Key.Aero Network
Register Free

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 92

Thread: US CAS rethinking going on

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Columbia, MD
    Posts
    11,182
    I think we can replace Controls with Command it will work. Someone else, somewhere else could be controlling it or it could simply be highly autonomous requiring only inputs on tactical decisions, trigger pulls etc.

    On an earlier note, here is one program (we've talked about it at length here earlier) focusing on PGM delivery, via JTAC involvement - http://www.darpa.mil/program/persist...se-air-support
    Old radar types never die; they just phased array

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,126
    What I wonder is, would that kind of capability of persistant CAS drones, combined with advanced assault weapons like the XM-25, anti-defilade 40mm grenades, plus mini drones to resupply the soldiers be able to completely replace CAS planes? mmh I don't know.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    4,331
    Quote Originally Posted by Sanem View Post
    CPI from 1994 to 2016 was a total of 51.5%, or a compiled 67.5%
    starting with the original 1994 cost estimate of $28 million for the F-35A
    then it should have cost $46.9 million in 2016
    instead it cost $109.88 million, more than double
    Disingenuous Much???

    You are comparing a pre-contest & pre-contract "JSF" estimation of the lifetime average cost to an LRIP cost.

    Nobody has argued that they have not blown the cost estimation, but at least use numbers based on realities instead of Pre-contract estimations of which the JPO/LM have zero control over.
    "The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,100
    Quote Originally Posted by Hotshot View Post
    What I wonder is, would that kind of capability of persistant CAS drones, combined with advanced assault weapons like the XM-25, anti-defilade 40mm grenades, plus mini drones to resupply the soldiers be able to completely replace CAS planes? mmh I don't know.
    The day after hell freezes over.

    Close air support often means dropping ordnance a few yards, not hundreds of feet from troops being supported and no remote control day dream toy can do that.
    Last edited by RpR; 9th February 2017 at 16:11.

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,126
    Quote Originally Posted by RpR View Post
    The day after hell freezes over.

    Close air support often means dropping ordnance a few yards, not hundreds of feet from troops being supported and no remote control day dream toy can do that.
    Define "often", the primary CAS weapons in the last 15 years have been bombs.

    There is no reason why a maneuvrable drone could not employ LG rockets for danger close situation. Even a gun might be possible.

    Also new infantry anti-defilade weapons, coupled with micro drones probably, could provide support for that kind of situation. These weapons and micro drones have the potential to revolutionize infantry tactics.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    1,366
    Quote Originally Posted by Ozair View Post
    Why are we arguing about the definition of CAS. It is very clear.


    https://fas.org/irp/doddir/dod/jp3_09_3.pdf

    Another 340 odd pages after the above quote.
    And in the above quote there NOT any mention of using a whatsoever type of weapon, if you note well
    In those 340 pages you would find not just the description of plain bombing or even cannon use but also other forms of non fire support, like direction of artillery fire, target recognition, two way communication with the troops being in any way considered the paramount feature of such a mission and the discriminant between it and a single air strike, performed of not with PGM.
    It is because of that they made mention as first thing of the coordination of fire& movement with the ground forces, meaning with this expression the regular course of action of the generality of the field army, whose action have to be supported over time.
    Somewhere in time seems that lot of persons have instead mistaken it with the single air strike when it is performed under the direction of a a SF team, a FAC or even a drone instead of just a pre-designated target.
    Thank you to have made finally clear that this is NOT the case.
    Last edited by Marcellogo; 9th February 2017 at 17:23.

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Columbia, MD
    Posts
    11,182
    Somewhere in time seems that lot of persons have instead mistaken it with the single air strike when it is performed under the direction of a a SF team, a FAC or even a drone instead of just a pre-designated target.
    No one here in this discussion has confused that. We were talking about CAS when someone else brought up CAS-airplane.
    Old radar types never die; they just phased array

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    1,366
    Quote Originally Posted by bring_it_on View Post
    I'm fairly well aware of what CAS is and how it is defined. I'm also aware that its the goal and end that is important and not the means. For the rest, I'm not sure you understand the arguments here. It's not about whether a service wants to do X Y or Z, but how it wants to do it given the resources. All other mission areas have seen prioritization, trades on account of anticipated resource availability. CAS is just one of them and not an outlier.



