The 30mm round will not penetrate most Main battle tanks frontally, so mounting them on vehicles at ground level won't do much good if an enemy tank is pointing at you.
The tank won't get away unscathed, no doubt, but it's a phenomial waste of ammo when one 120mm round can not only penetrate, but reliably kill any potential enemy's MBT.
From ammunition expert tony williams: The 30 mm GAU-8/A in the A-10 "tankbuster" can get 80% of its shots within 5 mil, equal to 9 m dispersion at the 1,800 m maximum range. On test, the A-10 managed to hit a tank with about 10% of the shots fired at ranges varying between 500 and 1,340 m; a performance which has almost certainly improved since the LASTE package (low altitude safety and target enhancement), including a radio altimeter, autopilot and ballistic computer, was fitted in the 1990s. Incidentally, of the hits scored (against Russian T-62 tanks) just under 20% penetrated the armour (i.e. 2% of shots fired), although many others extensively damaged the track and suspension."
The numbers seem very dissappointing, especially since a T-62 is quite an old tank (although still widely used), but its still an effective weapon. A tank won't come out unharmed definately, tracks are very vulnerable and killing the tracks mission kills the tank.
The GAU-8 would have MUCH better penetration if the A-10 fired Armor piercing fin stabilized discarding sabots like tanks use, but no aircraft fires those for safety reasons.
The Gau-8 or a earlier version of it was mounted on "General Grant" A variant of the Bradley IFV. It was a horrible failure, and served pretty much exclusively in a AA and to combat enemy infantry.
The reason it shoots so fast is because you can't point your aircraft for more then a couple secounds at the ground without worrying about crashing. Especially when you are trying to fly low in the first place.
And two. For those who don't know: Thats the spot where the wing usually is. Not clipped, not damaged, but totally sheared off at the root! F-15 has a very impressive power/weight ratio and low wing loading, which saved the pilot that day.
"The IAF (Israeli Air Force) contacted McDonnell Douglas and asked for information about the possibility to land an F-15 with one wing . MD replied that this is aero-dynamically impossible, as confirmed by computer simulations... Then they received the photo.... After two months the same F-15 got a new wing and returned to action. " -Article from Flight international
inside the bullet is a depleted uranium penetrator rod... this thing has a natural pyrophoric effect, like a flint rock.
basically when this bullet hits, not only does it generate abnormally high friction temperatures, but it sparks like a mofo.
all it takes is one AP bullet to hit a tank's ammo storage and the tank is as good as dead (it can do the same to ships at sea).
it fires armor piercing incendiary and high explosive incendiary bullets in a ratio of 4:1.
the entire craft is designed to withstand 23mm fire. The pilot sits in a titanium tub, and the cockpit is bulletproof. Everything on the craft is designed around redundancy. The dual tail fins and engines are designed to keep the plane flying if one is destroyed.
This thing costs only $9 million and has had a 96% success rate since its manufacture in 1973. Pretty damn cost effective if you ask me. Kill a few tanks and it's more than repaid itself.
Let's not forget how the engines can burn up and fall off without taking anything else on the frame out... or the massive air-ground payload it carries outside of the gun.
As far as ammunition-explosions go, an M1 Abrams has specially designed ammo magazines that explode up instead of in.
<!--QuoteBegin--Salty+Jun 3 2003, 11:18 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Salty @ Jun 3 2003, 11:18 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The reason it shoots so fast is because you can't point your aircraft for more then a couple secounds at the ground without worrying about crashing. Especially when you are trying to fly low in the first place. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> sometimes in BF 1942: Desert Combat, i just have to shot a little longer(or just get a to a proper LoF), those times i die :/
They aren't called warthogs for nothing. The A-10's have notoriously thick hides. They were, afterall, built to destroy tanks and take immense amounts of fire while doing so.
ShockehIf a packet drops on the web and nobody's near to see it...Join Date: 2002-11-19Member: 9336NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators, Constellation
Also, the A-10 has the same problem as the F-117.
If any other aircraft so much as goes near it, it dies. Just doesn't have the capability or the capacity to escape (and definitely can't fight)
So it's only truly useful in areas where enemy air cover has already been supressed. In which case, you were probably gonna win anyway, it just speeds up the process.
