What if...? This concept helicopter wins a $100Bn Pentagon contract?
178 replies, posted
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;45303628]the A-10's GAU-8 has been relegated to COIN operations instead of its original anti-tank role. With more and more being done by missile than by specialized gun/airframe, its completely feasible to do the same job as the A-10 with a less specialized airframe[/QUOTE]
not really true
yes, while the gau8 has been relegated in usefulness, the a-10 is still able to carry more hellfires or any other chosen payload than an f35, loiter for longer, and withstand far more damage, so its 'special snowflake' properties still make it far more suitable for its designed task than a multirole aircraft ever could be
The GAU-8 was never much of a tank killer anyway.
[QUOTE=ForgottenKane;45300128]You should keep your mouth shut on topics you clearly don't know anything about. The vast majority of the US's debt is in bonds.[/QUOTE]
heh. keep your mouth shut, gaijin. you clearly do not understand my power.
[QUOTE=Ogopogo;45308732]The GAU-8 was never much of a tank killer anyway.[/QUOTE]
4000 RPM of 30mm DU rounds have quite the effect on enemy armor...
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;45309624]*had
With modern armor the 30mm DU rounds are pretty "meh", the only reason the A-10 has been effective for so long is because we've been fighting export T-72's, rather than modern equipment.[/QUOTE]
It's been using Mavrick ATG Missiles for most of it's anti-tank work, with the GAU being used for strafing runs against soft targets
[QUOTE=Impact1986;45301024]
I am only talking about the Apollo Program. Not Project Mercury or Gemini included.
The Apollo Program wasn't about showing that you can send nukes all around the earth. There was a Mercury program which already shown that. If you knew anything about orbital maneuvers you would know that if you manage to put something in a stable orbit around earth, you already managed to show that you could put a nuke anywhere on earth. And that is what Project Mercury did.
It is incredibly shallow of you to think that all this was just to show military strength. If that was so, why were there any other lunar landings?[/QUOTE]
I wrote a pretty long assignment on the race to the moon, and while I won't dig out the source right now, the science committee actually noted (quite heavily) that the public associated exploits in space with military might. Of course it wasn't [I]only[/I] because of this, but Kennedy was trying to impress the public not do science, when he started the Apollo program.
[QUOTE=GunFox;45306631]He hated a lot of things. Early m16 builds were way shorter in effective range, but way more lethal. Since 5.56 relies on tumbling to do damage, early builds of the rifle had fewer twists of rifling in the barrel, so as to promote tumbling on impact. The rounds would take serpentine paths through soft tissue and often destroy multiple organs with a single round.
The military wanted accuracy beyond 250 meters though. A valid desire, but it had a fairly significant negative impact on effectiveness, which apparently annoyed him. His rifle worked well, the end product worked like crap.
[editline]6th July 2014[/editline]
Chinooks lack the lift to volume ratio necessary to be armored. They will always be poorly suited to just about everything. Except for speed. Fuckers can move.
Blackhawks on the other hand are extremely effective gunships in the right hands. If memory serves, the Nightstalkers pitted the apache against the blackhawk to serve as their gunship and apparently the blackhawk dominated.
The blackhawk is surprisingly flexible.[/QUOTE]
It has nothing to do with Chinooks not having enough lift volume in the case of armor. Even attack helicopters only have portions of the cockpit armored. When I flew back seat in Huey's we wore heavy plate armor and when we'd transport grunts we'd tell them to get used to sitting on their rear SAPI plate. Aside from the cockpit the only thing separating you from the outside is a thin piece of aluminum.
The issue with the Chinook is of maneuverability, not lift "volume".
[QUOTE=ChestyMcGee;45308688]not really true
yes, while the gau8 has been relegated in usefulness, the a-10 is still able to carry more hellfires or any other chosen payload than an f35, loiter for longer, and withstand far more damage, so its 'special snowflake' properties still make it far more suitable for its designed task than a multirole aircraft ever could be[/QUOTE]
Yeah, but doesn't its loiter time still pale in comparison to something like a Reaper?
