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

robert132 wrote:Speaking as a sailor ... too bad it doesn't have a tailhook. (That's the best complement I can come up with.)

With a stall speed of 120kts and a 40kt carrier racing under it, that's an approach speed of only 80kts (with a head-wind providing margin-of-error) it doesn't really need a hook. The main issue is those massively long wings. couldn't fit them through the hanger doors once the elevator was down. Adding folding wings would have an effect on its legendary rigidity and resistance to damage (though perhaps not too much). you would have to design them to fold up and swivel back along the fuselage (maybe a latch to hook them to the tail). But, with 10 tons of ordinance and that 30mm hog of a gun, just think what 1 of those could do to a ship! Plus they are designed to fly in on the deck, below radar, with no armor, a DDG would just be dogmeat (or hogmeat).

MAD-4A wrote:But, with 10 tons of ordinance and that 30mm hog of a gun, just think what 1 of those could do to a ship! Plus they are designed to fly in on the deck, below radar, with no armor, a DDG would just be dogmeat (or hogmeat).

In the novel they didn't actually fire on the Soviet ship, but I remember getting a kick out of the scene in Hunt for the Red October when a flight of Warthogs
did a low level pass on the Kirov and boxed her in with flares.

Jonathan_S wrote:In the novel they didn't actually fire on the Soviet ship, but I remember getting a kick out of the scene in Hunt for the Red October when a flight of Warthogs
did a low level pass on the Kirov and boxed her in with flares.

It´s a neat scene, but nothing but pure Hollywood.

There´s VERY good reason why noone sane wants to attack modern capital ships at gun or bomb range nowadays.

The thing with large ships, is that they are big enough to put their sensors up high, while there are limits to how low an incoming aircraft can fly to avoid detection.

And once detected, shit, the Kirov class has one of the most(probably THE most) impressive defensive setups of ANY modern ship.

8 sixbarrel 30mm CIWS, 6 hybrid dual sixbarrel 30mm and closerange SAM mounts.
And that´s if you can get past regular 3 short and medium range SAM systems.

It´s kinda funny, A-10s have a better chance to survive attack runs against their own ships, due to defenses relying on weaker weapons, but at least a Kirov, is going to be a BIG NO-NO to get close to.

Rotary 30mm with enough precision to engage missiles, even ballistic missiles, they would chew through even the normally impressive sturdiness of A-10s in seconds at most.




##########

MAD-4A wrote:But, with 10 tons of ordinance and that 30mm hog of a gun

On the one hand, that gun would be pretty nasty against a ship, but OTOH, it´s not really a very effective gun, it´s made to spray a target area, using excessive amounts of ammo compared to what it achieves.

So, you could probably replace it with a lighter, slower firing but much more accurate gun using the same ammo, or potentially give it something like a 40mm gun with even slower ROF but seriously strong punch, and STILL save enough weight to allow for a hook and not loose any performance.

Still, attacking ships with guns today is generally a terrible idea, because the ship nearly always has a gun that can reach out further, the ship is a better gun platform, it has all the sensors it needs to do this with ease, and the A-10 is a SLOW flier.
Any ship beyond "lightly defended" is probably more or less suicidal to attack at gunrange.

On ground speed I've seen a Caribou throttled back, actually deliberately going backwards against a strong headwind.
As to sinking ships with aerial gunfire, my dad sank small Japanese freighters using a Bristol Beaufighter. I've seen the gun camera proof, but they probably wern't as tough as the Kirovs or protected at all.

Daryl wrote:On ground speed I've seen a Caribou throttled back, actually deliberately going backwards against a strong headwind.
As to sinking ships with aerial gunfire, my dad sank small Japanese freighters using a Bristol Beaufighter. I've seen the gun camera proof, but they probably wern't as tough as the Kirovs or protected at all.

