Q: Has it been confirmed that residue from DU rounds does not cause cancer?
A-10s headed back to Europe.
- Thread starter simple_gifts
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: BMWTurboDzl
Originally Posted By: LT4 Vette
Is the USA using any Apaches against ISIS ?
Youtube is your friend. The Apache makes quick work of the Taliban.
Gruesome footage for sure.
A while back, I saw a Belgian Malinois chasing and eventually taking one down. The poor dog just wanted to play. Lol.
They are quite impressive. They get harnessed up and get attached to their master, jump out of helicopters etc.
Even this "technology" is too complex for the Taliban. Lol.
Originally Posted By: LT4 Vette
Is the USA using any Apaches against ISIS ?
Youtube is your friend. The Apache makes quick work of the Taliban.
Gruesome footage for sure.
A while back, I saw a Belgian Malinois chasing and eventually taking one down. The poor dog just wanted to play. Lol.
They are quite impressive. They get harnessed up and get attached to their master, jump out of helicopters etc.
Even this "technology" is too complex for the Taliban. Lol.
For taking out rows of ISIS Toyota's I would think guided cluster bombs would be more effective and safer for the pilot compared to an A-10.
Originally Posted By: Blaze
For taking out rows of ISIS Toyota's I would think guided cluster bombs would be more effective and safer for the pilot compared to an A-10.
A-10 carries bombs too. A lot of them. If bombs were indeed the better way they could easily do it. Then after they drop all their ordnance they can swing back through a dozen times with their gun to mop up.
For taking out rows of ISIS Toyota's I would think guided cluster bombs would be more effective and safer for the pilot compared to an A-10.
A-10 carries bombs too. A lot of them. If bombs were indeed the better way they could easily do it. Then after they drop all their ordnance they can swing back through a dozen times with their gun to mop up.
I believe the GAU-8 can reach out and touch the ISIS Toyota "Technical" from a greater distance than the other way around.
RPG range is about 300M for a moving target.
The GAU-8 range is about 1200M. The guys in the Toyota will be meeting their 72 virgins before the A-10 is in range.
RPG range is about 300M for a moving target.
The GAU-8 range is about 1200M. The guys in the Toyota will be meeting their 72 virgins before the A-10 is in range.
Originally Posted By: xxch4osxx
Awsome planes they are. That 30mm gun pours out devastation and would make the ISIS guys take notice.
Yep, a few carpet bombings by B-52s or shore bombardment by 16" guns might also be educational.
Awsome planes they are. That 30mm gun pours out devastation and would make the ISIS guys take notice.
Yep, a few carpet bombings by B-52s or shore bombardment by 16" guns might also be educational.
Originally Posted By: Spazdog
Originally Posted By: hattaresguy
Not sure how to read this move, not a serious threat to modern Russian or Chinese forces with modern air defense systems. Useful against third world countries with old Soviet junk, that's about it.
Storage for a plane with nothing to do at the moment? Missile sponges for when the Russian army groups roll into Warsaw against our weak and tepid NATO allies?
Not a serious threat?
The Russians still have large numbers of the Su-25 Frogfoot (itself a dead knockoff ot the YA-9 that competed with the A-10 for production)
The AH-64 is even slower than the A-10. The brand new PLA Z-10 bears a strong resemblance to the Apache.
And just look what the P47 Thunderbolt did in WWII. Better kill to loss ratio than faster-higher tech planes
Slow moving ground attack aircraft are only useful if you have air superiority, or are able to maintain it over an operational area for any period of time.
The assumption of such is not always a good assumption from a military standpoint.
How affective are A10's against SU35's and Mig29's?
Originally Posted By: hattaresguy
Not sure how to read this move, not a serious threat to modern Russian or Chinese forces with modern air defense systems. Useful against third world countries with old Soviet junk, that's about it.
Storage for a plane with nothing to do at the moment? Missile sponges for when the Russian army groups roll into Warsaw against our weak and tepid NATO allies?
Not a serious threat?
