A10 vs. MIG29
Joan E Krochko
From jkro...@uoguelph.ca (Joan E Krochko)
How would an A-10 do against maybe a MIG-29 or some other
advanced fighter. My best guess is the A-10 when detected on radar could
just turn 90 degrees to it and if it is doppler radar the MIG-29 would
lose it. The A-10 most likely being camoflaged could then go on its
merry way or it could sneak through ground cover and come up behind the
MIG-29 and give it a sidewinder or some 30mm. Is this realistic? What
does the A-10 have as far as Air to Air avionics go?
thanx,
Andrew,
Jefferson W Steel
From jws...@unity.ncsu.edu (Jefferson W Steel)
In article <D7I0x...@ranger.daytonoh.attgis.com>, jkro...@uoguelph.ca
(Joan E Krochko) wrote:
> How would an A-10 do against maybe a MIG-29 or some other
> advanced fighter. My best guess is the A-10 when detected on radar could
> just turn 90 degrees to it and if it is doppler radar the MIG-29 would
> lose it. The A-10 most likely being camoflaged could then go on its
> merry way or it could sneak through ground cover and come up behind the
> MIG-29 and give it a sidewinder or some 30mm. Is this realistic? What
> does the A-10 have as far as Air to Air avionics go?
Well, considering the A-10 has no radar, the only way to engage would
be visual, or arming the AIM-9s and letting the growl tell you when there
was something in your forward hemisphere. The A-10 isn't very fast at all,
being a close-support aircraft, but it is fairly nimble. I doubt it could
work its way behind a -29, unless the -29 was flying low, slow and in a
straight line.
The Hog is a great aircraft, and I love it to death, but a dogfighter
it isn't. I'm sure it could be done, but it wouldn't be recommended.
Cheers!
Jeff
Jim Sowers
From jso...@lan.mcl.bdm.com (Jim Sowers)
In article <D7I0x...@ranger.daytonoh.attgis.com>, jkro...@uoguelph.ca
(Joan E Krochko) wrote:
> From jkro...@uoguelph.ca (Joan E Krochko)
>
> How would an A-10 do against maybe a MIG-29 or some other
> advanced fighter. My best guess is the A-10 when detected on radar could
> just turn 90 degrees to it and if it is doppler radar the MIG-29 would
> lose it. The A-10 most likely being camoflaged could then go on its
> merry way or it could sneak through ground cover and come up behind the
> MIG-29 and give it a sidewinder or some 30mm. Is this realistic? What
> does the A-10 have as far as Air to Air avionics go?
>
> thanx,
> Andrew,
One of the reasons the Air Force wants to get rid of the A-10 is its lack
of survivability in a high threat environment. I doubt that the Air Force
would operate A-10s in an area that had not been cleared of hostile
fighters.
To answer your question, no, you are not being realistic. The MIG-29 is
equipped with look-down-shoot-down RADAR to detect low fliers. The MIG-29
also has an IRSD (Infra-Red Search and Detect) sensor that could detect
the IR emmissions from an A-10. After detection, the MIG-29 could easily
shoot the A-10 down, with RADAR or IR guided missiles.
As far as physics go, the A-10 is a slow mover compared to the '29, so it
could not outrun, outmanuever, or evade the MIG-29. The MIG-29 can easily
outrun, oumanuever, or evade an A-10. An A-10 would be hard pressed to
"sneak through groudn cover, and come up behind the MIG-29. The A-10 is
designed as an armor buster, not an air superiority fighter. IMHO it would
not stand a chance against a MIG-29 (or SU-27, MIG-25, MIG-21bis, insert
your favorite air superiority fighter here), because its not designed to.
To use the A-10, the U.S. Air Force would use its F-15Cs, and F-16Cs to
clear the air of hostile fighters, use it wild weasels (what ever
platform they've decided on this month to fill that role), to clear out
hostile SAMS. After most of the missile threats are removed (from
fighters and SAMS), then the A-10s could go in. BTW, A-10s are much less
vulnerable to ground fire (AAA and small arms) and small IF guided
missiles than F-15s, and F-16s, and do extremely well busting ground
targets. Just as long as they do not have to worry about hostile fighters
and RADAR guided SAMS.
--
Jim Sowers <jso...@lan.mcl.bdm.com> You don't understand.
Resident Anarchist I'm not locked up in here with you.
BDM Federal, Inc. You're locked up in here with me.
-Rorschach
The Watchmen, 1985
Chae J. Han
From "Chae J. Han" <cj...@kelvin.seas.virginia.edu>
A-10 is a tank killer. Eventually it cannot even fly anywhere
near mach speed like M-29 or any other fighters. If A-10 is engaged
with a fighter in a combat, most likely chance is that A-10 will come
home somehwat limping. Similar situation happened during the Gulf War.
A A-10 went out to escort a rescue mission to pick up a downed pilot.
While covering the helo's, A-10 was shot many time including small SAM's
(Soviet versions of Stinger), if it was a normal attack aircraft, it
might have crashed, but A-10 flew back to the base with one engine running
at below 75% and also accomplished its mission of protecting rescue helo's.
The pilot earned lots of medals and citations for the action, but I forgot
his name. A-10 perhaps has higher survival probability, but its air combat
capability if almost nil. Although A-10 can be equipped with Sidewinders,
I never heard any successful use of it.