    Too bad you forgot to tell the forces that actually did CAS in the last few wars that PGM's do not constitute CAS. I guess those troops on the ground should have turned those aircraft away and flooded the radios with " Go Away..You are not CAS".
    Bring-it-on, still with this damn habit of putting in mouth of person something that they have never said?
    Try not yo push you own point so farther to make it an absurd, please.

    Introducing a guided artillery or tank shell doesn't make it a CAS asset, just add a precision attack mode to an existing weapon, it is not the weapon or even the carrier that made a CAS asset , it's the mission pattern: so if , as an example ad absurdum, ,one would send an A-10 to made a simple low pass , drop all its payload at once, guided or not, at a predesignated target and fly away that would not be CAS mission at all, just a low quote aerial strike, made using a completely wrong plane for it
    Putting instead a B-1B at 20000 mts over Kobane together with predators for targeting, making it make rounds for hours and drop a single bomb at each ISIS unit getting in the open, is instead an hell of unconventional and costly form of perform it, but it is surely a CAS one.
    Needless to say, as soon as it was possible to put on a viable coordination with Kurdish SDF units and use Incirkik base they have immediately send A-10 for performing it.
    Last edited by Marcellogo; 9th February 2017 at 17:49.

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Columbia, MD
    Posts
    11,182
    Quote Originally Posted by Marcellogo View Post
    Bring-it-on, still with this damn habit of putting in mouth of person something that they have never said?
    Try not yo push you own point so farther to make it an absurd, please.

    Introducing a guided artillery or tank shell doesn't make it a CAS asset, just add a precision attack mode to an existing weapon, it is not the weapon or even the carrier that made a CAS asset , it's the mission pattern: so if , as an example ad absurdum, ,one would send an A-10 to made a simple low pass , drop all its payload at once, guided or not, at a predesignated target and fly away that would not be CAS mission at all, just a low quote aerial strike, made using a completely wrong plane for it
    Putting instead a B-1B at 20000 mts over Kobane together with predators for targeting, making it make rounds for hours and drop a single bomb at each ISIS unit getting in the open, is instead an hell of unconventional and costly form of perform it, but it is surely a CAS one.
    Needless to say, as soon as it was possible to put on a viable coordination with Kurdish SDF units and use Incirkik base they have immediately send A-10 for performing it.
    What you said was -

    Again, precision targeting is not Close Aerial SUPPORT at all, and for this same reason it is something that ought to be sought by all the armed forces and their respective specialities in this world for their own main mission, not as a substitute for something other's one.
    Is it wrong for one to assume that given this is a forum where folks are reasonably well informed that if someone says that PGM investment constitutes a CAS capability it does not automatically mean that the person is saying take a smart bomb and randomly start dropping it at pre selected targets? Seriously, when someone says that don't look just at the A-10 or *Insert your prefferd CAS craft* but look at the mission and how PGM's have ushered in the era of non-traditional CAS (i.e. the Mission) one really shouldn't need to explain how CAS is done with them (most folks here understand that).

    It should be understood that what I'm referring to is doing CAS with smart munitions (and the built up capability to do so) and not just some random strike on a target. Of course it entails leveraging other assets and investments (networking, targeting, communications, training etc), trained JTAC's and something you practice regularly but that was not being debated here. No one is promoting that they shed the competencies associated with CAS, just the infatuation of always thinking of a CAS-plane every time CAS is mentioned.