The Russians still have large numbers of the Su-25 Frogfoot (itself a dead knockoff ot the YA-9 that competed with the A-10 for production)
The AH-64 is even slower than the A-10. The brand new PLA Z-10 bears a strong resemblance to the Apache.
And just look what the P47 Thunderbolt did in WWII. Better kill to loss ratio than faster-higher tech planes
Slow moving ground attack aircraft are only useful if you have air superiority, or are able to maintain it over an operational area for any period of time.
The assumption of such is not always a good assumption from a military standpoint.
How affective are A10's against SU35's and Mig29's?
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: hattaresguy
Originally Posted By: Spazdog
Originally Posted By: hattaresguy
Not sure how to read this move, not a serious threat to modern Russian or Chinese forces with modern air defense systems. Useful against third world countries with old Soviet junk, that's about it.
Storage for a plane with nothing to do at the moment? Missile sponges for when the Russian army groups roll into Warsaw against our weak and tepid NATO allies?
Not a serious threat?
The Russians still have large numbers of the Su-25 Frogfoot (itself a dead knockoff ot the YA-9 that competed with the A-10 for production)
The AH-64 is even slower than the A-10. The brand new PLA Z-10 bears a strong resemblance to the Apache.
And just look what the P47 Thunderbolt did in WWII. Better kill to loss ratio than faster-higher tech planes
Slow moving ground attack aircraft are only useful if you have air superiority, or are able to maintain it over an operational area for any period of time.
The assumption of such is not always a good assumption from a military standpoint.
How affective are A10's against SU35's and Mig29's?
Air superiority?
What is the air to air combat record of the F-15 Eagle again?
Oh yeah! 104 and 0
But back to the Warthog: if the Flanker pilot wants to get into a turning/guns style actual dogfight with the A10, he's in bad trouble. Several North Vietnamese Aces flew the much slower but agile MiG-17. One recorded 4 kills vs F4 Phantoms. ( in addition to the Thuds and A-6 and A7s)
To counter that, A-1 Skyraiders reportedly shot down MiG-17s. Prop driven Skyraiders took down jet fighters.
If he wants to engage with active radar missiles, the A10 has to deploy countermeasures.
Then again, the Flanker pilot will only know that he is in mortal danger when the F22's weapon bay doors are open. Then it is too late. That's going to be lingering in some pilots' minds. There's the Warthog. Where's the Raptor?
Originally Posted By: Spazdog
Originally Posted By: hattaresguy
Not sure how to read this move, not a serious threat to modern Russian or Chinese forces with modern air defense systems. Useful against third world countries with old Soviet junk, that's about it.
Storage for a plane with nothing to do at the moment? Missile sponges for when the Russian army groups roll into Warsaw against our weak and tepid NATO allies?
Not a serious threat?
The Russians still have large numbers of the Su-25 Frogfoot (itself a dead knockoff ot the YA-9 that competed with the A-10 for production)
The AH-64 is even slower than the A-10. The brand new PLA Z-10 bears a strong resemblance to the Apache.
And just look what the P47 Thunderbolt did in WWII. Better kill to loss ratio than faster-higher tech planes
Slow moving ground attack aircraft are only useful if you have air superiority, or are able to maintain it over an operational area for any period of time.
The assumption of such is not always a good assumption from a military standpoint.
How affective are A10's against SU35's and Mig29's?
Air superiority?
What is the air to air combat record of the F-15 Eagle again?
Oh yeah! 104 and 0
But back to the Warthog: if the Flanker pilot wants to get into a turning/guns style actual dogfight with the A10, he's in bad trouble. Several North Vietnamese Aces flew the much slower but agile MiG-17. One recorded 4 kills vs F4 Phantoms. ( in addition to the Thuds and A-6 and A7s)
To counter that, A-1 Skyraiders reportedly shot down MiG-17s. Prop driven Skyraiders took down jet fighters.
If he wants to engage with active radar missiles, the A10 has to deploy countermeasures.
