raymond@io.ame.arizona.edu (Raymond Man) (10/19/89)
From: raymond@io.ame.arizona.edu (Raymond Man) Whether the USAF praise or blame an aircraft depends on their current budget request strategy, and has little to do with the merits of the machine itself. I think Ray Braybrook (who knows this gentleman?) said the whole A-10 concept revolved around the 30mm canon (which proved to be a bit draggy). He also doubted the ability of the canon to penetrate the frontal armour of the latest tanks and wondered if it would worth the exposure to maneuver into position for a side attack. [mod.note: Never heard of him, myself. I think he misses the point. No, I doubt that the 30mm will penetrate a T-72's front armor; but if you've ever seen a demo film of this gun firing, the incoming rounds literally fall like rain, hitting every exposed part of the tank which, from any reasonable angle of attack, includes the thin deck armor. - Bill ] With so much smart autonomous anti-tank munitions coming up, probably a low and fast (unmanned?) platform will be sufficed, I think. Just call me `Man'. Uh-oh. I don't know. raymond@jupiter.ame.arizona.edu
henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (10/20/89)
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) >From: raymond@io.ame.arizona.edu (Raymond Man) > I think Ray Braybrook (who knows this gentleman?) said >the whole A-10 concept revolved around the 30mm ... >[mod.note: Never heard of him, myself... British fighter designer turned aviation writer. He *usually* knows what he's talking about, although like anyone he's got his own biases. > No, I doubt that the 30mm will penetrate a T-72's front armor; > but if you've ever seen a demo film of this gun firing, the > incoming rounds literally fall like rain, hitting every > exposed part of the tank which, from any reasonable angle of > attack, includes the thin deck armor. - Bill ] Um, what's a reasonable angle of attack for an A-10 coming in at treetop height to avoid hostile fire? Virtually horizontal, I'd say... which means hitting the front armor unless the A-10 makes a detour to come in from the side. Remember that the USAF does not take the "train the way you fight" attitude to low flying: in wartime there'd be leaf stains on the underside of the A-10s after missions, but the USAF doesn't train that low. So the demo films are not necessarily representative of wartime conditions. > With so much smart autonomous anti-tank munitions >coming up, probably a low and fast (unmanned?) platform >will be sufficed, I think. If the smart autonomous munitions work, that is. It is necessary to plan for the possibility that they won't. Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
borynec@watmath.waterloo.edu (James Borynec) (10/24/89)
From: bnr-di!borynec@watmath.waterloo.edu (James Borynec) In article <10404@cbnews.ATT.COM>, henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: > > Um, what's a reasonable angle of attack for an A-10 coming in at treetop > height to avoid hostile fire? Virtually horizontal, I'd say... which > means hitting the front armor unless the A-10 makes a detour to come in > from the side. > The way a tank on the ground is pointed has little to do with the way that they will be attacked from the air. They point in the direction they are moving. This is usually related to things such as roads and tree lines, or even towards where the enemy on the ground is. Further, pilots prefer to attack along the forward edge of the battle area rather than into it. This is because they can duck into "friendly" airspace more quickly. Thus the chances of an enemy tank presenting its frontal armour (and nothing else) is rather small. Note also that many rounds are being fired so even if some vulnerable areas are presented there is a good chance that some rounds will penetrate. -- UUCP : utzoo!bnr-vpa!bnr-di!borynec James Borynec, Bell Northern Research Bitnet: borynec@bnr.CA Box 3511, Stn C, Ottawa, Ontario K1Y 4H7
aws@itivax.iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) (10/24/89)
From: aws@itivax.iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) In article <10404@cbnews.ATT.COM> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: >Um, what's a reasonable angle of attack for an A-10 coming in at treetop >height to avoid hostile fire? Virtually horizontal, I'd say... which >means hitting the front armor unless the A-10 makes a detour to come in >from the side. They can't come in virtually horizontal. They will do a popup maneuver ~1 mile from the target and another at the target. The first will be for target acquisition and the second to attack the target. If you went in horizontal, you wouldn't hit anything because you would never see anything. Allen ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Allen Sherzer | DETROIT: | | aws@iti.org | Where the weak are killed and eaten | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (10/26/89)
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) >From: aws@itivax.iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) >They can't come in virtually horizontal. They will do a popup maneuver >~1 mile from the target and another at the target. The first will be >for target acquisition and the second to attack the target. If you went >in horizontal, you wouldn't hit anything because you would never see >anything. Of course, if you *don't* go in horizontal, you don't hit anything because you're too busy trying to eject before the A-10 blows up from all the AA missiles arriving. It's very true that the first popup is for target acquisition and the second is for attack... by the antiaircraft gunners. The first popup warns them that they're about to have a target, and the second presents the A-10 beautifully for their appreciation :-). This strikes me as another example of the USAF not training the way it will have to fight. In a real war, the pilots *will* go in horizontal, and if that means they can't hit anything, too bad -- at least they're alive to try again, which is most pilots' first priority. Air forces that see regular combat, like the South African and Israeli ones, have a more realistic attitude: "if you're going to fight at 50 feet of altitude, you have to train at 50 feet". (No, they are not kidding about the 50-feet part.) Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
