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

I presume that most of you have seen the stories listed below. As I understand it, the F-35's cannon can't even fire because of some software glitch. Even given a fix of said cannon, the idea of the F-35 ever being able to succeed as such a head-to-head CAS test versus the A-10 is ridiculous...

...which means it needs to be done.
IN A FAIR, UNBIASED TEST.

ERR



* https://news.google.com/news/section?cf ... 00d&ict=ln

* https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/che ... port-test/

* http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-bu ... mber-13736

* http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/08/31 ... f_in_2018/

* http://www.wearethemighty.com/10-will-s ... ce-2015-09

* http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... s-f-35-10/

* http://time.com/4019393/military-planes-a10-f35/

* http://www.defensenews.com/story/defens ... /71279564/

* http://www.defensenews.com/story/defens ... /32292147/

* http://news.investors.com/business/0821 ... upport.htm

* http://www.executivegov.com/2015/09/dod ... apability/








.

Ensign Re-read wrote:I presume that most of you have seen the stories listed below.

Not exactly before, but now i have.

Ensign Re-read wrote:As I understand it, the F-35's cannon can't even fire because of some software glitch.

There really isn´t much in the F-35 that doesn´t have problems of some sort.

I recently watched footage of the F-35 firing its cannon while sitting still on the ground, so it works THAT far at least by now.

However, it was instantly clear that issues are going to pop up sooner or later with the "gun hatch" meant to hide the gun radar signature.

The thing actually fluttered visibly while firing, even with zero airspeed over the wing.

Another obvious issue is that i´m fairly sure that the hatch adds more than a few ms delay to how long it takes between pilot pressing the trigger and the gun firing. That has been a weak point of using rotary guns for decades (they take a moment to spin up(and down), during which rounds are still expelled), and now it´s made even worse?

One more potential issue is that the gun fired from its position in the F-35 is fairly likely to kill the pilots nightvision every time, as the muzzle flash ends up right beside the cockpit.

And i´m still not done... *lol*
Next issue is that if you look at the gun test videos(check youtube, plenty there), you can see that the muzzle flash shockwaves are actually close enough to the cockpit to potentially also cause problems, not to mention residue on the cockpit glass and surroundings.

Ensign Re-read wrote: Even given a fix of said cannon, the idea of the F-35 ever being able to succeed as such a head-to-head CAS test versus the A-10 is ridiculous...

Completely. If they ever get the F-35 to work well enough, it can easily play the hard to see bombtruck, except not nearly as well as the F-117, but as CAS it´s complete garbage from beginning to end.

I would call it outright stupid to even try to use it as a CAS plane.

Ensign Re-read wrote:...which means it needs to be done.
IN A FAIR, UNBIASED TEST.

Have you EVER heard of a "fair, unbiased" test being used by the US military when it wants new toys?

So, not likely to happen.

USA would probably be better off to just drop the F-35 and call it a learning experience of how to NOT develop a plane, then use a combination of F-16, A-10 and maybe F-18 instead.

Especially since it could afford to have more of those, and numbers DO make quite a difference in the end.

Oh, you don't understand a-tall! It's all about the efficiency of having everybody use the same airplane. Of course the Air Force will use the standard version, the Marine version will have a big-ass fan in the middle with a completely different engine, intake and exhaust configuration, and the Navy version needs a massively reinforced hind end to support the arrestor hook, and super-beefy running gear to withstand catapult launches and carrier landings, so the manufacturing, component and maintenance commonality will be far less than what is claimed and they will each cost 3 or 4 times as much as all the different planes they replace, but they will all be pretty much the same shape and, hey, they'll all have the same name! Success!!
-------------------
If a business tries something that doesn't work, they either stop doing it or they will go broke. If the government tries something that doesn't work, they just keep shoveling our money into it forever.

I found one or more articles that apparently refer to the same video. Readers of this forum may want to view it. It is 20:13 minutes long, and of rather high quality. Apparently produced by A-10 supporters WITHIN the Air Force.



