A10 pilot's recognition skills

[Royal]

This is becoming a bit of a habit - have to say I kind of agree with LCoH Gerrard

"You've got an A-10 with advanced technology and he can't use a thermal sight to identify whether a tank is a friend or foe. It's ridiculous."

"Combat is what I've been trained for. I can command my vehicle. I can keep it from being attacked."

"What I have not been trained to do is look over my shoulder to see whether an American is shooting at me."

Sorry guys, but there were no sandstorms, it was daylight with good viz - another manslaughter trial for the USAF? :(

[papabear]

Don't allied vehicles have some sort of Friend or Foe identification? (I remember reading how in the friendly fire incident involving 2 British tanks, the F/F machine wasn't working for one of them.) Are such means of identification available between aircraft and armored vehicles? If so, was this another instance of malfunctioning electronics? If they are not available, is there a reason why?

[suppah]

yep, that is sad when those americans dont look what they are shooting. :(

god bless british soldiers...

[Ratamacue]

Yeah, like the Brits never ever cause friendly fire.

[warchild1/27scout]

now i don't know wether it works for what your speaking of but my unit wore a 2inch by 2inch patch on top of our helmets and the stuff it was made of could be seen by the ac-130 spooky gunship and that spooky could fire extremely close to friendly lines.it was sweet p-)

[Zoomie]

The IFF for ground units is only usable when using a thermal or night scope.
http://www4.aixgaming.com/opend/albums/Gulf_War_2_Iraqi_Freedom_Army_Infantry_Divisions/infantry1.jpg
The IFF device is that square on the side. Apparently they show a cool spot or something special that helps them with the Friendly Fire situation.

[papabear]

I was thinking of electronic means of recognizing F/F, such as the system that exists between plane and plane or plane and ship. But if electronic means of identification are not available for ground units during daylight, then I can see why visual verification is so important--no other means of identification are available as a check. I assume that this holds true for remote operators of unmanned machines, like the Predator.

[papabear]

An article at sftt.org relevant to the present discussion on friendly fire incidents:

http://www.sftt.org/cgi-bin/csNews/csNews.cgi?database=DefenseWatch.db&command=viewone&op=t&id=25&rnd=107.3232747405053

This article discusses the incident involving the F-16 pilots who accidentally attacked the Candians conducting night exercises in Afghanistan.

[Scrim]

Just my opinion, but sadly I think its a case of cost. You can send an IFF signal from the ground to an aircraft from a Patriot or Stinger before you shoot it down(you still have to visually ID the aircraft though) or aircraft to aircraft before they engage each other. There is no reason (that I know) ground vehicles can't be equiped with the same technologhy. But an aircraft is a multi-million dollar piece of equipment, a jeep or an APC is not. The low rate of friendly fire incidents does not justify equiping every single allied vehicle with IFF, because of the cost and maintanance that goes with it. I certainly dont agree with this but thats how governments work, lowest bidder and all that. Looks like the only protection our troops have from our trigger happy pilots is the orange tarps you see on top of the vehicles. Dont know what happened to VID in this case, there is no excuse, some pilot fu#k@d up big time.

[GazB]

Everyone has friendly fire incidents... it is just that the US likes to crow about having the best of everything and super this and super that that everyone picks on them when they screw up.

From memory the A10 attack was during daylight so a Thermal imager would actually be worse than a decent TV image on an electro optical system. I was also unaware that the A10 was fitted with either as it is a rather simple basic aircraft built around a big gun.

[Ratamacue]

It may be a simple aircraft, but it's an amazing CAS aircraft and can take a beating like no other plane in the world.

[Zoomie]

And the A-10 does do the job. As with the Patriot-Tornado FF Incident, they said that the Tornado's IFF Beacon either wasn't activated or wasn't working.

[96B]

Nowadays with technology it usually boils down to human error, no offense to anybody out there but I think the USAF pilots are a little quick to press the button or at least the friendly fire incidents have been primarily of USAF fly boys.

As far as America "crowing" about having the best, we actually do have the very best of everything. We have the most well equipped and argueably the best trained military on earth and undoubtedly the most powerful. Call me arrogant but its a true fact.

[IBUsquid]

Unfortunately with that statement of the USA having the most technologicaly advanced military in the world is you have to take into consideration Murphy's Law. The greater the technology the the more can go wrong when it fails. A multimillion dollar piece of equipment can be taken out of service by $.25 resister that failed. Ya know?

