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 |
#221
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 12:33:04 -0800, Lyle wrote:
Ed, What is the difference between direct close airsupport, and close airsupport, or is it just all lumped together and called close air support. Sounds like some sort of semantic argument. I never heard the term "direct close air support" used in any official context. Close Air Support is the employment of tac air assets in direct support of ground units. It would, by its very nature be "direct". With regard to fire support of ground units, there is the distinction between direct and indirect fire. That's the difference between aimed large-bore guns such as tank cannon and parabolic lobbed shells such as artillery and mortar. Maybe someone more current than I am in the latest nomenclature can contribute to the discussion. |
#222
|
|||
|
|||
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. The A-10 is pretty tough and between that and the helicopter's gun's low rate of fire and relative inaccuracy would make it pretty difficult for a helicoper to get a *gun* kill on an aircraft. A missile kill is a WHOLE 'nother ball game. Back in the 80's they did some tests of helicopter gunships defending themselves from fighters with Sidewinder missiles and they did pretty good. Restricting armament to its advertised role is silly. Just ask the Argentineans in that ship that the Royal Marines pasted with their Carl Gustavs. 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. I believe it was in the book "Warthog" in which a pilot discribes how a Mig-29 was headed their was and him and his wingman were getting ready with their Sidwinders and guns but some F-15s came in and took care of them before there was an opportunity. I imagine if a pair of Mig-29s got shot down by two A-10s we'd still be hearing the laughter though. |
#223
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 20:46:54 GMT, Chad Irby wrote:
Funny, I keep finding quite large ones. Like the Predator, the Darkstar, the Global Hawk, or one of several Russian designs that are basically reworked large cruise missiles or former target drones. Darkstar wasn't that big. I used to see it out on the ramp all the time. It was definitely is T-37 size class at the most. That's pretty small. Mary -- Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer |
#224
|
|||
|
|||
|
#225
|
|||
|
|||
"Chad Irby" wrote "Paul F Austin" wrote: "Chad Irby" wrote The "little bitty" UAVs out there are in the "fly past really quick and turbulence does the job" category... There really aren't "a lot" of large UAVs. They (and their payloads) are quite expensive and the number look limited for the foreseeable future. Funny, I keep finding quite large ones. Like the Predator, the Darkstar, the Global Hawk, or one of several Russian designs that are basically reworked large cruise missiles or former target drones. You keep finding_types_of large ones. Take a look at the number of G-Hawks produced and planned. The payloads (never mind the airframe) are so expensive that the Air Force treats it as a "high demand-low availability" resource like Rivet Joint or JSTARS. For cost reasons, it's unlikely to change. The same seems to be true of Predator. The UAVs that look to be procured in large numbers are the Pioneer-class machines. |
#226
|
|||
|
|||
"Alan Minyard" wrote "Paul F Austin" wrote: Most selections are_very_closely balanced and most of the offerings will do the job. The difference between winner and also ran will turn on features_other than_technical performance. In fact, it's the rare procurement these days that offers any evaluation points at all for performance above the "goal" level. Instead heaviest weighting is usually given to Cost, delivery, cost and oh, yes cost. Did I mention cost? I would certainly agree, however the Mauser offering was significantly different from the M-61 derivative. Different design philosophy (revolver vs "gatling" gun). The ammunition is also significantly different. If both weapons were designed to a definitive solution (rate of fire, same ammunition, etc) then your contention would be more accurate. Lately, many procurements have had requirements based on end-effects rather than e.g. specifying ROF and ammunition natures. In fact the whole JSF procurement has been specified on a end effect basis. |
#227
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
Mary Shafer wrote: On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 20:46:54 GMT, Chad Irby wrote: Funny, I keep finding quite large ones. Like the Predator, the Darkstar, the Global Hawk, or one of several Russian designs that are basically reworked large cruise missiles or former target drones. Darkstar wasn't that big. I used to see it out on the ramp all the time. It was definitely is T-37 size class at the most. That's pretty small. http://www.fas.org/irp/program/collect/darkstar.htm The Darkstar has a 69 foot wingspan, about twice that of the T-37, and about 50 percent wider than the F-22. I consider that big. Certainly big enough to hit with cannon fire. Maybe you saw a sub-scale prototype? -- cirby at cfl.rr.com Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations. Slam on brakes accordingly. |
#228
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