Oh the gun is plenty good enough to sink most modern ships, even if it would need LOTS of hits to do it for most(current military ships are built to absorb damage, and the smaller individual hits are, the more it can take), the BIG problem is that just about any modern ship can(and likely will) splash the incoming A-10 long before it´s in range to fire at all.

Tenshinai wrote:On the one hand, that gun would be pretty nasty against a ship, but OTOH, it´s not really a very effective gun, it´s made to spray a target area, using excessive amounts of ammo compared to what it achieves.

No it's not, the AU-8 Avenger is designed to put a small stream of AP rounds through a single target, not spray an area, that's what cluster bombs are for. As for gun/bomb attacks, ask the Brits about that. Yes the Kirov (which is a bad example as virtually all other ships - except a few other Russian capital ships - have much poorer point defense) would be a difficult target, but most others would not be. Also, if ANY aircraft could pull it off, it would be the A-10, as that is the only one who could take that fire and survive, have you not been listening?

MAD-4A wrote:No it's not, the AU-8 Avenger is designed to put a small stream of AP rounds through a single target, not spray an area, that's what cluster bombs are for.

Wrong. It´s designed to pour a crapload of shots very quickly into the rough target area, making sure that enough hits are scored that the target is destroyed or severely damaged.

Compare with 30mm guns used by Apache and Tiger attack helicopters, the difference is BIG in accuracy despite the GAU8 using higher velocity ammo.

OFFICIAL accuracy of the GAU 8 is:
"5mil, 80 percent
80% of rounds fired at 4,000ft hit within a 20ft radius"
(and even that includes a little hyperbole)

20ft RADIUS at just a bit over 1km, even if you totally ignore the 20% that is even further from the aimpoint.
1200 squarefeet area attack.

The problem with your perception here is probably that you compare it to the M61 that it is based on, which is even less accurate.

If they wanted a truly accurate gun, they wouldn´t have made it a rotary, as they are inherently less accurate due to barrels moving while firing. It takes high precision fire control and a VERY well stabilised mount like what is used on ground and naval anti air mounts to overcome this, and even then, it´s overcome by "walking" the line of fire onto the target using the fire control to track individual shells rather than calculating an intersect and firing at it. It works well(compared to other solutions) because modern jets are highspeed movers making a high rate of fire a need, but it also wastes a crapload of ammo.

MAD-4A wrote:Also, if ANY aircraft could pull it off, it would be the A-10, as that is the only one who could take that fire and survive, have you not been listening?

Oh, they might survive(unlikely), but if you send a squadron against a Kirov, you´re going to have to be VERY lucky to cause any damage to the ship at all. Approaching in rough sea state at very low altitude MIGHT let you get a shot in before being seen and annihilated, but even that is going to need luck, especially when just the approch becomes as dangerous as trying to attack.

Give them AGM-65s so at least they don´t have to get in range of the PD systems and you get a much better chance.

MAD-4A wrote:As for gun/bomb attacks, ask the Brits about that.

Try it against a peer hostile navy TODAY and, well just forget about it, it´s suicidal.

Hell, even my own navy´s little corvette´s have a pretty fair chance of killing incoming aircraft long before they have a chance to fire a gun or drop a bomb at them. Modern sensors and modern fire control are just way too good for gun/bomb attacks to be viable against ships.

Sure, not impossible, but when even an old Tarantul corvette has 1 76mm gun and either 2 AK630 or 1 Kashtan gun/missile hybrid CIWS, seriously, trying to attack it with guns is just a very stupid game of chicken.
Because with modern firecontrol, even that 76mm gun can kill an A-10 every 3-4 shots, faaar beyond the range where the A-10 has any chance of hitting back, and an A-10 is an EASY target for those AK630s, remember, they´re made to be capable of intercepting SSMs travelling 2-6 times faster while being smaller.

