Shipwreck

This is another misconception, I am afraid.

1. While the GAU-8/A has an *intrinsic* effective range greater than the Soviet ZU-23 because of the much more powerful cartrige (30x173 vs 23x152), this advantage is very much cancelled by the intrinsic characteristics of the respective firing platform.

2. The Hog is clearly at a disadvantage against the Soviet Tunguska, despite the 30x173 cartridge (GAU-8/A gun) being about 16% more powerful than the 30x165 cartridge (2A38M gun).

3. The Hog is also at a clear disadvantage against the Czech M53/70 which fired a 30x210 cartridge that was more powerful than the 30x173, not to mention the Soviet S60 with its 57x347 cartridge.

I'd be happy concede that the Tunguska was not much of a factor during the Fulda Gap era and that both the M53/70 and S60 had both largely been phased out during the 1980s (at least at first echelon level).

As a sidenote, the Soviets designed some very effective ambush tactics to cover their 6 with Shilkas (and/or various truck-mounted twin ZU-23), some of said tactics being primarily directed at the Hog.

During one of the numerous conflicts that followed the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Russians lost at least one Su-25 against opponents that precisely used one of these tactics.

PS : AFAIK, there was no 37mm AAA in use in any of the WP forces when the Hog entered service (though the Soviets probably kept some old M39s in their strategic reserves). However, the Chicoms still had their M55 (37x250 cartridge).

__________________
"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called children of God" (Matthew 5:9)

Anon

Hogs have faced plenty of ZSU-23/4s in combat in two wars and come out 'undefeated' (every A-10 lost has been lost to SAMs, though several have taken immense amounts of light cannon fire, they've always made it back to base)

The reason the A-10 has a tactical advantadge with it's gun is not just because it's more powerful, but also because it's shooting down whereas the enemy AAA piece is shooting up. Obviously that translates to a huge increase in retained energy at any given range for the A-10s rounds.

Where you are correct(based on some pilot commentary on my board) is that it is very difficult for an A-10 to actually identify a small vehicle like a ZSU that's hidden before stumbling into said ZSU's range.

IOW, if the A-10 sees it from a distance, the GAU-8 will easily allow the A-10 to attack it first(and the A-10 is such a tight turner that it will be able to turn away before ever entering the ZSUs envelope even in the case of a miss by the Hog). So seeing them first is the trick.

The addition of the Sniper/Litening pods on A-10s will no doubt help with that, but the edge usually goes to the hidden ambusher.

Of course the main problem for Shilka or other 23mm crews is that the A-10 is just plain designed to be highly resistant to 23mm API fire(and is probably practically invincible against any caliber HE proximity shell fragments), whereas 30mm HVAPDU OR HEI is total overkill against a Shilka.

PS: Of course the reality is that the A-10 would always seek to use a Mav or loft CBU attack to avoid the whole gunfight altogether, and save the gun for once the ZSUs(of which only a few will ever be present) are wiped out with Mav fire.

Destroyed Iraqi ZSU-23/4 Shilka AD track

Attached Images

dontstealmyimages.gif (39.8 KB, 204 views)

Shipwreck

I don't disagree with you, even though I suspect that we may not have the same definition of what CAS is about.

I'd submit that very few of the missions carried out by the Hog during ODS actually qualify as CAS.

I'd further submit that CAS was somewhat occulted by less mundane *tankbusting* considerations when the A-10 was originally designed.

This is an aspect I intended to cover at a later stage, but I might as well do it now.

The Su-25 and A-10 were not really the same concept originally. While the Su-25 was intended as a plain vanilla CAS platform, the A-10 largely morphed into a tank hunter/killer after the 1970 RFP, designed to operate at low altitudes in a somewhat saturated VSHORAD environment.

The original A-10 concept was (fortunately I might say) never proven, and I remain very skeptical on how successful the A-10 would have been.

