Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
My concern is that given the size of the 30mm gun and ammo would it be better for the current range of missions (Sandy missions come immediately to mind) would it be better to have a lighter (smaller) gun with a higher ammo capacity that would allow the aircraft to remain on station longer.
Is this a problem that needs addressing? I'd be surprised if there are many instances of A-10s running out weapons before fuel given the heavy mixed load under the wings and 1,150 round GAU-8 magazine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MidValleyDad
PGMs have changed ground support completely. In many cases it makes a B-52 the ultimate ground support weapon with its long time on station and huge capacity. But there is a need to get down and close and that is where the A-10 works well (if you can wait for it to get to the target area)
B-1 is the ultimate ground support weapon
With continued advances in sensors and weapons the times you need to get down close grow fewer and far between.
It goes beyond cost per flight hour because of the logistics and training involved in supporting a completely different aircraft that is highly specialized.
On today's battlefield precision is more a function of weapons and sensors, not speed.
Technology always gives you an advantage. For example an F-16 with a better targeting pod can more easily pick out insurgents and more accurately target them with a smaller CEP weapon that is less likely to cause casualties because of smaller blast radius.
-- OV-10. Bleah. But that's from someone with ~600 hours in the Bronco. A great warbird whose time has come and gone.
-- OA-37. No endurance. 1.5 hours maximum without refueling. No loiter time. When I was learning to fly the A-10 at D-M my first CAS mission was with an OA-37 from the Battle Creek, Michigan ANG. They bingoed out well before we were even close.
-- AV-8. I've known three pilots who flew it, and crossed from the Marines to the Air Guard or USAF. Two had to jump out.
If you want to go with old designs go back to the one that was the best of that generation (or actually the generation before) The A-1 Skyraider. The original flying dumptruck.
But going backwards is not (and never has been) the answer. The answer is not a specialized aircraft either, there just isn't enough need to justify the investment. The real answer is to provide the specialized training in ground support that the Hog drivers had to pilots in newer platforms that solve the one problem that the A-10 has - response time.
Is this a problem that needs addressing? I'd be surprised if there are many instances of A-10s running out weapons before fuel given the heavy mixed load under the wings and 1,150 round GAU-8 magazine.
The rate of fire of the A-10 gun (3900 rpm) is such that it can provide, with a full load, approximately 18 one-second bursts. This accounts for gun spin-up.
The M61 I fired in the F-16, with 510 rounds at 6000 rpm, provides 5-6 one-second bursts.
In high-tempo combat operations such as Desert Storm and OIF, every A-10 pilot I know ran out of ammo before fuel, but they were "cleaning off the wings" or had only two AGM-65s and a full load of what was known as "party mix", or 5 rounds of depleted uranium AP to 1 round of HEI (high explosive incendiary). HEI is the weapon of choice when you don't have tanks running around. Good against most lighter-armor APCs, soft-skinned vehicles, technicals, and squishy pink carbon-based life forms.
In Afghanistan usually one ran out of targets and then fuel before ammo. The standard A-10 load was, in my discussions with JTACs who come to the range where I now work, a rocket pod or two with WP or HE rockets (7 per pod), a full gun, and two each GBU-12 laser-guided bombs and two GBU-38 or -54 JDAMs.
Last edited by SluggoF16; 05-26-2017 at 01:41 PM..
If you want to go with old designs go back to the one that was the best of that generation (or actually the generation before) The A-1 Skyraider. The original flying dumptruck.
But going backwards is not (and never has been) the answer. The answer is not a specialized aircraft either, there just isn't enough need to justify the investment. The real answer is to provide the specialized training in ground support that the Hog drivers had to pilots in newer platforms that solve the one problem that the A-10 has - response time.
That is exactly what they are doing... sign MidValleyDad up as the next Chief of Staff! Great observation, and not lost on the reality of the conflicts we're in. Grudgingly, the F-16 community has accepted its role as a primary CAS platform. The wing my range supports comes up here regularly to train with various JTAC units in live and dry CAS scenarios, including dynamic targeting against moving targets. (We have a remote-operated HMMWV that tows a drag target they can actually fire at. Lots of volunteers in my staff that fight over who gets to drive the remote, no volunteers to actually drive the thing for real.) They train with APKWS, laser-guided JDAM (GBU-54) and the gun with JTACs here (live) and in nearby military operations areas they train dry with JTACs in real-world scenarios. And they have gotten good at CAS, because it's a skill set that they have to be able to perform. In fact, maybe a quarter of the wing's pilots are FAC(A) qualified, which is a forward air controller but instead of an OA-10 or an OV-10 (as I was) it's in a faster F-16. Sort of like the Misty FACs in their F-100s in Vietnam.
Sluggo,
Since you were a Bronco driver and possibly in the know, do you have any knowledge in regards to how well the OV-10G's performed in Iraq last year?
My biggest two gripes about the A-10 when I flew it were its speed and size. It was slow compared to the pointy-nosed jets (and the A-7), and it just couldn't hide. Then when I got to the F-16 I also realized just how terribly underpowered and what a huge radar cross section the Hog had. I could see them on radar from a very long way off. And when I fought against them as we provided adversaries for their air-to-air training at D-M, I noted just how nice it was to have all that excess thrust in the F-16 that the Hog just plain didn't have. Any time the aircraft loaded up past maybe two Gs, the Hog was losing energy; an F-16 in MAX AB would be gaining it.
At a COPE THUNDER exercise at Clark AB circa '85, we had A-10 and F-16 playing in various scenarios. One day an A-10 had ingested a high-flying kite as it was recovering at Clark, and in the debriefing we warned the pilots to watch out.
Cracked an F-16 jock from the rear of the room: "Did the kite overtake him from behind?"
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
