Samson Posted June 22, 2005 Author Posted June 22, 2005 Why a big gun? Why even approximate the A10? A Predator B will carry up to 24 Viper Strikes, each with a near zero m CEP, and it can loiter over the battlefield for 24+ hours. Plus they only cost around $7-10mil each.186542[/snapback] A gun because straffing is not yet obsolete. It donsnt need to be that BIG, but bigger is better, and much much cooler... Guns have been taken off comabt aircraft before and it turned out to be major mistake. I think there is still pleny of life left in the aerial autocannon. Something that can take out AFVs from the air would be ideal, and its a major bonus if that same gun can plaster an area with HEDP or what have you.
EchoFiveMike Posted June 22, 2005 Posted June 22, 2005 Why a big gun? Why even approximate the A10? A Predator B will carry up to 24 Viper Strikes, each with a near zero m CEP, and it can loiter over the battlefield for 24+ hours. Plus they only cost around $7-10mil each Why a gun? Because 85% of the time you go "Blow the shit outta 38 S MB 1234567890!" BOOM "Shit! Left 100, drop 50, repeat!" And so on. Or to be correct for CAS "Shit. Dash 2 from leads's hit, north west 200." which is a real PITA because you're not used to dealing with target adjustment in that fashion. Viper Strike is great, but not 100% replacement yet. S/F....Ken M
Ivanhoe Posted June 22, 2005 Posted June 22, 2005 Some pertinent points;- early UAVs are doing fairly well against static targets in open terrain, it'll be awhile longer before U tech is good enough for dynamic targets;- problem with hi-res electro-optical data feed to the nerd in the trailer is bandwidth; start partitioning available bandwidth and your 20 frames/sec becomes 2 seconds/frame, and confidence goes right out the window;- for CAS, some sort of gun is still going to be useful, there are lots of high volume/low value targets to be serviced (do you really want to throw a Hellfire at a Toyota Celica?), and a gun run will still be useful in shaping the battlefield;- violating the Key West Agreement is more like violating the whole package of Alabama blue laws, on live video, with a teenage hooker in the room;- the Army is into UAVs bigtime for the obvious reason that there are serious organizational and cultural problems with reliance on the USAF's combat services, thus the desire for much shorter comm/command loops and control over asset tasking.
Wyvern75 Posted June 22, 2005 Posted June 22, 2005 One of the big problems the Army is experiencing in Iraq is the Air Force determination to keep Army UAVs from doing anything. The Air Force controls the air space and they set where and how high UAVs (and other aircraft) can fly. They essentially keep the Army birds out of the action until things get too hot for Air Force birds. If there is a "publicity" chance, the Army UAVs are frozen out entirely. One of the big inter-service fights that we will see this coming decade will be the Air Force's attempt to control all the UAVs that the Services own, more especially the ones that fly over land. The Navy will have the clout to keep its UAVs for sea surveillance and such, but they when push comes to shove, the USMC UAVs will either be given up or will be out looking for submarines.
Smitty Posted June 22, 2005 Posted June 22, 2005 Something that can take out AFVs from the air would be ideal, and its a major bonus if that same gun can plaster an area with HEDP or what have you.186545[/snapback] Why bother with a gun run on an IFV when you can use a Maverick, GBU-12, Hellfire or WCMD from the safety of altitude and standoff range?
Smitty Posted June 22, 2005 Posted June 22, 2005 Why a gun? Because 85% of the time you go "Blow the shit outta 38 S MB 1234567890!" BOOM "Shit! Left 100, drop 50, repeat!" And so on. Or to be correct for CAS "Shit. Dash 2 from leads's hit, north west 200." which is a real PITA because you're not used to dealing with target adjustment in that fashion. Viper Strike is great, but not 100% replacement yet. S/F....Ken M186547[/snapback] Well this is more a function of targetting errors and/or weapon inaccuracy than anything, correct? Instead of using absolute grid coordinates, a SALH weapon like Viper Strike, APKWS or LGBs can more easily use relative coordinates like "50 north of that tree" with relative certainty. Plus they don't force the pilot to fly a predictable path into the thick of the trashfire MANPADS/AAA envelope like a gun run. Newer datalinks and handheld computers can let the guys on the ground see what the aircraft is aiming at before the strike occurs and even adjust their aimpoint. Man-portable Blue Force Tracker units will allow aircraft to have a better picture of where friendlies are.