After the Cold War, the A-10 was largely saved by the misleading interpretation of some raw ODS stats I mentioned earlier, a campaign in which the Hog neither proved the validity of the original concept nor its value as a CAS platform.

The A-10 really had a chance to prove itself as a CAS platform with OEF, and most A-10 opponents (of which I was until recently) gradually recognize the value of this bird beyond the current hype effect.

Incidentally, the PE update program as I see it is largely directed at correcting some of the deficiencies of the Hog as a CAS platform, even though it is still handicaped by weak engines.

The Su-25 on the other hand was designed as a plain vanilla CAS platform, with little anti-tank capabilities in its original incarnation (none was planned during the design phase). It was given decent anti-tank capabilities at a fairly late stage with the Su-25T (the first phase of field evaluation being completed by 2001).

As I see it from the ground with my oversimplifying spectacles, the A-10 and the Su-25 followed fairly different development trajectories, the A-10 being a *tankbuster* gradually morphing into a CAS platform, the Su-25 being a CAS platform gradually morphing into a *tankbuster*.

A rather long digression to suggest that the A-10 currently fills a niche it wasn't exactly designed for, a niche in which it proved itself at a rather late stage, a niche role for which it is being significantly upgraded (despite the engine problem) and a niche role for which there is currently a robust DEMAND.

No matter how brilliant a CAS platform it might eventually become, the Hog remains a dead end in development, and no matter how much money the USAF puts in, its existence will be challenged again whenever the DEMAND for the niche role it currently fills will disappear.

Anon

Well the A-10 does much, much more than just CAS the way it's used(FAC-A, CSAR escort are two very important A-10 roles), but during both the 5Apr and 7Apr US Army 2nd BCT thunder runs they did provide flank protection AND classical CAS missions that probably no other fixed winger we have could've done. It was slow and low flying A-10s that provided the 2nd BCTs commanders almost all of their non-organic real time intelligence(this is detailed in the book Thunder Run by David Zucchino), and at times they were called in by USAF GFACs during those two operations to destroy Iraqi fortifications.

Agreed on both counts. However a number of the A-10s operations during OIF, and certainly OEF, are very much consistent with the classical definition of CAS. And they also do other things as well.

ODS was a lot of Kill boxing, a lot of western iraq scud hunting, a good bit of CSAR, and even some Wild Weaseling for good measure.

Tank killing as it was envisioned in the Central European front is hardly classical CAS, no disagreement there. I personally think that the A-10s would've raped the Russian armored formations based on the fact that no IADS in history has come close to stopping the US Air forces(of all branches).

Not the nazis, not the Vietnamese, not the Iraqis and their "Super MEZ", not the Yugoslavians and their high end WP systems, no one. Ever.

Frankly no IADS in history has ever demonstrated that it can succesfully defend even itself, let alone it's charges.

Finally, i don't think the WP airforces had a chance in hell of winning air superiority.(Far too much evidence to the contrary. Western jets have utterly OWNED soviet designs in actual combat for about 50 years now)



I take it you mean these 'misleading' statistics?

"A-10/OA-10 aircraft conducted more than 8,100 sorties, maintained a 95.7 percent mission capable rate, five percent above A-10 peacetime rates, had the highest sortie rate of any USAF aircraft, and destroyed or killed more than 4,200 tanks, artillery pieces, and other targets."
http://www.pats-world.com/gulfwar/home.htm

This particular A-10 seems to have done alright...i count 102 kills(including a HIND)


I don't know that it's hype. It's just a matter of looking at the nose of that plane above(for example), and saying "God damn that's a lot of friggin' kills!"

Having seen several A-10 live firing demonstrations as far back as 1988, i have never doubted their capabilities much at all. They come over a hill, fire the gun, and break off back over the hill before you can even hear the sound of the gun or the engines.

To see it happen in person is a real "Wow" moment.

Believe it or not some of the pilots don't like PE, and don't like the way "The USAF is trying to make the A-10 into a 350 knot F-16".

