A Look At Russia's Version Of The A-10 Warthog

Found this on google books-I've only flipped through it but theres some impressive stuff in it, including attacks on armored columns and setting up a safe zone around downed pilots.

https://books.google.com/books?id=x...hUh9IMKH WiQBX8Q6AEIVjAJ#v=onepage&q&f=false

What was considered the most effective weaponry for CAS? Bombs? Rockets? Strafing runs? Whatever the aircraft had?

Also-found this from afghanistan. Looks like they do a medivac, engage the enemy with small arms, and then coordinate an airstrike. Unknown what aircraft was involved...
[video=youtube;aVnoLSmO2UI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aVnoLSmO2UI[/video]

 

I have to admit it, I've got a sneaking admiration for tough-talking Vlad and his mates; they put our own gutless waffling western politicians in the shade..

 

Russian tanks don't need no stinkin visas. Sounds like Obama's border policy.

 

I read the entire book snip that you provided a link too. "Lightning from the Sky, Thunder from the Sea". Didn't recognize any ones names but recognized most of the ships mentioned in the book that were on the gun line two years earlier when I was in country.

I been wanting to buy that book when first published in 2009. From reading the reviews it does cover my Sub Unit One ANGLICO NGF Plt. that I served with based out of Hoi An providing NGFS and CAS for the ROK Blue Dragons and the U.S. Army Ameracal Div, But does it cover 69 / 70 ? I might buy a used book, a new book is over $30.

What the link provided sounds like the Easter Offense of 72 and I was back in the civilian world by then. But every Vietnam vet was paying close attention to that battle. One morning Gen. Giap woke up and thought he was another Field Marshal Erwin Rommel and launched a massive armor and infantry assault across the DMZ. Don't know how many NVA tanks were involved but 400 were destroyed mostly by USAF F-4 Phantoms and for the first time in history by naval gunfire.

The majority of the ground infantry were ARVAN but most of the fire support was American. We vets back in the world looked at each other and said Holly crap, ARVAN can actually fight and defeat Charley. That was a first.

The most effective CAS weapons platform and ordnance ?

For weapons platform in order #1 being first the A-1 Skyraider, A-4 Skyhawk, A-7 Corsair, F-4 Phantom and the F-8 Crusader.

The F-8 Crusader aka "The Mig Killer" was the last gun dog fighter built. It had 4 X 20 mm cannons. Where as the A-4 only had 2 X 20 mm cannons. The old A-4's only had 100 rounds per gun but by Vietnam they carried 200 rounds per gun.

Talking to my son and nephew who are both FA-18 pilots, CAS strafing seems to be a lost art. You can provide CAS strafing with in 45 yards of friendly troops. 7.62 mm, .50 cal and 20 mm are the guns of choice.

The Army and Marines Huey Hogs gunship (UH-1 C ) were very effective for strafing and providing 2.75" rocket attacks on area targets. And the AH-1 Cobras were even more effective.

The best bomb for CAS ? All depends, enemy troops out in the open, enemy troops in trenches, a M.G. bunker, gooks in the tree line, an area target maybe 600 meters long and 300 meters deep or just a small target occupying 10 sq. ft. ?

The Mk-82 (500 lb.) bomb was probably the most effective bomb for CAS. You could drop a high drag Mk-82 with in 170 meters of friendly troops if they have some protection. No protection then it's 700 meters.

Marines A-4's taking off from Chu Lai and DaNang would be carrying the MK-81 (250 lb.) bombs for CAS missions. But the MK-81 had no high drag capability and could only be used with in 215 meters of friendly troops who had protection and 620 meters of friendly troops out in the open.

Don't even think of using the U.S. Air Force bomb of choice, the Mk-117 (750 lb.) unless friendly troops are 1/2 of a mile away from the target. Even then the over pressure is enough cause one to go deaf for three or five minutes.

NAP, napalm was very effective. You could use napalm with in 115 meters of friendly troops. It just didn't turn Charley into crispy critters but it sucked up the oxygen right out of the air. It created it's own weather pattern, you noticed the wind change headed towards where the napalm was dropped. Charley might be in a bunker or in tunnels in no contact with the nap but the nap sucked up all of the oxygen and Charley suffocating from the lack of oxygen.

Liberal declared napalm to be politically incorrect so no more napalm to save American soldiers and Marines lives on the battlefield.

CBU's (cluster bombs) were used in Vietnam but I never was involved when they were used in CAS missions. During the 80's and 90's the 500 lb. cluster bomb was the Marines bomb of choice. Liberals are trying to outlaw the CBU's as being politically incorrect like they did with napalm.