Scott Barnes
From Scott Barnes <mel...@itsnet.com>
First off, if the MiG-29 spots the A-10 with its IRST and fires an AA-10
Archer (IR AAM) at the A-10, the A-10 has no chance at all. If the
MiG-29 finds the A-10 with its radar and launches an AA-12 Alamo, which
has a very good look-down-shoot-down semi-active doppler radar it will
home on to the A-10 and kill it with ease. Even if the A-10 is down in
the weeds and is alerted by its radar warning devices and is maneuvering
defensively it will still be an easy kill for the Alamo. The A-10s in
Desert Storm carried the AIM-9 Sidewinders (IR AAM) on a single left
out-board pylon. The GAU-8 30mm gun in the A-10 is a truck gun and is
not optimised for the air-to-air role, however, if it can close within
lethal range the 30mm will kill any aircraft it hits. During DS two
A-10s did in fact kill two Iraqi helicopters with their 30mms.
Juris Jauntirans
From gui...@bu.edu (Juris Jauntirans)
Joan E Krochko (jkro...@uoguelph.ca) wrote:
: advanced fighter. My best guess is the A-10 when detected on radar could
: just turn 90 degrees to it and if it is doppler radar the MIG-29 would
: lose it. The A-10 most likely being camoflaged could then go on its
: merry way or it could sneak through ground cover and come up behind the
: MIG-29 and give it a sidewinder or some 30mm. Is this realistic? What
: does the A-10 have as far as Air to Air avionics go?
A doppler turn may work, but I'm no expert on radar or the MiG-29, so someone
else will have to answer that one.
Unless the MiG-29 jock has no situational awareness and is dumb enough to fly
low'n'slow in the A-10's environment, don't plan on the A-10 sneaking up on
anybody. Anyhow, correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that the A-10
would use one of its hardpoints carrying an AIM-9 in any regular situation. I
know the capability exists, but wouldn't they mainly depend on some sort of
CAP-ing by the Eagles for that case?
The A-10's Air-to-Air avionics consist of the Mark I Eyeball for targeting the
30mm (the regular gunsight is aligned for air-ground).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Juris Jauntirans, undergrad Dept of International Relations, Boston University
Student Consultant, Office of Information Technology
WWW-> http://acs3.bu.edu:3000/Mosaic.Guiness/irpage/irhome.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BUFFIRN
From buf...@aol.com (BUFFIRN)
Your description is pretty much what happens at RED FLAG. The Agressors
get in trouble when they try to play with the Hog. I have seen both
Sidewinder and cannon kills. The Hog isn't set up for air to air, but it
can defend itself.
Jim Williams
Crusty old BUFF guy
"I speak for no one!"
James Dusek
From du...@psun.mot.com (James Dusek)
Jim Sowers (jso...@lan.mcl.bdm.com) wrote:
: could not outrun, outmanuever, or evade the MIG-29. The MIG-29 can easily
: outrun, oumanuever, or evade an A-10. An A-10 would be hard pressed to
Well, almost correct. The Mig-29 can outmanuver the A-10 in high speed
high g manuvers, but in a twisting, turning dogfight (al la WW1) the Mig
would be in serious trouble, but than again the mig pilot would be very stupid
to get into that type of dogfight.
: designed as an armor buster, not an air superiority fighter. IMHO it would
: not stand a chance against a MIG-29 (or SU-27, MIG-25, MIG-21bis, insert
: your favorite air superiority fighter here), because its not designed to.
Well, in a high altitude interceprion the A-10 would be outclassed, but
low and slow it stands alot better chance of survival. They don't train A-10
pilots in low hilltop flying just because its cool. It's their battlefield
approach, the high alt. interceptors are out of their enviroment down there.
: fighters and SAMS), then the A-10s could go in. BTW, A-10s are much less
: vulnerable to ground fire (AAA and small arms) and small IF guided
: missiles than F-15s, and F-16s, and do extremely well busting ground
: targets. Just as long as they do not have to worry about hostile fighters
: and RADAR guided SAMS.
The A-10's are much less vunerable to all types of fire, weither it
be airborn or ground than most other ac, esp the high alt. interceptors. I
seriously doubt one missle can bring one down all the time, unless it was
nuclear tipped. One would have to get a VERY good hit in order to kill the
a/c. Mission kills are still possible with a hit, but the plane and pilot
can still make it home.
James Dusek
du...@cadsun.corp.mot.com
au...@imap2.asu.edu
From au...@IMAP2.ASU.EDU
This reminds me of the recurring "a P-3 can shoot down a MIG-29"
arguments that erupt in bars wherever a variety of Navy fliers can found,
and sometimes even on the pages of the venerable "Proceedings".
One can almost always construct a "best possible" scenario. I'm
not saying that this couldn't happen, but that it is damn unlikely.
The MIG-29 probably carries a multi-mode radar that can be
switched if a target takes evasive return-minimizing actions. The radar
on the F-14, for example, has a doppler mode, but you don't notice Tomcat
fliers screaming about how opponents can "just dissapear" by flying a 90
degree course ( and scream they would ). Without dredging up a whole
heap of radar-geek talk ( that's me :-) ), it is a well studied problem.
The A-10 probably could turn faster than a MIG-29 pilot could
adjust for on a gun run, but then, how does the A-10 pilot know he is
being targeted? If the MIG29 is going visual, probably no way. His
radar warning would alert him if he was locked onto perhaps, but it would
probably give him no idea what direction the MIG was coming from or its
flight parameters, vital info if he is to plot out his escape and
counterattack. In a dense radar environment, he might have to ignore his
warning receiver due to multiple false alarms, anyway.