A lot of these guys don't like carrying AIM-9s, hell, they don't even like carrying jamming pods. They view it as "Wasted payload".

They seem to like the FLIR pods though...

BTW, the engines are really the only thing that the USAF hasn't addressed on the A-10. The only thing i'd like to see added is JHMCS(not for the a2a capability, but because you can use the helmet sight to mark 10 digit grids for JDAM attacks....NEAT trick, hehehehe)

I don't exactly see why you think the A-10 has ever been deficient at CAS. It's just been asked to do a lot of other things instead(or rather in addition to). Institutionally there's no doubt the USAF is not a fan of the CAS mission, true...but that's not the A-10s fault.


Eventually?

If i was drawing a low-altitude, low speed CAS plane from scratch right now it'd look a hell of a lot like the Hog does(heavy armor, big gun, twin engines, fantastic turner, tremendous loiter).

I'm getting the feeling you're just not a big fan of heavily armored obnoxious brute force short range "IN YOUR FACE" weapons systems....be they on the sea or in the air. How do you feel about tanks, lol?

If there is a flying battleship, it's the A-10. Hell, you know what they say...

ArmchairGeneral

That's a totally awesome pic.

__________________
"Apocalyptic thought is curiously pleasurable."
-Theodore Dalrymple

Shipwreck

Again, I don't necessarily disagree with you, but I believe our perspectives are slightly different.

As far as I am aware, none of the ambush tactics I mentioned earlier were reported against the A-10 and the Iraqis proved less than competent in the AAA business.


Fair point, but that's only one part of the equation.


Assuming the Hog doesn't get ambushed in the first place.


That actually translates into a higher relative IV versus the ground target, which admittedly slightly increase the *nominal* range. It has no impact on velocity retention which depends primarily on the characteritics of the projectile and the resistance it encounters during its trajectory.

The effective range nevertheless heavily depends on the stability of the firing platform, which is a factor where a land-based stationary platform will always have an edge over an air-based platform, no matter how well-designed the latter is.

As you mentioned, such a gun duel is largely hypothetical and I don't think it actually ever happened. I'd be curious to know whether one of the Hogs guys you know could come up with one instance of such an encounter (details such date and place would be greatly appreciated).


I have seen this *resistant to 23mm* claim repeated over and over, but as it stands, it really doesn't make sense to me.

First because there are different kinds of 23mm, the 23x115 used by aircraft guns (GSh-23 for instance) and the 23x152 used by AAA or AIFV.

Second because the range and obliquity are never specified when the claim is made.

Third because I am familiar enough with both the armor scheme of the A-10 and the ballistics of the 23x152 to question the immunity of the former to the latter.

As a sidenote, there was a similar claim for the Su-25 (*resistant to 20mm*), but the type of 20mm was never specified (20x102 vs 20x139) and the range and obliquity at which said immunity was valid were never given. Despite said *resistance to 20mm*, the Russian lost at least one Su-25 in a DShK ambush.

Shipwreck

Totally agree with you.


The misleading stats refers to the confirmed kills and the % of Mavericks fired by A-10s during ODS.


I know exactly what you're talking about.

Attack choppers also give you some of these real "Wow" moments you mention when you see them in maneuvers.


Don't they also like the LASTE thingy ?

I would share their POV on carrying AIM-9s and jamming pods.


That would have greatly improved their maneuvrability, which is CRITICAL for a CAS platform and incidentally an area where the Hog is globally inferior to the Su-25.


I've seen the Su-25 at quite a few Air Shows and this bird is really a fantastic turner (almost no speed loss during greater than 45° banked turns ).

The most impressive demo was by far the Georgian SU-25KM *Scorpion* (a standard Su-25 airframe with an Israeli Elbit cockpit) flown by an Isreali test-pilot. The guy made his final landing approach off the top of a loop.


Tanks do not exactly fill a niche role, do they ?

More later...

Anon

This one?



That's the business end of an A-10 demo team bird.

