Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Without a serious back-design they can't reopen the A-10 line and they destroyed the equipment used to build them. The human element of an A-10 is even easier to knock out with lasers, we're already having issues with laser pointers and pillows, let alone weapon grade lasers. And I was under the impression the GAU-8 wasn't effective against modern tanks?

The GAU-8 is definitely still effective against modern tanks. They're having some issues with some of the ammunition, but that is because its old ammo thats been sitting around a while. The ammo that does fire, which is most of it still, still will shred anything that moves.

That was very much a tongue in cheek comment. Awesome aircraft though.

 Grey Templar wrote:
The GAU-8 is definitely still effective against modern tanks. They're having some issues with some of the ammunition, but that is because its old ammo thats been sitting around a while. The ammo that does fire, which is most of it still, still will shred anything that moves.

Ah I'd heard the T-80 and T-90s upper armour was resistant to attack enough that rendered the GAU-8's 30mm useless but it seems I'd fallen for pro-F35 and smart munitions propaganda.

Kayback wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
The GAU-8 is definitely still effective against modern tanks. They're having some issues with some of the ammunition, but that is because its old ammo thats been sitting around a while. The ammo that does fire, which is most of it still, still will shred anything that moves.

Ah I'd heard the T-80 and T-90s upper armour was resistant to attack enough that rendered the GAU-8's 30mm useless but it seems I'd fallen for pro-F35 and smart munitions propaganda.

Let the F35 and smart munitions go after air defences so A-10s can fly right round the back of enemy armour and hit them where it hurts!!

 Mr. Burning wrote:

Kayback wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
The GAU-8 is definitely still effective against modern tanks. They're having some issues with some of the ammunition, but that is because its old ammo thats been sitting around a while. The ammo that does fire, which is most of it still, still will shred anything that moves.

Ah I'd heard the T-80 and T-90s upper armour was resistant to attack enough that rendered the GAU-8's 30mm useless but it seems I'd fallen for pro-F35 and smart munitions propaganda.

Let the F35 and smart munitions go after air defences so A-10s can fly right round the back of enemy armour and hit them where it hurts!!

This is how you do it. The Stealth Wonders are great for bypassing air defenses, so they make great recon or Wild Weasels/Iron Hand attackers. But once the air defense is gone, you can send in any old bomb truck to do the job... so why spend the extra money and risk losing a Stealth Wonder to the wear-and-tear of extra flights?

Stealth bombs?

even current-day systems can engage and destroy mortar shells, tiny and ballistic objects.

And producing more A-10s would be a great idea to uh...kill jeeps and infantry in the open, their guns were barely effective against old Iraqi tanks in the Gulf, they'd be painfully useless against any modern tank and modern missiles are more potent than the stuff they had to contend with back in their glory days.

Point is, at some point it becomes too fussy and impractical to use airborne weapons if you have good active defense systems, massed ground to ground strikes might be the wave of the future (again).

 Grey Templar wrote:
The GAU-8 is definitely still effective against modern tanks. They're having some issues with some of the ammunition, but that is because its old ammo thats been sitting around a while. The ammo that does fire, which is most of it still, still will shred anything that moves.

Most modern tanks are sufficiently unbothered by the GAU-8 unless the aircraft its mounted to manages to essentially be diving at an extreme angle - one which they are unlikely to achieve in a contested environment as it exposed the aircraft to a lot of incoming. The A-10s main anti-armor armament is and has always has been missiles. Hell, even when they were new the GAU-8 wasn't really effective against contemporary top-end tanks, they could achieve mission kills with careful round placement to knock out roadwheels and tracks, etc. but that was far from guaranteed. Against T-72s they could only really hope for a mission kill unless they managed to come in at a 45-60 degree dive from behind the tank, something they could never do while there were active AA systems operating in the area. Against the T-55s and T-62s A-10s were designed for use against, they only really ever expected to achieve mobility/mission kills under normal operating parameters (but in a "turkey shoot" situation they had the possibility of hard kills against them). Those cannons were really there for things like BMP's, IFVs, APCs, and lighter armor.

chaos0xomega wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
The GAU-8 is definitely still effective against modern tanks. They're having some issues with some of the ammunition, but that is because its old ammo thats been sitting around a while. The ammo that does fire, which is most of it still, still will shred anything that moves.

