Page 222: Take Care What You Choose For Cover

[D-503]

You cannot "turn" a high altitude interceptor into a ground attack aircraft. That would be a totally different machine then.

Why not? It just requires mounting a different kind of missile.

A ground attack aircraft is eg an A-10.
A "different missile" still must be fired from a suitable aircraft preferably with look-down/shoot-down capabilities. The Mig´s radar is very limited in this regard, since it is not it´s job.
The Mig´s sole purpose is high altitude/(ultra) high speed interception. And this is contrary to ground attack in almost all aspects of engineering etc.
If you want a soviet/russian ground attack a/c, take the Su-25.

[Gudo]

You cannot "turn" a high altitude interceptor into a ground attack aircraft. That would be a totally different machine then.

Why not? It just requires mounting a different kind of missile.

D-503 has good points. Keep in mind that just because a certain platform can execute a mission, doesn't mean it can do it well. There's no reason why you couldn't use an Arleigh Burke to move grain from Odessa to Port Durban. But, while the ship is physically capable of moving some grain, decisions made in designing the Arleigh Burkes mean it will never carry out that role as well as a bulk carrier.

Same thing applies when strapping air-to-ground missiles onto a high altitude interceptor. The plane may be capable of carrying and firing the missiles, but decisions made when designing such a plane mean it will never perform as good as a dedicated ground attack aircraft.

SpoilerShow

F-35 vs A-10 doesn't really apply here. The A-10 is super cool, but it's over 50 years old, designed to fight an opponent that doesn't exist in a battle space that will never happen all without the benefit of technological advances that it's designers could never have conceived of. Sure, if you were to compare the multi-role F-35 to a modern close air support design built with modern technology and fitted properly into modern doctrine, the close air support design would be better at close air support. But the A-10 is not that aircraft; that aircraft simply doesn't exist.

[Moon Moth]

SpoilerShow

F-35 vs A-10 doesn't really apply here. The A-10 is super cool, but it's over 50 years old, designed to fight an opponent that doesn't exist in a battle space that will never happen all without the benefit of technological advances that it's designers could never have conceived of. Sure, if you were to compare the multi-role F-35 to a modern close air support design built with modern technology and fitted properly into modern doctrine, the close air support design would be better at close air support. But the A-10 is not that aircraft; that aircraft simply doesn't exist.

Alas, perhaps, from the military perspective, but to me as a civilian, things like the A-10 and the Harrier are just so damn cool that they'll always have a place in my heart until there's a proper replacement. (Which may be never.) Same with smaller pieces of technology like the Stuka's siren.

[Arioch]

You cannot "turn" a high altitude interceptor into a ground attack aircraft. That would be a totally different machine then.

Why not? It just requires mounting a different kind of missile.

An aircraft designed as a high altitude interceptor will often have poor low-altitude performance, unless it's specifically designed for both; this usually involve variable geometry intake inlets and/or wings. The B-1A could do Mach 2 as a high-altitude bomber, but as a low-altitude bomber the B-1B is subsonic. Also, high-altitude interceptors are usually designed for speed and not maneuverability, whereas in the low-altitude regime the requirements are reversed.

[QuakeIV]

Pretty sure B-1 was always meant for low level. It now flies high altitude missions since the original mandate is gone, but I don't think that was anything that changed between A and B.

e: injected following quote

A ground attack aircraft is eg an A-10.
A "different missile" still must be fired from a suitable aircraft preferably with look-down/shoot-down capabilities. The Mig´s radar is very limited in this regard, since it is not it´s job.

It's also odd to say look-down shoot-down has anything to do with ground targets, thats pretty specifically pertaining to engaging other aircraft, which the Mig-31 (which lest we forget is the only form of Mig-25 currently in service) is entirely capable of, but which has no bearing on the missile strikes it launches every month in the Ukraine war.

[Arioch]

Pretty sure B-1 was always meant for low level. It now flies high altitude missions since the original mandate is gone, but I don't think that was anything that changed between A and B.

