The A10

[FALCON1377]

I think the a10 production line should be open again A10 is the best close support Airplaine out there i don,t think F35 joint strike isn,t going to pass a close support aircraft. If we can spen that mutch on f22 and f35 you can make new A10 With al up grades new plaine zero flight time. Thank,s Eagle Duncan Harrington Falcon1377. :bigsmile: :bigsmile: :wink2: :wink2:

[Professor Fate]

The A-10 is a great tankbuster, but its low speed and radar signature make it an easy target for sams. It's not stealthy, is slower to get on station, would suck for standoff weapons because it can't fly high/fast enough, and would require boatloads of systems upgrades to handle the interface for all of the smart weapons being used. Dumb bombs are getting to be almost a thing of the past...everything is being done with smart weapons now, even CAS. By the time you design the systems in and do all of the necessary weapon integration/certification, you might as well have spent the money for a new airplane.

[FALCON1377]

The airforce tested updated f16 they called a16 it didn, t do well the pilot had hard time see the target and they couldn,t stay over the target for long. The A10 are be up dated with new engines and new avionics they can carry gps bomb,s too they have two engines. Joint strike fighter has one engines. Theres a story that A10 that got shot up in Desert Storm had big junk,s of air plane missing like wing and one engines . :bigeyes: :bigeyes:

[Spyder-F16]

The A-10 has a triple Redundant control system, making it so you could shoot the wing half way off and it'd still fly.


The F-35 or F-16 however, one well aimed bullet would knock it out of the sky since both rely on one control system : FBW.

[Buckshot]

The point is that the F-35/F-16 can get in and out quick enough and put their weapons on target with enough precision that they have a much better chance of not being hit at all. In todays enviroment the A-10 is going to be a virtual sitting duck, sure it can take a pounding, but you can be equally sure that it will. With the proliferation of MANPADS the A-10 is becoming a virtual death trap against any well equiped and motivated force. The USAF don't make their decisions without a lot of thought going into them. It's a great aircraft but it's time is nearly up.

[Professor Fate]

Yep...when they designed the A-10, they knew that the pilots were going to be getting down and dirty with the scud on the ground. That's how CAS was done in the 1970's. So they designed it for the pilot to sit in a titanium bathtub for that very purpose.

When the F(A)-16 came along, they tried to do the A-10's mission. It was never designed for that kind of combat, plus the available weapons at the time were not very conducive for that aircraft/mission combination.

Now, with the F-35 and F-22, and GPS precision strike and standoff range weapons, it's not as necessary to get down and dirty anymore. The need will still arise to get down low once in a while, but that's not where these airplanes are going to be flying, and striking from the majority of the time. The face of CAS is changing.

[Sehm]

It's a great aircraft but it's time is nearly up.

Exactly why we should honor it in this sim :wink2:

[Smokin `ole]

Now, with the F-35 and F-22, and GPS precision strike and standoff range weapons, it's not as necessary to get down and dirty anymore. The need will still arise to get down low once in a while, but that's not where these airplanes are going to be flying, and striking from the majority of the time. The face of CAS is changing.



Can i add a couple of things here? (just correct me if i`m wrong)

The A10 was built for 1 purpose, that is, to kill tanks. GPS weapons may be the dogs, but where the A10 would be used is over the front line, that is a very fluid tactical enviroment.

With regards to GPS weapons, are they not programmed before launch? if so over the front line they wouldn`t be much good.

Speaking as an ex tankie (2RTR) the targets we were told to get first (if we had a choice) were anti-air systems, command tanks, then regular tanks. So over the IMMEDIATE front line, the A10 would still have a very good chance of survival, especially over northern europe where there are trees to hide in, believe me, on exercises, ive seen the buggers flown under the tops of trees, downfire breaks, roads, that sort of thing.

I cant imagine tactics have changed that much in the 14 or so years ive left the Army.

If there was a war in 5, or even 10 yrs time, i`m sure you will still see A10`s on the battlefield, coz nothing kills tanks better than an A10, the AH series of Helicopters are another issue...