<!--QuoteBegin--Shockwave+Jun 4 2003, 02:14 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Shockwave @ Jun 4 2003, 02:14 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Also, the A-10 has the same problem as the F-117.
If any other aircraft so much as goes near it, it dies. Just doesn't have the capability or the capacity to escape (and definitely can't fight)
So it's only truly useful in areas where enemy air cover has already been supressed. In which case, you were probably gonna win anyway, it just speeds up the process. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> WW2 experience shows that once you have complete control over the skies, you can hardly lose. As the USA no doubt has the strongest Air Force on earth (no use denying it), they own the skies. The A-10 exists not in order to take control of the skies, but in order to take advantage of that control to the fullest. It's isn't an air-to-air plane, it's an air-to-ground plane. B-52s have the same problem, A-6s have some limited self-defence cpabilities, but still do not stand up to a dedicated fighter plane. Of course, if you don't have complete air control, just tag it along with a few F-16s and you're all set up. Put an AWACS with a few F-14s in the sky and nothing will catch those F-16s with their pants down. Now send in the A-10s to mop up the ground forces, and keep the F-16s orbiting the area out AA gun range (perhaps even an EA-6 or E-111 in the area for jamming SAMs?), ready to take on fighters trying to get to the A-10s. We have a winner. Very few nations have anything that can rival such a combo, and certainly not Iraq or North Korea.
ShockehIf a packet drops on the web and nobody's near to see it...Join Date: 2002-11-19Member: 9336NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators, Constellation
I never said it was an A-A aircraft. I'm saying that once it's viable to deploy them, there's little point in them anyway, because you already have A-A superiority, and are going to win.
And incidentally, North Korea does have quite a good air force, and the best in the world is arguably Israel.
<!--QuoteBegin--lolfighter+Jun 4 2003, 01:13 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (lolfighter @ Jun 4 2003, 01:13 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--Shockwave+Jun 4 2003, 02:14 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Shockwave @ Jun 4 2003, 02:14 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Also, the A-10 has the same problem as the F-117.
If any other aircraft so much as goes near it, it dies. Just doesn't have the capability or the capacity to escape (and definitely can't fight)
So it's only truly useful in areas where enemy air cover has already been supressed. In which case, you were probably gonna win anyway, it just speeds up the process. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> WW2 experience shows that once you have complete control over the skies, you can hardly lose. As the USA no doubt has the strongest Air Force on earth (no use denying it), they own the skies. The A-10 exists not in order to take control of the skies, but in order to take advantage of that control to the fullest. It's isn't an air-to-air plane, it's an air-to-ground plane. B-52s have the same problem, A-6s have some limited self-defence cpabilities, but still do not stand up to a dedicated fighter plane. Of course, if you don't have complete air control, just tag it along with a few F-16s and you're all set up. Put an AWACS with a few F-14s in the sky and nothing will catch those F-16s with their pants down. Now send in the A-10s to mop up the ground forces, and keep the F-16s orbiting the area out AA gun range (perhaps even an EA-6 or E-111 in the area for jamming SAMs?), ready to take on fighters trying to get to the A-10s. We have a winner. Very few nations have anything that can rival such a combo, and certainly not Iraq or North Korea. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I agree it would be terrible in a AA situation, But a Helicopter stupid enough to get in the Warthogs crosshairs would be ripped to shreds <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
A A-10 is still a very hard target to hit so close to the ground...
<!--QuoteBegin--Shockwave+Jun 4 2003, 09:10 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Shockwave @ Jun 4 2003, 09:10 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I never said it was an A-A aircraft. I'm saying that once it's viable to deploy them, there's little point in them anyway, because you already have A-A superiority, and are going to win. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> ...and part of the reason that air superiority = win is that aircraft like the A-10, B-52, F-117 and the like exist. If all the jets in the world were fighters, air superiority would mean jack squat.
this is what i 'heard' but the source is less then reliable..
one in every 7-9 rounds is incindary... and so cos it hits so fast... it weorks the metal and punctures tank then the incindeary goes in and effectively cleans it out from inside...
ShockehIf a packet drops on the web and nobody's near to see it...Join Date: 2002-11-19Member: 9336NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators, Constellation
Not sure Wolf.
