[Mika]

Regarding A-10 survival ability, it is manueverable and nimble, but it doesn't have speed. When avoiding flak, the speed drops some amount and the maneuverability goes also down.
Remeber that the current infrared guided AA missiles are can form an image of the aircraft on the sensor head. This means the missile could home in engines, but is more likely designed to hit the cockpit. I wouldn't be surprised if Russians already had such systems among their SAM launchers. Also bear in mind that A-10 can fire only a couple of Mavericks before the aircraft is inside the range of the close range AAA or SAM systems.

An aircraft that couldn't fulfil its mission objectives and was forced to turn back home is a victory for the air defenses, it doesn't need to be destroyed. In War Against Terror (is this the real campaign name?) the A-10 has surely been effective, there is no doubt about it as there is nothing that the enemy could have done to it. Take a look how well the Apaches fared in Iraq to get a view of the times when the enemy actually can do something.

I never really understood the need for Gatling gun, except the aerial combat and even there the effective rate of fire is about the same as the single barreled cannons. The videos, while impressive, are also misleading. Here the targets are clearly marked and the chopper is flying quite low. There is not much need for a high density of bullets if there is no visual of the enemy. And from the psychological aspect of having a gun that has huge rate of fire, me, I think I would be past caring if I got hit either by 3 or 30 bullets.

Well, I can give out that I'm from the old school where they said that the best density of bullets is one bullet/dead body, or, even better, one bullet/injured person. Don't need to carry that much ammo around then (Did anyone get the joke?). There is also another advantage on this, namely it is very difficult to tell where that single occasional bullet came from that took down you comrade. Personally I think that the huge rate of fire actually fixates in shooting a single target rather than killing or disabling the current target as effortlessly and effectively as possible. By the way this is coming from a person who needed three to five bullets with a machine gun to took down moving (by electronic means if anyone wondered) targets 500 m away. If you are a superpower and have good supply connections, it might be more sensible to differ from this line of thought.

However GAU-8 I'm not so sure of, was it really better to design a tank buster gun and then construct an airplane around it rather than lofting more Rockeyes in a single pass?

[TrashMan]

Why a gat gun?...becosue you're not close so your'e less precise... try hitting something with a machinegun from 1-2km.

Yeah, a A-10 mows down a tank and everything in it's sorroundings.. but at least it rips the tank apart...

[Mika]

1-2 km distance is already pretty much for a gun which doesn't have a scope. And even for a rifle with a high magnification scope it is quite long away. So what I'm trying to say is that one should not even try to hit a target 1-2 km away with a machine gun.

The aircraft cannon is a different thing then but that was already covered. However, I still don't understand the need for the tank busting gun. If anyone had more info about this I would be more than happier.

[TrashMan]

bullets are cheaper?

[Mika]

Also to get back on topic, it seems A4 Skyhawks have received some damage also.
The link: http://www.skyhawk.org/

Check out the Combat damage & mishaps and the TINS tales subpages. There are some parts in TINS tales that totally crack me up. The time I wished I wouldn't have to fly...  Also there is a story about a Hornet aviator who had to land the plane with other engine shut down and other using full afterburner. And of course the humor page. Definetely worth checking out.

And if you are interested in aviation, http://www.f-16.net/
is a good place also. I have wasted countless hours of my life reading some of the best crew chief stories there. Also some more or less funny bits like listening music in a U-2 and transmitting the tunes back to ground control. If it only hadn't been Britney Spears...
Not to mention a B-1 blowing F-16 out of the runway (they didn't put a kill sign on that bomber after that).

Is it only me or do other people find aviation humor totally hilarious?

Mika

[Nuke]

gatling guns also have somewhat of a shotgun effect. at about a 4km distance the gau-8 puts all its rounds in about a 10 meter circle. with a hundred rounds fired a tank in that circle is almost entirely certain to be hit. scopes arent currently feasable on aircraft (especially if youre using the aircraft to aim). still it would only take a single gau-8 round to punch through most tanks.

a single barrel gun for the same type of round could be articulated on a gimbal system and aimed very accurately by the targeting system. just put the target on the cone, give the gun a second to aim and pull the trigger when the hud starts beeping. the problem with that is that the barrel for this gun would be incredibly long. it would need a support frame because you dont have 7 of them providing structural support to eachother. you couldnt mount it on the outside because of the drag involved, and to mount it internally you have a minimum pivot angle of only a couple degrees. and you would still have that scatter radius. the gatling gun would still do a better job.

another field of reserch being homing bullets and bullets supplemented by rocket motors. which i figure would make it possible to hit targets 10 klicks out. of course all the actuators, sensors, fins, and motors take up bullet mass and explosive material. you still need room for a depleted uranium shape charge.

