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 |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
"Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" wrote "Grantland" wrote: (Harry Andreas) wrote: Joe Osman wrote: snip While doing CAS from afar doesn't have the dramatic flair of the good ol' days, it certainly is just as effective. Won't make very good footage for some future war movie though. That's all well and good if the technology works, but if it fails the results can be a lot nastier than when the ordnance was being pointed in the proper direction until the last second with the pilot there to make the decision to release or not. And if the enemy defeats or spoofs the terchnology we should still have the old fashioned capability around, especially in an expeditionary context where troops on the ground need "flying artillery". The technology is a lot harder to defeat than most people realize. The alternative is to spend a LOT of time training for dumb bomb deliveries that you'll probably never do: a waste to resources when you could be training for something more useful. Or not train for dumb bomb deliveries enough, and if you have to do it, not be competent enough which is a risk all it's own. I think you need to bet on the odds, which are strongly in favor of the technology, especially since it's been demonstrated in service. until someone detonates an EMP nukes(s) in high orbit. No doubt there's a coupla candidates already up there, waiting. There goes your $trillion+ investment.. tsk tsk Right because terrorists can drive U-Haul trucks into space. Since GPS Sats are thoroughly radiation hardened, it don't matter much. It's impossible to take out GPS service with a single weapon of any kind, any where. You_might_degrade system accuracy some places, some times but that's about it. The Air Force is active in increasing the hardness of the GPS system through increased coding gain, radiated power and AJ antennas for the weapons. I don't see much payoff and do see a lot of costs is maintaining the ability to deliver CAS fires with dumb munitions. Better to proliferate the ways of guiding smart munitions (mm-wave seekers for instance). The most fruitful avenue to interfering with the New Age CAS is in network communications attacks to slow down, corrupt or block those automated 9-line messages. |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
On 10/11/03 6:07 AM, in article ,
"Paul Austin" wrote: "Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" wrote "Grantland" wrote: (Harry Andreas) wrote: Joe Osman wrote: snip While doing CAS from afar doesn't have the dramatic flair of the good ol' days, it certainly is just as effective. Won't make very good footage for some future war movie though. That's all well and good if the technology works, but if it fails the results can be a lot nastier than when the ordnance was being pointed in the proper direction until the last second with the pilot there to make the decision to release or not. And if the enemy defeats or spoofs the terchnology we should still have the old fashioned capability around, especially in an expeditionary context where troops on the ground need "flying artillery". The technology is a lot harder to defeat than most people realize. The alternative is to spend a LOT of time training for dumb bomb deliveries that you'll probably never do: a waste to resources when you could be training for something more useful. Or not train for dumb bomb deliveries enough, and if you have to do it, not be competent enough which is a risk all it's own. I think you need to bet on the odds, which are strongly in favor of the technology, especially since it's been demonstrated in service. until someone detonates an EMP nukes(s) in high orbit. No doubt there's a coupla candidates already up there, waiting. There goes your $trillion+ investment.. tsk tsk Right because terrorists can drive U-Haul trucks into space. Since GPS Sats are thoroughly radiation hardened, it don't matter much. It's impossible to take out GPS service with a single weapon of any kind, any where. You_might_degrade system accuracy some places, some times but that's about it. The Air Force is active in increasing the hardness of the GPS system through increased coding gain, radiated power and AJ antennas for the weapons. I don't see much payoff and do see a lot of costs is maintaining the ability to deliver CAS fires with dumb munitions. Better to proliferate the ways of guiding smart munitions (mm-wave seekers for instance). The most fruitful avenue to interfering with the New Age CAS is in network communications attacks to slow down, corrupt or block those automated 9-line messages. Love the automate 9-line concept. Never actually used it. All that is usually required is a set of target coordinates and a friendly location. The rest of the 9-line WRT JDAM CAS is useless. What I'm saying is that a network attack may slow the process down--but even then only slightly. All it really means is that the pilot better have a blank kneeboard card. --Woody |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
Woody,
Sad - well maybe. I can't think of a single shipmate who relished flying into combat with an unreliable weapons system. Catshot-lovin' inertials; nonintuitive knobology (all of us "old" B/Ns managed to cycle steering in memory point at some embarrassing juncture); AMTI circuitry that classified freeway overpasses as "movers" and Whack-A-Mole circuit-breaker management techniques (most often performed in unusual attitudes) were all aspects of the A-6A that added greatly to risk - especially when combined with a mission of dubious value. (And there were many such missions during the VN conflict.) But such was life in a first-generation technology. I've always loved the idea of driving as many of the smarts as may be feasible from the manned delivery vehicle into the unmanned weapon. Humans shouldn't go into harm's way unless there is no better solution. Besides - smart weapons make lousy POWs. Owl sends. -- Mike Kanze 436 Greenbrier Road Half Moon Bay, California 94019-2259 USA 650-726-7890 "The best political metaphor from Arnold Schwarzenegger's movie career is not his three 'Terminator' roles. Rather, it's 'Kindergarten Cop.' In the California legislature, Ah-nold will be taking on the largest publicly-funded day-care center west of Washington, DC." - Mike Kanze "Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" wrote in message ... On 10/9/03 9:41 AM, in article , "Mike Kanze" wrote: All excellent discussion and very good points, but what do our ground-pounding "customers" think of the effectiveness of current CAS doctrine? Owl, The customers LOVE it. Even now, they pass coords via secure. 6 minutes later, there are warheads on foreheads. I think there's mutual agreement that its both safer and more effective. In effect, your old B/N job got replaced by GPS. --Woody P.S. I know. It's sad for me too. |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
piggybacking due to tinkerbell leaving out the real ng.