Most modern tanks are sufficiently unbothered by the GAU-8 unless the aircraft its mounted to manages to essentially be diving at an extreme angle - one which they are unlikely to achieve in a contested environment as it exposed the aircraft to a lot of incoming. The A-10s main anti-armor armament is and has always has been missiles. Hell, even when they were new the GAU-8 wasn't really effective against contemporary top-end tanks, they could achieve mission kills with careful round placement to knock out roadwheels and tracks, etc. but that was far from guaranteed. Against T-72s they could only really hope for a mission kill unless they managed to come in at a 45-60 degree dive from behind the tank, something they could never do while there were active AA systems operating in the area. Against the T-55s and T-62s A-10s were designed for use against, they only really ever expected to achieve mobility/mission kills under normal operating parameters (but in a "turkey shoot" situation they had the possibility of hard kills against them). Those cannons were really there for things like BMP's, IFVs, APCs, and lighter armor.

Still worth its weight in depleted uranium for that mission alone.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
With regards to low observability it seems the US Navy is looking again at range and payload over Stealth for their next fleet interceptor iteration....possibly.

The need to intercept enemy aircraft and indeed missiles beyond is a pressing concern with China being presented as the 'red' adversary for the future.

A mix of F-35's and fast rangy missile trucks would be ideal from the navy's point of view.

 Totalwar1402 wrote:
Was just watching some Desert Storm footage from an Apache gunners seat. Was difficult to get a sense of perspective from how much zoom he was using but I was surprised the tanks/apc didn’t seem to be shooting back or moving. Basically a turkey shoot. Was one of those black and white images (nighttime?). I thought tanks had laser guided weapons so they could hit a moving target easily? I wouldn’t have thought flying in front of a dozen tanks/BMP was safe for an Apache. I’ve only ever seen one flying at Silverstone and they didn’t seem particularly fast.

If you were in an Abrams tank and in the same situation without any air support what would be the best way of dealing with that? Has a US tank platoon ever been in that situation?

An Abrams likely could shoot a helo out of the sky with it's main gun. It has a really good fire-control system. Not to mention a .50 MG (more than capable of shooting down a helo) Some have AA missles on board but the BFV is the primary AA Platform. The Autocannon and missles on the bradley would make mince of any Chopper dumb enough to be in LOS. Attack Copters have a serious advantage here though - as they have a much better prospective and can often engage from beyond LOS.

Iraqi tank crews were often not adequately supplied. Most likely the primary reason they were no engaging the Apache. Seeing one on the horizon they likely just abandoned their tank LOL.

Cronch wrote:

Stealth bombs?

even current-day systems can engage and destroy mortar shells, tiny and ballistic objects.

And producing more A-10s would be a great idea to uh...kill jeeps and infantry in the open, their guns were barely effective against old Iraqi tanks in the Gulf, they'd be painfully useless against any modern tank and modern missiles are more potent than the stuff they had to contend with back in their glory days.

Point is, at some point it becomes too fussy and impractical to use airborne weapons if you have good active defense systems, massed ground to ground strikes might be the wave of the future (again).

If you can destroy mortar shells AND hypersonic or ballistic missiles AND aircraft, direct-fire weapons probably won't work either.

But I still think your perfect AND cheap laser defense is more Star Wars than science.

Artillery shooting down cruise missile

Still early days and still test range setting not real-world but the technology is there. Stealth and hypervelocity will reduce reaction time

Back to the GAU-8 vs tanks thing, it seems up for debate. I also thought the modern tanks were pretty much impervious to cannon attacks but the jury still seems to be out on the effect of a Mission kill, Firepower kill or Mobility kill vs an outright destruction. I *do* think that operating in relatively un-contested airspace against relatively unarmoured targets has given people an increased opinion of what the A-10 is really capable of.

The future is powerful individuals who can simply stand nearby an AA weapon system to buff its accuracy, increasing the probability of hitting

(sorry, please continue)