Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Strike Aircraft Comparisons

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    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.

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by hello
      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:



      Fuselage damage:


      Stab Damage:




      Some other battledamaged A10s:



      (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)
      Last edited by Bill; 14 Mar 06,, 15:11.

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by M21Sniper
        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.
        Last edited by B.Smitty; 14 Mar 06,, 14:13.

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by B.Smitty
          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.

          Originally posted by B.Smitty
          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.

          Originally posted by B.Smitty
          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.

          Originally posted by B.Smitty
          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.



          OA-10A providing close escort and defense suppression for MH-60 Pavehawk
          Last edited by Bill; 14 Mar 06,, 15:07.

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by M21Sniper
            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+.

            Originally posted by M21Sniper
            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.

            Originally posted by M21Sniper
            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.

            Originally posted by M21Sniper
            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?

            Originally posted by M21Sniper
            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.

            Originally posted by M21Sniper
            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.

            Originally posted by M21Sniper
            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.

            Originally posted by M21Sniper
            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.

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by B.Smitty
              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)

              Originally posted by B.Smitty
              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.

              Originally posted by B.Smitty
              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.

              Originally posted by B.Smitty
              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.

              Originally posted by B.Smitty
              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.


              Originally posted by B.Smitty
              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.

              Originally posted by B.Smitty
              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).


              Originally posted by B.Smitty
              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.

              Originally posted by B.Smitty
              Brimstone is better than Maverick for tank plinking.
              In what fantasy world is that?

              Originally posted by B.Smitty
              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.

              Originally posted by B.Smitty
              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.

              Originally posted by B.Smitty
              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... ;)

              Originally posted by B.Smitty
              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...
              Last edited by Bill; 14 Mar 06,, 15:47.

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by M21Sniper
                I would say that low altitude front line CAS with a gun is every bit as dangerous(if not moreseo) than attacking airfields. Yet the A10 had a fraction of the loss rate of the Tornado.
                Hmm. I'd have to disagree with you there. In most cases, front-line CAS areas have already been worked over by a LOT more strike sorties than the airfields hit by Tornados. Plus, CAS means the enemy is in contact with friendly ground forces, so they're probably a wee-bit distracted.

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

                Originally posted by M21Sniper
                And the fact is that a lot of the hits that downed those Tornadoes would not have killed an A10.
                Maybe, maybe not. At 340kts, an A-10 would've been under fire for a LOT longer.

                Originally posted by M21Sniper
                If left to use tactics well suited to the A/C, an A-10 would be an extremely effective platform for shutting down airfield.
                Except for the fact that it takes so freakin long to get there and back.

                Originally posted by M21Sniper
                The problem with the IDS is the JP.233, which DEMANDED that attack profile be used. It wasn't a tactical issue at all, it was an EMPLOYMENT issue.

                So the fact is that the weapon the IDS was DESIGNED AROUND leaves it very vulnerable to ground fire.(the old W.German MBB MW-1 had the same problem)
                Yes, however the Brits recognized the foolishness of this approach and switched Tornados to med-altitude LGB strikes. It's a fault of the munition, not the aircraft.


                Originally posted by M21Sniper
                Command and control..who knows? Airfields are not the A10s tasking. I suspect it hit exactly as many of each as it was asked to.
                Because it's ill-suited for the job.

                Originally posted by M21Sniper
                Why would i want that? A10 has a datalink to JSTARs. What does it need it's own radar for?
                For the same reason EVERY other significant strike aircraft has one, because JSTARS can't be everywhere. Because it can't generate high-res SAR images for every strike sortie. Because IR goggles and FLIR aren't good enough to safely fly a terrain following profile in real bad weather.

                Originally posted by M21Sniper
                CAS sorties have almost nothing to do with having a radar anyway. They are visually cued/radio controlled missions.
                Yes, but this is the best STRIKE aircraft, not the best CAS aircraft. CAS is just one type of strike mission.

                Originally posted by M21Sniper
                The A10 does not require as many man-hours of maintenance between sorties and operates much closer to the front because of it's rough field capabilities, so sortie rate actually HEAVILY favors the A10 over the Tornado.
                You don't always have forward airfields. And the A-10 actually requires a LONGER runway than an F-teen or Tornado.