"Paul F Austin" wrote: "Chad Irby" wrote Funny, I keep finding quite large ones. Like the Predator, the Darkstar, the Global Hawk, or one of several Russian designs that are basically reworked large cruise missiles or former target drones. You keep finding_types_of large ones. Which, incidentally, are the ones they're actually using. And since they're also expensive, they're worth shooting down. Just about everyone who's making UAVs are making large ones. Take a look at the number of G-Hawks produced and planned. The payloads (never mind the airframe) are so expensive that the Air Force treats it as a "high demand-low availability" resource like Rivet Joint or JSTARS. For cost reasons, it's unlikely to change. The same seems to be true of Predator. The UAVs that look to be procured in large numbers are the Pioneer-class machines. Which means, on cost terms, shooting down a big drone with a gun is *very* cost-effective (a million-dollar airframe for a couple of hundred bucks worth of ammo). That "Pioneer-class" machine has a fifteen foot wingspan, which puts it into the "light plane" size category, and certainly makes it big enough to see and shoot down. If a jet can't do it, they can call in a helicopter (every combat copter we have in the inventory could easily catch one of the "little" drones). -- cirby at cfl.rr.com Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations. Slam on brakes accordingly. |
#229
|
|||
|
|||
"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message news In message , Magnus Redin writes Hi! "Paul F Austin" writes: So you really do need to justify a gun's place on the airframe on more than "it might be useful and you never know".. A gun is probably the cheapest way of killing low-performace targets like UAV:s, cheap targets that an enemy can produce in large numbers forcing you to deplete your stock of expensive AA-misiles. UAVs are going to be really tough gun targets: just look at the size of them. Aircraft guns aren't a good option, if only because you're going to need so many rounds per target. To judge by the one looking us over earlier this week, I'ld suggest a 12 gauge with full choke. That and lots of practice. |
#230
|
|||
|
|||
Alan Minyard wrote in message . ..
On 12 Dec 2003 12:51:59 -0800, (Tony Williams) wrote: Chad Irby wrote in message . com... In article , (Tony Williams) wrote: We know the Mauser works, too - it's been in service in large numbers for two decades. The initial assessments by the JSF team concluded that the Mauser was the most cost-effective choice, and they knew all about the GAU-12/U then. Part of that "cost effectiveness" appeared to be a lowball pricing structure that fell through on closer examination. Do you have a source to support that? You may be right, but I like to work on hard info rather than forum gossip. Tony Williams Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk Discussion forum at: http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/ The Mouser was to be a completely new system, using linkless ammunition. It has never been demonstrated, much less placed in service. The linkless feed was developed years ago and is used in the Eurofighter Typhoon installation, so is just about to enter service. So what have we determined? 1. The German Mauser BK 27 was selected by both Boeing and Lockheed-Martin over the GAU-12/U as the best and most cost-effective gun for the JSF (documented fact). 2. The cost of the gun rose well over budget (documented fact) probably because Mauser's US partners spent far too much on adapting it to US use (reasonable assumption). 3. GD, in their position of gun armament integrator, took advantage of the situation to slip in a lower bid for the GAU-12/U, which was accepted by L-M (clear conclusion from press statement). So to sum up, the F-35 will be getting the second-best gun because Mauser's US partners couldn't keep their costs down. Incidentally, you seem to equate preferring a non-US gun with an 'anti-American bias'. You should have words with the US armed forces. The US Army's standard 5.56mm MG is the (Belgian) FN Minimi, its standard 7.62mm GPMG is the (Belgian) FN MAG, and its standard 9mm pistol is the (Italian) Beretta. The M16 rifle family is expected to be replaced soon by the XM8, based on the (German) Heckler & Koch G36. The advanced XM29 5.56+20mm weapon is also having its hardware developed by HK. The M1A2 Abrams tank is armed with a (German) 120mm gun, replacing the (British) 105mm in the M1A1. The USN has made extensive use of the (Italian) 76mm OTO, and the US Coastguard has selected the (Swedish) 57mm Bofors as the main gun for its new class of ships. The USMC has selected the (British) RO 155mm as its next howitzer. Of course, the USMC also operates the AV-8B aircraft, based on the (British) BAe Harrier, and the USN uses the T-45 Goshawk trainer, a version of the (British) BAe Hawk. Evidently these services are riven with anti-American bias. Or perhaps they're just sensible enough to buy the best weapons available from the western world? Tony Williams Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk Discussion forum at: http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/ |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
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 |