Why is he wrong?
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons
You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons
Why is he wrong?
>>29083938
It's one of those things where he might be right about 1 or 2 things but it is so buried in hyperbole it becomes meaningless. All of his proposed solutions would have ended up causing bigger problems down the road.
Based on what I've read, the only thing he really got right when he was with the DoD was the A-10 (writing the basic requirements), and that was because he was willing to actually talk with Skyraider pilots and Stuka pilots about stuff. Even then, his insistence on using the cheapest avionics possible really hindered the Warthog until it was upgraded.
He sure as fuck never talked with any Phantom or Eagle pilots
He's just another old faggot who doesn't know how computers work
So he can't grasp how much better "gadgets" are now, rather than in the 60's
>>29083938
He isn't. Sprey is the voice of truth and it hurts /k/.
>>29084309
>>29083938
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZtZNBkKdO5U
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LyHlp7tJrxY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31oJIo8EVwY
>>29083998
The A-10 was also built at a time when the standard for tactical bombing was coming in at 500 feet, and even Red Flag worked on optimizing pilot skills for that.
Then Creech's reforms pushed targeting pods and LGBs for medium-altitude bombing as the standard, which lead to the A-10 firing over 5200 Mavericks and doing almost no gun runs, and still accounted for the disproportionate 1/3rd of US losses in Desert Storm.
>>29083938
ignorance and oversimplification
old man stuck in the past
He took away the F-20
>>29087118
No man, you don't get it. The Warthog's early avionics were so bad that you had to push no less than six different buttons just to switch from using bombs to using the gun. For the F-15/F-16, that was something accomplished with a single button-push.
>>29091335
Nothing I said counters or contradicts that.
>>29089239
He shilled heavily for it, the bit about radar and a2g capability was just him trying to rationalize why it lost out.
>>29087118
>doing almost no gun runs
Seriously? I would have thought that it would have been ideal at chewing up those Iraqi columns, considering (I assume) that most of them weren't really tanks. The Gau still tears APCs and IFVs up.
>>29092836
Kind of hard to do gun runs when they've got ZSUs providing return fire. Two of the A-10s shot down were in one day attempting low and slow on the Republican Guard. Something to keep in mind is that even when it came out MBT armor had surpassed the capabilities of 30mm.
>>29092884
Maybe I've been playing too much LOMAC, but wasn't the ZSU parcelled out as a battalion asset? Even assuming the Iraqi's were as well provisioned as Soviet tank armies, they'd still only have 1 ZSU and 1 IR missile launcher for each battalion (plus any MANPADs they had), and those are maverick bait from 10km away. After that, it's open season on the BMPs.
>MBT armour
Oh, I know that much. Even the T-62 only had a few weak spots. But the value of the gun was never as a tank cracker, that was the job of the Rockeye. The gun was excellent, however, at efficiently getting rid of BMPs, BTRDs, SPGs, trucks, etc. You fire off your mavericks at AA assets and tanks, and then fire all 1300 rounds of 30mm at all the squishy targets.
>>29092997
>battalion asset
Why? Its a cheap AA platform. Should be used en-masse like what the egyptians did in the last semi-successful attack on Israel.
>>29092997
The thing is that it only takes one MANPADS or Shilka to fuck up an A-10. The A-10 proved a hell of a lot more vulnerable than expected in the Gulf War.
>>29093052
>Why? Its a cheap AA platform
Yeah, which is why they had enough that every Battalion could have their own. They used to stick them with the HQ section.
>>29093061
Yeah, which is why you kill the Shilkas first. You have the stand off munitions to deal with it. And manpads at that stage were pretty bad. Plus if you were on the move, you didn't exactly want to pull over and fire your own or two chances to maybe annoy it. Even if you had a lock, countermeasures were very effective.
>more vunerable than expected
You mean they were TAKING casualties. The A-10 was always considered to be pretty disposable. Particularly in a fulda gap scenario, they were never expected to live long.
>>29092997
>But the value of the gun was never as a tank cracker
Well you know who disagrees (or at least his associates do), he ascribes the A-10's success in Desert Storm to the BRRT while bashing the Maverick as little more than a friendly fire enabler.
http://www.pogo.org/our-work/reports/90s/ns-puav-19920701.html
>>29093180
Some think tank pulling shit out of their asses. No surprises there. Catagorically, the gau isn't going to be doing much with any sort of reliability to T-72s.
The rest of the article has a massive issue with context and lack of real detail given.
>friendly fire enabler
Considering how many were fired, and the general level of casualties, the level of friendy fire sustained as a result of Mavericks is statistically irrelevant.
The entire article looks like something spray shat out. Muh low technology.
>>29093269
The gau never was supposed to be a tank-buster, though. That's the whole point of carrying mavericks. The point was pulling up parallel to a column of BMPs, BTRs, or BMDs rolling across the Fulda Gap, and BRRRRTing the fuck out of the whole thing, while shrugging off the couple of hits the escorting Shilkas score.