[IBUsquid]

Unfortunately with that statement of the USA having the most technologicaly advanced military in the world is you have to take into consideration Murphy's Law. The greater the technology the the more can go wrong when it fails. A multimillion dollar piece of equipment can be taken out of service by $.25 resister that failed. Ya know?

[Zoomie]

Nowadays with technology it usually boils down to human error, no offense to anybody out there but I think the USAF pilots are a little quick to press the button or at least the friendly fire incidents have been primarily of USAF fly boys.

That's because they're the ones that are in the most immediate danger. You have to make a split second decision whether or not to fire or fire if you're being tracked and targeted. The same goes for targets of opportunity.

[96B]

I mentioned USAF for a reason, to me it just seems strange that you never really hear about it much with Navy or Marine Corps pilots. Accidents do happen though and it is tragic.

[a. enders]

I think what some of you (us,whoever...) are forgetting is that the A-10 (to my knowledge at least) doesn't have the super-duper whiz-bang shot-in-the-ear-from-500-miles equipment that the other aircraft do.
These planes are undereuipped in that field,without a third of all that crap in an F-16 (overrated bird anyways,course I'm partial to Navy,that's what my M&P worked on).
Anyways,point is the A-10 jocks had to use the heatseeker warheads on one of their missles (can't remember) as "night vision" in the big GW1.Or did I miss a post that had all that yadda in it already?

[hood]

You also have to remember that the A-10's are some of the oldest in the fleet. They were going to the scrap yard before the first Gulf War in 1991, but since they did well there, they were kept on. The technology on board isn't very high tech except for maybe something that's been strapped on to it.

[papabear]

I've heard it said that the A-10s are more effective tank-busters than the Apache helicopters and the reason why they were being scrapped was mainly because those in charge wanted to replace them with something more expensive and hi-tech, not necessarily something more effective.

[hood]

If I remember correctly, the F-16 was supposed to be its replacement. It can drop guided bombs and missiles better than the A-10, but nothing beats repeated strafing runs at low altitude by the A-10's Vulcan cannon.

[Trigger]

The people who were looking at replacing the A-10 with the F-16 were concerned with, as Hood said the ability to use the newer precision weapons but more importantly the turn radius of both planes. The F-16 can 'toss' a LGB and make a 9G turn in half the distance an A-10 can. That extra distance puts the A-10 in range of certain SAM systems. Personally, I'd like to see the A-10 stick around. Nothing beats slow and low with a big gun especially when your doing close air support or combat search and rescue.

[papabear]

Yeah I remember people arguing that A-10s were better for support of ground forces, and that the F-16 was too "fragile" for this role--it was part of a larger discussion on whether the Air Force really should be separate from the Army, and what sort of functions should be dictating the designing of aircraft. The argument in favor of the F-16 replacing the A-10 was basically along the lines of: the F-16 can fulfill the role of the A-10, but the A-10 can't do everything the F-16 can, so let's avoid redundancy and scrap the A-10. Naturally those who tended to favor the A-10 over the F-16 for ground support also didn't buy into the hooey that air power, by itself, wins wars.

[TacoDelRio]

There's alot of stuff you can miss when flying high and fast, plus the F-16's M61A1 20mm Vulcan cannon does'nt have the hard target engagement and destruction capability that the A-10's GAU-8A 30mm Avenger whoopass cannon does. I agree with the fragility issue on the F-16, even though it's not fragile, it still is'nt an A-10! In my mind (sad), bueracracy would take part in strikes with the F-16 more than the A-10, because theA-10 can better spot, engage, and destroy Targets of Opportunity. I'd rather fly the A-10, but then again, I'm just a wannabe. A well informed, anti-wannabe wannabe!
:o
Hooah! p-)

[96B]

I love the A10 because it is cheap and very effective. The Air Force just wants to have nothing but high tech super duper aircraft and frankly doesnt want to have something as low tech as the Warthog. Although the F16 is much faster, more maneuverable, and has more advanced avionics, an A10 can take a hell of alot more damage than a Falcon can. Regardless, it is inevitable that the A10 will see the scrap yard in the near future.

[Chops]

This guy missed the 2 by 4 Union Jack on a trailing vehicle.... hmmm....

rgds sadly

Chops

[Royal]

A. Enders
I think what some of you (us,whoever...) are forgetting is that the A-10 (to my knowledge at least) doesn't have the super-duper whiz-bang shot-in-the-ear-from-500-miles equipment that the other aircraft do.
Anyways,point is the A-10 jocks had to use the heatseeker warheads on one of their missles (can't remember) as "night vision" in the big GW1.Or did I miss a post that had all that yadda in it already?