aws@itivax.iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) (10/27/89)
From: aws@itivax.iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) In article <10615@cbnews.ATT.COM> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: >>If you went in horizontal, you wouldn't hit anything because you would never >>see anything. >Of course, if you *don't* go in horizontal, you don't hit anything because >you're too busy trying to eject before the A-10 blows up from all the AA >missiles arriving. It's not that simple Henry. IF the SAM operator burns through the jamming and IF the chaff doesn't confuse him and IF the enemy defense suppression doesn't kill him he can get a shot off. If what you say is true, then we shouldn't bother with A-10's and CAS at all. If they do hit anything going in horizontal it will be by chance. In addtiion, the thing they hit will have about an even chance of being the troops he is attempting to help. [mod.note: Which may be exactly Henry's point 8-) Let's not forget, either, that even if MBT's are tough nuts to crack with an A-10, BMP-loads of infantry and command vehicles are still juicy, and important targets, and quite vulnerable. - Bill ] >The first popup warns them that they're about to have a target, and the >second presents the A-10 beautifully for their appreciation :-). FYI, the fighter pilots I know call this an 'Ivan thanks you very much'. >strikes me as another example of the USAF not training the way it will >have to fight. Sure. They are the first to admit it (although I am refering to the 50 foot restriction, not popups). Training them that way tends to get a lot killed and crashes a lot of fighters. Those aircraft and pilots are expensive so as a taxpayer I have no problem with it. Now if a war looks to be on the way, then they will train different and some will die as a result. In the long run however we are ahead of the game. Allen ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- | You know you have hit bottom when you sleep in a pool of your friends | | vomit because it's warmer then the sidewalk. | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
dep@ius3.ius.cs.cmu.edu (David Pugh) (10/28/89)
From: dep@ius3.ius.cs.cmu.edu (David Pugh) >Sure. They are the first to admit it (although I am refering to the 50 >foot restriction, not popups). Training them that way tends to get >a lot killed and crashes a lot of fighters. Are the tactics used in close air support simulator training any different from the tactics used when flying real airplanes? This question may be moot (since simulators may not be part of the CAS training program). For that matter, is it possible to build a good CAS simulator? I remember hearing that there were problems with some simulators (to the point that pilots were being grounded for a day or so after time in a simulator) because the image didn't mesh exactly with the signals the inner-ear was getting (it is kinda hard to exactly simulate a 360 degree roll, for example). I would think that this problem would be even worse for CAS training. The sad part is that, what ever problems exist, you can bet that the Air Force isn't spending a lot of its R&D budget solving them :-(. -- ... He was determined to discover the David Pugh underlying logic behind the universe. ...!seismo!cmucspt!ius3!dep Which was going to be hard, because there wasn't one. _Mort_, Terry Pratchett
henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (10/30/89)
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) >From: aws@itivax.iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) >>>If you went in horizontal, you wouldn't hit anything... >>Of course, if you *don't* go in horizontal, you don't hit anything because >>you're too busy trying to eject before the A-10 blows up from all the AA >>missiles arriving. > >It's not that simple Henry. IF the SAM operator burns through the jamming >and IF the chaff doesn't confuse him and IF the enemy defense suppression >doesn't kill him he can get a shot off. First, what jamming? I don't recall any jamming gear on the A-10s, and the deep-strike boys are certainly going to get first call on the limited supply of jamming pods and specialized jamming aircraft. Second, what chaff? Do the A-10s have chaff dispensers now? They didn't originally. (I may have missed an upgrade, though.) Third, what defense suppression? The big danger to an A-10 is not the heavy SAMs that the D.S. boys will be concentrating on, but the light vehicles up in the front lines, and all those infantrymen packing SA-7s and the like. (A lot of these missiles, being IR homers, will ignore chaff and jamming anyway.) Lots and lots of them will be getting shots off. The relatively light missiles involved, especially the man-portable ones, might not knock down an A-10 with one hit... but they won't be arriving one at a time. >If what you say is true, then we shouldn't bother with A-10's and CAS >at all. If they do hit anything going in horizontal it will be by chance. >In addtiion, the thing they hit will have about an even chance of being >the troops he is attempting to help. No, there is a major role for the A-10s and other CAS aircraft. But they have to be used in realistic ways, by pilots trained in realistic ways. It *is* possible to hit the right targets going in horizontal, but it takes *practice*... practice that the pilots aren't getting in peacetime, and will get the hard way in a war. Ask the South Africans and the Israelis. For that matter, ask the Vietnam-vintage air-superiority pilots, who had a *very* high mortality rate early in their tours for the same reason: having to learn realistic tactics while under fire, because