I'm not certain what the current air-to-air avionics are for the
A-10, but I'd imagine they were slight to nonexistent. Warthog drivers
are supposed to keep looking down for targets, getting involved in aerial
duels would only distract them from their primary mission. Every
sidewinder carried is just that much less room/weight for air-to-ground
ordnance.
And besides, if putting Sidewinders on airframes not really made
for air-to-air combat worked so well, Why wouldn't we just replace all
of our F-16 and F-15 with Cessna/Sidewinder fliers? It would sure as
heck help with the budget.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Steven J. Forsberg at au...@imap2.asu.edu
Joan E Krochko (jkro...@uoguelph.ca) wrote:
: From jkro...@uoguelph.ca (Joan E Krochko)
: How would an A-10 do against maybe a MIG-29 or some other
: advanced fighter. My best guess is the A-10 when detected on radar could
: just turn 90 degrees to it and if it is doppler radar the MIG-29 would
: lose it. The A-10 most likely being camoflaged could then go on its
: merry way or it could sneak through ground cover and come up behind the
: MIG-29 and give it a sidewinder or some 30mm. Is this realistic? What
: does the A-10 have as far as Air to Air avionics go?
: thanx,
: Andrew,
Chae J. Han
From "Chae J. Han" <cj...@kelvin.seas.virginia.edu>
Has anyone considered the argument with Su-25(?) 'Frogfoot'?
It is (was) a Soviet (Russian) version of A-10. It does not
look anyhting like A-10, but Frogfoot was built for close
ground support/tank buster. It has ten hard points and
good size cannon/chain gun. Has anyone thought of frogfoot
engaging with American hardwares? Such as M1A1/2, APC,
and A-10. How about Mi-28 Havoc? Soviet counterpart of
Apache AH-64. Can anyone give some senario or theories?
Chae Han
University of Virginia
Semper Fi
msam...@vaxc.stevens-tech.edu
From msam...@vaxc.stevens-tech.edu
> How would an A-10 do against maybe a MIG-29 or some other
> advanced fighter.
>>>>> It would try to get the hell away. It's mission is ground attack.
It would call in some air superiority types and bug out.
My best guess is the A-10 when detected on radar could
> just turn 90 degrees to it and if it is doppler radar the MIG-29 would
> lose it.
>>>>> I can't comment on the radar types, but the A-10 is low and slow
enough to use terrain masking to its advantage to loose the fast
mover.
The A-10 most likely being camoflaged could then go on its
> merry way or it could sneak through ground cover and come up behind the
> MIG-29 and give it a sidewinder or some 30mm. Is this realistic?
>>>>> If it got away it would *stay* away. One A-10 can completely grease
a tank company, but would probably be shot down by a real air to air
fighter. Better to retire your a/c rather than risk an air to air
encounter.
What
> does the A-10 have as far as Air to Air avionics go?
>
>>>>> Diddly as far as I know.
Morgan
Gregory Sudderth
From l...@netcom.com (Gregory Sudderth)
In article <D7M8v...@ranger.daytonoh.attgis.com>,
Scott Barnes <mel...@itsnet.com> wrote:
>
>From Scott Barnes <mel...@itsnet.com>
>
>First off, if the MiG-29 spots the A-10 with its IRST and fires an AA-10
>Archer (IR AAM) at the A-10, the A-10 has no chance at all. If the
A10 has lots and lots of flares. Might have a chance.... turning radius
counts too. The A10 is not fast, but, that's not saying its not _powerful_,
afterall, those engines are enough for a MD80-sized airliner. In way-
previous postings, I and other people have described the A10's ability
to change speed dramatically. I wouldn't want to depend on an IR missile
in a semi-LDSD situation against the A10, near the way-hot ground.
Not many Iraqis (none) up at night in DS. Big problem with both the GCI-
oriented tactics (even thought the GCI radar was gone) and the reality
of a 29 pilot needing to not emit constantly. What would you do?
Your ground-based search radar is gone, you don't have GCI, you're up at
night (big enough problems) and you are tempted to use your search radar.
You'd have to fly in circles searching with your radar, all the while the
AWACS is vectoring F15's to you, and _they_ aren't emiting. Sounds bad.
>MiG-29 finds the A-10 with its radar and launches an AA-12 Alamo, which
Can anyone atest to the _published_ effectiveness of the ALQ-131 against
this missile? Was the export MiG 29 even equipped with it?
G.
--
Greg Sudderth - l...@swell.com - l...@netcom.com
"I'm only here for the gas...."
Paul J. Adam
From "Paul J. Adam" <Pa...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk>
> In article: <D7I0x...@ranger.daytonoh.attgis.com> jkro...@uoguelph.ca
(Joan E Krochko)
> writes:
> How would an A-10 do against maybe a MIG-29 or some other
> advanced fighter. My best guess is the A-10 when detected on radar
> would just turn 90 degrees to it and if it is doppler radar the MIG-29
> would lose it. The A-10 most likely being camoflaged could then go on
> its merry way or it could sneak through ground cover and come up
> behind the MIG-29 and give it a sidewinder or some 30mm. Is this
> realistic? What does the A-10 have as far as Air to Air avionics go?
The MiG-29 doesn't just use radar, it has a very good IRST system too.
So although you drop off radar, you're still locked up on the IRST and a
heat-seeker will soon be headed your way.
I'd very much doubt "sneaking around and coming up behind" the MiG is
realistic given the A-10's low speed.
Its air-to-air avionics are basically nonexistent: basic AIM-9 fittings
and an air-to-air mode for the gunsight (no range input - very WW2).