The A10 used canon only at low level (the HCR survivors could see the pilots face) in daylight with good visability in a coalition controlled area (Al Fawr), where were are patrolling in berets with no CBA. In the '91 incident Mavericks were used followed by a low level strafing run with canon...

To come back to my original point - Is this another case of a USAF (reserve) pilot who needs to calm down a bit and brush up on his/her recognition skills? I know **** happens - but over the last few years a bit too much has come from the USAF :cry:

[Angus]

I'll be mighty depressed when the day comes that the A-10s stop flying over my house here in Maryland many times a week during the warm months of the year because they've been scrapped. Low and slow...which is exactly how they go over my house in groups of 2 and 3. Man that's going to be a real bummer. But I'm getting cathartic so I'll move on to something more interesting...

The 30mm Avenger cannon... How capable is it at taking out the strongest MBTs? I understand and have heard stories of it chewing through lighter weight things but have yet to see/hear anything definitive about whether the cannon can dispatch a tank such as a T80 and better with 1, 2, 3, etc passes and how many rounds the pilots would usually fire at such a target. I'm sure it's no slouch, but just how good is it really? Any good reading out there or solid info?

[Trigger]

Personally, I feel awful about the friendly fire incident(s). I think they are the worst part of modern warfare. Sincere apologies to the victims.

As for the GAU-8A cannon on the A-10, it's capable of 2,000 - 4,000 rpm. Each 30mm DU round hits with the force equivalent to lift a 30 ton weight one foot off the ground, focused on a spot the size of a dime. I don't know if any tank can withstand that.

[GazB]

I heard the Du round fired by the Avenger has an armour piercing capability of 69mm (range unstated).
As the Russians found in Afghanistan if you fit a 50 cal gun to a helo (even a nice 4 barrel gatling one) then you fight on uneven terms if the enemy has 50 cals too.

What I am trying to say is that aircraft are easier to spot and hit than ground targets... moving targets are easy to spot.
The 30mm GAU is an impressive weapon but then so is a SAM.
SAMs outrange 30mm guns.
Being able to penetrate on a first pass assumes no AA defence to allow a first pass.
With every man and his dog having Stingers or the Soviet equivelent if you want to go in low and slow then you certainly don't want to fly over targets.
Experience seems to have shown the USAF that missiles offer better survival chances for all aircraft... not just helos.
The problem is that the A-10 is a very compromised aircraft... it is built around the gun. I think putting in a more sensible sized weapon like the 25mm gatling they put on their harriers, and then using the weight saving to add better detection and defence equipment would be worth the investment. (Plus more powerful engines).

[Trigger]

What I am trying to say is that aircraft are easier to spot and hit than ground targets... moving targets are easy to spot.
Not at night unless you have NVGs.

SAMs outrange 30mm guns.
A10s carry Maverick missiles among other weapons. Chaff and Flares can fool SAMs. Jinking helps too.

With every man and his dog having Stingers or the Soviet equivelent if you want to go in low and slow then you certainly don't want to fly over targets.
Huh?

The problem is that the A-10 is a very compromised aircraft.
Do you mean the A10 that offers a titanium 'bathtub' for a cockpit, capable of withstanding POINT BLANK 37mm and 57mm hits? Or the A10 that can lose one engine, half of a wing, half the tail, ALL hydraulics and still get it's pilot home? Maybe you mean the A10 with engines mounted high and aft, partially shielded by the twin tails. How much ordinance can a Harrier carry? How many rounds of sensible 25mm? Not as much as an A10.
Speed is about the only thing the A10 lacks. :fork:

[Fargin]

A hog is a hog is a hog...



Friendly fire is a part of war and has always been. War is hell and people die.

[digrar]

The Britt armoured crews might want to start flying the Stars and Stripes next to their Union Jacks. As well as being fairly average at telling Britt armour from Iraqi, they're not recognising the union Jack flying from the vehicles either.

[Steve Andrews]

What Iraqi AFV does a Scimitar look like?
No excuses. Slack drills gents.

[Zoomie]

Also remember that we're really not supposed to be flying flags of the coalition.

[digrar]

If it was going to stop me getting a missile up my arse I would break that rule.