But I'd still rather have a Tornado <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->They aren't called warthogs for nothing. The A-10's have notoriously thick hides<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Your right, they're not called warthogs for nothing. They're fugly! Even though I still like em.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->WW2 experience shows that once you have complete control over the skies, you can hardly lose<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Vietnam experience shows that this is not always true.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If any other aircraft so much as goes near it, it dies. Just doesn't have the capability or the capacity to escape (and definitely can't fight)<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The A-10 has had several air to air engagements, I think all were against helicopters though. The GAU-8 likes to eat helicopters... mmm... However, due to it's low speed, the A-10 can likely out turn just about any fighter that decides to engage it. Don't get in front of that cannon, and the A-10 is more than capable of defending itself against threats up to around 10 miles with sidewinder. The only way to reliably kill a warthog with an aircraft is to nail it at long/medium range, which is not likely since a CAP flight (combat air patrol) will no doubt be flying overhead. Try to mess with the hog, and you'll get some F-15C's breathing down your neck in no time.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Modern A-A fighters are able to carry such a silly amount of potential ordanance, that using dedicated A-S aircraft is largely redundant. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Negative. It is true that modern fighters can carry a large amount of ordinance, and can strike ground targets- the F-15E is the best example of a medium air to ground attack aircraft in the US inventory. The problem is, the F-16 (for example) is a lightweight fighter, so is the JSF when it comes out. You CAN sling ordinance on it, and they do, but all your spiffy maneuverability is shot. Modern fighters have to fly higher because they are faster (to avoid smacking into the ground basically), and the higher you are, the harder it is to identify friend from foe. The A-10 is a CAS plane, which is a special kind of ground attack aircraft; its designed to destroy hordes of soviet tanks in the european theatre in the cold war, and now to operate and engage enemies that are in close proximity to friendly troops. Accidents happen, but the A-10 is largely successful. No fighter can outperform it at that particular role. Fighters CAN do close air support with a good forward air controller directing them, but it's usually a case of one pass haul ****; loiter at high altitude, when you get a target as directed by the FAC you roll in (he'll tell you from where, and where to break off in order not to harm enemy troops if you have a hung bomb or if you over/undershoot), drop your ordinance on that spot, and get the heck out of dodge.
Dedicated aircraft are never redundant, because the jack of all trades multi-purpose aircraft can never do one job better than a dedicated aircraft. Its an expensive decision to create dedicated aircraft, because they're only for one purpose, but that doesn't mean it's a bad decision in some cases. If anyone can afford it, its the US, and if any role _ought_ to have a dedicated aircraft, it's close air support. The A-10 was a good move.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->But I'd still rather have a Tornado<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Tornados are sexeh... they have a high loss rate, but thats what you get for attacking airfields directly. It's a dangerous job, and if anyone can do it, it's the Brits <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo--> they're coming up with a cruise missile that can do the same role yet allow the aircraft to keep it's distance, so the tornado doesn't have to get so close in the future. 12 brimstone will ruin anyones day.
Wolf: I don't know for sure, but I don't think enough rounds hit the target to work together and weaken the entire structure like that, fatiguing the entire armor plate. 6 penetrations is considered a kill, but even if you don't penetrate, you destroy tracks, optics, barrels, and basically anything on the outside thats not armored (rucks, etc). Only 2% of rounds fired penetrated the T-62 (I believe that was at max range though). This means if you fire 100 rounds, 2 actually go through the tank. Modern tanks have better armor so they're even better protected, but still, the GAU-8 has proven to be effective. It depends on how you engage the enemy; engaging them at high angle from the rear is best.
I also don't believe the GAU-8 "melts" after 2 seconds of fireing. The whole point of having 7 barrels is to avoid such a thing. Each barrel fires at around 400 - 700 rpm (8-10 rounds per second) give or take (not at the same time obviously, since they only shoot at a certain position in the rotation).
That_Annoying_KidSire of TitlesJoin Date: 2003-03-01Member: 14175Members, Constellation
<!--QuoteBegin--Legionnaired+Jun 4 2003, 11:24 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Legionnaired @ Jun 4 2003, 11:24 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> It's a pity they're phasing the thing out, the A-10 I mean. Such a magnificent plane, and so good at it's job. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> THERE PHASING IT OUT!?!?