I think that Ilikecorn is right in that the A-10's usefulness is primarily in COIN now. Its armor is excellent against small arms fire and light AA cannon but I can't help but feel that the increasing availability of MANPADs and improvements in self-propelled AA make it irrelevant in a conflict against a near-peer military.
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;45309624]*had
With modern armor the 30mm DU rounds are pretty "meh", the only reason the A-10 has been effective for so long is because we've been fighting export T-72's, rather than modern equipment.[/QUOTE]Even so you're guaranteed a mobility kill with the GAU-8, like, you can't fuck that that up unless you deliberately miss. That means anyone stuck in that now burning tank has to either hope they can remain inside long enough for the A-10 to go away, or hope their recovery vehicle doesn't suffer the same fate.
Provided the A-10 has some air-to-air protection in the form of dedicated air superiority fighters, a pair of them can effectively halt an entire armored division. They may be old, crotchety war birds, but they are brutally effective at killing anything that doesn't fly. (and even then, GAU-8 vs a helicopter? more like flaming swiss cheese)
[QUOTE=iFail;45311779]Yeah, but doesn't its loiter time still pale in comparison to something like a Reaper?
I think that Ilikecorn is right in that the A-10's usefulness is primarily in COIN now. Its armor is excellent against small arms fire and light AA cannon but I can't help but feel that the increasing availability of MANPADs and improvements in self-propelled AA make it irrelevant in a conflict against a near-peer military.[/QUOTE]
MANPADS are a threat to any aircraft, simply by mobility and volume of fire. Even old Vietnam-era Strela-2s can swat down an aircraft if you spam enough of them. I'd definitely take a durable A-10 over something else though, mostly because it can spam cheap DU rounds rather than firing a missile that costs nearly a hundred thousand dollars at dudes on the ground. UAVs have their uses but if you have a target rich environment, especially in COIN operations, it's way more cost-effective to send an A-10 to completely maul the shit out of everything on the ground.
[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;45312005]Even so you're guaranteed a mobility kill with the GAU-8, like, you can't fuck that that up unless you deliberately miss. That means anyone stuck in that now burning tank has to either hope they can remain inside long enough for the A-10 to go away, or hope their recovery vehicle doesn't suffer the same fate.
Provided the A-10 has some air-to-air protection in the form of dedicated air superiority fighters, a pair of them can effectively halt an entire armored division. They may be old, crotchety war birds, but they are brutally effective at killing anything that doesn't fly. (and even then, GAU-8 vs a helicopter? more like flaming swiss cheese)
MANPADS are a threat to any aircraft, simply by mobility and volume of fire. Even old Vietnam-era Strela-2s can swat down an aircraft if you spam enough of them. I'd definitely take a durable A-10 over something else though, mostly because it can spam cheap DU rounds rather than firing a missile that costs nearly a hundred thousand dollars at dudes on the ground. UAVs have their uses but if you have a target rich environment, especially in COIN operations, it's way more cost-effective to send an A-10 to completely maul the shit out of everything on the ground.[/QUOTE]
Non-DU 30mm cannon rounds cost in the range of $100 each. The Gau-8 fires about 60 per second. So optimistically, a full load for an individual A-10 costs ~$110,000. A single Maverick costs anywhere between $50k and $100k. It's not that large of a difference.
[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;45312005]Even so you're guaranteed a mobility kill with the GAU-8, like, you can't fuck that that up unless you deliberately miss. That means anyone stuck in that now burning tank has to either hope they can remain inside long enough for the A-10 to go away, or hope their recovery vehicle doesn't suffer the same fate.