[papabear]

The Britt armoured crews might want to start flying the Stars and Stripes next to their Union Jacks. As well as being fairly average at telling Britt armour from Iraqi, they're not recognising the union Jack flying from the vehicles either.

Evidently, that is what they are trying to do...
http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-12280825,00.html

[GazB]

"It may be a simple aircraft, but it's an amazing CAS aircraft and can take a beating like no other plane in the world."

I didn't say it was crap... just that it was basic and simple.

"And the A-10 does do the job. As with the Patriot-Tornado FF Incident, they said that the Tornado's IFF Beacon either wasn't activated or wasn't working."

Interesting that that Tornado flew over several other Patriot batteries and was not fired upon. Equally the F-16 that was almost fired upon (but defended itself) also flew over several batteries without response. I'd say it was a problem with Patriots software... there are probably quite a few million lines of code... would surprise me if there weren't a few problems to be ironed out... shame the human operators didn't override the launch to save the tornado crew.

"As far as America "crowing" about having the best, we actually do have the very best of everything. We have the most well equipped and argueably the best trained military on earth and undoubtedly the most powerful. Call me arrogant but its a true fact."

Arrogant and wrong.

"The F-16 can 'toss' a LGB and make a 9G turn in half the distance an A-10 can. "

Rubbish.

The speed an A-10 flies at it is almost impossible to pull 9 gs. The faster you travel the more gs you pull for a rate of turn.
At mach 3 a 9g turn might mean turning at 3-4 degrees per second, while at 100 mph it is almost impossible to turn at 9 gs... but if you could you'd be doing something like 270 degrees per second.
The F-16 will be flying more than twice the speed of an A-10 and will therefore have to pull more than twice the number of gs to perform the same manouver in the same area.

"Do you mean the A10 that offers a titanium 'bathtub' for a cockpit, capable of withstanding POINT BLANK 37mm and 57mm hits?"

The titanium cockpit of an A-10 is equivlent to 120mm of RHA at 1,000m... that is very impressive. Do you have a link that shows results of these tests? ...boy that is so impressive you'd think none had ever been shot down...

"Or the A10 that can lose one engine, half of a wing, half the tail, ALL hydraulics and still get it's pilot home?"

And what sort of flight performance would it have if any of these things had happened? Does ground fire stop after the first hit? I also repeat has a hog never been brought down in combat?

" Maybe you mean the A10 with engines mounted high and aft, partially shielded by the twin tails."

Modern missiles can target any part of an aircraft.

"How much ordinance can a Harrier carry? How many rounds of sensible 25mm? Not as much as an A10. "

Was my suggestion to replace the A-10 with the Harrier? I don't think it was. BTW how often does the A-10 go into combat at max weight?

"Speed is about the only thing the A10 lacks."

And one thing it doesn't really need except to reduce transit times.


"A10s carry Maverick missiles among other weapons. Chaff and Flares can fool SAMs. Jinking helps too."

If Grails can bring down A-10s Iglas and Stingers can too... and if they can then Strela-10M3s, Tors, sosnas and 9M311-1Ms can too.

[Ratamacue]

America does have the best equipped and AMONG the best trained soldiers in the world. The only ill-equipped part of the US Military is the Marine Corps, but I won't digress in to that.

As for the LGB drop/9G turn, he was saying that in reference to the F16, not A10.

The A10 is without a doubt the most durable fighter that any military has to offer (just like its predecessor, the P47 Thunderbolt).

You say that the use of missiles contributes highly to the survival rate of aircraft. Yes, it does. But the A10 is designed for Close Air Support. When you're doing CAS, you need to get in to the range where you can use your cannon, rockets, napalm, whatever the hell you need to get the job done.

There is no plane on Earth that can outperform the A10 when it comes to close air support. None. Niente. The Harrier is a great design for CAS, but its range is far too short. Hopefully the F35B will alleviate that when it comes in to service.

In addition, hand-held anti-aircraft weapons are not as common as you think. Yes, they are available. But they are also very expensive.

As for A-10 loss numbers, they're actually extremely low for an aircraft that is designed for nothing but CAS. I believe that 15 were heavily damaged in Desert Storm (destroyed engines, wingtip losses, tail losses, etc.), yet were able to make it back to base. 12 of those 15 returned to action. 6 other A-10's were shot down and lost. So the total loss count of the A-10 is 6 (9 if you consider the ones that made it back to base). That's very impressive for a plane with almost 40 years of service and went through the entire Vietnam War.

