Hacker News Reader

Comment by ahelwer | Hacker News Reader

The A-10 is extremely vulnerable to man-portable air defense systems (MANPADs), which are difficult to spot and nearly impossible to avoid at the low altitudes within which the A-10 best performs. MANPADs are more and more common on the modern battlefield, and the supply exploded after the 2011 Libyan Civil War. Furthermore, the GAU-8, while an impressive weapon, doesn't hold its own against any tank built within the last twenty years. This leaves the A-10 as a slow, unstealthy delivery platform for AGM-65 Maverick missiles and JDAMs, a role better performed by higher-performance aircraft.

I say all that as a huge fan of the A-10c, with many hours spent in the DCS sim. People seem to get bizarrely hyperbolic over the capabilities of this plane, but it's really a dinosaur.

View on HN

When was the last time an A-10 was shot down by a MANPAD? And what is your proof that it is ineffective against modern tanks?

I ask as an actual A-10C pilot, with many more hours flying it than you have in a "sim".

When was the last time an A-10 was shot down in air-to-air combat? Never? They must be unstoppable!

But, seriously, there's that old saying: the only way to bring down an A-10 is to put a suicidal pilot in the cockpit.

Do you know anything about changes in tactics related to MANPAD threats, then? I read some about the Soviet war in Afghanistan, where we supplied MANPADs to the rebels for use against Soviet helicopters. Reportedly, they didn't actually shoot down very many helicopters, but they were very effective in that the threat of them forced the helicopters to engage from much further away from the battle and move at higher speeds to limit their vulnerability, but also limiting their effectiveness.

I wonder if there has been an affect like that on the A10s. And I wonder if anybody who knows is actually allowed to tell us.

Thanks for this. I don't see why people think 30 mm slugs are effective against tanks designed to resist 120 mm penetrators or shaped charges, including top armor hits. And simply enduring battle damage is insane against modern MANPADS with large warheads. The A-10, along with the B-17, is one of the most over-romanticized aircraft of all time.

Yep, the A-10c can take a real beating, but there's a huge gap between combat readiness and limping back to base for expensive repairs, assuming you survive the initial SAM strike. Much better to never be hit (or even seen!) in the first place.

Uh huh. You're saying this based on how many deployments?

Jeez. Tanks?

You're neglecting one of the most valuable roles for the A-10: close air support for ground troops in contact.

In that situation (read: the entirety of our conflict in Afghanistan/Iraq) tanks had NO ROLE. You're fighting a highly mobile ground force that often have an armament/position advantage and that's where the A-10 CAS really really makes a difference. Nobody fought TANKS in Afghanistan.

Ask anyone who's been in contact with the enemy how they feel when they hear that distinctive "BRRRRRRRAAAAAP!"

It's like FSCKING CHRISTMAS.

This, right here.

Doing close air support you want A-10 pilots or Marines.

I think this needs illustration: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xuYmn_xYB78

My father worked on A-10s in the Air Guard, I thought was very familiar with them... but it wasn't really until I saw that video that I realized how terrifying they are in the appropriate situation. While the above video is a friendly-fire close call, you're probably not going to find video like that from the other side of the line.

Thanks for posting that video. Very informative!

Wow, it sounds just like a dragon's roar there. It must have a hell of an effect on morale...

When the Air Force first wanted to retire the A-10, there was an article [1] proposal: Give the A-10s to the Marine Corps.

Even if the machine could not be retrofitted for carrier operations, the Corps could fly them from airfields ashore, and would really value an excellent ground-attack aircraft, and would take good extra-special care of them.

[1] in the Marine Corps Gazette I think.

What about the depleted uranium bullits the A-10 uses? I read they are are threat to friendly ground forces when they cross the fields the A-10 fired up on? Targets hit by the A-10 basically become biohazard... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depleted_uranium

Ask a soldier or Marine if they'd make that trade. Dead now or dead much much later?