Provided the A-10 has some air-to-air protection in the form of dedicated air superiority fighters, a pair of them can effectively halt an entire armored division. They may be old, crotchety war birds, but they are brutally effective at killing anything that doesn't fly. (and even then, GAU-8 vs a helicopter? more like flaming swiss cheese)
[/QUOTE]
I dunno if that's really true. A-10s will get taken apart by Tunguska, Type 95 SPAAA, or Pantsir. Radar aimed autocannons are now fairly common in near-peer militaries and I doubt the armor on an A-10 will survive a 250 round burst of 30mm and a SAM. A JSF at least has low observability and might have a shot at avoiding detection long enough to drop a JDAM or two on SAM sites.
[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;45312005]MANPADS are a threat to any aircraft, simply by mobility and volume of fire. Even old Vietnam-era Strela-2s can swat down an aircraft if you spam enough of them. I'd definitely take a durable A-10 over something else though, mostly because it can spam cheap DU rounds rather than firing a missile that costs nearly a hundred thousand dollars at dudes on the ground. UAVs have their uses but if you have a target rich environment, especially in COIN operations, it's way more cost-effective to send an A-10 to completely maul the shit out of everything on the ground.[/QUOTE]
Yes but stealth and low observability characteristics give you your best possible chance to avoid getting shot down nowadays. A-10s are just too easy to shoot down with semi-modern AA.
[QUOTE=Mbbird;45312099]Non-DU 30mm cannon rounds cost in the range of $100 each. The Gau-8 fires about 60 per second. So optimistically, a full load for an individual A-10 costs ~$110,000. A single Maverick costs anywhere between $50k and $100k. It's not that large of a difference.[/QUOTE]Like, I wish you could see this from my perspective and understand how silly your post is. 100k for ten thousand rounds, of which, a burst of twenty will kill [i]anything smaller than a tank.[/i] That's two thousand dollars. Meanwhile all of the Mavericks the A-10 is carrying aren't being used on some dumbshit with an RPG.
[QUOTE=iFail;45312113]I dunno if that's really true. A-10s will get taken apart by Tunguska, Type 95 SPAAA, or Pantsir. Radar aimed autocannons are now fairly common in near-peer militaries and I doubt the armor on an A-10 will survive a 250 round burst of 30mm and a SAM. A JSF at least has low observability and might have a shot at avoiding detection long enough to drop a JDAM or two on SAM sites.[/QUOTE]
You highly overestimate the effectiveness of radar gunlaying, it's going to get you in the general ballpark at best [i]even with modern systems.[/i] That's why the CIWS and other ship-based point defense has sophisticated as fuck radar and guidance, it's hard to aim that shit from the ground while in the air it's a hell of a lot easier. So yeah, no, even modern (not semi-modern) anti-aircraft systems aren't going to be as effective as you think. Plus the A-10 is loaded with all sorts of countermeasures, waaay more than other aircraft because of it's role. Stealth aircraft are super cool, but they'd best serve in a role that removes these threats from the A-10's path so it can use all of it's groundfucking powers against the now helpless vehicles and troops. That's what we do now anyway, get the fast jets to bomb the hell out of anything that might possibly shoot down an A-10, and then let the Warthog do her thing.
Plus the armor on the A-10 can easily survive a 250 round burst of 30mm, even if they all achieved hits. (hint: this will never happen ever) Anything over 30mm is a bit too much, the armor's only going to be partially effective against the older and much larger anti-aircraft rounds like the 57mm. Even so, the aircraft is designed around taking hits and being poked full of holes, so unless you defeat a system and it's double redundancies you're not actually going to bring it down.
[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;45312194]Like, I wish you could see this from my perspective and understand how silly your post is. 100k for ten thousand rounds, of which, a burst of twenty will kill [i]anything smaller than a tank.[/i] That's two thousand dollars. Meanwhile all of the Mavericks the A-10 is carrying aren't being used on some dumbshit with an RPG.