[Mika]

I think you misunderstood my question. What I wanted to know was the reason of developing the tank busting gun instead of using rockets and Rockeyes. With, admittedly, there is not much thought behind in this (I didn't calculate the cost estimates), but I would think it would be cheaper to carry more iron bombs in the target area instead of developing a flying tank buster cannon. There would be no need to remain in the target area after bombs have been dropped. I don't think 30 mm depleted uranium slugs are cheap either, but bombs would be there in any case even if A-10 would not exist.

Mika

[redsniper]

What else are you going to do with depleted uranium?

[Bob-san]

One thing... all the bullet debris is bound to have a large negative effect. Shooting off thousands of rounds creates thousands of pieces of debris. It would make many covert-ops unsuccessful, as bullets that are deflected by hull armor could possibly damage support ships, transports, freighters, gunships, and even cruisers! The sheer number of these bullets would likely create a negative effect on attacking fighters and bombers.

[Unknown Target]

I think you misunderstood my question. What I wanted to know was the reason of developing the tank busting gun instead of using rockets and Rockeyes. With, admittedly, there is not much thought behind in this (I didn't calculate the cost estimates), but I would think it would be cheaper to carry more iron bombs in the target area instead of developing a flying tank buster cannon. There would be no need to remain in the target area after bombs have been dropped. I don't think 30 mm depleted uranium slugs are cheap either, but bombs would be there in any case even if A-10 would not exist.

Mika

A tank-busting gun is versatile, easily maintainable, more precise, cost effective and can have a lot more ammo on an aircraft than a bunch of dumb bombs - and as history has shown, strafing runs with the A-10 are quite effective

[Polpolion]

wow

[Flipside]

The Warthog is one of the best troop-support craft available, but it's being withdrawn in favour of Helicopters and some new VTOL craft iirc.

As for the landing, incredible, I think it would have stood less chance if it had only lost half a wing, I think the tailplane assisted stability because there was nothing to block airflow through it, so it acted almost exactly like a 'spare' wing, there's probably some freak condition where the imbalance in surface area is largely balanced out by the unevenness of the airflow at high speeds or the like.

[TrashMan]

One thing... all the bullet debris is bound to have a large negative effect. Shooting off thousands of rounds creates thousands of pieces of debris. It would make many covert-ops unsuccessful, as bullets that are deflected by hull armor could possibly damage support ships, transports, freighters, gunships, and even cruisers! The sheer number of these bullets would likely create a negative effect on attacking fighters and bombers.

???

[jr2]

He means that in space nothing would stop the shrapnel, bullets, etc from ricocheting all over the place... except for the heavy, gigaton explosion resistant armour. 

[TrashMan]

We're talking real life, not Freespace here....besdes, don't bombs have shrapnel too? When you blow up a ship parts of it will fly in all directions..

[Mika]

Regarding the A-10 performance in general, I listen to the professionals' (in this case, former US attack pilots) opinion:

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-1806.html

In another thread a Vietnam veteran wrote that a A-10 would probably have been slaughtered over Hanoi due to the slow speed and difficult target location. Even the F-4s got their share of AAA. But there was little losses from A-7s or A-8s. This is said to be due to the accurate weapons delivery system, which doesn't exist in A-10. And also A-7s and A-8s dropped quite a lot of ordnance in Vietnam.

[IceFire]

Mika I see a variety of divided opinions there.  Seems to be that the Air Force doesn't particularly like the A-10...its not really part of their ethos but the Army loves the plane in comparison.  No doubt thats why the A-10s are currently being upgraded to the A-10C configuration with more sensors, smart weapons, a new cockpit, and all sorts of goodies for the fleet.  When they do end up replacing it...it'll probably be an armored drone like I said which is obviously the best option because then you don't worry about loosing a pilot and in theory a drone could be small enough to be launched from a near frontline position.

No matter what happens its always the CAS plane that really seems to make the different.  In the 1930s it was all about the strategic bomber and how it was going to revolutionize warfare where massed bombing raids would bomb the enemy into submission.  Without going into the details and the horror stories, historians are convinced that the strategy didn't particularly work.  Instead, while the strategic bomber factored into the Western European theater in a semi-significant way, in the Pacific only for the last year of the war truly, and almost no involvement in the Eastern European theater it was the CAS aircraft that ended up being the key essential item.