Then again, the Flanker pilot will only know that he is in mortal danger when the F22's weapon bay doors are open. Then it is too late. That's going to be lingering in some pilots' minds. There's the Warthog. Where's the Raptor?
So ISIS has these planes and pilots that can fly them?
If ISIS has them, they are on the ground. I'm thinking an A-10 would have a field day with such assets sitting on the apron.
If there is a credible threat of such fast movers, I'm sure the package would include some other fast movers as cover.
No one is saying an A-10 is the best all-around air superiority machine. But for ground attack it's a lethal and cost effective solution to the problem.
Originally Posted By: hattaresguy
Originally Posted By: Spazdog
Originally Posted By: hattaresguy
Not sure how to read this move, not a serious threat to modern Russian or Chinese forces with modern air defense systems. Useful against third world countries with old Soviet junk, that's about it.
Storage for a plane with nothing to do at the moment? Missile sponges for when the Russian army groups roll into Warsaw against our weak and tepid NATO allies?
Not a serious threat?
The Russians still have large numbers of the Su-25 Frogfoot (itself a dead knockoff ot the YA-9 that competed with the A-10 for production)
The AH-64 is even slower than the A-10. The brand new PLA Z-10 bears a strong resemblance to the Apache.
And just look what the P47 Thunderbolt did in WWII. Better kill to loss ratio than faster-higher tech planes
Slow moving ground attack aircraft are only useful if you have air superiority, or are able to maintain it over an operational area for any period of time.
The assumption of such is not always a good assumption from a military standpoint.
How affective are A10's against SU35's and Mig29's?
If ISIS has them, they are on the ground. I'm thinking an A-10 would have a field day with such assets sitting on the apron.
If there is a credible threat of such fast movers, I'm sure the package would include some other fast movers as cover.
No one is saying an A-10 is the best all-around air superiority machine. But for ground attack it's a lethal and cost effective solution to the problem.
Originally Posted By: hattaresguy
Originally Posted By: Spazdog
Originally Posted By: hattaresguy
Not sure how to read this move, not a serious threat to modern Russian or Chinese forces with modern air defense systems. Useful against third world countries with old Soviet junk, that's about it.
Storage for a plane with nothing to do at the moment? Missile sponges for when the Russian army groups roll into Warsaw against our weak and tepid NATO allies?
Not a serious threat?
The Russians still have large numbers of the Su-25 Frogfoot (itself a dead knockoff ot the YA-9 that competed with the A-10 for production)
The AH-64 is even slower than the A-10. The brand new PLA Z-10 bears a strong resemblance to the Apache.
And just look what the P47 Thunderbolt did in WWII. Better kill to loss ratio than faster-higher tech planes
Slow moving ground attack aircraft are only useful if you have air superiority, or are able to maintain it over an operational area for any period of time.
The assumption of such is not always a good assumption from a military standpoint.
How affective are A10's against SU35's and Mig29's?
Originally Posted By: javacontour
I believe the GAU-8 can reach out and touch the ISIS Toyota "Technical" from a greater distance than the other way around.
RPG range is about 300M for a moving target.
The GAU-8 range is about 1200M. The guys in the Toyota will be meeting their 72 virgins before the A-10 is in range.
What's the range for an SA-14 missile?
I believe the GAU-8 can reach out and touch the ISIS Toyota "Technical" from a greater distance than the other way around.
RPG range is about 300M for a moving target.
The GAU-8 range is about 1200M. The guys in the Toyota will be meeting their 72 virgins before the A-10 is in range.
What's the range for an SA-14 missile?
Originally Posted By: Jarlaxle
Originally Posted By: javacontour
I believe the GAU-8 can reach out and touch the ISIS Toyota "Technical" from a greater distance than the other way around.
RPG range is about 300M for a moving target.
The GAU-8 range is about 1200M. The guys in the Toyota will be meeting their 72 virgins before the A-10 is in range.
What's the range for an SA-14 missile?