You highly overestimate the effectiveness of radar gunlaying, it's going to get you in the general ballpark at best [i]even with modern systems.[/i] That's why the CIWS and other ship-based point defense has sophisticated as fuck radar and guidance, it's hard to aim that shit from the ground while in the air it's a hell of a lot easier. So yeah, no, even modern (not semi-modern) anti-aircraft systems aren't going to be as effective as you think. Plus the A-10 is loaded with all sorts of countermeasures, waaay more than other aircraft because of it's role. Stealth aircraft are super cool, but they'd best serve in a role that removes these threats from the A-10's path so it can use all of it's groundfucking powers against the now helpless vehicles and troops. That's what we do now anyway, get the fast jets to bomb the hell out of anything that might possibly shoot down an A-10, and then let the Warthog do her thing.
Plus the armor on the A-10 can easily survive a 250 round burst of 30mm, even if they all achieved hits. (hint: this will never happen ever) Anything over 30mm is a bit too much, the armor's only going to be partially effective against the older and much larger anti-aircraft rounds like the 57mm. Even so, the aircraft is designed around taking hits and being poked full of holes, so unless you defeat a system and it's double redundancies you're not actually going to bring it down.[/QUOTE]
I'm pointing out facts, not supporting or refuting what you're trying to argue here. The two don't do the same job, and a gun isn't used in the same situations where a Maverick is. Money isn't everything either.
[QUOTE=Mbbird;45312224]I'm pointing out facts, not supporting or refuting what you're trying to argue here. The two don't do the same job, and a gun isn't used in the same situations where a Maverick is. Money isn't everything either.[/QUOTE]You brought up the numbers comparison, and while the GAU-8 and the Maverick are two very different weapons their use often overlaps. The way you worded it made it seem like because the GAU-8 being fully loaded is equal in price to the Maverick per unit, there is little difference. Well, there is, because per-use, $2000 vs $50,000, the GAU-8 is always going to be the more cost-effective weapon to use on a single target.
[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;45312194]
You highly overestimate the effectiveness of radar gunlaying, it's going to get you in the general ballpark at best [i]even with modern systems.[/i] That's why the CIWS and other ship-based point defense has sophisticated as fuck radar and guidance, it's hard to aim that shit from the ground while in the air it's a hell of a lot easier. Stealth aircraft are super cool, but they'd best serve in a role that removes these threats from the A-10's path so it can use all of it's groundfucking powers against the now helpless vehicles and troops. That's what we do now anyway, get the fast jets to bomb the hell out of anything that might possibly shoot down an A-10, and then let the Warthog do her thing.
[/QUOTE]
Leads back to MANPADs again. Not a lot anyone can do to mitigate that threat except be stealthy.
[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;45312194]Plus the armor on the A-10 can easily survive a 250 round burst of 30mm, even if they all achieved hits. Anything over 30mm is a bit too much, the armor's only going to be partially effective against the older and much larger anti-aircraft rounds like the 57mm. Even so, the aircraft is designed around taking hits and being poked full of holes, so unless you defeat a system and it's double redundancies you're not actually going to bring it down.[/QUOTE]
Really? The Tunguska's guns are firing a slightly smaller projectile than the A-10's gun with slightly less muzzle velocity. I can't see how the A-10 could use the gun effectively on tanks if a similar, slightly weaker gun couldn't shoot down an A-10.
[QUOTE=iFail;45312274]Leads back to MANPADs again. Not a lot anyone can do to mitigate that threat except be stealthy.[/QUOTE]Or spam countermeasures like they actually do in combat.
[QUOTE=iFail;45312274]Really? The Tunguska's guns are firing a slightly smaller projectile than the A-10's gun with slightly less muzzle velocity. I can't see how the A-10 could use the gun effectively on tanks if a similar, slightly weaker gun couldn't shoot down an A-10.[/QUOTE]Okay, let me demonstrate it this way:
If you mounted the Tunguska's guns on an A-10, they could tear the shit out of all sorts of things.
If you mounted the A-10's gun on the Tunguska, it would be a passable anti-aircraft weapon.
There's a massive height and speed advantage given to the GAU-8, because it's mounted on a platform that's flying around at a much higher altitude than it's target. You have muzzle velocity + gravity (negligible, but technically contributes) + speed of aircraft = hits like the fist of an angry god.