    Introducing a guided artillery or tank shell doesn't make it a CAS asset, just add a precision attack mode to an existing weapon, it is not the weapon or even the carrier that made a CAS asset , it's the mission pattern:
    This is a basic level of understanding that is assumed on this forum. No one is arguing that position, at least not on this thread.
    Last edited by bring_it_on; 9th February 2017 at 18:24.
    Old radar types never die; they just phased array

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    "Where the fruit is"
    Posts
    4,445
    Quote Originally Posted by halloweene View Post
    that would imply the JTAC to be more or less a pilot.
    Drone are built today to be controlled by grunts on a i-pad via a standardized interface. Hardly a need for a qualified pilot. This is the way to go and inherently, what will change is the definition of what is a Pilot.

  11. #41
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    676
    Quote Originally Posted by TomcatViP View Post
    Drone are built today to be controlled by grunts on a i-pad via a standardized interface. Hardly a need for a qualified pilot. This is the way to go and inherently, what will change is the definition of what is a Pilot.
    Controlling an ISR payload on a small UAV is somewhat different to directing a large UAV carrying a couple of hellfire or 500lb LGBs. I can't see a JTAC controlling a large UAV anytime soon. JTACs already have enough to do marshalling and directing all the aircraft in the stack in a permissive environment.

    In a non permissive environment is the JTAC going to broadcast his position via constant RF transmissions to a UAV and open himself up to artillery fire?

    I'm also not convinced that current armed UAVs will last long enough in a non permissive environment to be effective or useful.

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Columbia, MD
    Posts
    11,182
    That is why I prefer to use Command...in the sense that the JTAC can have the authority to take over the actions of the drone without necessarily having the authority to control its flight or weapons system operations. Just tell it where to go for ISR or where to target and let it do so either through autonomy (with trigger pull command) or via someone farther away.
    Last edited by bring_it_on; 9th February 2017 at 21:06.
    Old radar types never die; they just phased array

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    1,366
    Quote Originally Posted by bring_it_on View Post
    What you said was -



    Is it wrong for one to assume that given this is a forum where folks are reasonably well informed that if someone says that PGM investment constitutes a CAS capability it does not automatically mean that the person is saying take a smart bomb and randomly start dropping it at pre selected targets? Seriously, when someone says that don't look just at the A-10 or *Insert your prefferd CAS craft* but look at the mission and how PGM's have ushered in the era of non-traditional CAS (i.e. the Mission) one really shouldn't need to explain how CAS is done with them (most folks here understand that).

    It should be understood that what I'm referring to is doing CAS with smart munitions (and the built up capability to do so) and not just some random strike on a target. Of course it entails leveraging other assets and investments (networking, targeting, communications, training etc), trained JTAC's and something you practice regularly but that was not being debated here. No one is promoting that they shed the competencies associated with CAS, just the infatuation of always thinking of a CAS-plane every time CAS is mentioned.



    This is a basic level of understanding that is assumed on this forum. No one is arguing that position, at least not on this thread.
    Seems me that we have a grade A problem of undertanding there.
    If it is a fault of mine, my apologies but when you write that I had affirmed that is possible to send randomly a guided bomb on a predetermined target, you are implying that i'm violating the same logical principle of non-contradiction as the term random and predetermined are mutually exclusive one of the other.
    So or you randomly bomb a casual location or you purposely target a predetermined one, tertium non datur.

    Regardless of this, you are misunderstanding me again, i'm not saying that using the PGM in performing CAS is something wrong, i'm saying that CAS is a mission that not just envisage firing or dropping ordnance over an enemy but also other forms of support between the asset performing it and the friendly troops on the ground.