[SUBS17]

I have to agree with you there, the gulf war is proof of that.

TANK KILLS
A-10 1000
AH64 500

[Professor Fate]

Although the A-10's gun was made for tank busting, I think the tank killing weapon of choice these days is the Maverick, which still allows you to fire from a good distance.

Yes, you're right...GPS guided weapons can be programmed anytime before launch, but that doesn't mean they have to be programmed while sitting on the ground. If a JSTARS can provide GPS coordinates real time, they can be uploaded to the weapon(s) in flight a few seconds before launch.

[LaWMaN]

I have to agree with you there, the gulf war is proof of that.

TANK KILLS
A-10 1000
AH64 500And the A-10 has a huge payload.

[MikeRocker]

I don't know whether a gent called 'Diceman' posts here, but he was quite active over at LOMAC for a while. He's a senior maintenance dude on the A-10 program and currently involveed with the running upgrades.

Anyway: according to him a major section of the A-10A fleet(~120 jets) is currently being upgraded to what is jokingly called the A-10C standard. This upgrade includes:

-precision weapons (JDAM,WCMD,SDB sometime later)
-partly 'glass' cockpit (MPDs, in an A-10. Unbelievable!!)
-datalink
-digital stores management
-new Fire Control Computer (with CCRP,etc.)
-targeting pod (Litening or SniperXR, very cool!) :thumb:
-helmet-mounted sight (JHMCS, maybe?)

In addition to this they might also get new, uprated TF-34 engines.


Thats quite a pckage and I for one am looking forward to it! :bounce:

[SUBS17]

Those A-10s will really kick ass with that.

[SUBS17]

Although the A-10's gun was made for tank busting, I think the tank killing weapon of choice these days is the Maverick, which still allows you to fire from a good distance.

Yes, you're right...GPS guided weapons can be programmed anytime before launch, but that doesn't mean they have to be programmed while sitting on the ground. If a JSTARS can provide GPS coordinates real time, they can be uploaded to the weapon(s) in flight a few seconds before launch.
I think the gun is more for straffing soft skin vehicles and troops, although it could damage an MBT it won't kill it indefinately. Unless someone has some photos of a tank killed by the gun? Mind you I would definately be looking for the door if I were in a tank and one of those were flying around.
cheers
Subs

[Sun Stealer]

Subs, I have photos of an M48 and M47 being destroyed by both AP and HE rounds fired from an A-10. The AP rounds pierced the turret armour, and then the ammo that the tank was carrying inside went off! :eek: The HE rounds seemed to make a complete mess of the whole outside of the tank, rendering it useless (blown off tracks, smoked engine, generaly mangled :smile: ).

.

[SUBS17]

How about a heavier tank such as a T72, I'd really like to see some of one of those thats been nailed by an A-10 gun. At the Lockon forum we were having a bit of a debate on the subject and this Russian Tank driver said that it would only get damaged not destroyed. He was using the percentage of hit by a burst as proof it wouldn't penetrate. They modeled heavier armour in Lockon for the front and thats why you won't destoy a T80 or 72 unless its from the side or rear. Certainly not a good place to be if an A-10s flying about.

cheers
Subs

[FlyBoy01]

Gang,

This link came up in a search for pictures of tanks destroyed by the A10.
Good but long reading.

http://209.196.144.55/articles/bourque.html

[Hammer_61]

The A-10 has a triple Redundant control system, making it so you could shoot the wing half way off and it'd still fly.


The F-35 or F-16 however, one well aimed bullet would knock it out of the sky since both rely on one control system : FBW.

Actually, Spyder, the Viper's FLCS is a quad-redundant system, not a single control system.

I'd worry more about fuel systems than FLCS. The F/A-22, F-35, and F-16 do not have self-sealing tanks. The A-10 and the F-15 does. Also, the F-16 has no fire extinguishing system. The tank inerting system on the Viper dumps about 13 pounds of Halon into the fuel system to suppress an explosion hazard, but if the engine is on fire, you might have to pull the D-ring and get out if you can't put it on the ground..