If the A-10 caught the MiG low and slow then it would have a good chance,
and you wouldn't try to dogfight it: too low, too slow, and the Hog is
tough and well-armed. But the odds are that the MiG would nail the A-10
long before then.
On the other hand, no high-performance fighter can handle low-and-slow
tankbusting the way the A-10 can...
--
When you have shot and killed a man, you have defined your attitude towards
him. You have offered a definite answer to a definite problem. For better
or for worse, you have acted decisively.
In fact, the next move is up to him.
Paul J. Adam pa...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk
Rob Furr
From rf...@jazz.ncren.net (Rob Furr)
In article <D7q20...@ranger.daytonoh.attgis.com>, "Paul J. Adam"
<Pa...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> From "Paul J. Adam" <Pa...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk>
>
> If the A-10 caught the MiG low and slow then it would have a good chance,
> and you wouldn't try to dogfight it: too low, too slow, and the Hog is
> tough and well-armed. But the odds are that the MiG would nail the A-10
> long before then.
>
> On the other hand, no high-performance fighter can handle low-and-slow
> tankbusting the way the A-10 can...
this is ... interesting. I have vague memories of an article on a series
of tests done out west, where the A-10a was put up against F-16s; the
general conclusion was, if memory serves, if the A-10 saw the F-16 first,
the F-16 was toast. If the F-16 saw the A-10 first, the A-10 was toast.
Does anybody else remember this, or am I hallucinating?
--
Rob Furr's HTMLized .SIG is at http://www.groucho.com/
Stefaan Vanhastel
From Stefaan Vanhastel <svha...@asteriks.rug.ac.be>
>
> The A-10 most likely being camoflaged could then go on its
Speaking of camouflage.... as far as I know, USAF A10s are being
repainted in a grey scheme, instead of the lizzard green/grey one. Does
anybody know what the purpose of this change is ? One would expect the
lizzard scheme to be more effective over woodland and prairies (Europe,
Korea,..) , and though it me be less
effective over a desert, I can't imagine the light grey one being more
effective over a desert, or over woodland.
Stefaan
m...@mole-end.matawan.nj.us
From m...@mole-end.matawan.nj.us
In article <D7M8v...@ranger.daytonoh.attgis.com>, Scott Barnes <mel...@itsnet.com> writes:
>
> From Scott Barnes <mel...@itsnet.com>
>
> First off, if the MiG-29 spots the A-10 with its IRST and fires an AA-10
> Archer (IR AAM) at the A-10, the A-10 has no chance at all. If the
> MiG-29 finds the A-10 with its radar and launches an AA-12 Alamo, which
> has a very good look-down-shoot-down semi-active doppler radar it will
> home on to the A-10 and kill it with ease. Even if the A-10 is down in
> the weeds and is alerted by its radar warning devices and is maneuvering
> defensively it will still be an easy kill for the Alamo. The A-10s in
> Desert Storm carried the AIM-9 Sidewinders (IR AAM) on a single left
> out-board pylon. The GAU-8 30mm gun in the A-10 is a truck gun and is
> not optimised for the air-to-air role, however, if it can close within
> lethal range the 30mm will kill any aircraft it hits. During DS two
> A-10s did in fact kill two Iraqi helicopters with their 30mms.
All of this seems to miss a critical point.
The role of the MiG-29 includes defending/controlling the air. The role
of the A-10 does not. The role of the A-10 is to defend/control the
ground _from_ the air.
IMO, much of the current infighting between the USAF and its brother
services could be cleared up if the distinction between control of
and management of the air on the one hand and the use of the air to
control, attack, or defend the surface on the other were properly used.
--
(This man's opinions are his own.)
From mole-end Mark Terribile
m...@mole-end.matawan.nj.us, Somewhere in Matawan, NJ
(Training and consulting in C, C++, UNIX, etc.)
BUFFIRN
From buf...@aol.com (BUFFIRN)
Let's talk about maneuverability. If you make a 9g turn at 500 knots and
I make a 9g turn at 300 knots, I turn INSIDE you and you do not get a
shot. I agree that the Hog is not optimized for 1v1, but it isn't the
target that some people think it is. Also, look down- shoot down does not
mean an automatic kill. It can be defeated without ECM. Just go to the
notch. If you don't know what that means, e-mail me.
Tim Still
From t...@cix.compulink.co.uk ("Tim Still")
Rob said:
" this is ... interesting. I have vague memories of an article on a series
of tests done out west, where the A-10a was put up against F-16s; the
general conclusion was, if memory serves, if the A-10 saw the F-16 first,
the F-16 was toast. If the F-16 saw the A-10 first, the A-10 was toast."
Yeah, but this is true of most air combat. Whoever see's the other first
has a huge advantage. This surely wouldn't be true of just warthogs vs
F-16's.
Tim
BUFFIRN
From buf...@aol.com (BUFFIRN)
The gray camo scheme blends in surprisinlg well in almost all instances.
Kind of a nuetral color. Also, I think it is to help them against optical
threats against a cloudy sky. The lizard bird stuck out. The funny part
is that this scheme looks alot like the original scheme back in 77.
Gregory Sudderth
From l...@netcom.com (Gregory Sudderth)
In article <D7q1I...@ranger.daytonoh.attgis.com>,
<au...@IMAP2.ASU.EDU> wrote:
>
>From au...@IMAP2.ASU.EDU
>
>heap of radar-geek talk ( that's me :-) ), it is a well studied problem.