WTH?!?1?11
stupid military <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif'><!--endemo-->
ATLANTA -- The Air Force is planning to give the A-10 Warthog an ignominious homecoming from the Persian Gulf.
In early April, Maj. Gen. David Deptula of the Air Combat Command ordered a subordinate to draft a memo justifying the decommissioning of the A-10 fleet. The remaining eight active duty A-10 squadrons (in 1991, the number was 18) could be mothballed as early as 2004.
This is a serious mistake. The A-10 was one of the most effective, lethal and feared weapons of the Iraqi war. Its absence will put troops on the battlefield in grave danger. The decision to take this aircraft out of service is the result of entrenched political and cultural shortsightedness.
About the same time that the general's order was issued, a crucial battle of the Iraqi war was unfolding. The United States Army had arrived at a Tigris River bridge on the edge of Baghdad to find Iraqi tanks and armored personnel carriers positioned at the other end. A deadly crossfire ensued. A call for help went out, and despite heavy clouds and fog, down the river came two A-10's at an altitude of less than 1,000 feet, spitting out a mix of armor-piercing and explosive bullets at the rate of 3,900 rounds per minute. The Iraqi resistance was obliterated. This was a classic case of "close air support."
The A-10 was also the most storied aircraft of the first gulf war. It flew so many sorties the Air Force lost count. The glamorous F-117 Stealth fighter got the headlines, but Iraqi prisoners interrogated after the war said the aircraft they feared most were the A-10 and the ancient B-52 bomber.
To understand why the corporate Air Force so deeply loathes the A-10, one must go back to 1947, when the Air Force broke away from the Army and became an independent branch. "Strategic bombing," which calls for deep bombing raids against enemy factories and transportation systems, was the foundation of the new service branch. But that concept is fundamentally flawed for the simple reason that air power alone has never won a war.
Nevertheless, strategic bombing, now known as "interdiction bombing," remains the philosophical backbone of the Air Force. Anything involving air support of ground troops is a bitter reminder that the Air Force used to be part of the Army and subordinate to Army commanders. For the white-scarf crowd, nothing is more humiliating than being told that what it does best is support ground troops.
Until the A-10 was built in the 1970's, the Air Force used old, underpowered aircraft to provide close air support. It never had a plane specifically designed to fly low to the ground to support field troops. In fact, the A-10 never would have been built had not the Air Force believed the Army was trying to steal its close air support role — and thus millions of dollars from its budget — by building the Cheyenne helicopter. The Air Force had to build something cheaper than the Cheyenne. And because the Air Force detested the idea of a designated close air support aircraft, generals steered clear of the project, and designers, free from meddling senior officers, created the ultimate ground-support airplane.
It is cheap, slow, low-tech, does not have an afterburner, and is so ugly that the grandiose name "Thunderbolt" was forgotten in favor of "Warthog" or, simply, "the Hog." What the airplane does have is a deadly 30-millimeter cannon, two engines mounted high and widely separated to offer greater protection, a titanium "bathtub" to protect the pilot, a bullet- and fragmentation-resistant canopy, three back-up flight controls, a heavy duty frame and foam-filled fuel tanks — a set of features that makes it one of the safest yet most dangerous weapons on the battlefield.
However, these attributes have long been ignored, even denied, because of the philosophical aversion to the close air support mission. Couple that with the Air Force's love affair with the high technology F/A-22 ($252 million per plane) and the F-35 fighter jets (early cost estimates are around $40 million each), and something's got to give.
Despite budget problems, the Air Force has decided to save money by getting rid of the cheap plane and keeping the expensive ones. Sacrifices must be made, and what a gleeful one this will be for the Air Force.
The Air Force is promoting the F-35 on the idea that it can provide close air support, a statement that most pilots find hilarious. But the F-35's price tag means the Air Force will not jeopardize the aircraft by sending it low where an enemy with an AK-47 can bring it down. (Yes, the aircraft will be that vulnerable.)
In the meantime, the Air Force is doing its utmost to get the public to think of the sleek F-16 fighter jet as today's close support aircraft. But in the 1991 gulf war and in Kosovo, the Air Force wouldn't allow the F-16 to fly below 10,000 feet because of its vulnerability to attack from anti-aircraft guns and missiles.
