Shipwreck

You gave this link in your post #85 of this thread.


I was hoping to benefit once again from your extensive network within the Hog community and hear what Richard Dale Storr himself had to say.

Don't tell me you don't wanna know.

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

Anon

It takes 10 minutes to instruct someone how to properly lead a fast-mover or a helo, and you need no more in the way of training aids than a few cardboard posters and two sticks with a plane and helo on the end of them.
My 'extensive' US infantryman training in this area was about an hour in basic. It's just a matter of knowing the proper distance to hold based on aspect....and a whole ton of luck.

What's your point?

What...Redeye/SA-7s and some towed 23/2 mounts? Nigga please.

Good for them. The Iraqis had over a decade of practicing ambush tactics against our jets by the time OIF rolled around. And better kit.

I simply disagree. And if they have any less AAA now, it's probably because the USAF is so much better at putting the stomp down on the stuff with precision weapons to begin with.

Well you let me know if you do, and we'll throw a party.


An amatuer that scored a 100% attrition rate agaisnt a massed Apache attack.

Your argument simply holds no weight. The Iraqis were not amatuers- indeed they'd had 12 years continuous practice operating against US Aircraft by the time of OIF, and the Muj and the Chechens were not world-beating experts.

You said, "the A-10s currently operate in Afghanistan from above 15,000 feet so as to stay outside AAA & MANPADS envelope."

For gun employments A-10 pilots operate as low as 4500 feet, and generally attack from 14,000 feet.

Your original statement which i just quoted was a blanket statement that, "the A-10s currently operate in Afghanistan from above 15,000 feet so as to stay outside AAA & MANPADS envelope."

A misleading blanket statement.

I don't trust Soviets or there figures. Blanket or not, it's the truth.

You can accept that, or you cannot accept that. Makes no difference to me.

I do not need to go hunting for statistics to know that the Hind is heavily protected vs HMG fire. And whose statistics am i to trust? Those of the over-hyped 'Mujahadeen' or those of the most corrupt Empire of the modern era?

The only statistic i think one can realistically take out of A-stan is that the Soviets left unfulfilled, which isn't really a statistic, is it?

AAA/MANPAD saturated, been done many times. And they've done Wild Weasel, which is the most dangerous Air 2 mud mission in the playbook.

Versatialle, tough, fast warships that excelled at AAA fast carrier task force escort and shore bombardment- completely proven and highly effective in both roles.

Mi-24s safely inserted/extracted troops into hostile territory and delivered effective heavy fire support on countless occasions in A-stan.

The concept at play is AIR ASSAULT- a well proven concept, and the Mi-24 is merely a tool to accomplish the task. One can question the philosophy behind the specifics of the design, but it is unquestionably capable of all manner of air assault/escort operations, and is a tremendously successful design.

I certainly wouldn't want one shooting at me.

An outright lie.


The A-10 is completely combat proven.

Sure. I'm sure a .22 could take one down.

What those systems have in common is that they've all been highly succesful designs that have all performed extremely well under actual fire.

As any professional can plainly see.

Indeed...

Anon

Ask them yourself.
There is no reason at all for you to not ask yourself. Register, post, ask.

Anon

Ask one of the A-10 experts on my site. I'm not your gopher.

No, the basic armor scheme of both suggests that, as you admitted a few posts ago with your "on paper" comment. I merely pointed out that no A-10 had been lost to ground fire because no A-10 has been lost to ground fire.

Su-25s have. That's life.

The USAF does not acknowledge that an A-10 has been lost to ground fire. SU-25s have been lost to ground fire. Simple.

There you go, "on paper" again. A-10s have not been acknowledged to have been lost by AAA by the USAF. That's got nothing to do with me. I merely pointed it out. SU-25s have been lost to AAA. That's got nothing to do with me either. I also merely pointed that out. A-10s have not been lost to ground fire, SU-25s have.


[/quote]
Well if they're trying to sell a program of course they'll play it up to the hilt. That's just good salesmanship. The PILOT on my board- the same one that quoted the turn radius figures- says the engines will do X, so the engines will do X. If you disagree, i suggest you argue with the PILOT about it.

The board is there for exactly the questions you are asking. It is a wonderful resource, all you have to do is use it. That's up to you.

Shipwreck

What a bunch of poh-poh...

Back in the good old days of the M163 VADS, it took about one year minimum to get a somewhat decent ADA gunner (assuming one could ever become a decent gunner with such crap as the VADS).


And when did the Iraqis had a chance to practice their ambush tactics against Coalition aircrafts between ODS and ODS ?

Can you back up this claim with a date, place, etc...