[BiZ]

America does have the best equipped and AMONG the best trained soldiers in the world.

I do not wish to start any "who's better" arguements but I do believe that many Americans, maily those who haven't actually served with their Forces or been overseas to train/exchange with other countries Forces seem to be full of themselves soemthing fearce.

I suggest you get yourselves some postings to the following areas to see the big wide world for what it really is outside of what CNN tells you. :D

# The UK, especially training/selection for Infantry Sgts.

# Israel, for Infantry MOUT tactics and training.

# Australia, for SF LRRP and vehicle mounted ops tactics and CT. (Hence why SEAL and DELTA along with "Nightstalker" aircraft head Swansborne way twice a year to use the SASR outdoor CT MOUT areas, they are simply a true "better than anything else" facility.

I'd also suggest postings to other places, but then I wouldn't be talking from experience so I'll stop there.

For sheer weight of force, and some great equipment, yes the US is superior to any emeny....but not too far ahead in most areas to its Allies....

As for the USMC..... I don't wish to place any comment on them for fear of reprisals from those that love them so dearly... :D
Hopefully they get what they deserve one day soon. (eg: better funding and doctrine...leadership more in line with the modern US Army mode of thinking etc).

[Chops]

Ratamacue

The A10 served throughout Vietnam???!!! First I've heard of it! You been chewing some funny quat again? :D

Rgds

Chops

PS- good to see USAF are equal opportunity friendly fire exponents- BBC are reporting 3 US SF killed along with unknown number of Kurds in N. Iraq today resulting from an ill judged airstrike. Sad, very sad.

PPS- BiZ- well said. I agree heartily. It appears that US Army would do well picking up a few tips on VCPs from the Brits or Israelis.

[96B]

I get what you are saying but I dont think its good for any friendly fire mishaps to occur. It really does suck to hear about that **** but in most cases I dont think it is any of our business to criticize these pilots because of the total ammount of airstrikes being flown and the fact that most are being flown by USAF pilots, so this kind of thing is bound to happen. Like I said, in most cases, but sometimes the pilots probably do get trigger happy.

I remember one video of an Apache pilot in Desert Storm who was about to shoot an APC with a hellfire at night and he specifically said "I hope these guys are enemy" before he proceeded to decimating the vehicle. It turns out that it was an American vehicle. He did not even know for sure that it was an enemy before he blew it up, I think that if it is at all possible to completely verify friend from foe especially when you are not being immediately threatened from enemy fire you should make every effort to do so.

[Chops]

Hey Semper

I was being ironic mate. No way was I inferring blue on blues are anything but horrid, regrettable incidents. Just appears that some of the fly boys are getting a little too keen to play with their toys.

I agree totally with your second comment. Today's incident highlights it- why light up a non armoured vehicle convoy (most were cars or 4X4s) before confirming it wasn't friendly? Especially in the North where it is well known US/UK SF are operating with Kurdish irregulars. I guess I just dont understand what is going through that pilot's mind? No ZSUs, no SAM vehicles- so why race in?

Puzzled

Chops

[Smoothie104]

The A-10 was deliverd into service from 1975 to 1984, not in the 'Nam

[Ratamacue]

My mistake...so it has 28 years of service.

[Zoomie]

PS- good to see USAF are equal opportunity friendly fire exponents- BBC are reporting 3 US SF killed along with unknown number of Kurds in N. Iraq today resulting from an ill judged airstrike. Sad, very sad.

The air strike was not exactly USAF. It could of been the Navy or the UK as well. The USAF isn't the only one dropping bombs and shooting missles in the country.

[Silverado]

Define irony. early on in the conflict there were some raised eyebrows within certain sections of the media (primarily those without a clue) when an RAAF pilot chose not to engage a ground target, the reason being he was unable to identify it to his own satisfaction that it was a legit military target. Like I said it's ironic that a pilot would be critisised albeit indirectly for sticking to that one fundamental rule that you learn on day one - Identify your target.

[Chops]

Hey Silverado

I totally agree- that WAS irony. Incredible that the media expects some kind of almost godlike duty of care when it comes to endangering civies and then criticises pilots when they abort a strike because he couldnt positively id as a military target.

As an Australian ex pat, I'm proud of that RAAF fly boy. Pity those same skills dont always transfer across to all of our allies.