To the best of my knowledge, the one A-10 shot down in "Iraqi Freedom" was brought down by a French/German built AMX SAM. The pilot escaped and was recovered.
Originally Posted By: javacontour
I believe the GAU-8 can reach out and touch the ISIS Toyota "Technical" from a greater distance than the other way around.
RPG range is about 300M for a moving target.
The GAU-8 range is about 1200M. The guys in the Toyota will be meeting their 72 virgins before the A-10 is in range.
What's the range for an SA-14 missile?
To the best of my knowledge, the one A-10 shot down in "Iraqi Freedom" was brought down by a French/German built AMX SAM. The pilot escaped and was recovered.
The SA-7/14 use the same rocket motor, so the kinematics are equal, and several times the GAU-8 range, but the seeker discrimination is what matters. Can the missile lock on to a forward aspect turbo fan heat signature?
Certainly, F-16s and a Tornados were brought down during ODS by the SA-14, so it's a serious threat in the A-10 operating envelope.
Of more concern is the improved seeker on the SA-16/18 series. It has very good all aspect capability.
The A-10 is a sitting duck compared to a 4th gen fighter. It simply has no chance against the SU-27 or MIG-29. Like pitting a swordsman against a rifleman. He only has a chance if the rifleman is stupid enough to get close.
So, true air superiority is required for A-10 operations. Iraq? Afghanistan? Sure. Cleared for A-10s. But nearly everywhere else in the world, it's going to get shredded by a credible air defense, which includes SAMs, MANPADS, and fighters.
Certainly, F-16s and a Tornados were brought down during ODS by the SA-14, so it's a serious threat in the A-10 operating envelope.
Of more concern is the improved seeker on the SA-16/18 series. It has very good all aspect capability.
The A-10 is a sitting duck compared to a 4th gen fighter. It simply has no chance against the SU-27 or MIG-29. Like pitting a swordsman against a rifleman. He only has a chance if the rifleman is stupid enough to get close.
So, true air superiority is required for A-10 operations. Iraq? Afghanistan? Sure. Cleared for A-10s. But nearly everywhere else in the world, it's going to get shredded by a credible air defense, which includes SAMs, MANPADS, and fighters.
Originally Posted By: cdeason
There are two things that I want loitering above me in a operational environment: an A-10 or a AC-130, the heck with fast movers
Myopia caused by experience operating with complete air supremacy. That's an unusual operating environment, true only in a few places around the world.
If the fast movers are overhead, it's because the enemy has fast movers, and on the ground, you are a target. Easy to hit. Easy to kill. Defenseless against ordnance raining down from 35,000 feet.
There are two things that I want loitering above me in a operational environment: an A-10 or a AC-130, the heck with fast movers
Myopia caused by experience operating with complete air supremacy. That's an unusual operating environment, true only in a few places around the world.
If the fast movers are overhead, it's because the enemy has fast movers, and on the ground, you are a target. Easy to hit. Easy to kill. Defenseless against ordnance raining down from 35,000 feet.
I hear the same argument about my MOS.
That the RPG-29 and Kornet vs. the Merkava rendered my MOS obsolete.
Oh no! We'd better call the infantry....Said no Tanker EVER!
From the "armored bathtub" Junkers J in WWI to the P-47 Thunderbolt in WWII to the A-1 Skyraider in Korea and Vietnam to the A-6 Intruder to the A-10. Ground attack fixed wing aircraft have their place.
The AH-64 Apache also "simply has no chance" against a Fulcrum or a Flanker. Anybody want to scrap what many consider to be the finest attack helicopter ever?
Infantry comes across a brigade sized element of heavy armor dug into defensive positions. Is everyone carrying a 50lb Javelin? are they going to low crawl to within 2000 meters to engage the tracks? (and get blown away by 7.62 coax, 12.7mm TC, and if those crews happen to have 125mm HE-Frag - well, too bad for the blue cord crunchies)
Nope.
They're going to call for Artillery, Tanks, or slow and low flying air support
That the RPG-29 and Kornet vs. the Merkava rendered my MOS obsolete.