[editline]adding[/editline]
Oh and you also have the angle at which the rounds impact. They're coming from an elevated position, so they tend to hit weaker armor.
Of course with people, who aren't armored, this means exactly dick and they're turned into a pile of blood, guts, and shit either way.
[editline]adding more[/editline]
[QUOTE=iFail;45312309]right nevermind
bad at physics[/QUOTE]It's okay. <3
right nevermind
bad at physics
-snip-
[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;45312273]You brought up the numbers comparison, and while the GAU-8 and the Maverick are two very different weapons their use often overlaps. The way you worded it made it seem like because the GAU-8 being fully loaded is equal in price to the Maverick per unit, there is little difference. Well, there is, because per-use, $2000 vs $50,000, the GAU-8 is always going to be the more cost-effective weapon to use on a single target.[/QUOTE]
I don't think you understand. Depending on the variant of Maverick used, and there are like 20, you could do the same exact mission with the same amount of money from 8km instead of gun-range and at a significantly higher level of precision. You missed a comma or something, because $2000 worth of 30mm (and again I should remind you this is optimistically speaking; that statistic does not take into account the price and manufacturing process of DU) is 0.3 seconds of guntime. A-10s don't 'snipe' anything. The minimum gun burst time for an A-10 is 1 or 2 seconds last I remember, and the pilot has 20 seconds of burst time to work with. Pilots aren't trained to be stingy in that regard.
[editline]6th July 2014[/editline]
And are you guys insane? CAS aircraft don't use guns or standard missiles to take on radar-guided AA pieces...
like wtf. No point even talking about it. SEAD has you covered.
[QUOTE=Mbbird;45312376]I don't think you understand. Depending on the variant of Maverick used, and there are like 20, you could do the same exact mission with the same amount of money from 8km instead of gun-range and at a significantly higher level of precision. You missed a comma or something, because $2000 worth of 30mm (and again I should remind you this is optimistically speaking; that statistic does not take into account the price and manufacturing process of DU) is 0.3 seconds of guntime. A-10s don't 'snipe' anything. The minimum gun burst time for an A-10 is 1 or 2 seconds last I remember, and the pilot has 20 seconds of burst time to work with. Pilots aren't trained to be stingy in that regard.[/QUOTE]Okay, so it's not two grand it's ten grand per burst.
It's still cheaper than a fucking Maverick. :l
[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;45312388]Okay, so it's not two grand it's ten grand per burst.
It's still cheaper than a fucking Maverick. :l[/QUOTE]
When I post I'd like you to read the ENTIRE post.
[QUOTE=Mbbird;45312376]And are you guys insane? CAS aircraft don't use guns or standard missiles to take on radar-guided AA pieces...
like wtf. No point even talking about it. SEAD has you covered.[/QUOTE]I already said that...
This is totally irrelevant anyway. The thread is about a fucking helicopter that can carry apparently boatloads of ammunition, and the newer generation fighter aircraft don't have guns usuable for ground attack at all anyway. The problem is cost-effectiveness per aircraft and their individual ability to conduct missions in single sorties. This has nothing to do with it.
[editline]6th July 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;45312401]I already said that...[/QUOTE]
Aight. sorry, I've not been paying much attention to your tidbits with iFail.
That moment when people who've never flew in or fixed combat aircraft bicker over what's more effective: priceless
[QUOTE=UncleJimmema;45312490]That moment when people who've never flew in or fixed combat aircraft bicker over what's more effective: priceless[/QUOTE]
99.9999999% of the world fall into our category. Lots of things can be objectively analyzed.
[editline]6th July 2014[/editline]
That said I have a feeling jockflosh here is putting a bit more energy into this than anyone else here.
[editline]6th July 2014[/editline]
I fail to see how your experience fixing [del]the[/del] aircraft is relevant at all. A mechanic could know every technical aspect about a car and be no closer to being a world class racer.
[QUOTE=Mbbird;45312518]99.9999999% of the world fall into our category. Lots of things can be objectively analyzed.
