A-10 vs Ju-87

[timshatz]

Frogfoot has a good rep too. Not as surviveable as the A10, but it has a great rep in ground attack.

 

[Glider]

I think the 40MM had a prox fuse as well. Not absolutely positive though.

I understand that proximity fuses were for guns larger than 3in during the war. After the war 3in guns had proximity fuses which was one reason why they were intended to replace a number of quad 40mm.

I think proximity fuses for 40mm was around from the mid 1950's

One observation is that the A10 if it was to be compared to anything then the Il 2 would be the first choice

 

[davebender]

A10 if it was to be compared to anything then the Il 2 would be the first choice

I agree.

The Ju-87 was designed as a dive bomber. It operated above the effective range of most light flak except during the bomb run. Heavy armor was not a design requirement.

The Hs-129, Su-25, IL2 and A-10 were designed to operate low and slow for extended periods of time. Consequently getting shot at by small arms and light flak is normal and expected. Pilot armor and other such survivability features are crucial to mission success. Modern attack helicopters like the AH-64 have a similiar need for additional armor, redundant control systems etc.

 

[beaupower32]

A-10C revolutionizes close air support

I had a chance to fly the A-10C simulator at DM in 2008 and this year. It has remarkably more advanced avionics and does indeed have all weather, night or day capability to deliver or direct precision weapns danger close to friendly.

The simulator is made by a company named Eagle Dynamics. They are making a video game (wich is in beta) based off the simulator for the Air Force.

The A-10 has no radar. So its only defense is the Aim-9 and the gun (which IRC a pilot used the gun in the first gulf war to down two helicopters).

The modern avionics is part of the A-10C (the A-10B was a two seater version that never won the Air Force over, but the only surviving example is out at Edwards AFB in California. A picture is below) program. Two MFCD in the cockpit, along with a vast array of other things, a stick based off the F-16 and I believe a right throttle based of the F-15.

 

[davparlr]

Ditto lesof"Dan's"primus thoughts. Even most modern/latest A/C are NOT made as tough, survivable with mech' redundancies as the Fairchild (Fairchild-Dornier or as now known M7 Aerospace) A-10's.

I believe Northrop Grumman purchased the A-10 program from Fairchild in 1987.

 

[davparlr]

In any war today the A-10 would be, as it has so far, far more effective than any German aircraft because of the domination the USAF has (although German domination in Poland was similar). As soon as any radar gun turns on it will die. If defensive missile system is in place too long, it will die. If it moves it will die. Decoys clutter all antiaircraft weapons.

If war broken out in Europe in the 70-80s, a blood bath would have ensued with most weapons system swatted like cannon fodder, see Yom Kippur War. While losses would be high, I think the A-10 effectiveness in tank plinking would be good due to good low level masking, rugged survivability, and airborne threats engaged.

 

[The Basket]

The A-10 would have fought WarPac forces during the period late 70s to 1990.

So infantrymans AK to the MIG-29 and all points in the middle.

Without assured air superiority and a dense AAA and SAM umbrella to fly through.

 

[lesofprimus]

This is what an A-10 looks like after a close-inboard SAM detonation.... With redundant airframe parts, taking a Hog outta the sky is no easy feat...

I think the A-10 effectiveness in tank plinking would be good due to good low level masking, rugged survivability, and airborne threats engaged.

Got to wholeheartedly agree with dav's statement... SAM's cant track what they cant see behind the trees and hills...

 

[davebender]

SAM's cant track what they cant see behind the trees and hills

That works both ways. Light AA systems positioned on hills have been known to fire down on CAS aircraft flying in a valley. Light AA systems positioned in a woods or town are difficult to spot before they open fire.

 

[lesofprimus]

True enough dave, but the A-10 can take that small calibre stuff all day long and make it back to base...

Unless that golden BB finds its mark of course...

 

[timshatz]

This is what an A-10 looks like after a close-inboard SAM detonation....

Jeez, look at that thing.

Step 1.
Replace engine.
Step 2.
Replace underwear.

 

[Shortround6]

The A-10 was designed to be more survivable than other contemporary planes doing the same job.

more survivable does not mean invulnerable.

More survivable means more of your pilots/planes getting home after doing the same missions or facing the same threats. Not everybody getting home, just more than any other aircraft.

 

[lesofprimus]

Ur not trying to actually tell me something I already know right??

 

[davebender]

That's the problem with CAS aircraft. They are getting peppered with small arms fire on every mission in addition to dodging real AA fire and fighter aircraft. Not to mention the risk of hitting the ground during a strafing run. CAS pillots must be incredibly brave.

 

[Shortround6]

Ur not trying to actually tell me something I already know right??

Nope.

But some people seem to think if it wasn't totally bullet proof it was a failure

 

[renrich]

I believe that in ACM, the A10 would be survivable than the JU87.

 

[davebender]

Not so sure about that.

The Ju-87 was not a fighter aircraft by any stretch of the imagination yet historically it did shoot down quite a few Soviet fighter aircraft. Would the A-10 perform as well vs Mig-29s during the 1980s?

 

[Shortround6]

Not quite the same thing is it?

Are you going to restrict the Mig 29 to guns only?

Are you going to restrict the Mig 29 to MK I eyeball gun sight?
OK not quite but no radar and/or computer help in generating aim points in the HUD?

How many of those JU 87 "kills" were obtained by the rear gunner?

Mig 29 is 6 years newer than an A-10.
How many LA-5s did the Ju-87 shoot down with it's wing mounted guns?

Do you want to get into relative climb rates and other performance factors?

 

[tomo pauk]

Since Harrier managed to shoot down many (on paper) better fighters (not only them) in Falkland war, don't see why A-10 would've not been able to kill MiG-21/23s. Something like I-16 vs. Bf-109 affair.
Sure enough, MiG-29/31 Su-27 (with more modern radars) would be more of a threat.

 

[renrich]

The problem a fighter has in trying to down an A10 is that the A10 is down very low where the fighter has to attack from above. His radar and heat seekers are not going to do well against the ground clutter. He also has to avoid running into the ground and an overshoot could be fatal if the A10 can get in a shot with his gun. The A10 can turn very sharply, much better than the fighter. In WW2, the JU87 was not as likely to be as low as the A10 and the fighter was relying only on visual abilities to get in hits plus he could not turn as well, compared to the fighter as the A10 and was not as heavily armed or armored.