Key.Aero Network
Register Free

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 61 to 90 of 92

Thread: US CAS rethinking going on

  1. #61
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    4,353
    The GAU8s would all fire on the same side. You'd also want a side looking AESA with GMTI & GMTT and good SAR aperture and a six shot AASM pylon under the wing.

    Nic

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    646
    Quote Originally Posted by Nicolas10 View Post
    The GAU8s would all fire on the same side. You'd also want a side looking AESA with GMTI & GMTT and good SAR aperture and a six shot AASM pylon under the wing.

    Nic
    I don't any reason to use the GAU-8, it would make far more sense to use the GAU-22. There will be a couple of thousand GAU-22 built, it has an active production line, modern ammunition, is lighter, far more accurate, has a similar range and could be mounted on a much smaller platform that the GAU-8.

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,111
    Quote Originally Posted by Nicolas10 View Post
    The GAU8s would all fire on the same side. You'd also want a side looking AESA with GMTI & GMTT and good SAR aperture and a six shot AASM pylon under the wing.

    Nic
    The AASM sounds too expensive for that kind of target, a GBU-12 can do the job.

    One thing I am a bit skeptical about is the accuracy if you fire the gun to the side like that. The gun is particularly useful for danger close situations, so you want to keep the accuracy.

  4. #64
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    4,353
    Quote Originally Posted by Hotshot View Post
    The AASM sounds too expensive for that kind of target, a GBU-12 can do the job.

    One thing I am a bit skeptical about is the accuracy if you fire the gun to the side like that. The gun is particularly useful for danger close situations, so you want to keep the accuracy.
    AASM has a way better firing envelope than the GBU12, which means you can fire almost instantly after detecting a target. With GBU12 you need to maneuver, which will make you waste time, esp in a A400M.

    You could add some brimstones under the other wing.

    As for the accuracy of the gun, you don't have to fire all 8 at the same time. And you'd obviously install them on mobile mounts in order to be able to aim them accurately.

    Nic

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    ContEU/RU/UAE
    Posts
    4,755
    Quote Originally Posted by Hotshot View Post
    Is there any news on the CAS on demand concept where the JTAC controls drones?

    It seems to me the XQ-222 could be a good drone for that, with possibly additional external payload when stealth is not required.
    That is one of the most critical points in the whole complex. The question what are the Combat Controllers allowed to do. And that is much more a cultural / tribal question than a technical question. You don't need the whole fancy C2 structure if the CC teams are running the show on their own.

    Aside from that: Precision Fires is not CAS. CAS has a psychological component (I'm being watched ...) that precision fires can't match. And Afghanistan overall is a dangerous to bad example for CAS. For one it was / is a static war (up a mountain, up a valley a few meters, often within walking distance). So precision fires (can) work(s) here. For two it was a services tribal effort to be part of the game, a way to make each weapon system relevant (see using B-2 from out of theatre instead of flooding the country with A-10). A P-47 could do the CAS job in Afghanistan! And it would be right perfect. Real CAS against infantry hasn't changed since '45.
    "Distiller ... arrogant, ruthless, and by all reports (including his own) utterly charming"

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,111
    Quote Originally Posted by Distiller View Post
    That is one of the most critical points in the whole complex. The question what are the Combat Controllers allowed to do. And that is much more a cultural / tribal question than a technical question. You don't need the whole fancy C2 structure if the CC teams are running the show on their own.
    If the JTAC could control the fight that would reduce the intermediates and increase the effectiveness.

    Aside from that: Precision Fires is not CAS. CAS has a psychological component (I'm being watched ...) that precision fires can't match. And Afghanistan overall is a dangerous to bad example for CAS. For one it was / is a static war (up a mountain, up a valley a few meters, often within walking distance). So precision fires (can) work(s) here. For two it was a services tribal effort to be part of the game, a way to make each weapon system relevant (see using B-2 from out of theatre instead of flooding the country with A-10). A P-47 could do the CAS job in Afghanistan! And it would be right perfect. Real CAS against infantry hasn't changed since '45.
    Technology increases the possible alternatives to perform CAS so figuring what would be the best way to do it is not obvious.

    I think that it's not because the enemy doesn't see the CAS plane that he wouldn't be scared if he knows he can be hit at any time. As an analogy, a 4th gen pilot is probably scared of a stealth plane because he can't see it.

