed against several types of targets. You don't always know what type of target you're going to end up engaging. (In spite of excellent intelligence:cool: ) The gun gives the A-10 versatility.

Flying the A-10, I found the aircraft performance to be quite limited. Coming from the F-4, I missed the speed. Given the choice, I'd take speed over armor.

From the list and given how the A-10 has been used, I'd vote for The Hog.

.02

Stan187
12 Apr 07,, 21:50
YouTube - A-10 "Warthogs from hell" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJSk2Xc3Eq4)

When I flew the A-10, I found the option of having the gun quite handy. It can be employed against several types of targets. You don't always know what type of target you're going to end up engaging. (In spite of excellent intelligence:cool: ) The gun gives the A-10 versatility.

Flying the A-10, I found the aircraft performance to be quite limited. Coming from the F-4, I missed the speed. Given the choice, I'd take speed over armor.

From the list and given how the A-10 has been used, I'd vote for The Hog.

.02

I guess speed is more or less a bonus rather than complete necessity under complete air dominance?;)

glyn
12 Apr 07,, 23:28
I guess speed is more or less a bonus rather than complete necessity under complete air dominance?;)


The guys on the ground rather unsportingly have a tendency to retaliate. They can hold a slow mover in their sights for longer periods than they could with a regular mud-mover. Where the A-10 scores is in its armour - something the mud-mover doesn't have.

JMH
17 Apr 07,, 05:17
The F-117 Nighthawk when used at night would be the best ground attack aircraft, for stealth and accuracy. In regards to firpower and survivability the A-10 Warthog would be the best all-round ground attack aircraft when used in daytime operations.

Big K
17 Apr 07,, 14:13
i'll take Tornado from this list...

glyn
17 Apr 07,, 17:54
The F-117 Nighthawk when used at night would be the best ground attack aircraft, for stealth and accuracy. In regards to firpower and survivability the A-10 Warthog would be the best all-round ground attack aircraft when used in daytime operations.

In spite of the designation it has carried since being introduced to an astonished world, the soon - to - be - retired F-117 is not a fighter. It is a miniature bomber optimised for special nocturnal tasks. It is not a ground attack aircraft. I have a lot of time for the proven abilities of the Franco-British Jaguar.

Big K
19 Apr 07,, 07:50
In spite of the designation it has carried since being introduced to an astonished world, the soon - to - be - retired F-117 is not a fighter. It is a miniature bomber optimised for special nocturnal tasks. It is not a ground attack aircraft. I have a lot of time for the proven abilities of the Franco-British Jaguar.

glyn :) what about Tornado?? isnt it good enough?

glyn
19 Apr 07,, 10:05
glyn :) what about Tornado?? isnt it good enough?


Well, it does the job, but it should be remembered that the original design was for a machine that could do two jobs, namely ground attack and as a fighter. The Jaguar on the other hand was optimised for the single job of ground attack, and generally you find that a specialist tool does its job more effectively than a multi-purpose tool. There is plenty of airframe life remaining on the Jaguar. The decision to retire it is purely a political one.

Big K
19 Apr 07,, 10:24
Well, it does the job, but it should be remembered that the original design was for a machine that could do two jobs, namely ground attack and as a fighter. The Jaguar on the other hand was optimised for the single job of ground attack, and generally you find that a specialist tool does its job more effectively than a multi-purpose tool. There is plenty of airframe life remaining on the Jaguar. The decision to retire it is purely a political one.

ok. :) thanks for info. than i'll take Sepecat Jaguar please :biggrin: with his upper wing pylons?

hello
02 Jun 07,, 19:56
The upper-wing pylons are for Sidewinders - not a2g weapons. It would be rather weird to flip over and drop bombs... and keeping bulky a2g weapons on those pylons would surely destroy maneuverability.

texasjohn
03 Jun 07,, 05:08
"The upper-wing pylons are for Sidewinders" - I wonder if any other aircraft has come up with this idea. Anyone? very curious

glyn
23 Jun 08,, 10:29
"The upper-wing pylons are for Sidewinders" - I wonder if any other aircraft has come up with this idea. Anyone? very curious

Consider the fact that there have been fighters with overwing fuel tanks! The EE/BAC Lightning had them. Needs must when the Devil drives!

obrescia
23 Jun 08,, 18:57
So, which aircraft do you guys feel is the best ground attack/strike aircraft? gotta be the F-15E, but from your list it would have to be Tornado (carries stuff like the JP233 runway denial pod).:eek:

Skywatcher
24 Jun 08,, 05:37
Well, I personally prefer the A-10 since the thing is so darn survivable (and you gotta love the 30mm Avenger gatling cannon).

Granted, I'm thinking of strike as being closer to interdiction and CAS style missions right now.

obrescia
24 Jun 08,, 06:33
Well, I personally prefer the A-10 since the thing is so darn survivable (and you gotta love the 30mm Avenger gatling cannon).

Granted, I'm thinking of strike as being closer to interdiction and CAS style missions right now. Always loved the A-10! Nothing better in the weeds!! An amazing airplane! Brilliant straight wing, twin tail, quiet spaced-engines, crazy gun, semi-recessed wheels (for belly landings) on & on & on. Brilliant!!