[editline]6th July 2014[/editline]
That said I have a feeling jockflosh here is putting a bit more energy into this than anyone else here.
[editline]6th July 2014[/editline]
I fail to see how your experience fixing [del]the[/del] aircraft is relevant at all. A mechanic could know every technical aspect about a car and be no closer to being a world class racer.[/QUOTE]
I know a lot more about the aircraft then what Wikipedia will tell you. I know of its avionics and it's technological capabilities, I've seen their real life applications. I've got first hand experience with things that you won't know about for another 50 years when they're declassified. While by no means does that make me a pilot, I do know allot more about the capabilities of certain aircraft that you could not possibly know at this time.
[QUOTE=UncleJimmema;45312637]I know a lot more about the aircraft then what Wikipedia week tell you. I know of its avionics and it's technological capabilities, I've seen their real life applications. I've got first have experience with things that you won't know about for another 50 years when they're declassified. While by no means dies that make me a pilot, I do know allot more about the capabilities of certain aircraft that you could not possibly know at this time.[/QUOTE]
It's only a bit silly to throw the "you weren't there" argument onto the table for something like this. You are more qualified to talk about this kind of thing than people who've spent their free time learning about such things since they were young, sure, but you can't say we simply know nothing because we aren't pilots or soldiers or mechanics.
I feel like you made a faint reference to Congress' shenanigans though too. Advisors and experts are somehow (supposed to be) involved in the process of making a budget, and these people haven't necessarily been in every war, every MOS, every position, branch, etc. You can have general knowledge without direct experience, just as you have general knowledge of piloting without having been a pilot.
I enjoy your posts [I]because[/I] you have experience, and I respect that (a lot more than my last post implied), but that's not the end of the story.
[QUOTE=Mbbird;45312694]It's only a bit silly to throw the "you weren't there" argument onto the table for something like this. You are more qualified to talk about this kind of thing than people who've spent their free time learning about such things since they were young, sure, but you can't say we simply know nothing because we aren't pilots or soldiers.
I feel like you made a faint reference to Congress' shenanigans too. Advisors and experts are somehow (supposed to be) involved in the process of making a budget, and these people haven't necessarily been in every war, every MOS, every position, branch, etc. You can have general knowledge without direct experience, just as you have general knowledge of piloting without having been a pilot.
I enjoy your posts [I]because[/I] you have experience, and I respect that, but that's not the end of the story.[/QUOTE]
Oh it's not, it's just entertaining to watch people bicker over these things. Is the A-10 outdated? Hell yeah it is, but something about hearing a GAU open up on a mountain ridge just sends chills down your spine and has quite a psychological effect. When it comes to replacing aircraft people seem to forget that why should you fix something if it's not broken (or more so in this case a sound design). There's a reason why the Marines still fly Huey's and cobras, and they fill Marine doctrine more so than a blackhawk and an apache. Theres a reason why they still fly 53s. At the end of the day it really comes down to doctrine, and the shift of the Marine corps from being a second army to that of a light attack force
Was the shift in doctrine that brought about the osprey. Of course eventually new technology will eclipse what is currently used in all aspects and things must be replaced. But watching this thread reminds me of watching COD kids fight over what gun is better even though they've never touched a real one in their life.
Looks like a bath toy to me. :v:
[QUOTE=evilfoxnl;45298707]I wish Boeing would have continued development on the quadrotor.
[IMG]https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7143/6668649199_955d72ee06_z.jpg[/IMG]
It's like an osprey and a c-130 had a baby. But it never got past the concept stage though and the idea was probably shelved in 2009.
It could be turned into a gunship even. So that's basicly an AC-130 helicopter.
[thumb]http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b186/aangkai/be2ee171.jpg[/thumb][/QUOTE]
What about the hexplane?
[T]http://www.indiandefencereview.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Hexplane-Heavy-Lift-Concept.jpg[/T]
On a different note, I think we should be focusing on VTOL aircraft instead of helicopters.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.