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

wastedfly wrote:Reality is already here for steerable bullets. Germans have them on their ships already. Dropping RPG's out of the sky from tanks. Reality is already here for IR to see 20miles in good weather and 10+ in putrid weather. Reality dictates high speed is dead due to IR detection.

Reality should indicate a semi-turreted GUN on aircraft. Turret gun on aircraft will dictate low speed highly maneuverable aircraft or transonic aircraft.

Long live the B-52? The 21st century fighter

20 miles range? That´s nothing today.

The Typhoon´s PIRATE IRST system can detect a fightersized target at 90km when showing no particularly hot parts. 145km when engine exhausts are visible. In between of those if the target is moving faster than something like 350-450 knots depending on conditions (as then all leading edges and points on the plane starts to heat up enough from just the windspeed to become visible).

The Skyward-G on Gripen NG, also from Selex ES, is one notch better still(essentially a further development of the PIRATE), although its biggest advantage is sensor cooperability and a datalink that works(ie unlike that of the F-35, where connecting more than two planes apparently results in a rapid increase of sensor ghosts) rather than just the IR. It also lowers the speedrange needed for friction heat to be enough, to 300-400 knots.


The problem with using B-52s as "fighters", is that they are sucktastic when it comes to evasion. And evasion today is often more than half a fighter´s chance to avoid a missile.
The B-52 relies mostly on its very powerful jammers, but against modern AAMs, it´s getting less and less effective.
And that kind of huge target means an enemy fighter can kill it from 150-350km.

So, NOT a good idea i think...

Subject was killing MISSILES, not detecting aircraft with IR. Giant difference. Steerable bullets = no maneuverability required.

It is the only true anti missile system that is feasible for aircraft. Well, mini rockets would work as well. Test platform would be a C130 type of aircraft. Good enough for Naval ships, good enough for aircraft. Lasers = keep dreaming.

wastedfly wrote:Subject was killing MISSILES, not detecting aircraft with IR. Giant difference. Steerable bullets = no maneuverability required.

It is the only true anti missile system that is feasible for aircraft. Well, mini rockets would work as well. Test platform would be a C130 type of aircraft. Good enough for Naval ships, good enough for aircraft. Lasers = keep dreaming.

That all sounds nice. weeee slight problem. We do not have maneuverable bullets...

Relax wrote:
That all sounds nice. weeee slight problem. We do not have maneuverable bullets...

Maybe you don´t. The Italians certainly do.

http://www.otomelara.it/products-servic ... ion/dart-1

Relax wrote:

wastedfly wrote:Subject was killing MISSILES, not detecting aircraft with IR. Giant difference. Steerable bullets = no maneuverability required.

It is the only true anti missile system that is feasible for aircraft. Well, mini rockets would work as well. Test platform would be a C130 type of aircraft. Good enough for Naval ships, good enough for aircraft. Lasers = keep dreaming.

That all sounds nice. weeee slight problem. We do not have maneuverable bullets...

Electronics shrunk massively(micro INS see them on micro park RC flyers everyday I drive past). Advent of digital servos increased their torque massively allowing micro control surfaces for high g maneuvers. Charging done via explosive capacitors when gun is fired allowing powered maneuvering.

The tech is there. It is time to implement it. You may have noticed, but there has not been a redo in CIWS tech in quite some time. Before advent of the above.

I will admit: 76mm is not what I was thinking when I said steerable bullets. Was thinking 40mm and smaller.

The mosquito recon/bomber/night fighter had a MUCH larger gun on it than 76mm. Believe it was a 3? 4?in gun/105mm tank gun. Never was into vintage tanks, but I do remember tank gun installed on Mosquito.

In either case, the size of the gun is not important. Rather that steerable bullets are more than feasible. On an aircraft like the A-10 or larger, sure not a problem. Turreted would obviously be a problem initially, but nothing that couldn't be overcome. Would be ugly as sin, buy hey, war isn't about pretty. It is about what works.

Right now I do not see any viable fighter options other than "enough" stealth to not be detected at long range via RADAR allowing the attacker to overwhelm localized defenders.

J6P wrote:The mosquito recon/bomber/night fighter had a MUCH larger gun on it than 76mm. Believe it was a 3? 4?in gun/105mm tank gun. Never was into vintage tanks, but I do remember tank gun installed on Mosquito.

In either case, the size of the gun is not important. Rather that steerable bullets are more than feasible. On an aircraft like the A-10 or larger, sure not a problem. Turreted would obviously be a problem initially, but nothing that couldn't be overcome. Would be ugly as sin, buy hey, war isn't about pretty. It is about what works.

