A-10 Thunderbolt II for Pakistan

[SBD-3]

yes but way back then even the yanks did not know its potential - the A-10 was beset with all kinds of problems and the company Fairchild went bankrupt until rescued by the pentagon/congress with a order for the warthog!

once again guys forget it!
convince the americans to provide more cobras - they will do just fine!

IMHO tigers are better than cobras.if we really want somthing from US we should ask for apache longbows

 

[niaz]

"However A-10 is vulnerable against MANPADs such as Stingers as well as SAMs and other aircrafts. Therefore while A-10 is well suited for air forces which can achieve air superiority over the battlefield and can successfully jam enemy SAMs; its utility against Pakistan’s traditional enemy such as India is debatable."

Niaz,

Every aircraft is vulnerable to something in a high-density AAA/SAM environ. Remember that the A-10 was designed primarily with an attack by the Warsaw Pact on western Europe or south to the Persian gulf. In either instance we anticipated a great deal of armored targets.

The A-10's evolution was a complement to our air-ground mix of weapons. The successful deployment of A-10s against TANK armor was predicated on the battlefield's air defense systems being effectively suppressed. This is commonly known as SEAD (Suppression of Enemy Air Defense) and can typically entail a mix of rotor-winged, artillery, and fast-movers to clear the battlespace sufficient to permit A-10s to do their job.

Wild Weasels light up SAM systems over the targeted area and jam or destroy them. E.W. teams jam air defense radio networks. Artillery attacks soft SAM/AAA targets (i.e. radar dishes on vehicles, exposed missile systems and hand-held SAM carrying infantry and exposed towed AAA systems). Apache/Cobra attack vehicle-mounted AAA (ZSU 23-4/ZSU 57-2 systems). Finally, A-10s make their gun-runs on armor. Each defensive system peels another layer of defense away to enable the hogs to feast.

No single weapon is expected to survive a high-density SAM/AAA area. Without all working in concert to synergized effect, there will be a far lower liklihood of success. Remember, the ultimate target of this choreographed violence are the TANKS.

This battlefield doesn't represent the threat that even the Afghan-Soviet war postured. The most dangerous weapon consistently displayed to date is the 12.7mm DsHk HMG. I've heard that there are some ZPU 14.5mm weapons and, I suppose, ZU 23-2 towed systems might be available in some modest number. Both of these weapons would likely be quite old. How serviceable? Who knows.

That said, I still contend that A-1 Skyraiders would be PERFECT for this battlefield. Good speed, great weapon loads and loiter time. Very, very durable in a battlefield not markedly different from South Vietnam WRT the AAA threat.

Many thanks for the detailed explanation. It reinforces my argument that in India versus Pakistan battlefield, where it is doubtful if either air force could achieve complete air superiority as well as possess satisfactory SEAD capability; effectiveness of dedicated anti armour weapon system such as A-10 is questionable; especially when compared with more versatile aircraft i.e. F-16.

 

[S-2]

In 1986 at the end of a one week exercise at 29 Palms, Ca. I watch an Army CH-46 being chased across the desert floor by an AH-1W Marine Cobra followed by a U.S.A.F. A-10 pulling in behind the Cobra with a Navy FA-18 Hornet chasing the A-10.

Funny as hell at about 300 meters off the deck.

That said, you postulate two reasons why a dedicated anti-armor air system's ability to effectively operate on an Indo-Pakistani Punjabi high-intensity battlefield is "questionable"- 1.) Neither side should expect complete air-superiority (last I read that's called "AIR SUPREMACY) and, 2.) neither possesses a satisfactory SEAD capability.

Would you therefore say the same of your AH-1 Cobras?

You could be correct, though. The A-10 has never actually flown in the battlefield air defense environ imagined for CENTAG in the mid-70s/early 80s. DESERT STORM over Kuwait wasn't close. So nobody actually knows. Still, it's not like we postulated air superiority into our assumptions nor that the WARPACT battlefield ADA assets (both missiles and guns) weren't both considerable AND formidibly capable.

