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

Zakharra wrote: 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.

Let me get this straight:

1) You admit you don't have a clue

so your conclusion is:

2) You now have a clue and are confident that a Helo cannot carry a slightly more powerful weapon?

The US Army has also refused to take the A-10 from the Air Force, so the senior leadership of the Army is also in disagreement with you.

Doctrine is "how" things are done, and the military forces of NATO and most western armed forces which are influenced by the US and NATO have all settled on the idea that helicopters and helicopter units are manoeuvre unit, so planning and the use of helicopters is analogous to planing and using of tanks or mechanized infantry. Helicopters are much faster and less limited by terrain than ground units, and can take on targets at long ranges, making them a versatile component in the commander's tool kit.

And of course if you re read the actual upthread post, the Air Force pilot has briefly described the doctrine of using aircraft, and the "Close" in close air support refers to the close integration between the aircraft and the ground commander, not how close the aircraft comes to the target. Since the target is generally identified by off board assets (ground troops, UAV's, sensor and surveillance aircraft), doctrine is very important in ensuring the passing of the target to the most appropriate "shooter" that is capable of taking the target. If that shooter happens to be a B-1 or Strike Eagle orbiting at airliner altitude, then so be it, the target still gets "serviced" (and generally never even sees or hears what is coming to get them).

This is the reality of modern war.

Thucydides wrote:The US Army has also refused to take the A-10 from the Air Force, so the senior leadership of the Army is also in disagreement with you.

Huh?
Really?
Can you please cite your source?

I am NOT being sarcastic.

Please fill me in.



.

Ensign Re-read wrote:

Thucydides wrote:The US Army has also refused to take the A-10 from the Air Force, so the senior leadership of the Army is also in disagreement with you.

Huh?
Really?
Can you please cite your source?

I am NOT being sarcastic.

Please fill me in.

.

Dodbuzz.com
specifically
http://www.dodbuzz.com/2015/02/25/army- ... air-force/

What they actually said, is that under current budgetary constraints they would not take it.

The comments are quite humorous reading.

Here is an excellent write up that basically summarizes several lines of information regarding CAS and the A-10.

http://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2015/03 ... se/106845/

Its cheap and more effective. Period.

If anything retire B-52. Then start in on the AC130U(convert back to transport duties). Note the articles list has 343 A-10s is not true it is 214? I believe now. Start whittling F15E/F16 fleet. Navy is more important than the airforce or marines

Nuclear deterrence is in the form of ICMB's and subs. Bombers as the "third" arm of SAC is a joke. Besides just about anything can be fitted to carry a nuc once the panacea treaties are burned as soon as the first nuclear warhead falls.

Relax wrote:

Zakharra wrote: 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.

Let me get this straight:

1) You admit you don't have a clue

so your conclusion is:

2) You now have a clue and are confident that a Helo cannot carry a slightly more powerful weapon?

The 30mm gun the A-10 carries and shoots is far more powerful than ANY gun a helicopter can carry and shoot. Helos are more versatile in that they can hover and stuff, but they aren't meant to carry or fire the single weapon system the A-10 was built around to carry and shoot. There's a reason why it was built and carried in a plane rather than a helo, Relax. A helo carrying the same weapon system would not be stable when it fired, and I don't think they could take that kind of stress on the air frame. A helo can carry a smaller 30mm, but it won't do the same damage as the one the A-10 carries. Also their mission tasks are different.

The 30mm gun the A-10 carries and shoots is far more powerful than ANY gun a helicopter can carry and shoot.

That´s just incorrect. You do remember that the Apache 30mm is on a tracking mount?
Just changing to a fixed mount would allow something much more powerful.

And then there´s always the option of simply picking a larger helicopter to put it on.

A Chinook has the same MTOW as an A-10, so only issue would be getting the recoil as close to center of gravity as possible to minimize how fast aim goes off target.

It´s not that you CAN`T mount bigger guns on helis, it´s that it´s not very convenient because you have to make it handle recoil, which is more tricky than on an aircraft.

A helo can carry a smaller 30mm

Helicopters have been flown and used with much bigger weapons than that.