 

I don't see here any information about the su-25 or A-10, nor about CAS.

 

All Close Air Support planes like the SU-25 and A-10 are useful if there aren't many enemy SAM's and AAA around, otherwise they're toast.
The clue is in the name- CLOSE air support, they have to get close to the front line troops which is a dangerous place for planes to be because they become SAM and bullet magnets for miles around..

 

I've come to a similar conclusion from my reading, though I also highly respect those who have worked with and around CAS, APACHE RAT being one of them.

 

Yes, and as a -ahem- champion wargamer (The Combat Mission series, Armed Assault 3 etc) I fear attack choppers more then CAS jets because choppers can hover at extreme standoff range and you might not even know they're there until they pop up from a ridgeline or a wood and loose off a missile at you, then drop back behind cover, it happened to me twice in AA3 yesterday when I had a quadbike and APC shot out from under me at 2kms and 3kms range respectively.
By contrast CAS jets are easy to see.

 

I wrote the post in response to the post about Putin. Being surprised that it does in this subject

 

True. This is why the F35 is a good idea. It's optimised for tactical X band radar.

 

That all depends on the terrain. In a jungle environment you only see the attacking aircraft for a second or two. If the aircraft is coming in low at a few hundred feet off the ground not even a MAN-PAD would be effective because all A/A missiles have a maximum range and a minimum range. The missile has to travel a certain distance before it arms itself. Like the FIM-92 Stinger missile, it has to travel 200 meters (660 feet) before it arms itself.

Same true with all AAA and all artillery rounds. The projectile is spinning as it leaves the barrel bore and has to make so many spins before the fuse is armed.

Not to long ago US Conservative posted a video of American soldiers conducting a fire mission with the 155 gun/howitzer. One of the loaders dropped the HE round and the tip of the projectile (fuse) hit the breech. A hundred or so years ago that projectile would have detonated killing everyone with in 25 yards. But the fuse wasn't armed. It has to make a thousand or so revolution in the air before it's armed.

 

Not sure if it's still the case with Russia but the Soviets definitely went for the rugged and fairly simple approach to equipment. The MiG 29 is a good example. The thing could use tractor wheels.

 

It comes down to who's in the cockpit.

The Douglas A-1 Skyraider a radial engine prop powered plane shot down two Mig-17's and a Mig-19 during the Vietnam War

Video -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UzC1GEwdN08

Wrong one, here you go. -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r1YVhs4KJjU

 

Love the Skyraider, I bet it was loud and terrifying on the ground.

 

By all means this is not a scenario, this is “all hazards in one sentence” . But if it was a scenario, in our time we would consider this a “no go” for a ground attack plane.
But if we look back to WW2… You will find that such conditions are quite bearable for an IL2 ground attack plane.
No radio contact with ground was normal. Enemy air dominance was normal. Mixed forces on the ground when Russian and German infantry engage in close combat in trenches. Enemy AA will be suppressed by IL2 themselves, that is why we carry all the armor. Friend or Foe selection has to be done visually with zero guidance from the ground. And do not forget the level of enemy training. E.t.c.
Many times IL2 would cut grass with its propeller. 600 holes from small arms, but the plane returns home. Completely trashed V-stab – returns home.
Yep. Loss rate was extreme, but every lost Il2 means 10 saved soldiers on the ground.

But do not get me wrong. The only thing I am saying is that a specialized CAS platform is important, it cannot be replaced with no Fighter-Bomber in cases when “something goes wrong”.

 

What other solution in lets say 20 years perspective? Air platforms are becoming more and more expensive. More and more is invested in the safety of the airplane and this moves the support plane further and further from infantry.

 

The A-1 had a big 2,700 h.p. Wright R-3350-26WA radial engine, the same kind of engine the B-29 had.

But the A-1 sucks up highly explosive high octane aviation gas and the U.S. Navy had to get all avgas off it's aircraft carriers. It's replacement was the Douglas A-4 Skyhawk that turned out being the best jet powered CAS aircraft during the Vietnam War.

On Wright radial engines the numbers you see like R-3350 is the cubic inch displacement of the engine.

 

Air platforms are getting more expensive because there no more a dozen companies in the aircraft manufacturing business to compete for a contract so no competition. Today it's Boeing, Lockheed Martin and Northrop Gruman competing for a contract.

Congress demands a multi role aircraft. Kinda like the F-4 Phantom. Originally designed as a navy interceptor but ended up doing it all (interceptor, air superiority fighter, deep strike, high altitude bomber. battlefield air interdiction, close air support, reconnaissance, electronic warfare, wild weasel) not excellent at any of those missions but good at them all.

