The Greatest Attack Aircraft of All Time...

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by davparlr

I am not sure I agree with this. Redundancy and armament certainly makes it a difficult nut to crack. It would be more tolerant to warhead size and circle of error misses. On a one event bases, the A-10 would probably be more survivable than typical jet aircraft. Slow speed would make it more susceptable to multiple targeting, however.

I think I worded my post wrong, because I agree with you completely.

[HealzDevo]

What about the F/A 18? What do you think about that from an attack aircraft basis? I know it is mostly fielded as a fighter/bomber but I am interested on hearing your opinions on the attack part of the role... Also the F-15 Strike Eagle does some ground attack so should it really be the F/A-15 Strike Eagle in reality?

[102first_hussars]

F/A18 isnt anything compared to the A-10, it doesnt have the ability to manouver at such low speeds as 200 mph like the A-10 can, its not armoured like the A-10 is, its cannons are designed to shoot down planes rather than lay down a feild of fire, the F/A 18 is also loud as F*CK which doesnt help if its coming at ground level and is about 10 seconds from greasing a group of ground targets. and those are just a few reasons

[R-2800]

/A18 isnt anything compared to the A-10, it doesnt have the ability to manouver at such low speeds as 200 mph like the A-10 can, its not armoured like the A-10 is, its cannons are designed to shoot down planes rather than lay down a feild of fire, the F/A 18 is also loud as F*CK which doesnt help if its coming at ground level and is about 10 seconds from greasing a group of ground targets. and those are just a few reasons

I agree

[Matt308]

Can't compare the two. Different missions.

[102first_hussars]

And not to bash the f-18 its a good plane, it just isnt a commited Ground Attacker

[HealzDevo]

Just thought I would ask about that as it had an F/A Designation...

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Fighter/Attack

[102first_hussars]

I think he knew that, he just thought he would ask because of the F/A designation

[the lancaster kicks ass]

i don't think you should think about it being too specialised in the attack role, just that she can haul a lot of ordinance......

[DIOGENIS]

Does TORNADO count? It is an all weather / Day-night attack aircraft with specialised packs of anti-tank(brimstone) and anti-radar (alarm) missiles and guided bombs (paveway).Able to fly in high and low speed ,nap of the earth flying ability,two 27mm guns.

Ok, A-10 is rugged and the 30mm is deadly to any tank, but other than that, lacks most of the features described above

[evangilder]

You think it only carries a 30mm? Think again:

Avionics equipment includes communications, inertial navigation systems, fire control and weapons delivery systems, target penetration aids and night vision goggles. Their weapons delivery systems include head-up displays that indicate airspeed, altitude and dive angle on the windscreen, a low altitude safety and targeting enhancement system (LASTE) which provides constantly computing impact point freefall ordnance delivery; and Pave Penny laser-tracking pods under the fuselage. The aircraft also have armament control panels, and infrared and electronic countermeasures to handle surface-to-air-missile threats.

The Thunderbolt II's 30mm GAU-8/A Gatling gun can fire 3,900 rounds a minute and can defeat an array of ground targets to include tanks. Some of their other equipment includes an inertial navigation system, electronic countermeasures, target penetration aids, self-protection systems, and AGM-65 Maverick and AIM-9 Sidewinder missiles.

Thunderbolt IIs have Night Vision Imaging Systems (NVIS), compatible single-seat cockpits forward of their wings and a large bubble canopy which provides pilots all-around vision. The pilots are encircled by titanium armor that also protects parts of the flight-control system. The redundant primary structural sections allow the aircraft to enjoy better survivability during close air support than did previous aircraft. The aircraft can survive direct hits from armor-piercing and high-explosive projectiles up to 23mm. Their self-sealing fuel cells are protected by internal and external foam. Their redundant hydraulic flight-control systems are backed up by manual systems. This permits pilots to fly and land when hydraulic power is lost.

The Thunderbolt II can be serviced and operated from bases with limited facilities near battle areas. Many of the aircraft's parts are interchangeable left and right, including the engines, main landing gear and vertical stabilizers.

up to 16,000 pounds (7,200 kilograms) of mixed ordnance on eight under-wing and three under-fuselage pylon stations, including infrared countermeasure flares; electronic countermeasure chaff; jammer pods; 2.75-inch (6.99 centimeters) rockets; illumination flares and:
MK-82 (500 pound bomb)
MK-84 (2000 pound bomb)
MK77 incendiary
10 MK20 Rockeye II (4 - 6 standard load)
10 CBU-52 (4 - 6 standard load)
10 CBU-58 (4 - 6 standard load)
10 CBU-71 (4 - 6 standard load)
10 CBU-87 (4 - 6 standard load)
10 CBU-89 (4 - 6 standard load)
CBU-97
10 BL755 (4 - 6 standard load)
AGM-65 Maverick missiles
GBU-10 laser-guided bomb
GBU-12 laser-guided bomb
AIM-9 Sidewinder missiles

[DIOGENIS]

Dear evangilder, merry Xmas!
regarding your reply,

a. NVG systems = NVG goggles in this case ( hope i'm not mistaking) which is far more than 24h combat capability
b. lacks radar!!
c. 23mm guns ok, what about modern missile aa systems (pics)?
d.external counter measure pod, limited electronics capability-minus one weapon station,limitations in pulling max g's, less survivability in modern combat field (as in c.)
e.Tornado can also bring a heavy weaponload but more accurately,faster, and lower than A10 which by the way carries more standard weapons as you describe, such as unguided bombs.Laser guided bombs can only be released and not guided, unless an external pod or another source is used

[evangilder]

They are using the Gen III NVIS system which is very very capable.

What does a low level ground attack aircraft need radar for? Their mission is to slog it out with the ground forces and armor. Radar is not effective in that environment because of trees and ground clutter.

Yes, A-10s have taken hits from missiles and made it home. Please show me where a Tornado can survive a direct hit from an armor piercing, or high explosive 20mm round.

I don't think it matters if the targetting system or electronics is pod mounted or internally installed. Either way it adds weight, and being able to not have it is a big benefit.

You obviously have not seen what an A-10 can do at low level, even with a full compliment of weapons. I have seen the capability of the Tornado, and there is no comparison at low level. As a strategic attack aircraft for a quick strike on a precision target, the Tornado is good, but it cannot duke it out at low level like an A-10.

You are talking about different missions with your last statement. That is a precision strike, which the A-10 is not designed for. It is a ground attack/support mission, not precision strike. The Tornado is indeed good for precision strikes, but if I had my butt in a cockpit against an armored column, I would pick the A-10 over any other aircraft, hands down. I have seen what they do in their element first hand.

The photos below show what happened to an A-10 that took a hit from a missile. It made it home.

[DIOGENIS]

The A10 is obviously capable of absorbing medium cal. guns and manpads, rather than avoiding them. what about 35mm aa, crotale, Tor M1,Buk class missiles?the whole philosophy of usage is obsolete.Such missions can be accomplished by joint aircraft and attack helicopters, AH 64s, TIGRAs,M35 s etc.Suitable in low threat, good weather environments only.Such as the US forces achieved in Iraq in the recent conflicts.

The Tornado GR4 is indeed primarily a strike aircraft, that doesn't mean it can't be used for the front line attack/support role due to the highly sophisticated ordnance, for example brimstone missiles against tanks.

Don't forget that prior being used in the Gulf wars, plans for withdrawal were ready (15 yrs ago!).In fact a modernised A7 variant was proposed to replace it.If so, for the first time in aviation history an aircraft would replace it's succesor!

I accept your arguments, it's about different aspects of seeing things.I haven't seen what an A 10 can do, i'm sure it's quite impressive.