                Originally posted by M21Sniper
                The A10 can STAY in orbit about 5x longer than a tornado, and make about 4x the passes on a single tank of gas.
                Do you have a source to back that up?

                Originally posted by M21Sniper
                The Maverick is also all-weather, has double the range(at least- its probably closer to triple the range), and has a warhead 7-12x larger(165lb HEAT or 300lb Blast-Frag).
                Mavericks carried by A-10s are normally IIR right? IIR has issues in bad weather. Brimstone uses a MMW seeker, which doesn't.

                Originally posted by M21Sniper
                It's also faster.
                Who cares? IIR Mavericks and Brimstones are fire-and-forget, so what does it matter if it takes a tad bit longer for the Brimstone to hit its target?

                Originally posted by M21Sniper
                The Brimstone is a superior anti-armor munition only in your obviously deluded mind.
                Can IIR Mavericks be launched indirectly, without the aircraft first seeing the target? No. Can an A-10 launch all of it's Mavericks in a single salvo? No. A Gr4 with Brimstones can do both. That's 12-18 shots in a single pass.

                Originally posted by M21Sniper
                And you may have not realized it, but the A10s gun can load can typically kill 10-12 tanks on one ammo load(typical 2sec burst per tank), PLUS the A10s mav loadout(normally 4, but as many as 12), PLUS the 2 CBUs and 2 Mk82s the A10 typically carries.
                Sure, in a benign environment, the gun is a good thing. But add a significant MANPADs threat, and its value rapidly diminishes.

                Originally posted by M21Sniper
                The fact is that in actual combat the A10 has proven nearly invulnerable to MANPADs(and even heavy SAM) fire.
                Invulnerable?

                http://afhra.maxwell.af.mil/wwwroot/...s1990_2002.pdf

                Table I: USAF Manned Aircraft Combat Losses 1990-2002

                17 Jan 1991 F-15E AAA Night
                19 Jan 1991 F-15E SA-2E Radar Night
                19 Jan 1991 F-16C SA-6 Radar Day
                19 Jan 1991 F-4G AAA Night
                19 Jan 1991 F-16C SA-3 Radar Day
                31 Jan 1991 AC-130H SA-16 Infrared Day
                2 Feb 1991 A-10A SA-16 Infrared Day
                13 Feb 1991 EF-111A (maneuver) Night
                15 Feb 1991 A-10A SA-13 Infrared Day
                15 Feb 1991 A-10A SA-13 Infrared Day
                19 Feb 1991 OA-10 SA-9 Infrared Day
                22 Feb 1991 A-10A SA-16 Infrared Day
                27 Feb 1991 OA-10A SA-16 Infrared Day
                27 Feb 1991 F-16C AAA Day
                2 Jun 1995 F-16C SA-6 Radar Day
                27 Mar 1999 F-117 SA-3 (Radar?) Night
                2 May 1999 F-16CG SA-3 (Radar?) Night

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

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

                Toss in another A-10 lost to a MANPADS in OIF.

                I'd HARDLY call that invulnerable.

                Originally posted by M21Sniper
                You know you're the only guy i have ever run accross that has ever tried to even remotely compare the Tornado IDS to the A10 as a CAS asset.
                I'm saying the Tornado has SIGNIFICANT CAS capabilities. OTOH, the A-10 is wanting as a general-purpose strike aircraft. The USAF recognizes this, and uses F-15Es and F-16s for these jobs instead.

                Originally posted by M21Sniper
                Think it has anything to do with the the fact that they're ill-suited for the role?
                In the same way the A-10 is ill-suited to perform non-CAS strike roles that don't involve wandering around the empty desert looking for Scuds.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by M21Sniper
                  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.



                  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

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    As if friendly fire is a foreign concept to you guys too...
                    "The right man in the wrong place can make all the difference in the world. So wake up, Mr. Freeman. Wake up and smell the ashes." G-Man

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by B.Smitty
                      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.

                      Originally posted by B.Smitty
                      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.

                      Originally posted by B.Smitty
                      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.

                      Originally posted by B.Smitty
                      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.

                      Originally posted by B.Smitty
                      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.

                      Originally posted by B.Smitty
                      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.