Chunder
01 Sep 08,, 11:32
There are different types of Strike, and what they do.

There's Tactical Strike (mostly deep strike) in the true meaning of the word.

These are C&C, Strategic weapons Caches some airfields, and other areas that are of high defensive interest. Places that are now preferable to use cruise missiles and B-2's on. But they arn't on the list.

And to the fanboy that so early asserted the F-111 is no longer in operation, what have you been smoking?

So in Strategic strike, excluding the B2, You have:
The Eagle, The Aardvaark, The Tornado, The Su-24 (& 34) pushing it, Mirage IV and Mirage 2000, the F-117, when people are going to learn that it's not a fighter is beyond me, despite there being COPIOUS amounts of educational material available to that effect is beyond me.

OF course any ground attack aircraft is can perform strike, it's however the ones INTENDED to perform that function.

When you looks at it, the F-111's days were numbered when the F-117 entered service, and then totally dead when the Strike eagle came out... And actually - the F-22 with JDAM's can do tactical strike, and the F-35 will also be suited to the role.

JA Boomer
02 Sep 08,, 04:51
There are different types of Strike, and what they do.

While I agree with this, my interpretation of the different types may be somewhat different. I would consider strategic bombing the targeting of civilian, industrial, and military complexes within a municipal setting. Tactical bombing is the targeting of individual military targets on the battlefield itself. Tactical bombing can be divided into air interdiction tasks (bombing well away from friendly ground forces) and close air support (bombing in proximity to and usually directed by friendly ground forces). Interdiction tasks can further be split up into attack and strike roles, where strike missions have a predetermined target and attack missions are search/seek and destroy type missions. Various branches and air forces have used different designations/nomenclature for these roles over the years; this is just my general understanding.

As for the best, I would consider the A-10C Thunderbolt II by far the best close air support tactical bomber in the world. The best strike aircraft is a split for me between the F-15E Strike Eagle and the F-111 Aardvark. The Aardvark gets the nod do to its speed, payload, range, and mission capabilities (high speed dash / low level penetration). While the F-15E carries a lesser payload and cannot fly as far, it does have a formidable air-to-air capability, making it a truly multi-role tactical fighter. The Su-34 may have a case here, but as so few have been produced and not seen much 'real world' action, they take a back seat. In the attack profile, I think it is a virtual dead heat between many current fighter types included but not limited to the F-16, F-15E, F/A-18E/F, Rafale, Gripen, and maybe a Mirage type.


When you looks at it, the F-111's days were numbered when the F-117 entered service

Don't agree with this at all. The F-117A entered service in the early 80's and the F-111 didn't begin retirement until after the Cold War ended as I recall, and at the wishes of Russian arms treaties at that.

The strike/interdiction mission of the F-111 called for a low-level high speed airplane carrying a significant payload a large distance. This is in contrast to the two 2000lb bombs carried by the F-117A on its first day of war, high value target tactical bomber mission.

Chunder
02 Sep 08,, 12:15
Don't agree with this at all. The F-117A entered service in the early 80's and the F-111 didn't begin retirement until after the Cold War ended as I recall, and at the wishes of Russian arms treaties at that.

The strike/interdiction mission of the F-111 called for a low-level high speed airplane carrying a significant payload a large distance. This is in contrast to the two 2000lb bombs carried by the F-117A on its first day of war, high value target tactical bomber mission.

That may be true, but the nature of warfare and the way in which it could be undertaken have changed dramatically. For the F-111 it was TFR, and quite a few bombs or one big one. For the F-117 it was pure stealth and precision, so to me, they are exactly the same roles existing in a different era. Both are very much a First day of war aircraft without question. SAC had the F-111 tasked with just such missions.

This is completely different to the era & politics on which the Tornado was built for instance, or the Su-24 was built, and priorities and concepts and capabilities of technology.

Both obviously were designed as penetrators of hotly contested airspace and air defence networks, both were tasked with targets of high military interest. The A-10 was not, it was built to blow up tanks in the 70's... what it's capable of now is completely irrevelant to it's designed role (I read the whole 'team' argument before). If you start talking about the A-10 being a capable killer, then one must include things like the apache, the Cobra etc. it may be something considered in little old Iraq, but wasn't in Afghanistan, or during the cold war, where anything involving significant transit times, credible defence network and opposing air armadas were a very real reality. It was to stop hordes of attackung tanks period. Not to penetrate soviet airspace and knock out C&C. To insinuate it is, completely ignores the way air wars are planned, and envelopes of capability are exploited to acheive overall desireable effect. Where these overlap is essentially what everyone was bored reading about between smitty and another poster I forget now, and neither were both incorrect or correct.

Tactical strike aircraft of the nature of the F-15E, F-111, F-117, Tornado (Tornado unfortunately for it was usually accompaneid by a buccaneer) SU-24 & 34 (bit of a question mark there) are. The fallacy that the Russians with espionaged radar technology couldn't detect a bloody fat arse straight wing with huge turbofans and a great big metal gun flying at falcon speed with look down shoot down radars developed in an attempt to stop all the low level interdiction stuff doesn't really cut it.

