OBama tries to kill the A-10

[GIThruster]

Hmm. . . turns out the GAU8 cannon in question is also part of the Dutch Goalkeeper close in weapons system (CIWS) missile defense for ships--basically a bigger more powerful Phalanx system--and so has 5 different types of ammo for it including HE. So yeah half second squeeze of the trigger is about the same as 35, 30mm grenades tossed into a sport boat at 1,100fps. It'll ruin your fishing trip for sure. Depending upon the size of the boat you need maybe 3 hits to immobilize it?

Imagine the fun the guys flying would have coming in on a fleet of 5,000 little sport boats. . .

[palladin9479]

We have had this discussion before I think. An M-1 is a hard can to open. That is why the armor systme remains classified. Mission kill is possible, but to my knowledge, there has never been an enemy fire crewman kill or crew compartment penetration for a buttoned up M-1. And, tanks do not operate unsupported, thus it would be hard for a couple of hacks to get a good shot off anyway. You may see onesy-twoseys here and there, but I do not see it as a viable sustained tactic to turn a battle.

Yeah all that nonsense about cheap missiles or other ground fired ordnance taking out an M1 is bunk. The armor on it is specifically designed to deter penetrating rounds, so stuff like shaped charges or plasma charges don't work on it. The exact composition is highly classified but what can be discussed is that it's a honeycomb design with layers of DU and "other" reactive armor all spaced apart inside. There were two known (now three) ways to kill an M1. First is from the air since the top of the turret and engine compartment isn't armored, second is an extremely well placed shot to a spot on the rear, it would damage the engine and cause it to disengage. The third was a really big mine designed not for the tread but for the bottom of the crew compartment with a remotely triggered shaped charge. They have since looked for ways to protect against that last one. Tanks are used to mop up and hold ground, they are ground superiority personified. A10's are what you use to break up formations and take out anything that might actually slow down your ground offensive. The A10 and the AH64 are best friends to every combat arms unit. It's a critical role that needs to be filled.

Quick story, friends of mine are tankers and were out in the desert back in 09 or 10. One of their tanks got a mobility kill when an IED blew a track off. Normally you'd have a M118 come out and tow it back but the location they were at made it so that it would be impossible for them to wait for the recovery vehicle and complete their mission. Decision was made from higher up that the mission was more important then a single tank and to leave it behind (the crew were unharmed). Well you can't just "leave" a M1 sitting in the desert for anyone to come by and carry off, so they had to destroy it first. Took them hitting it with over eight SABOT's to destroy it sufficiently and make in unrecoverable.

Yeah that's how tough these things are in a fight.

[Tom Ligon]

Of course, if the bass boat is carrying a few hundred pounds of high explosives, that DOES give an HE round something to stop in, and set it off. And that is the boat you are worried about.

Based on WWII train-busting footage, it is risky business. From low altitude, it is hard to pull up in time to avoid the debris from an exploding target.

Robert Lee Scott, in The Day I Owned the Sky, mentioned an alternative train-busting tactic used in a Mustang from 20,000 ft. One basically flew above the train until a pair of sighting lines painted on your wings converged on the engine, and let loose a long burst. Coming down, the .50-cals (probably an AP-I mix) maintained sufficient velocity at that range to perforate the boiler.

With a modern computer sight, probably a relatively high-angle high-altitude strafing run would be productive (as compared to the WWII low-level strafing passes one sees in wing camera footage).

[paperburn1]

A 10 pass
http://www.funker530.com/a-10-destroys- ... -korengal/
and they have just got a contract to extend A-10 support to 2028

[kunkmiester]

A five-one mix of training and HE I've heard is preferred in the sandbox--the training ammo is basically a slug and the modified MOX does wonders for trucks and unarmored vehicles without the expense of the fancier rounds.

At velocity, a round that doesn't explode hitting top top of the boat will when it hits the water below.

And don't forget a-10s can carry rockets. A load out of those would give a speedboat flotilla a bad day, even if you didn't use the new fancy but cheap guided 2.75 inch rockets.

[ladajo]

Fundamentally, an A-10 would seem to be the preferred option for this problem set. Many characteristics set it above a TACAIR or Rotary option.
It really is ideal for going after maritime target sets that have little to no air defense capability. And can even step things up to moderately defended targets by using standoff capabilities to soften them up before going in for the kill.
It certainly has the wheels, carry and durability that rotary lacks for this sort of business.