[Hammer_61]

How about a heavier tank such as a T72, I'd really like to see some of one of those thats been nailed by an A-10 gun. At the Lockon forum we were having a bit of a debate on the subject and this Russian Tank driver said that it would only get damaged not destroyed. He was using the percentage of hit by a burst as proof it wouldn't penetrate. They modeled heavier armour in Lockon for the front and thats why you won't destoy a T80 or 72 unless its from the side or rear. Certainly not a good place to be if an A-10s flying about.

cheers
Subs

The Iraqi T-72's were cut apart like a hot knife through butter. Also, many tank kills in the Gulf War were the result of AGM-65 strikes and not 30mm.

[SUBS17]

Got any photos of 30mm penetration?

[Hammer_61]

Not in my personal stash, SUBS. I am saying this as a result of talking to the Hog drivers every day at KKMC when they'd RTB from the theatre. They were pretty stoked about their performance against the T-72. I also saw gun camera footage during several briefings with the Hog guys which showed the tanks brewing up after being hit with 30mm. The armor on the T-72 in the turret and glacis areas is considerable, you are right. But the tank is still very vulnerable from the top and rear.

I'll email some friends and see if they have any pics.

[SUBS17]

Cheers, very cool. Just need to show that to a Russian tank driver who doesn't believe it can.

[MrMudd]

How about a heavier tank such as a T72, I'd really like to see some of one of those thats been nailed by an A-10 gun. At the Lockon forum we were having a bit of a debate on the subject and this Russian Tank driver said that it would only get damaged not destroyed. He was using the percentage of hit by a burst as proof it wouldn't penetrate. They modeled heavier armour in Lockon for the front and thats why you won't destoy a T80 or 72 unless its from the side or rear. Certainly not a good place to be if an A-10s flying about.

cheers
Subs

Cough Cough....Bullshit.

One of endless reasons I left the Lockon Development. Ignorant Russian programmers that don't want to model the truth.

[*Merlin*]

Well, I have seen video of a tank getting completley chopped in 2 by the mighty A10, Theres no tank around that can with stand its power.

[MrMudd]

Well, I have seen video of a tank getting completley chopped in 2 by the mighty A10, Theres no tank around that can with stand its power.


Trust me many have suffered their fate when i Roll in :wink2:

[Pacman]

I think it has to do with the amount of hits and from what distance they have been fired.
If you want to destroy a heavy tank from the front rounds that are fired closer stand a better chance of penetrating. It also depends on the angle with which the round hits the armored plate.
It is hard to find out at what RL distances a round penetrates a specific thinkness of a certain armor type, and also how many hits approx it takes to take out that MBT. I think that is the way it should be modeled.

Dirk

[*Merlin*]

Trust me many have suffered their fate when i Roll in :wink2:
I would say so.

A10+tank=:owned:

[SUBS17]

Theres alot of debate as to whether a 30mm will penetrate the armour and kill the crew. Due to the low probability hit rate. Thats why I'm wondering if there are any gun camera photos or pictures taken from the ground of T72s getting hit by the A-10s gun. I've seen some video of an A-10 hitting some tanks but the rounds didn't penetrate the armour.

[MrMudd]

Theres alot of debate as to whether a 30mm will penetrate the armour and kill the crew. Due to the low probability hit rate. Thats why I'm wondering if there are any gun camera photos or pictures taken from the ground of T72s getting hit by the A-10s gun. I've seen some video of an A-10 hitting some tanks but the rounds didn't penetrate the armour.

DU is hazardous when it is in a dust form in and around a target that has been struck, but not from radioactivity. It is toxic in that is a heavy metal, no different than mercury. When it gets in your lungs, it can do bad things. If you wear a dust mask, you are safe.

Of course, it is lethal when hitting something at 3000 ft/sec...the pyrophoric effect and spallation is highly disorienting and causes physical and mental shock. Not to mention that your eyeballs explode from their sockets from the overpressure.

I'll go through my Carnage Keepsakes when i have a few minutes this week and Run it through the PAO Gestapo. If they give me the Go, Ill host some stuff up on my defense site. www.digitalvalhalla.net (of course, i still need to find the time to work on that as well) Such is my life.