    The enemy infantry will also probably be very scared of the XM-25s. It will be hard to hide from them, especially if they are used in conjunction with micro drones. The fact that it will be almost impossible to take cover is likely to cause panic among them.

  7. #67
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,111
    Quote Originally Posted by Nicolas10 View Post
    AASM has a way better firing envelope than the GBU12, which means you can fire almost instantly after detecting a target. With GBU12 you need to maneuver, which will make you waste time, esp in a A400M.

    You could add some brimstones under the other wing.
    AASMs and brimstones are very expensive weapons. It sounds illogical to use guns on one hand to lower the cost per kill and on another hand to use weapons that cost 10 times more than a low cost PGMs. The US bombers have used the JDAM and laser guided bombs successfully, I see no reason why an A400M wouldn't be able to do the same.


    As for the accuracy of the gun, you don't have to fire all 8 at the same time. And you'd obviously install them on mobile mounts in order to be able to aim them accurately.

    Nic
    I think the GAU-8s would have to be mounted on a heavy mobile mount like on a CIWS to absorb the vibration. I don't think that would be that easy. If you use 8 guns that would increase the cost. Maybe you'd be better off with 105mms or single barrel 30mms like on the AC-130.

    Another thing is that if you have more cheaper platforms in the air you can have more sensors so you can find more targets. Or maybe your plane could be equipped with a system like gorgon stare with hundreds of cheap cameras. Gorgon stare uses a software that can track a very large number of targets.

  8. #68
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    498
    Quote Originally Posted by Marcellogo View Post
    ...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.
    Interestingly the comments in your post above, since it would have been possible to observe these differences in the operations from A-10 in the Gulf War in 1991 as well as in the current campaigns both in Iraq and Afghanistan after 2003.

    like in 1991 during the Gulf War the A-10 had been operated mostly at altitudes above 10000ft(3050m) on CAS and BAI missions because of the threat from MANPADS and AAA . In this campaign the most effective weapon of the A 10 has been the AGM 65 Maverik, once 90% from all AGM 65 were launched by A 10 during the Golf War, while the Gatling 6x30mm GAU-8 cannon were less used because of the restrictions to stay above 10000ft(3050m) the altitude.

    In the campaigns post-invasion of Iraq in 2003 and Afghanistan the most effective weapon of the A 10 has been the GAU-8 cannon, although the threat of the MANPADS and AAA has been smaller than 1991 but the same still present , therefore the explanation for this change could have been associated with the characteristics of the targets has been found out in Iraq and Afghanistan.

    In 1991 those targets had been identified from 10,000ft altitude on the deserts of Iraq and Kuwait, such as: MBT, APC, IFV, MLRS, SS 1 SCUD TEL , artillery pieces among others. While in Iraq and Afghanistan after 2003 the targets of the A-10 has been found out among civilian buildings and vehicles used by insurgents, so there were not scattered and visible in the deserts like in 1991 but in urban areas among the civilian population.

    Another detail that may explain the fact that the GAU-8 cannon has been became the most effective weapon in the Afghan and Iraqi campaigns shall be the improved version A-10C, which among other systems has been introduced the SNIPER and LITENING pod with FLIR and Laser Designation .

    In 1991 the A-10A had been only equipped with the Pave Penny sensor that are simple located laser from marked targets by others aircraft or ground troops equipped with laser designation.

    Then with the introduction of SNIPER and LITENING pods the A-10C has been equipping with laser range to increase the accuracy of GAU-8 as well as FLIR for searching more difficult targets in urban environment.

    However, what has been making the A-10 highly effective with the GAU 8 are its impressive capabilities to withstand damage from MANPADS or AAA while has been flying at low altitude and speed, since the low speed and altitude will increases accuracy from GAU-8 and enables A-10C to identify difficult targets for the GAU-8 and other weapons.

  9. #69
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    1,462
    Quote Originally Posted by maurobaggio View Post
    Interestingly the comments in your post above, since it would have been possible to observe these differences in the operations from A-10 in the Gulf War in 1991 as well as in the current campaigns both in Iraq and Afghanistan after 2003.

    like in 1991 during the Gulf War the A-10 had been operated mostly at altitudes above 10000ft(3050m) on CAS and BAI missions because of the threat from MANPADS and AAA . In this campaign the most effective weapon of the A 10 has been the AGM 65 Maverik, once 90% from all AGM 65 were launched by A 10 during the Golf War, while the Gatling 6x30mm GAU-8 cannon were less used because of the restrictions to stay above 10000ft(3050m) the altitude.

