![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
In message , Mary Shafer
writes On Mon, 8 Dec 2003 23:13:38 +0000, "Paul J. Adam" wrote: Again, AWACS is situation-dependent, and there's that oft-quoted statistic about 80% of surviving pilots wondering who shot them down (tracking that statistic to a source is probably good for a PhD thesis - anyone up for funding it? ![]() I got a fair way toward a conference paper on it, with the help of the guys at Wright-Pat. The conclusion is very limited because it's based on very limited data, more like randomly-collected anecdote, long before AWACS or modern RWR. I wouldn't use it to try to support my arguments about modern air warfare. Thought so (and I recall you mentioning your studies on it in the past). It seems to be one of those guesstimates that hang around enough to become rules of thumb, without ever being really validated. Again, for real life this isn't much of a problem because the A-10 operates in total air supremacy and has never had an enemy aircraft ever get a chance to shoot at it (rendering the preparations of the A-10 crews to fight back untested). I don't think that's right. We know that two A-10s nailed helos in '91, so the possibility of helo-A-10 combat has to be considered. If an A-10 can get a helo kill with a gun designed for air-to-ground, then a helo with such a gun can do the same thing to the A-10. True to a point, but there are significant differences; a flexible-mount gun on the helicopter has a lot more dispersion, less muzzle velocity and a much lower rate of fire than the 30mm in the A-10 (using the M230 on the AH-64 as a comparison - it's one of the bigger helo guns) The helicopter's gun is at several disadvantages in terms of its hit probability, worsened because it's got a faster target to try to hit. Restricting armament to its advertised role is silly. Just ask the Argentineans in that ship that the Royal Marines pasted with their Carl Gustavs. True to a point, but while the Guerrico retreated out of small-arms range it didn't stop them bombarding Lt. Keith Mills's position with 100mm shellfire, or prevent Mills and his 22 men having to surrender. Or the F-15 that nailed the helo with the 500-lb dumb bomb. Having seen those happen, the idea of an A-10 going up against an enemy aircraft doesn't seem so far-fetched. True again, which is why you usually see them with a pair of Sidewinders under one wing ![]() This is too true, sadly, and imposes all sorts of limits on open debate. I don't think it's that kind of limitation. I think it's more like there being too many scenarios to really predict accurately. Most of them are going to be kind of unexpected, which makes it hard to predict. Trouble is, someone has to at least try: there simply isn't the budget to prepare fully for all possible scenarios. I hate to be contrarian... all right, I don't. I _like_ being contrarian. Lessons from the past suggest that getting missiles working and crews trained is a better path to dead enemies for air-to-air work. Air-to-ground, guns pull you into IR-SAM range and even for A-10s that isn't healthy. The fighter world decided this once before, you know. They were wrong. Correct: but does that mean the situation has not changed since then? A lot of this discussion is assuming, rightly or wrongly, that the only scenario is the overwhelming Western military against some over-classed small country. That may not be a good assumption. Actually, quite a bit of my thinking is precisely that the Next Enemy(TM) may be significantly more capable, and able to exploit any mistakes, gaps or problems more effectively. What about India and Pakistan? Are they going to be fighting the same kind of air war? Probably not. The UK and Argentina fought something a lot different from either anti-Iraqi action. And the clear, obvious lessons in the air war there were that the Sea Harrier's guns were not effective air-to-air weapons: what was needed was (a) more missiles, (b) longer-ranged missiles. We design and build most of our aircraft for export as well as domestic use (for pretty much every current "we"), so it's important not to get too fixated on one combat scenario. We may have to put guns into fighters to keep aircraft salable, after all. I'd suggest that's a very French approach ![]() "Never mind what *our* forces actually need... we've got to make a profit on export, so we'll build something that will sell overseas and Our Boys will just have to cope with it" -- When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite. W S Churchill Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
AIM-54 Phoenix missile | Sujay Vijayendra | Military Aviation | 89 | November 3rd 03 09:47 PM |
P-39's, zeros, etc. | old hoodoo | Military Aviation | 12 | July 23rd 03 05:48 AM |