To what extent can modern MANPADS or modern AAA defeat low observability, DIRCM, DRFM and towed/launched decoys? Can, say, the Tunguska or better MANPADS than the Igla deal with that and how*?
*Aside from beam riding which I understand requires a good amount of user skill.
A plane which does not know where its targets are is worse than useless. For close in air support the dynamic and fluid nature of the battlefield means that even fast jets armed with PGM and other stand off weapons have to get in real close in order to identify targets, and becoming susceptible to low-level Air Defence.
The Sniper Pod which has been in use for the last few years supposedly has the ability to track and identify targets at longer ranges permitting the aircraft to fly at higher altitudes; on the other hand its actual use thus far, by the US/NATO in Afghanistan and Iraq and by Pakistan in FATA has been in absence of anything resembling Air Defences.
Isn’t that a big part of the reason why the military uses JTAC personnel? With proper GPS coordinates or laser/mm wave designation, can one not get 1-10 meter CEP at up to 100km using glide bombs?
Relatively small warhead, but also typically hitting the plane’s tailpipe or nearby because the main thing their primitive IR seekers ‘saw’ was hot metal in the tail area (of a jet, one reason they were worse news for prop planes like A-1’s in late Vietnam, the hot metal was forward near the cockpit). Israeli A-4’s were fitted with tailpipe extensions as one countermeasure. And also in case of the extensively used* Sa-7, proven vulnerability to simple IR countermeasures. And lack of ability to catch fast jets.
Re MichaelEmouse, short range IR missiles themselves aren’t much affected by any likely low observable technology. Maybe indirectly in that radars cuing them wouldn’t see the plane as soon. But once it’s close enough for the missile to hit, it’s very hard to hide. Advanced IR countermeasures might deal with advanced IR seekers, and back and forth in a see-saw of electronic offense/defense in various categories of weapon since WWII. If nothing else, so called Directed Infrared Countermeasures can advance to having lasers powerful enough to physically damage IR seekers they aren’t able to confuse. Then at some point hard kill of the missile. It’s never impossible to counter anything.
But the point wrt A-10 is the lack of much if any offsetting value to the plane being slow, as the CAS mission would actually be undertaken now. Even if it’s possible to fit a slow plane with effective IRCM, why not have a faster plane with effective IRCM? A missile light enough to be carried around by hand will always be pretty limited kinetically. Extra speed/energy is significant in cutting down vulnerability to those weapons, and not relying as much on being ahead in the IR/IRCM seesaw at all times against all comers.
*Redeyes were used for real in a few cases, given to US allied rebel groups but not as extensively, anyway were also pretty easy to fool.
May I refer you to a salient detail at the front end of the plane ? A little under and in front of the cockpit ? That’s bigger than a Volkswagen ?
I’d take an Apache longbow with its ability to control drones.
In the gulf war, Apaches conducted the first sead/dead mission, ahead of the f117 and everyone else. Both the Apache and the a10 got hammered and had to be withdrawn from use against first-line units, but the Apache lasted a month or two longer.
For close ground support in a permissive environment, the Apache can hover.
The a10 was meant to be a speed bump against the Warsaw pact tanks, but was expected to be decimated while doing so. Since then, modern tanks are impervious to the gun. The a10 is a symbol of the cult of the gun, but makes most kills via missiles. And it can’t fly as high or fast to get away from missiles like the f-16 or f-35 can. Heck, the f35 (marine ) version can hover, too. The a10 simply doesn’t have the avionics or the survivability or the multi-role capability demanded of today’s jets.
Fast jets beat choppers in air to air when they use distance, avionics and altitude.
However, the choppers can pack a sting, too with a 5:1 kill ratio in a 1978exerciseagainst jets (including the a10). Teaching the lesson that jets need to keep their distance
IIRC, the vast majority of the A-10’s use in CAS missions is with bombs, not the cannon.
That’s not true at all. The USAF got the idea from the German and Russian CAS planes on the Eastern Front in WW2. Planes like the Henschel Hs-129, Il-2 Sturmovik and a few Ju-87 Stuka variants.
How directly applicable is the WW2 experience to the modern era though? Or even the environment expected when the A-10 was first deployed? There were no hand-held SAM’s back then for one thing.
Yeah, I’m not sure we can say that WWII Russian and German air defenses were excellent or even good.
The ghosts of tens of thousands of dead Allied airmen would want a word with you about German Air Defences. :rolleyes:
Hand held SAMs weren’t terribly effective back when they were designing the A-10 either, and even at that, regular AA gunfire is still probably the main threat to a close air support airplane.
As for the WW2 experience vs. what the A-10 was designed to accomplish, the Germans and the Russians found that specific cannon-armed tank-hunting aircraft were extremely effective at destroying tanks. This is mostly because they have thin top armor that most 20-30mm cannon can penetrate.
Other design aspects of the A-10 were also devised and tested on the Eastern Front -the armored cockpit, the relatively slow but maneuverable performance characteristics, the general ruggedness, etc…
The Soviets came up with a different plane with a very similar role- the SU-25 Frogfoot, based on their experience with the Il-2 during WW2.
That doesn’t show they were particularly good or that they could be used effectively today.
Massed WWII AAA shooting at massed bombers isn’t the same as a few AAA trying to shoot down a plane. What the Germans did in WWII was the equivalent of Napoleonic shoulder-to-shoulder massed infantry shooting muskets at other tightly grouped infantry. What’s required today is the equivalent of a few riflemen shooting at the fleeting target of a running man at 300 meters who uses cover.
That.is,bullshit. The Germans basically invented the modern integrated Air Defence system..
One thing you guys are neglecting is that this stuff is always an arms race; the two sides (aircraft & AAA) continually go back and forth with respect to capabilities.
So while ground forces may have man-portable SAMs of somewhat limited capability, and 2K22 Tunguskas, aircraft (even the A-10) go a heck of a lot faster and carry things like flares, various avionics like radar detectors and various sorts of EW equipment.
In addition, the A-10 isn’t a strike aircraft; it’s a close air support aircraft. It’s not meant to go in unsupported and shoot up the enemy, but rather support ground troops directly. So it’s not so likely that it’ll be going up against enemy AAA without benefit of friendly SEAD assistance or CAP. Keep in mind that those spiffy modern AAA vehicles are big emitting targets when they turn on to find and shoot at that A-10, and there just may be another plane with a HARM hanging around nearby in hopes of wrecking their day.
They may have invented the integrated air defense system but it doesn’t follow that the launchers/AAA they used would be excellent today. Remember that my comment was in response to Bump who was responding to Corry El who mentioned an A-10 going against “an enemy with excellent air defenses”. You can argue all you want that Germans were the first ones to use modern integrated air defenses systems, you haven’t shown that those air defense systems would be excellent at shooting down an A-10. Being the first 70 years ago doesn’t mean being excellent today.
So, can you name ground to air weapons which are commonly in use today which resemble what the Germans used in WWII and which would have much success against an A-10?
