Register here

Author Topic: Continuing relevance of the A-10 Warthog today and tomorrow?  (Read 106509 times)

Offline Foo Fighter

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 649
  • I came, I saw, I drank some tea (and had a bun).
Re: Continuing relevance of the A-10 Warthog today and tomorrow?
« Reply #450 on: March 13, 2019, 11:34:26 am »
You are suggesting (If I get this right) that the need to move artillery to alternate fire positions might not exist, if CB fire can be intercepted.  No idea if you will ever get a battery commander to do that but imovho you would be better off not taking that chance, especially when aviation both fixed and rotary wing are available for the job and can do it better.

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2164
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Continuing relevance of the A-10 Warthog today and tomorrow?
« Reply #451 on: March 13, 2019, 11:47:51 am »
It was less about C-RAM defending the artillery battery and more about the fact that
the guided rounds the artillery battery are firing at the armored column are vulnerable
(by virtue of relatively slow terminal velocities) to intercept by:

1. The SPAAGs accompanying the column
2. The active protection system on the tanks



Offline Foo Fighter

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 649
  • I came, I saw, I drank some tea (and had a bun).
Re: Continuing relevance of the A-10 Warthog today and tomorrow?
« Reply #452 on: March 14, 2019, 03:36:59 am »
OK, I see what you are saying but SPAAG's taking out guided munitions might be too much of a stretch.  Multi directional aviation strikes on a column in conjunction with ground forces would be a more realistic method of attack than artillery in any event.

Offline _Del_

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 339
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Continuing relevance of the A-10 Warthog today and tomorrow?
« Reply #453 on: March 14, 2019, 08:40:48 am »
I would think I'd be thrilled as a planner if the ZSU's are busy trying to take out artillery rounds and other guided munitions.  They aren't going to get them all, for one thing, and it leaves my actual assets (whether aircraft or artillery) unhamed for another.  At some point they are going to have an ammunition/logistics problem to face while engaging artillery fire. Same would apply to C-RAM.

Offline Foo Fighter

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 649
  • I came, I saw, I drank some tea (and had a bun).
Re: Continuing relevance of the A-10 Warthog today and tomorrow?
« Reply #454 on: March 14, 2019, 10:41:34 am »
Basically my points but you do not need smart munitions to do that.  Pound away while diluting the defence and annihilate the 'column' or defensive units.

Offline AeroFranz

  • Aerospace Engineer
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2115
Re: Continuing relevance of the A-10 Warthog today and tomorrow?
« Reply #455 on: March 14, 2019, 02:04:10 pm »
Does anyone know how fast artillery delivered from an M270 or HIMARS is arriving on target? that's kind of what i would think would be employed for Deep Fires. That and whatever long-range Fires weapon is being developed. Can that stuff really be intercepted?
Even in that case it should be possible to saturate the defenses, it's not like you don't have a deep magazine of those.
All modern aircraft have four dimensions: span, length, height and politics.   TSR.2 got the first three right - Sir Sydney Camm

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2164
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Continuing relevance of the A-10 Warthog today and tomorrow?
« Reply #456 on: March 15, 2019, 10:31:23 am »
OK, I see what you are saying but SPAAG's taking out guided munitions might be too much of a stretch. 


Modern SPAAGs have counter-PGM as part of their mission set.

Quote
Multi directional aviation strikes on a column in conjunction with ground forces would be a more realistic method of attack than artillery in any event.

Which wasn't the concept being proposed upthread though.

Even the autonomous (LWIR seeker) shell envisioned for BTERM was only moving 150 m/s terminally.

That's well within the intercept capability of an APS; the only uncertainty is how tough the shell is.

 
Basically my points but you do not need smart munitions to do that.  Pound away while diluting the defence and annihilate the 'column' or defensive units.

Were't you just arguing that CB fire would quickly force the artillery to displace?

Offline Foo Fighter

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 649
  • I came, I saw, I drank some tea (and had a bun).
Re: Continuing relevance of the A-10 Warthog today and tomorrow?
« Reply #457 on: March 15, 2019, 10:47:18 am »
 
Quote
Multi directional aviation strikes on a column in conjunction with ground forces would be a more realistic method of attack than artillery in any event.




Which wasn't the concept being proposed upthread though.

Even the autonomous (LWIR seeker) shell envisioned for BTERM was only moving 150 m/s terminally.

That's well within the intercept capability of an APS; the only uncertainty is how tough the shell is.

 
Basically my points but you do not need smart munitions to do that.  Pound away while diluting the defence and annihilate the 'column' or defensive units.

Were't you just arguing that CB fire would quickly force the artillery to displace?
[/quote]

The OP is the A-10.  Using multiple disciplines to attack any target is better than one and the more mobile the better.  Artillery units using fire and move tactics as have been used for a long time will still retain fire on the target.  Not all the battery fires at once and it does not move all at once either.  Think of ranks of musket or rifles firing as ranks, not as a body of weapons firing once and taking over a minute to reload.

Using air assets gives more directions to attack from too, best use all assets to attack a target in unison to keep the target troops ff balance and this should include assets like the A-10.  You on the other hand appear to have veered away from the OP.

If you can denude the defender of certain ammunition types they will then be extremely vulnerable but the one attack method at a time allows for resupply even if it is under fire.  What was it Sun Tzu said about confusing the enemy?

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2164
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Continuing relevance of the A-10 Warthog today and tomorrow?
« Reply #458 on: March 15, 2019, 10:55:16 am »
Does anyone know how fast artillery delivered from an M270 or HIMARS is arriving on target? that's kind of what i would think would be employed for Deep Fires. That and whatever long-range Fires weapon is being developed. Can that stuff really be intercepted?

Can TBMs and large caliber rockets be intercepted?  Yes.

Can that stuff really hit a moving target and or destroy a tank? No.

IIRC, even the late Assault Breaker concepts where you had uplinks to the missiles from SAR/GMTI platforms,
those missiles still dispensed sub-munitions that were subsonic.

I suppose there's nothing preventing you from having MRM-KE type arrangement where
there's a kick-stage that fires once the sub-munition's seeker is tracking the target.



Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2164
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Continuing relevance of the A-10 Warthog today and tomorrow?
« Reply #459 on: March 15, 2019, 11:09:04 am »
The OP is the A-10.

This was the post to which you responded arguing that artillery would not suitable due to CB fire.
And you argued for rotary wing assets.

lobbed guided gunfire from a couple miles out
What about a howitzer for that? Spotter with laser designator in line of sight, guided rounds.


Artillery units using fire and move tactics as have been used for a long time will still retain fire on the target.  Not all the battery fires at once and it does not move all at once either.  Think of ranks of musket or rifles firing as ranks, not as a body of weapons firing once and taking over a minute to reload.

You argued they were too vulnerable to CB fire.

this should include assets like the A-10. 

You argued for rotary wing as the best assets.

What was it Sun Tzu said about confusing the enemy?

Did he say anything about confusing the issue with evasion and contradiction?


Offline AeroFranz

  • Aerospace Engineer
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2115
Re: Continuing relevance of the A-10 Warthog today and tomorrow?
« Reply #460 on: March 15, 2019, 08:12:06 pm »
Does anyone know how fast artillery delivered from an M270 or HIMARS is arriving on target? that's kind of what i would think would be employed for Deep Fires. That and whatever long-range Fires weapon is being developed. Can that stuff really be intercepted?

Can TBMs and large caliber rockets be intercepted?  Yes.

Can that stuff really hit a moving target and or destroy a tank? No.

IIRC, even the late Assault Breaker concepts where you had uplinks to the missiles from SAR/GMTI platforms,
those missiles still dispensed sub-munitions that were subsonic.

I suppose there's nothing preventing you from having MRM-KE type arrangement where
there's a kick-stage that fires once the sub-munition's seeker is tracking the target.

I guess i should have been a bit more specific about scenarios. I don't expect your average target to be a S-400 or things of the sort - That's probably best left to other weapon systems. I was thinking more of your round-of-the-mill Pantsir or Buk that are probably going to make up the bulk of the IADS targets.
I have been thinking about FARA, which has Counter-IADS mentioned as one of the primary missions in the RFI, so my thought went to how you make that concept work without exposing the helicopter too much. In the current line of thinking, targeting would be handled by ALEs (air-launched effects, sort of mini expendable multi-mission UAVs), but someone must still handle the kinetic part of the mission. Long range fires, with its deep magazine, would be a nice way to handle that. Of course that only works if the IADS doesn't intercept your rounds, and your rounds achieve at least a disabling kill.
All modern aircraft have four dimensions: span, length, height and politics.   TSR.2 got the first three right - Sir Sydney Camm

Offline Foo Fighter

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 649
  • I came, I saw, I drank some tea (and had a bun).
Re: Continuing relevance of the A-10 Warthog today and tomorrow?
« Reply #461 on: March 17, 2019, 11:11:15 am »
"You argued they were too vulnerable to CB fire".

No, I argued that they need to shoot and scoot and would need to do that because of CB fire.

"You argued for rotary wing as the best assets".

Best for hunting down and killing SPAAG, clearing the way for A-10's.

"Did he say anything about confusing the issue with evasion and contradiction"?

No, I'll leave that to you.

The best option is the multi disciplinary option using many different assets to ensure a better result.

Offline lastdingo

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 552
  • Blogger http://defense-and-freedom.blogspot.de/
    • Defence and Freedom blog
Re: Continuing relevance of the A-10 Warthog today and tomorrow?
« Reply #462 on: March 18, 2019, 05:29:39 am »
Forget about attack helicopters hunting battlefield air defences. That's 1991 nonsense that's not going to work against modern opposition IF said modern opposition has proper battlefield air defences to begin with.

The survivability of attack helicopters may very well be negligible. AEW or infrasound triangulation can deliver good-enough targeting date for non-line of sight missiles (FOGM, LOAL missiles). Even a helicopter that's hiding between buildings may be toast within 10 km of proper battlefield air defences.

No army has proper battlefield air defences that are at least 1990's state of the art (SL-AMRAAM, Helispot, AEW, EFOGM), but that may change quicker than air attack paradigms can be changed.

https://defense-and-freedom.blogspot.com/2017/07/attack-helicopter-survivability.html

https://defense-and-freedom.blogspot.com/2018/05/summary-modern-air-defences-for-europe.html

Offline Jeb

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 246
Re: Continuing relevance of the A-10 Warthog today and tomorrow?
« Reply #463 on: March 18, 2019, 10:51:16 am »
Forget about attack helicopters hunting battlefield air defences. That's 1991 nonsense that's not going to work against modern opposition IF said modern opposition has proper battlefield air defences to begin with.

The survivability of attack helicopters may very well be negligible. AEW or infrasound triangulation can deliver good-enough targeting date for non-line of sight missiles (FOGM, LOAL missiles). Even a helicopter that's hiding between buildings may be toast within 10 km of proper battlefield air defences.


Not to mention that if you're an operations planner and you're concerned (enough) about attack helicopters roaming the field going after your SPAAGs, you're going to scheduled fighter patrols to sweep through on the regular, just to keep Red Air honest. You don't even need fifth-gen to do that...any ANG-grade F-16 or Eurocanard or MiG-21 (apparently) with a four-pack of IR AAMs and a cannon will constitute a lethal threat.

And they'll jack up an A-10, too, for that matter.

Offline AeroFranz

  • Aerospace Engineer
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2115
Re: Continuing relevance of the A-10 Warthog today and tomorrow?
« Reply #464 on: March 18, 2019, 04:05:22 pm »
Well, then somebody better tell the Army, because Counter-IADS is all over the RFIs coming out of the Aviation Directorate.
Personally I don't have a stance on the feasibility of the conops, but this is the Army's position at the moment.
All modern aircraft have four dimensions: span, length, height and politics.   TSR.2 got the first three right - Sir Sydney Camm