High technology causes the air crew to become dependent on technology and as we have seen be it in the air, land or at sea those who have become dependent on technology lose that technology they don't perform, they can't fight.

A dedicated attack CAS aircraft doesn't need to be high tech. Reopen the A-4 Skyhawk production line. Today probably $ 5 million per unit. Add four .50 cal HMG's that would give it 2 X 20 mm cannons and 4 X .50 cal HMG's. The A-4 can carry anything in our arsenal today including nukes.

 

Wonder how an updated A-7 would do?

The Navy and Air Force liked them, the Marines did not.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LTV_A-7_Corsair_II#United_States_Air_Force_A-7D

 

The A-7 Corsair !!! Probably the best all around attack aircraft ever to fly. Capable of deep strikes but the USN A-6 Intruders and USAF F-111 were second to none and no aircraft today can accomplish the missions that the A-6 and F-111 were able to accomplish.

But the Navy's A-7 was so effective when it came to battlefield interdiction and attack bombing missions, during the Vietnam War that the U.S. Air Force adopted the A-7.They did the same thing adopting Navy aircraft during the Vietnam War ( F-4 Phantom, A-7, A-1, A-3 (B-66) and A-7.)
The USN was just turning out better aircraft than the USAF back during the 1960's

 

Never been able to figure it out and I served during the era.

Just like the Marines flew the A-6 Intruder which was a deep strike bomber, what dose deep strike strategic bombing missions have to do with Marine grunts on the battlefield ?

It was the era of Robert McNamara as Secretary of Defense, liberal social engineering like the McNamara's Moron Corps / Brigade. It was McNamara who forced a varmint rifle on to the U.S. Army and Marine Corps (M-16)

 

Bad idea (imho)
1. Technologically, it is simpler to construct new one, than to re-open production of outdated one.
2. And the A-4 is not a dedicated CAS platform. Blue Angels chose it because in its childhood it was a light fighter. A-4 was a concept gravitating towards Soviet stile simple, light and cheap machines with high availability. It was about to loose the competition to overweight gooses when Admiral Soucheck saw a light ground attack plane in A-4. It is a set of lucky coincidences that the bird flew. It was even founded from Skyshark program which suffocated due to engine problems.
But anyway. The first examples carried nothing but Nuke, they had a single weapon mounting point. A-4 is fast, managed to set world record on 500km distance, but generally this means that the wing profile is inappropriate for slow speed with high payload. There is simply no space to install 12mm. Single engine makes it more vulnerable to manpad than a10 or su 25. Its just not a CAS craft.

 

During the Vietnam War the A-4 Skyhawk was the best jet powered CAS aircraft.

Who killed the A-4 ?

Below is an article that answers that question. Kinda long with numerous photos, videos and links.

A very short excerpt:

 

The Mighty A-4 Skyhawk Was the U.S. Navy’s Best Little Bomber

On Aug. 2, 1990, Saddam Hussein’s army stormed into the tiny kingdom of Kuwait with 120,000 troops and 300 tanks. While the invasion certainly shocked the world, the Iraqis did not roll in completely unopposed. Among the first responders were Kuwaiti air force A-4KU Skyhawks, which took off under artillery bombardment and lashed out at the invaders.

By the time the little jets and their pilots evacuated Kuwait – some landed on highways after their bases were overrun – they had gunned down a third of the nine Iraqi helicopters reported destroyed, and wrecked an unknown number of Iraqi vehicles.
Small, nimble and simply built, the Douglas A-4 Skyhawk served the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps from 1956 onward for nearly 40 years. Built as a nuclear-attack capable light bomber, Skyhawks incurred the highest losses of any Navy aircraft during the Vietnam War.

With its impressively tight turning circle compared to American high performance fighters, the Skyhawk was a natural candidate for imitating Soviet MiG-17s in the U.S. Navy’s Fighter Weapons School, popularly known as “Top Gun.”

A-4s sustained the heaviest casualties of all aircraft types in Israel’s air force during the 1973 Yom Kippur War. In the Falklands War of 1982, Argentina sent its A-4s on virtually suicidal missions to bomb British warships.

Originally called the A4D before the 1962 designation standardization in line with the Air Force, the Skyhawk was developed as a jet powered replacement for the propeller driven AD (or A-1) Skyraider. The new aircraft had to be small and light enough to land on World War II-era Essex-class aircraft carriers which were still a significant presence in the U.S. Navy in the 1950s.

Douglas chief engineer Ed Heinemann, whose design credentials included the SBD Dauntless dive bomber and the Skyraider, was ruthless in achieving the Navy’s parameters. Accepted into Navy and Marine Corps service in 1956, the Skyhawk was so small that it did not require folding wings for parking on aircraft carriers.