It was only a question of how long after the F-117 was introduced that different approaches to strike were looked at.

There's no doubt that nothing beats the firepower of an A-10 foward of the approaching contested lines, That type of area is the domain of it, the skyraider, and the tempest/typhoon.

Personally, for the era and technological acheivement some are very potent machines indeed.

In it's time the f-111 went from a jack of all trades to a specialist, and it carried a **** load of bombs, very very fast and very very low... It was undoubtably the king of speed in the weeds.

The F-117 Prooved the USAF had the capability to keep something under complete raps, then use it with absolute impunity in it's earlier days just meters above the heads of AAA, and SAM crews... Now, that was a credit... however credit can also go to the serbs who figured a way around that due to complacency in setting egress routes.

The F-15E for it's technology and integration and commonality and comparitive cheapness compared to the F-111, also get's high marks, It's the USAF's F-18 but much more potent.

The A-10 has a niche all of it's own. But your not going to fly it into the zone of fire of any surface fleet for example, or the Moscow defence network to bomb some C&C.

JA Boomer
03 Sep 08,, 00:30
That may be true

Thanks :)


so to me, they are exactly the same roles existing in a different era. Both are very much a First day of war aircraft without question. SAC had the F-111 tasked with just such missions.

Again, dissagree...if you look at the roles performed by operational F-111 squadrons since the 70's, I wouldn't call it a first day of war aircraft. It may have performed that role at times, but it was not focused on that mission like the F-117A was.


The A-10 was not, it was built to blow up tanks in the 70's... what it's capable of now is completely irrevelant to it's designed role (I read the whole 'team' argument before). If you start talking about the A-10 being a capable killer, then one must include things like the apache, the Cobra etc. it may be something considered in little old Iraq, but wasn't in Afghanistan, or during the cold war, where anything involving significant transit times, credible defence network and opposing air armadas were a very real reality. It was to stop hordes of attackung tanks period. Not to penetrate soviet airspace and knock out C&C. To insinuate it is, completely ignores the way air wars are planned, and envelopes of capability are exploited to acheive overall desireable effect. Where these overlap is essentially what everyone was bored reading about between smitty and another poster I forget now, and neither were both incorrect or correct.

???No idea who your replying to, or if you just threw that out there.


Tactical strike aircraft of the nature of the F-15E, F-111, F-117, Tornado (Tornado unfortunately for it was usually accompaneid by a buccaneer) SU-24 & 34 (bit of a question mark there) are. The fallacy that the Russians with espionaged radar technology couldn't detect a bloody fat arse straight wing with huge turbofans and a great big metal gun flying at falcon speed with look down shoot down radars developed in an attempt to stop all the low level interdiction stuff doesn't really cut it.

Huh?

Stitch
03 Sep 08,, 01:33
Always loved the A-10! Nothing better in the weeds!! An amazing airplane! Brilliant straight wing, twin tail, quiet spaced-engines, crazy gun, semi-recessed wheels (for belly landings) on & on & on. Brilliant!!

You should read an article in the semi-latest issue of Smithsonian Air & Space Magazine; one of the lines spoken by one of the interviewees was: 'Sensing my anxiety, the 24-year-old lieutenant adds, “A-10s are rippin’ up here right now for CAS work, Rashman’s already got ’em cleared. Hope you get to see some gun runs. You haven’t lived till you’ve seen an A-10 hit a position with that 30-mm rotary gun. And tighten your helmet. Looks loose.”'

Go here (http://www.airspacemag.com/military-aviation/Control_the_Air.html?c=y&page=1) for the complete article.

Chunder
03 Sep 08,, 06:13
Thanks :)



Again, dissagree...if you look at the roles performed by operational F-111 squadrons since the 70's, I wouldn't call it a first day of war aircraft. It may have performed that role at times, but it was not focused on that mission like the F-117A was.


Are you disagreeing for the sake of Disagreeing, SAC foward deployed it's F-111's for just this reason, And as was, it was the RAAF's First Day of War aircraft quite clearly. Now the F-111 did crossover, much like the Strike eagle but not like the strike eagle can perform.Nor did the F-117 exist during SAC's OoB during F-111's tasking. Certainly El-Dorado Canyon however still prooves that point. Whenever your tasked with Nukes, you are a first day aircraft... which begs the question, what else was at that time tasked with penetration which wasn't a strategic bomber.



???No idea who your replying to, or if you just threw that out there.


Im replying to the concept of tactical strike. This threads title is Best strike aircraft. I'm clearly putting across what I have always taken to be different concepts of strike, and also what aircraft were optimised for it.



Huh?

Again, as per above post.

I think we' have 'crossed swords' here, but I am making the point that, in considering the 'best' strike aircraft one has to consider the era in which it existed, what it set out to perform and whether it performed it's intended role adequately. Thats a huge word, adequately.

It's also something planners look at when setting up operational taskings for air wars... can the platform adequately perform the task assigned to it.

A-10's arn't going to be sent to Moscow for instance.

JA Boomer
03 Sep 08,, 06:59
I think we' have 'crossed swords' here, but I am making the point that, in considering the 'best' strike aircraft one has to consider the era in which it existed, what it set out to perform and whether it performed it's intended role adequately. Thats a huge word, adequately.