    In the campaigns post-invasion of Iraq in 2003 and Afghanistan the most effective weapon of the A 10 has been the GAU-8 cannon, although the threat of the MANPADS and AAA has been smaller than 1991 but the same still present , therefore the explanation for this change could have been associated with the characteristics of the targets has been found out in Iraq and Afghanistan.

    In 1991 those targets had been identified from 10,000ft altitude on the deserts of Iraq and Kuwait, such as: MBT, APC, IFV, MLRS, SS 1 SCUD TEL , artillery pieces among others. While in Iraq and Afghanistan after 2003 the targets of the A-10 has been found out among civilian buildings and vehicles used by insurgents, so there were not scattered and visible in the deserts like in 1991 but in urban areas among the civilian population.

    Another detail that may explain the fact that the GAU-8 cannon has been became the most effective weapon in the Afghan and Iraqi campaigns shall be the improved version A-10C, which among other systems has been introduced the SNIPER and LITENING pod with FLIR and Laser Designation .

    In 1991 the A-10A had been only equipped with the Pave Penny sensor that are simple located laser from marked targets by others aircraft or ground troops equipped with laser designation.

    Then with the introduction of SNIPER and LITENING pods the A-10C has been equipping with laser range to increase the accuracy of GAU-8 as well as FLIR for searching more difficult targets in urban environment.

    However, what has been making the A-10 highly effective with the GAU 8 are its impressive capabilities to withstand damage from MANPADS or AAA while has been flying at low altitude and speed, since the low speed and altitude will increases accuracy from GAU-8 and enables A-10C to identify difficult targets for the GAU-8 and other weapons.
    In the 1998 Kosovo campaign your A-10 and our AMX operated together as one had the heavy payload while the other had a better and above all "just on time" sensor package.
    + they worked very well together having, the more, the less, the same flight pattern and the low level loiter ability.
    Our own operative experience in Afghanistan confirm what said in the Rand report, even equipped with a M-61 peashooter a CAS plane can still make enemy to squat down making or even feigning a strafing run.
    Add to that the fact that we found that the by far the most useful item in the Afghanistan scenario was the couple Reccelite pod and the "just in time" link with the same troops on the ground to explain why we are just a little conservative/skeptics on this matter of long range CAS.

  10. #70
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    "Where the fruit is"
    Posts
    4,257


    30mm gun pod. F16.

  11. #71
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    5,186
    I witnessed some of the F-16 30mm gun pod testing. It wasn't encouraging because fuselage/pylon deflection caused excessive dispersion of the burst.

  12. #72
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    5,791
    Quote Originally Posted by Hotshot View Post
    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.
    Very effective..? Very effective compared to what?
    Very cheap compared to what?

    I seriously doubt its cheaper and more effective against any one of these weapons systems:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-8_rocket

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-13_rocket

    The GAU-8 is a monster on both size and weight. There are so many limitions with mounting this gun on other platforms. Its a big no-no.

    And the ammo for GAU-8 is not cheap at all. What other weapon system use the same ammo? Does the Navy use it? Does the army use it?
    So you end up with producing ammo rounds for the quite limited array of guns only used on A-10. I'm not sure about the gun on Apache, but i would be surprised its the same type of ammo.
    Last edited by haavarla; 14th February 2017 at 14:48.
    Thanks

  13. #73
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,111
    Quote Originally Posted by haavarla View Post
    Very effective..? Very effective compared to what?
    Very cheap compared to what?

    I seriously doubt its cheaper and more effective against any one of these weapons systems:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-8_rocket

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-13_rocket

    The GAU-8 is a monster on both size and weight. There are so many limitions with mounting this gun on other platforms. Its a big no-no.

    And the ammo for GAU-8 is not cheap at all. What other weapon system use the same ammo? Does the Navy use it? Does the army use it?
    So you end up with producing ammo rounds for the quite limited array of guns only used on A-10. I'm not sure about the gun on Apache, but i would be surprised its the same type of ammo.
    The GAU-8 is far more accurate than non guided rockets, so it reduced collateral damage. But of course we know that the Russians don't give a flying ******* about collateral damage.