The first two production variants were so rudimentary they did not have any radar. The cockpit sidewalls were so tight that the shoulders of pilots’ flight suits rapidly wore away from the constant rubbing. Pilots occasionally taped felt strips to their helmets to avoid scratching the canopy glass.

If an A-4 driver wanted to check his six, he had to maneuver the aircraft since he could barely turn his head.

While diminutive, the Skyhawk was popular, nimble and responsive – and it could carry up to 9,900 pounds of bombs, rockets and missiles. Each wing root mounted a Mk 12 20-millimeter cannon for strafing. The guns were not particularly useful for air combat since the Skyhawk mounted a fixed gunsight without lead computing. Worse, its guns had a tendency to jam.

But the warplane still packed a punch. The upgraded A-4E and its successors possessed five ordnance hardpoints over the three preceding versions, increasing the plane’s choice of munitions. Ground crews adored the simplicity of the A-4’s internal architecture, though they needed a ladder to reach the plane’s upper surfaces — a minor annoyance.

When America entered the Vietnam War, the A-4 was the U.S. Navy’s most numerous attack aircraft. The most prevalent model was the A-4C, followed closely by the A-4E model. Newer A-4Fs, which introduced a conspicuous avionics hump on the plane’s spine, debuted in late 1967. The Marines also flew two-seat TA-4F trainers as airborne forward air controllers.

As an everyday participant in ground attack missions over both North and South Vietnam, A-4s made up 37 percent of U.S. Navy aircraft losses and 36 percent for the U.S. Marines. Such was the near universal presence of the Skyhawk in Vietnam that we can only list a small sample of milestones:

- On Aug. 5, 1964, the first American pilot taken prisoner by North Vietnam, Elverett Alvarez, was shot down in an A-4C during Operation Pierce Arrow, the American retaliatory strikes for the second Gulf of Tonkin incident.

- Cmdr. James Stockdale, the highest ranking aviator taken prisoner in North Vietnam, was shot down in an A-4E in September 1965. He was later awarded the Medal of Honor for his conduct as a prisoner of war.

- The only other fixed-wing recipient of the Medal of Honor was a Skyhawk aviator. Capt. M.J. Estocin’s posthumous Medal of Honor was awarded on the basis of two incidents in April 1967 when his crippled aircraft held together long enough to launch Shrike missiles at SAM batteries. Estocin managed to nurse his trashed A-4 back to his carrier on the first occasion. The second one claimed his life.

- John McCain, now a serving senator, was flying an A-4E when he was shot down in October 1967 and captured.

- An A-4C shot down a North Vietnamese MiG-17 with Zuni rockets in May 1967, a weapon never designed for air-to-air combat.

In 1967, the Vought A-7 Corsair II – essentially a squashed down F-8 Crusader offering superior range and payload capacity – began to supplant the A-4 in the light attack mission.

However, the chubby Corsair II could not take off from the Navy’s Essex-class carriers, so the A-4 did not go away entirely. The Marines never adopted the A-7 during or after Vietnam, the justification being that the A-7 was too expensive and unable to tolerate short, improvised runways like the A-4.

While the slow but solidly built A-1 Skyraider is often said to be the U.S. military’s favorite Vietnam-era fixed-wing aircraft for close air support, these propeller planes were usually assigned to U.S. Air Force special operations squadrons not normally available to regular Army and Marine infantry formations.

The subsonic Skyhawk, however, was the next best warplane for delivering accurate ordnance in close proximity to friendly troops compared to the faster F-4 Phantom, F-100 Super Sabre or F-8 Crusader.

Meanwhile, the U.S. military was adopting a novel method of air combat training. North Vietnam’s Soviet-made MiG-17, MiG-19 and MiG-21 fighters had consistently outfought faster but less nimble U.S. fighters, especially in close range engagements.

In 1969, the U.S. Navy opened its “Top Gun” weapons school – where the simulated opposition adopted Soviet-style tactics against trainee aviators. It was not possible to acquire original Soviet aircraft, but the A-4 was a near perfect facsimile for the subsonic MiG-17F.

Like a knife-wielding street brawler lunging inside the guard of a swordsman, the A-4 could replicate the little MiG’s ability to slip inside the turning circle of the F-4 Phantom. Michael Ironside flew an A-4 in the movie Top Gun as “Jester” where he tussled with Tom Cruise’s F-14. Several A-4Fs were turned into virtual flying engines by removing their avionics hump, guns and most of their hard points. The resulting “Super Fox” could roll at 720 degrees a second.