    In the same way there are a series of prerequisites to qualify a mission as CAS regardless of the assets used.
    As an example sending a Drone over the desert to look for the passing of an islamist terror leader and eventually targeting it is not a CAS mission as there is not friendly troops on the ground to support.
    Sending a plane to bomb (or delivery an artillery strike to) a predetermined location, even if it is very close to friendly troops, without envisaging a prosecution of the action or any contact and coordination with them is not CAS the same, as it lacks the aspect of persistence of action, coordination with the ground force and two way communication.
    Needless to say, the fact that in those actions are used guided or unguided ordnanceor the asset performing and even the quote/position from where the attack is performed have absolutely nothing to do with the mission being or not a CAS.
    Now.a question from my part to you, just to clarify what i consider the main point of difference in our respective views.
    Is the dropping a weapon/ killing someone an obligatory part of the CAS mission?
    Because, not in my opinion but in the operational experience of my own country's air force this is not considered essential to consider a mission as doing CAS while the things i have listed above (repeat: persistence of action, coordination and two way communication) are.

    About the introduction of the airplane X or y in the discussion, I would repeat here again the original question/statement I have made, using different words: Given that actually the different facets that actually made up the whole of the CAS mission are covered in my own country by a single item, the Aeritalia/aerMacchi/Embraer AMX I fear that what you are descriving (i.e. every service asking separate allocations for covering a part of it) would end up splitting what actually is a niche mission in itself in various sub niches, so increasing the inherent danger that those separate components would be destined instead to other missions considered more important instead by each of the different specialities/branches/services manning them.

    I would instead prefer to have still a single item WHATEVER IT IS but able to cover the whole of CAS as its primary mission, so to avoid such temptations.

    The part that I consider important is the one in bold, other is secondary or better said accidental.
    Last edited by Marcellogo; 9th February 2017 at 22:17.

  14. #44
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    2,318
    Marcellogo, what exactly is a randomly guided bomb?

    Have you actually looked at the types of munitions used in CAS missions lately? Would you consider the SDB-II random? What about laser guided SDB or GBU-54b? This is a failure to understand that the types of munitions have changed the nature of close air support. You seem to be under the impression that guided munitions need mission planning, that just isn't the case when looking at the recent expenditures in Syria or Iraq.

    No offense, but your lacking in understanding on how close air support has been prosecuted by western air forces in recent campaigns. It isn't the platform, it's the timely intelligence and munitions. The B-1 has been the superstar, with the F-15E as a second, drones third, and F-16's and A-10's filling in on expeditionary air wings when the first two are rotated out. (In the case of the USAF).
    Last edited by FBW; 10th February 2017 at 03:35.

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    2,611
    The Ongoing A-10 Replacement Saga

    http://www.defense-aerospace.com/art...ment-saga.html
    Sum ergo cogito

  16. #46
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    1,366
    Quote Originally Posted by FBW View Post
    Marcellogo, what exactly is a randomly guided bomb?

    Have you actually looked at the types of munitions used in CAS missions lately? Would you consider the SDB-II random? What about laser guided SDB or GBU-54b? This is a failure to understand that the types of munitions have changed the nature of close air support. You seem to be under the impression that guided munitions need mission planning, that just isn't the case when looking at the recent expenditures in Syria or Iraq.

    No offense, but your lacking in understanding on how close air support has been prosecuted by western air forces in recent campaigns. It isn't the platform, it's the timely intelligence and munitions. The B-1 has been the superstar, with the F-15E as a second, drones third, and F-16's and A-10's filling in on expeditionary air wings when the first two are rotated out. (In the case of the USAF).
    Maybe is because i'm not an english speaker, but it seems me that we are going to reach the peak of absurd here. Look, it was bring-it-on that has affirmed that i have sustained such a bestiality.
    After that i have replied him that he has just accused me of sustaining something that, in my eyes, violates the same principle of not contradiction, what more can i say????
    Let'me add how the presence or not of a guidance system has nothing to do really with it.
    Because it's just a redundant i.e. unnecessary complication to the reasoning fault, as just the coupling of the world randomly and pre-designated is sufficient to made it to occur.