For the Russians it was the IL-2, the USAAF found the P-47 worked great as a CAS aircraft, and the RAF stumbled upon, tripped over, and then finally accepted the Typhoon as probably the best tank buster/terror weapon (because in actual reality Thunderbolts and Typhoons killed few tanks physically but terrorized the crews, made roads impassable, and boosted Allied morale).  The Germans tried a few different combinations with less success (Stuka, Bf110, Hs-129, etc.).

I think no matter what happens you need something that can go low and slow that can support the troops directly.  Attack helicopters are good but I think they are even more vulnerable than an A-10 which might be able to absorb a few SAMs...the attack helicopter doesn't get that sort of advantage.  Whoever your army is...you need something that can do the job.

I think the Russians are quite content with the upgraded Su-25T which is somewhat similar although perhaps faster.  Its still a bit of a slug.

[Mars]

IIRC, the A-10 has made it back with only a wing and a half...

A-10s can fly back with one engine and 2/3 of a wing gone... if discovery is to be believed.

[jr2]

I've seen the photos & read the testimony of the pilots... they can.  They can also absorb 57mm shots to the cockpit from the underside... "titanium bathtub"  XD  The A-10 is excellent for CAS, because it has a loiter time of ~2 hrs ( DS I ), depending on how far it is to the front lines.  It can wait there for instructions from the ground crew.  Whereas an F-16 or F-15, you are lucky to get 20-30 mins, because they then have to get more fuel.  Also, the A-10 has the advantage of slower stall speeds, so that the pilot can actually eyeball the target after shooting at it, and if necessary, make another pass.  Waiting for recon photos to determine whether a target is taken out or not is a little bit too late.  Not to say that the F-15/16 doesn't have its role... they are good for CAP & other missions... esp early on in the first assaults, you need the dash-away ability when taking out the AAA and SAM sites for the A-10s.  After the area is halfway secure, the A-10s roll in and destroy the remaining threats to the ground forces, and then provide CAS for the troops.  Helicopters are wonderful for this, but unfortunately, they are extremely vulnerable to AAA and SAMs.

Oh, and always be cautious when listening to "expert" opinions from the Air Force... they are the ones that said that WWII fighter pilots should fire at maximum range, and the pilots hard to learn the hard way (ie, getting shot down) that they needed to close within 300 feet for better accuracy.  The Air Force also sent in the B-17s (Flying Fortresses, right?) without fighter cover, where they got decimated.  The Air Force took a fully functional, prop-driven B-2 (flying wing) variant, and, because the inventor refused to give the blueprints to a competing company that the Air Force wanted to use, destroyed all prototypes and blueprints.  The Air Force initially did not want anything to do with the F-15, Boyd had to trick them into using it... they didn't want the F-16, either (the F-16 is one of the most manueverable craft ever).   I could go on... read the books Boyd and Warthog... (oh, yeah, one of Boyd's close friends helped develop the A-10... had to wrangle the Air Force into producing that, too).  Oh, a note about the Boyd book... he seems to either have a bunch of very devoted followers, they seem to brag on him a bit much, IMHO... but he had some bright ideas (look in the wikipedia, Energy-Manueverablility theory and OODA loop.

[Mika]

Regarding WWII stuff, according to my understanding the US Air Force was part of the army during the time, and while especially US ground generals were inexperienced using the airborne weapon systems. This is also the case in Europe before Spanish War. After that, it became quite clear for some Europeans that the bombers will not be able to support themselves. I don't know why this information was not transmitted to US, but this was known in Europe a long before US realized it (Vietnam). Besides, because the air force was commanded by the army, it is not a surprise that the army wants the ground pounders while ignoring the significance of the air control. This is also the case with then air force generals  never having any flying experience at best and explains the bomber generals which were not accepting the F-15 or F-16. The air forces have been separated from the ground forces ever since due to the drastically different strategies and tactics.

Also regarding Boyd, while his contributions remain significant for US, this might not be the case for all the air forces in the world.

Here's something what is not really well known around, please read all the pages in both links:
http://www.sci.fi/~fta/zimbo-01.htm
http://www.sci.fi/~fta/fineka01.htm

Their vision and experiences are scaringly close to Boyd's. Or is actually Boyd's, the only difference being that these guys never designed an aircraft. Tactics and organisation wise (turn rates and turn radius!), get inside the enemy decision loop etc. etc., it is exactly the same deal, only 30 years earlier. And I wouldn't bet my money they were the first ones either.

Mika