Page 1 of 10 12345678910 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 141

Thread: Random Thoughts on the Mighty Hog

  1. #1
    Banned Shipwreck's Avatar
    Join Date
    07 Jan 06
    Posts
    2,347

    Random Thoughts on the Mighty Hog

    Quote Originally Posted by M21Sniper
    The frogfoot is a copy of the Northrup A-9, loser of the A-X competiton that produced the A-10.
    William,

    This is a common misconception, mostly due to the remarkably similar aerodynamic layout between the YA-9 and the Su-25 .

    The aerodynamic layout of the Su-25 was nevertheless defined as early as August 1968 with the Sukhoi Design Bureau's T-8 LSSh project, i.e. more than 4 years before YA-9's first flight.

    As a sidenote, it seems that one of the very first design from the unofficial committee set up at the Yuri Gagarin Air Force academy was for a twin-boom, twin-engined layout.
    Last edited by Shipwreck; 13 Aug 06, at 19:43.

  2. #2
    Senior Contributor THL's Avatar
    Join Date
    23 Jun 05
    Location
    35 minutes outside Chicago (please don't refer to it as "Chi-Town"...that's annoying)
    Posts
    5,910
    Damn! I thought this thread was gonna be about a Harley.
    "To dream of the person you would like to be is to waste the person you are."-Sholem Asch

    "I always turn to the sports page first, which records people's accomplishments. The front page has nothing but man's failures."-Earl Warren

    "I didn't intend for this to take on a political tone. I'm just here for the drugs."-Nancy Reagan, when asked a political question at a "Just Say No" rally

    "He no play-a da game, he no make-a da rules."-Earl Butz, on the Pope's attitude toward birth control

  3. #3
    Banned Shipwreck's Avatar
    Join Date
    07 Jan 06
    Posts
    2,347
    Quote Originally Posted by Jimmy
    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
    More than 90% of the tank kills credited to the A-10 during ODS were achieved with Mavericks.

    Almost 95% of the Mavericks fired by the coalition during ODS were fired by A-10s (4,801 out of about 5,100).

    The rather impressive AFV kills (tanks + APCs) from fixed wings seem to have more to do with the Maverick than the Hog itself.

    Very much like the almost equally impressive AFV kills (about 800 tanks + 500 APCs) from rotary wings has more to do with the Hellfire (2,876 fired during ODS) than the Apache itself.
    Last edited by Shipwreck; 13 Aug 06, at 20:35.

  4. #4
    Global Moderator
    Devil's Advocate
    ArmchairGeneral's Avatar
    Join Date
    04 May 06
    Location
    Boston, MA.
    Posts
    4,668
    That's very interesting. I wonder why the mighty Avenger was used so little? Perhaps range issues? Or lethality? I know that 30mm are devastating to the top armor of a tank, but perhaps at longer ranges the low angle means they can't hit the top armor, and they aren't powerful enough to really damage the side armor? Snipe would know, or can ask someone who knows.

    As far as the importance of the Maverick vs the Warthog, the fact that the vast majority of Mavs were launched from 'Hogs indicates to me that the Hog is by far the best firing platform for Mavericks. Can't separate the weapon from the launch platform, IMO. The Hog is the best 'cause of the Mav, and the Mav is the best 'cause of the Hog. Same with Hellfire and Apache. Gotta love synergy.
    I enjoy being wrong too much to change my mind.

  5. #5
    Global Moderator
    Devil's Advocate
    ArmchairGeneral's Avatar
    Join Date
    04 May 06
    Location
    Boston, MA.
    Posts
    4,668
    Quote Originally Posted by Shipwreck
    As a sidenote, it seems that one of the very first design from the unofficial committee set up at the Yuri Gagarin Air Force academy was for a twin-boom, twin-engined layout.
    Twin boom? Like the Lightning and the de Havilland series of jets? That would be cool. Even if it sucked, it would be cool.
    I enjoy being wrong too much to change my mind.

  6. #6
    Staff Emeritus
    Join Date
    03 Aug 03
    Posts
    16,429
    Quote Originally Posted by Shipwreck
    William,

    This is a common misconception, mostly due to the remarkably similar aerodynamic layout between the YA-9 and the Su-25 .

    The aerodynamic layout of the Su-25 was nevertheless defined as early as August 1968 with the Sukhoi Design Bureau's T-8 LSSh project, i.e. more than 4 years before YA-9's first flight.
    How's it you're comparing the first flight date of the northrup bird to the first 'on-paper' date of the Su-25?

