jimcat@rpi.edu (Jim Kasprzak) (03/20/91)
From: jimcat@rpi.edu (Jim Kasprzak) I've followed the thread about why the Navy doesn't or shouldn't use A-10's on their carriers. Most of the arguments I've seen make sense, and I agree that CAS isn't the mission of the Navy, but I wonder if perhaps the A-10's might find an alternate role in the Navy as anti-ship weapons. I first noticed this concept when Tom Clancy played with it in _The Hunt For red October_, and while I realize that Clancy isn't the most accurate source, he does do his homework with respect to military hardware, and the basic idea seems like it just might work. The A-10's nap-of-the-earth flying ability would be ideal for skimming the seas undetected by radar, and I'd imagine that its tank-killing cannon could play havoc with the lightly armored destroyers and frigates of today. So would this actually be a feasible concept? I can think of a few reasons why it might not be, such as an anti-ship missile doing the job more safely and cheaply than an A-10. But has anyone ever seriously looked into the possibilities of using A-10's against small vessels? I'd be interested to hear what people think about it, whether it's a good idea or not and why. -- Jim Kasprzak kasprzak@mts.rpi.edu (internet) RPI, Troy, NY userfe0u@rpitsmts.bitnet "A spirit with a vision is a dream with a mission." -Rush
tkogoma%triton.unm.edu@ariel.unm.edu (Gym Z. Quirk) (03/22/91)
From: tkogoma%triton.unm.edu@ariel.unm.edu (Gym Z. Quirk) In article <1991Mar20.034011.1839@cbnews.att.com> jimcat@rpi.edu (Jim Kasprzak) writes: > I first noticed this concept when Tom Clancy played with it in >_The Hunt For red October_, and while I realize that Clancy isn't >the most accurate source, he does do his homework with respect >to military hardware, and the basic idea seems like it just might >work. The A-10's nap-of-the-earth flying ability would be ideal >for skimming the seas undetected by radar, and I'd imagine that >its tank-killing cannon could play havoc with the lightly armored >destroyers and frigates of today. > > So would this actually be a feasible concept? I can think of a >few reasons why it might not be, such as an anti-ship missile >doing the job more safely and cheaply than an A-10. But has anyone >ever seriously looked into the possibilities of using A-10's >against small vessels? I'd be interested to hear what people think >about it, whether it's a good idea or not and why. Well, the problem with this is what happens *after* your flight of four A-10s bushwhack a soviet surface action group? You wreck a few tin cans and cripple a cruiser or two with you rockeye cluster bombs and 30mm cannon, then the rest of the task force sends you to the bottom with SAMs and AAA fire. You're much too slow to even *think* of getting out of SAM range before they send them up your tailpipes, and you armor can't protect you forever. Esp. from radar guided 100mm AAA. Even with the standoff weapons availible to the A-10, you have to fly into enemy SAM range. [Note: Most of my 'experience' has been from playing the Harpoon computer game. The last time I tried sending 6 F-16s outfitted for anti-surface work against three soviet DDGs, I managed to sink one, damage another, and come back with one aircraft...{*sigh*}] -- Capt. Gym Z. Quirk net.terrorist (reformed) | This space tkogoma@triton.unm.edu | intentionally (Known to some as Taki Kogoma) | left blank
scott@graft.Berkeley.EDU (Scott Silvey) (03/22/91)
From: scott@graft.Berkeley.EDU (Scott Silvey) jimcat@rpi.edu (Jim Kasprzak) writes: |> The A-10's nap-of-the-earth flying ability would be ideal |> for skimming the seas undetected by radar, Not any better than that of a Harpoon or Tomahawk. Supposedly these missiles could get shot down rather routinely in a war (that's why you have to fire a lot of them at a target to overload it's defenses). Also the A-10 has a MUCH bigger radar cross-section than an anti-ship missile. There aren't too many trees or hills to hide behind out there over the water. Moreover, the A-10 would not be much faster than the ship it was attempting to attack ;^) That would give the target vessel much more time to react to a "sneak" attack. In fact, the crew would probably get bored waiting for the Warthogs to get from max detection range to maximum SAM range. Now, if