>>29093656
I know that, but the point was that the man that this thread is about thought otherwise.
>>29093180
>unironically using POGO as a source
>>29093656
>The gau never was supposed to be a tank-buster, though
The Maverick didn't exist when the A-10 was introduced. The GAU-8 was to be the A-10's primary anti-tank weapon. The Maverick is what turned the A-10 into an actually good plane.
>>29095017
This, right here. The early A-10 was exactly what Sprey wanted, and it was a pile of shit that was not only labor intensive on the pilot, but pretty ineffective because it only had the GAU-8. By adding on actual avionics and the Maverick, it became useful. Even then, it made up a disproportionate amount of the casualties in Desert Storm despite doing a lot less sorties than other planes, IIRC.
>>29095017
>The GAU-8 was to be the A-10's primary anti-tank weapon.
Incorrect, that would be cluster bombs.
>>29095120
>disproportionate losses
http://www.2951clss-gulfwar.com/a10_combat_losses.htm
There were a total of five A10s lost in desert Storm. Four shot down, one crashed on landing. These aircraft were total losses.
http://www.2951clss-gulfwar.com/abdr-home.htm
There were 20 A10s that sustained combat damage that were repaired and returned to service.
114 A10s deployed to Desert Storm and flew almost 8100 sorties with a mission capable rate of 95.7% The only other Air Force fixed wing type that flew more sorties than the A10 was the F16.
A10s accounted for more than 1,000 tanks,1,200 artillery pieces,2,000 other military vehicles.
One of the craziest things the A10s did in Desert storm was the Wart Weasel mission where thay were partnered with F-4G WEild Weasel Phantoms. The A10s would fly into Iraqi SAM batteries in an attempt to get them to turn on thier radars so the F4s could wax them with HARM missiles.
>>29092997
>but wasn't the ZSU parcelled out as a battalion asset?
It was a brigade asset in separate Brigades and in Divisions that had converted to Brigade organization(from Regimental). One Batt. each of SP Missile and SP AAA per Brigade.
In Regimentally-organized divisions, SP AA was a Divisional asset at one regiment per division.
>>29095435
How many F-16's were damaged and shot down in comparison though? Last time this was brought up, it was said that the F-16 gave a better performance.
>>29095587
Three F16s were shot down with a total of seven lost to enemy action.
There were 249 F16s deployed to Desert Storm that flew almost 13,500 sorties with a mission capable rate of 98%
The F-16s kills are harder to pin down because a lot of the targets they were sent against were non military in nature, such as infrastructure and the like. At that point, the A-10 lacked the LANTIRN pod, since it was due to be retired and hadn't been upgraded. The F-16s also did some CAP and SCUD hunting. It was undeniably a great asset to the war effort.
There were also 13 F-16s deployed that were retrofitted to carry the HARM missiles and joined the F-4G and A-10s in the Wart Weasel mission.
![Screen-Shot-2015-10-25-at-3.51.18-PM[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/JOS3UMq.jpg "Screen-Shot-2015-10-25-at-3.51.18-PM[1].jpg")
>>29095435
*6 losses if you count one which was hit, made a successful landing back at home but was written off for being unrepairable:
http://www.2951clss-gulfwar.com/a10_combat_losses.htm
>>29095587
3 F-16s were lost
>>29095792
Fair enough. Losses were small for both types. The claims of massive A10 losses are a matter of playing with the percentages of losses compared to types deployed. The fact is, no allied type deployed in in Desert Storm had more than a handful lost. If you play the percentage game, 48 F-15E Strike Eagles were deployed to Desert Storm with two lost to ground fire.
If you play the percentage of types deployed vs. losses, the A-10 lost 4% of deployed aircraft, the F-16 lost 2% of deployed aircraft and the F-15E lost 4% of deployed aircraft. By that metric, with no other data or consideration, the F-16 comes off as the superior platform and Pierre Spey's bullshit is thrown into confusion since a type he loves and a type he hates preform equally poorly.
>>29096023
Something to also look at in that pic is the number of aircraft damaged; 13 A-10s and 1 OA-10 vs 4 F-16s.
>>29096023
>the F-16 comes off as the superior platform
Well, because it generally was. The F-16 could hit targets denied to the A-10, it could do both air to air and air to ground, and could carry a broader range of munitions. And the F-16's utility, and drawbacks, was the basis for the design requirements for the JSF.