Oh no! We'd better call the infantry....Said no Tanker EVER!
From the "armored bathtub" Junkers J in WWI to the P-47 Thunderbolt in WWII to the A-1 Skyraider in Korea and Vietnam to the A-6 Intruder to the A-10. Ground attack fixed wing aircraft have their place.
The AH-64 Apache also "simply has no chance" against a Fulcrum or a Flanker. Anybody want to scrap what many consider to be the finest attack helicopter ever?
Infantry comes across a brigade sized element of heavy armor dug into defensive positions. Is everyone carrying a 50lb Javelin? are they going to low crawl to within 2000 meters to engage the tracks? (and get blown away by 7.62 coax, 12.7mm TC, and if those crews happen to have 125mm HE-Frag - well, too bad for the blue cord crunchies)
Nope.
They're going to call for Artillery, Tanks, or slow and low flying air support
Completely agree that the A-10 has a role in a combined arms campaign...but let's be careful about perspective: the dedicated CAS airplanes are only good in permissive environments.
An airplane like the F-15E, however, can carry as much as the A-10, minus the big gun (but 20mm is effective against armor) and defend itself at the same time.
The budget and planning pressure is towards multi-role airplanes that are good on day one of the campaign in an A-A role, then are able to transition to CAS, INT, OCA as the flow of the campaign dictates.
An airplane like the F-15E, however, can carry as much as the A-10, minus the big gun (but 20mm is effective against armor) and defend itself at the same time.
The budget and planning pressure is towards multi-role airplanes that are good on day one of the campaign in an A-A role, then are able to transition to CAS, INT, OCA as the flow of the campaign dictates.
Originally Posted By: Jarlaxle
But the F-15 is vulnerable to AA fire that the A-10 laughs at. You can shoot an A-10 all day with a .50 machine gun and do only cosmetic damage...but I'd bet ONE ROUND in the right place will bring down an F-15.
Only if he is stupid enough to fly in the AAA envelope.
Iraq had lots of ZSU-23/4 in 1991. Truly lethal. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZSU-23-4
If you're dumb enough to be down there.
And it only takes one round "in the right place" to bring down any airplane. The A-10 has fewer of those places, but it's not immune to AAA. It's not magic.
But the F-15 is vulnerable to AA fire that the A-10 laughs at. You can shoot an A-10 all day with a .50 machine gun and do only cosmetic damage...but I'd bet ONE ROUND in the right place will bring down an F-15.
Only if he is stupid enough to fly in the AAA envelope.
Iraq had lots of ZSU-23/4 in 1991. Truly lethal. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZSU-23-4
If you're dumb enough to be down there.
And it only takes one round "in the right place" to bring down any airplane. The A-10 has fewer of those places, but it's not immune to AAA. It's not magic.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Astro14
Originally Posted By: Jarlaxle
But the F-15 is vulnerable to AA fire that the A-10 laughs at. You can shoot an A-10 all day with a .50 machine gun and do only cosmetic damage...but I'd bet ONE ROUND in the right place will bring down an F-15.
Only if he is stupid enough to fly in the AAA envelope.
Iraq had lots of ZSU-23/4 in 1991. Truly lethal. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZSU-23-4
If you're dumb enough to be down there.
And it only takes one round "in the right place" to bring down any airplane. The A-10 has fewer of those places, but it's not immune to AAA. It's not magic.
The Iraqis used their ZSUs against Iranian armor.
Iran's Shah era M60 Pattons were picking off Saddam's T-62s well beyond the T-62's effective range. The Iraqis would run their ZSU's at the Iranians full throttle guns depressed to shoot out the Iranian stereo-optic rangefinding sights. This would force the M60's into degraded mode and closer in range to the T-62s.
It was a suicide mission for the SPAAG crews. 105mm HEAT vs ZSU.
I'm surprised they had any ZSU crews left.
AH-1 Cobra aviators have to monitor their radio vs the ZSU 23/4. You can allegedly hear the radar on your radio just before they engage you. They've been very effective at dodging them. I don't see why an F-15/F-16/F-18 would be any different.
