Why the A-10 rules CAS

[Broncazonk]

Two (2) minutes into the video, the A-10's roll in and start talking. Listen to how 30mm rounds are chewing up solid rock and several seconds later you can hear the cannon purring. No insurgent anywhere can ignore that--even if they are still alive. But is it overkill--a 30mm GAU-8 Avenger? For CAS having four (4) 20mm GAU-4's in the nose might be better. Bronc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZRHDTNj3VQ0

Credit Ty over at Aviationintel.com for posting this.

 

[cluttonfred]

True enough...per Wikipedia, the complete GAU-8 Avenger weapons system weighs over 4,000 lbs including gun, feed system and ammunition. For the type of work the A-10 does these days, which doesn't involve killing Soviet tanks, a variant with a smaller-caliber cannon(s) or even .50 caliber machine gun(s). One or two smaller guns and a generous ammunition supply would still be a lot lighter. The weight savings could be used for more weapons, more fuel to allow the plane to stay on station longer or a standard OA-10 two-seat variant.

 

[GTX]

Of course in a situation where there is an air defence element ( either ground based or airborne), the A-10 does not necessarily rule... : ...regardless of its gun or otherwise...

 

[Rickshaw]

In COIN, there are cheaper alternatives. Attack helicopters tend to be more effective in mountainous terrain as well. The A-10 is good but I'd have had doubts that it would have survived on the North European Plain for long up against a real Soviet AD environment.

 

[Jemiba]

Still not sure, that the dominance of manned systems for CAS will last for long. Correct me if I'm wrong, but in most
cases, it's the soldier on the ground, who designates the target. On a "netcentric" battlefield, he will often be
able to do so, even if hidden behind any kind of shelter, his "eyes" would be some form of UAV then, especially
as there already are types, he could launch "from his backpack". Precision guided weapons are more expensive,
of course, than gun ammo, even for GAU-8, but in the end "bombtrucks" circling at height and releasing their
load on demand, probably would be a cheaper overall solution, compared against squadrons of CAS aircraft.
And I can imagine, that with new warheads, maybe in the form of large "shotguns", even the demand for strafing
could be fulfilled.
There will be still some conventional CAS aircraft and attack helicopters, much much less, than today, just as a
backup against special situations. And maybe even the morale effects against insurgence will be greater, when
suddenly chastised from the air without any warning !
As I said at the start, to my opinion, that's the way, things will go in the future. Not because it's necessarily the
best for the soldiers on the ground, but because, it's the most cost effective and so least harmful way for the
defence budgets . :

 

[pathology_doc]

If the US finds itself at war with China or Iran, the latter not an impossibility, that heavy tank killing capacity will be back to the forefront.


I'm also very interested in the scenario Tom Clancy dangled in front of us in the novel of The Hunt for Red October, that of the A-10 in the role of maritime strike. I don't know whether the A-10 really would be a serious threat to something the size of a Kirov-class battle-cruiser, but it might be just the thing for whacking fast patrol craft and other small surface combatants at short notice. Would you rather defend against a 200mph whirlybird with Hellfires... or a 400mph COIN a/c bearing down on you with IIR Mavericks and small ARMs, and the cannon to follow once your FCS was shredded and you were helpless?

 

[Broncazonk]

Yeesh, why didn't someone PM me and tell me that I had "roll" spelling incorrectly? (role)

Pertaining to ship attacks, in WWII B-25's with eight (8) .50-cals. mounted in the nose ruled the Bismarck Sea. The fifties would suppress the AA-fire and the B-25's would skip bomb the ship. Several destroyers and destroyer escorts were sunk this way and many cargo and transport vessels. A GAU-8 would murder a ship if the plane could get past point defence (CIWS) missiles and guns.

And I agree, helicopters provide the best CAS, by far, but hearing that Avenger purr is pretty damn motivating!

Bronc

 

[pathology_doc]

A GAU-8 would murder a ship if the plane could get past point defence (CIWS) missiles and guns.

Insofar as the CIWS missile problem is concerned, that might be fixable either with anti-radar missiles (e.g. ALARM or SideARM) or Mavericks. I suspect the Avenger cannon would outrange many gun-based CIWS. By the time you've got at least a half-dozen AGM-65s coming in from all points of the compass PLUS the launch aircraft following behind, I think any small surface combatant that's anything less than top-class is going to be completely swamped point-defence-wise. Those airplanes will get close enough to fire, even if all their ASMs don't survive.

 

[Thiel]

As poor as most FACs air defences are, I'd still rather be in a fast mover of some sort than the A-10.
Sure the A-10 has a big gun, but the boat is likely to have an even bigger one and it's designed specifically for taking down aircraft.
Given that I'd rather hit it from well beyond his defensive range or if that's not an option fly by him at as high a mach number as I can get.

 

[pathology_doc]

Oh true, so would I. But I'd also rather be in an A-10 than a helicopter. And if enemy FAC are imminently threatening my landings, it may be easier and quicker to divert a couple of already-loitering A-10s with Mavericks etc. onboard to deal with the threat in the first instance than to load Harpoons or what-have-you on Super Hornets or F-35s or whatever you've got standing by on a flat-top. Chances are whatever you've got spotted for immediate launch is prioritised to CAP anyway, and will launch to deal with ASM-carriers coming in behind the FAC.

 

[Gridlock]

Obligatory XKCD reference


http://what-if.xkcd.com/21/


5 tons of recoil :O

 

[GTX]

;D