Save The Apache, Lose The Gold Plating (AH-64D Performance During Gulf War II)

Soldiers For The Truth ^ | April 29, 2003 | David Hackworth

[PatrioticAmerican]

Yeah, but ya just got to love that bird. Frankly, besides an F-22, the yank-n-bank hog would be my first choice. I love that kind of flying. Staight, fast, level, missile button-pusher type aircraft wouldn't be as much fun.

[LibKill]

As for the A-10: Great airplane that belongs to the wrong service – the U.S. Air Force – where the top brass treat it like Cinderella with wings. These trusty flying machines should be transferred to the Army and the Marine Corps for use alongside their AH-64A Apaches and AH-1 Super Cobras as part of an awesome, well-rounded CAS fleet that would support our ground troops with the best combination of the right stuff.

Interesting idea. However, there is some regulation or law or something or other that severely limits the use of armed fixed-wing aircraft by the Army. I read about it some years ago in a (paper) magazine, so I don't have a link.

The USMC might be interested, but only if the A-10 can be launched from an aircraft carrier.

[RusIvan]

And with the A-10's round able to penetrate heavy armor at 8,000', and the ZSU being lighly armored, the range for an A-10 gun to achieve a kill on a ZSU is well beyond the ZSU range. Won't go into specifics, but I assure you, even with a 5-mil dispersion of the gun, the ZSU is toast. ++

ZSU? You probably mean Shilka? It is a history already.

Now there are new russian toy. Name is Tunguska.
http://www.roe.ru/video/tungm1.htm ..

The link for all new russian toys for sale.
http://www.roe.ru/video/video.htm

[usmcobra]

Hell if the Marines can land and take off a C-130 from a carrier, I don't see why they can't do the same with an A-10.

It's gotta have folding wings though.

[sargunner]

Spot on Chile, know that aircraft well.

[Mark Felton]

neat video. But the Tunguska has to lose that radar if it is to survive. The video shows it to have both search radar and active tracking radar.

Even with frequency hopping, LPI or low duty cycle, the tracking radars survivability will be nearly impossible with the newer loitering type anti-radiation missiles.

If it used an LPIR search radar, or better yet an off platform network radar feed and used a passive electro-optical sight then survivability could be much improved.

I believe the Indian Tunguska replaced the tracking radar with a passive EO suite.

When the Tunguska uses an EO suite in order to survive it also loses it's range advantage, it suddenly becomes a very close range weapon and subject to delays in acquiring a fast incoming nap-of-the-earth aircraft such as an A-10.

An A-10 would deal quickly with an electro-optic Tunguska. (the guns would kill it before track was acquired) An A-10 will never have to deal with an active radar Tunguska (it will be dead before an A-10 can get to it).

The most effective anti-aircraft ground based weapons today against helicopters and A-10's remain the shoulder launched surface-to-air missiles and optically tracked, or iron-sighted machine guns. The problem is never knowing when you are flying right over the top of them. You might escape one, but if you get shot at by several in succession it will be very tricky.

[Mark Felton]

I just read a little more on the SAM missile used by the Tunguska. It requires the tracking radar to operate, so there is no option to use the missile with a pure electro-optic sensor suite.

This makes the Tunguska very vulnerable to countermeasures and loitering anti-radiation missiles.

The missiles operate rather like a TOW missile. They have 2 beacons on the back which are tracked by an electro-optic tracker but the signals to guide the missile are sent by the tracking radar (instead of wires like the TOW).

Thus, without the tracking radar the missiles cannot be used.

[RusIvan]

You probably red about old version of Tunguska.

I red in Runet that Tunguska capable to defend herself against shots on her. She can shoot down incoming missiles so HARM maybe is not too lethal for her.
By using her missiles which have long range she can take out approaching A-10 before she will be in the range of his cannon. Missile shoots longer then cannon?
Tunguska can engage the ground targets too. So helicopter which landed is her tagret too:).

Accually I'm not specialist in that theme. Just showed you that there are some new toys in Russia's arsenal.

So maybe Longbow can fight 40 year old soviet armors of Iraq but new russian armors are more sophisticated.

Did you see that video? I like it very much.
http://www.roe.ru/video/t80u.htm ..

[Mark Felton]

The Tunguska may be able to shoot down a UAV or slow speed cruise missile, if it can see it, but it will be unable to reliably shoot down a HARM which is very high speed. Particularly in a ECCM environment.

I just read also that the SA-19 missile used by the latest Tunguska has a vertical ceiling of less than 4,000 meters. That means it can easily be destroyed by a 500lb GPS guided bomb from an aircraft at high altitude.

The T-80 tank can be destroyed by the TOW2A, TOW2B (top attack) and all Hellfire missile variants. All of these missiles were designed to counter armor in excess of that on the T-80. They have been proven against such armor.

[RusIvan]

I just read also that the SA-19 missile used by the latest Tunguska has a vertical ceiling of less than 4,000 meters. That means it can easily be destroyed by a 500lb GPS guided bomb from an aircraft at high altitude. +++

You probably red that on ROSOBOROBEXPORT site? That one with video?

You know all what they publish is info on diminished export models.
What goes for russian army may have lot of biger capabilities. Because it is not much sense to develop new system which cann't counter well known threats.

I red in russian press that shoulder fired missiles of latest modifications can reach 10 km altitude. And the new conception of anti-aircraft counter fight means that russian troops will be soaked in thousands of such missiles.
Even each supply truck have to have one of that missile in cabin.

It may turn the sky to the hell for aviation of enemy. It is always esier to spot the flighting subject in sky then the disgised vehicle on ground.

Very soon the aircraft will compel to drop bombs from startospheric altitude and on supersonic speed. And it will not be easy ride anyway:)).

BTW that 500 lb bomb moving very slow so it is easy target. As red that Tunguska may take out weapons shot on her.

Does that HARM missile has supersonic speed? I beleive that Tunguska can shoot on supersonic target as well. But I'm not sure.

The T-80 tank can be destroyed by the TOW2A, TOW2B (top attack) and all Hellfire missile variants. +++

Probably you right. It is not wonder tank. But it can take out any platform who can shoot that weapons.

So as it is everything comes to quality of soldering.