We have crossed swords here, but I'm still trying to figure out why. If you read my first post, it clearly states that I think Strike is way too vague and must be split up into its different components. For each component of strike there is certainly going to be one or several aircraft that are particularly well suited to perform that role, whether designed to do that role from the outset or not. I think we are in agreement here, and with the fact that the aircraft listed as choices on the poll for this thread are completely useless and not a great compilation of strike aircraft. The thread itself is bunk, because we have agreed that strike itself must be divided into many smaller categories.


SAC foward deployed it's F-111's for just this reason, And as was, it was the RAAF's First Day of War aircraft quite clearly. Now the F-111 did crossover, much like the Strike eagle but not like the strike eagle can perform.Nor did the F-117 exist during SAC's OoB during F-111's tasking. Certainly El-Dorado Canyon however still prooves that point. Whenever your tasked with Nukes, you are a first day aircraft... which begs the question, what else was at that time tasked with penetration which wasn't a strategic bomber.

OK, here's where I'm still having problems. Please note that I mean no disrespect...just a difference in opinion.

1) A very small number of operational F-111's (the FB-111A’s) were commanded by SAC, the majority having been commanded by TAC. So although it may have been deployed by SAC as a first day of war aircraft, it was also widely used by TAC in the strike role. It did not adopt this role after SAC decided it did not need the F-111 (although the FB-111A's did just this, becoming F-111G's)

2) In my opinion the F-111 outperforms the Strike Eagle in two very important categories for the long-range interdiction mission: range and payload. Which is the better strike aircraft, for me it is a tie, with a trade-off of range and payload for great multirole capability.

3) I really don't think it's fair to compare the F-111 and the F-117, as the F-111 is the best long-range interdiction aircraft in my mind, while the F-117A is the best penetration strike aircraft.

And finally, I still don’t think the F-117A replaced the mission of the F-111 given what I have written above. The F-117A certainly took over the first day of war task (although perhaps not even this because the F-111 first day of war tasking was nuclear and the F-117A's is not) and certainly the penetration strike role. But the F-117A is NO long-range interdiction aircraft. The F-15E took over this role, and I would probably consider it the best interdiction/general strike aircraft out there.

obrescia
03 Sep 08,, 22:29
You should read an article in the semi-latest issue of Smithsonian Air & Space Magazine; one of the lines spoken by one of the interviewees was: 'Sensing my anxiety, the 24-year-old lieutenant adds, “A-10s are rippin’ up here right now for CAS work, Rashman’s already got ’em cleared. Hope you get to see some gun runs. You haven’t lived till you’ve seen an A-10 hit a position with that 30-mm rotary gun. And tighten your helmet. Looks loose.”'

Go here (http://www.airspacemag.com/military-aviation/Control_the_Air.html?c=y&page=1) for the complete article. The A-10 catches hell for being "slow" and the air force was toying around with a CAS version of the F-16 called A-16 to replace it. When you got a plane in the A-10 that can loose a tail-fin, an engine and 1/3 of its main wing and still get the pilot home...that's a machine!
This is quite frightening:
YouTube - A-10 Close Call on British Troops (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=28tRJ8hY5mc)

Chunder
06 Sep 08,, 07:41
Personally my air tasking order articles for the F-111 are buried deep at another place in a pile of old mags - So I can't reliably referernce to particular journalists / units. I can't vouch for it's uses with the USAF, but there's no doubt it was procured for the RAAF for exactly the purposes of long range strike and therefor deep strike across the spectrum.

Every aircraft has it's merits, but it wouldn't be right to not consider it in it's era context.

The F-111 may have the range & payload, and the speed.
In it's Day it's mission was to avoid danger from relitively poor look down, shoot down radars, by going very fast, very low, and getting a mission kill by virtue of payload. There wasn't any other aircraft in the west apart from the TSR.2 designed to do that. It meant that high value targets which would inevitably mean death to heavy bombers were assigned within SAC to F-111 units.

Well... SAC died and was absorbed. The F-117 came in, it could roughly gaurantee a mission kill without loss (and has a fairly good range regardless) So, as goes without saying, anywhere that the F-117 could be used where the F-111 was dubious especially with improvements in Lookdown shootdown capabilities, it was. Now, of course, the F-117 didn't replace the entire spectrum of tasks the F-111 took up, but it certainly reduced the airforces need to keep a fleet of the aircraft justifiably.

Infact, the areas that the F-111 could still service, clearly could be serviced by the strike eagle in a more efficient, and more survivable matter, or maybe it would be more correct to say, a 'more effective area combatant'. Not only that the F-111 is a complex airframe, expensive engines, and maintenance log. The Eagle doesn't need quite the maintenance train following after it. Loaded with instead of rewired with the latest weaponry on a new airframe, on something that's quite capable of killing in the air, is an example of changing era's.

I personally don't have an opinion of the best strike aircraft.

I also put the 'first day of war'scenario down for simplifying it... technically it's a load of crap, because the F-111 was, just like any other aircraft capable of operations. - But it certainly is very much something the RAAF would use - it must use something if need be, USAF or SAC aside. Either or, it's conversion to Raven, meant it was in USAF service.