PS and according to John Simpson of the BBC who was wounded in the incident, it was USAF. Check http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/04/07/1049567603692.html

Rgds

Chops

[Trigger]

I didn't say it was crap... just that it was basic and simple.

as in keep it simple STUPID. It works. I don't have links but I have books and photos in reference to the punishment it can take and GET ITS PILOT HOME. Obviously with degraded flight performance DUH! I think you need to read a little more about it.
" Maybe you mean the A10 with engines mounted high and aft, partially shielded by the twin tails."

Modern missiles can target any part of an aircraft.
I was referring to IR (hand held) missiles dip****.

[Chops]

Handbags at dawn ladies...

Rgds

(Yellow Card) Chops

[Trigger]

mmm'kay I'll shut up now. Chops is gettin' cranky. :(

[Chops]

Chops is always cranky!! ;)

Rgds

C

[96B]

I may be wrong, but my main point with this is to me it seems that with almost all American friendly fire accidents it involves the USAF, not the Navy or Marines. Maybe I am somewhat ignorant on the statistics but I have not heard of any Navy or Marine Corps pilots bombing the wrong guys thus far.

[GazB]

I was referring to IR (hand held) missiles dip****.

Hahahaha... were you referring to redeye or SA-7A?

Stinger, SA-14, SA-16, SA-18, Mistral have all-aspect seekers... meaning they don't need to see the last turbine stage up the engine pipe to get a lock and can hit an aircraft from the front.

The damage the A-10 can take is quite impressive but then warheads from SAMs have moved on as well. Do you think it was an accident that against a country that had been through 5 years of civil war and was not in a good position financially (Serbia) was sooo dangerous regarding MANPADs that the minimum height NATO aircraft could fly at was 20,000ft?

But no, the A-10 was only shot down less than a dozen times in Desert storm, where the flat desert and rather antiquated 1960s style Soviet air defence systems were so formidible... the kind of defences the A-10 was actually designed for.
But then in it was actually designed for WWIII where air superiority could not always be guaranteed and enemy units would always include ZSU-23-4s and later Tunguskas as well as SA-9s and SA-13s, not to mention SA-15s and at a higher level SA-11s and SA-10s. Each BMP in both Tank divisions and Motor Rifle divisions had a gripstock for a MANPADs with SA-16s and SA-18s carried with all units. And of course add to that trees and hills and buildings etc etc... if Kosovo was too dangerous then it wouldn't be much good anywhere except the desert or perhaps anywhere where there was no ready supply of MANPADs. Most modern organised armies have plenty of MANPADs... they are the cheapest SAM available and very effective.

[96B]

I'd like to see any SAM try to shoot down a Raptor when they enter service. woot

[Trigger]

Pardon my handbag Chops.


have all-aspect seekers... meaning they don't need to see the last turbine stage up the engine pipe to get a lock and can hit an aircraft from the front.

no kidding. the all aspect seekers detect the heat generated on the leading edges of aircraft wings, and fuselage etc. Generally planes moving very fast would be prime targets. The A10 isn't very fast so I would deduce that it's engines would generate the greatest amount of heat.
With the exception of the friendly fire incident (human error), I would say the A-10 has more than proven itself an outstanding warplane.

[GazB]

no kidding. the all aspect seekers detect the heat generated on the leading edges of aircraft wings, and fuselage etc. Generally planes moving very fast would be prime targets. The A10 isn't very fast so I would deduce that it's engines would generate the greatest amount of heat.


All aspect seekers are sensitive to detect and lock onto things that are not incredibly hot. Early heat seekers could only detect very hot items like engine exhaust tubes. Often they merely locked onto the hottest thing in their field of view. That is why flares or flying toward the sun were great countermeasured. More modern cooled heat sensors in an all aspect missile don't have to lock onto the hottest thing or even the second or third hottest thing in their field of view. That is why modern planes over war zones fire large numbers of flares. To try to fool the missile with heat patterns rather than points of heat that would distract an earlier gen missile. The fact that turboprop UAVs have been shot down by MANPADs suggests that the A-10 certainly flys fast enough to be a target.


With the exception of the friendly fire incident (human error), I would say the A-10 has more than proven itself an outstanding warplane.


I don't think the friendly fire incident was the fault of the aircraft, and I agree it is a very good aircraft... I just think it would be better if it had better target aquisition equipment and less gun.


I'd like to see any SAM try to shoot down a Raptor when they enter service.