The B1-A was designed in the 1960's as a high-altitude Mach 2.2 supersonic bomber to replace the B-58. It was canceled along with other high-altitude bombers such as the B-70 chiefly because of the advent of cruise missiles and effective high-altitude SAM's. It was reintroduced in the 1970's as the B-1B as a low-altitude terrain-following bomber, which is a very different role. The variable geometry wings allowed it this flexibility, but it still had to sacrifice high altitude speed to adapt to the role. The B-1B can still do Mach 1.2 at high altitude, but it's subsonic at low altitude.

Today it's used alongside the B-52 as a high-altitude bomber against enemies that don't have effective air defense, but that's got very little to do with its original design.

[QuakeIV]

The b-1a already had the swing wing so I feel like you have got to be thinking of another airframe, or some distant ancestor program I haven’t heard of.

e: So for the B variant they did cut the high altitude performance in favor of better low altitude, but you don’t just casually add variably swept wings. The whole origination of that concept was to evade air defenses by riding the terrain at low altitude.

[Demarquis]

"An aircraft designed as a high altitude interceptor will often have poor low-altitude performance"

Why does it have to fly low altitude to hit ground targets? All sorts of aircraft are designed to shoot at ground targets or sea targets from high up.

"Alas, perhaps, from the military perspective, but to me as a civilian, things like the A-10 and the Harrier are just so damn cool that they'll always have a place in my heart until there's a proper replacement. (Which may be never.)"

In total agreement with that sentiment, though. Throw in the F-16 and the F-14, and we have a viable classic edition air force!

[Gudo]

"An aircraft designed as a high altitude interceptor will often have poor low-altitude performance"

Why does it have to fly low altitude to hit ground targets? All sorts of aircraft are designed to shoot at ground targets or sea targets from high up.

You could, but it's all about trade-offs due to the differences in payload sizes required to execute ground attack vs anti-air missions.

Compared to aircraft, ground targets like armored vehicles, trenches, and buildings are significantly more durable. This means you need a larger payload to do enough damage to make actually striking the target worth it. The AIM-9 air-to-air missile has a ~20 lb warhead while a JDAM equipped bomb can clock in at up to 2000 lbs. And both only go boom once. Depending on what you're shooting at, you might need 100 times the payload mass to destroy an equivalent number of ground targets as air targets. And you can't carry that much extra payload without trade-offs; you either fly lower, slower, or take less ammo.

At the design stage, this trade off leads to different classes of aircraft. When the decision is made to fly low, but fast and with lots of ammo, you get a dedicated ground attack aircraft. If you take lots of ammo but fly high up, you get slow high altitude heavy bombers. If you decide to stay fast and high, you wind up with a multi-role or "strike fighter" aircraft that has less payload than the other two options.

At the operational phase, this trade off still exists. The physical geometry of each aircraft is optimized for best performance in the flight regime you expect to be operating at. You can strap ground attack munitions to your high altitude, high performance interceptor but you won't be able to take a lot if you want to stay in that high performance envelope. Or, you can take more ammo but you'll be performing outside your optimal regime.

[EDIT]
Compare the "Armament" sections of the Air Force's F-22 data sheet and the A-10 data sheet. Despite more than 3 times the thrust, the F-22 can carry at most two 1000 lb bombs, while the A-10 can carry upto 16,000 lbs of different ordnance in addition to a larger gun with (it's not on the data sheet) almost 3 times as many rounds.

The different design decisions made while optimizing each aircraft for it's specific role is what lead to the huge disparity payload capacity.

[Mk_C]

Su-15's had an excellent record shooting down civilian Korean airliners, 2 for 2!

Su "15 seconds of afterburner towards the decommissioning facility" 15
Su "Koreandoom Boeingslayer " 15
Su "The Other Kind of Ram Jet" 15
Su "Two Fishbeds in a Bed" 15
Su "Technically speaking I DO have a radar" 15
Su "You see Ivan the second Anab is for me" 15

Why does it have to fly low altitude to hit ground targets? All sorts of aircraft are designed to shoot at ground targets or sea targets from high up.