Does anyone know whether the IRWR on the A10 can detect the MiG-29's
IR-tracker?
Thanks.
Jan Mattsson
From ja...@Krille.Update.UU.SE (Jan Mattsson)
In <D7I0x...@ranger.daytonoh.attgis.com> jkro...@uoguelph.ca (Joan E Krochko) writes:
>From jkro...@uoguelph.ca (Joan E Krochko)
>How would an A-10 do against maybe a MIG-29 or some other
>advanced fighter.
>My best guess is the A-10 when detected on radar could
>just turn 90 degrees to it and if it is doppler radar the MIG-29 would
>lose it. The A-10 most likely being camoflaged could then go on its
>merry way or it could sneak through ground cover and come up behind the
>MIG-29 and give it a sidewinder or some 30mm. Is this realistic?
It may be. Most air forces neglect low altitude training because it takes
its toll in planes and crews. On the other hand, one should not
forget the MiG29s advantage in avionics, missiles and performance.
>What does the A-10 have as far as Air to Air avionics go?
No radar, probably a simple RWR.
Aramis
From jge...@sdcc15.ucsd.edu (Aramis)
In article <D7s0H...@ranger.daytonoh.attgis.com> rf...@jazz.ncren.net (Rob Furr) writes:
>general conclusion was, if memory serves, if the A-10 saw the F-16 first,
>the F-16 was toast. If the F-16 saw the A-10 first, the A-10 was toast.
>Does anybody else remember this, or am I hallucinating?
It has been my impression that this conclusion holds for pretty much
any two aircraft with some dogfighting ability.
Raging for the Machine,
James
--
passion=life
Lee Green MD MPH
From gre...@umich.edu (Lee Green MD MPH)
In article <D7M8v...@ranger.daytonoh.attgis.com>, Scott Barnes
<mel...@itsnet.com> wrote:
> First off, if the MiG-29 spots the A-10 with its IRST and fires an AA-10
> Archer (IR AAM) at the A-10, the A-10 has no chance at all. If the
> MiG-29 finds the A-10 with its radar and launches an AA-12 Alamo, which
> has a very good look-down-shoot-down semi-active doppler radar it will
> home on to the A-10 and kill it with ease. Even if the A-10 is down in
> the weeds and is alerted by its radar warning devices and is maneuvering
> defensively it will still be an easy kill for the Alamo.
Ah, the "perfect technology kills all" view reappears! "No chance at
all"... "easy kill"... Rx - a skeptical dose of reality. Read up on how
these sorts of engagements work in Robt. Shaw's "Fighter Combat: Tactics
and Maneuvering", Naval Institute Press (1985). To summarize:
1) look-down shoot-down radar is not Star Trek sensor technology. It
gives some capability to deal with targets below, but that is still not
the optimum view. Radar withouth ld-sd has zilch ability to pick out
those guys in the weeds, radar with it has a reasonable amount, but it is
FAR short of perfect or a sure thing.
2) firing radar-guided missiles at targets in the weeds is low Pk
shooting. They don't keep lock reliably, because ground return and
zero-doppler turns by the target can indeed baffle the missile, and even
if it does guide, fuzing near ground is susceptible to several effects
which cause the weapon to detonate before it should or fail to detonate
when it should.
3) IR missiles have their highest Pk when the target is against cool blue
sky, and can both fail to guide and fail to fuze properly when fired down
against ground. Yes, even modern ones, not just Vietnam-era AIM-4s.
Well-flown mud-movers down in the weeds are not so easy to deal with as
you seem to think according to CDR Shaw, and to some conversations I've
had with my bro (ex-Nellis AFB/Fighter Weapons School air traffic
controller). That's not to say that Vipers or Fulcrums are a 1:1 match
for Warthogs, but it's a far cry from the cakewalk you seem to imagine.
Getting down in the weeds to slug it out with Hogs is dangerous, so the
tactic is slashing attacks, but those slashing attacks ain't a turkey
shoot either. And if the mud-movers have fighter cover, you expose
yourself to serious hurt from them when you commit to going after the CAS
planes. My reading of the situation is that it's actually pretty tough to
bust up a properly-set-up ground attack package.
--
Lee Green MD MPH Disclaimer: Information for general interest
Family Practice and discussion only. I can't examine you via
University of Michigan the Internet, so you should ALWAYS consult
gre...@umich.edu your personal physician. These posts are my
personal doings, not a service of nor the
responsibility of the University of Michigan.
-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Version: 2.6
mQA/Ai8httwAAAEBgLIu//t4J2W5K2cP6aHpXnZUeyVfzz85b3MXMfSsjrbcbB2k
0wnI/33ZENZ8jc7fBQARAQABtCBMZWUgR3JlZW4gTUQgPGdyZWVubGFAdW1pY2gu
ZWR1Pg==
=g15t
-----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Willaim H. Reid
From wh_...@ccmail.pnl.gov (Willaim H. Reid)
In article <D7s10...@ranger.daytonoh.attgis.com>, buf...@aol.com
(BUFFIRN) wrote:
> From buf...@aol.com (BUFFIRN)
>
> Let's talk about maneuverability. If you make a 9g turn at 500 knots and
> I make a 9g turn at 300 knots...
But I do recall how quickly - as quickly as we were able - we pulled the
old prop planes out of combat with MIG-15s (at the start I believe) in
Korea. The pilots I spoke with, later, could only recall their utter
horror at meeting MIGs at altitude -- and this was before self-gilded
missiles and adequate airborne radar. With the total technology set the
A-10s would be toast in most situations. Perhaps if the A-10 were on
gimbals on the ground...