So far as i know the idea to put those logos on the A-10 demo team birds originated at a-10.org.

WT's little contribution to airshows the world over.

Anon

Excerpts from your last post:

Well the idea is most definitely not to get ambushed(and that's infantry, armor, airmobile, scout, submarine, CAP, anyone). Ambushes are VERY bad, and you are ALWAYS going to be challenged the most in those situations for sure, again...regardless of your MOS.

As far as the sort of resistance to ground fire the Hog has, it is armored to the same standard as the AH-64 (23mm API armor/14.5mm API cockpit glass), and the AH-64 showed exactly how tough it is when the 11th Aviation Bde was ambushed over Karballa EN MASSE.

33 birds hit out of 36...only one lost.

So far during three wars and god knows how many tens of thousands of combat sorties(thousands of which were definitely what you'd call high risk), only 8 A-10s have ever been lost to ground fire...all of them to SAMs.

Dozens of A-10s have gotten shot more or less to pieces by SAM and AAA fire and only one A-10 has ever not been able to put it down in one piece.(there are pages of photographic evidence on my site of literally shot to pieces A-10s that made it home)

And Apaches too really. During ODS an Apache Bn was ambushed by 120mm mortar fire by Iraqi RGFC units and several Apaches took mortar fragments, but none were seriously damaged. Also, during Anaconda Apaches made 'point blank range' strafing runs at altitudes as low as 25 feet right over the heads of our own troops literally swooping in and rooting out Al Qaeda and Taliban positions. Some of those Apaches took RPG hits, and while everyone came home with holes, and two of them barely made it home at all...they all made it home, and they did their job to terrifying effect.


"Blowed Up" A-10 wing


"Blowed Up" A-10 stab

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgu...icial%26sa%3DG
Pilot account of incident

"Then we started inspecting the airplane. Later, they counted 378 holes in it. According to the frag lodged in the plane, we deduced that all four shells from a four-round clip of 57mm hit me. Two exploded and hit just behind the planeóthat got the tail feathers and the right engine, which had forty-five holes in itóit wasnít developing full power but was still running when I landed. The third round exploded underneath the right wing, which sustained the major part of the damage and cooked off the AIM-9. The fourth round probably exploded right in front up by the nose.

If it hadn't been for the titanium bathtub, I probably wouldnít be here. The right side below the cockpit had seventeen major holes in it and the bathtub had a lot of gouges in it. Think of that; seventeen major (non penetrating) holes just below the cockpit and I didnít get a scratch!"
~Col Efferson, Hogdriver.

That quantified enough for you?

I guess i can ask.

Here's that gun pod picture for you...

Anon

Ah, gotcha. I've never seen the A-10s Mav only stats. Only it's overall stats and mission readiness/sortie rates...which were the best of any platform of the war.

ON WOW MOMENTS:
Heh, i been on the recieving end of a few of those wow moments when facing Kiowa Warriors in exercises.

Wery dangewous adwesawies...


OH-58D Kiowa Warrior

They friggin' love LASTE, but that's just for the gun.

Note: For those posters who are saying "LASTE-huh?", LASTE is a system that reduces the control inputs of the A-10 by a factor of 10 when the trigger is depressed to the first detent(which also activates the gun camera).

This allows far more precise gun employment as vibrations in the stick from the firing or from pilot error are all but entirely eliminated.


Manueverability?

The A-10 climbs for shiit, but it will actually outturn any fighter in the US arsenal in a quarter turn fight. The A-10 can turn a 360 degree circle in just 1400 feet. That's smaller than the circumference of Texas stadium.
Video:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...q=a-10+warthog

There are a lot of hotshot F-15/16 pilots out there that found that out the hard way at Nellis during Red Flag exercizes.

There's probably not a pilot on my board who hasn't bagged at least one fast mover with his gun.

But yeah, all involved totally agree the A-10 needs new engines. The pilots, crewdogs, the moderators and enthusiasts on my site, everyone.(The BUFF needs em too for that matter), but hey....not up to us.