Then you probably need to realise that while the A-10s protection scheme is awesome for an aircraft, it just means that instead of the 3-5 30mm shells needed to destroy an F-16, you might need 5-10.
It´s meant to protect against SMALL arms fire, machineguns, heavy machineguns and shrapnel(which is why it makes PD SAMs 30-40% less effective as well).

There´s excellent reason why the rest of the world moved to 20mm guns during WWII and to 23-30mm in the decades after.
USAs fanaticism about high rate of fire and high velocity, sure it´s useful, but that does not make it the best solution.

MAD-4A wrote:No it's not, the AU-8 Avenger is designed to put a small stream of AP rounds through a single target, not spray an area

Compare with the GSh-301, the gun weighs roughly 1/6th of the GAU-8, it normally uses a firing rate around 1/3 that of the GAU-8, the ammo has about 15% slower V0.
But, if both guns fire 20 shots at 1200m, the GSh will put all shots within a 5ft radius(or less), while the GAU will put maybe 2-4 shots in the same center target area.
In fact, despite the lower muzzle velocity and slightly lighter ammo, the GSh is much more accurate at 1800m than the GAU is at 1200m.

The other common gun, BK-27 is almost as accurate as the GSh.


In short, no, the GAU-8 was most definitely NOT designed for accuracy. It is designed to spray areas.

Your own arguments disprove your argument;

Tenshinai wrote:It´s designed to pour a crapload of shots very quickly into the rough target area, making sure that enough hits are scored that the target is destroyed or severely damaged.

Wrong.

You obviously don't know what accuracy means, or how the weapon is used. it isn't a Russian AK-630 that just sprays 1000 rounds wildly in the air hoping one will connect with an incoming missile. The A-10 fires short controlled bursts at a single target while popping up over a hill/building/etc... at several 100 MPH. Yes, a few rounds miss (can't be helped, your not going to get 100% accuracy in that conditions) but it does put 4-8 round of every 10 into the target

Tenshinai wrote:Compare with 30mm guns used by Apache and Tiger attack helicopters, the difference is BIG in accuracy despite the GAU8 using higher velocity ammo.

It is just as accurate.
This has nothing to do with the gun. That has to do with how its used (the platform and how the platform operates) and the FC systems. The Apache has an optical auto tracking system used by a dedicated gunner on a slow flying/hovering platform with the weapon mounted in an articulated turret. The A-10 is mounted fixed forward on a moving aircraft and aimed by the pilot pointing the entire aircraft at the target, still 8 out of every 10 rounds hit within 20ft of the aim point, so most hit the tank/truck/train engine/bunker (all over 20ft long) it is aimed at, and at-least some of those rounds hit in virtually every shot, and at nearly a mile range! that's accuracy

Tenshinai wrote:If they wanted a truly accurate gun, they wouldn´t have made it a rotary, as they are inherently less accurate...

No they are inherently less precise. Don't you even know weapon terminology?
One of the most accurate hand held weapons ever made is the shot gun, it is designed specifically to hit the target nearly every time the trigger is pulled regardless of the competency of the user. It is also the least precise weapon ever invented as it almost never hits with every projectile expelled.
If I take a pistol to the range and empty it into a target; if I hit the target just out of the outer ring with every round going through the same hole, I have no accuracy (ability to hit the target) but have 100% precision (every round going to the same spot) if I hit the target with every shot but they ended up all around the target then I had 100% accuracy but poor precision.
The AU-8 (with a trained pilot) rarely misses what it's shooting at, though, yes, it often leaves a little overspray around that target - major tip don't be standing near the target of an A-10, it can be a very bad health risk.
The AU-8 is a highly accurate weapon, it (like the shotgun) is just not inherently precise.

I was involved in the development of the Tiger into Australian service, where we integrated avionics and hardware. Can't say much, except if one was looking for me I'd like a shovel and time to get deep, as it was exceptional.

Your own arguments disprove your argument;

And i notice you blatantly ignore the official accuracy numbers.