"Tank Fixer" wrote in message k.net... In article et, lid says... "Tank Fixer" wrote in message k.net In article , says... It almost sounds like the 30mm Caseless Pods that can be mounted under Fighters making even an A-4 into a tank killer. That died when the A-7 did. Too bad. The A-7E was a superior AC to the A-10 when armed with the 30mm caseless chain gun. To upgrade the A-7 to an AC with the F/A-18 perfomance would have cost appr. 3.5 million per copy. versus how much for an A-10 that requires constant TopCap? Another Congressional Boondoggle. Anyone know what he is talking about ? I've not heard of any system like this before. I'm guessing he's takling about a couple two things. First is the GPU-5 (aka Pave Claw) gun pod, which holds a four-barrel version of the GAU-8 called GAU-13. (Definitely neither caseless nor a chain gun, though). It was supposed to give conventional fighters almost the same gun power as the A-10. But it really didn't work very well. The New York Air Natioanl Guard had one F-16 unit that went to the Gulf with the GPU-5 in 1991 (the "Boys from Syracuse"/174th Fighter Wing). They took the pods off the planes early in the proceedings and never flew them again. This was a new gun that never went into production. It was supposed to be for the A-7D for the Air Force. But the acceptance of the A-10 stopped all research into it. It was caseless. Good idea that never reached production. http://www.f-16.net/reference/versions/f16_fa.html Second, for a time, there was discussion of using a modified A-7 with afterbrning engnie as a CAS bird instead of the A-10. But that was Air Force, not Navy. And as much a I like the A-7, I have to admit that this was probably a dead end idea. Even with extensive mods, the A-7 was never going to be a turning fighter or radar missile shooter like the Hornet. http://www.vought.com/heritage/products/html/ya-7f.html The Air Force didn't want to give up the A-7 anymore than the Navy did. The A-10 was helpless unless you had air superiority. The A-10 was a sitting duck for even the Soviet SU7 Attack. This made the AF look at alternatives. But the F-16A was the answer to that question when it was affordable. And of course, the coming of the FA-18 filled the need for the Navy. At the time, the FA-18 was still on the drawing board. But at 3.4 mil, the Super Corsair was tempting. Things just happened before the need for the Super A-7 was finished. Nothing lost in the end. Looks like those in RAM know a bit more about the subject than you do daryl.... Hey Tinkerbell, keep trolling. |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
"Colin Campbell" (remove underscore) wrote in message ... On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 21:02:00 GMT, Tank Fixer wrote: In article , says... It almost sounds like the 30mm Caseless Pods that can be mounted under Fighters making even an A-4 into a tank killer. That died when the A-7 did. Too bad. The A-7E was a superior AC to the A-10 when armed with the 30mm caseless chain gun. To upgrade the A-7 to an AC with the F/A-18 perfomance would have cost appr. 3.5 million per copy. versus how much for an A-10 that requires constant TopCap? Another Congressional Boondoggle. Looks like those in RAM know a bit more about the subject than you do daryl.... Personally I regarded the A7 as a boondoggle. For years the Air Force would not request any but it would be included in the budget because it was made in the district of a powerful politician. The A-10 was at least 10 years in the future when the A-7 made it's debut. In it's time, it was the replacement AC for the A1E Skyraider which had gone through 3 wars and had a problem of being a Maintenance Pig in comparison to a jet. The Navy didn't wish to give them up until the FA-18 hit and the Air Force didn't want to give them up until the F-16 hit. The A-10 really didn't have a mission except against Battle Tanks. The F-15, F-16, F-14, FA-18 and almost any fighter in the inventory could handle anything less. In order to use the A-10, complete Air Superiority had to be had before it could even come into the area. Otherwise, any Subsonic Attack or Fighter made by the Soviets, French, etc. in the last 30 years would just pick it off. The A-10 had and still has too narrow of a mission requirement and productions stopped a few years ago on it. The F-16 and the F-15E is taking over the A-10s mission. And the Navy never did miss it. And as actual combat has shown - nothing beats the A10 in the CAS role. How about a quote on that one. "Actual Combat"? Whose? |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
In article , Daryl Hunt says...