The A-10 can fire lead ammo as well. The uranium stuff is only needed for tank armour.

Yeah, apparently the problem with using high speed jets if they can't hang out close to look out the window and figure which people are the bad guys. Helicopters are too lightly armoured and get shot down and current drones are a bit lightly armed to hold off loads of enemy troops. Maybe in the future when the drones are more like http://youtu.be/zjympX1bxI4?t=18s retiring the A10 would make sense

The problem isn't the drone airframe. It's taking the person OUT of the airframe.

Having that pilot in that seat removes the need to replicate the kind of situational awareness you have when you're flying your plane 100-1000 feet off the ground and making passes to identify who is who so you avoid a friendly fire incident. Until we have the kind of immersive, low-latency, realtime kind of virtual reality you'd need, using drones for CAS is a pipe-dream.

Yes, the A-10 is outdated and couldn't tear through the armor of a modern tank like it could to the tanks of Yore. But you also need to remember that the chain breaks at its weakest link. A strafing run from the GAU-8 will absolutely shred the tracks, gun, and exterior sensors of anything it comes near. Sure the crew might live through the concussions and blunt force trauma, but that vehicle is no longer in the fight.

Sometimes an M-Kill is better than destroying the entire thing because you can target support troops when they bring in a wrecker.

Most assmetric warfare in current theatres is not fought against tanks of the caliber of the modern western main battle tanks. Until these types of conflicts are unlikely, I don't see why you would prefer an f-35 in CAS vs a comination of A10s and (if really a problem) drones or F16s.

Yeah but that good Armour is on the front of the tank - you know the bit thats radically sloped.

The top of a tank not so much and if you blow a track of that's a mobility kill - almost as good as a full brew up.

>I don't see why people think 30 mm slugs are effective against tanks designed to resist 120 mm penetrators or shaped charges, including top armor hits.

Because tanks only have that sort of armour on their frontal aspect and turret sides, and the top armour is very thin. Even if the turret top is armoured enough it is likely the engine deck can be penetrated and produce a mobility kill.

Also, hardly anyone besides the US and extremely close allies has ultra-modern tanks like late series Abrams or the Challenger II (and I have seen no evidence that those tanks are immune to the GAU-8).

P.S. There are also cheap ways to reduce shape charge effectiveness that don't work against solid penetrators. Things like the TUSK upgrade are designed to defeat RPGs not 30mm cannon.

Well yes. Of course 30mm rounds are effective against tanks. It's simply a matter of how MANY you throw at the beast. At 3,000 rounds/minute you can hit the tank up real good.

Secondly, not every enemy has the latest tank. In fact, most potentially hostile nations (speaking from the POV of NATO) do NOT have modern tanks.

it's not just the caliber of the ammo, it's also the velocity. I'm certainly not an expert, but I did my military service in a base used for tank training. Back then, it was already a done deal : no armor could resist the amount of energy released by anti-tank ordnance, in particular kinetic penetrators. I've seen up close old tanks which were used for training. On the entry side of the impact you have a perfectly cut circular hole a few cm in diameter, with slits all around like petal flowers. On the exit side you have a big open tear. In between, there was a jet stream of molten metal. Bottom line : a spotted tank is a dead tank.

That was a fairly long time ago, but unless armor has made huge progress since then, producing something hard enough to deflect this kind of force and yet light enough that the tank can move, I'd still bet on an A10 against anything rolling on the ground.

The A-10 is extremely vulnerable to man-portable air defense systems (MANPADs), which are difficult to spot and nearly impossible to avoid at the low altitudes within which the A-10 best performs.

How about building a ground support platform that can deal with this? Apparently, the Army has tried with helicopters with instrument pods above their rotors, so they can target enemies from behind cover. Perhaps the solution will be many small drones taking the place of one manned aircraft.

A-10s have a missile warning system that is tied directly to the flare dispenser.

I'll keep track of all this for the next time I play Civilizations.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com