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

You posted their bullet size, not its caliber.

Far be it from me to point out but, wikipedia is not exactly the font of all knowledge.

Caliber is the barrel length divided by barrel inside diameter(bore) for any gun that is not able to be wielded by a human. Artillery. True, the ol' 20mm and 30mm are a cross between the two types of guns. Caliber for human carried guns is simply the diameter of the bullet in question. Why 0.50in bullet fired guns are called 50 cal.

So, Apache Caliber is 64.5inches/30mm = 54 or so. I will betcha its actual caliber is 50 or so.

So, A-10 Caliber is 90.5/30mm = 76 or so. I will betcha its actual caliber is 70-75.

Barrel length is almost directly proportional to exit velocity up to the point of the velocity of the explosive gases themselves as I recall. Check me on this. Been a while since I have played with this side of things.

So,
M230 Chain Gun:
30mm, 113mm bullet length x 50 caliber barrel
GAU-8 Avenger:
30mm, 173mm bullet length x 75 caliber barrel

The A-10 bullet will have approximately 2x-4X the ballistics in very crude terms depending on criteria in question. Of course what actually makes up the bullet in question is an entirely different matter.

Doh!

I knew that!!!
BRAIN FART!


.

Thucydides wrote:

As Max said, plus:

Helicopters do not provide CAS. Doctrinally, Attack Helicopter units are manoeuvre units - light on armour, lots of firepower, and rotary wings instead of tracks or big knobby tires.

The interesting part for me is how the helicopter driver identifies Attack Helicopters; they are a species of fighting vehicles, and so more related to tanks and IFV's than to other aircraft. Of course as a Canadian helicopter driver, he took the fight to the enemy in what was essentially a militarized Bell 412 with a HMG mounted in one door and a mini gun mounted in the other; hanging it out much more there than *we* did in our LAVs.

Bolded

Helos are more tightly associated CAS aircraft than the A-10 is or any other aircraft for that matter. Is CAS their primary mission if you want to definition shave? No. Not for attack helos or the A-10. You will note both have the A before their designation and part of A designation is CAS. Helos VERY short range and loiter times dictates this is one of its major roles above all others.

Bringing up Bell 412 compared to AH-64 or the Hind is absurd. One has armor, the other barely even have the power available to lift said armor aloft, let alone maneuver and fly with it. Of course one would not use a "militarized" Bell 412 as an Attack Helo. Of course one would only "ambush" or use such a helo for maneuver and hitting the "rear". The bell 412 is essentially nothing different than what fought in Vietnam and as we all learned in Vietnam, such Helos are chopped liver to ground forces. Why the Russians built the Hind and we built the Apache. We then saw how the Hind got chewed up and spat out in Afghanistan and we hurriedly started thinking about upgraded our Apaches to the D mod. This was thoroughly brought home in a big way in Dessert Storm and was then rushed through.

Do get a grip on reality. Gotta love nebulous quotes off the internet.

Sure wish this site had different smilies. Would give you the mooned smiley.

Our designation is ARH - Armed Reconnaissance Helicopter.

Not intended to stay and go toe to toe; get in, have a swing and get out. After a very long assessment we went with the Eurocopter Tiger. Not as big as the Apache but more nimble, and newer technology.

At the company's first demo flight here they flew it upside down over our panel at about 60 metres up. Couple of comments from old Iroquois pilots next to me were "Was that good for you too?" - and "So what I could have done that in a Iroquois? - Yes, but only once."

Mind you we always reckoned that aeronautical engineers designed weapons systems, while armoured core engineers designed targets.

Yup, ability to go inverted in helos is a direct outgrowth from the RC helicopter community. The ability was always there, but had built in limiters as no one was totally sure what would happen. The Engineers argued it would stall immediately. It took RC helicopter guys to show the "aeronautical engineers" how such maneuvers were just fine and did not put too much additional stress on the systems. Pretty much all it required was for the collective pitch limiters to be removed.

Now what I want to see at an air show is for a helo to hover less than a meter off the ground inverted just like the RC helo guys do it. No reason they should not be able to do so now. Afterwards see if the pilots "procreation glands" can fit inside the flight suit.

That particular helo was destroyed because it tried to hide 10 metres underground. Prototype number 2, while being shown off in north Queensland Australia.
The sophisticated machine had many automatic routines but two conflicted. One of these was that it automatically couldn't fly below a certain distance from the ground (10 metres as I recall) unless specifically overridden by the pilot while landing, and another that put it into a random evasion flight pattern if targeted by a missile radar (part of the routine was to rely on the height above ground routine).
The test pilot switched off the height routine to show off as you are mentioning. Later he switched on the evasion routine while forgetting that the height routine wasn't on. The AI decided that 10 metres underground was safe from the missile.