Tom Guntrip
11 Oct 08,, 09:16
Even as a Brit, the A-10 is very good. It has saved a lot of lives in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Kernow
04 Dec 08,, 22:16
The Buccaneer, damn fine aircraft.

zraver
04 Dec 08,, 22:38
Originally Posted by Chunder View Post
SAC foward deployed it's F-111's for just this reason, And as was, it was the RAAF's First Day of War aircraft quite clearly. Now the F-111 did crossover, much like the Strike eagle but not like the strike eagle can perform.Nor did the F-117 exist during SAC's OoB during F-111's tasking. Certainly El-Dorado Canyon however still prooves that point. Whenever your tasked with Nukes, you are a first day aircraft... which begs the question, what else was at that time tasked with penetration which wasn't a strategic bomber.

USN A-6 Intruders where part of the nuclear doctrine.

GraniteForge
04 Dec 08,, 23:45
USN A-6 Intruders where part of the nuclear doctrine.

And the earlier A-5 Vigilante.

Kev 99
26 Jan 09,, 16:33
Is the A10 really a strike aircraft though, Close Air Support yes, but strike?

obrescia
26 Jan 09,, 18:22
Agreed. The A-10 would not constitute strike in the traditional sense. Strike is typically low level and high speed. like:

Tornado
Buccaneer
F/FB-111
F-4D/E
F-15E
Su-24
Su-34
And who could forget the Super Etendard in the Falklands.

Problem is the Israelis used F-16 & F15 to hit the Iraqi nuke-reactor so maybe strike has to do more with the mission?

treasure44
26 Jan 09,, 18:43
Is the A10 really a strike aircraft though, Close Air Support yes, but strike?

i agree. if you sent a squadron of A-10s on a strike mission at any altitude they would get blown out of the sky quicker than you can say eject eject

i think the best strike aircraft is the tornado gr4. the reason for my choice is that it has reasonably advanced avionics, and it is designed purely as a strike aircraft. The F-15e on the other hand is not. its wing shape is designed for high level air to air not low level penetration. consequently the turbulence is increased massivley and thus also is the effective operating time for the air crew. but this is my view feel free to disagree.;)

Kernow
26 Jan 09,, 19:47
You know not what you say.

I will forgive your ignorance. You have never had the opportunity to witness for yourself what kind of adversary an A-10 is.

Even in exercizes, it becomes readily apparent the first time you face A-10s in armored vehicles that you are absolutely at their mercy.

On top of that the A-10s ability to withstand battle damage is the stuff of legend.

When used in it's element for it's intended role, the A-10 is one of the most efficient and dominant killing machines ever designed.

http://a-10.org/photos/Photos69760/oct07_04.jpg

http://a-10.org/photos/Photos69760/oct07_13.jpg

http://a-10.org/photos/Photos69760/oct07_09.jpg

http://a-10.org/photos/Photos69760/oct07_11.jpg

http://a-10.org/photos/Photos69760/oct07_22.jpg



The A-10 ThunderBolt II: It Kills tanks dead.
~Fairchild republic promotional slogan

I have come up against an A-10 on exercises; it is an extremely slow aircraft, if you can see it coming you can take it out, but you have to be quick mind.

"FIN A-10 on", "On", "Lasing", "1,200 On", "Fire", "Firing Now", "Target", Target Stop". Good bye A-10.

Or even a 'Star Streak' will get it fairly easily.

Kernow
26 Jan 09,, 20:15
I'd go for the Buccaneer followed by the Tornado. The buccaneer was forged from solid steel, so good was the design the American Company Grumman's A-6 Intruder resembles the Buccaneer. On 23 Jan 91, Buccaneers' were sent to the Gulf War as their Radar System was superior to that of the Tornado at the time. On 2 Feb 91 Buccaneers went on 216 sorties, designating targets for 169 Tornado-delivered LGBs' and the Buccaneers also dropped 48 LGBs' without any loss. Till today the Tornado does not have the same range as a Buccaneer and it cannot carry as many 'Sea Eagle Missiles'.

obrescia
26 Jan 09,, 20:48
i agree. if you sent a squadron of A-10s on a strike mission at any altitude they would get blown out of the sky quicker than you can say eject eject

i think the best strike aircraft is the tornado gr4. the reason for my choice is that it has reasonably advanced avionics, and it is designed purely as a strike aircraft. The F-15e on the other hand is not. its wing shape is designed for high level air to air not low level penetration. consequently the turbulence is increased massivley and thus also is the effective operating time for the air crew. but this is my view feel free to disagree.;)

Well, I'd have to agree. The Tornado armed with the MW-1 munitions dispenser. Wow! Yikes!

http://www.sirviper.com/fighters/tornado/luftwaffe.jpg

Kernow
26 Jan 09,, 21:00
The Tornado was utilised very well during Gulf War 1, not even the USAF would go down that low.

obrescia
26 Jan 09,, 21:29
The A-10 (and to some degree the Su-25) were both the result of CAS experienced in Viet Nam. The A-10 focus was to attrite Warsaw Pact tank forces in Europe during the cold war. There are few aircraft as maneuverable at treetop level as the A-10. The CAS version of the F-16 (A-16) was always a mystery to me.

http://www.f-16.net/gallery_item17108.html

A-16 might be safer from SAM/AAA but would be moving too fast (in my view) to be effective at 1st pass target acquisition.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/40/ZSU-23-4-Camp-Pendleton.jpg/800px-ZSU-23-4-Camp-Pendleton.jpg

GGTharos
26 Jan 09,, 22:00
Turbulence affects low-wing loading fighters more at low levels than it does aircraft with high wing-loading. This is indeed a fact.