    And any guided munition would cost way more than a gun burst.

  14. #74
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,111
    Quote Originally Posted by djcross View Post
    I witnessed some of the F-16 30mm gun pod testing. It wasn't encouraging because fuselage/pylon deflection caused excessive dispersion of the burst.
    Maybe they should have modified the F-16 more to give it a chance to succeed for CAS. Like different centerline attachements to be able to carry the gun pod effectively, and maybe larger wings with more pylons for weapons and better maneuvrability at low altitude. Maybe with larger wings it would have behaved more like an F-18, so that variant would still have had significant a2a capability..

  15. #75
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    5,791
    Quote Originally Posted by Hotshot View Post
    The GAU-8 is far more accurate than non guided rockets, so it reduced collateral damage. But of course we know that the Russians don't give a flying ******* about collateral damage.

    And any guided munition would cost way more than a gun burst.
    You have to show me what is the cost of GAU-8 ammo first.
    Just as the accuracy of any gun operations depends on the pilot, so does the S-8/13 Rockets. The Russian seems to have got the job done in Syria would you not say?

    And you do not fire that gun in any Urban area if you are considering avoiding collateral damage, so pls stop that ****ty US P-ganda that US being so much better.
    There are 1000's of unreported US airstrike tha last few years.. i wonder why.
    Thanks

  16. #76
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,111
    Quote Originally Posted by haavarla View Post
    You have to show me what is the cost of GAU-8 ammo first.
    Just as the accuracy of any gun operations depends on the pilot, so does the S-8/13 Rockets. The Russian seems to have got the job done in Syria would you not say?
    BS. The gun is inherently more accurate than any rocket, cut the ****.

    The situation in Syria is not stabilized yet, and how many civilians have been killed by russian unguided bombs? What a ********** shame...

    And you do not fire that gun in any Urban area if you are considering avoiding collateral damage, so pls stop that ****ty US P-ganda that US being so much better.
    There are 1000's of unreported US airstrike tha last few years.. i wonder why.
    US and allied planes use mostly guided bombs. I am not against the idea of a CAS plane using unguided rockets, but only when there is limited risks to civilians, other than that the gun is the best option in terms of cost effectiveness. As for the US they use the SDB for lower lethality in urban warfare when possible. They've even designed a version with smaller warhead:

    http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...ns/sdb-flm.htm

    The Russians don't give a **** about collateral damage, bunch of a$$holes...

  17. #77
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    2,357
    Quote Originally Posted by haavarla View Post

    And you do not fire that gun in any Urban area if you are considering avoiding collateral damage, so pls stop that ****ty US P-ganda that US being so much better.
    There are 1000's of unreported US airstrike tha last few years.. i wonder why.
    Before you pop off on this as if there is no truth to the disparity of civilian deaths caused by bombing in Syria let's look at the information from observers. In reality, both the U.S. (and coalition) and Russia lie about the extent of civilian casualties caused by the bombing in Syria.

    The difference is in the magnitude of the lie. And anyone who thinks that Russia (using unguided munitions in an urban setting) is somehow not killing more civilians is delusional.

    The last link is particularly good (observer states that both Russian and coalition are causing casualties, and contrasts the different campaigns)
    https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/ne...ikes-in-syria/

    https://airwars.org/civilian-casualty-claims/\

    http://www.rferl.org/a/syria-russia-.../28059034.html


    The Russians don't give a **** about collateral damage, bunch of a$$holes
    - Is that really helpful (or appropriate) to have a open discussion on a forum about CAS Hotshot? Do you think that Coalition airstrikes are not killing people too?

    And before this thread devolves into claims and counterclaims of civilian deaths, perhaps it's best to stick to the topic?
    Last edited by FBW; 14th February 2017 at 16:36.

  18. #78
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,111
    - Is that really helpful (or appropriate) to have a open discussion on a forum about CAS Hotshot? Do you think that Coalition airstrikes are not killing people too?
    Of course the coalition air strikes cause some casualties, but at least we try to do what we can to reduce them. Pilots are sometimes unable to open fire because of rules of engagements, which reduces good opportunities to kill targets.

    The Russians on another hand are killing thousands of people without really giving a **** apparently. And they try to give us lessons...