    Said so, in all my post about the argument I have not mentioned the alternative between weapon types, all of them are instead centered on the characteristics that a mission ought to have to be considered CAS and not just an aerial strike happening close to the location of friendly troops.
    because if the fundamental thesis of the ones that want ditch the A-10 or any other mission specific assets is that CAS is a mission not a plane, we have to talk about what this mission really is FIRST, not about what plane (or another asset) is better for it and even more what they would be its eventual weapons.
    Given that it seems me there is a difference between me and others about the mission pattern, i'll like someone to reply to this, and not to something I have not asked nor i'm not, almost at this point of the discussion, interested in.

    Frankly, I have always seen said that have been the B-1B and the A-10 to operate in direct coordinations with (kurdish/SDF) forces on the front lines while the other planes were used for deep strikes into ISIS held territory.
    If you have other statistics/articles over them being instead used in this peculiar role, i'm obviously very interested.
    Last edited by Marcellogo; 10th February 2017 at 17:33.

  17. #47
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    495
    Quote Originally Posted by TangoIII View Post
    RAND Report Affirms U.S. Rep. McSally Position on A-10

    The full RAND report can be read here:
    http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR1233.html
    Interesting reading in the full report has been placed above by TangoIII.

    For many it may be a shock to read that A-10 with 6x30mm GAU 8 cannon has been pointed the most effective weapon by ground troops in Iraq and Afghanistan than even the LGB or PGM.

    In this our universe there are not 100% reliability in any place, so if you are among the ground troops near the enemy and your aircrafts has been attacking with: LGB, PGM, JDAM or cruise missiles , then it has been highly recommended to take shelter too, since in Battles field such 90% reliability for precision weapons are an excellent number to put in the wall.

    Such problem with precision weapons (LGB, PGM, JDAM and cruise missiles) that has been decreased the reliability from 100% its common in all others fields, once this equipment are susceptible to problems in its hardware (electronics, electrical and mechanical) as well as software (processing failure, corrupted data).

    In general, free-fall bombs and cannons in the aircrafts has been several times more inaccurate( CEP) than LGB, PGM and JDAM, however a cannon shell or free-fall bomb has not been fit with means to alter its trajectory after firing or launching, thus precision weapons ( LGB , PGM , JDAM) if it has been presenting failure could deviate from the target not by hundreds feet , but by a few miles( each mile has 5300 ft)

    Precision weapons has been show huge advantages in several aspects , however relying only in those precision weapons can be a particular problem in CAS missions already today, otherwise the jamming( ECM) or even invasion of the datalink network by the enemy on this new weapons will be high threat in the future too.

  18. #48
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,126
    I wonder, what would be the size of the smallest plane that could carry a GAU-8? The USAF has hundreds of retired A-10, that's a lot of GAU-8s that could be mounted on a smaller plane.

    The plane would have to be build around the gun. I don't think 1100 rounds is needed anymore, around half as much would be enough.

    Could something the size of a scorpion be designed to carry it?

  19. #49
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    135 metres from Boscombe Down
    Posts
    1,887
    Quote Originally Posted by Hotshot View Post
    I wonder, what would be the size of the smallest plane that could carry a GAU-8? The USAF has hundreds of retired A-10, that's a lot of GAU-8s that could be mounted on a smaller plane.

    The plane would have to be build around the gun. I don't think 1100 rounds is needed anymore, around half as much would be enough.

    Could something the size of a scorpion be designed to carry it?
    The problem with this is the incredible amount of recoil produced by the gun! Anything smaller than an A-10 would drop out of the sky if the cannon was fired for more than one second.
    If you're not living on the edge then you're taking up too much space!

  20. #50
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    2,611
    Quote Originally Posted by WP840 View Post
    The problem with this is the incredible amount of recoil produced by the gun! Anything smaller than an A-10 would drop out of the sky if the cannon was fired for more than one second.
    It's that pesky Isaac Newton throwing a spanner in the works again. That guy was a real problem, wasn't he?