The improvements currently being made on imaging IR seeker technology suggests you might get your wish.

[DeltaWhisky58]

I'd like to see any SAM try to shoot down a Raptor when they enter service.

Remember, any aircraft is only as good as its pilot - I'm sure a Raptor would fall victim to a SAM under the right (or wrong) circumstances.

I've just waded through three pages of arguements for/against the A-10 - OK if that's what you want, but how do you explain to the wife/kids/mother of the dead guys, how an A-10 pilot didn't recognise AFVs which were on his own side, and an allied flag which is the same bloody colours as his own.

I'm sorry guys, but most of your arguements don't cut ice - besides being unfortunate, this was plain unprofessional - if the Reserve A-10 Jocks aren't up to speed on their AFV recongnition (their primary mission after all), their jobs should go to pilots who are!

[Knave]

I said this on a forum after some Canadian infantry were killed after being hit in a friendly fire incident in Afghanistan, during a training exercise.

War is easy to analyze when you're sitting at home behind your computer monitor or in front of your TV. You can easily make assumptions and draw conclusions because you're presented with a whole story, nice and neat and packaged for you on Page 6 of the Post.

You're not being shot at or under constant threat of being shot at. The possibility of making mistakes multiplies exponentially when you add in the pressure of being in a combat zone. You're not having to consider the options while watching events unfold below or in front of you. The capacity to misunderstand is great...

Add to that the desire of many troops to do the right thing; to help their comrades-in-arms on the ground, to personnally contribute to the entire war effort.... or maybe to "be the hero." Our servicemen are paid to make a difference; many servicemen personnally believe that they are in the military for that express reason - to make a difference.

Knowing that, you can perhaps understand why a pilot or gunner may make the personal choice to make a difference and open fire, with all the right intentions - only to find out that they misunderstood the situation in front of them or incorrectly interpreted the information they were given, and were mistaken in their decision. Mistakes in war often have dire consequences to someone....

And remember that... friendly fire casualties are nothing new, they've happened since the beginning of warfare. It's only that, in the modern world, we're able to count them.

[Royal]

No one said that flying in a combat envirnoment is easy - the original thread concerned aircrew skill levels - not the pro's and cons of the A10 - A very good close support aircraft.

Most of the recent blue on blue's have occured in a total air superiority situation (although there may have been a SAM threat). During the attack on the RRF in 1991 the pilot made 2 passes at low level the first fing mavericks, the second canon. To the best of my knowledge the Iraqi's had and have nothing that looks anything like a Warrior to anyone who knows their AFV's (and an A10 pilot certainly bloody should).

The PPCLI guys were killed by another USAF reservist who was flying above the threat altitude for small arms fire, over a declared exercise area and who was specifically told twice not to engage.

With regard to the attack on the HCR - see my comments on the 1991 incident and change Warrior to Scimitar/Spartan... I wait to see how much blame attaches to the SF guy who was FACing in the Kurditan incident.

Sorry, but they are all cowboys and they should all be/have been court martialed, not just the F16 jock.

[DeltaWhisky58]

Sorry, but they are all cowboys and they should all be/have been court martialed, not just the F16 jock.


At last someone had the balls to say it..........there is no other real answer. To fail so dismally at one's primary role is nothing short of criminal!

[Scrim]

Latest version of Stinger(RMP) tracks not just with IR, but also NUV (negative ultra violet), so it doesnt need any heat signature. As long as the aircraft can be seen visually from the ground, its history, Raptor, Nighthawk included. All those "unacounted for" Stingers floating around the middle east are the old basic versions.

[Trigger]

Sorry, but they are all cowboys and they should all be/have been court martialed, not just the F16 jock.
While I agree that if after a fair investigation of the facts the pilots involved were negligent they should absoulutely be court martialed, I have a problem with labeling them 'all cowboys'. It's not a fair or accurate description of modern combat pilots. Most of the ones I know are anything but trigger happy cowboys.

[hood]

I can't speak to whether they should have been court martialed, but the pilot in Afghanistan who killed the Canadians can definitely be labeled as of cowboy mentality. He specifically disobeyed direct orders and disregarded all the normal methods and tactics to ensure that there wasn't friendly fire. He even questioned his own actions 3 seconds after he did it. That's not to say they're all like that, but this one certainly was.

[Royal]

Thank you.

Subject closed, handbags away - at least until the Board/Court Martial???