A-10 The ground pounders friend

Waylander said:
@Gremlin
Thanks for the insight into how the mentioned problem is managed by the Hellfire MMW / Longbow combo.
...
Pretty clever system but as you said I wouldn't want to be close to enemy vehicles in a ground vehicle when a Longbow is at work...
...
A very interesting topic although such calabilities are a tankers nightmare...;)
Click to expand...

Thanks Gremlin, my background is as an IFV gunner (Bionix II, 30mm main gun variant), so it makes me glad to know that I fight alongside AH-64Ds, and not against them. Also, the way the Longbow prioritises targets also explains why in exercises our vehicle crews are all told to pull back behind a certain point in order to make way for the Apaches to do their job. I always thought it was to reduce confusion to pilots - now I know there's an additional aspect to that too.
 
My mind wasn't fully engaged last night when I wrote my last reply. There was thread about Brimstone some time back and I now remember getting some info from our TACOPS folks on the system. Brimstone uses it's own seeker for radar acquisition, the rail assembly has a logic module that does the processing. I would still assume the need for a display and for the pilot to have some input into target selection but that's beyond my knowledge. Otherwise the missile rail will do the prioritization of targets, not the missile itself. In the simplest of terms, the Brimstone is using the missile seeker for radar acquisition, the missile "pod" is the processor that seperates the wheat from the chaff and prioritizes targets.

The Hellfire II gets a target handover a number of ways. At a minimum it gets a north east and down (NED) . It also has INS so when it is selected to be active it receives it's current location. From this, it can determine it's trajectory for optimal target identification and terminal flight. In addition, the missile will adjust it's trajectory and radar mode depending upon whether or not the target is moving or stationary. It can launch with it's radar locked onto the target prior to launch (LOBL) or it will launch with it's seeker off until it gets to a point in space (LOAL). It will also be given a second target, in case it can't lock onto it's primary target, which can be turned off with a button push. Distance to the target will also affect the flight path the missile will take.

The missile will get it's NED from either the radar, RFI (it tracks emitters), the TADS, stored targets or from electronic mail targets. Whether or not it knows "what" the target is is dependent upon what provided the target data. It may know it's a tank for instance if the handover was from radar/RFI, but if it was TADS or stored targets it just knows it's a target. The aircraft can prioritize over 1000 target but will only display the top 256 threats which is coincident to the number of hellfires an entire company could carry. This is where priority fire zones come into play, zones are created in the battle area by one aircraft and it will assign individual zones to individual aircraft. Now each aircraft can prioritize only the tragets in it's zone and will not fire into another zone. You don't have to use PF zones, it's just another tool. You can likewise create no fire zones in which the aircraft will consider targets in that zone a safety constraint preventing the missile from engaging targets in that area.

As I said earlier, RF missiles are great when you are fighting against a huge enemy force full of vehicles and the like and you are in a weapons free area (everything on the ground is a target). Otherwise they aren't usefull for much at all. Laser missiles are a different story, they are extremely precise and are the only type you are going to be able to use for CAS.

Finally when considering CAS from my experience, the ability to service really comes down to what your platforms/weapons danger close ranges are. It's all well and good that you can put ordenance on the ground but when troops call for CAS it's because the enemy has them by the belt so to speak and you need to be able to deliver very close to friendlies with confidence and accuracy.
 
Something that hasn't been hit upon yet (besides my typos) I would like to bring up. CAS isn't just about hitting targets. There is also the element of target suppression which simply means you are forcing the enemy to take an action that removes them from the fight. Forcing the enemy to take an action is basic war fighting 101. Fixed wing assetts suffer from the fact that if they aren't pointed at the target, they aren't a threat. The enemy is still free to maneuver/act when the airplane is pointing away from them. With a gunship such as Apache or Tiger etc, the enemy doesn't have that same luxury because the gunships can target and shoot off axis. With 2 gunships the enemy is never in a position where they can't be fired upon.

Oddly enough, I have been TDY since November and at the base of a tall ridge that runs many many miles. 1k north on the other side of the ridge is an impact area that gets beat up by A-10's weekly. I have watched them make many runs day and night (pretty cool to see at night) Their TTP is a racetrack, one ship inbound while one is outbound. They shoot one short burst and pull off. There is alot of time during this engagement where neither aircraft is in a position to fire, and neither is able to cover the other. While they may or may not employ this TTP in combat, it does illustrate the shortcomings of ground attack with fixed wing no matter how awesome the platform may be.
 
Actually I've read both of Ed Macy's books. Very interesting insights into UK Apache operations in A-stan while also being fun to read.

I was surprised to read that while at first they were reluctant to use hellfires they learned that it actually was precise and blast-limited enough to be used very effectively.

The parts about them using their Longbow radars for monitoring and navigation purposes was also very interesting.

The possibilities an Apache Longbow brings to the table are really amazing. I only worked together with PAH-1s (Bo-105s with HOT) and while it was nice to have them shape the battlefield before we went into action or attack the enemies flanks it remains a 6 round, one target after the other platform. Well, seeing them fly with their landing skeets below our turret hatches was impressive nevertheless.

