• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

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

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,018
Reaction score
1,067
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
1,720
Reaction score
117
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
1,720
Reaction score
117
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
2,351
Reaction score
99
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
2,602
Reaction score
374
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
1,319
Reaction score
366
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
1,720
Reaction score
117
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
2,351
Reaction score
99
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
1,319
Reaction score
366
Sorry but I do not get your point.
 

marauder2048

"I should really just relax"
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
2,351
Reaction score
99
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
1,319
Reaction score
366
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
2,351
Reaction score
99
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
1,319
Reaction score
366
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
451
Reaction score
90
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
1,319
Reaction score
366
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
2,212
Reaction score
102
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
2,351
Reaction score
99
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
1,319
Reaction score
366
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
2,351
Reaction score
99
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
2,351
Reaction score
99
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
2,212
Reaction score
102
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
1,319
Reaction score
366
"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
584
Reaction score
18
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
273
Reaction score
20
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 schedule 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.
 
Last edited:

AeroFranz

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
May 4, 2008
Messages
2,212
Reaction score
102
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
2,351
Reaction score
99
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
662
Reaction score
23
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
2,351
Reaction score
99
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.
 

jsport

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
1,720
Reaction score
117
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
The current Sec Army has stated he isnt seeking a 'larger than Chinook' helicopter yet he baits industry to present such a helicopter.

He says the Army isnt interested in Vertical Envelopment in high intensity conflict. Yet emerging systems. such as DEW and next generation helicopter munitions and helicopter launch UAS have little other purpose to allow just that , Army SEAD enabled Vertical Envelopment.
 

shin_getter

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Jun 1, 2019
Messages
63
Reaction score
35
Guided rounds for CAS+.
That is a lot of rounds needed to kill even unarmored targets reliably, when looking at it from the perspective of sensor/guidance packages needed. Sensors and actuators would have to be in effect cheaper than explosives and fuels for this make a lot of sense. The small form factor also prevents larger onboard sensors so high quality external track is needed, which translates to either a further forward spotter platform or extremely powerful sensors on the shooter to hit long distance targets as proposed. The significant time to target makes the sensing problem worst as targets get into cover or spotters get shot up.

"Close fighting" platforms will still be needed in CAS as the time gap between contact and fires landing is what front line forces live in. The most straight forward way to cut that time is to be start close, which probably also implies low cost in both replacement and per unit of flight hours ideally. Guns are actually pretty good here as have been shown in helicopter ops.

A gun standoff system is just another standoff weapon that fundamentally does not do the job. I suppose high powered long range lasers is the kind of thing to enable standoff "CAS."

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.
He says the Army isnt interested in Vertical Envelopment in high intensity conflict. Yet emerging systems. such as DEW and next generation helicopter munitions and helicopter launch UAS have little other purpose to allow just that , Army SEAD enabled Vertical Envelopment.
I'd think development in improved systems is needed to stay ahead of the curve against ever developing "low end threats." It would be really embarrassing if rotary wing forces have to simply sit out the next bush fire because the opponent terrorist group captured some 21 century manpads and likes. Here in 2020 everyone and their mom have beyond the horizon sensing capability, and it is not implausible that BLOS PGM capability that can threaten conventional helicopter ops can proliferate like AK47 as sufficient capability become available from commodity parts and largely-open source software when one hits the 2030s.

As "Air power" is available to all forces that manages to operate motor vehicles, "Air defense" shall become a factor in just about all fighting. I think it is only a matter of time when counter-air strategies become common for nothing more than gang wars. While helicopters is nowhere remotely as common as micro-UAVs, they occupy some of the same battle space and countermeasures can overlap.
 
Last edited:

Foo Fighter

I came, I saw, I drank some tea (and had a bun).
Joined
Jul 19, 2016
Messages
1,319
Reaction score
366

Richard N

CLEARANCE: Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2009
Messages
412
Reaction score
141
Don't know why they made a reflex test out of it, but here is how I got to it:

Click on the A-10 video link and when you see the holed truck, immediately double click on the "Play" arrowhead.

If you aren't quick enough and it changes to the Sukhoi, find the "Refresh" button and click it and when you see the holed truck, quickly double click on the "Play" arrowhead.

Annoying but not impossible.
 

FighterJock

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Oct 29, 2007
Messages
1,364
Reaction score
203
I have alway's been and always will be a supporter for the A-10 and a supporter of any future proper A-10 replacement. As much as I like the F-35A/B/C and the F-35 nothing can beat an A-10 when it is down low and firing its mighty 30mm Avenger cannon or for that matter a Maverick missile.
 

shin_getter

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Jun 1, 2019
Messages
63
Reaction score
35
Interesting to see that banzai rushing with no useful anti-aircraft capability to into unsuppressed ground attack aircraft is considered the optimal doctrinal response to American way of war. Thanks to poor American capability to differentiate friendlies despite billions spent in networking, friendly fire can result in strategic defeat as opponent logically seek the merge into close combat as opposed to fires since artillery and non-man portable missiles is heavier than a HMG and thus too immobile to be useful anyways. The only way to deal with identification is to get very close with manned EOIR on a platform where the crew have to fly, operate weapon systems, operate defensive systems and maintain general situation awareness of all friendly and hostile forces at the same time.

-----------------------------------------------
Okay, nevermind the above:

The near future of CAS is likely "launch platform agnostic" networked loitering munitions/micro-drones with reachback SEAD support. A loitering munition "swarm" is capable of engaging are far more aim points, faster than large aircraft with a single focus. Such systems also render the existing air defense systems ineffective. Future air defense concepts like DEW, Jamming, micro-SAMs, could counter these weapons, however with networking, high performance SEAD/DEAD/anti-radiation weapons can take those out.

When fighting truly large ground formations with few weapons available in a CAS context, such a "swarm" can also be configured to prioritize suppression over destruction, where munitions are not expanded at a high rate but instead expanded at rates to disrupt the opponent.

All this require pretty well developed AI and communication systems though.
 

jsport

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
1,720
Reaction score
117
blinking tanks from altitude, all day would be cheaper and could defeat evolving APSs not so sure about swarm AT UAS can.
 

Attachments

Top