My rant/fantasy regarding the A-10(A&B) Warthog.

DDHvi wrote:[quote=wastedfly]Now we have ladder climbing politicos ignorant of any engineering bent eggs and braids from the NAVY, AIRFORCE, and MARINES involved!!! All of them in CYA mode from step zero! Yup, Charlie Foxtrot! Even if only 1 out of the 3 has a ladder climbing politico ignorant who is more inclined to CYA than get anything done it grinds to a halt.

Somewhere or other I read that in any major modern war, it starts with the brass hats and bean counters in charge. The side that wins is the one which does best at putting warriors and other winners in charge.[/quote]

That sounds nice. In reality throughout history, the only truly deciding factor; whoever has the most manpower, wins. Minus a rare few exceptions.

Wastedfly:

Thank you for your posts:
Sat Feb 07, 2015 9:21 am ,
Sat Feb 07, 2015 4:11 pm and
Sat Feb 07, 2015 8:24 pm

First things first...
I can't recall where it was mentioned, but you (or the relevant person) is absolutely correct that the title I used to start this topic was in error.

i.e.: The nomenclature that the Navy has used with the F-18's letter codes versus single/double seat version seems very common sense to me. A, C & E are single seat, and B, D & F { and G! } are two-seaters.

I for one would like to see a two-seat version of the A-10 built, and I could have done a better job of labeling the topic to show that.

The Topic SHOULD have read:
My rant/fantasy regarding the A-10C (and B or D?) Warthog.

wastedfly wrote:Sat Feb 07, 2015 9:21 am

Can't believe I actually read the entire thread. Get stupid points, not brownie points for doing so it would seem.

1) As is typical, no one defines the parameters of their arguments; causing stupidity to ensue. Purposefully misconstruing others arguments in the name of "winning"

Speaking only for myself, the only "winning" I'm interested in is the further maintenance and/or development of the A-10, you name the letter suffix.

wastedfly wrote:2) For Petes sake, can ignorants on this forum do everyone the courtesy of at least basing their ignorant rantings from the bare minimal well of knowledge of wikipedia and basic physics instead of 1970's numbers and wishful cogitation? Please? Or hey, use something better? Hmm?

Some of my own comments came from memory of more "authoritative" published sources, as well as conversations with Veterans. Yes, they are dated. For more up to date info, I trusted Wikipedia.
(See up-list, I MAY have mentioned the books.)

wastedfly wrote:2a) A-10 has new engines giving it 30% more thrust at take off equaling 50% reduction in take off distance or conversely ~~50% higher bomb load, 30% increased loiter time/fuel burn and 100% increase in hours before replacement compared to those ancient wikipedia numbers! Modern A-10 is the A-10C, not A or B. By now, just about every A-10 flying is the A-10C if not every single flying A-10.

Now THAT is news to me. My last information was that the engines had NOT been upgraded, and that there was "waiting in the wings" an upgrade that would save fuel and give equal or better performance.


QUESTION: Could there have been & still be TWO levels of engine upgrades? i.e.: One that you mentioned, and one that I thought has NOT yet been done?

wastedfly wrote:2b) A-10 has ability to use all guided weapons now.

Also news to me.

wastedfly wrote:3) All airplanes have triple redundant flight systems on critical primary flight controls! Not just the A-10. AT THE TIME, 1970's this was not the case. So, please stop bringing this point up as a ***** in A-10's favor. What A-10 does have, no other has, is completely separate hydraulic systems physically separated by distance so damage in one area is no likely to cause flight control failure!

Yes, exactly. This is a point I did not do a good job of discussing. Thank you for mentioning it.

wastedfly wrote:4) A-10 is "armored". Uh, well, no, no it is not. What it does have is armor around the cockpit/electronics. What the A-10 has that no other plane has is the ability to have large portions of the plane destroyed and yet still fly through redundancy in its structure and dual hydraulic systems. It has extra wing spar for instance along with extra rudder/tail surface that is redundant. Hey, as an Israeli pilot proved, even an F15 can land without a wing at 300mph!