The threat justified the need for such a tank-killer, the battlefield tactical planning to accomodate such, and the risks accepted therein.

The scenario you describe is AIR PARITY-neither holding advantage in the skies. ADA may play into that somewhat, obviously. Still, even in perfectly-balanced scenarios of air-parity, local air superiority (and even supremacy) can be temporarily seized- to include fighter sweeps or escort scenarios for CAS assets-whether F-16 or A-10.

Until then, they rule over Afghanistan and we're sure glad they're slated through 2028. Can't imagine what will replace and I'm unsure that it won't be flying beyond then.

If you can get A-10s EVER, IMHO, you should jump to do so.

 

[SBD-3]

A-10 may be the requirement of USAF but certainly not the PAF now beacuse PA has significant edge in Armor over IA so as far as CAS is concerned JF and Falcons are just fine i think

 

[Arsalan]

AC is never going to be a replacement for a gunship!!

the gunships can be landed anywhere, kept hidden from enemy eyes in field and can suddenly pound the enemy! i agree that the tiger is a very expensive option but this issue i have suggested the T129 option and Wz10! they may take soem time but for that period our cobras can very well handle the situation!

but pleas, i dont think how an aircraft can come in as a replacement of a gun ship helicopter!

regards!

 

[fatman17]

IMHO tigers are better than cobras.if we really want somthing from US we should ask for apache longbows

sorry not for sale!

 

[Arsalan]

sorry not for sale!

nice!

and thankfull they are not there for sale as i guess it is the time to say NO to US equipments!

regards!

 

[MastanKhan]

Hi,

Pak army will never say no to equipment made in u s a. Would a maulvi ever say no to halwa.

 

[muse]

they would if they knew whats good for them - but then...

 

[araz]

they would if they knew whats good for them - but then...

But then would a Maulvi ever know what is good for him
Araz

 

[niaz]

In 1986 at the end of a one week exercise at 29 Palms, Ca. I watch an Army CH-46 being chased across the desert floor by an AH-1W Marine Cobra followed by a U.S.A.F. A-10 pulling in behind the Cobra with a Navy FA-18 Hornet chasing the A-10.

Funny as hell at about 300 meters off the deck.

That said, you postulate two reasons why a dedicated anti-armor air system's ability to effectively operate on an Indo-Pakistani Punjabi high-intensity battlefield is "questionable"- 1.) Neither side should expect complete air-superiority (last I read that's called "AIR SUPREMACY) and, 2.) neither possesses a satisfactory SEAD capability.

Would you therefore say the same of your AH-1 Cobras?

You could be correct, though. The A-10 has never actually flown in the battlefield air defense environ imagined for CENTAG in the mid-70s/early 80s. DESERT STORM over Kuwait wasn't close. So nobody actually knows. Still, it's not like we postulated air superiority into our assumptions nor that the WARPACT battlefield ADA assets (both missiles and guns) weren't both considerable AND formidibly capable.

The threat justified the need for such a tank-killer, the battlefield tactical planning to accomodate such, and the risks accepted therein.

The scenario you describe is AIR PARITY-neither holding advantage in the skies. ADA may play into that somewhat, obviously. Still, even in perfectly-balanced scenarios of air-parity, local air superiority (and even supremacy) can be temporarily seized- to include fighter sweeps or escort scenarios for CAS assets-whether F-16 or A-10.

Until then, they rule over Afghanistan and we're sure glad they're slated through 2028. Can't imagine what will replace and I'm unsure that it won't be flying beyond then.

If you can get A-10s EVER, IMHO, you should jump to do so.