However, an F-15E armed to the teeth for a strike mission does not resemble anything that could be classified as having a low wing-loading ;)



i think the best strike aircraft is the tornado gr4. the reason for my choice is that it has reasonably advanced avionics, and it is designed purely as a strike aircraft. The F-15e on the other hand is not. its wing shape is designed for high level air to air not low level penetration. consequently the turbulence is increased massivley and thus also is the effective operating time for the air crew. but this is my view feel free to disagree.;)

Kev 99
27 Jan 09,, 14:58
I've never read or heard a bad word about the Buccaneer.

Stitch
27 Jan 09,, 20:07
I've never read or heard a bad word about the Buccaneer.

It is probably the best low-level tactical a/c ever built, despite it's age. It was the fastest a/c for it's time at low-level, until the introduction of the Panavia Tornado. The RAF had originally refused the Buccaneer back in the late '50's, but ended up taking it in 1968 after the cancellation of both the F-111K and the TSR-2.

Pioneer
27 Mar 09,, 06:38
Dedicated strike aircraft; lets try another list that is a bit more inclusive. We'll leave out aircraft like the A-10 and Su-25 because they are tasked for CAS not strike:

F-111
Tornado GR4
F-15E
Jaguar
Mirage 2000D
F-117
A-7
MiG-27
Su-24M


I have to agree with your analogy and classing of strike aircraft!

Sorry but -
What time frame are we looking out for given aircraft to qualify?
(A-6, F-105,..................)
Are we talking ‘present’ and 'proven' in-service strike aircraft?
(which means that the likes of the F-35 (JSF) has yet to prove itself in operational service or combat!)

The likes of the A-10 and Su-25 - I too view as close air support / anti armour aircraft and not so much strike aircraft.
(Although saying this, one could say that with the advent of PGM, with their stand off range and accuracy can almost put most aircraft that can both carry and deliver them on target as a strike platform!)

Regards
Pioneer

Pioneer
27 Mar 09,, 07:11
1. F-117 - cuz it does things none of the others can.
2. F-15E - advanced avionics gives it the edge.
3.(tied) Tornado GR4/F-111 - F-111 for speed, range and payload. GR4 for advanced avionics and modern weapons.
4. Mirage 2000D - cuz it can't carry as much as far as the others.
5. Su-24M - not real partial to anything Russian-made, but it has range.
6.(tied) A-7/Jaguar - Cuz they're better than the Mig-27
7. Mig-27 - Not so good.


'Just my opinion'

Hay B.Smitty - many years ago I use to think the same as you about Soviet weapons systems and platforms!
But with age and the ability to more closely examine them (and test fire some), my opinion has change some what, as has my respect for their ability to kill you just as dead as dead.
I very quickly learned to respect the likes of the RPD GPMG and the venerable RPG-7.
I am also very impressed with their engineering equipment!

Part of the difficulty of a strike/interdiction aircraft is its ability to reach its assigned target in the first place - range, penetration of air defences (both passive and active means) and survival in a hostile environment (ability to physically absorb battle damage on the way to the target!
As a pig fan of the F-111, and seeing what it can do, I would not underestimate the ‘Fencer’s’ capability!

As for the MiG-27, I think it was a very clever use of resources by the Soviets, in utilizing the MiG-23 ‘Flogger’ as a building base for a dedicated ‘Frontal’ strike aircraft.
(I have always envisaged the likes of the MiG-23/MiG-27 series as similar in design principle to that of the U.S Navy’s Vought / LTV F-8 Crusader / A-7 Corsair II)
One has to remember when the Soviets introduced the MiG-27 into wide scale service; some NATO countries were having a fantasy with themselves in trying to convince the world that the likes of their re-painted Alpha Jets training aircraft were efficient strike platforms!
I remember reading somewhere that although the Indian air force loved their so-called more advanced SEPECAT Jaguar strike aircraft, they could not but help appreciate and respect their Soviet designed and built Su-7 ‘Fitter’s’ and MiG-27 ‘Flogger’s’ for their ruggedness and ability to absorb battle damage, and most importantly get them home, which would have knocked their Jaguar’s out of the sky!

Regards
Pioneer

entropy
27 Mar 09,, 19:23
The Fencer missed a lot in Chechnya.

Kommunist
27 Mar 09,, 19:47
However, an F-15E armed to the teeth for a strike mission does not resemble anything that could be classified as having a low wing-loading ;)

You are talking about this one........?? :eek::biggrin:

Johnny W
27 Mar 09,, 19:50
The Fencer missed a lot in Chechnya.


I have heard that But was it a problem with the aircraft or with the pilots (ie lack of training). Just asking because I don't actually know.