Again, I agree. If I added to the misstatements, please excuse me, that was not my intent.

wastedfly wrote:4a) Of course an F15 and every other fighter out there has 0% ability absorbing shrapnel as it will blow up due to its engines being too danged close to the fuel. Add in an A-10's engines are turbofans(true) unlike a fighters. What this means is that when shrapnel from AAA, A-A missile, SAM etc blows a hole in the engine pressure vessel, the jet of extremely hot gases has somewhere to go, cooling down, depressurizing in the process, limiting the explosion. On a fighter this is not the case. Add in physical distance from the body along with residing in a free atmosphere allowing dispersion of the gases instead of destroying the structure around it and conversely ripping off the back half of the plane as fighter jets are designed to only a service factor(damage tolerance factor) of 1.05 and 1.15 for major structural components! I do not know what the A-10 is, as I did not design it, but with its redundant superstructure, it has to be past 3. If I can super simplify: Civilian airlines for instance, are designed to a one time instance proof tensile stress of 2.5 and a repeated stress factor of 1.5(limited). These numbers are not truly compatible as civilian safety factors do NOT equate to military redundancy damage factors! But, it is as close as I can describe for a rough "feel" regarding reality to those completely ignorant on the internet.

Again, better said than my own. I don't think I even ever mentioned the difference in engine technology. Thanks for the elaboration.

wastedfly wrote:PS. Rotating the engines for STOL is utterly impractical. If you guys would be bothered to look at a sideview of the A-10 you will see that it has about a 3-5 degree Angle relative to Take-off rolling plane(Old T34 engine A-10A/B) A-10C with its much more powerful engines will have a smaller angle relative. What this means is that this is the design point for minimal loss of cruise efficiency for the gain of minimum take off distance with a war load. Any rotation of the engines past this point will BURY the NOSE wheel and it will take off in a much LONGER distance.

Not a surprise; I sort of expected that.

-----

wastedfly wrote:Sat Feb 07, 2015 4:11 pm

== CLIP ==

Think of it this way, How many inches of armor can a 50cal go through? Standard ground tracking RADAR AA uses ~50cal, 20mm or larger. There is no possible way to have a thick enough skin for standard ground RADAR tracked ground fire to NOT penetrate. Therefore the only way to combat this impossibility is structural redundancy and limiting damage. So, placing wiring, hydraulic lines inside tubes made from Kevlar, polyester, etc, or channels gives an extra layer of defense. If a 50cal or larger hits that exact spot, said wire and hydraulic line is Shit out of Luck, but if said bullet does not pass directly through that position... Rather said position only receives collateral shrapnel damage, then there is a chance.

Again, well said.

-----

wastedfly wrote:Sat Feb 07, 2015 8:24 pm

== CLIP==

Other projects: if you get one with DARPA kiss the ground in thanks, the quality in that organization is wonderful. Anyone outside of DARPA in the pentagon? Schlock CYA paper pushers extraordinaire. Their asses are so covered by paper a nuclear warhead would not even make a dent. The ink would drown its fire.

Oh, why or why am I not surprised?

-----

later...


.

As for the original post, Why not mount the 30mm Gatling gun in a central turret on an Osprey?You could keep the ammo drum inside the Osprey and fire at who and what you want with your big bad gun.

You have A10 speed and Vertical landing and short take-off. More manoeuvrable more stable and hover mode option.

Would make a great anti ISSI platform.

The A10 was basically the Douglas Sky Raider replacement.

Lord Skimper wrote:As for the original post, Why not mount the 30mm Gatling gun in a central turret on an Osprey?

Interesting idea - for an AC-130 replacement.

The A10 was basically the Douglas Sky Raider replacement.

With both aircraft having relatively similar sizes, unlike the big V-22.

aairfccha wrote:

Lord Skimper wrote:As for the original post, Why not mount the 30mm Gatling gun in a central turret on an Osprey?

Interesting idea - for an AC-130 replacement.

The frame is not designed for that kind of stress.
Also, large props and near ground turbulence make the practicality unlikely.


.

Ensign Re-read wrote:The frame is not designed for that kind of stress.
Also, large props and near ground turbulence make the practicality unlikely.
.