You obviously don't know what accuracy means, or how the weapon is used. it isn't a Russian AK-630 that just sprays 1000 rounds wildly in the air hoping one will connect with an incoming missile. The A-10 fires short controlled bursts at a single target while popping up over a hill/building/etc... at several 100 MPH. Yes, a few rounds miss (can't be helped, your not going to get 100% accuracy in that conditions) but it does put 4-8 round of every 10 into the target

Oh my, that´s almost hilariously stupid. I mean, just WOW!

The AK630 CIWS is MORE ACCURATE than an A-10!
MUCH MORE!!!

You actually try to claim that an UNSTABILISED aircraft cannon, made with high rate of fire as the primary goal, made to hit TANKsized targets at less than 1.2km, is more accurate than a highprecision radar/IR controlled, stabilised system designed to kill HIGH SPEED MISSILES, even from a frontal only crossection that is less than a tenth of a tank, at out to several km distance?

Seriously, even the absolute crappiest CIWS there is, is more accurate than the vast majority of aircraft cannons. And the GAU8 is a high rate of fire cannon, not a high accuracy one, while the AK630 is nowhere near the bottom of CIWS, it is in fact(latest version) one of the top 5 without question and probably within the top 3.

but it does put 4-8 round of every 10 into the target

If the target is a large house or the range is less than 300m, MAYBE.

It is just as accurate.
This has nothing to do with the gun. That has to do with how its used (the platform and how the platform operates) and the FC systems.

Nope. If you bother to look up the stated accuracy numbers, even with both set up in fixed ground testmounts, the GAU8 has something closer to twice the MOA.

The A-10 is mounted fixed forward on a moving aircraft and aimed by the pilot pointing the entire aircraft at the target, still 8 out of every 10 rounds hit within 20ft of the aim point, so most hit the tank/truck/train engine/bunker (all over 20ft long) it is aimed at, and at-least some of those rounds hit in virtually every shot, and at nearly a mile range! that's accuracy

20 feet RADIUS(as in 1200 squarefeet), at ~4000ft/1250m, not a mile. And as i already noted, even THAT includes some -rah rah- posturing and hyperbole. Which is why normal attacks against tanks is steep dives that spends LOTS of rounds that is usually fired at closer to 200-400m range.

No, that´s NOT accuracy at all. Not even close. Easy comparison, the 40mm in the CV90, firing 3-shot autobursts, at 1000m range it puts the shots within less than a feet from targeting point. Easily.
An Abrams or Leopard 2 tank can do better than that with their mainguns at twice the distance.

The fighter model Viggen armed with the 30mm KCA gun(notable as it also uses 30x173, only major difference being electrical vs percussive caps) puts all its shots within less than something like 5 feet at 1250m. Using ammo with the same ballistics.

I might also add that the KCA was the "backup plan" for the A-10 if the GAU-8 didn´t work as designed(two of them per plane).
Of course, primary reason to not use it was that it was Swiss, not that it was the worse choice(2 KCA would have given only somewhat lower rate of fire, but vastly better accuracy), and of course the same reason why the F-35 was not fitted with the BK-27 despite that being the preferred gun by all involved designers, because of military industry lobbying.


Seriously, it is well established and well known FACT that rotary guns are considerably less accurate than other guns, in return they get a higher rate of fire, why are you trying to claim otherwise?

Why do you think everyone with a choice are very notably stepping away from using rotary guns, except if they are on a stabilised mount or using shelltracking fire control, or both?

No they are inherently less precise. Don't you even know weapon terminology?

Seriously, get over yourself.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accuracy_and_precision

If a weapon requires you to hose the target down with shots to get shots actually on the aimpoint, it is normally referred to as inaccurate.

You want to contest that? Go ahead, have fun, i couldn´t care less about your excuses for fanboying over some ridiculous propaganda.

The AU-8 is a highly accurate weapon, it (like the shotgun) is just not inherently precise.

That has got to be the saddest excuse i´ve ever seen.