A helo carrying the same weapon system would not be stable when it fired

Well obviously not if it tried to carry it on a tracking chin mount. On a fixed mount, that gets much easier.

Zakharra wrote:

Zakharra wrote: 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.

Relax wrote:
Let me get this straight:

1) You admit you don't have a clue

so your conclusion is:

2) You now have a clue and are confident that a Helo cannot carry a slightly more powerful weapon?

The 30mm gun the A-10 carries and shoots is far more powerful than ANY gun a helicopter can carry and shoot. Helos are more versatile in that they can hover and stuff, but they aren't meant to carry or fire the single weapon system the A-10 was built around to carry and shoot. There's a reason why it was built and carried in a plane rather than a helo, Relax. A helo carrying the same weapon system would not be stable when it fired, and I don't think they could take that kind of stress on the air frame. A helo can carry a smaller 30mm, but it won't do the same damage as the one the A-10 carries. Also their mission tasks are different.

A helo can carry and fire any weapon it can lift just as any airplane can. Can a helo lift a slightly heavier gun than it already carries? Yes. Would it want to? No.

Basic engineering/Aerodynamics. What you "underlined" is not exactly true. On an airplane there simply is no other position to PUT the gun. All airplanes are "built around" something. For fighters it is their engine. For cargo transports it is their cargo. For attack aircraft it is their gun. It is a nice PR point, but hardly unique. Has been true since dawn of airplane design. Same goes for Helo design.

Stability: Has everything to do with the stability mechanisms(active and passive). The AH-64 gun is actually MORE stable than the A-10 fixed gun as it has stabilizers built into it unlike the AU-8 Avenger. The gun on the A-10 only has recoil dampers and not stabilizers. The LACK of active stabilizers is one reason many think the A-10 is obsolete. In practice, the A-10 and their pilots have proven that active stabilization while a nice feature, is not necessarily required. Its platform and aerodynamics would dictate even if could be stabilized + rotation, rotation would be +/- a couple degrees at best. You may have noticed that the F-35 gun supposedly will not be "ready to fire" until 2017? It is not that they cannot install and fire it today. Rather they are working on the electro optical targeting and stabilizing mechs for optimum firing since this is supposedly going to be a "CAS" aircraft.

The A-10 gets away without stabilizers because it uses far superior ballistics ammo(nearly a pound when using Uranium) and far greater firing rate. 4000RPM vrs 600RPM. Lets look at the craft eh? One can skim along at 300mph and requires a firing rate capable of destroying an entire convoy in a single pass, the other does not. That speed also keeps it safer. Lets look at the targets eh? Tanks are compartmentalized. They need more than a single bullet strike to destroy. They need several unless you get lucky and blow the ammo compartment. A Humvee on the other hand requires a single shot to destroy.

Both Apache/A-10 gun are aligned fairly close with the CG. CG moves due to fuel/bomb/missile loadout so the gun systems in question are never actually "aligned" with the CG of the aircraft. The only major difference between the A-10's gun and the Apache's gun is the fact that there are 7 slightly longer barrels verses 1 slightly shorter barrel using a larger breach length to make use of that longer barrel and heavier Uranium projectile. Total energy transfer, depending on ammo is 2X-4X greater per shot. Not exactly an engineering problem that cannot be addressed.

Apache has single point failure points on its 1st tier flight systems. A-10 does not. Both have "armor" against small arms fire. A-10 is completely redundant on its flight controls and on its structure. Apache is not. An A-10 has the fuel capacity(range) to get behind the enemy lines and hunt many targets of opportunity en route to the front. Exposure & need to get back across enemy lines while damaged. A helo does not. An A-10 does not require very vulnerable fuel PIGS (trucks) to be close to the enemy lines. Apaches do(along with the armor/infantry it supports). Rather A-10 require more vulnerable(can't move), but further behind enemy lines of rough runways and fuel PIGS.

There is little reason to put a much larger gun on an Apache/helo even though it is more than capable structurally and dynamically, when it is far more likely to be hurt going after far tougher targets able to carry far more SAM's and Ground based radar tracked gun AAA systems. The platform has zilch to do with the gun it carries. Rather its MISSION determines what it carries. You do not need a 7 barreled Gatling gun throwing nearly 1lb depleted uranium bullets to destroy a pickup truck or Humvee!