Whenever the coalition troops seizes a Taliban convoy defended by 9 DShKs and 5 AA guns, it will most likely indicate a significant reinforcement in those clowns' AD capabilities, which is BAD NEWS for me. Now if you feel like celebrating that kind of things...


Any other example besides this much-touted Karbala mess, where the Army screwed up BIG TIMES ? Place, date,... ?


Very much like the Soviet Su-25s after 1986, the A-10 currently operate from above 14,000 feet most of the time.

And very much like the Soviet Su-25s after 1986, the fact that they may end up at a much lower altitude at the end of a strafing run is hardly a surprise.

And very much like the Soviet Su-25s after 1986, the pilots will climb back to above 14,000 feet immediately at the end of their run.


Whether or not I accept that makes no difference.

What matters is that you haven't been able to offer other figures so far. At some point, you'll have to put up, or shut up, buddy.


If you don't trust the statistics from the Soviet era, you may try the statistics from the post-Soviet period instead.

E.g. on 27 September 1994, a Mi-24 operating from Mozdok was hit by HMGs and made a force landing; one of the crew was mortally wounded.

E.g. on 22 February 2000, a Mi-24 was shot down by small-arms fire near Benoy, another Mi-24 and two Mi-8 being damaged during the same action. The Mi-24 was lost when a 7.62mm bullet hit near the troop cabin and punctured main and auxiliary system lines.

The main gearbox oil system, the hydraulics and the self-sealing tanks proved extremely vulnerable, e.g. the self-sealing tanks not being able to stop leaks even when pierced by 5.45mm bullets.


The Mi-24s rarely flew with passengers (except one technician) during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the Hind being overweight and sluggish with full load. The armor plating and troop seats were removed more often than not, the payload being often limited to two rocket pods (or bombs), four ATGMs and 500 rounds for the YakB 12.7mm.

Only 16% of the Hind's combat missions during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan were flown fully loaded.

The Hind's troop-carrying capabilities were used more often during the first & second war in Chechnya, mainly to insert spetsnaz troops for spec ops.

Bottom line, the flying IFV concept behind the Hind is UNPROVEN.


What you said exactly was : "A-10s are about as combat proven a system as exists in the world". I merely pointed out that Su-25 flew MUCH MORE combat sorties in its career, something you're obviously not willing to accept.

While the A-10 is certainly combat-proven, it never had a chance to prove itself as a low-altitude tank-buster in a saturated AD environment, which was one of the key selling point in the original concept.

Like it or not, the A-10 will most likely remain an unproven concept until the end of its career, no matter how well it does what it is currently used for.

Shipwreck

The world is not going to collapse if ONE A-10 happens to have been shot down by AAA.

I don't quite see why you're afraid to ask on YOUR OWN board (or perhaps you really want me to come over there) and you certainly did a great job so far (and probably learned a few things as well).

Shipwreck

When did I ever ask you to be my gopher ?

I am simply asking you to back up your claims, especially when there are nothing more than wishful thinking.


So what ?


Did the pilot on your website actually made any comments on what Krieg and Wynne said ?

I was under the impression that he simply said wing replacement was the #1 priority.

So far, I have read no specific comments on "the limitations when operating from expeditionary airfields at high elevations and high temperatures" or the need to "improve the A-10’s medium altitude performance and increase its weapon payload, thus improving both survivability and lethality."

Anon

You calling me a liar?

How do you know? Ever operated one? Ever been in a Vulcan plt? Know any Vulcan troops? If so, who, where, under what conditions? You get no more free passes, you know shiit about Vulcans, cause the thing takes all of 15 minutes to get familiarized on.

A ZSU-23/2 probably takes about 5 minutes to show someone how to use. These are very crude systems.

Besides, i was obviously talking about AAA fire with respect to the proper principles of leading the A/C and the differences between engaging helos and fast movers, and not about any one AAA system in particular. So stop being cute.

Teaching the basic fundamentals of lead requires no more than a lecture/classroom setting with a few planes on sticks, a few poster sized drawings of sight pictures and proper leads, and 30 minutes to an hour of a students time. And then practice. Like you get when you're dragging your HMG or towed AAA mount around in the Hindu-Kush firing at the odd US helo or other target of opportunity.

From 1998 until 2003 when a continual state of war existed between the US aircraft that patrolled the No-fly zones and Iraqi IADS.

I could.

The A-10 has attacked much more robust defenses than a few obsolete AAA systems as you describe above. Many, many times. And never suffered an officially acknowledged AAA loss.

Why, an entire Bde of shot-up Apaches (27 or 33 birds IIRC) isn't enough?(the Apache is another A/C of immense physical toughness, though it's electronics are fickle to say the least)

Roberts Ridge. A perfectly executed anti-aircraft ambush. (2 of 'em, in fact)

And oh, BTW, if you just got ambushed, odds are, you screwed up somewhere along the way, regardless of what kind of vehicle you're in.