    But... seriously what mass does an A-10 have and what mass would a Scorpion (with the gun) have? Would recoil really be a killer for the Scorpion?
    Sum ergo cogito

  21. #51
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,126
    Quote Originally Posted by Hotshot View Post
    I wonder, what would be the size of the smallest plane that could carry a GAU-8? The USAF has hundreds of retired A-10, that's a lot of GAU-8s that could be mounted on a smaller plane.

    The plane would have to be build around the gun. I don't think 1100 rounds is needed anymore, around half as much would be enough.

    Could something the size of a scorpion be designed to carry it?
    The scorpion weighs about half as much as an A-10, so it should slow down twice as much. By how much does the A-10 slow down? What is the stall speed of the 2 planes?

    Ok, I found this:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GAU-8_Avenger
    While this recoil force is significant, in practice a cannon fire burst only slows the aircraft a few miles per hour in level flight
    So it is unlikely to be a problem even for a lighter plane.
    Last edited by Hotshot; 11th February 2017 at 14:11.

  22. #52
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    5,661
    Quote Originally Posted by Spitfire9 View Post
    It's that pesky Isaac Newton throwing a spanner in the works again. That guy was a real problem, wasn't he?

    But... seriously what mass does an A-10 have and what mass would a Scorpion (with the gun) have? Would recoil really be a killer for the Scorpion?
    Why on the earth would anyone put the A-10 gun on a small CAS platform in the first place??

    That gun was not created for fighting cave people in middle-East. End of story.
    Thanks

  23. #53
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,126
    Quote Originally Posted by haavarla View Post
    Why on the earth would anyone put the A-10 gun on a small CAS platform in the first place??

    That gun was not created for fighting cave people in middle-East. End of story.
    The gun is very effective for that and inexpensive. In fact, the question is rather why would anyone want to use gun tactics against a high end enemy given that it would be extremely dangerous to do so.

  24. #54
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    4,426
    We should buy a few dozen GAU8 and convert a few A400M as gunships with 8 side firing GAU8 in two groups of 4. You could install small synchronized rockets opposite the guns to offset the recoil in order to increase burst lenght. You could add another twin pair on a mobile mount on the rear ramp just in case something is still moving in the area you just mowed down.

    At a firing rate of 4200 rpm each a 1 second burst would rain 560 rounds of 30mm goodness on a target area.

    Nic

  25. #55
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,126
    Quote Originally Posted by Nicolas10 View Post
    We should buy a few dozen GAU8 and convert a few A400M as gunships with 8 side firing GAU8 in two groups of 4. You could install small synchronized rockets opposite the guns to offset the recoil in order to increase burst lenght. You could add another twin pair on a mobile mount on the rear ramp just in case something is still moving in the area you just mowed down.

    At a firing rate of 4200 rpm each a 1 second burst would rain 560 rounds of 30mm goodness on a target area.

    Nic
    You're sure that rate of fire is really needed? Why not just fire a longer burst instead. If you use only one GAU-8 you need a much smaller and cheaper plane. Maybe something like an atlantic with one GAU-8 with 2000-3000 rounds instead of the bay for instance.

    You could afford a lot more of those, and the cost per flight hour would be a lot less.

    As for the recoil, the gun could be mounted near the center of gravity. Maybe as you suggest retro-rockets could help if the recoil has to be countered.

  26. #56
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    4,426
    Quote Originally Posted by Hotshot View Post
    You're sure that rate of fire is really needed? Why not just fire a longer burst instead. If you use only one GAU-8 you need a much smaller and cheaper plane. Maybe something like an atlantic with one GAU-8 with 2000-3000 rounds instead of the bay for instance.

    You could afford a lot more of those, and the cost per flight hour would be a lot less.

    As for the recoil, the gun could be mounted near the center of gravity. Maybe as you suggest retro-rockets could help if the recoil has to be countered.
    Yes that rate of fire is needed.