Tenshinai wrote:

The 30mm gun the A-10 carries and shoots is far more powerful than ANY gun a helicopter can carry and shoot.

That´s just incorrect. You do remember that the Apache 30mm is on a tracking mount?
Just changing to a fixed mount would allow something much more powerful.

And then there´s always the option of simply picking a larger helicopter to put it on.

A Chinook has the same MTOW as an A-10, so only issue would be getting the recoil as close to center of gravity as possible to minimize how fast aim goes off target.

It´s not that you CAN`T mount bigger guns on helis, it´s that it´s not very convenient because you have to make it handle recoil, which is more tricky than on an aircraft.

A helo can carry a smaller 30mm

Helicopters have been flown and used with much bigger weapons than that.

A helo carrying the same weapon system would not be stable when it fired

Well obviously not if it tried to carry it on a tracking chin mount. On a fixed mount, that gets much easier.

Start last point first. One does not care if Yaw/Pitch is induced in the aircraft. All one cares about is if the gun itself remains steady. This is a fairly simple low order vibration problem. The question is: Is the extra weight required to stabilize a larger energy gun adequate for the mission type the helicopter in question is performing?

Major difference for rotating/gun mount on a helicopter is that its Aerodynamic center and its Center of gravity are not aligned or anywhere close to each other as they are on the A-10. A Helicopter will always require stabilizers for a gun mount if mounted low. If high, not so much. Has nothing to do with hard mount or rotating.

Its Aerodynamic center is ABOVE its CG, so at least it is self stabilizing, so any YAW or PITCH caused by the gun has this gigantic whirling moment of inertia to overcome whereas on an aircraft such as the A-10, the only moment of inertia the recoil must overcome is the the linear momentum of the aircraft itself. The energy tied up in a rotation mass of rotors is VASTLY greater than that of a linear object such as an airplane. We are talking orders of magnitude difference here. The gun impact energy needing to be absorbed is not orders of magnitude greater in and of itself. But the length from the Center of Gravity does make itself felt. Rule of thumb? It is a wash between the two platforms. If I had more numbers for a stability calc, I would not be surprised at all if the helicopter is MORE stable than the A-10. After all all Helos are more stable than aircraft to start with. Depending on speed and load out a helo with the recoil force of even the GAU-8 Avenger below could still be "more" stable than the A-10 airplane itself.

Because the A-10's Aerodynamic center is aligned with its "normalized" Center of Gravity, under normal conditions the recoil is slightly below the CG creating a nose down moment allowing the aircraft to better track a vehicle as it is flying past. Lessens the workload on the pilot for gun runs. The A-10 would be superior with a stabilized gun mount. Would probably push its envelope for engagement out to 3km or more depending on what one wishes to use for total ammo expenditures.

MTOW has little to do with stability in Helos as their moment of inertia of their rotor systems override simple linear momentum of the weight itself quite handily. That V^2 function quickly rules.

The stress of a gun firing on a platform is transferred through the air frame to the support, in the case of a Helicopter, that support is the rotor assembly & specifically the main rotor axil. The amount of recoil a given helicopter is capable of handling is dependent on the structural tolerance of the rotor assembly, so, no, you can’t just take a 12cm tank gun from an M-1 and strap it on the bottom of an AH-64. You would fire 1 shot and the thing would crash to the ground, without its rotor. So, no you can’t just strap on whatever gun you want on a helo. As far as using a larger helicopter. Why didn’t they think of that? Answer: a bigger helicopter is also a bigger target. As far as fixed wing aircraft “having” to put the gun in a given position because it “has no other choice”: I got 5 digits – AC-130 – fixed wing, guns not fixed forward. The reason the A-10 has the gun fixed forward is that it doesn’t need to be stabilized- it fires where the pilot points it, using his plane as the stabilizer & no they don’t use DPU round, they haven’t since desert storm.
Also: anyone who adheres to a “…Doctrine is "how" things are done…” is a moron who has no business in the military. Combat is a fluid & ever-changing creature and any idiot who is stuck on “it just how things are done” deserves to follow Adm Phillips (Force Z) to the bottom.