Nah, it is $$$. Frames can be buffed up. Props can be avoided via physical stops. Turbulence in heli mode is what you are referring to? Shouldn't be a problem for a gun system. This isn't a sniper rifle here

$$$/airframe or operating $$$/hour on the other hand are impossible to get around for a system that WILL be taking a lot of damage and will most likely be going to the scrap heap shortly. Either make it survivable and easily repairable, or super weak and super cheap to throw on the scrap heap. War unfortunately is about attrition.

Lord Skimper wrote:As for the original post, Why not mount the 30mm Gatling gun in a central turret on an Osprey?You could keep the ammo drum inside the Osprey and fire at who and what you want with your big bad gun.

You have A10 speed and Vertical landing and short take-off. More manoeuvrable more stable and hover mode option.

Would make a great anti ISSI platform.

The A10 was basically the Douglas Sky Raider replacement.

Why not? Well, for starters the GAU-8 Avenger cannon is 20 feet long; weighs over 2 tons; is driven by two high-powered hydraulic motors; and generates over 10,000 pounds of recoil force. The V-22's fuselage is less than 16 feet wide, its cargo capacity is only 10 tons, you'd have to put a high-pressure hydraulic system in the turret to power it, and so on.

Fairchild's engineers basically stuck the GAU-8 on a blank sheet of paper and designed the A-10 around it. The airframe is specially reinforced, there are recoil dampers to reduce 65 separate impacts every second to a more consistent force, and that force is carefully aligned with the A-10's center of gravity so it won't spin out of control every time you pull the trigger.

In short, it's a harebrained bullshit idea that makes no sense at all. The V-22 is completely unsuited to even carry an Avenger, and it's also incompatible with any mission where the GAU-8 would be of any use.
--------------
Facts remain true whether you like them or not.

I don't know. Didn't they build a howitzer into the side of a C130. (?). That must have been fun when it fired.

Imaginos1892 wrote:

Lord Skimper wrote:As for the original post, Why not mount the 30mm Gatling gun in a central turret on an Osprey?You could keep the ammo drum inside the Osprey and fire at who and what you want with your big bad gun.

You have A10 speed and Vertical landing and short take-off. More manoeuvrable more stable and hover mode option.

Would make a great anti ISSI platform.

The A10 was basically the Douglas Sky Raider replacement.

Why not? Well, for starters the GAU-8 Avenger cannon is 20 feet long; weighs over 2 tons; is driven by two high-powered hydraulic motors; and generates over 10,000 pounds of recoil force. The V-22's fuselage is less than 16 feet wide, its cargo capacity is only 10 tons, you'd have to put a high-pressure hydraulic system in the turret to power it, and so on.

Fairchild's engineers basically stuck the GAU-8 on a blank sheet of paper and designed the A-10 around it. The airframe is specially reinforced, there are recoil dampers to reduce 65 separate impacts every second to a more consistent force, and that force is carefully aligned with the A-10's center of gravity so it won't spin out of control every time you pull the trigger.

In short, it's a harebrained bullshit idea that makes no sense at all. The V-22 is completely unsuited to even carry an Avenger, and it's also incompatible with any mission where the GAU-8 would be of any use.
--------------
Facts remain true whether you like them or not.

The gun is all of ~600lbs. Now the ammo

V-22 can't have a turret below without changing out the landing gear.

Hydraulics... as if all aircraft do not have hydraulic systems. This isn't prior to WWII aircraft here.

A simple, DUH! problem is, aiming.

The other massive problem? No armor/redundancy.

Now the most obvious, why the 30mm? Why not use the vulcan 20mm or simple 50cal? For every 30mm round, you can fire off 5-10 50cal or 2 20mm. Such an expensive aircraft will not be going after tanks.

Of course it is a completely hairbrained bullshit idea requiring a complete redesign of the Osprey and would have very limited forward firing in airplane mode due to propellers.

Annachie wrote:I don't know. Didn't they build a howitzer into the side of a C130. (?). That must have been fun when it fired.

The examples are not comparable.
C-130 is metal framed cargo plane (easy to re-enforce, maintain & repair).
Osprey is (largely) carbon framed troop transport (not so easy for same).
{Yes, that is an oversimplification.}


Cannon is relatively shorter, less clumbsey, and has one instantaneous shock (likely with hydraulic dampeners).
Not so with 30ish mm Gatlin on A-10.



.