Grunts are comforted by the presence of a Hog, because when they need close air support, they need it quickly. And the A-10 can loiter over a battlefield and pounce at a moment's notice. It is the only aircraft with pilots trained to use their eyes to separate bad guys from good guys, and it can use its guns as close in as 110 yards. It is the only aircraft that can take serious hits from ground fire, and still take its pilot home.
But the main difference between those who fly pointy-nose aircraft and Hog drivers is the pilot's state of mind. The blue suits in the Air Force are high-altitude advocates of air power, and they aren't thinking about muddy boots. A-10 drivers train with the Army. They know how the Army works and what it needs. (In combat, an A-10 pilot is assigned to Army units.)
If the Air Force succeeds in killing the A-10, it will leave a serious gap in America's war-fighting abilities. By itself, air power can't bring about victory. The fate of nations and the course of history is decided by ground troops. The A-10 is the single Air Force aircraft designed to support those troops. For that reason alone, the Air Force should keep the A-10 and build new close support aircraft similar to the Hog, demonstrating its long-term commitment to supporting our men and women in the mud.
Robert Coram is author of "Boyd: The Fighter Pilot Who Changed the Art of War."
Yeah, for a couple of years now they've basicly been saying that they're not going to build any more, and gradually let them take themselves out of service through mechanical failure, but I guess they're killing the project all together now. Which sucks, because the plane is uber-cool.
Comments
The tank won't get away unscathed, no doubt, but it's a phenomial waste of ammo when one 120mm round can not only penetrate, but reliably kill any potential enemy's MBT.
From ammunition expert tony williams:
The 30 mm GAU-8/A in the A-10 "tankbuster" can get 80% of its shots within 5 mil, equal to 9 m dispersion at the 1,800 m maximum range. On test, the A-10 managed to hit a tank with about 10% of the shots fired at ranges varying between 500 and 1,340 m; a performance which has almost certainly improved since the LASTE package (low altitude safety and target enhancement), including a radio altimeter, autopilot and ballistic computer, was fitted in the 1990s. Incidentally, of the hits scored (against Russian T-62 tanks) just under 20% penetrated the armour (i.e. 2% of shots fired), although many others extensively damaged the track and suspension."
The numbers seem very dissappointing, especially since a T-62 is quite an old tank (although still widely used), but its still an effective weapon. A tank won't come out unharmed definately, tracks are very vulnerable and killing the tracks mission kills the tank.
The GAU-8 would have MUCH better penetration if the A-10 fired Armor piercing fin stabilized discarding sabots like tanks use, but no aircraft fires those for safety reasons.
But, talking about surviveability, how about this?
An israeli skyhawk collided with an isreali F-15 mid air. The skyhawk was lost, but the F-15 pilot flew this home.
inside the bullet is a depleted uranium penetrator rod... this thing has a natural pyrophoric effect, like a flint rock.
basically when this bullet hits, not only does it generate abnormally high friction temperatures, but it sparks like a mofo.
all it takes is one AP bullet to hit a tank's ammo storage and the tank is as good as dead (it can do the same to ships at sea).
it fires armor piercing incendiary and high explosive incendiary bullets in a ratio of 4:1.
the entire craft is designed to withstand 23mm fire. The pilot sits in a titanium tub, and the cockpit is bulletproof. Everything on the craft is designed around redundancy. The dual tail fins and engines are designed to keep the plane flying if one is destroyed.
This thing costs only $9 million and has had a 96% success rate since its manufacture in 1973. Pretty damn cost effective if you ask me. Kill a few tanks and it's more than repaid itself.
As far as ammunition-explosions go, an M1 Abrams has specially designed ammo magazines that explode up instead of in.
sometimes in BF 1942: Desert Combat, i just have to shot a little longer(or just get a to a proper LoF), those times i die :/
Overkill weapons in war really aren't that good.....
Now where's that pic with the bunny with a pancake on its head...
If any other aircraft so much as goes near it, it dies. Just doesn't have the capability or the capacity to escape (and definitely can't fight)
So it's only truly useful in areas where enemy air cover has already been supressed. In which case, you were probably gonna win anyway, it just speeds up the process.