Another aspect which should get more focus is the impact PGMs for tube/rocket artillery and mortars have on the idea of pinpoint CAS.

GMLRS, Excalibur and Vulcano offer a precise all weather capability against static targets. And at least for Vulcano there is also a laser seeking version in the making for even more precise targeting and for usage against moving targets.

Other stuff like SMARt, BONUS or Strix could ruin the day of every targeted group o vehicles.

For high value targets missiles like Spike-NLOS or Type 96 are also a very nice addition to modern arsenals.

IMHO the ongoing development and proliferation of PGMs fired by ground systems should reduce the need for CAS in the future while UAVs are already taking over the surveillance part.

There should be a rather big overlap between an F-16 orbiting above with a targeting pod and some JDAMs and a circling UAV with a GMLRS launcher in range.
 
I've read a lot about Apache in Afghanistan in UK hands and the main writer kicked off doing ops in Northern Ireland. Rotary winged assets over head really unnerve the opposition - the blokes on the ground know they're not going away, and that if the patrol gets bumped, there's just never going to be a dull moment - the optics on those things are very good and they can shake the cover very nicely, day or night.

Getting into position is impossible - you've got to already *be* there to stand a chance,which leads to the obvious question, how do you get back out again..

Macey's books have Icon intercepts at the start of each chapter. They're usually funny, but only if you're not the guy with the AK and no air cover. Something like:
"Go, go attack the mosquito!" (Taliban slang for Apache)
"I am going..I just need to pray first"

There was an interesting incident related prior to Afghanistan where the author was flying cover for an army patrol in NI, and basically called a halt to the entire patrol because he'd spotted one house with the blinds and curtains still drawn at noon on a weekday - turned out the house was empty, except for a large IED with a remote detonator - plan being to hit the patrol as they went by.

Spot that from an A10...
 
Waylander said:
Actually I've read both of Ed Macy's books. Very interesting insights into UK Apache operations in A-stan while also being fun to read.

I was surprised to read that while at first they were reluctant to use hellfires they learned that it actually was precise and blast-limited enough to be used very effectively.
Click to expand...

Macy's a God :) If they made an action hero out of his story, you'd never believe it..The description of his bailout kit was illuminating and it was obvious he had no illusions about what the opposition had planned if they captured an Apache pilot.

I think partly the platform and mainly the aircrews shaped the success of Apache - they've been used aggressively by crews who cut their teeth flying top cover in NI and similar trouble spots. That story about taking out a bloke on a bike with a hellfire sort of underlined just how ROE can drive weapon selection.
 
No indeed - he appears quite an unassuming sort of chap but I've got this mental image of him looking at the standard issue Walther PPK and going "I need bigger f*cking guns.." and raiding the armoury...

I tend to use him as an example whenever some Guardian reading chinless wonder starts manking on about how the army recruits from poor areas.
"And look what they do with them - this bloke was a school dropout with no quals - fast forward a few years and he's flying for the army in one of the most complex platforms we own.."

Pretty switched on bloke by all accounts.
 
Makes you wonder why the Australian Army doesn't make use of NCO pilots, there are some very talented blokes in uniform who could do it and do it well given the chance.
 
Volkodav said:
Technically a P-8 with a with the appropriate podded supplementary sensors and systems and load out of SBD and Griffin could be a competent and capable CAS platform in the future depending on the treat environment. Then again so could a variety of platforms including transports and tanker transports.
Click to expand...

I found an interesting read about the day-to-day work of a JTAC in Afghanistan/Iraq. According to him, the Harvest Hawk seems to be a pretty impressive LIC plattform for CAS and ISR, employing Hellfires and Griffins combined with nearly endless loiter time. The MC-130W Dragon Spear also appears to follow the same concept path.

reddit.com/r/hoggit/comments/163nr5/iama_usmc_jtacetacpi_combat_xp_in_iraq_and/
 
This is the thing - if you're in a permissive environment, where you own the air and the only threat to air craft is trashfire and some portable missiles, sticking above 15K will keep you safe from pretty much everything that the bad guys can throw at your CAS efforts.

Given that, CAS can be delivered by drones or assets several miles away on race track patterns now that we've got things like SDB and JSOW etc.

The driving urge to strap on a silk scarf and a goggled flying helmet and go mow the lawn with a manned jet firing cannon isn't so pressing - and UAV's can release a hellfire just as well as a larger, more expensive to run A10C.

The A10 just doesn't have the ISR kit to plug into a dynamic battlefield - the optics and radar on a modern attack helicopter plus a two person crew make it probably a better choice for a lot of stuff, particularly if terrain is on your side and you can mask/unmask at will.

It's been an interesting shift for sure.
 
StobieWan said:
This is the thing - if you're in a permissive environment, where you own the air and the only threat to air craft is trashfire and some portable missiles, sticking above 15K will keep you safe from pretty much everything that the bad guys can throw at your CAS efforts.