Originally Posted By: Jarlaxle
But the F-15 is vulnerable to AA fire that the A-10 laughs at. You can shoot an A-10 all day with a .50 machine gun and do only cosmetic damage...but I'd bet ONE ROUND in the right place will bring down an F-15.
Only if he is stupid enough to fly in the AAA envelope.
Iraq had lots of ZSU-23/4 in 1991. Truly lethal. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZSU-23-4
If you're dumb enough to be down there.
And it only takes one round "in the right place" to bring down any airplane. The A-10 has fewer of those places, but it's not immune to AAA. It's not magic.
The Iraqis used their ZSUs against Iranian armor.
Iran's Shah era M60 Pattons were picking off Saddam's T-62s well beyond the T-62's effective range. The Iraqis would run their ZSU's at the Iranians full throttle guns depressed to shoot out the Iranian stereo-optic rangefinding sights. This would force the M60's into degraded mode and closer in range to the T-62s.
It was a suicide mission for the SPAAG crews. 105mm HEAT vs ZSU.
I'm surprised they had any ZSU crews left.
AH-1 Cobra aviators have to monitor their radio vs the ZSU 23/4. You can allegedly hear the radar on your radio just before they engage you. They've been very effective at dodging them. I don't see why an F-15/F-16/F-18 would be any different.
Actually, there is a huge difference between the fast movers and the Cobras.
The fast movers can simply overfly the max altitude of the ZSU...they just stay high and refuse to play the game. Cobras are stuck in the heart of the ZSU engagement envelope, they have to pick up the radar to avoid them laterally.
Fast jets just avoid them vertically.
From that sanctuary above, the targeting systems of the jets can see trucks, even people, and deliver PGMs...they have to come down to strafe, but they don't have to come down to be effective in CAS...
The fast movers can simply overfly the max altitude of the ZSU...they just stay high and refuse to play the game. Cobras are stuck in the heart of the ZSU engagement envelope, they have to pick up the radar to avoid them laterally.
Fast jets just avoid them vertically.
From that sanctuary above, the targeting systems of the jets can see trucks, even people, and deliver PGMs...they have to come down to strafe, but they don't have to come down to be effective in CAS...
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Astro14
Originally Posted By: Jarlaxle
But the F-15 is vulnerable to AA fire that the A-10 laughs at. You can shoot an A-10 all day with a .50 machine gun and do only cosmetic damage...but I'd bet ONE ROUND in the right place will bring down an F-15.
Only if he is stupid enough to fly in the AAA envelope.
Iraq had lots of ZSU-23/4 in 1991. Truly lethal. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZSU-23-4
If you're dumb enough to be down there.
And it only takes one round "in the right place" to bring down any airplane. The A-10 has fewer of those places, but it's not immune to AAA. It's not magic.
Actually, yeah, it almost is: the A-10 is actually DESIGNED to fly with one engine, one vertical stabilizer, one aileron, and 4' of one wing MISSING. Several returned to base under their own power after multiple 57mm hits, one with an engine shot almost completely off.
Originally Posted By: Jarlaxle
But the F-15 is vulnerable to AA fire that the A-10 laughs at. You can shoot an A-10 all day with a .50 machine gun and do only cosmetic damage...but I'd bet ONE ROUND in the right place will bring down an F-15.
Only if he is stupid enough to fly in the AAA envelope.
Iraq had lots of ZSU-23/4 in 1991. Truly lethal. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZSU-23-4
If you're dumb enough to be down there.
And it only takes one round "in the right place" to bring down any airplane. The A-10 has fewer of those places, but it's not immune to AAA. It's not magic.
Actually, yeah, it almost is: the A-10 is actually DESIGNED to fly with one engine, one vertical stabilizer, one aileron, and 4' of one wing MISSING. Several returned to base under their own power after multiple 57mm hits, one with an engine shot almost completely off.
- Status