[ladajo]

Also, I forgot to mention, the A-10 has been used over water in combat. An A-10 smoked two Lybian patrol boats during the Odessey Dawn mission. It was a coordinated event between a Perry Class FFG, a P-3 and the A-10. They took on a small corvette and two patrol boats that were shooting up some merchants in port.
The A-10 destroyed one boat and completely disabled the other using the gun.

Thought y'all might want to know.

[GIThruster]

That is interesting. Any details on this would be appreciated. I've never heard of this sort of thing before and it does indeed shed light on the decision whether to retire them. Do you know if any of the three boats the A-10's attacked were moving?

[Betruger]

Of course, if the bass boat is carrying a few hundred pounds of high explosives, that DOES give an HE round something to stop in, and set it off. And that is the boat you are worried about.

Based on WWII train-busting footage, it is risky business. From low altitude, it is hard to pull up in time to avoid the debris from an exploding target.

Robert Lee Scott, in The Day I Owned the Sky, mentioned an alternative train-busting tactic used in a Mustang from 20,000 ft. One basically flew above the train until a pair of sighting lines painted on your wings converged on the engine, and let loose a long burst. Coming down, the .50-cals (probably an AP-I mix) maintained sufficient velocity at that range to perforate the boiler.

With a modern computer sight, probably a relatively high-angle high-altitude strafing run would be productive (as compared to the WWII low-level strafing passes one sees in wing camera footage).

Really? From 20k? Did the book mention if they did anything out of the ordinary to the guns/platforms?

[Tom Ligon]

Really? From 20k? Did the book mention if they did anything out of the ordinary to the guns/platforms?

Only that they used some sort of stripes on the wings to judge the aim point. I'd look it up, but I loaned my copy out and evidently it never came back. I'm pretty sure he said they used the guns, although I have found some mention on line of doing something similar with rockets.

Gen. Scott was the guy who flew with the Flying Tigers and wrote God Was My Co-pilot back during the war. That was part of my collection of WWII pilot autobiographies. All these guys who later made General had a tendency to buck the system, and play fast and loose with the rules. One almost gets the idea that coming up thru the ranks, you're tested to see if you can break the rules judiciously. That's a critical test for becoming a General. The book was a good read, particularly an adventure he had in retirement, going back to China to set up a memorial to the Flying Tigers. He tried to do it on the sly, and was caught, but when they realized his purpose, the Chinese gave their blessing and helped him do it.

[ladajo]

That is interesting. Any details on this would be appreciated. I've never heard of this sort of thing before and it does indeed shed light on the decision whether to retire them. Do you know if any of the three boats the A-10's attacked were moving?

The A-10 went after the two smaller boats after the larger one was hit with a stand off from the P-3. Both smaller craft were moving tactically when attacked by the A-10.
The ACU was the DDG (BARRY I think, have to check). At first I was thinking it was an FFG, but it was a DDG.

http://www.africom.mil/newsroom/article ... age-libyan

[Tom Ligon]

Well, cool, another oldie but goodie teams with an A-10 to effect a kill.

Unlike the A-10, I actually have about 2 minutes of stick time on a P-3. Fun facts: it can outrun an A-10, and is deadlier than it looks, being nuclear-capable. And it is land-based, so that's a good model for land-based Navy planes. Even back in the 70's when I got my ride, I believe they were turboprop. It is hard to find the information, but I believe both the Lockheed L-188 Electra on which the P-3 is based, and the Lockheed Constellation, have wings derived from the B-29. Thus, a venerable WWII low-drag design is still in service.

There is an updated jet version sub hunter-killer, the P-8, but I notice that the bulk of the aircraft searching for Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 were P-3's, so they're still workhorses.

[ladajo]

P-8 is just now rolling out. P-3s still have some leg in them.
P-8 is a good ship, but there is a lot of hemming and hawing about its low/slow capabilities being a jet and all.

[mdeminico]

The A-10 has a lot more missions than just a tank killer, though it's really good at that. You want a plane that can fly low and perform close air support? It's your plane. It can take a beating and still fly, which is getting to be more rare for modern planes.