As Hon arsalanaslam123 has stated, an armed helo can hide behind a grove of trees or hill out of sight; pop up, attack and hide again. Essentially why the Apache has a periscope style top of propeller sight. You would agree that A-10 can’t perform this function. Your point about survivability of Cobras is valid, however, we are not discussing a helo versus A-10, rather whether PAF limited resources are better spent on versatile multipurpose weapon systems such as JF-17 or F-16 or a dedicated special purpose A-10.

A helicopter can act as eyes and ears, ambush enemy troops and run way and hide if opposition appears too strong. In other words helicopter is the true replacement of the traditional horse cavalry, whereas an attack aircraft is altogether a different animal.

My compliments to you for excellent analysis though. Since my knowledge comes from books, magazines etc I defer to your judgment.

 

[fatman17]

the russian/ukrainian SU-25 frogfoot would be a ideal CAS platform for the PAF. cheap, reliable and versatile!

 

[S-2]

"rather whether PAF limited resources are better spent on versatile multipurpose weapon systems such as JF-17 or F-16 or a dedicated special purpose A-10."

Dedicated to ground attack, perhaps, but lethal in a variety of operating environments.

"A helicopter can act as eyes and ears, ambush enemy troops and run way and hide if opposition appears too strong. In other words helicopter is the true replacement of the traditional horse cavalry, whereas an attack aircraft is altogether a different animal."

OA-10s act as aerial observers for artillery and directing CAS and army aviation (attack helicopters). Their heavy loads, loiter time, and sturdy airframe make them beautifully suited in a air dominence COIN environ. Utterly lethal.

We plan however, as I believe your army also does, to facilitate CAS on a modern battlefield. A-10s are integral to our operations in that battle environ.

Finally, at the operating altitudes of A-10s where air superiority/supremacy doesn't exist and a high density SAM/AAA defense instead does, these are very difficult aircraft to track- both from above or on the ground. A-10s going "hull-defilade" behind a convenient tree-line or ridge are common enough.

Next thing you know...they're on top of you.

Anyway, clearly I'm a fan of the A-10 and you question cost versus utility. Likely moot in any case as the aircraft seems unavailable but it would appear Fatman17's thoughts about FROGFOOT SU-25 re-opens this argument. Maybe that's a more affordable alternative that might fit your cost-utility perspective...and available for purchase?

 

[fatman17]

SU-25 also known as the Russian Flying Fortress - it received its combat baptism just five years after its maiden flight in Afghanistan. Operation Romb in which the field evaluation and testing effort of the a/c were carried out.

In total the soviet AF SU-25s impressively amassed more than 60,000 combat sorties in Afghanistan until the inglourious withdrawl of the soviet forces in 1989

Combat losses were recorded at 23 a/c while 12 pilots were killed. a further 12 a/c were written off due to non-combat related accidents.

A PAF F-16 is credited with the shooting down of a russian SU-25 in the mid 80s during the height of the Afghan war.

The war between Iraq and Iran was the 2nd local conflict in which the SU-25 won its spurs. the frogfoot was used in the closing stage of the war and once again demonstrating an admirable degree of battlefield survivability.

The Angolan air arm was another early SU-25 operator that used its a/c in anger during the 80s.

SU-25 Weapons

the most powerful guided weapon the SU-25 can call upon is the Kh-29L (AS-148 Redge) LGM weighting some 700 kg.

the R-60 (AA- 8 Aphid) is the frogfoot primary A2A missile.

SU-25 can unleash the power of its Gsh-30-2 twin barrel 30mm gun, a pretty accurate and high destructive power weapon when used against soft and light armoured targets.

Klyan PS laser range-finder designator.

range; 275 nm (510 km) at low altitude - eight underwing pylons for AGMs and 2 additional pylons for A2A Ms.
View attachment 3849

 

[SBD-3]

the russian/ukrainian SU-25 frogfoot would be a ideal CAS platform for the PAF. cheap, reliable and versatile!

But still Russian!
I still remeber the words of an IAF official posted on these forums when PAF was evaluating SU-27
"Let them Buy it and have it, we will service them in russia"