I like this guy. You have me convinced anyway.
I think, if i remember correct, Gbu’s were 20K to 30K depeding on type and size. So at $30 dollars a round a full belt would be 34K.
I would argue that the Gau-8 is more cost effective then a single GBU. Rough guesstimate is 100 rounds per pass. Meaning you get about 11 passes or 11 different targets. 11 Gbu’s is going to cost quite a bit more.
Another thing to remember is damage control. 100 30 mm equals less damage then 1 500 lb bomb.
You have to work on it or be on the ground when it does its thing. Thats the best explanation I can give. Its a mans jet.
1 Like
Cost benefit is such a hard to to quantify in these cases though. Dollar for dollar, the A-10 might be cheaper to put rounds on a target, but there is a cost of vulnerability for those ten passes. The F-15E or something similar could probably do the job that many times, from a higher, safer altitude. But then, what “value” do you put on the A-10 being over friendly troops (morale booster) and pointing it’s unfriendly end at the enemy (morale killer). Or is there more fear of “silent death” from a GBU overhead that you never even know is coming. All these things are really hard to quantify. Close air support (from what I can tell…but consider the source…no real knowledge…lol…) seems pretty fluid and what might work one day (a Maverick from 8 miles away) might not work another day (a strafing pass within hundreds of meters of friendly troops).
It is very complex and can’t (I guess) be broken down easily into cost effectiveness…there should be some sort of “matrix” that takes into account a whole bunch of factors (fuel efficiency, loiter, accuracy, response rate, survivability, etc…)
I certainly don’t envy the people that do such studies, because you’ll always be criticized for leaving some component out or not weighing it enough…whether by armchair generals like me (lol) or the different components in the service that have an interest in the outcome (grunts, Air Force Generals, procurement types, DoD contractors, defense department accountants, etc…)
Complex stuff…
BeachAV8R
Good discussion.
One additional option not mentioned so much is the loiter ability of drones. One you get above a certain height then does it really matter a GBU is coming in from something that just sits up there for days at a time rather than a fast jet? It seems like a lot of recent splashes have been made with Mavericks too, which implies an eyes on ground operator as well, i.e. actually not that high. If the threat environment would allow A-10’s in CAS, then wouldn’t the same argument be made that they also allow a few more Predators up there too?
Perhaps the solution is to fit that GAU-8 to a drone? 
The drone would probably fly backwards after the GAU opened up 
Obviously needs a secondary, rearward facing GAU-8 to equalize the recoil.
2 Likes
Drone doesn’t need the gun. Just fly it into someone or something. A little RQ-11 can leave a nasty welt on someone’s head. 
1 Like
2 Likes
The laser armed drone is not far away…
“…a 30 KW weapon can still bore a hole through a two inch piece of steel in seconds, said Shattuck, which is enough to disable an incoming rocket or hit the engine of a pickup truck. For the Pentagon, that is particularly key, as it has openly talked about the costs associated with using kinetic weapons to attack small trucks operated by the Islamic State group, commonly known as ISIS or ISIL.”
That’s gonna have to be a pretty big drone. At least the size of an F-111.
1 Like
Hmm, to allow the drone to have an unblockable comms stream and the lowest possible latency they could put a couple of operators in those handy front seats too!
Well sure, but no self respecting USAF pilot will fly a drone.
You’re going about it all wrong! Was the Gau-8 fitted to the A-10? No the A-10 was fitted to the Gau-8! So what we need is a Drone fitted to the Gau-8.
1 Like
@Franze Your post brought this to mind.
@BeachAV8R in regards to your example of the A-10 vs Mudhen in terms of cost effectiveness and vulnerability. Situation dependent of course, but in the current battlefield the risk of an A-10 doing gun runs vs an Eagle dropping JDAMs would be pretty similar, little to no SAM or MANPAD threat, maybe some overzealous dude in a truck with an optically targeted ZU-23 or Dushka? Aside from the pilot flying into the ground of course…Then look at cost of operation, fuel, parts, risk of airframe loss…1 GBU from a Mudhen costing $31m, vs 10 gun runs (rough equivalent of a cost of a bomb est. in previous posts) from an A-10 costing $18m…just another set of factors to consider.
Also I read both of those books mentioned earlier in the thread, back when I was ALL ABOUT JTACing for my Arma unit. Really good stuff, Firestrike was a fun read from a JTACs perspective, and Danger Close was much more dry and informative but it was an interesting look at the history and doctrine of forward air control and how it evolved from Vietnam style AFAC stuff into the weird multi-branch hybrid it is today, and the adjustments made for SOF style operations in the Middle East.
just read a pretty heroic article about how 2 warthog pilots earned the Distuingished flying cross in Afghanistan in 2012. I thought it would be interesting to put here and flare up this discussion again. It’s interesting to see that other planes including some alternatives mentioned here, namely the AC-130, AH-64 apache and B1-B where forced to check out due to poor weather and extremely low cloud deck.
Something else I liked was that the A-10’s started the combat part of their mission was a couple of low passes as a form of psychological warfare. At that point the hogs didn’t even knew where the enemy actually was (and they ended up having a hell of a time finding them) but that still affected things on the Battlefield.
Also, the pilots where ANG and the event occured in 2012. So it may very well be these pilots trained on the military version of DCS: A-10C
1 Like
This thread has been a thoroughly enjoyable read which speaks highly of the MUDSPIKE membership.
Some random thoughts from another armchair observer…
Concerning the bone and aardvark discussion, I read with interest the Russian use of the Su-34 along side the Su-25 in Syria. Solutions for both contested and uncontested airspace perhaps.
As to the question of the value of the warthog when it finds itself operating in contested airspace, certainly not invulnerable, but one tough SOB regardless.
Having just finished Strike Eagle: Flying the F-15E in the Gulf War, it seems like even in a thoroughly planned air campaign that once the shooting starts, resources often get stretched mighty thin. The mission for various elements seem to evolve or change depending on the effectiveness of the battle plan or reactions of an enemy who behaves contrary to what was expected. Then there is political pressure both internal and external, I.E, are we attacking airfields, hunting Scuds or Sadam’s Winnebago tonight? Early in the campaign tankers were hard to find and parts of the package (EW) were allocated to other missions near or after go time. And Intel does not always accurately define air defenses.
Anyway, I’m thinking better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it, as the saying goes.
2 Likes
I was just having a think on this.
For the life of me i can’t find physical dimensions.
But a question crossed my mind…
Whats better than an A-10 with a gau 8?
An f-111 with 2 gau 8’s 
i mean its bomb bay is pretty big right.
1 Like
The GAU-8 cannon is 112 inches long (about 2.8m). The canister that contains the ammo is a bit shorter than that, but not a whole lot. The weapon bay on the F111 is around 140 inches in length - so you’re going to need at least both bays to store just the one GAU, if the canister even fits inside (it’s about 3ft in diameter).
The whole aircraft would have to be fitted to handle the recoil and vibration from the gun, vent the gun gases, not to mention the huge divot that’d been needed in the cockpit seat to make room for the pilot’s balls.
1 Like
Total system is 19 ft 10.5 in (6.06 m) or roughly 238.5 inches