Proved two things, that the helo was crash worthy (two walked away), and that carbon fibre burns well.

Relax wrote:Yup, ability to go inverted in helos is a direct outgrowth from the RC helicopter community. The ability was always there, but had built in limiters as no one was totally sure what would happen. The Engineers argued it would stall immediately. It took RC helicopter guys to show the "aeronautical engineers" how such maneuvers were just fine and did not put too much additional stress on the systems. Pretty much all it required was for the collective pitch limiters to be removed.

Now what I want to see at an air show is for a helo to hover less than a meter off the ground inverted just like the RC helo guys do it. No reason they should not be able to do so now. Afterwards see if the pilots "procreation glands" can fit inside the flight suit.

NATO doctrine describes helicopters as a form of manoeuvre unit, not your or my personal pereference.

And if Canada chooses not to buy attack helicopters but sends our pilots to battle in a Bell 412 with a gun hanging off each side (in my experience, they were generally used to escort allied Chinooks bringing supplies to FOBs), then that is a shame the government (and by extention the voters who supported that decision) will have to live with.

However, if you choose to simply sweep aside the doctrine that the various forces in the NATO alliance have adopted WRT the use of aircraft and helicopters, then of course you will fail to actually understand how these assets are used in battle, and why aircraft like the A-10, regardless of whatever virtues they have, are no longer considered relevant by air forces. This also explains the various contortions US Congressmen and Senators have been going through, although the consideration of cutting off the provision of armed forces pork also has a lot to do with it.

Relax wrote:

Zakharra wrote:
There's not a helo around that can carry the same 30mm cannon the A-10 carries. Well, not and be able to fly and shoot well. The A-10 30mm is long and heavy, any 30mm a helo carries is going to be a lot shorter and lighter, An A-10 is also built to soak up a lot of damage and still fly. An attack helicopter can soak up some damage, but it is a lot less than what an A-10 can take and they can be targeted by machine guns

Scratches head... Wonders if a certain someone can read. If one can, why repeat exactly what someone else wrote unless said certain someone cannot comprehend what was written?

Look up what the term CALIBER means in artillery guns.

I didn't know it made any difference. The 30mm an A-10 carries is more powerful than any a helicopter can carry and fire. It's also the weight of the weapon system and the recoil. A helo can't really deal with that. As others have said, both kinds of aircraft have different niches. Helos are good for one kind of combat, A-10s for others. The A-10s bring in a LOT of firepower, hit hard and fairly fast (while being slow enough to aim and hit the target by eye). Helos can bring a lot of firepower too, but it isn't exactly the same type of firepower as a A-10. Different combat niches.

Thucydides wrote:NATO doctrine describes helicopters as a form of manoeuvre unit, not your or my personal pereference.

And if Canada chooses not to buy attack helicopters but sends our pilots to battle in a Bell 412 with a gun hanging off each side (in my experience, they were generally used to escort allied Chinooks bringing supplies to FOBs), then that is a shame the government (and by extention the voters who supported that decision) will have to live with.

However, if you choose to simply sweep aside the doctrine that the various forces in the NATO alliance have adopted WRT the use of aircraft and helicopters, then of course you will fail to actually understand how these assets are used in battle, and why aircraft like the A-10, regardless of whatever virtues they have, are no longer considered relevant by air forces. This also explains the various contortions US Congressmen and Senators have been going through, although the consideration of cutting off the provision of armed forces pork also has a lot to do with it.

I'd trust the needs of the service in question (ie the US Army) in regards to whether the A-10 is outdated or not, not politicians. The Air Force clearly does not like them (not sexy enough) and is pushing for a high speed CAS (laughable, as many here have pointed out) because of a dislike for the slower and uglier plane, but the Army guys? They want the A-10.

Politicians though, they vote their pocketbook and occasionally their conscience. They aren't authorities in anything military (except former military service men and women) and are more likely to vote for or against certain weapons systems because of kickbacks they get, not because it makes sense to keep or stop funding said weapon system.

Thucydides wrote:...

However, if you choose to simply sweep aside the doctrine that the various forces in the NATO alliance have adopted WRT the use of aircraft and helicopters, then of course you will fail to actually understand how these assets are used in battle, and why aircraft like the A-10, regardless of whatever virtues they have, are no longer considered relevant by air forces. This also explains the various contortions US Congressmen and Senators have been going through, although the consideration of cutting off the provision of armed forces pork also has a lot to do with it.

Then i guess those airforces are commanded by morons. Noone sane will say that A-10 is irrelevant to any war.