Not all of the time (and you implied they always operated over 15,000 feet). Everytime they employ their gun they dip down to about 4500 feet. Well within AAA and MANPADS range.

That is a fact.

So then stop insinuating they only operate above 15,000 feet, because it's simply not the case.

Did you watch that video i posted of the A-10s strafing?

No, obviously you did not. Cause you're wrong. An A-10 does not climb back up to 15,000 feet before it makes it's second strafing run. It would take too long.

You wont even tell the board who you are or what your background is, so as far as i'm concerned you've got no room at all to be making demands of anything on anyone at this forum.

Sorry cuz, i dont buy your propagandized statistics. Soviet, Russian, Mujahadeen. The only thing all three have in common is that none of them can be trusted.

AH-64s never operate fully loaded(The 30mm mag is usually only 25% full in most cases). Neither do A-10s for that matter. I doubt ANY A-10 has ever left the runway on a combat mission with a 'full combat load' of 16,000lbs of ext ordnance and a full gun load.

Ummm....except in Chechnya where YOU JUST SAID that very capability was employed in combat.

WTF man...

Regardless, just because a concieved or intended role is not a viable one does not mean the system is a failure. A clear recent example is the Stryker. It is C-130 transportable really only on paper, yet the design is still highly effective nonetheless.

Another one is the B-2s low altitude mobile ICBM hunter mission. The mission dissolved(and was probably complete nonsense to begin with), but the B-2 is an absolutely dominating weapons system nonetheless.

I mean you are calling systems failures because some role some nameless PR O-6 schmoe came up with to sell some system to Congress either never materialized or were never anything more than a sales pitch. It's freaking ridiculous. And not a little Troll like either.

Against much less dangerous IADS, something YOU'RE obviously not willing to accept.

The A-10 delivered numerous CAS strikes(and strafing runs) during both Thunder runs directly into Baghdad, a literal "fish bowl" threat environment, and was able to deliver effective fires against personnel, vehicles, and buildings despite massive amounts of AAA and a heavy MANPADS threat.

IOW, it did exactly what you're saying it has never done.

A ridiculous statement.

CAS, CSAR, FAC-A, Wild Weasel, Anti-Helicopter, Interdiction/Strike, and anti-tank are all roles the A-10 has excelled at in actual combat. And now it's adding precision strike to it's goodie bag too.

It is a COMPLETELY proven combat system, whether you wish to acknowledge it or not.

All you're doing is flaming now...and that was a real touch of fukking class tossing in the story about the dead canadians btw. I hope it doesnt turn out they called the strike in on themselves like happened to the Marines during OIF (or the SpecOps team that got whacked by a 2k lb JDAM during OEF).

The deaths of our soldiers in a terrible accident whose cause is as yet publically unknown should never be used as some sort of sick mechanism to 'score points' in a debate.

Troll.

Shipwreck

Liar, NO. Over-enthusiastic Warthog lover, YES.

Now, can you back up your claims on the A-10 canopy ?


Anyone from ADA School at Fort Bliss would ROFL at your claim that it takes 15 minutes to become a decent M163 gunner.

I suggest you contact someone like Col. Wilfred Boettiger for a confirmation on how long it took to get a decent AAA gunner back in the ol' days. His e-mail is : wboettiger@aol.com

Col. Boettinger is a fine gentleman with extensive ADA experience (especially with Nike and M42 Duster) and I am sure he'll be delighted to answer your questions.


Yet another blanket statement. The question was whether or not you could back up your claim with a date, place, etc...


And Roberts Ridge is supposed to be in Iraq ??? Ya right....


They operate just like the Su-25s did from the end of 1986 onwards, i.e. spend most of their time flying over 14,000 feet.

That they may end up at a much lower altitude at the end of a strafing run is hardly a surprise. That was also the case for the Su-25s from the end of 1986 onwards.

You may also want to ask people on your board how often they make a second strafing run. You'll find out that it's the exception rather than the norm for A-10s currently operating in Afghanistan.


I'd be delighted to examine your own statistics from whatever source you feel like trusting.

BTW, why is it that Russians cannot be trusted ?


Inserting spetsnaz troops for spec ops is NOWHERE near the original flying IFV concept.


It remains a COMPLETELY unproven concept, whether you wish to acknowledge it or not.


Cut the crap, Billy Boy.

The death of Private Mark Anthony Graham is SAD NEWS for anyone with an once of sanity and incidentally YOU are the one trying to use this tragedy to score points here.

You should really quit this habit of derailing threads with unfair personal attacks whenever you run short of back-up.

Canmoore