"Replacement_Tommel" 'SINV ALIDBABY wrote in message ... Tell the USAF that... for awhile they wanted to get rid rid of the A-10 and were pushing the "A-16" - picture a F-16 in green camoflage with a 30mm gatling gun pod on its center hardpoint. CAS simply isn't something taken seriously by the USAF. You tell the AF that. Oh, they already know it. "Not a pound for air to ground" as the Fighter Mafia used to like to say... (funny how you don't hear about a "CAS Mafia," huh?) They aren't buying anymore A-10s for a good reason. They aren't sexy enough, so the USAF just ignored it and hoped it would die. I believe the A-10 has been upgraded exactly ONE time in the USAF, when they hung a Pave Penny on it. The F-16 has been updated numerous times (F-16A -- F-16C) with numerous "block" upgrades. I believe the current model is a F-16C Block 50/52, correct? The USAF has spent tons of money on the F-16 program and has come up with numerous test beds for the Lawn Dart (like the F-16XL and "A-16" - where the USAF tried to convince everybody that a lizard green F-16C with a 30mm gunpod was an A-10...). There was a two seater all weather A-10 (NAW-10?) that he Air Force looked at briefly and then decided that it didn't want (what a surprise...). The fact is - the USAF gets the F-16 pilots LANTRIN pods and fun stuff like that, while the A-10 guys are given Night Vision Goggles. It's pretty obvious where the USAF is spending it's money at. Hell, the USAF never even wanted the A-10 in the first place, or haven't you noticed that most of the USAF's attack birds were taken from USN designs (yes, the Navy takes that role more seriously than the USAF does...). USN: A-1, A-4, A-6, A-7 (not gonna include F/A-18 in that mix) USAF: A-1 (taken from the Navy when the USAF realized they had no suitable attack designs), A-7 (same as previous), A-10, AC-130 USMC: A-4, A-6, AV-8 (Brit designed, extensively modified by McD-D)(F/A-18 also) The fact is, the USN has led the way with attack craft. The Navy even considered the A-12, whereas the the USAF has never really considered a follow on for the A-10 (oh yeah, the A-16 - but the Air Force brass didn't fool anyone on that). Are you telling me that the USAF is foolish enough to believe that everything with wings has to be capable of enagaging MiGs in 1v1. Hell, the Army and the Marine Corps don't think that everything with treads should be able to engage MBTs... (I won't even get into the whole P-51 (F-51) fiasco in Korea... although some parellels could be made - the F-51 was "sexy" but the P-47 wasn't...) It's mission died with the fall of the iron curtain. As did the F-22's and the (especially) the B-2's yet the USAF doesn't want to drop them does it? The major power with the Main Battle Tanks the A-10 was designed to combat can't even get the fuel to drive them anymore. So why does the USAF want the F-22 and B-2 then? The Russian Air Force is a joke, and it's not bloody likely that we need to nuke them anytime soon... And the F-16 can completely fill the role The USAF dropped the "A-16" idea because they knew nobody was daft enough to buy it... the A-10 was supposed to do (and never did). Desert Storm and Operation Iraqi Liberation? Life expectancy of an A-10 against almost any Mig or SU is about 30 seconds. The A-10 isn't a fighter, right? And why does the USAF want to keep the AC-130? It's s-l-o-w, b-i-g, can't fight Migs... damn that thing is WORSE than an A-10!!! This is typical fighter mafia mentality - look downwards, because man lives on the ground and not up in the clouds. It's the ground battle that's paramount. Life expectancy of a F-16 all depends on the Pilots. Yeah, control the air but place no emphasis on what goes on in the ground... You are reading your Armies PR again. No, just taking note of what the USAF has historically done. http://www.f-16.net/reference/versions/f16_fa.html -Tom "For the cause that lacks assistance/The wrong that needs ressistance/For the Future in the distance/And the Good that I can do" - George Linnaeus Banks, "What I Live for" UMA Lemming 404 Local member, 404th MTN(LI) |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
Replacement_Tommel wrote:
In article , Daryl Hunt says... "Replacement_Tommel" 'SINVA LIDBABY wrote in message ... Tell the USAF that... for awhile they wanted to get rid rid of the A-10 and were pushing the "A-16" - picture a F-16 in green camoflage with a 30mm gatling gun pod on its center hardpoint. CAS simply isn't something taken seriously by the USAF. You tell the AF that. Oh, they already know it. "Not a pound for air to ground" as the Fighter Mafia used to like to say... (funny how you don't hear about a "CAS Mafia," huh?) They aren't buying anymore A-10s for a good reason. They aren't sexy enough, so the USAF just ignored it and hoped it would die. Even the USAF A-10 pilots say that the USAF is ignoring the A-10 and hoping it'll go away. snip It's mission died with the fall of the iron curtain. As did the F-22's and the (especially) the B-2's yet the USAF doesn't want to drop them does it? No, the A-10s mission really began in Desert Storm when we found out that it could do so much more than bust tanks. The A-10 and AH-64 make a credible team for dealing with hardened targets like bunkers and other defense works. It is also an outstanding weapon in Close (and I mean close) air support of ground operations providing covering fire as effective (maybe more effective) as artillery and is more versatile in "Danger Close" support missions because of its ability to fly slow enough for the pilot to properly identify ground targets. The A-10 can fly at altitudes where the AH-64 is not effective such as the Hindu Kush where they could be called against caves, stone works and other defensive positions. The major power with the Main Battle Tanks the A-10 was designed to combat can't even get the fuel to drive them anymore. So why does the USAF want the F-22 and B-2 then? The Russian Air Force is a joke, and it's not bloody likely that we need to nuke them anytime soon... The A-10 has a current mission and is more capable of performing it than any other aircraft whether fixed or rotary winged. And the F-16 can completely fill the role The USAF dropped the "A-16" idea because they knew nobody was daft enough to buy it... It can't fly slow enough and it can't direct gunfire accurately enough. The numbers of "blue on blue" incidents with F-16s should be enough to tell anyone that. the A-10 was supposed to do (and never did). Desert Storm and Operation Iraqi Liberation? Add Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Just Cause. All of which have proven (at least to the US Army, US Navy (hence A-12) and USMC that the A-10 is an excellent aircraft with a continuing mission in Close Air Support. Life expectancy of an A-10 against almost any Mig or SU is about 30 seconds. The A-10 isn't a fighter, right? Do we expect that we will be unable to provide CAP and air superiority anytime soon? And why does the USAF want to keep the AC-130? It's s-l-o-w, b-i-g, can't fight Migs... damn that thing is WORSE than an A-10!!! This is typical fighter mafia mentality - look downwards, because man lives on the ground and not up in the clouds. It's the ground battle that's paramount. Life expectancy of a F-16 all depends on the Pilots. Life expectancy of an A-10 depends on the skill of the Pilots as well. Or didn't you read about how they were employed as "deep strike" aircraft in Desert Storm? Snark |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
says... piggybacking due to tinkerbell leaving out the real ng. "Tank Fixer" wrote in message k.net... In article et, lid says... "Tank Fixer" wrote in message k.net In article , says... It almost sounds like the 30mm Caseless Pods that can be mounted under Fighters making even an A-4 into a tank killer. That died when the A-7 did. Too bad. The A-7E was a superior AC to the A-10 when armed with the 30mm caseless chain gun. To upgrade the A-7 to an AC with the F/A-18 perfomance would have cost appr. 3.5 million per copy. versus how much for an A-10 that requires constant TopCap? Another Congressional Boondoggle. Anyone know what he is talking about ? I've not heard of any system like this before. I'm guessing he's takling about a couple two things. First is the GPU-5 (aka Pave Claw) gun pod, which holds a four-barrel version of the GAU-8 called GAU-13. (Definitely neither caseless nor a chain gun, though). It was supposed to give conventional fighters almost the same gun power as the A-10. But it really didn't work very well. The New York Air Natioanl Guard had one F-16 unit that went to the Gulf with the GPU-5 in 1991 (the "Boys from Syracuse"/174th Fighter Wing). They took the pods off the planes early in the proceedings and never flew them again. This was a new gun that never went into production. It was supposed to be for the A-7D for the Air Force. But the acceptance of the A-10 stopped all research into it. It was caseless. Good idea that never reached production. You're statement implied they existed and were used. http://www.f-16.net/reference/versions/f16_fa.html Second, for a time, there was discussion of using a modified A-7 with afterbrning engnie as a