    Say you stumble upon a concentration of jihadi pickup trucks or of oil trucks. You could set up the geometry of your 8 GAU8 array (say target an area in a square or circular shape or more rectangular and stretched in the case of a convoy for instance according to the concentration configuration) & in a second you'd obliterate a couple soccer field's worth at once. No time to scatter or run away from the attack as it's done in a couple second bursts at max. 2 seconds = 1120 30mm shells

    Plus just imagine the mere psychological effect... plus the sound from hell.

    Also you can add DIRCM & armor it for good measure just in case.

    Nic
    Last edited by Nicolas10; 11th February 2017 at 17:12.

  27. #57
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Calgary, Alberta
    Posts
    161
    I think the A-10 does two things for CAS...
    1) I think it has a fear factor for enemies just like the Stuka of WWII. Hearing the sound of that gun and knowing it is in the vicinity, would make any man tremble.
    2) It give one hell of a morale boost to the troops on the ground. Pretty much for the same reasons. Knowing not much would survive or continue to fight after a strafing run. Seeing it doing slow twists and turns down low to come in for another past has to be awe inspiring!

  28. #58
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    1,366
    People, there are a lot of other 30X173, 30x170 and 30x165mm aircraft guns in the word, a pod with one of them doesn't cost so much to need to adapt the GAU-8 to the Scorpion.
    One can also reuse the 25mm pods of the Harriers, both with US gatling than British revolver ones.

  29. #59
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    1,366
    Quote Originally Posted by Voodoo View Post
    I think the A-10 does two things for CAS...
    1) I think it has a fear factor for enemies just like the Stuka of WWII. Hearing the sound of that gun and knowing it is in the vicinity, would make any man tremble.
    2) It give one hell of a morale boost to the troops on the ground. Pretty much for the same reasons. Knowing not much would survive or continue to fight after a strafing run. Seeing it doing slow twists and turns down low to come in for another past has to be awe inspiring!
    ...and on the other side ground troops do a great thing for the A-10 (and AMX, Su-25, Apache, Mi-28, Tiger ets, etc.):
    with their movement & fire they put the enemy force into the dire choice to show up & fight, so making them a suitable target for a CAS plane attack or insteadkeep to stay hidden and being overran.

    This even more when we talk about the current engagement in Afghanistan and Syria-Iraq against insurgent forces that blend themselves with the civilian population and use/rob their infrastuctures and life support in opposition to let's say the centralized and logistically heavy armed forces under Saddam Hussein that offered a lot of targets for a strategic bombing campaign.

  30. #60
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,126
    Quote Originally Posted by Nicolas10 View Post
    Yes that rate of fire is needed.

    Say you stumble upon a concentration of jihadi pickup trucks or of oil trucks. You could set up the geometry of your 8 GAU8 array (say target an area in a square or circular shape or more rectangular and stretched in the case of a convoy for instance according to the concentration configuration) & in a second you'd obliterate a couple soccer field's worth at once. No time to scatter or run away from the attack as it's done in a couple second bursts at max. 2 seconds = 1120 30mm shells

    Plus just imagine the mere psychological effect... plus the sound from hell.

    Also you can add DIRCM & armor it for good measure just in case.

    Nic
    Sorry but I am still not convinced it would make so much difference if it takes 2 or 8 seconds to wipe out the targets. You would pay an enormous cost to acquire that plane.

    In most circumstances the target would not be such a concentrated enemy force, so that much firepower would be a waste.

    I don't think you could use the GAU-8s of the 2 sides at the same time. I doubt the GAUs would be mounted on a system with a large orientation angle like a turret. It would be more like the gun on the AC-130.

    Also the plane would need a few GBUs against fortifications and buildings, 4 would be enough I think. The main weapon would be the GAU-8 to save on PGMs.
    Last edited by Hotshot; 11th February 2017 at 18:06.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

- Part of the    Network -

KEY AERO AVIATION NEWS

MAGAZINES

AVIATION FORUM

SHOP

 

WEBSITES