>>29096273
True, but the munitions thing in Desert Storm was a willful refusal by the Air Force to upgrade the weapons capability of the airframe because the intended to kill it. It took Norman Schwarzkopf ordering the Air Force to deploy the A-10 to Desert Storm to get it in theater, where it accounted for more than a third of all military ground targets killed. if it had been upgraded with the LANTIRN pod as planned in the early 1980's, it would have had an expanded role to include a night strike capability like LANTIRN Equipped F-16s and F-15Es. As it was, A-10 pilots used the infrared seeker warheads on thier Maverick missiles as a poor man's FLIR and flew some night missions with NGVs and still managed to account for a huge number of enemy ground combatants killed or disabled.
>>29093656
That was exactly what I said
>>29092997
Gau was for everything but tanks. Bugger using the gun when you can pickle a few cluster bombs and fuck an entire column all in one go.
>Shrugging off shilka hits
It's worth mentioning that while the bathtub was resistant against 23mm rounds, the rest of the plane wasn't. It wasn't shrugging off shit. A-10s armour was obselete the day it was deployed.
>>29095017
Still had Rockeyes, though.
>>29095435
Yeah, that means very little, though. Once the IADS was shattered, all you needed were bomb and missile trucks. The A-10s cheap, doesn't mean that the gulf war demonstrated how good it was. You could have done the same thing with Phantoms.
>>29095562
Yes, which was then subsequently parcelled out in attachments to battalions, at a rate of around 1 vehicle per battalion.
>>29096475
It still has improved loiter time and a greater gun payload. Those traits are heavily, heavily, HEAVILY exaggerated by people like Sprey but they do exist.
>>29096360
The A-10 wasn't the only one lacking TFLIRs; quite a few bombs dropped during Desert Shield / Storm were dumb bombs. The A-10 just had the issue that it started out having shit tier avionics; it didn't even have a computed gun sight or anything like a moving map display for navigation.
>>29096504
Yeah, but worse range and speed. And the gun's almost irrelevant with the amount most fighters can carry these days. It's good to have, but if you've fire off 12 rockeyes, or 12 mavericks, the gun's an extra on top, particularly with the risk involved.
>>29096547
>no computed gunsight
Are you seriously telling me they were working from a deflector gunsight? That's insane. There's no way they weren't using some sort of CCIP style display. Not in that day and age.
>>29096486
[citation required]
>>29096609
Like, any contemporary Soviet document? Since when have SPAAG vehicles every been geographically centralised? With it's range, that'd be a total waste.
>>29096684
>u-u-uh any document! Which I can't name or show!
still running with asspull and nothing more, I see
>>29096752
You have nothing better.
Are you seriously insinuating that an entire regiment of these guys was just going to be sitting in a Wargame style mass within the same square kilometer? When the army they're attached too had a frontage and depth of dozens of kilometers?
>>29096752
Also, TRADOC Bulletin 4, January 1976 has a detailed account of soviet Shilka deployment methods.
>>29096596
>Are you seriously telling me they were working from a deflector gunsight?
Yep; A-1 Avenger pilots had quite a bit of beef with the A-10 because although they got more armour and speed (and a much bigger gat) the cockpit interface was a step backwards.
>>29097100
Christ. Were they using CCIPs for the bombs, though? Or were they doing it Stuka style, with a little window in the floor?
>>29097154
Correction to the last comment; it was a gyro gunsight - still wasn't a computed solution though.
According to this ex (early) A-10 pilot: http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=26754&start=15
>USAF has given up the supersonic F-100 for interdiction and CAS. The replacement is the A-7D and it will be supplemented by the F-4C/D/E. But the A-7D is not supersonic nor a good air-to-air machine - a basic mudbeater. It carries a huge load ( think the same as the B-17 of WW2) and does not need to be refueled every 40 minutes like the F-4 ( aka Double Ugly). It can drop within 30 meters or less on first pass, closer on next passes. Its nav system will get you within a 100 meters of any place on Earth with no help from any navaid, and you have a moving map to show you where you are and how to get to the selected destination. It has terrain following and terrain avoidance radar. It has served with distinction in the late years of the VietNam fiasco.
>But we need a new and dedicated close air support system. It won't do well on an interdiction mission fragged for a high threat target 300 miles away. It won't have a computed weapon delivery system, but use a WW2 TLBR gunsight ( that looks 'bout right) and have lottsa armor to protect the pilot that has to get really low and close to the target( see the whites of their eyes). The highly trained pilots must rely on 1930's navigation techniques, but have the new TACAN and VOR systems to help when available near friendly territory. Oh yeah, it will have a huge cannon to plink at Pact tanks streaming thru the Fulda Gap while Weasels kill all the missile threats and ZSU-23 systems, with flares and chaff defeating the Strellas. Right.
>So we get the "A-X", aka Warthog.
There's also another comment here: http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=24483&start=1305
1/2
>>29096486
You are supposed to give it out to 1 per company at least.
>>29099641
They had 2 per battalion, back a ways from the fighting line. What they had in each company was Iglas.
Air defense really isn't something you parcel out like machineguns. It's far larger in scale and scope.