Here's the Youtube link:
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_L_TjXXx7eQ

I first saw the associated story at:
The awesome A-10 video the Air Force doesn’t want you to see
Blake Stilwell September 8, 2015
* http://www.wearethemighty.com/a-10-hawgs-2015-09

from the article wrote:--CLIP--

Recently, the John Q. Public blog, run by retired Air Force officer Tony Carr, came across a video he suspects was produced by the Air Force’s Combat Camera units, lauding the A-10, its crews, its pilots, and the capabilities of its support for ground troops.

“ComCam is perhaps alone in its possession of the unique combination of access and capability to create something this close to the mission with such superior production values,” Carr writes. “A ComCam airman risked mortal danger to make this film and tell this story, getting immersed in a firefight along the way (you’ll see him drop his camera and hear him discharge his weapon in the video).”

Combining ground combat footage with access to the aircrews who run and fly the Warthogs, Carr believes the video has “unmistakeable importance,” but wonders if the video is being suppressed by senior Air Force leaders for political reasons.

--CLIP--

There are now other, similar related stories at:
* http://www.governmentvideo.com/article/ ... aft/115621
* http://www.westernjournalism.com/watch- ... ppressing/
* http://wtkr.com/2015/09/10/blogs-share- ... -released/
* and likely other places as well.


ERR

p.s.: BTW, the reason why I come across these links it that at "news.google.com", I have set up a tab whose contents provide me with this:
* https://news.google.com/news/section?cf ... 7eb&ict=ln





.

Could that big Gatling gun cannon be successfully suppressed? Basically a high teck muffler for a cannon. We out here in SW OR USA legally own and use suppressors for firearms, both rifle and pistol.

But ... they are long, heavy and expensive. The government paperwork and legal licensing is also kinda overboard. But "cans" do quiet down firearms greatly. Could a suppressor kill the muzzle flash?

Ours do. No flash at all. The can breaks up, slows down, expands and cools off the powder gases. They get very hot quickly. All that energy turns to heat. Does not slow down the bullet. Sometimes it speeds it up.

But ... to design and install a successful can on a 30 mm cannon might prove to be impossible. The thing would weigh hundreds of pounds and glow like a blow torch to IR sensors. Could the gun be mounted rearward?

All USA Code Laws And NFA regulations apply. Legal here. Your firearm laws may vary greatly. Legal disclaimer.

HB of CJ wrote:Could that big Gatling gun cannon be successfully suppressed? Basically a high teck muffler for a cannon. We out here in SW OR USA legally own and use suppressors for firearms, both rifle and pistol.

But ... they are long, heavy and expensive. The government paperwork and legal licensing is also kinda overboard. But "cans" do quiet down firearms greatly. Could a suppressor kill the muzzle flash?

Ours do. No flash at all. The can breaks up, slows down, expands and cools off the powder gases. They get very hot quickly. All that energy turns to heat. Does not slow down the bullet. Sometimes it speeds it up.

But ... to design and install a successful can on a 30 mm cannon might prove to be impossible. The thing would weigh hundreds of pounds and glow like a blow torch to IR sensors. Could the gun be mounted rearward?

All USA Code Laws And NFA regulations apply. Legal here. Your firearm laws may vary greatly. Legal disclaimer.

In one word? No. As in oh my god are you out of your mind heeeeellll NO!!!

Do you have any idea just what you´re asking for?

A suppressor primarily slows down the gasses, but the more energetic and higher speed the shockwaves are, the more difficult it is.

The projectile however, once it is supersonic, the bigger and more energetic it is, the more noisy it will be all by itself by default.
This is why it´s rare to use suppressors on weapons using supersonic ammo, because it´s not very effective there.

I also very much doubt suppressing the muzzleflash is realistic, due to the high velocity nature of the gun. Without using insanely big stuff, you would pretty much just push most of the flash forward out of what is effectively a new end of the barrel.


Then however we come to the funny part. Have you EVER seen a rotary gun with a suppressor or even a flash damper? No?

Guess why. Because you have to mount one for every single damn barrel. Which also means you´re going to have to increase the power of the engine that spins the gun.
And that is even if you can manage to get suppressors that does not overlap.

Single suppressor would mean you´re basically stuck with the worst part of a rotary and a revolver cannon, and at that point, it´s just a bad idea.