Bill Reid
Bob Casanova
From tron!ops1.bwi.wec.com!c...@uunet.uu.net (Bob Casanova)
In article <D7wu9...@ranger.daytonoh.attgis.com> wh_...@ccmail.pnl.gov (Willaim H. Reid) writes:
>From: wh_...@ccmail.pnl.gov (Willaim H. Reid)
>Subject: Re: A10 vs. MIG29
>Date: Mon, 1 May 1995 17:37:03 GMT
Unfortunately for your analogy, the data from "dissimilar-combat" at (I
believe) Nellis AFB showed that the A10 had a _very high_ PK against (again, I
believe this to be the case; I'm posting from memory of reports I saw approx 2
years ago) both F15's and F16's. If the fast-mover got within range of the
A10's GAU-8 (range?) he was dead meat. The technique was to fire while
"pulling through" the impact area, and was called the "Warthog stomp".
Bob C.
* Good, fast, cheap! (Pick 2) *
TyrnsrsLex
From tyrns...@aol.com (TyrnsrsLex)
Just a non-technical note to say that I *love* questions like this. They
remind me of when we were nine. `Who would win, Aquaman or Spiderman.` And
I`m not being nasty at all. If DS taught us anything it is that `man
plans, God laughs` is as true as ever. *WE* know that an A-10 is a
dedicated tank killer, the MIG-29 a dedicated plane killer and ne`er the
twain should meet. But out there on the (and over the) battlefield, there
are all kinds of close encounters of the unlikely kind. So rather than
slam this guy for asking a silly question, let`s note that asking silly
questions is exactly what good contingency planning is made of. It helps
us think about all of this in unconventional ways, teaches us to appraoch
problems from their flanks, not just head-on. (`sides, it`s fun)
Robert Kuntz
"You get more with a kind word and a gun,
than with a kind word alone." Al Capone
n...@gwe486.cb.att.com
From n...@gwe486.cb.att.com ()
In article <D7s0s...@ranger.daytonoh.attgis.com>,
<m...@mole-end.matawan.nj.us> wrote:
>
>From m...@mole-end.matawan.nj.us
>
>In article <D7M8v...@ranger.daytonoh.attgis.com>, Scott Barnes <mel...@itsnet.com> writes:
>>
>> From Scott Barnes <mel...@itsnet.com>
>>
>> First off, if the MiG-29 spots the A-10 with its IRST and fires an AA-10
Everybody, let's all repeat in unison:
Most air to air kills are ambushes.
Between 90 and 95% of the time the other guy is clue-less that he is under
attack until it happens to him. The glorious dog-fighting "fur-ball" is
about 5%.
So we can reduce the majority of the cases to:
Who saw who first? (Radar or eyeball, the case is the same).
If it's the fast mover, the A-10 is *likely* toast. "Likely" depends on
what the setup is. Suffice it to say that you have to live through the
other guy taking a set-up shot at you, and the weapons he's got probably
are lethal to your airframe. Even an A-10 can be brought down, it happened
over the gulf due to ground fire, it certainly can happen in the air.
The best weapons the A-10 has against fast movers are called the F-15 & F-16
especially the ones that are augmented by the E-3 AWACS.
The shoe could easily be on the other foot. If the A-10 is up in the
clouds at 5,000 feet or more, and happens on or is vectored to a fast mover
that's not looking around, he gets his shot. The A-10 fires his sidewinder
after setting up the shot to his liking and then dives in cannon blazing if
the 'winder didn't do it. "Cannon blazing" will be a bit of a bitch because
the sight is not set up for air to air. As proven in the Gulf, it can be
done, just takes a bit of doing. Certainly, the 30mm fire will do really
rude things to the other guy's airframe. I suggest diving because while
I'm not up on how to best dog-fight an A-10, I do know it's underpowered and
poorly suited for air to air combat. If the other guy lives through your
best shot life will get interesting and you may want to play the ground
clutter game and hope he flies into a hillside.
Everybody, let's all repeat in unison:
Most air to air kills are ambushes.
-----
Neil Kirby DoD# 0783 n...@babel.cb.att.com
AT&T Bell Labs Columbus OH USA (614) 860-5304
President Internet BMW Riders
It's very red. It's very fast. And it's mine: 1994 R1100RSL
James Dusek
From du...@psun.mot.com (James Dusek)
Willaim H. Reid (wh_...@ccmail.pnl.gov) wrote:
: But I do recall how quickly - as quickly as we were able - we pulled the
: old prop planes out of combat with MIG-15s (at the start I believe) in
This is because the MIG-15 would boom and zoom the prop planes.
The mig 15 would NOT engage in a spinning and turing dogfight with a
prop plane.
: Korea. The pilots I spoke with, later, could only recall their utter
: horror at meeting MIGs at altitude -- and this was before self-gilded
Yes at altitude. Mig 15 dives in, zooms past the target guns
blazing, and zips by so fast its out of effective gun range and the
prop plane cannot catch up. It all has to do with SPEED not manuveribilty.
: missiles and adequate airborne radar. With the total technology set the
: A-10s would be toast in most situations. Perhaps if the A-10 were on
: gimbals on the ground...
: Bill Reid
The A10 would not be toast in its enviroment. The A10 does not
fly at altitude acting as an air supiority fighter. It will be low,
where a screaming fast fighter does not like to go. Talk to some fighter
pilots and ask them if the would really like to fly mach 1 at 200
feet in hilly terrain? The answer is no, because not only are you
looking for the enemy a/c to kill, but your now keeping an eye open
for terrian. This is less effective.