you were realistic, you would load up the A-10 with Harpoons to give them some standoff range. But why? Why not just use the A-6's and FA-18's which are already made to handle this? |> and I'd imagine that |> its tank-killing cannon could play havoc with the lightly armored |> destroyers and frigates of today. There are only 4 modern naval ships I would think the A-10's cannon would have trouble slicing up ... the Iowa, Wisconsin, Missouri, and New Jersey. That's assuming the battle-wagons didn't bother shooting down the poor lumbering Warthogs when they were about 100nm's away. And THAT's assuming the carrier in the group didn't launch interceptors to shoot them down when they were about 200nm's away (Soviets are building "super"carriers similar to ours now-a-days). In order for the A-10 to hit something with that 30mm, it has to be about 1nm from the target. At that point, the A-10 would also be in range of a lot of other guns (big ones and little ones) pointing in the other direction. Too dangerous. |> So would this actually be a feasible concept? What, for naval target practice? Sure it's feasible. /-----------------------------------------------------------------------------\ | Scott Silvey | Ronald Reagan to surgeons in emergency ward after | | scott@xcf.berkeley.edu | being shot: | | | | | Flames to /dev/null | "Please tell me you're Republicans." | \-----------------------------------------------------------------------------/
norton@manta.nosc.mil (Scott Norton) (03/25/91)
From: norton@manta.nosc.mil (Scott Norton) [ redudant quoted text deleted --CDR ] I had a chance to defend a missile cruiser against a flight of A-10's a number of years ago. They were not hard to detect (note that an A-10 and a fishing boat are about the same size), and were slow enough that we got a number of missile shots at them. As to the lethality of the 30mm gun, I would not overestimate it. It will make many many 30mm holes in the ship. Now its a matter of chance whether these holes are in a radar transmitter or a coffee maker. I recall an item from history, about how US destroyers, in the battle of Savo Island in WW II, escaped from a superior force of Japanese cruisers. The cruisers, expecting other heavies as opponents, had fired armor-piercing shells, which punched through both sides of the destroyers without exploding. Of course, if the A-10 shot a Maverick, he could do substantial damage. But other faster aircraft can do that too. One more consideration is that the A-10 doesn't have the avionics to find ships at sea. LT Scott A. Norton, USN <norton@NOSC>MIL>
frost%watop.nosc.mil@nosc.mil (Richard Frost) (03/26/91)
From: frost%watop.nosc.mil@nosc.mil (Richard Frost) scott@graft.Berkeley.EDU (Scott Silvey) writes: > Also the A-10 has a MUCH bigger radar cross-section than an anti-ship > missile ... ... and even larger infrared signature. The real threat is a sea-skimming, air-breathing cruise missile like the Exocet. Under ideal conditions (for the ship), such a weapon will impact within 20 seconds from its maximum theoretical detection range. Bright (10KWatt+/SRad) threats like ^^^^^^^^^^^ warplanes and solid rockets are easy to deal with by comparison. -- Richard Frost Naval Ocean Systems Center frost@watop.nosc.mil voice: 619-553-6960 (Note: please e-mail directly as mail header is unreliable)
fiddler@Eng.Sun.COM (Steve Hix) (03/27/91)
From: fiddler@Eng.Sun.COM (Steve Hix) >From: norton@manta.nosc.mil (Scott Norton) >One more consideration is that the A-10 doesn't have the avionics >to find ships at sea. Ooh! Ooh! (Hand waving frantically over head) Let me! Get the most current possible positioning reports from satellites or whatever, download the position report to the A-10s, let them use GPSS or whatever to amble (they can't very well zip, can they?) on over to make loud noises. Voila! *Off-board* avionics! Doesn't solve the other problems, though. (Might be useful against troop carriers...but then, who else goes in big for amphibious landings? The Army doesn't dislike the Marines *that* much!) [ I suspect you just handwaved the hard parts, but I'll let the readers suggest why. I'd suggest a ship can go a *long* way between satellite overflights. I don't think anyone's ever suggested that amphibious landings are thinkable without complete air superiority. -- CDR]