Kommunist
27 Mar 09,, 20:01
I have heard that But was it a problem with the aircraft or with the pilots (ie lack of training). Just asking because I don't actually know.

Thats because for the LGBs, the Targeting Laser on Su-25s didn't work well in low cloud/foggy weather/snowfall conditions. Due to MANPADs, they did not go low enough to mark the targets accurately, and dropped their payloads from a much higher height.

Hence the poor accuracy. Dont know how much factual it is.

(Source: Discovery - Wings of the Red Star - Su-25)

gabriel
27 Mar 09,, 20:15
Fencer is the nato code name for su-24.
Su-25 code name is frogfoot. Su -25 can use precision munitions but that's not his job.

Kommunist
27 Mar 09,, 20:21
Fencer is the nato code name for su-24.
Su-25 code name is frogfoot. Su -25 can use precision munitions but that's not his job.

Oops, slipped.... didn't read carefully enough. Had the su-25+chechnya in mind, and jumped the gun without reading carefully. :redface:

entropy
27 Mar 09,, 20:24
The Su-24 radar target sight was made for tank columns and other radiocontrasting targets. It was made to stop NATO tanks on grassy hills, so it couldn't see machine gun nests and camouflaged firebases.

The television sight was black/white, making it very difficult to spot targets.

And the entire aircraft was hard to fly and full of electronic gadgets which combined with little or no pilot training and the electronics drawbacks caused little accuracy.

gabriel
27 Mar 09,, 20:41
The Su-24 radar target sight was made for tank columns and other radiocontrasting targets. It was made to stop NATO tanks on grassy hills, so it couldn't see machine gun nests and camouflaged firebases.


Close support is SU-25 job, su-24 was design as a interdiction aircraft.(bridges, railwaystations, aviation bunkers..etc)

gabriel
27 Mar 09,, 20:54
The Fencer missed a lot in Chechnya.

That's the problem every conscript army face , the politicians are squemish to send the infantry in ...:)

jackprince
27 Mar 09,, 22:09
You are talking about this one........?? :eek::biggrin:

Holly Sh#t!!!! :eek: What were those?! Anti-tank missiles??

entropy
27 Mar 09,, 22:31
Guided bombs.

bugs
27 Mar 09,, 23:23
cbu-87
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/dumb/cbu-87.htm

Pioneer
28 Mar 09,, 00:24
That's the problem every conscript army face , the politicians are squemish to send the infantry in ...:)

Wow
If this is so, then it would be the first time that the Soviet/Russian’s had a conscience about doing so!:))

Regards
Pioneer

Pioneer
28 Mar 09,, 00:48
Seems to me that the A-10 is more of an 'attack' (Check the name for a start) aircraft, specialised for close air support, with the ability to carry out a bunch of other missions when needed. The Tornado seems more like a true strike aircraft designed for hitting strategic targets and penetrating defended airspace etc.
The two are meant to be used very differently and can't really be compared to eachother anymore than a Tomcat can be compared to a Blackjack.
And I'm told the JSF is going to replace the A-10, how the hell is that supposed to work?

Don’t get me started on that one Spoonmam!

The USAF ‘Brass’ have been attempting to replace the ‘tailored designed and built’ Warthog, even before it was fielded.

It has a lot to do with the Air Force top ‘Brass’ obsession with almost every aircraft in its inventor needing to be supersonic, overly expensive, and every system on it which is irrelevant to the primary role required by the U.S Army –
• Loitering time in both time on station and in sustainable weapons load!
• A slow enough speed so as to allow the pilot to visually ID friend and foe, and engage the enemy with pin point precision, even when in close contact with the enemy!
This slow speed also allows for the Warthog utilize ground terrain to both mask and protect it
• The ability to sustain substantial battle damage.
• Simplicity, which allows for the quickest turn-around time.
• A powerful cannon system, which allows minimal time exposure of the aircraft while engaging targets (as opposed to earlier missile systems which required the aircraft to be exposed to enemy fire, whilst it guides its missiles onto target. The powerful GAU-8 power and versatility also allows for the engagement and destruction of multiple types of targets from troops, trucks, bunkers to main battle tanks.

I have witnessed the Thunderbolt II in action, when we had put out a call for close air support!
Impressive, impressive and very arousing from a grunts perspective!
The sound of its cannon is very comforting.

They can keep their F-35 (JSF)!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Given the choice I would acquire at least 20 x A-10’s for the RAAF tomorrow!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

But unfortunately neither Air Marshals nor politicians listen to grunts

Regards
Pioneer

Pioneer
28 Mar 09,, 02:17
Now when Su-34 is in service (first 4 aircraft are in Army) I would vote for it. Read an article recently and loved the machine.

Su-34 has maximum range of 4,000km with internal fuel - something close to strategic Tu-22M.... it has standard 30mm cannon with 180 shells. This Bomber Flanker can carry up to 8-tons of precision stricking load a, it can defend itself from interceptors with its PESA Leninets radar, which has electronic and mechanic streering, and 2 R-73 and R-77 missiles. I can fly supersonic at altitude of just 100m automatically using terrain scanning radar. Its cockpit is large enough for pilits to be there more than 10 hours. I guess this is a unique asset so far......

ps. the cockpit is large as in a strategic bomber allowing pilots to stand and to lay down.
Hay I forgot the Su-34 – good point!!
I may have said it before (?), but I think the Su-34 is the success story of what the USAF (and to a lesser degree the US Navy!) attempted to achieve in its TFX program, which became the venerable F-111!
Its just 40-years since the TFX was conceived!