Your also ignoring the fact that the fighter will expose itself
to the same boom and zoom tactics from other A/C while its low hunting
the A10.
James Dusek
du...@cadsun.corp.mot.com
Graydon
From saun...@qlink.queensu.ca (Graydon)
n...@gwe486.cb.att.com wrote:
.: "Cannon blazing" will be a bit of a bitch because
: the sight is not set up for air to air. As proven in the Gulf, it can be
: done, just takes a bit of doing.
Hmm.. I'm very surprised the A-10 doesn't have a lead-computing gunsight
mode; I would have expected that one of the major uses for the thing
would be shooting up the other side's helicopters as opportunity
presents - is this a job doctrine give strictly to the fast movers?
--
saun...@qlink.queensu.ca | Monete me si non anglice loquobar.
IanMaclure
From mac...@eos.arc.nasa.gov (IanMaclure)
rf...@jazz.ncren.net (Rob Furr) writes:
>From rf...@jazz.ncren.net (Rob Furr)
>In article <D7q20...@ranger.daytonoh.attgis.com>, "Paul J. Adam"
><Pa...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> From "Paul J. Adam" <Pa...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk>
>>
>> If the A-10 caught the MiG low and slow then it would have a good chance,
>> and you wouldn't try to dogfight it: too low, too slow, and the Hog is
>> tough and well-armed. But the odds are that the MiG would nail the A-10
>> long before then.
>>
>> On the other hand, no high-performance fighter can handle low-and-slow
>> tankbusting the way the A-10 can...
This debate recalls an earlier war which involved the British
Swordfish carrier torpedo bomber versus German fighter aircraft.
In a stiff headwind, the Swordfish could fly with a groundspeed in the
ranges of 10's of knots. In fact, the airspeed could be held below
( far below ) the stall speed of the ME-109 and FW-190. Between
agressive manoeuvring and the guy in back taking potshots with his
gun, the Swordfish had a relatively good chance of surviving attack.
In fact, there are recorded instances ( plural I believe ) of frustrated
German fighter pilots popping gear and max flaps and then spinning in
from low alt while trying to catch a Swordfish.
IBM
--
################ No Times Like The Maritimes, Eh! ######################
# IBM aka # Ian_M...@QMGATE.arc.nasa.gov (desk) #
# Ian B MacLure # maclure@(remulak/eos).arc.nasa.gov (currently) #
########## Opinions expressed here are mine, mine, mine. ###############
Jussi Saari
From Jussi Saari <jms...@zombie.oulu.fi>
On Wed, 3 May 1995, Bob Casanova wrote:
> Unfortunately for your analogy, the data from "dissimilar-combat" at (I
> believe) Nellis AFB showed that the A10 had a _very high_ PK against (again, I
> believe this to be the case; I'm posting from memory of reports I saw approx 2
> years ago) both F15's and F16's. If the fast-mover got within range of the
> A10's GAU-8 (range?) he was dead meat. The technique was to fire while
> "pulling through" the impact area, and was called the "Warthog stomp".
Sounds like the F-15 and F-16 pilots were using bad tactics. A modern
fighter with that sort of advantage over the A-10 in radar, weapons, speed
and t/w ratio should be able nail it with AIM-7/9s while never getting
within gun range of it. And in case the missiles didn't hit, the F-15/16
pilot with his speed and t/w advantage could also easily disengage (at
least unless he has gotten himself way too close to the A-10), unlike the
Hog driver.
William H. Rollins
From wrol...@nmsu.edu (William H. Rollins)
IanMaclure (mac...@eos.arc.nasa.gov) wrote:
: This debate recalls an earlier war which involved the British
: Swordfish carrier torpedo bomber versus German fighter aircraft.
: In a stiff headwind, the Swordfish could fly with a groundspeed in the
: ranges of 10's of knots. In fact, the airspeed could be held below
: ( far below ) the stall speed of the ME-109 and FW-190. Between
: agressive manoeuvring and the guy in back taking potshots with his
: gun, the Swordfish had a relatively good chance of surviving attack.
: In fact, there are recorded instances ( plural I believe ) of frustrated
: German fighter pilots popping gear and max flaps and then spinning in
: from low alt while trying to catch a Swordfish.
As I recall the Fighter Derby had some surprises. Harriers whipping
Tomcats and Falcons and Hornets some of the time. Once the ACM is engaged
maneuverability and pilot skill are just as important as speed. Obviously
the WartHog won't be able to chase down a MIG-29 so even if the A-10 gets
the advantage of surprise it has to make the first pass count cause if it
doesn't it just woke up a weapons system that has a stand off weapon with
a range far in excess of anything the Warthog can counter. Sure the Hog
can win once in a while in the hands of the right pilot but its not part
of the design so its at a disadvantage.
Ryan Montieth Gill
From la...@larry.cc.emory.edu (Ryan Montieth Gill)
Stefaan Vanhastel (svha...@asteriks.rug.ac.be) wrote:
: Speaking of camouflage.... as far as I know, USAF A10s are being
: repainted in a grey scheme, instead of the lizzard green/grey one. Does
: anybody know what the purpose of this change is ? One would expect the
: lizzard scheme to be more effective over woodland and prairies (Europe,
: Korea,..) , and though it me be less
: effective over a desert, I can't imagine the light grey one being more
: effective over a desert, or over woodland.