they hadn't learned them in training. The air-superiority folks fixed this once they realized what was going on. The lesson hasn't penetrated to other branches, however. >>... another example of the USAF not training the way it will have to fight. >... Training them that way tends to get a lot >killed and crashes a lot of fighters. Those aircraft and pilots are expensive >so as a taxpayer I have no problem with it. Now if a war looks to be on the >way, then they will train different and some will die as a result. In the >long run however we are ahead of the game. We are ahead of the game *if no major war breaks out*. The USAF is doing a very good job of preparing for peace. That's not their job, however. They're not going to get a year's warning of a war. The folks who do train at 50 feet, like the South Africans, say that it's something you can't learn in an afternoon. (The student pilot's first response, when asked to check a map while flying at 50 feet, is "how?!?". Once they get used to it, it's practical.) And the USAF can't afford to give away advantages like this -- they're outnumbered already. Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
gwh%typhoon.Berkeley.EDU@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (George William Herbert) (11/01/89)
From: gwh%typhoon.Berkeley.EDU@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (George William Herbert) In article <10738@cbnews.ATT.COM> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: > >First, what jamming? I don't recall any jamming gear on the A-10s, and >the deep-strike boys are certainly going to get first call on the limited >supply of jamming pods and specialized jamming aircraft. > >Second, what chaff? Do the A-10s have chaff dispensers now? They didn't >originally. (I may have missed an upgrade, though.) > >Third, what defense suppression? The big danger to an A-10 is not the >heavy SAMs that the D.S. boys will be concentrating on, but the light >vehicles up in the front lines, and all those infantrymen packing SA-7s >and the like. (A lot of these missiles, being IR homers, will ignore >chaff and jamming anyway.) Lots and lots of them will be getting shots >off. The relatively light missiles involved, especially the man-portable >ones, might not knock down an A-10 with one hit... but they won't be >arriving one at a time. > The A-10's have had big decoy dispensers installed since day 1. They all are normally loaded with flares, but in wartime there would be almost certainly 8 flares in the 60 slots. (I may be wrong on this size, correct me if you can...). They also got a lot of ALQ-119 jamming pods deployed to the front line units. Not top of the line, but good... many A-10's will fly with them in any conflict. The 60 slot decoy dispenser is to deal with the SA-7 Strella concentration near the front... They are usually set on automatic drop before initiating an attack run. **************************************** George William Herbert UCB Naval Architecture Dpt. (my god, even on schedule!) maniac@garnet.berkeley.edu gwh@ocf.berkeley.edu ----------------------------------------
cperlebe@encad.Wichita.NCR.COM (Chris Perleberg) (11/01/89)
From: cperlebe@encad.Wichita.NCR.COM (Chris Perleberg) In article <10738@cbnews.ATT.COM> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: >First, what jamming? I don't recall any jamming gear on the A-10s, and >the deep-strike boys are certainly going to get first call on the limited >supply of jamming pods and specialized jamming aircraft. The A-10 is usually equipped with a ALQ-119 ECM pod. Since this pod has been replaced with the ALQ-131, the A-10 has a better than even chance of retaining use of the older pod. At least for the first couple of days. (I'm throwing numbers around here. I couldn't tell an ALQ-119 from a CRN-114 8-). I read this stuff in a book.) >Second, what chaff? Do the A-10s have chaff dispensers now? They didn't >originally. (I may have missed an upgrade, though.) The A-10 has been upgraded to contain an ALE-40 decoy dispenser system. The dispenser occupies the formerly empty spaces in the landing gear pods and wing tips. It contains 16 batteries, each of 30 tubes, for a total of 480 decoys (flares and chaff). The effectiveness of this stuff is another matter, of course, and the points made in your original posting still apply. Chris Perleberg cperlebe@encad.wichita.ncr.com
creps@silver.bacs.indiana.edu (Steve Creps) (11/20/89)
From: creps@silver.bacs.indiana.edu (Steve Creps) In article <10370@cbnews.ATT.COM> raymond@io.ame.arizona.edu (Raymond Man) writes: > >From: raymond@io.ame.arizona.edu (Raymond Man) [ stuff deleted ] > I think Ray Braybrook (who knows this gentleman?) said >the whole A-10 concept revolved around the 30mm canon (which >proved to be a bit draggy). He also doubted the ability >of the canon to penetrate the frontal armour of the latest >tanks and wondered if it would worth the exposure to >maneuver into position for a side attack. > >[mod.note: Never heard of him, myself. I think he misses the point. > No, I doubt that the 30mm will penetrate a T-72's front armor; > but if you've ever seen a demo film of this gun firing, the > incoming rounds literally fall like rain, hitting every > exposed part of the tank which, from any reasonable angle of > attack, includes the thin deck armor. - Bill ] A guy at work (former Army officer) has a practice round 30mm shell for the A10's cannon, and was talking about it a couple of weeks ago. He said that the purpose of the (live) round was to act as a sort of sledgehammer, rather than to actually penetrate armor. He said the desired effect was for the rounds to shake the tank apart. A side note- he said the Gatling gun takes the rounds alternating between tracer round, depleted uranium round, explosive round, although not necessarily in that order or ratio. (I hope I remembered that correctly.) - - - - - - - - - - Steve Creps creps@silver.bacs.indiana.edu (129.79.1.6) {inuxc,rutgers,uunet!uiucdcs,pur-ee}!iuvax!silver!creps