CAS bird instead of the A-10. But that was Air Force, not Navy. And as much a I like the A-7, I have to admit that this was probably a dead end idea. Even with extensive mods, the A-7 was never going to be a turning fighter or radar missile shooter like the Hornet. http://www.vought.com/heritage/products/html/ya-7f.html The Air Force didn't want to give up the A-7 anymore than the Navy did. The A-10 was helpless unless you had air superiority. The A-10 was a sitting duck for even the Soviet SU7 Attack. This made the AF look at alternatives. But the F-16A was the answer to that question when it was affordable. I'm not talking down the A-7. It did a good job during it service time. And I do not believe the A-10 would be helpless. Many an F4 pilot rued the day they decided to get low and slow with Mig-17's in Vietnam. And of course, the coming of the FA-18 filled the need for the Navy. At the time, the FA-18 was still on the drawing board. But at 3.4 mil, the Super Corsair was tempting. Things just happened before the need for the Super A-7 was finished. Nothing lost in the end. Looks like those in RAM know a bit more about the subject than you do daryl.... Hey Tinkerbell, keep trolling. Sorry you feel that way. I asked those in RAM and they disagreed with you, again. -- When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant. |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
"Alan Minyard"wrote "Dudhorse" wrote: "Grantland" wrote in message (Harry Andreas) wrote: In article , Joe Osman wrote: snip While doing CAS from afar doesn't have the dramatic flair of the good ol' days, it certainly is just as effective. Won't make very good footage for some future war movie though. That's all well and good if the technology works, but if it fails the results can be a lot nastier than when the ordnance was being pointed in the proper direction until the last second with the pilot there to make the decision to release or not. And if the enemy defeats or spoofs the terchnology we should still have the old fashioned capability around, especially in an expeditionary context where troops on the ground need "flying artillery". The technology is a lot harder to defeat than most people realize. The alternative is to spend a LOT of time training for dumb bomb deliveries that you'll probably never do: a waste to resources when you could be training for something more useful. Or not train for dumb bomb deliveries enough, and if you have to do it, not be competent enough which is a risk all it's own. I think you need to bet on the odds, which are strongly in favor of the technology, especially since it's been demonstrated in service. until someone detonates an EMP nukes(s) in high orbit. No doubt there's a coupla candidates already up there, waiting. There goes your $trillion+ investment.. tsk tsk Grantland -- Harry Andreas Engineering raconteur .... and you can bet your last eggroll that the Red Chinese have got one of their top thinktanks devising ways to circumvent/destroy the U.S. digital infrastructure - Gulf War I & II have taught them and the world the way to defang the U.S. across the board is to take out every one of our networks/uplinks & downlinks. If they ever go head to head with us in the future it will have to be their number one priority if they want to stand a chance. Trust me, that would be extremely difficult. Systems are EMP hardened, encoded, and backed up. Not to mention the existence of systems that are not discussed in public. The most effective attacks would insert bogus calls for fire into the network. If the net gets the reputation as being untrustworthy (and it only takes a few instances for that to happen) then every goes back to 1992 paper ATOs. I don't have your faith in the invulnerability of military networks since 1. enemy IW people have huge incentives to penetrate our networks, 2. our networks by their nature are not exposed to the kinds of constant "test by enemy fire" that open networks are. Robust encryption and physical security of key sets is probably our best line of defense. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
GPT (Gulfport MS) ILS 14 question | A Lieberman | Instrument Flight Rules | 18 | January 30th 05 04:51 PM |
VOR/DME Approach Question | Chip Jones | Instrument Flight Rules | 47 | August 29th 04 05:03 AM |
A question on Airworthiness Inspection | Dave S | Home Built | 1 | August 10th 04 05:07 AM |
Tecumseh Engine Mounting Question | jlauer | Home Built | 7 | November 16th 03 01:51 AM |
Question about Question 4488 | [email protected] | Instrument Flight Rules | 3 | October 27th 03 01:26 AM |