And BTW, a Gatling is always a rotary, but rotaries are not always Gatlings(usually NOT in fact). I never can figure out why people run around calling them Gatlings, there are no Gatling guns used today, they´re rotary cannons, they don´t operate like Gatlings, so why call them that?
It´s about on the level of saying that an M-16 is really a musket. Just a big *huh*?


Aaanyways... If you were to change the cannon to SINGLE shot(maybe 1-2 shots per second?), and mount something that is probably twice the length of the cannon, up front, you might be able to kill the muzzle flash.
Noise suppression however, probably nothing that will make a major difference without affecting the effectiveness of the gun.

If it is possible at all, and i rather doubt it.
Either way, the supersonic projectile is always there and it will always make one heck of a noise no matter what you do to the gas noises.

Would it be possible to develope a small individual flash hider that breaks up the muzzle flash so shooting the cannon does not blind the pilot? Then scale it up to fit each cannon muzzle?

One of our 7.62x51 NATO AK47 rifles has a flash hider called the "Vortex". It does a very good job of practically eliminating the muzzle flash. Lots of computer time developing it.

The shooter hardly sees anything. Dead dark night time. It does NOT reduce the flash signature seen by the target however. Lets the shooter keep his night adapted vision somewhat.

This is a repeat. Back in about 1975 or soss a bunch of us dumb firefighters went to the famous Edwards Airforce Base in CA, USA. They had a prototype A10 on stands bore sighting in that big gun.

We were 1000 meters away. Standing. Sirens, then flashing lights. Then a very loud .. BRRRUUUUUUUUUHHHH! A fifty round burst. We each got a prior used aluminum case. Very cool.

Tenshinai wrote:Aaanyways... If you were to change the cannon to SINGLE shot(maybe 1-2 shots per second?), and mount something that is probably twice the length of the cannon, up front, you might be able to kill the muzzle flash.
Noise suppression however, probably nothing that will make a major difference without affecting the effectiveness of the gun.

If it is possible at all, and i rather doubt it.

Possible apparently yes, even for artillery, practical for anything except fixed locations not so much. You always need volume and lots of it, which is not exactly something you have to spare in flying applications.

aairfccha wrote:Possible apparently yes, even for artillery, practical for anything except fixed locations not so much. You always need volume and lots of it, which is not exactly something you have to spare in flying applications.

Do note though that that is there to make sure nearby neighbors are not too disturbed, not to actually make it silent, because it doesn´t come even remotely close to achieving that.

And higher velocity is a BIG problem when it comes to dampening, so the extra 200-400m/s V0 of the A-10 cannon is definitely an issue.

HB of CJ wrote:Would it be possible to develope a small individual flash hider that breaks up the muzzle flash so shooting the cannon does not blind the pilot? Then scale it up to fit each cannon muzzle?

Almost certainly not without modifying the gun a lot as well.

And the flash from the A-10 gun is quite spectacular, so it´s hard to say just how extreme you would have to be. My opinion is that it really isn´t realistic.

You just don´t have the room either forward or sideways, nor can you pour on the weight(because then you have to get a new engine for the gun, at the very least).

There´s also the trouble of making sure anything added STAYS added, and not getting slingshot sideways from the centrifugal force.

To fit any kind of workable suppressor at all, you would have to scale up the rotary mechanism to separate the barrels more, that requires a new engine, and because of the added forces, a heavier mechanism and a lot of heavier suppressor parts to avoid them flying off.

My off the cuff guesstimate is that you would end up with a cannon that is 3-6 times heavier than the original, and almost twice as long. Not to mention possibly affecting its accuracy in a bad way.

And i´m still questionable about whether it would actually achieve what you wanted, no blinded pilot...

HB of CJ wrote: It does NOT reduce the flash signature seen by the target however.

Can´t really do THAT anyway. You can only really hide the flash from being seen from anywhere EXCEPT the target or near the target line of sight.

HB of CJ wrote:One of our 7.62x51 NATO AK47 rifles has a flash hider called the "Vortex". It does a very good job of practically eliminating the muzzle flash. Lots of computer time developing it.

Yeah, those are very effective. Problem is AFAIK, they do not scale up.
7.62x51 has about 300m/s lower V0 while shooting much smaller projectiles...

Still, for a good comparison of how effective they are for rifle rounds:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EA6ccUDW0ZY
Night test with and without flash hider.