My brother in Christ that's literally a bomber.

In total agreement with that sentiment, though. Throw in the F-16 and the F-14, and we have a viable classic edition air force!

F-14 was a mistake.

[D-503]

It's also odd to say look-down shoot-down has anything to do with ground targets,

You are right, i was lost in translation here - i was thinking of that special radar on some of the SU-25, which is a sort of pulse-doppler-radar, but slightly different from those on fighter aircraft.
I confused "look down" with the SU-25s radar ability to detect moving targets ON the ground vs the "usual" look down/shoot down radars ability to distinct FLYING targets from the (back)ground.
Hope i´m not lost in translation again.

Still the Mig 25 is not a good good ground attack aircraft at all. Figuratively speaking it would be (ab)using a F1- or Indycar as a dump truck. Possible but neither very efficient nor very smart.

[QuakeIV]

Well like, MiG-31 does attack ground targets. I feel like the concept of ground-attacker at play here is dead in the real world. You still have old dinosaur platforms flying around, but they if anything prove the point. They are arguably less survivable and combat effective in the presence of air defenses than the supposedly not-ground-attack specialized platforms that are launching missile strikes from a distance.

[SVlad]

There's no reason why you couldn't use an Arleigh Burke to move grain from Odessa to Port Durban. But, while the ship is physically capable of moving some grain, decisions made in designing the Arleigh Burkes mean it will never carry out that role as well as a bulk carrier.

Russia uses landing ships as civil ferris in Kerch this year.

A ground attack aircraft is eg an A-10.
A "different missile" still must be fired from a suitable aircraft preferably with look-down/shoot-down capabilities. The Mig´s radar is very limited in this regard, since it is not it´s job.
The Mig´s sole purpose is high altitude/(ultra) high speed interception. And this is contrary to ground attack in almost all aspects of engineering etc.
If you want a soviet/russian ground attack a/c, take the Su-25.

Russia use mig-31 to launch air-to-ground missiles out of air defense affected areas on weekly basis.

[Demarquis]

When I posted my original comment I had forgotten about the Mig-31. It appears that my question is moot--they *did* take the Mig-25 and made an aircraft that can ground attack (well, not specialized for that but you get what I mean). I guess you could call it an "Interceptor Bomber", if that makes any sense. I believe that on strike missions, they fly it low and fast. Total load may be less important than the precision with which the munitions it does carry can be targeted. It's claimed to have a lot of networking capabilities. I do not know how successful it is in these types of missions, but you have to compare it to other platforms the Russians deploy, not aircraft developed in the West.

[D-503]

Russia use mig-31 to launch air-to-ground missiles out of air defense affected areas on weekly basis.

Now i´m surprised. MiG-25 and MiG-31 LOOK similar, but in fact are totally different airplanes with different roles.
I thought a russian guy interested in planes would know that.

There are different wings on the ´31, different engines (Soloview vs Tumanski, less top speed and service ceiling, but far better lifetime and performance overall), and before a lot more the formidable "Saslon-A"-radarcomplex, even today in it´s newest incarnation a nightmare for the NATO.

IIRC all of todays russian ´31s in service are the "BM/BSM"-Version, the second reincarnation from the 1980´s original. To them, the old ´25s are no comparison at all.

When I posted my original comment I had forgotten about the Mig-31. It appears that my question is moot--they *did* take the Mig-25 and made an aircraft that can ground attack (well, not specialized for that but you get what I mean). I guess you could call it an "Interceptor Bomber", if that makes any sense.

We can agree on that.

I believe that on strike missions, they fly it low and fast.

I don´t think so. I guess they rely on their "kinshal"- and "svezda"-air-to-ground rockets. At least i would never risk those precious machines, if i were a russian general.

I do not know how successful it is in these types of missions, but you have to compare it to other platforms the Russians deploy, not aircraft developed in the West.

Do not underestimate the russians. They are NOT inferior to us.

[Bamax]

I do not know how successful it is in these types of missions, but you have to compare it to other platforms the Russians deploy, not aircraft developed in the West.

