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

Relax wrote:==CLIP==

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

Ensign Re-read wrote:
Huh? I hope that's a typo.
What did you MEAN to say?
.

Relax wrote: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.

I'm still not entirely clear on exactly what you mean, but please note that the way you wrote the original post, it sounds like you're saying the Osprey lands with one engine TURNED OFF.

I have a hard time believing that the pilot would even let one engine go to idle, but THAT would be a lot more plausible than turning OFF an engine on landing.

Please tell me that post could have been phrased better!




.

Since I was assisted by real life allied pilots who did launch bombs and missiles on my behalf (from a great hight and distance), and the occasional helicopter pilot who also launched missiles from well out of the sight and hearing of me and mine, not to mention the deadly rain of 155 artillery shells that hurried many a Taliban to their version of eternity, I think I have a very real sense of what it takes to bring fire and death to an enemy beyond the reach of my own firearms.

And despite the ernest protestations of A-10 fans, that was the one plane we didn't actually want to see, unless he was also far away and directing a well aimed missile at the target. (Given the rather unfortunate incident where an A-10 flew down the wrong "corridor" and shot up a Canadian platoon, *we* had reservations about that sort of "support"). When we wanted air support, a quick radio call was generally answered very fast with some real "on the ground " effects, and never once in my tour did we ever see the airplane that delivered the shot, and as I related earlier, during the entire tour there was only one instance where anyone actually saw the attacking aircraft at all (a Dutch AH-64 which literally rolled over a ridge line firing 70mm rockets and its 30mm cannon at a Taliban ambush, which was a surprise for all concerned, since the Taliban were set up in an ambush and evidently did not realize the Apache was nearby, and the troops who triggered the ambush and called for support, also not realizing the Apache was so close. I imagine the Apache driver was also rather surprised to see everyone right in front of him, but kudos for a lightning quick reaction to an unexpected situation).

This is 2015, not 1915 or 1985, things have changed a great deal and the tool and techniques have to change with the times. The only argument I am making, based on real life experience, is that there is no need to get "up close and personal" , and many ways to deliver support when the soldier on the ground needs support.

Ensign Re-read wrote:I'm still not entirely clear on exactly what you mean, but please note that the way you wrote the original post, it sounds like you're saying the Osprey lands with one engine TURNED OFF.

I have a hard time believing that the pilot would even let one engine go to idle, but THAT would be a lot more plausible than turning OFF an engine on landing.

Please tell me that post could have been phrased better!

.

AH! Due to battle damage or engine failure

No! Certainly not on the "regular!"

Thucydides wrote:...I have a very real sense of what it takes to bring fire and death to an enemy beyond the reach of my own firearms....

If that is your point of reference, you're not talking about Close Air Support.

Thucydides wrote:This is 2015, not 1915 or 1985, things have changed a great deal and the tool and techniques have to change with the times. The only argument I am making, based on real life experience, is that there is no need to get "up close and personal" , and many ways to deliver support when the soldier on the ground needs support.

I will grant this: With the advent of cheap guided artillery(Excalibur), CAS may indeed become a historical footnote.

Now from a USA perspective: Instead of spending $$$ upgrading tanks that do not need upgrading to standards that are already obsolete, can we please get some new artillery with much longer caliber barrels and smooth bore, so our Excalibur shells can now travel twice as far? Pretty please? I will even add a cherry on top.

PS. How Afganistan was fought is far different from the rest of the world. (Well I am sure you will tell me if I am full of BS Don't know anyone personally in the stans, but knew several in Iraq) Very little of this world is severely high hot and mountainous. True, the A-10 has not flown the majority of missions in Afganistan(F-16 has using JDAM), but in Iraq it certainly has. Difference? No mountains with narrow deep valleys, no alpenglow making night vision nearly impossible. No dark shadowed backsides making CAS pilots nearly blind. Most of this world is flat, or nearly so.