                      Originally posted by B.Smitty
                      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)

                      Originally posted by B.Smitty
                      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.

                      Originally posted by B.Smitty
                      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.

                      Originally posted by B.Smitty
                      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.

                      Originally posted by B.Smitty
                      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).

                      Originally posted by B.Smitty
                      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.

                      Originally posted by B.Smitty
                      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/

                      Originally posted by B.Smitty
                      Mavericks carried by A-10s are normally IIR right?
                      It can employ all three types(EO, IIR, SALH), but typically IIR is preferred.

                      Originally posted by B.Smitty
                      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.

                      Originally posted by B.Smitty
                      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.

                      Originally posted by B.Smitty
                      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.

                      Originally posted by B.Smitty
                      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)

                      Originally posted by B.Smitty
                      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.

                      Originally posted by B.Smitty
                      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.


                      Originally posted by B.Smitty
                      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. ;)


                      Originally posted by B.Smitty
                      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.

                      Originally posted by B.Smitty
                      http://afhra.maxwell.af.mil/wwwroot/...s1990_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.

                      Originally posted by B.Smitty
                      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.

                      Originally posted by B.Smitty
                      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.

                      Originally posted by B.Smitty
                      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. ;)

                      Originally posted by B.Smitty
                      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.
                      Last edited by Bill; 14 Mar 06,, 18:36.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by M21Sniper
                        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?

                        Originally posted by M21Sniper
                        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.

                        Originally posted by M21Sniper
                        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?

                        Originally posted by M21Sniper
                        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.


                        Originally posted by M21Sniper
                        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.

                        Originally posted by M21Sniper
                        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?

                        Originally posted by M21Sniper
                        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.

                        Originally posted by M21Sniper
                        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.

                        Originally posted by M21Sniper
                        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?

                        Originally posted by M21Sniper
                        A MMW radar which can be jammed AND tracked.
                        IIR munitions can be jammed as well.

                        Originally posted by M21Sniper
                        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?

                        Originally posted by M21Sniper
                        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

                        Originally posted by M21Sniper
                        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.

                        Originally posted by M21Sniper
                        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.

                        Originally posted by M21Sniper
                        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.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by B.Smitty
                          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
                          Last edited by Jimmy; 14 Mar 06,, 19:50.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by B.Smitty
                            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.

                            Originally posted by B.Smitty
                            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.

                            Originally posted by B.Smitty
                            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.

                            Originally posted by B.Smitty
                            Do you always have a 10 digit grid?
                            If you have a military grade GPS reciever and a rangefinder you do.

                            Originally posted by B.Smitty
                            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.

                            Originally posted by B.Smitty
                            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. ;)

                            Originally posted by B.Smitty
                            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. ;)

                            Originally posted by B.Smitty
                            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.

                            Originally posted by B.Smitty
                            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.

                            Originally posted by B.Smitty
                            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.


                            Originally posted by B.Smitty
                            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).


                            Originally posted by B.Smitty
                            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.


                            Originally posted by B.Smitty
                            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.

                            Originally posted by B.Smitty
                            Well, in this day and age, it seems less likely that either will face massed armor formations.
                            Probably true.

                            [QUOTE=B.Smitty]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."

                            Originally posted by 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... ;)
                            Last edited by Bill; 14 Mar 06,, 20:39.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by Jimmy
                              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. :)

                              Last edited by Bill; 14 Mar 06,, 20:43.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by M21Sniper
                                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.

                                Originally posted by M21Sniper
                                You mean besides a board full of A10 pilots and crewdogs?
                                http://forum.a-10.org/

                                Ask.
                                You make assertions like this.

                                Originally posted by M21Sniper
                                The A10 does not require as many man-hours of maintenance between sorties and operates much closer to the front because of it's rough field capabilities, so sortie rate actually HEAVILY favors the A10 over the Tornado.
                                and this,

                                Originally posted by M21Sniper
                                The A10 can STAY in orbit about 5x longer than a tornado, and make about 4x the passes on a single tank of gas.
                                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.

                                Originally posted by M21Sniper
                                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?

                                Originally posted by M21Sniper
                                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?

                                Originally posted by M21Sniper
                                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?

                                Originally posted by M21Sniper
                                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.

                                Originally posted by M21Sniper
                                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?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X