Well, the current scheme of paint at Lockheed is that All aircraft should
be grey. It is seen as being less agressive than the Green Camo Scheme.
Wether its an F22 Drawing or a C-5D. All Photos/Illustrations are being
changed to Grey. Courtesy of the Graphics and Pubs Dept. Sorta moot if
you ask me. I don't see a grey F22 as being any less threatening than a
Camo green or tan one. But then since all USAF aircraft are based at
concrete installations, camo does you llittle good. Any observer can pick
a green bush out on a field of concrete. Besides the camo is for hiding
the plane while parked. Not when flying.
--
- Ryan Montieth Gill Freelance Macintosh Systems Consultant -
- Unix: la...@emoryu1.cc.emory.edu -DoD# 0780/AMA# 337288 -
- Ne Oblie (never forget) '85 Honda CB 700 NightHawk S 'Mehev' -
- '91 Cignal Montauk | '76 Chevy Monte Carlo Landau 'Bumblecrow' -
- All that is gold does not glitter, -
- Not all those who wander are lost; Frodo Baggins -
Lee Green MD MPH
From gre...@umich.edu (Lee Green MD MPH)
In article <D87nv...@ranger.daytonoh.attgis.com>, wrol...@nmsu.edu
(William H. Rollins) wrote:
> As I recall the Fighter Derby had some surprises. Harriers whipping
> Tomcats and Falcons and Hornets some of the time.
And Vipers making Eagles look a lot less impressive than the Air Force was
comfortable with... as well as Hornets teaching Turkey drivers that
bouncing mud-movers was a helluva lot dicier sport than they were used to
against A-6s.
--
Lee Green MD MPH | Disclaimer: Opinions expressed are my own,
Family Practice | and do not represent the University of
University of Michigan | Michigan. Medical commentary is for general
gre...@umich.edu | information and discussion; consult your
| personal physician for your own care.
Arie Kazachin
From ar...@msil.sps.mot.com (Arie Kazachin)
There is no need to invent an imaginary scenario of high performance a/c being
downed by a/c with much lower performance: all it's needed is to look at the
history of Middle Eastern air combats between Israel and arab states and pick
up events that nobody could dream of as possible. During the Lebanon
war (1982+/-) there was an event, in which a MiG-21 was downed by ...
unmanned miniature reconnasance plane (called MAZLAT), 3-4 meters of
wingspan, powered by a pushing prop, "armed" only by a TV-camera and
telemetry link and controlled by a remote control from the control
center. Syrians were aware of the danger in reconnasance flights of theese
planes and tryed all means to down them: flack fire, SAM missiles (partly
successfull) and once they even got MiG-21 to the air to down a MAZLAT.
The operator of the MAZLAT started performing crazy manuevering at zero
altitude while keeping the MiG in the frame of the TV camera and the MiG
followed it, or al lest, attemted to follow. At some moment, the MiG
has been manuvered to pass under the MAZLAT, couldn't pull up and hit
the ground. When it happened, the MiG was in the frame of the TV camera
and the kill has been documented, as if it was a gun camera. The picture
has been sent to the IAF commander, who sent to the reconnasance squadron
the "downing certificate" (an ordinary thing in fighters squadrons, but
not in reconnasance) with a writing: "Someone must be even more stupid than
a MAZLAT". As far as I know, IAF is still the only air force to down
MiG by an unarmed reconnasance plane.
There are many more events in IAF of using a/c not in a way its designers
intended it to be used: in the same Lebanon war there was a MiG-17 downed
by A-4 (not designed for air combat) armed by anti-tank rockets from
zero range, downing of a Mi-6 helicopter by the AFTERBURNERS of F4-E
(1973: The pilot downed 5 Mi-6 in one mission, it was beginning to dark and
the 6-th Mi-6 tryed to hide near the ground. It was too dangerous for F4 to
manuver low and slow to point a gun at the Mi-6 in a darkness, so the pilot
opened AB, passed few meters above the Mi-6, pulled up and the airflow from
the ABs smashed the Mi-6 on the ground) and even landing a F-15 with slightly
more than one wing (1 meter wide strip of partial length).
For more info read the book "The sky is not the limit" by Eliezer (Chita)
Cohen. (I hope it has been translated from hebrew to other languadges.)
Kazachin Arie.
Lee Green MD MPH
From gre...@umich.edu (Lee Green MD MPH)
In article <D87nM...@ranger.daytonoh.attgis.com>, Jussi Saari
> Sounds like the F-15 and F-16 pilots were using bad tactics. A modern
> fighter with that sort of advantage over the A-10 in radar, weapons, speed
> and t/w ratio should be able nail it with AIM-7/9s while never getting
> within gun range of it. And in case the missiles didn't hit, the F-15/16
> pilot with his speed and t/w advantage could also easily disengage (at
> least unless he has gotten himself way too close to the A-10), unlike the
> Hog driver.
I hate to keep harping on the difference between theory and practice (no I
don't :-), but... downward shots of AIM-7s against Warthogs in the weeds
are low Pk shots. The missiles will miss a lot and will misfuze a lot.
You're right about the slashing tactics used, but overestimate how well
they work. If the Hog is caught up high, he's usually toast. Down in the
weeds a properly-flown Hog is no easy mark. The fast-movers don't do well
if they get down in the dust to roll around with the Hog, so they do make
slashing attacks and use their speed to advantage. Nonetheless, getting a
lock on a plane in the dirt is hard, keeping it is harder, and hitting it
harder still. It ain't no gimme.