If it makes you feel better there's a common commercial upgraded version that's about 25% more powerful on the market. The guys on my site have talked about the engine issues more than a few times.




They're not any more or any less niche than an A-10 IMO.

The only thing an A-10 can't do is Air supremacy. Every other mission they can do, and some much better than others. Hell they've flown hundreds of operational(and quite succesful) wild weasel combat sorties in their career. Hundreds of LR deep strike scud hunts in the desert. They're totally involved in the precision strike game now. They're ideal for FAC-A and CSAR roles(which is why they have them to begin with), and then obviously it's two biggest strengths are anti-tank and low altitude CAS.

In those two roles the A-10 is the pinnacle of human achievement.

The A-10 has so few critics because it's been such a proven performer, and now it's better than it's ever been.

Add the engines and JHMCS/AIM-9X, and i don't know what else a brutha could ever want out of an ATTACK aircraft.

A cloaking device maybe...

Anon

A-10 Survivability:

Here's the usual rundown of the Hog's survivability.(wikipedia actually has a really good entry. A hoglet musta gotten hold of it, lol)

The 'Warthog' is exceptionally hardy, with a strong airframe that can survive direct hits from armor-piercing and high-explosive projectiles up to 23 mm. The aircraft has triple redundancy in its flight systems, with mechanical systems to back up double-redundant hydraulic systems. This permits pilots to fly and land when hydraulic power or part of a wing is lost. The aircraft is designed to fly with one engine and half a wing torn off. Self-sealing fuel tanks are protected by fire-retardant foam. Additionally, the main landing gear is designed so that the wheels semi-protrude from their nacelles when the gear is retracted so as to make gear-up landings (belly landing) easier to control and less damaging to the aircraft's underside.

The cockpit and parts of the flight-control system are protected by 900 pounds (400 kg) of titanium armor, referred to as a "titanium bathtub."

The tub has been tested to withstand multiple strikes from 20 mm cannon fire.(Note: that should read 23mm API, but whatever)

The thickness of the titanium varies from ½ an inch to 1½ inches determined by study on likely trajectories and deflection angles.

This protection comes at a cost, though; the armour plating itself weighs almost 6% of the entire aircraft’s empty weight. To protect the pilot from the fragmentation likely to be created from impact of a shell any interior surface of the bathtub that is directly exposed to the pilot is covered by a multi-layer nylon spall shield. The protection for the pilot from above obviously comes second to the necessity for the pilot to have good all-round vision. The canopy cannot protect the pilot as well as the titanium, but the bullet-proof diffusion-bonded stretched-acrylic canopy can withstand small arms fire and is spall-resistant, although the canopy needs to be penetrable by the ejection seat.(NOTE: the front windscreen is proof vs 14.5mm fire, i've seen the test pix in the past)

Recent proof of the durability of the A-10 was shown when USAF Captain Kim Campbell, flying a ground support mission over Baghdad during the 2003 invasion of Iraq suffered extensive flak damage to her A-10. The hit damaged one of the A-10's two engines and destroyed its hydraulic system, disabling the plane's stabilizer and flight controls. Despite this, the pilot managed to fly it for an hour and landed it safely at the air base in manual reversion mode.

Engine exhaust passes over the aircraft's horizontal stabilizer and between the twin tails, decreasing the A-10's infrared signature and lowering the likelihood that the aircraft can be targeted by heatseeking missiles. The placement of the engines partially shields them from anti-aircraft fire behind the wings and tail. The A-10 can fly even after the loss of one side of the tail, 2/3 of a single wing, and one engine.

The A-10 has integrally machined skin panels. Because the stringers are integral with the skin there are no join or seal problems. These panels built using computer controlled machining reduce the man-hours and hence the cost of manufacture. The tests of war have shown that this type of panel is more battle-hardy.