    Can't stand them!!

    Anyways back on topic.

  19. #79
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    5,791
    BS. The gun is inherently more accurate than any rocket, cut the ****.

    The situation in Syria is not stabilized yet, and how many civilians have been killed by russian unguided bombs? What a ********** shame...
    What.. from the honorable CNN coverage on Syria?
    Its only a matter of time. ISIS is done for. And so is the US supported rebels.

    So tell me how many have been killed, by who and what, you seems to know, pls tell me.

    US and allied planes use mostly guided bombs. I am not against the idea of a CAS plane using unguided rockets, but only when there is limited risks to civilians, other than that the gun is the best option in terms of cost effectiveness. As for the US they use the SDB for lower lethality in urban warfare when possible. They've even designed a version with smaller warhead:

    http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...ns/sdb-flm.htm

    The Russians don't give a **** about collateral damage, bunch of a$$holes...
    The Similarity sounds alike here.. are you two related?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mC7Fz0d9H8M

    What are the chances that the death tolls would increase spectacular if US got its way and overthrow Assad in Syria?

    Reality check for you! ISIS had to be dealt with, but in order to do that, Assad had to be secured first. And US has tried their very best to undermined Assad from day one. Thus Both Russia and Assad has used much of its resources to fight off other US backed rebels than ISIS. That is also blod on US hands.

    As far as i'm concerned, US has from day one had their head up their own @ss when it comes to Iraq and Syria.

    So pls do us all a big favor and stop posting your warped reality on the subject.

    War is a bad. But Russia has done the right thing in Middle-East.
    Thanks

  20. #80
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,111
    Quote Originally Posted by haavarla View Post
    What.. from the honorable CNN coverage on Syria?
    Its only a matter of time. ISIS is done for. And so is the US supported rebels.

    So tell me how many have been killed, by who and what, you seems to know, pls tell me.



    The Similarity sounds alike here.. are you two related?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mC7Fz0d9H8M

    What are the chances that the death tolls would increase spectacular if US got its way and overthrow Assad in Syria?

    Reality check for you! ISIS had to be dealt with, but in order to do that, Assad had to be secured first. And US has tried their very best to undermined Assad from day one. Thus Both Russia and Assad has used much of its resources to fight off other US backed rebels than ISIS. That is also blod on US hands.

    As far as i'm concerned, US has from day one had their head up their own @ss when it comes to Iraq and Syria.

    So pls do us all a big favor and stop posting your warped reality on the subject.

    War is a bad. But Russia has done the right thing in Middle-East.

    Assad has to be secured first... so that Russia can continue to have one puppet country in the middle east, no matter the casualties.

    And ISIS has not been defeated yet.

    If you want to solve the problem and get rid of Assad the puppet dictator, arm the millions of migrants that flee Syria ( many if not mostof them men of military age ) and send them back to fight. Check how the Kurds are fighting with minimal equipment. We could provide the air support, artillery, etc, but of course if we do that that can escalate with the Russians who want to keep their dictator in place, sounds familiar?

  21. #81
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    498
    Quote Originally Posted by haavarla View Post
    Very effective..? Very effective compared to what?
    Very cheap compared to what?

    I seriously doubt its cheaper and more effective against any one of these weapons systems:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-8_rocket

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-13_rocket

    The GAU-8 is a monster on both size and weight. There are so many limitions with mounting this gun on other platforms. Its a big no-no.

    And the ammo for GAU-8 is not cheap at all. What other weapon system use the same ammo? Does the Navy use it? Does the army use it?
    So you end up with producing ammo rounds for the quite limited array of guns only used on A-10. I'm not sure about the gun on Apache, but i would be surprised its the same type of ammo.
    'The A-10 conducts CAS differently from other aircraft In Afghanistan, A-10 pilots used their 30mm GAU-8 cannons much more frequently than other weapons, including guided bombs. In contrast, the F-16 relied largely on guided bombs for CAS.During interviews we conducted, many ground commanders expressed a preference for the 30mm cannon over precision bombs because the cannon is highly accurate (80 percent of rounds within a 20-ftradius at 4,000-ft range), is better able to hit moving targets than even precision
    bombs, and produces less collateral damage than bombs.Also, many missions involved a show of force, in which aircraft flew low and slow over the U.S. ground forces to deter adversary activity.'


