Codename Duchess Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 (edited) Re: sensors.I won't elaborate on specifics of the USN tech I work with, but rest assured 2015 is not 1985. As for Russians, all I know is from Intel briefs. "Mad Dog" is the radio brevity term for that type of launch (boresight), hence why I used it (it's how we communicate it to each other). The name is fitting, it's a mad dog off the leash (trivia: "Pit Bull" is the call you make on radio when Mr. AMRAAM goes from inertial to active guidance). You do not get said tone, you don't get any tone.* The missile comes off the rail, activates its radar, and goes after the very first contact it sees. It's incredibly dangerous because of this. So conceivably a Warthog could use it, but a sidewinder is a better option because you have more feedback and control and the shorter range keeps it from targeting someone you don't see. There are other datalink options potentially available to the Warthog but at the end of the day if you're putting slammers on hogs, you have already lost the war. *It's been a while since I trained with AMRAAM in that mode, you may get a "shoot cue" but I definitely don't recall any sort of indication as to actually who you will be shooting. Edited March 12, 2015 by Codename Duchess 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted March 12, 2015 Author Share Posted March 12, 2015 (edited) Codename Duchess, AMRAAM was one of the programs I worked on (notably analyzing AMRAAM candidate designs vs FLOGGER back when Hughes had it (before Hughes was sold off by Howard Hughes Medical Institute, with Missile Systems Group, my outfit, being bought by Raytheon). When I left mid September 1984, there'd been a number of successful live fire intercept tests, but to my knowledge, nothing active off the rail. I know about "Fox 1" and "Fox 2," but was unaware of "Mad Dog," though appreciative of your explaining it. I'm surprised no one thought to include a tone in the per launch sequence. I like that you call the AIM-120 Mr. AMRAAM. Shows respect for a very scary weapon. "Pit bull" seems apt once the bird's out of CI. Do/did you fly the Hornet or the Super Hornet? From which carrier (if you're allowed to say). I have several Mr. AMRAAM stories for you, but this isn't the place. PM me if you'd like to know more. Did the AIM-120 ever get assigned a proper "S" name? I see "Slammer" here and there, but mostly it's just AMRAAM. Odd, considering it's a class of weapon descriptor, as in "AMRAAM competition," not a name in the usual manner. Regards, John Kettler Edited March 12, 2015 by John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Codename Duchess Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 I recently completed FRS and transferred to a squadron with CVW-9. I fly the Super Hornet "E" model. For my own reasons I will leave it at that. Besides a "Mad Dog" launch (again these are rare), the appropriate brevity for an AMRAAM is "Fox 3". It's before my time by quite a bit, but I believe it was the same for the Phoenix. The AMRAAM has also been called the Slammer, but that just seems to be a nickname as I've seen AMRAAM more often. I've also heard "long stick" (sidewinder being short stick). The Mr. AMRAAM remark I made up was inspired by the saying "when the pin is pulled, Mr. Grenade is not our friend." Seemed fitting for the Mad Dog. And I'd much rather take my chances with an actual pit bull than a missile doing the same! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 http://www.amazon.com/Grounded-Abolishing-Studies-Conflict-Diplomacy/dp/0813165571/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1426155596&sr=1-1&keywords=grounded 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tyrspawn Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 (edited) Codename Duchess, You may be right about the AESA and IRST. I have no experience with the first and had little to do with the second. I know USAF F-101 Voodoos had IRSTs, at least for a time, as did the F-14 Tomcat, though I believe the chin installation was later replaced with a powerful TV camera. The IRSTs on both the MiG-29/FULCRUM and the Su-27/FLANKER were considered to be good things, in terms of capability, but the intel I saw was purely air-to-air combat, as opposed to air to weeds, as you propose. I never called that AMRAAM mode "Mad Dog," and I have no idea where you got the notion, never mind the term. The correct term, I believe, is Active Launch, which means, rather than flying out under command inertial mode, then transitioning to active radar mode when close enough and in the seeker acquisition limits, the pilot finds the target, activates the seeker, points the plane and attached missile toward the target, gets a launch tone when the seeker gets target lock, then fires. There's no pattern running aerial torpedo whipping back and forth across the sky. Rather, the process is very similar to a AIM-9X Sidewinder launch, except that instead of a passive IR seeker, it's an active radar one. Fire and forget. tyrspawn, I see lots of assertions here, but very few facts. I hope we don't have to find out in NATO vs Russia combat, but I'd remind you the A-10 has a lot more than