    Six companies submitted designs in 1970, so it is quite reasonable to expect those designs were not just sitting there waiting, but had been developed to some degree (on paper of course) for some time before their designs had been submitted.

    When was the USAF A-X RFP first issued? Anyone know?

  7. #7
    Global Moderator
    Devil's Advocate
    ArmchairGeneral's Avatar
    Join Date
    04 May 06
    Location
    Boston, MA.
    Posts
    4,668
    Quote Originally Posted by M21Sniper
    How's it you're comparing the first flight date of the northrup bird to the first 'on-paper' date of the Su-25?

    Six companies submitted designs in 1970, so it is quite reasonable to expect those designs were not just sitting there waiting, but had been developed to some degree (on paper of course) for some time before their designs had been submitted.

    When was the USAF A-X RFP first issued? Anyone know?
    Why would the Russians copy a design that hadn't even flown yet? Seems kinda stupid to me. It's a pretty obvious design, sounds like convergent evolution to me.
    I enjoy being wrong too much to change my mind.

  8. #8
    Staff Emeritus
    Join Date
    03 Aug 03
    Posts
    16,429
    Quote Originally Posted by ArmchairGeneral
    That's very interesting. I wonder why the mighty Avenger was used so little? Perhaps range issues?
    Mav has about 6-7x the range of the gun.

    Quote Originally Posted by ArmchairGeneral
    Or lethality? I know that 30mm are devastating to the top armor of a tank, but perhaps at longer ranges the low angle means they can't hit the top armor, and they aren't powerful enough to really damage the side armor? Snipe would know, or can ask someone who knows.
    According to the Hogdrivers i know and love, 30x173mm HVAPDU ammo will kill a tank pretty easily from any reasonable aspect.

    Quote Originally Posted by ArmchairGeneral
    As far as the importance of the Maverick vs the Warthog, the fact that the vast majority of Mavs were launched from 'Hogs indicates to me that the Hog is by far the best firing platform for Mavericks. Can't separate the weapon from the launch platform, IMO. The Hog is the best 'cause of the Mav, and the Mav is the best 'cause of the Hog. Same with Hellfire and Apache. Gotta love synergy.
    The Maverick is pretty good on anything, but the Hog carries more of them than it's peers and it can keep them aloft a lot longer with less need for tanking. It can also base MUCH closer to the fight, flying off rough fields or reinforced highway sections if needed.

    And of course once the Mavs are gone the Hog still has CBUs, Mk82s, and the gun, which all A-10 pilots LOVE.(feel free to ask any of them, they aint shy about it, lolol).

  9. #9
    Patron
    Join Date
    28 May 06
    Posts
    192
    Quote Originally Posted by ArmchairGeneral
    That's very interesting. I wonder why the mighty Avenger was used so little? Perhaps range issues? Or lethality? I know that 30mm are devastating to the top armor of a tank, but perhaps at longer ranges the low angle means they can't hit the top armor, and they aren't powerful enough to really damage the side armor? Snipe would know, or can ask someone who knows.
    Not being there, I'd wager that it would be something to do with the fact that the maverick is pretty much fire and forget from tens of miles away (what is it, 20-30miles?)

    Using the gun, regardless of lethality involves flying in a fairly straight, predictable flight path (whilst strafing), directly over enemy ground forces.

    Which the A10 is no doubt capable of doing... but if you've got mavericks left on the pylons... why tempt fate?
    Last edited by nutter; 14 Aug 06, at 03:11.

  10. #10
    Staff Emeritus
    Join Date
    03 Aug 03
    Posts
    16,429
    Speaking of the gun...


    M901 ITOW shot to pieces by 30mm TP(training/practice) rounds.


    The A-10 Warthog...so mean even it's own crewmen run...
    Last edited by Bill; 14 Aug 06, at 03:17.

  11. #11
    Staff Emeritus
    Join Date
    03 Aug 03
    Posts
    16,429
    Quote Originally Posted by nutter
    Not being there, I'd wager that it would be something to do with the fact that the maverick is pretty much fire and forget from tens of miles away (what is it, 20-30miles?)
    The actual useful combat range for the Mav(when targeting something as small as a tank or IFV) is about 10 miles maximum.