Most thin flat areas of the airframe are honeycomb panels. This is because thin honeycomb sandwich panels are less likely to deform in any direction than sheet metal panels even if part of the panel has been blown off or structurally compromised. Such honeycomb panels on this aircraft include the flap shrouds, the elevators, the rudders and other sections of the fins. The leading edge of the mainplane is honeycomb to provide strength with minimal weight compromise.

The ailerons are at the far ends of the wings to gain greater rolling moment as with most aircraft but there are two distinguishing features. First the ailerons are larger than is typical, almost 50% of the chord, providing improved control even at slow speeds. The aileron is also split, allowing the halves to separate and function as airbrakes.(NOTE: It is this feature combined with the A-10s long unswept wings that give it such tremendous low speed turning ability)

The Thunderbolt II can be serviced and operated from bases with limited facilities near battle areas. An unusual feature is that many of the aircraft's parts are interchangeable between the left and right sides, including the engines, main landing gear, and vertical stabilizers. The sturdy landing gear, low-pressure tires and large, straight wings allow operation from short rough strips even with a heavy ordnance load, allowing the aircraft to operate from damaged airbases. The aircraft is designed to be re-fueled, re-armed, and serviced with minimal equipment. Operating from a forward area is both useful for close air support and necessary due to the A-10's relatively low cruise and top speeds.

One of the characteristic features of this aircraft is the placement of the General Electric TF34-GE-100 turbofan engines. There are many reasons for the location of the engines on the Warthog. First, as this aircraft was expected to be operated from forward air bases, often with semi-prepared substandard runways, there would be a high risk of FOD (Foreign Object Damage). The height of the engines significantly lowers the chance of sand(FOD) or stones damaging the complex parts of the jet engines. This also allows the engines to remain running even while ground crew work to achieve quick servicing and rearming turn-around times, helped further by the height of the wings off the ground being lower than if the engines were under-slung or integral to the wing. As mentioned above the position also reduces the IR signature which starts low anyway due to the high bypass ratio of the engines. The bypass ratio is 6:1 and so the engines are very quiet which aids against detection. Because of this high position of the engines the thrust line would act above the aerodynamic centre, causing an undesirable nose down pitching moment, so to avoid nuisance trimming measures the engine tailpipes are angled at nine degrees upwards to bring the combined thrust line closer to the aerodynamic centre of the aircraft.

The engines, being particularly heavy components, require a high degree of strength in their support. Therefore forged engine-mounting nacelle frames are pin jointed to machined support beams.

All four fuel tanks are near the center of the aircraft thus decreasing the likelihood of them being hit or being separated from the engines. There are several methods employed to protect the tanks themselves. The tanks are separate from the fuselage and so projectiles would need to penetrate the skin before reaching the tank. The refueling system is purged after use so that there is no fuel unprotected anywhere in the aircraft. All pipes self-seal if they are compromised. Most of the fuel system components are situated inside the tanks so that if a leak were to occur from the component the fuel would not be lost. If a tank does get damaged there are check valves that can ensure that fuel does not flow into the compromised tank. The most important fuel system protection aid is the reticulated polyurethane foam that is sprayed into the empty space in a tank holding debris and restricting fuel spillage in the event of damage. The other source of possible combustion, the engines, are shielded from the fuel system and the rest of the airframe by firewalls and fire extinguishing equipment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A-10_Thunderbolt_II

--------------------------------------


Dozens more battle damage pix at www.a-10.org in photo section

Shipwreck

LOL

A couple of pics for the SUU-23/A gun pod I mention earlier. I take it the A-10 can can carry two of these and actually did on a few occasions. I'd be delighted to see the pic that the guy named Carl mentioned on your site.

Shipwreck

Just realized I got lost in the alphabet soup.

I meant to ask about the IFFCC (part of the PE upgrade), rather than its forerunner LASTE (implemented much earlier).

I'd be also be interested to hear what A-10 pilots posting on your site think of SADL (if this has already been discussed, I would welcome a link to the topic).

More later.

Anon