a gun at its disposal, starting with the exceedingly accurate and lethal Maverick, which has a demonstrated 93% combat success rate. Maverick can be launched from practically treetop height and outranges the Tunguska. A-10s carry rockets, LGBs and JDAM, too. Enormous ordnance loads. Here's a picture of an A-10 flying an anti ISIS mission in which the plane may have to deal with anything from troops to buildings, softskins and tanks. If an A-10 can survive an SA-6 hit (demonstrated in combat), then it ought to be able to survive the much smaller SA-19, let alone MANPADS. I don't know enough about the SA-15 (divisional asset, not regimental; replaces SA-8) to be able to say there, though the first time I saw the thing thrust vector right after launch it scared me. I think your S-300s and such are going to be too busy dealing with other higher priority air threats and threats to themselves to themselves to bother with an A-10 whistling through the trees way way off in the distance. The US and NATO will have a very active SEAD/DEAD campaign going specifically to deal with S-300 and friends. Decoys, cruise missiles, JSOW, UCAV, jamming and who knows what toys not yet in the window. You seem to think it's going to be an A-10 shooting gallery. I emphatically disagree. Show me the evidence on A-10 G limit issues, please. While you assert lack of maneuverability, I respond with A-10s are currently flying combat ops against opponents who have 12.7 mm, 14.5, 23 mm AAMG and AAG and SA-7, SA-14, SA-16, SA-24 and Stinger. Am aware of no reports of A-10s being downed by anything. You have claims; I have demonstrated combat survivability. Note the airplane is badly shot up, yet still flew back and landed. A tire blew, which is why the A-10 wound up off the runway. Regards, John Kettler What is your point about the a-10 being able to carry AGM-65, LGBs, JDAMs etc? So can the f-16/f15e, except they are a button push away from cat 1 and being able to pull 9 Gs in sustained turns at double the speed of the a-10. The a-10 is also very sluggish when carrying more than a few weapons. A typical gulf war loadout was 2 mavericks and 4 bombs. Your video of the a-10 pulling is not to my point - the a-10 has a very quick turn rate at slow speeds, but it cannot do sustained break turns, which is my point. THose are required for SAM defense. The a-10 will depart when trying to perform break turns. The a-10C project was an emergency effort to make the A-10 worth it's weight. It's sustained the life of the a-10 into our COIN wars, but it would never survive any a modern army with modern air defenses. Edited March 13, 2015 by tyrspawn 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panzersaurkrautwerfer Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 It's sustained the life of the a-10 into our COIN wars, but it would never survive any a modern army with modern air defenses. And again, the SU-25 would be a hole in the ground just as fast against a NATO force. If we're including CAS centric airframes for the Ukraine and Russia, why not the A-10? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tyrspawn Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 (edited) And again, the SU-25 would be a hole in the ground just as fast against a NATO force. If we're including CAS centric airframes for the Ukraine and Russia, why not the A-10? Again. It's not plausible for the US air command to include the A-10 in the Ukrainian theater. IT makes no sense for an aircraft which cannot defend itself to be put on suicide missions. End of story. They were on their way out for the Gulf War, and had to have a complete doctrine change at the last second to become useful. this is captured pretty good in this awesome book: http://www.amazon.com/Warthog-Flying-Potomac-Books-Warriors/dp/1574888862 Edited March 13, 2015 by tyrspawn 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panzersaurkrautwerfer Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 So why is it plausible for the SU-25 to fly? Is the Russian Air Force looking to rapidly downsize it's SU-25 fleet and pilots and just not care if they survive? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted March 13, 2015 Author Share Posted March 13, 2015 tyrspawn, I'll deal with the maneuvering issues another time, perhaps, but I wanted to point out something from Deterrence 101. In order to deter, one must provide a credible threat of harm. Now, if the A-10 is, in fact, as useless on the high intensity battlefield as you claim it is, then why send A-10s to Europe, given the Ukraine situation? True, it's only a squadron, but it sends a message. It's a message of military clout and the willingness to use it if need be. Ask yourself. If the A-10 is useless in a Central European high intensity threat environment, then why would Obama send useless planes, instead of, say, more F-16s? It costs not just a fortune to move that A-10 squadron across the Pond, but also wear and tear on planes and crews, tanker support and more. Why, then, send useless planes? The answer's obvious. He wouldn't. The threat is only credible if it's perceived as having teeth to it. There is no doubt the A-10 has demonstrably sharp teeth, a terrifying track record, and pilots who are real pros at killing problems on the ground. The reference you cited says the A-10s were responsible for half of the damage inflicted on Iraqi ground forces and installations. panzersaurkrautwerfer, Your logic on why one flying tank, but not the other is flawless, in my view. Loved the "looking to rapidly downsize" bit! Brilliant. Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akd Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 And again, the SU-25 would be a hole in the ground just as fast against a NATO force. If we're including CAS centric airframes for the Ukraine and Russia, why not the A-10? Because at the time the TO&E for the game was put together, the Air Force said it would be out of service in a few years. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panzersaurkrautwerfer Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 Because at the time the TO&E for the game was put together, the Air Force said it would be out of service in a few years. See, that I'll buy for a dollar. On the other hand looks like that might be incorrect. Seems like the sort of thing that could slip in as a special bonus in a module. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 (edited) Pnzrskrtwrfr, If CM:BS were set in Montana following an invasion by Canada supported by North Korea, you might have a point. In that case, the US would probably throw everything including the kitchen sink into the fight, feeling they had no choice since they were about to be overwhelmed by crazed kimchi-wielding Canucks. Meanwhile, in this corner of the multi-verse, the US is not fighting for national survival, and can chose what assets to pitch into battle. And in this, or any other comparable optional fight against a first- or second-tier opponent, it is more than a little unlikely that they'd pitch in the A-10 when the USAF can instead use F-16s or -18s, or whatever, to deliver the same effects in safety. The Ukraine and the USS.. er, Russia don't have the same choices. Edited March 13, 2015 by JonS 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tyrspawn Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 (edited) tyrspawn, I'll deal with the maneuvering issues another time, perhaps, but I wanted to point out something from Deterrence 101. In order to deter, one must provide a credible threat of harm. Now, if the A-10 is, in fact, as useless on the high intensity battlefield as you claim it is, then why send A-10s to Europe, given the Ukraine situation? True, it's only a squadron, but it sends a message. It's a message of military clout and the willingness to use it if need be. Ask yourself. If the A-10 is useless in a Central European high intensity threat environment, then why would Obama send useless planes, instead of, say, more F-16s? It costs not just a fortune to move that A-10 squadron across the Pond, but also wear and tear on planes and crews, tanker support and more. Why, then, send useless planes? The answer's obvious. He wouldn't. The threat is only credible if it's perceived as having teeth to it. There is no doubt the A-10 has demonstrably sharp teeth, a terrifying track record, and pilots who are real pros at killing problems on the ground. The reference you cited says the A-10s were responsible for half of the damage inflicted on Iraqi ground forces and installations. panzersaurkrautwerfer, Your logic on why one flying tank, but not the other is flawless, in my view. Loved the "looking to rapidly downsize" bit! Brilliant. Regards, John Kettler There is no doubt that the A-10 pilots are bad asses and that they did some cool stuff in the past - but it doesn't change the facts of reality. Just because I feel a "warm fuzzy" about the a-10 doesn't enable them to overcome and destroy impossible odds. Why political actors do what political actors do is irrelevant to me. I'd be more impressed if I saw a white paper by a command arguing that the a-10s would survive in a war against Russia. Ukraine is arguably the worst environment for the A-10 against a modern air defense system - the only thing worse would be desert. Edited March 13, 2015 by tyrspawn 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panzersaurkrautwerfer Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 It gets down to one of two arguments: 1. The airspace would be simply too lethal. This is not a bad argument. It would be a bad place to be an airplane, especially a slow heavily laden strike platform. If there was no A-10 for this reason I would understand. But with the inclusion of the SU-25 this is clearly not the case, as the SU-25 is equally likely to be just as dead or honestly withheld from theater. 2. Forces included reflect equipment likely in service in 2017 regardless of utility. This is the only way including the SU-25 makes sense, as it is certainly available but operating against NATO it is not going to do much short of further inflate fighter pilot egos. If this is the criteria for inclusion then sticking in the A-10 makes equal sense. What annoys me the most about this discussion is the sort of "A-10 cannot survive" but hey look its an SU-25 doing gun runs for 40+ minutes in the face of the largest air force on earth, that's totally legit! They're both effectively the same platform with some quirks (Frogfoot is faster, A-10 has better ecm and standoff weapons), the airspace is mutually lethal and both platforms will be in service 2017. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apocal Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 Any air defense environment that would no-sell an A-10 would also no-sell an MQ-9 or RQ-4, so... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 (edited) It gets down to one of two arguments: No, it does not. It comes down to BOTH of those arguments. The airspace would be lethal for both the A-10 and the Su-25. Nevertheless it is likely that Russia would still be using the Su-25 and would pitch them into the battle in lieu of any better options. The US has better options and so would use them. You are pigheadedly trying to apply reasoning that is only valid for one side as if it were equally valid for both. It isn't. Different nations have different motivations, assets, and options - go figure! hey look its an SU-25 doing gun runs for 40+ minutes in the face of the largest air force on earth, that's totally legit! Local air superiority or just local air parity. Even the Germans in 1944 occasionally managed to create pockets of time and space in which their beaten airforce could conduct CAS missions. Pnzr, one final point: whenever you find yourself in a position where Kettler is your most vocal support, you really, desperately need to re-examine your assumptions. Edited March 13, 2015 by JonS 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sburke Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 Pnzrskrtwrfr, If CM:BS were set in Montana following an invasion by Canada supported by North Korea, you might have a point. In that case, the US would probably throw everything including the kitchen sink into the fight, feeling they had no choice since they were about to be overwhelmed by crazed kimchi-wielding Canucks. Meanwhile, in this corner of the multi-verse, the US is not fighting for national survival, and can chose what assets to pitch into battle. And in this, or any other comparable optional fight against a first- or second-tier opponent, it is more than a little unlikely that they'd pitch in the A-10 when the USAF can instead use F-16s or -18s, or whatever, to deliver the same effects in safety. The Ukraine and the USS.. er, Russia don't have the same choices. Your theory is flawed. You don't wield kimchee, you eat it. Now they could wield the kimchee pots, but then that would potentially create a logistical problem if the war outran their kimchee supply lines. In addition folks like myself would probably be inserted into the lines in SOF actions to eat the kimchee supply. I love kimchee and could easily put a dent in a platoons ration allotment. Thus I think I would actually be more effective than an A10. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 Your theory is flawed. You don't wield kimchee, you eat it. Now they could wield the kimchee pots, but then that would potentially create a logistical problem if the war outran their kimchee supply lines. In addition folks like myself would probably be inserted into the lines in SOF actions to eat the kimchee supply. I love kimchee and could easily put a dent in a platoons ration allotment. Thus I think I would actually be more effective than an A10. There you go: All Ukraine needs to do to win this war is to convince Russia to switch to a total kimchee ration, then we parachute sburke in and he will take care of the rest. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Djiaux Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 Just wanted to say that this post is great, I am learning a lot : ) The A-10 is sexy but the reasoning of tyrspawn and JonS seems more correct, if you are the USAF and you have to send your pilots into a deadly environment you want to send them with the best assets that you can afford, hence not the A-10. It seems that there are reasons for having the A-10 arround, if you need CAS in a much more safe environment the A-10 can make a better job, but war vs Russia wouldn't be that safe environment. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sburke Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 There you go: All Ukraine needs to do to win this war is to convince Russia to switch to a total kimchee ration, then we parachute sburke in and he will take care of the rest. Michael Well if you have been paying attention to the developing relations between Russia and N Korea you can probably guess that I have been approached by our nation's special operative forces. Why this coming week I am scheduled to take them to the kimchee tasting section of our local Korean market to understand the finer points of kimchee dining. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apocal Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 Just wanted to say that this post is great, I am learning a lot : ) The A-10 is sexy but the reasoning of tyrspawn and JonS seems more correct, if you are the USAF and you have to send your pilots into a deadly environment you want to send them with the best assets that you can afford, hence not the A-10. It seems that there are reasons for having the A-10 arround, if you need CAS in a much more safe environment the A-10 can make a better job, but war vs Russia wouldn't be that safe environment. Then what is an armed Reaper doing in-game? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 tell me again how many pilots there are in an MQ? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panzersaurkrautwerfer Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 Re: Kimchi Ugh. I spent two years in Korea. I love Bulgoggi with a passion, Soju is good (I'm otherwise a beer drinker so the fact I kind of like it is a big deal), would voluneteer to go back to Korea in a heartbeat if I was staying in, but no Kimchi please. Ever. Re: A-10 Firstly here's a good informational clip on the performance of the A-10 in a high threat environment: Secondly: I'm not arguing that bravely and well the A-10 will plunge past SA-19 and SA-6's alike to dump bombs in Red Square. I'm simply saying that clearly CMBS allows for a permissive environment for CAS type platforms to not be shot down after entering range of an ADA or fixed wing air superiority asset/a Very Angry And Lucky Helicopter Pilot. If there's scenarios designed around the assumption that Russia can achieve this sort of environment, which is frankly the only way the SU-25 is getting to the target, then I would like a similar ability from the US side. And to that end the A-10 is distinctive in the US inventory with its ability to strafe IFV type targets into little pieces. Further to that end, the USAF might not commit A-10s to this sort of fighter because of their vulnerability. The Russians might commit their SU-25s but the hostile environment will ensure the same net outcome assuming neither side is dramatically degraded: No A-10s or SU-25s over the target. Personally I would like the A-10 because while Black Sea is a good setting, it's not something I'm entirely tied to. So having a wider range of US fixed wing CAS (which really right now is "bombs in slightly different flavor and Mavericks") surely would not result in the world collapsing with zero survivors in terms of allowing for some interesting QB or user made scenarios that include conditions for the A-10 to be useful or even authentic. It's not like the plane has to be modeled anything beyond the gun attack that's already in the game, the bombs and missiles that are already in, Battlefront already has workable sound for the plane from CMSF. Re: Luftwaffles The Germans did from time to time manage to fly missions in the West. However they did not manage to conduct anything resembling CAS, did not use planes that were generally unable to handle fighter contact, and mostly focused on operational-strategic type targets, because by god if you're only going to get one or two strikes through today, you're going for something more relevant than roughing up a US tank company. You're not going to trade a dozen airframes for four or five tanks and come out ahead. Statement: CAS There really should be a system in the game that simulates a high threat environment beyond simply having MANPADS and ADA assets on map. The SU-25 orbiting for 45 minutes example I used is really a good illustration of something that shouldn't happen, it's too valuable, too vunlderable, and likely needs to get a run in and leave before F-22s/F-15s/F-16s show up/the seven or eight AWACS in the area concentrate their radars to flashfry the SU-25 pilot in his cockpit. Having some user/scenario writer selected level* that determines chance of strike abort/asset rescinded/asset lost results based on relative air control levels would go a long way in terms of making CAS something a bit more realistic. *So if you wanted a QB that was just totally fair and above board, you could select no air control settings, and CAS would be unaffected. If you're building something to simulate the hectic first few hours of engagement, selecting "air parity" would make both the blue and red CAS highly unreliable, while simulating the NATO counter offensive in the last week of August you could dial it to Blue Air dominance or something and have enough friction to keep the air strikes from being 100% certain, but more or less likely to complete attack. tell me again how many pilots there are in an MQ? Still not cheap, it's a very high value asset. We're not going to put them anywhere that it stands a good chance of being intercepted or shot down. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apocal Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 (edited) tell me again how many pilots there are in an MQ? Exactly the same number as the number of times it's conducted strikes in the face of a modern AD. Edited March 13, 2015 by Apocal 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 (edited) Re: Luftwaffles ... However [the Luftwaffle] did not manage to conduct anything resembling CAS, did not use planes that were generally unable to handle fighter contact, and mostly focused on operational-strategic type targets... Ok ... that is completely wrong, on every count. Edited March 13, 2015 by JonS 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.