[Bull]

The low, slow, in your face role will continue to be filled by aircraft currently flying until the UAV's are ready to take over. IMHO

[grab]

Not in my personal stash, SUBS. I am saying this as a result of talking to the Hog drivers every day at KKMC when they'd RTB from the theatre. They were pretty stoked about their performance against the T-72. I also saw gun camera footage during several briefings with the Hog guys which showed the tanks brewing up after being hit with 30mm. The armor on the T-72 in the turret and glacis areas is considerable, you are right. But the tank is still very vulnerable from the top and rear.

I'll email some friends and see if they have any pics. Hehe, KKMC,
My jet diverted there after shelling a #3 bearing, place was empty as hell at the time(1998). We landed with a small crew and the motor and were greeted by our young Lt. pilot clutching his 9 like it was the first time he felt a boob. I was amazed at how clean and "never used" the place looked not to mention how empty it was. The 130 we rode in on took off the second we had the engine out the rear. Nothing like being that close to Iraq with only a few speed handles and a scared pilot with a nine protecting you. Grab

[Professor Fate]

Ah...the latest incarnation of the A-10...I guess they're running out of tanks to bust. :tongue:

http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/news/channel_aerospacedaily_story.jsp?id=news/A1001255.xml

[Spyder-F16]

Its very nice to see they're upgrading the A-10 to C model. ;)

Good thing the brass finally decided not to scrap it til 2028.

[DrDetroit]

The A-10s 30mm cannon can and will destroy any tank out there today. The A-10 was essentially built around the 13 foot long G.E. GAU-8 Avenger cannon. Now add the PGU-14 API (armour piercing incendiary), which can kill tanks and anything else very effectivly. That is exactly what the A-10 does...kill tanks.

Good day,
Dr.Detroit

[SUBS17]

Lets see some photos mate, 30mm penetration!

[Sundowner]

30mm canon vs MBT, now that’s a good subject to talk about.

First the accuracy: One second burst from about 1200m (4000ft) will put 40 shells inside a circle little bigger than MBT and you can fire 2 second burst until the safety switch will stop gun to cool it down. Projectiles fly at Mach 3 so they reach target in 1.2 second after being fired, so you don’t need to worry about the movement of target, nor the distance, because of the flat trajectory of bullets. It is a devastating weapon.

But is almost impossible to penetrate front armor of T-72 – it is quite tough, but what is most important - it is at very low angle, so the 30mm bullets will ricochet, side, back and top is a different story – the API round can penetrate, when hitting it at a 90 degrees… but today most tanks have additional armor – reactive or passive – both can reduce effect of the API round, maybe even 80-100% and the remaining is not enough to do serious damage to the tank… but Russian tanks are usually fitted with reactive armor only – because it is cheap and light, but every segment of it is one use only (simply it is a box with explosive material inside), so if 2 projectiles hit one spot (let’s say 6x6”) with a time delay, there is a chance, that second bullet will penetrate (theory ;) ). If not, well at least tank is stripped of its outer shell and is vulnerable to attack of anti tank rockets lunched from APCs, Helos or Infantry.

That’s theory, now for the facts – as tests shows: when attacking a tank from rear GAU-8 burst have 50% kill probability, and only 30% when attacking from side*.

Now HEI round is not made to penetrate, when HEI round hits the tank it explodes and its steel body fragment flew everywhere at high speed, those shrapnels have enough energy to penetrate or brake ballistic glass of vision systems. It’s hard to fight in a tank, when you have no idea what is going on outside ;)

Sorry, but at the moment I have no pictures of Swiss cheese…eee… I mean MBTs engaged by Hog’s ;)

*Read that one in “The Great Book of Modern warplanes”

[SUBS17]

Sounds good, the GAU is ideal for APCs and soft skin but I had my doubts about a modern MBT. I know the damage would be extensive but it would be good to see a T72 that has been hit from the rear by one just to assess the damage.

cheers
Subs