Topic Actions

Topic Search

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

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

For anyone who might want to have a side conversation...you're welcome here!
Re: My rant/fantasy regarding the A-10(A&B) Warthog.
Post by Weird Harold   » Fri Feb 13, 2015 4:14 pm

Weird Harold
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 4478
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2014 10:25 pm
Location: "Lost Wages", NV

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.


Long-range precision weapons are fine for most applications, but the A-10 is a close air support asset and there is no substitute for going in low and slow enough to positively identify friend from foe when they are in close contact.
.
.
.
Answers! I got lots of answers!

(Now if I could just find the right questions.)
Top
Re: My rant/fantasy regarding the A-10(A&B) Warthog.
Post by Relax   » Fri Feb 13, 2015 5:13 pm

Relax
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 3214
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2009 7:18 pm

Imaginos1892 wrote:
Relax wrote:The gun is all of ~600lbs. Now the ammo :shock:

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.


So,
1) You clearly are not an engineer as there has not been an engineer for 150 years who has a problem with a turret of any tonnage.
2) Might want to actually know something about the aircraft you are denigrating before posting. Osprey lands in STOL position, one engine out, not airplane. Osprey lands in STOL position on the regular.
Last edited by Relax on Fri Feb 13, 2015 5:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.
_________
Tally Ho!
Relax
Top
Re: My rant/fantasy regarding the A-10(A&B) Warthog.
Post by Relax   » Fri Feb 13, 2015 5:17 pm

Relax
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 3214
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2009 7:18 pm

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.


Are you trying to prove you do not have the foggiest idea what CAS entails compared to BOMBING? :shock: :shock: :shock:
_________
Tally Ho!
Relax
Top
Re: My rant/fantasy regarding the A-10(C&B) Warthog.
Post by Relax   » Fri Feb 13, 2015 5:22 pm

Relax
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 3214
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2009 7:18 pm

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


Thought I was clear: Do Jets use higher or lower velocity and higher pressures than turbofans?

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.

There is a very simple reason that the V-22 did not replace the Chinook Helo. Reality of FOD, brownout, and carrying capacity in VTOL.
_________
Tally Ho!
Relax
Top
Re: My rant/fantasy regarding the A-10(C&B) Warthog.
Post by Ensign Re-read   » Fri Feb 13, 2015 5:24 pm

Ensign Re-read
Commodore

Posts: 763
Joined: Thu Apr 08, 2010 4:24 pm

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?



.
=====
The Celestia "addon" for the Planet Safehold as well as the Kau-zhi and Manticore A-B star systems, are at URL:
http://www.lepp.cornell.edu/~seb/celestia/weber/.
=====
http://www.flickr.com/photos/68506297@N ... 740128635/
=====
Top
Re: My rant/fantasy regarding the A-10(C&B) Warthog.
Post by Ensign Re-read   » Fri Feb 13, 2015 5:29 pm

Ensign Re-read
Commodore

Posts: 763
Joined: Thu Apr 08, 2010 4:24 pm

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--



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.



.
=====
The Celestia "addon" for the Planet Safehold as well as the Kau-zhi and Manticore A-B star systems, are at URL:
http://www.lepp.cornell.edu/~seb/celestia/weber/.
=====
http://www.flickr.com/photos/68506297@N ... 740128635/
=====
Top
Re: My rant/fantasy regarding the A-10(C&B) Warthog.
Post by Relax   » Fri Feb 13, 2015 5:56 pm

Relax
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 3214
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2009 7:18 pm

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.
.


What! Original topic?! Say it ain't so! 8-)

The engines up high behind the wing, limit FOD damage more than the turbofan design. The wing will block nearly 100% of anything kicked up by either the nose wheel, or suction. One of the major driving factors for why many commercial airliners had their engines on the rear of the plane even though this was up above the CG making the aircraft less stable. Commercial airplane manufacturers now demanded higher bypass ratio engines that not only obtained vastly better fuel performance, but also effectively limited any FOD damage to the turbofan itself and not the jet engine. You will note the only airplane manufacturers who still place engines on the rear are those who use very small engines. And even their placement is placed much lower to the ground than was typical 30 years ago. Aligns with the CG of the plane.

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 8-)
_________
Tally Ho!
Relax
Top
Re: My rant/fantasy regarding the A-10(A&B) Warthog.
Post by Ensign Re-read   » Fri Feb 13, 2015 5:56 pm

Ensign Re-read
Commodore

Posts: 763
Joined: Thu Apr 08, 2010 4:24 pm

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? :shock: :shock: :shock:




I don't quite know which exact persons to direct this comment towards; so I'm sending it out to everyone.

The short version is:
* Let's be civil, and
* let's try to be informed of the actual conversation.


On the one hand, we have super informed people like Relax and others. They (and yes, I do mean pural the they) have proved themselves to have a more complete, up to date and/or at least different knowledge set than plenty of people, including me.

But please guys, try to be nicer about showing it.


On the other hand, we have people like "Thucydides" who persist in treating the A-10 just like any other Attack plane. Note that the nomenclature for Air Force planes lump most bomb droppers as "A-" as in Attack plane (the F-117 being one exception).

The A-10 can and does drop bombs, but unfortunately there is no such label as "CAS-", like "CAS-10".
THAT would have been a more accurate way to label the Warthog. The Warthog is NOT really intended as and Attack plane... It's a Close Air Support plane.

I suspect this bad case of labeling may have SOME contribution to the continued misunderstandings by people like "Thucydides" (...and yes, I did mean the plural people).

Please people, try to understand that a high technology stand off weapon is _NOT_ always the best solution for supporting the troops on the ground. They need a friend in the air with a big gun who is not afraid of using it.

to repeat:

a CLOSE AIR SUPPORT plane
** is NOT the same as **
an ATTACK plane





[Fixed minor typos.]
Last edited by Ensign Re-read on Fri Feb 13, 2015 6:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.
=====
The Celestia "addon" for the Planet Safehold as well as the Kau-zhi and Manticore A-B star systems, are at URL:
http://www.lepp.cornell.edu/~seb/celestia/weber/.
=====
http://www.flickr.com/photos/68506297@N ... 740128635/
=====
Top
Re: My rant/fantasy regarding the A-10(C&B) Warthog.
Post by Ensign Re-read   » Fri Feb 13, 2015 6:00 pm

Ensign Re-read
Commodore

Posts: 763
Joined: Thu Apr 08, 2010 4:24 pm

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 8-)


Oh.
Yea.
That sounds right.
Why didn't I think of that?



.
=====
The Celestia "addon" for the Planet Safehold as well as the Kau-zhi and Manticore A-B star systems, are at URL:
http://www.lepp.cornell.edu/~seb/celestia/weber/.
=====
http://www.flickr.com/photos/68506297@N ... 740128635/
=====
Top
Re: My rant/fantasy regarding the A-10(C&B) Warthog.
Post by Relax   » Fri Feb 13, 2015 6:01 pm

Relax
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 3214
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2009 7:18 pm

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?
.


Not a typo at all.

STOL position has the pylons forward roughly 45 degrees or is it 35 degrees? as I recall. This way you are getting lift from the wings due to forward flight and the rotating propellers.

This is how the Osprey lands in all high and hot conditions as it does not have enough lift for VTOL and a combat load. Why many denigrated the Osprey to begin with along with its inability to autogyro.
_________
Tally Ho!
Relax
Top

Return to Free-Range Topics...