If any other aircraft so much as goes near it, it dies. Just doesn't have the capability or the capacity to escape (and definitely can't fight)
So it's only truly useful in areas where enemy air cover has already been supressed. In which case, you were probably gonna win anyway, it just speeds up the process. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
WW2 experience shows that once you have complete control over the skies, you can hardly lose. As the USA no doubt has the strongest Air Force on earth (no use denying it), they own the skies. The A-10 exists not in order to take control of the skies, but in order to take advantage of that control to the fullest. It's isn't an air-to-air plane, it's an air-to-ground plane. B-52s have the same problem, A-6s have some limited self-defence cpabilities, but still do not stand up to a dedicated fighter plane.
Of course, if you don't have complete air control, just tag it along with a few F-16s and you're all set up. Put an AWACS with a few F-14s in the sky and nothing will catch those F-16s with their pants down. Now send in the A-10s to mop up the ground forces, and keep the F-16s orbiting the area out AA gun range (perhaps even an EA-6 or E-111 in the area for jamming SAMs?), ready to take on fighters trying to get to the A-10s. We have a winner. Very few nations have anything that can rival such a combo, and certainly not Iraq or North Korea.
And incidentally, North Korea does have quite a good air force, and the best in the world is arguably Israel.
If any other aircraft so much as goes near it, it dies. Just doesn't have the capability or the capacity to escape (and definitely can't fight)
So it's only truly useful in areas where enemy air cover has already been supressed. In which case, you were probably gonna win anyway, it just speeds up the process. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
WW2 experience shows that once you have complete control over the skies, you can hardly lose. As the USA no doubt has the strongest Air Force on earth (no use denying it), they own the skies. The A-10 exists not in order to take control of the skies, but in order to take advantage of that control to the fullest. It's isn't an air-to-air plane, it's an air-to-ground plane. B-52s have the same problem, A-6s have some limited self-defence cpabilities, but still do not stand up to a dedicated fighter plane.
Of course, if you don't have complete air control, just tag it along with a few F-16s and you're all set up. Put an AWACS with a few F-14s in the sky and nothing will catch those F-16s with their pants down. Now send in the A-10s to mop up the ground forces, and keep the F-16s orbiting the area out AA gun range (perhaps even an EA-6 or E-111 in the area for jamming SAMs?), ready to take on fighters trying to get to the A-10s. We have a winner. Very few nations have anything that can rival such a combo, and certainly not Iraq or North Korea. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I agree it would be terrible in a AA situation, But a Helicopter stupid enough to get in the Warthogs crosshairs would be ripped to shreds <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
A A-10 is still a very hard target to hit so close to the ground...
...and part of the reason that air superiority = win is that aircraft like the A-10, B-52, F-117 and the like exist. If all the jets in the world were fighters, air superiority would mean jack squat.
Modern A-A fighters are able to carry such a silly amount of potential ordanance, that using dedicated A-S aircraft is largely redundant.
this is what i 'heard' but the source is less then reliable..
one in every 7-9 rounds is incindary... and so cos it hits so fast... it weorks the metal and punctures tank then the incindeary goes in and effectively cleans it out from inside...
is this right or not?
But I'd still rather have a Tornado <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
<img src='http://www.army-technology.com/projects/brimstone/images/brimstoneantiarmour6.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image'>
Your right, they're not called warthogs for nothing. They're fugly! Even though I still like em.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->WW2 experience shows that once you have complete control over the skies, you can hardly lose<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Vietnam experience shows that this is not always true.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If any other aircraft so much as goes near it, it dies. Just doesn't have the capability or the capacity to escape (and definitely can't fight)<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The A-10 has had several air to air engagements, I think all were against helicopters though. The GAU-8 likes to eat helicopters... mmm... However, due to it's low speed, the A-10 can likely out turn just about any fighter that decides to engage it. Don't get in front of that cannon, and the A-10 is more than capable of defending itself against threats up to around 10 miles with sidewinder. The only way to reliably kill a warthog with an aircraft is to nail it at long/medium range, which is not likely since a CAP flight (combat air patrol) will no doubt be flying overhead. Try to mess with the hog, and you'll get some F-15C's breathing down your neck in no time.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Modern A-A fighters are able to carry such a silly amount of potential ordanance, that using dedicated A-S aircraft is largely redundant. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Negative. It is true that modern fighters can carry a large amount of ordinance, and can strike ground targets- the F-15E is the best example of a medium air to ground attack aircraft in the US inventory. The problem is, the F-16 (for example) is a lightweight fighter, so is the JSF when it comes out. You CAN sling ordinance on it, and they do, but all your spiffy maneuverability is shot. Modern fighters have to fly higher because they are faster (to avoid smacking into the ground basically), and the higher you are, the harder it is to identify friend from foe. The A-10 is a CAS plane, which is a special kind of ground attack aircraft; its designed to destroy hordes of soviet tanks in the european theatre in the cold war, and now to operate and engage enemies that are in close proximity to friendly troops. Accidents happen, but the A-10 is largely successful. No fighter can outperform it at that particular role. Fighters CAN do close air support with a good forward air controller directing them, but it's usually a case of one pass haul ****; loiter at high altitude, when you get a target as directed by the FAC you roll in (he'll tell you from where, and where to break off in order not to harm enemy troops if you have a hung bomb or if you over/undershoot), drop your ordinance on that spot, and get the heck out of dodge.