    John Matsumura, John Gordon IV, Randall Steeb , Defining an Approach for Future Close Air Support Capability, pag 20
    http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR1233.html



    The Gatling gun 6X30mm GAU-8 standard ammunition from A-10 has been composed of anti-tank incendiary projectiles PGU-14B and high explosive incendiary projectiles PGU-13B in the proportion of 4X1, but this standard has been apparently used against targets such as armored columns (MBT, IFV, APC).

    As in Iraq and Afghanistan after 2003 these are not routine targets, in fact should not have been needing the ammunition like the PGU-14B of deplete uranium to pass through armored, so this type of higher cost projectile could not be the standard with the A-10.

    In fact it were almost incomprehensible that the A-10A had been not equipped with a laser designator / telemeter laser, since others attack fighters from NATO like the Jaguar and Harrier II had such system, just as this were a standard with the former Soviet Union: Su-17M, MiG-23BN, MiG-27, Su-25.

    The lack of the laser rangefinder with A-10A had been limited the accuracy of both GAU-8 cannon and free fall bombs and rockets, since the A-10 were not equipped with radar, unlike the first version of the F- 16A/B that has been equipped with multirole radars.

    The A-10A has been equipped with a passive laser sensor Pave Penny , then its only capable to locate targets has been marked by laser designator from others aircraft and ground troops .

    With the modernization from A-10A to the standard A-10C and the introduction of the Sniper and Litening pods into the A-10C, it now has been equipped with laser designator / telemeter, as well as a long-range TV and FLIR system, so it has been considerably increased the accuracy and safety for ground troops with GAU-8 while has been compared with version A-10A.

    In the attack against armored columns from Warsaw Pact from 80's by the A-10A with the GAU-8 cannon this would have been happened at low altitude and short distance, since the GAU-8's anti-tank ammunition needs high speed to penetrate the more resistant armors, perhaps in reason of this mission it had been omitted such laser designator / telemeter in the version A-10A.

    Even in the 80's there were plans to modernize the A-10A with laser designator and FLIR, but at this time the USAF had been already announced that it would remove the A-10A from the active service and it would replace by a new version of F 16 with internal laser designator and FLIR, once the Lantirn pod with the F-16C/D should be just a temporally measure until this new version of the F-16 that would be acquired by USAF in the 90's.

    The outcome of the 1991 Gulf War and the end of the Cold War has been allowed the A-10 still active even though it has been highly unwanted by the 'Father' USAF since its conception, once the A-10 does not look like a child from USAF, otherwise It looks like the 'neighbor' US Army.

  22. #82
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    5,791
    Quote Originally Posted by Hotshot View Post
    Assad has to be secured first... so that Russia can continue to have one puppet country in the middle east, no matter the casualties.

    And ISIS has not been defeated yet.

    If you want to solve the problem and get rid of Assad the puppet dictator, arm the millions of migrants that flee Syria ( many if not mostof them men of military age ) and send them back to fight. Check how the Kurds are fighting with minimal equipment. We could provide the air support, artillery, etc, but of course if we do that that can escalate with the Russians who want to keep their dictator in place, sounds familiar?
    Omg..
    The sheer amount of ignorance is dazzling.

    In 2014, Assad was ELECTED the president of Syria. What does that tell you? So its up to US to decide whom is going to be president in other countries now.. Hurray for USA democracies and double standards!
    If Any Country want to favor Russia, well so what..? Huh, are you telling me that its reason enough to go to war??

    As for the Kurds, i actually like them, and i really hope they get a say in Syria future.
    But has not US supplied them with large stocks of weapons and advisors? Another "puppets" of USA to use your own words here.

    As for your moronic proposal to arm imigrants.. have you spoken to them? News flash!! They don't want to do it. Why should they!
    I find your lack of logic and spaced ideas disturbing..

    The Freaking ISIS is not Syria or Russia fault. Its a very bad spot to start pointing fingers.