Regards
Pioneer

Jimmy
28 Mar 09,, 03:06
Don’t get me started on that one Spoonmam!

The USAF ‘Brass’ have been attempting to replace the ‘tailored designed and built’ Warthog, even before it was fielded.

It has a lot to do with the Air Force top ‘Brass’ obsession with almost every aircraft in its inventor needing to be supersonic, overly expensive, and every system on it which is irrelevant to the primary role required by the U.S Army –
• Loitering time in both time on station and in sustainable weapons load!
• A slow enough speed so as to allow the pilot to visually ID friend and foe, and engage the enemy with pin point precision, even when in close contact with the enemy!
This slow speed also allows for the Warthog utilize ground terrain to both mask and protect it
• The ability to sustain substantial battle damage.
• Simplicity, which allows for the quickest turn-around time.
• A powerful cannon system, which allows minimal time exposure of the aircraft while engaging targets (as opposed to earlier missile systems which required the aircraft to be exposed to enemy fire, whilst it guides its missiles onto target. The powerful GAU-8 power and versatility also allows for the engagement and destruction of multiple types of targets from troops, trucks, bunkers to main battle tanks.

I have witnessed the Thunderbolt II in action, when we had put out a call for close air support!
Impressive, impressive and very arousing from a grunts perspective!
The sound of its cannon is very comforting.

They can keep their F-35 (JSF)!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Given the choice I would acquire at least 20 x A-10’s for the RAAF tomorrow!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

But unfortunately neither Air Marshals nor politicians listen to grunts

Regards
Pioneer

Fear not, the Hog isn't going anywhere for at least 15 years, maybe more. I believe the fleet is completely upgraded to the C-model now, which allows JDAMs and makes the pilot's job a LOT easier (anything that frees his mind up to concentrate on targeting is a good thing, I'd say).

Stitch
28 Mar 09,, 04:24
Fear not, the Hog isn't going anywhere for at least 15 years, maybe more. I believe the fleet is completely upgraded to the C-model now, which allows JDAMs and makes the pilot's job a LOT easier (anything that frees his mind up to concentrate on targeting is a good thing, I'd say).

Yes, you are correct; all surviving A-10 airframes are to be upgraded to either OA-10A or A-10C standard (the majority). The sad part is several hundred have already been "deactivated"; if you don't believe me, just go to Google Earth and check out Davis-Monthan AMARG. The good news is the surviving airframes should serve "with the USAF until 2028 and possibly later". Also, "the A-10 could stay in service longer due to its low cost and its unique capabilities — such as its cannon, ruggedness, and flight endurance capabilities."

Jimmy
28 Mar 09,, 04:40
The only difference between an A-10 and an OA-10 is the pilot (FAC-A) and ordnance. I've heard (from an occasionally reliable source) the A-10C upgrade is complete...I haven't bothered looking into it to see if its true. I do know that A-10Cs were at the recent Red Flag, so they're out and about at least.

ASG
28 Mar 09,, 04:47
Also, "the A-10 could stay in service longer due to its low cost and its unique capabilities — such as its cannon, ruggedness, and flight endurance capabilities."

Yes, because development on a viable replacement has not even been started.

TBH, I do not see any of the current aircraft in the USAF inventory(or Russian for that matter) which matches upto the Hog's capability to go in low and dirty on CAS missions, take AAA/MANPAD fire and still RTB. Nothing, simply nothing else does CAS better than the Hog.



Oh, and BTW, the A-10 is not a strike aircraft. Its primary role is CAS and (sometimes)FAC duty. Its like calling the Oranges Apples.

Pioneer
28 Mar 09,, 08:14
Good to hear this – Thanks!

After all one would hope that the USAF have learned to appreciate the A-10 unique capability and flexibility!
Added to this is the fact that after its combat proven capability in ‘Gulf War 1 & 2’ and Afghanistan, the US Army will not be forced to continue to do battle its primary ‘enemy within’ – the USAF - in both providing and sustaining such a specialized CAS/Anti-tank aircraft in its inventory to support Army operations.

Regards
Pioneer

entropy
30 Mar 09,, 14:57
Close support is SU-25 job, su-24 was design as a interdiction aircraft.(bridges, railwaystations, aviation bunkers..etc)

There weren't any in Chechnya. There were holes filled with terrorists, and well-camouflaged armour.

They had to use the poor radar and black/white camera to locate those. That was a problem in Afghanistan already, but they still had some decent pilot training back then: the Suitcase drivers were the elite.

TopHatter
06 Nov 09,, 14:35
You fool most European countries don't know how to upgrade aircrafts learn from Indians who changed 4 generation aircraft Su-30K to 4.5 generation aircraft Su-30MKI which is best in the subcontinent:P

You're replying to a post that's four years old.