Israel, one of the Skyhawk’s numerous overseas customers, relied heavily on the plane from 1969 to 2006. Israel had originally flown French-made jets, but these were getting old and the supply of spare parts was drying up since Paris had embargoed further arms supplies to Israel in the 1960s.
The A-4H was the first U.S.-made military aircraft adopted by the Israeli Air Force — this was an A-4F based export variant peculiar to both Israeli requirements and American export caveats. It added on a braking parachute but lacked the A-4F’s avionics hump, rear-facing radar warning receivers and the fire control systems to perform loft bombing.

America also barred certain ordnance types, such as napalm, AGM-12 Bullpup missiles and Rockeye cluster bombs from export to Israel. Only in 1970 did Washington allow sales of AGM-62 Walleye guided bombs and AGM-45 Shrike anti-radiation missiles in exchange for Israel’s acceptance of the ceasefire ending the War of Attrition with Egypt.

A-4Hs could be externally distinguished by the straight cut of the vertical stabilizer which would feature on the later U.S. Marine Corps A-4M — earlier versions had a pointed stabilizer. Since ground strafing against parked aircraft had been a favored tactic of Israeli aviators during the 1967 Six Day War, the original 20-millimeter Mk 12 cannons were exchanged for 30-millimeter DEFA cannons from 1969 onward as their heavier shells offered more destructive effects on target.

While the IAF’s Skyhawks had already dropped bombs during the War of Attrition and blown up Palestine Liberation Organization base camps in Jordan and Lebanon, the Yom Kippur War of 1973 would be the aircraft’s toughest test. Unlike the Six Day War, Israel demurred from launching pre-emptive raids on Egyptian or Syrian air bases since it would lose U.S. diplomatic backing for shooting first.

This resulted in the Israelis not achieving air superiority against their Arab enemies when Egypt and Syria assaulted the Sinai and Golan Heights, respectively. Israeli Skyhawks – which now included ex-U.S. Navy A-4E and faster, newly built A-4N variants – were forced to fight past formidable Egyptian air defenses and MiG-21 interceptors while targeting Arab ground forces. This was to buy time for Israeli reservists to mobilize.

Whenever the A-4s flew low to avoid Egyptian medium-altitude SAMs, they exposed themselves to AAA and IR guided Strela-2 man portable air defense systems. In response to the Strela-2 threat, IAF Skyhawks received the same extended exhaust pipes as upgraded Super Mysteres.

Informally called “barrels,” they caused IR guided missiles to explode a short distance away from the A-4’s tail fin rather than directly underneath, drastically increasing the aircraft’s survival.

Argentina’s employment of A-4P and A-4Q Skyhawks against the Royal Navy during the 1982 Falklands War provided a rare occasion when U.S. made aircraft were used against a U.S. ally.

These export rebuilds of the antiquated A-4B and C models endured Harrier fighters and surface-based air defenses to bomb the British task force. Their job was not made any easier by the long distances traveled through the rough South Atlantic weather, patchy intelligence and the necessity of flying at low level to stay under the Brits’ radar cover, which increased fuel consumption and reduced their staying time over targets.

The Argentine A-4s were not compatible with the infamous Exocet anti-ship missile, so they had to get close and rely on their 20-millimeter guns and unguided bombs. Nevertheless, the A-4s contributed to sinking four Royal Navy ships. The other 10 damaged British vessels would have likely joined them at the bottom of the Atlantic if more bombs had fuzed properly and gone off.

The U.S. military has long retired the A-4 and other countries such as Australia, Indonesia, Israel, New Zealand and Singapore have steadily consigned them to the scrap yard or museums. The Argentine air force somehow still keeps theirs running on an ailing budget while Brazil operates ex-Kuwaiti models from its sole aircraft carrier.

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/th...wk-was-the-us-navy’s-best-little-bomber-14181

 

By performance and characteristics A-4 is in between Mig-15 and Mig-19. And at Vietnam time Russians had next gen fighter-bomber available. Why A-4 would be better than the SU family? (But, I have little knowledge of Russian ground attack planes of that era).
Are you certain that you have not missed the statement that this plane was the one that suffered highest casualty rate than any other?

Don’t get your question… A-4 is a fighter plane by design, the reason why US considers it to be the best CAS platform is because they didn’t have a proper CAS platform at that time. No one had, everyone was obsessed with fighter-bomber approach. So generally speaking A-4 was killed by A-10. But there is no other way around, A-4 is very different from A-10. Once you have an A-10, you would never want to send A-4 for CAS. And this is a conceptual error. I do not believe there would be an issue to assemble a sort of A-10 back in 1960.