    I'm done with this debate with you.
    Last edited by haavarla; 14th February 2017 at 19:28.
    Thanks

  23. #83
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    "Where the fruit is"
    Posts
    4,257
    Quote Originally Posted by djcross View Post
    I witnessed some of the F-16 30mm gun pod testing. It wasn't encouraging because fuselage/pylon deflection caused excessive dispersion of the burst.
    I am surprised. Without dismissing at all what you have seen, the video have a zoomed in view of the target board with an impressive low burst dispersion (see at 4:12)

    Name:  F16 30mm Gunpod burst density.jpg
Views: 148
Size:  8.3 KB

  24. #84
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    5,791
    Quote Originally Posted by maurobaggio View Post
    'The A-10 conducts CAS differently from other aircraft In Afghanistan, A-10 pilots used their 30mm GAU-8 cannons much more frequently than other weapons, including guided bombs. In contrast, the F-16 relied largely on guided bombs for CAS.During interviews we conducted, many ground commanders expressed a preference for the 30mm cannon over precision bombs because the cannon is highly accurate (80 percent of rounds within a 20-ftradius at 4,000-ft range), is better able to hit moving targets than even precision
    bombs, and produces less collateral damage than bombs.Also, many missions involved a show of force, in which aircraft flew low and slow over the U.S. ground forces to deter adversary activity.'


    John Matsumura, John Gordon IV, Randall Steeb , Defining an Approach for Future Close Air Support Capability, pag 20
    http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR1233.html



    The Gatling gun 6X30mm GAU-8 standard ammunition from A-10 has been composed of anti-tank incendiary projectiles PGU-14B and high explosive incendiary projectiles PGU-13B in the proportion of 4X1, but this standard has been apparently used against targets such as armored columns (MBT, IFV, APC).

    As in Iraq and Afghanistan after 2003 these are not routine targets, in fact should not have been needing the ammunition like the PGU-14B of deplete uranium to pass through armored, so this type of higher cost projectile could not be the standard with the A-10.

    In fact it were almost incomprehensible that the A-10A had been not equipped with a laser designator / telemeter laser, since others attack fighters from NATO like the Jaguar and Harrier II had such system, just as this were a standard with the former Soviet Union: Su-17M, MiG-23BN, MiG-27, Su-25.

    The lack of the laser rangefinder with A-10A had been limited the accuracy of both GAU-8 cannon and free fall bombs and rockets, since the A-10 were not equipped with radar, unlike the first version of the F- 16A/B that has been equipped with multirole radars.

    The A-10A has been equipped with a passive laser sensor Pave Penny , then its only capable to locate targets has been marked by laser designator from others aircraft and ground troops .

    With the modernization from A-10A to the standard A-10C and the introduction of the Sniper and Litening pods into the A-10C, it now has been equipped with laser designator / telemeter, as well as a long-range TV and FLIR system, so it has been considerably increased the accuracy and safety for ground troops with GAU-8 while has been compared with version A-10A.

    In the attack against armored columns from Warsaw Pact from 80's by the A-10A with the GAU-8 cannon this would have been happened at low altitude and short distance, since the GAU-8's anti-tank ammunition needs high speed to penetrate the more resistant armors, perhaps in reason of this mission it had been omitted such laser designator / telemeter in the version A-10A.

    Even in the 80's there were plans to modernize the A-10A with laser designator and FLIR, but at this time the USAF had been already announced that it would remove the A-10A from the active service and it would replace by a new version of F 16 with internal laser designator and FLIR, once the Lantirn pod with the F-16C/D should be just a temporally measure until this new version of the F-16 that would be acquired by USAF in the 90's.

    The outcome of the 1991 Gulf War and the end of the Cold War has been allowed the A-10 still active even though it has been highly unwanted by the 'Father' USAF since its conception, once the A-10 does not look like a child from USAF, otherwise It looks like the 'neighbor' US Army.
    Yes i knew most of A-10 history, thank you.
    If you read my first post, i questioned what anyone would use the gun on A-10 on towel heads with a smaller CAS platform. Beside from the fact, it can't be done.
    The GAU-8 is massive. That gun was designed for the purpose of taking out armoured collums against Soviet.


    I'm not sure, but i do not think they still use depleted Uranium tip on those rounds these days.