Dedicated aircraft are never redundant, because the jack of all trades multi-purpose aircraft can never do one job better than a dedicated aircraft. Its an expensive decision to create dedicated aircraft, because they're only for one purpose, but that doesn't mean it's a bad decision in some cases. If anyone can afford it, its the US, and if any role _ought_ to have a dedicated aircraft, it's close air support. The A-10 was a good move.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->But I'd still rather have a Tornado<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Tornados are sexeh... they have a high loss rate, but thats what you get for attacking airfields directly. It's a dangerous job, and if anyone can do it, it's the Brits <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo--> they're coming up with a cruise missile that can do the same role yet allow the aircraft to keep it's distance, so the tornado doesn't have to get so close in the future. 12 brimstone will ruin anyones day.
Wolf:
I don't know for sure, but I don't think enough rounds hit the target to work together and weaken the entire structure like that, fatiguing the entire armor plate. 6 penetrations is considered a kill, but even if you don't penetrate, you destroy tracks, optics, barrels, and basically anything on the outside thats not armored (rucks, etc). Only 2% of rounds fired penetrated the T-62 (I believe that was at max range though). This means if you fire 100 rounds, 2 actually go through the tank. Modern tanks have better armor so they're even better protected, but still, the GAU-8 has proven to be effective. It depends on how you engage the enemy; engaging them at high angle from the rear is best.
I also don't believe the GAU-8 "melts" after 2 seconds of fireing. The whole point of having 7 barrels is to avoid such a thing. Each barrel fires at around 400 - 700 rpm (8-10 rounds per second) give or take (not at the same time obviously, since they only shoot at a certain position in the rotation).
it's amazing to see how much damage they can take and keep flying, and how much damage they can do...
it's good times no?
THERE PHASING IT OUT!?!?
WTH?!?1?11
stupid military <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif'><!--endemo-->
New York Times
May 27, 2003
The Hog That Saves The Grunts
By Robert Coram
ATLANTA -- The Air Force is planning to give the A-10 Warthog an ignominious homecoming from the Persian Gulf.
In early April, Maj. Gen. David Deptula of the Air Combat Command ordered a subordinate to draft a memo justifying the decommissioning of the A-10 fleet. The remaining eight active duty A-10 squadrons (in 1991, the number was 18) could be mothballed as early as 2004.
This is a serious mistake. The A-10 was one of the most effective, lethal and feared weapons of the Iraqi war. Its absence will put troops on the battlefield in grave danger. The decision to take this aircraft out of service is the result of entrenched political and cultural shortsightedness.
About the same time that the general's order was issued, a crucial battle of the Iraqi war was unfolding. The United States Army had arrived at a Tigris River bridge on the edge of Baghdad to find Iraqi tanks and armored personnel carriers positioned at the other end. A deadly crossfire ensued. A call for help went out, and despite heavy clouds and fog, down the river came two A-10's at an altitude of less than 1,000 feet, spitting out a mix of armor-piercing and explosive bullets at the rate of 3,900 rounds per minute. The Iraqi resistance was obliterated. This was a classic case of "close air support."
The A-10 was also the most storied aircraft of the first gulf war. It flew so many sorties the Air Force lost count. The glamorous F-117 Stealth fighter got the headlines, but Iraqi prisoners interrogated after the war said the aircraft they feared most were the A-10 and the ancient B-52 bomber.