Right now I do not see any viable fighter options other than "enough" stealth to not be detected at long range via RADAR allowing the attacker to overwhelm localized defenders.

The Mosquito "Tsetse" carried the British 6 pounder tank gun. That´s a 57mm cannon, roughly same size as the lower velocity US 75mm tank gun that became common(standar Sherman etc), and essentially interchangeable on tanks with the 6 pounder(ie the Mosquito could certainly have carried either as well) since both ammo, gun and forces are not too dissimilar.

Developed originally to replace the twin 40mm cannonarmed Hurricane in the antitank role(something the Hurricane was NOT really suited for(not that the Mosquito was much better for it, but at least it could survive an engine getting knocked out)), it was primarily used for anti-ship and anti-submarine work(6 u-boat kills confirmed, plus 2 confirmed partial kills).

There was however also a single experimental model tested with a British 32-pounder, a 94mm cannon. The gun was never finalised or put in service and not much is known about it in the Mosquito testplane.
The 32 lb was a development of the British 3.7" AA gun.

Tenshinai wrote:

J6P wrote:The mosquito recon/bomber/night fighter had a MUCH larger gun on it than 76mm. Believe it was a 3? 4?in gun/105mm tank gun. Never was into vintage tanks, but I do remember tank gun installed on Mosquito.

In either case, the size of the gun is not important. Rather that steerable bullets are more than feasible. On an aircraft like the A-10 or larger, sure not a problem. Turreted would obviously be a problem initially, but nothing that couldn't be overcome. Would be ugly as sin, buy hey, war isn't about pretty. It is about what works.

Right now I do not see any viable fighter options other than "enough" stealth to not be detected at long range via RADAR allowing the attacker to overwhelm localized defenders.

The Mosquito "Tsetse" carried the British 6 pounder tank gun. That´s a 57mm cannon, roughly same size as the lower velocity US 75mm tank gun that became common(standar Sherman etc), and essentially interchangeable on tanks with the 6 pounder(ie the Mosquito could certainly have carried either as well) since both ammo, gun and forces are not too dissimilar.

Developed originally to replace the twin 40mm cannonarmed Hurricane in the antitank role(something the Hurricane was NOT really suited for(not that the Mosquito was much better for it, but at least it could survive an engine getting knocked out)), it was primarily used for anti-ship and anti-submarine work(6 u-boat kills confirmed, plus 2 confirmed partial kills).

There was however also a single experimental model tested with a British 32-pounder, a 94mm cannon. The gun was never finalised or put in service and not much is known about it in the Mosquito testplane.
The 32 lb was a development of the British 3.7" AA gun.

Looks in wikipedia... yup, nice copy paste job, without the cite...

Relax wrote:
Looks in wikipedia... yup, nice copy paste job, without the cite...

Except for the little fact that NOTHING was copied at all, nor was anything taken from wikipedia. I never copy paste when i write something unless it is a direct and as exact as i can make it quote. And then i clearly mark it within "quote", or ~"inexact quote".

Oh bravo mr idiot. The little fact that the wikipedia article on the Mosquito does not mention such little details like how the 6pd and the US 75L38 could effectively be interchangeable, that doesn´t tell you anything?
If i was copying, now where on the page is that little tidbit of information eh?

Should i have added that the 32 pounder gun was originally the 37 pounder? But that didn´t work out very well so it was modified.
And designed for the A32 Tortoise tank.

Or maybe, based on wikipedia, you could be so kind to tell me exactly where i got the information about the confirmed "partial" submarine kills? Hmmm?

Accusing someone of copying just because you´re illiterate is not acceptable.
While you´re at it, why don´t you accuse DW of plagiarizing? I mean, i´m pretty sure you can find almost every single word in every book has been used somewhere else, oh my...

And if that doesn´t work, well i´m sure you can start demanding that letters can only be used once, that would make so much sense.

Or maybe the obvious wasn´t obvious enough for YOU. That there are only so many words with which some things can be described. Why don´t you try looking at sources from Gunston, Gowan, Chant or Eriksson, how very amazing that all of them use pretty much the same words as wikipedia, oh my how incredible, they must all have copy pasted! Indeed, that they wrote it before wikipedia existed, well i´m sure such little pesky details doesn´t matter to you.

Get lost.

Anyone can regurgitate from a book or wiki. This subject is about extrapolation which is what I was pointing out with my copy paste comment when you replied to J6P.

This shows once again why I have you on ignore. Great at regurgitation from a book. Extrapolation...