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

Thucydides wrote:Why you still want to go in "up close and personal" with a cannon when there are so many other effective ways to deal with these problems from far away is beyond my comprehension. It is like arguing about the merits of a Beretta 9mm vs a Colt .45 ACP as your weapon of choice when trying to defeat a sniper.

Imaginos1892 wrote:

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

Fine. The GAU-8 gun system is 20 feet long and weighs over 4,000 pounds. 'Cause without its feed mechanism and ammo drum the gun is useless.

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

And you connect that high-pressure hydraulic system to a gun inside a turret how, exactly? Placing an extremely weak link in the flight control systems, I might add.

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.

I have always considered it very bad design that the props dig 4 feet into the ground if, for some strange reason (combat damage!!), you had to land with them facing forward.
----------------
At my house, the “things that go bump in the night” are cats.

Thucydides wrote:Why you still want to go in "up close and personal" with a cannon when there are so many other effective ways to deal with these problems from far away is beyond my comprehension. It is like arguing about the merits of a Beretta 9mm vs a Colt .45 ACP as your weapon of choice when trying to defeat a sniper.

AS far back as the late 1980's systems like "Skyguard" were demonstrating the ability to shoot bombs and guided missiles out of the air using 35mm AHEAD ammunition. Much like a Navy CIWS, this was pretty difficult, and could be overcome by "swarming" the installation with multiple targets (eventually, the guns run out of ammunition, if nothing else), with the obvious implication that if they can shoot the bombs out of the sky, then the bomb truck had better be out of range.

This explains the proliferation of long range surface to air missiles and the continuing evolution of glide bombs; better to start shooting at the target when you are many miles distant than when you are right over top of them. Just to make things even more interesting, the Fiber Optic Guided Missile (FOG-M), a technology the United States essentially abandoned in the 1980's, has proliferated throughout the world, with guided missiles uinsg this technology ranging in size from the mini-Spike anti personnel guided missile (wouldn't that suck!) with a rang of 1.2 Km to the Avibrás FOG-MPM with a range of 60km. These missiles allow a man in the loop capability so a soldier can positively ID a target as the missile closes in and make the final go/no go decision. So ground artillery (which is essentially what these guided missiles are) can also come in for precision attacks on hard targets, without the weather or "on station" issues that aircraft have.

Ensign Re-read wrote:Do you think that TurboFans are just as, more or less susceptible to FOD-related damage versus conventional Jets?
.

Relax wrote:==CLIP==

2) Osprey lands in STOL position, one engine out, not airplane.

Relax wrote:

Ensign Re-read wrote:Do you think that TurboFans are just as, more or less susceptible to FOD-related damage versus conventional Jets?
.

--CLIP--

Worst FOD damage is caused by high density objects. Not low density objects. Therefore suction pressure is all important to limiting FOD damage. Therefore turbo fans are better than jets. Tilt-rotor are better than turbofans and helicopters are better than tilt-rotor.

--CLIP--

Ensign Re-read wrote:OK, it SOUNDS like you are in agreement with me.

Part of the reason why I asked was to verify that the TurboFans on the A-10 (remember... the main topic at hand?) are TYPICALLY less susceptible to FOD damage versus if the A-10 was equipped with a conventional Jet engine.
.

Relax wrote:

Thucydides wrote:Why you still want to go in "up close and personal" with a cannon when there are so many other effective ways to deal with these problems from far away is beyond my comprehension. It is like ...

== CLIP ==

Are you trying to prove you do not have the foggiest idea what CAS entails compared to BOMBING?

Relax wrote:== CLIP ==

I believe I am accurate when I make this upcoming statement: There has not been a true "jet" engine produced since the early 1970's for the SR-71 and the 70s Concorde. They are all turbofans to some extent or another(yes all fighters). Why I brought up Bypass ratio. The only exception of course are turboprops and helicopters who want to turn all of their power into turning... well even larger turbo "fans" for vertical lift

Ensign Re-read wrote:

Relax wrote:==CLIP==

2) Osprey lands in STOL position, one engine out, not airplane.

Huh? I hope that's a typo.
What did you MEAN to say?
.