Do not underestimate the russians. They are NOT inferior to us.
[/quote]


It is never wise to underestimate a potential foe. That said, and I say this based on only facts I know, without their nuclear weapons they are not quite the unstoppable threat except to their neighbors in Europe.

The Ukraine war has proven that and showed the folly of relying on pure numbers with outdated and unguided munitions.

Even the Umiak have closer parity to the Loroi technology-wise than Russia VS the USA I would argue.

Russia has how many aircraft carriers compared to the USA?

1 vs 20, 9 of which are helicopter carriers.

[D-503]

they are not quite the unstoppable threat except to their neighbors in Europe.

I´m probably lost in translation again, but that smells like a can of worms.

I´d be grateful if we leave politics out of this forum.

The Ukraine war has proven that and showed the folly of relying on pure numbers with outdated and unguided munitions.

That "convoy to Kijv" was quite a laugh.
But it seems they have learned from that.

Even the Umiak have closer parity to the Loroi technology-wise than Russia VS the USA I would argue.

From what i´ve got from the story, the Umiak have a far superior industrial production, and have currently found a way around the far-seers. I´d call that an advantage.

Russia has how many aircraft carriers compared to the USA?

1 vs 20, 9 of which are helicopter carriers.

Carriers are overrated.



Courtesy by KaLeu Dellnitz


Seriously, ask Captain Chanik about his "promotion" to a JCS desk (J-8) right after that...
After his resign from the USN he worked for Grumman, but in his biography on the grumman-website he never mentioned that he was captain of the enterprise...

[Demarquis]

Russia use mig-31 to launch air-to-ground missiles out of air defense affected areas on weekly basis.

Now i´m surprised. MiG-25 and MiG-31 LOOK similar, but in fact are totally different airplanes with different roles.
I thought a russian guy interested in planes would know that.

There are different wings on the ´31, different engines (Soloview vs Tumanski, less top speed and service ceiling, but far better lifetime and performance overall), and before a lot more the formidable "Saslon-A"-radarcomplex, even today in it´s newest incarnation a nightmare for the NATO.

IIRC all of todays russian ´31s in service are the "BM/BSM"-Version, the second reincarnation from the 1980´s original. To them, the old ´25s are no comparison at all.

I wouldnt go that far--The '31 appears to be an updated, much improved version of the 25, but they clearly share a common design origin. In any case, they are both high altitude, high speed air to air interceptors, so they would have that much in common regardless.

When I posted my original comment I had forgotten about the Mig-31. It appears that my question is moot--they *did* take the Mig-25 and made an aircraft that can ground attack (well, not specialized for that but you get what I mean). I guess you could call it an "Interceptor Bomber", if that makes any sense.

We can agree on that.

I believe that on strike missions, they fly it low and fast.

I don´t think so. I guess they rely on their "kinshal"- and "svezda"-air-to-ground rockets. At least i would never risk those precious machines, if i were a russian general.

I believe that they find it easier to intercept low flying cruise missiles by coming down to a more comparable altitude, but I'm not an aerospace expert.

I do not know how successful it is in these types of missions, but you have to compare it to other platforms the Russians deploy, not aircraft developed in the West.

Do not underestimate the russians. They are NOT inferior to us.

(not j
Militarily the pattern I have seen is for Russia to design these really advanced, high performance combat equipment (not just aircraft, but tanks, rifles, etc.) and then not be able to afford to produce more than a handful of them. Their R&D bureaus are top-notch, but their manufacturing base is quite inferior to ours.

[QuakeIV]

Mig-31 is still mainly an interceptor, its just also fairly suitable to launching missiles against ground targets (actually I think the altitude/top speed is kindof required for kinzhal). There is no reason to fly low while launching missile attacks against ground targets.

[D-503]

Their R&D bureaus are top-notch, but their manufacturing base is quite inferior to ours.

Compared to the rest of the world combined? Yes, in both points.

But currently they churn out more shells for their artillery than the west can even produce; also tanks. And they pony up production of drones and air-to-ground missiles.
We ´ll see how this turns out in the end.