    Quote Originally Posted by nutter
    Using the gun, regardless of lethality involves flying in a fairly straight, predictable flight path (whilst strafing), directly over enemy ground forces.

    Which the A10 is no doubt capable of doing... but if you've got mavericks left on the pylons... why tempt fate?
    The pilot will try to roll into his strafing run just before opening fire(sometimes after as seen in the pic below) to prevent the sort of exposure you're talking about, and the A-10s gun easily outranges any of the 37mm or smaller WP AAA systems, but there's no doubt that anytime you close to within about 1.5-2 miles with the enemy you're exposed.


    A-10 executing non-level flight/banking strafing attack

    Good thing the jet is armored like a tank.
    Last edited by Bill; 14 Aug 06, at 03:39.

  12. #12
    Global Moderator
    Devil's Advocate
    ArmchairGeneral's Avatar
    Join Date
    04 May 06
    Location
    Boston, MA.
    Posts
    4,668
    Quote Originally Posted by M21Sniper
    Mav has about 6-7x the range of the gun.
    Ah. And when you have a shot, you take it. So by the time you get to gun range, there's no targets left that aren't burning hulks already. How unfortunate.



    According to the Hogdrivers i know and love, 30x173mm HVAPDU ammo will kill a tank pretty easily from any reasonable aspect.
    What about a frontal shot on the turret face? Or the glacis plate?



    The Maverick is pretty good on anything, but the Hog carries more of them than it's peers and it can keep them aloft a lot longer with less need for tanking. It can also base MUCH closer to the fight, flying off rough fields or reinforced highway sections if needed.
    In other words, the Maverick is better on a Hog. At least for CAS.
    I enjoy being wrong too much to change my mind.

  13. #13
    Global Moderator
    Devil's Advocate
    ArmchairGeneral's Avatar
    Join Date
    04 May 06
    Location
    Boston, MA.
    Posts
    4,668
    Quote Originally Posted by M21Sniper
    Good thing the jet is armored like a tank.
    Yeah, it must be nice to have an inch of titanium surrounding you.
    I enjoy being wrong too much to change my mind.

  14. #14
    Patron
    Join Date
    28 May 06
    Posts
    192
    Quote Originally Posted by ArmchairGeneral
    In other words, the Maverick is better on a Hog. At least for CAS.
    So what do you propose launching the Maverick from, or are you just going to fire it from the airbase and hope it can make the 150nm distance by itself? :D

    You can't compare an A10 to the armament it carries :D The A10 is a weapons *platform* - the maverick is just one component of that...
    Last edited by nutter; 14 Aug 06, at 03:25.

  15. #15
    Staff Emeritus
    Join Date
    03 Aug 03
    Posts
    16,429
    Quote Originally Posted by ArmchairGeneral
    What about a frontal shot on the turret face? Or the glacis plate?
    Well you have to consider that the A-10 will always be above the tank(at least 50 feet, but typically much higher), so it will always be attacking into the thinner top armor to some extent, but as a matter of practice a hog won't strafe right into the face of a target(adds a lot more risk), but will try to come in out of the sun in a dive, either from the rear or on a flank. Direct head on attacks are typically avoided if at all possible, and always avoided in a CAS role(in those situations all aircraft attack paralell to the FEBA to avoid the risk of fratricide from short bombs and to maximize 'on target time' with their weapons).

    Quote Originally Posted by ArmchairGeneral
    In other words, the Maverick is better on a Hog. At least for CAS.
    Very few will dispute the obvious truth of that statement my friend.


    FEAR ME, GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR
    Last edited by Bill; 14 Aug 06, at 03:40.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Random Thoughts on the Mighty Hog - Part 2
    By Shipwreck in forum Military Aviation
    Replies: 219
    Last Post: 12 Dec 17,, 00:10
  2. Interview with PLAAF LGen Liu Yazhou
    By Officer of Engineers in forum The Field Mess
    Replies: 64
    Last Post: 22 Jul 13,, 13:59
  3. Your Thoughts on David Icke?
    By joey2 in forum World Affairs Board Pub
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 29 Dec 06,, 12:55
  4. Zogby poll of US service members in Iraq
    By Shek in forum American Politics & Economy
    Replies: 43
    Last Post: 12 Mar 06,, 16:38
  5. Mighty mice for sale -- mighty expensive at least
    By Jay in forum Science & Technology
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08 Mar 06,, 05:03

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •