Continuing relevance of the A-10 Warthog today and tomorrow?

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,399
Reaction score
17
jsport said:
TomS said:
Flying low is pretty much the perfect way to NOT avoid AAA.
Unless you know exactly where the AAA is prior, and they never know you where there until their "suppressed" and your gone.
LOL!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_attack_on_Karbala
 

jsport

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
1,196
Reaction score
0
sferrin said:
jsport said:
TomS said:
Flying low is pretty much the perfect way to NOT avoid AAA.
Unless you know exactly where the AAA is prior, and they never know you where there until their "suppressed" and your gone.
LOL!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_attack_on_Karbala
yes well aware an example of incompetence at all levels.

Pg 54 different world
synoptic surveilance and multi-spectral well beyond this from stated AF sat program goals.
press article some time back 'three tanks gather some where in the world ..someone knows
https://fas.org/irp/program/collect/cbo-radar.pdf
 

jsport

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
1,196
Reaction score
0
quellish said:
jsport said:
Unless you know exactly where the AAA is prior, and they never know you where there until their "suppressed" and your gone.
So... invisible, silent, and not dropping ordinance. Got it.
not sure whether your following the conversation. lobbed guided gunfire from a couple miles out. . Aircraft asending and reversing after the shot.
 

marauder2048

"I should really just relax"
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
2,169
Reaction score
1
I've seen claims that reliably detecting (non-SPAAG) AAA via SAR requires resolution < 0.1m.

That's pretty hard to do from space. I agree that space-based SAR could help
you narrow down probable AAA locations to the point that a very high
resolution fighter-based SAR could do the rest.
 

Arjen

It's turtles all the way down
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2010
Messages
2,235
Reaction score
6
jsport said:
lobbed guided gunfire from a couple miles out
What about a howitzer for that? Spotter with laser designator in line of sight, guided rounds.
 

Foo Fighter

I came, I saw, I drank some tea (and had a bun).
Joined
Jul 19, 2016
Messages
680
Reaction score
0
The problem with artillery (SP or towed) is that in a high intensity engagement it would have to move after firing one or two rounds to avoid CB fire. Aircraft tend to move all the time. IMHO, rotary assets are best for this type of engagement where AA of all types require mitigation.
 

jsport

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
1,196
Reaction score
0
marauder2048 said:
I've seen claims that reliably detecting (non-SPAAG) AAA via SAR requires resolution < 0.1m.

That's pretty hard to do from space. I agree that space-based SAR could help
you narrow down probable AAA locations to the point that a very high
resolution fighter-based SAR could do the rest.
Thank you for pointing that out as was considering. Non SPAAG AAA should be well known though overtime sensing. SPAAG amoung advancing mechanized forces will not likely be advancing quite the same as tanks.

Any craft replacing the A-10 would indeed need very high
resolution fighter-based SAR such as BAI/CAS dedicated F-16. Still would argue AFTI tech would assist in survival and specific targeting from max gun range distance. Yes shaped charges in autocannon rds.
 

marauder2048

"I should really just relax"
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
2,169
Reaction score
1
Foo Fighter said:
The problem with artillery (SP or towed) is that in a high intensity engagement it would have to move after firing one or two rounds to avoid CB fire. Aircraft tend to move all the time. IMHO, rotary assets are best for this type of engagement where AA of all types require mitigation.
IIRC, the guided artillery rounds aren't moving that fast terminally and might be within intercept capability of an APS.
 

Foo Fighter

I came, I saw, I drank some tea (and had a bun).
Joined
Jul 19, 2016
Messages
680
Reaction score
0
Sorry but I do not get your point.
 

marauder2048

"I should really just relax"
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
2,169
Reaction score
1
I was suggesting that CB fire might be less of an issue than the fact that the shells themselves
are within the intercept capability of the accompanying SPAAGs or the APS.
 

Foo Fighter

I came, I saw, I drank some tea (and had a bun).
Joined
Jul 19, 2016
Messages
680
Reaction score
0
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.
 

marauder2048

"I should really just relax"
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
2,169
Reaction score
1
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
 

Foo Fighter

I came, I saw, I drank some tea (and had a bun).
Joined
Jul 19, 2016
Messages
680
Reaction score
0
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.
 

_Del_

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jan 4, 2012
Messages
352
Reaction score
0
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.
 

Foo Fighter

I came, I saw, I drank some tea (and had a bun).
Joined
Jul 19, 2016
Messages
680
Reaction score
0
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.
 

AeroFranz

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
May 4, 2008
Messages
2,141
Reaction score
3
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.
 

marauder2048

"I should really just relax"
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
2,169
Reaction score
1
Foo Fighter said:
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.

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.

Foo Fighter said:
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?
 

Foo Fighter

I came, I saw, I drank some tea (and had a bun).
Joined
Jul 19, 2016
Messages
680
Reaction score
0
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.

Foo Fighter said:
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?
 

marauder2048

"I should really just relax"
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
2,169
Reaction score
1
AeroFranz said:
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.
 

marauder2048

"I should really just relax"
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
2,169
Reaction score
1
Foo Fighter said:
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.

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

Foo Fighter said:
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.

Foo Fighter said:
this should include assets like the A-10.
You argued for rotary wing as the best assets.

Foo Fighter said:
What was it Sun Tzu said about confusing the enemy?
Did he say anything about confusing the issue with evasion and contradiction?
 

AeroFranz

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
May 4, 2008
Messages
2,141
Reaction score
3
marauder2048 said:
AeroFranz said:
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.
 

Foo Fighter

I came, I saw, I drank some tea (and had a bun).
Joined
Jul 19, 2016
Messages
680
Reaction score
0
"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.
 

lastdingo

Blogger http://defense-and-freedom.blogspot.de/
Joined
Oct 18, 2008
Messages
570
Reaction score
0
Website
defense-and-freedom.blogspot.de
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
 

Jeb

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Jul 2, 2007
Messages
249
Reaction score
1
lastdingo said:
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.
 

AeroFranz

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
May 4, 2008
Messages
2,141
Reaction score
3
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.
 

marauder2048

"I should really just relax"
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
2,169
Reaction score
1
AeroFranz said:
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.
Your optionally manned helicopter carries AARGM.

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20160012252.pdf
 

Attachments

Colonial-Marine

Fighting the UAV mafia.
Joined
Oct 5, 2009
Messages
607
Reaction score
1
AARGM is nice and all but something like the old Sidearm for snap-shots against sudden threats could be useful and easier to carry.
 

marauder2048

"I should really just relax"
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
2,169
Reaction score
1
Colonial-Marine said:
AARGM is nice and all but something like the old Sidearm for snap-shots against sudden threats could be useful and easier to carry.
Part of the appeal of AARGM is the on-wing capability so you don't necessarily have to carry a particularly advanced RFI/RWR.
 
Top