Given that, CAS can be delivered by drones or assets several miles away on race track patterns now that we've got things like SDB and JSOW etc.

The driving urge to strap on a silk scarf and a goggled flying helmet and go mow the lawn with a manned jet firing cannon isn't so pressing - and UAV's can release a hellfire just as well as a larger, more expensive to run A10C.

The A10 just doesn't have the ISR kit to plug into a dynamic battlefield - the optics and radar on a modern attack helicopter plus a two person crew make it probably a better choice for a lot of stuff, particularly if terrain is on your side and you can mask/unmask at will.

It's been an interesting shift for sure.
Click to expand...

Thats the unfortunate thing is that platform ideologues are ignoring the fact that the last 10 years has been about situational awareness and platform connectivity into the broader common operating picture.

You need to have more than just a blunt force trauma capability - and in so many respects the A10 is just deficient compared to what can be exercised and brought to bear by a variety of other assets.
 
having attended Hawgsmoke this year had some 1st hand chat with a lot of the Hogs drivers...... the consensus is even with the A-10C they lack a lot of sensors, like the Longbow attack helicopter has... as a CAS aircraft they do a very good job but needed air supremacy to do that!

Thus, by merely attaching a sniper XR or lightening pod may not be enough for the A-10 in this modern battlefield.

DAveC
 
A-10C Thunderbolt II CAS Weapons Loadout

Afternoon ladies and gents,
I am conducting some research for a Science Fiction Novel about counter-terror operations involving experimental equipment and the use of advanced technology. As we all know, sometimes in warfighting, we as Americans must fall back on the tried and true; such as the A-10. My question is as follows: what does the typical weapons loadout for the A-10 consist of during CAS missions? I'm talking about the specific ordinance and the way they are mounted on the aircraft.

Thank you very much, have an excellent day.
Keep Up The Fire
- Guardian

"Mortis Prius Infamia"
:pope :ar15 :gun
 
Guardian52 said:
Afternoon ladies and gents,
I am conducting some research for a Science Fiction Novel about counter-terror operations involving experimental equipment and the use of advanced technology. As we all know, sometimes in warfighting, we as Americans must fall back on the tried and true; such as the A-10. My question is as follows: what does the typical weapons loadout for the A-10 consist of during CAS missions? I'm talking about the specific ordinance and the way they are mounted on the aircraft.

Thank you very much, have an excellent day.
Keep Up The Fire
- Guardian

"Mortis Prius Infamia"
:pope :ar15 :gun
Click to expand...

The A-10 mounts ordnance via MAU-40/50 ejector racks and LAU-88/105/117 missile launch rails.

It mounts sensors, jamming pods and other systems via alternative mounting systems.

This sort of stuff is pretty straight forward research...
 
According to what I've seen thus far the A-10 will often deploy with this configuration:
Station 1) 1x AN/ALQ-131 Electronic Countermeasures (ECM) pod
2) 1x LAU-131/A rocket pod
3) 1x AGM-65
4) 3x GBU-38 JDAM
5) 1x GBU-16 Paveway II
6) Empty
7) 1x GBU-16 Paveway II
8) 3x GBU-38 JDAM
9) 1x AGM-65 Maverick
10) 1x AN/AAQ-28(V) LITENING Targeting Pod
11) 2x AIM-9 Sidewinder

This is the setup I have in the scene in my book that I described. I need confirmation on this. I should have stated this outright.
 
you just can't grab a bag full of weapons and load them on to a plane - there has to be a tactical reason and a timeframe issue added

eg the absolute majority of CAS in afghanistan was done by heavies and closely followed up by rotors - there is a reason for that

so you need to consider theatre and geoloc issues

otherwise you run the risk of turning into a tom clancy battle vignette where its driven by injecting names from a military glossary... and where your credibility will then take a parallel dive accordingly

writing a novel is a bit like planning a mission, the resources committed need to be relevant to the mission or it will sound like a military buzzword generator and where the whole plan/novel ends up just not making sense.
 
The aircraft in question were already in the air at the time of the engagement.
I acknowledge your point concerning timetables and I acknowledge that aircraft don't have their payloads magically glued to their pylons to fit the exact mission requirements of the troops in contact calling for support.

Define "heavies."
How would that compare to American air assets in the ROK?

I am considering theater and geological issues, if you think I'm missing something could you be more specific?

What do you mean by "driven by injecting names from a military glossary?"

I have a 5 Paragraph OPORD template sitting in front of me right now. I have used it in the past for this series of books. But, is the mission not clear? An ODA happened to be close by a downed pilot so they were rerouted and tasked with recovery when they stumbled in and made contact with a much larger PLA force.
 
Heavies are the B-1Bs and B-52Hs which contributef most of the bomb load during the asymetric and symetric conflicts of the last decades.

And an A-10 with your proposed weapons load won't loiter much.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top