Weird Harold wrote:

Thucydides wrote:...I have a very real sense of what it takes to bring fire and death to an enemy beyond the reach of my own firearms....

If that is your point of reference, you're not talking about Close Air Support.

agreed.

Ensign Re-read wrote:

Weird Harold wrote:[quote="Thucydides"]...I have a very real sense of what it takes to bring fire and death to an enemy beyond the reach of my own firearms....

If that is your point of reference, you're not talking about Close Air Support.

agreed.[/quote]
True.

Which actually leads to the question: "How close will close support need to be as we go forward from here?

That's not quite right I think.
How closely engaged will troops be in future combats when they need close support? (Assuming they're not being over run of course)

Which actually leads to the question: "How close will close support need to be as we go forward from here?

That's not quite right I think.
How closely engaged will troops be in future combats when they need close support? (Assuming they're not being over run of course)

"Danger close" is considered to be 250m for most weapons, but that guideline was certainly bent in many instances (the closest that I ever heard of was impact within 80m of the troops in contact). In theory, you could probably get even closer with certain weapons systems (shaped charge warheads like a Hellfire, for example), but I'm not really keen to try that out.

For the fan of Excalibur, I think the real game changer will be when these sorts of rounds can be mass produced like B-24's on the Willow Run assembly line and the cost per round drops from @ $70,000 to $7000 or so. Being able to combine weight of fire with precision fire will have all kinds of unexpected effects. Mass produced smart bombs, stand off missiles and weapons like FOG-M will almost certainly make combat more of a deadly game of hide and seek, make massing of troops far more difficult and dangerous and causing the defender to either spend inordinate amounts on protective systems (camouflage, armour, C-PGM systems etc.), drop system costs (thousands of cheap "disposable" systems that can be killed in large quantities without affecting the overall mission) or migrate to entirely different forms of doctrine which negate the advantages of large, expensive systems (so called 4GW).

And lastly for people who think that Close Air Support is the only way to go, consider once again that even third and fourth tier opponents like ISIS, Boko Harum or the Taliban are considered protected by MANPADS to the extent that no one is going after them with CAS missions.

Thucydides wrote:For the fan of Excalibur, I think the real game changer will be when these sorts of rounds can be mass produced like B-24's on the Willow Run assembly line

This is likely possible even now, just not economical because the predicted production size is not big enough to offset the initial cost.

aairfccha wrote:

Thucydides wrote:For the fan of Excalibur, I think the real game changer will be when these sorts of rounds can be mass produced like B-24's on the Willow Run assembly line

This is likely possible even now, just not economical because the predicted production size is not big enough to offset the initial cost.

My father, who just retired, has several accelerometer patents flying on every round of Excalibur and JDAM bomb. The only reason the cost is as high currently is covering the R&D cost. The round cost for Excalibur is very cheap. Same goes for each JDAM bomb kit. Lets put it this way: It costs far more to transport the rounds into the field than to purchase them. They are absurdly cheap to manufacture. Army expected to buy hundreds of thousands of Excalibur munitions. The order was chopped at 25,000 as I recall, but then Afghanistan happened and everyone saw how good they were and more were ordered. They are vastly cheaper than bomb toting aircraft. But in truth Iraq/Afghanistan is more of a giant test bed for multiple new systems and platforms and the real reason why small numbers of numerous new munitions have been ordered.

Gotta remember, Excalibur was initiated at the same time the Army was pushing for new artillery. Crusader artillery fell through leaving Excalibur hamstrung. The two were tied together at the hip. It had to be completely redesigned for the older barrels which in my opinion was a good thing, BUT, Crusader still should have happened. When crusader fell through due mostly to lobbying from Ohio Representatives who wanted to keep the M1 Abrams tank line flowing madly along for tanks the Army did not want nor ask for, the Zumwalt Destroyer also got neutered.

Crusader would have given Excalibur round about 3x the range they have today. With a base boost, their range would be 6X. Or effectively able to cover 50% of the worlds population centers from an ocean going vessel.