To understand why the corporate Air Force so deeply loathes the A-10, one must go back to 1947, when the Air Force broke away from the Army and became an independent branch. "Strategic bombing," which calls for deep bombing raids against enemy factories and transportation systems, was the foundation of the new service branch. But that concept is fundamentally flawed for the simple reason that air power alone has never won a war.
Nevertheless, strategic bombing, now known as "interdiction bombing," remains the philosophical backbone of the Air Force. Anything involving air support of ground troops is a bitter reminder that the Air Force used to be part of the Army and subordinate to Army commanders. For the white-scarf crowd, nothing is more humiliating than being told that what it does best is support ground troops.
Until the A-10 was built in the 1970's, the Air Force used old, underpowered aircraft to provide close air support. It never had a plane specifically designed to fly low to the ground to support field troops. In fact, the A-10 never would have been built had not the Air Force believed the Army was trying to steal its close air support role — and thus millions of dollars from its budget — by building the Cheyenne helicopter. The Air Force had to build something cheaper than the Cheyenne. And because the Air Force detested the idea of a designated close air support aircraft, generals steered clear of the project, and designers, free from meddling senior officers, created the ultimate ground-support airplane.
It is cheap, slow, low-tech, does not have an afterburner, and is so ugly that the grandiose name "Thunderbolt" was forgotten in favor of "Warthog" or, simply, "the Hog." What the airplane does have is a deadly 30-millimeter cannon, two engines mounted high and widely separated to offer greater protection, a titanium "bathtub" to protect the pilot, a bullet- and fragmentation-resistant canopy, three back-up flight controls, a heavy duty frame and foam-filled fuel tanks — a set of features that makes it one of the safest yet most dangerous weapons on the battlefield.
However, these attributes have long been ignored, even denied, because of the philosophical aversion to the close air support mission. Couple that with the Air Force's love affair with the high technology F/A-22 ($252 million per plane) and the F-35 fighter jets (early cost estimates are around $40 million each), and something's got to give.
Despite budget problems, the Air Force has decided to save money by getting rid of the cheap plane and keeping the expensive ones. Sacrifices must be made, and what a gleeful one this will be for the Air Force.
The Air Force is promoting the F-35 on the idea that it can provide close air support, a statement that most pilots find hilarious. But the F-35's price tag means the Air Force will not jeopardize the aircraft by sending it low where an enemy with an AK-47 can bring it down. (Yes, the aircraft will be that vulnerable.)
In the meantime, the Air Force is doing its utmost to get the public to think of the sleek F-16 fighter jet as today's close support aircraft. But in the 1991 gulf war and in Kosovo, the Air Force wouldn't allow the F-16 to fly below 10,000 feet because of its vulnerability to attack from anti-aircraft guns and missiles.
Grunts are comforted by the presence of a Hog, because when they need close air support, they need it quickly. And the A-10 can loiter over a battlefield and pounce at a moment's notice. It is the only aircraft with pilots trained to use their eyes to separate bad guys from good guys, and it can use its guns as close in as 110 yards. It is the only aircraft that can take serious hits from ground fire, and still take its pilot home.
But the main difference between those who fly pointy-nose aircraft and Hog drivers is the pilot's state of mind. The blue suits in the Air Force are high-altitude advocates of air power, and they aren't thinking about muddy boots. A-10 drivers train with the Army. They know how the Army works and what it needs. (In combat, an A-10 pilot is assigned to Army units.)
If the Air Force succeeds in killing the A-10, it will leave a serious gap in America's war-fighting abilities. By itself, air power can't bring about victory. The fate of nations and the course of history is decided by ground troops. The A-10 is the single Air Force aircraft designed to support those troops. For that reason alone, the Air Force should keep the A-10 and build new close support aircraft similar to the Hog, demonstrating its long-term commitment to supporting our men and women in the mud.
Robert Coram is author of "Boyd: The Fighter Pilot Who Changed the Art of War."
I don't know how long my bandwith will hold. It's about 2.5 mb, which means maybe one person can download it each hour XD
anyways <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
basicly you see 2 a-10's making runs at some sorta terain, creating giant clouds of dirst kicked up.
still sorta cool.
thanks mate