    Anyway. My point was, its not a very common type of ammo that is widely used. Hense, its not cheap at all.
    When a A-10 first open up his gun, he mostly if not always return to base depleted, so its not a matter of a "few rounds".
    Last edited by haavarla; 14th February 2017 at 20:15.
    Thanks

  25. #85
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    5,791
    Quote Originally Posted by TomcatViP View Post
    I am surprised. Without dismissing at all what you have seen, the video have a zoomed in view of the target board with an impressive low burst dispersion (see at 4:12)

    Name:  F16 30mm Gunpod burst density.jpg
Views: 148
Size:  8.3 KB
    Well the marker was pretty close by. It does not tell us anything on the pod gun accuracy.
    Thanks

  26. #86
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    4,353
    Quote Originally Posted by Hotshot View Post
    Assad has to be secured first... so that Russia can continue to have one puppet country in the middle east, no matter the casualties.

    And ISIS has not been defeated yet.

    If you want to solve the problem and get rid of Assad the puppet dictator, arm the millions of migrants that flee Syria ( many if not mostof them men of military age ) and send them back to fight. Check how the Kurds are fighting with minimal equipment. We could provide the air support, artillery, etc, but of course if we do that that can escalate with the Russians who want to keep their dictator in place, sounds familiar?
    Reading Liberation too much?

  27. #87
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    646
    Quote Originally Posted by haavarla View Post

    Anyway. My point was, its not a very common type of ammo that is widely used. Hense, its not cheap at all.
    Again, GAU-22 is the best option...

  28. #88
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,111
    Quote Originally Posted by haavarla View Post
    Yes i knew most of A-10 history, thank you.
    If you read my first post, i questioned what anyone would use the gun on A-10 on towel heads with a smaller CAS platform. Beside from the fact, it can't be done.
    The GAU-8 is massive. That gun was designed for the purpose of taking out armoured collums against Soviet.


    I'm not sure, but i do not think they still use depleted Uranium tip on those rounds these days.

    Anyway. My point was, its not a very common type of ammo that is widely used. Hense, its not cheap at all.
    When a A-10 first open up his gun, he mostly if not always return to base depleted, so its not a matter of a "few rounds".
    The GAU-8 uses an HEI round, the PGU-13/B. An improved variant has been developped:
    http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2008gun_mis...7GimmyKirk.pdf

    The GAU-8s are already available from the USAF boneyard, so they they come free. With this munition, it is a highly effective and accurate weapon. The GAU-8 might sound a little old tech but for that kind of mission it is still praised by the pilots.

    But why would you care about precision when you can use cluster bombs right?

    Even the APKWS costs close to $30000 per unit. Its cost is likely to go down but it will still remain much more costly that a gun strafe.

    https://defensetech.org/2016/10/19/n...uided-rockets/

    I bet they could build a relatively light plane built around a GAU-8, around 6.5 tons empty with 1/3 the operational cost of an A-10, with one drum (575 rounds) instead of 2, plus 6 external hardpoint, for 2 500lbs bombs and 4 lighter weapons. That could be very cost-effective for low intensity scenario, because it wouldn't use a lot of PGMs.

    I am sure the A-10 pilots would love that!!!

  29. #89
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,111
    Quote Originally Posted by Nicolas10 View Post
    Reading Liberation too much?
    Never read Liberation in my life.

  30. #90
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,111
    Quote Originally Posted by haavarla View Post
    Omg..
    The sheer amount of ignorance is dazzling.

    In 2014, Assad was ELECTED the president of Syria. What does that tell you? So its up to US to decide whom is going to be president in other countries now.. Hurray for USA democracies and double standards!
    If Any Country want to favor Russia, well so what..? Huh, are you telling me that its reason enough to go to war??

    As for the Kurds, i actually like them, and i really hope they get a say in Syria future.
    But has not US supplied them with large stocks of weapons and advisors? Another "puppets" of USA to use your own words here.

    As for your moronic proposal to arm imigrants.. have you spoken to them? News flash!! They don't want to do it. Why should they!
    I find your lack of logic and spaced ideas disturbing..

    The Freaking ISIS is not Syria or Russia fault. Its a very bad spot to start pointing fingers.

    I'm done with this debate with you.
    Assad is the same kind of president as your "President" Putin ex KGB director, half president half dictator.

    Assad has violated the human rights of his population so many times we've lost the count.

    Tortures, executions of opponents are part of his way of governing:
    Report of Amnesty International.

    I think that if there were a concerted effort from all the partners, western countries, Russia, Arab countries against Assad and ISIS, the migrants would surely see a real possibility of freeing their country and would fight. But the way it is now it is such a mess that the only thing they can do is flee. Russia is partly responsible for this desperate situation.

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