Smitty Posted June 22, 2005 Posted June 22, 2005 Some pertinent points;- early UAVs are doing fairly well against static targets in open terrain, it'll be awhile longer before U tech is good enough for dynamic targets; Predators have hit moving targets with Hellfires. - problem with hi-res electro-optical data feed to the nerd in the trailer is bandwidth; start partitioning available bandwidth and your 20 frames/sec becomes 2 seconds/frame, and confidence goes right out the window; Bandwidth is an issue, but not an insurmountable one. Newer datalinks have higher bandwitdth, and I can see a day when the nerd gives up his trailier for a bizjet or 737 orbiting at a safe standoff range using more capabile and lower-latency LOS datalinks. - for CAS, some sort of gun is still going to be useful, there are lots of high volume/low value targets to be serviced (do you really want to throw a Hellfire at a Toyota Celica?), and a gun run will still be useful in shaping the battlefield; You may not want to use a Hellfire, but lower-cost weapons like Viper Strike or (someday) APKWS (<$10k) are more feasible for this.
Samson Posted June 22, 2005 Author Posted June 22, 2005 I will have to disagree with you on this one Smitty, I think that leaving a gun off of an attack craft of folly.
Colin Posted June 22, 2005 Posted June 22, 2005 UAV’s are good, but the A10 is a aircraft much loved by the grunt from all that accounts that I have read. I suspect that have a hog loitering above your head has a real bonus factor for your troops and puts the fear of god into your enemy. It’s presences alone will force the enemy to stay concealed. That’s worth a lot of bombs and missiles. Plus the way things are going for the USAF. It might be the one of the last roles for human pilots.
Ivanhoe Posted June 22, 2005 Posted June 22, 2005 Predators have hit moving targets with Hellfires. And Billy Mitchell hit a battleship with a bomb. Sort of. An isolated car on a road with minimal ground clutter is a baby step. Add multiple vehicles, urban clutter, power lines etc. Bandwidth is an issue, but not an insurmountable one. Newer datalinks have higher bandwitdth, and I can see a day when the nerd gives up his trailier for a bizjet or 737 orbiting at a safe standoff range using more capabile and lower-latency LOS datalinks. But there is only so much total bandwidth available. We're staggering into a world wherein every truck, Hummer, oxcart, and rowboat has both voice and data net, mini UAVs are pushed down to company if not platoon level, etc etc. Data and to some extent voice can use stuff like ECC and packet format to ameliorate signal conflicts, but live video is one or two orders of magnitude more demanding. LOS could help except LOS comms for moving sender/moving receiver ain't trivial. And in OOTW like Iraq we can't just overrun the local cellphone/fire/police bands. You may not want to use a Hellfire, but lower-cost weapons like Viper Strike or (someday) APKWS (<$10k) are more feasible for this.186662[/snapback] More feasible, but an autocannon is still more than sufficient and cheaper. Plus, as I said, the gun has a unique ability to shape the battlefield.
Smitty Posted June 22, 2005 Posted June 22, 2005 And Billy Mitchell hit a battleship with a bomb. Sort of. An isolated car on a road with minimal ground clutter is a baby step. Add multiple vehicles, urban clutter, power lines etc. Yes, and Mitchell's bomb run was the beginnings of the dominance of naval airpower. Urban clutter is going to be a problem for a strafing attack aircraft too. Multiple vehicles doesn't present a problem for a UAV, IMHO, other than the need to quickly switch between targets. Power lines may or may not cause issues for a Viper Strike or ATGM, but won't cause problems for SDBs or LGBs. But there is only so much total bandwidth available. We're staggering into a world wherein every truck, Hummer, oxcart, and rowboat has both voice and data net, mini UAVs are pushed down to company if not platoon level, etc etc. Data and to some extent voice can use stuff like ECC and packet format to ameliorate signal conflicts, but live video is one or two orders of magnitude more demanding. LOS could help except LOS comms for moving sender/moving receiver ain't trivial. And in OOTW like Iraq we can't just overrun the local cellphone/fire/police bands. Yes, and the total available bandwidth is HUGE. Plus, new active array antenna designs can transmit/receive on a narrow beam rather than broadcasting an omni-directional blast. Moving LOS comms have issues, but again, I'm confident modern signal processing techniques can overcome them. More feasible, but an autocannon is still more than sufficient and cheaper. Plus, as I said, the gun has a unique ability to shape the battlefield.186731[/snapback] Except that it places the REAL expensive parts (pilot and aircraft) into harm's way. Plus guns like the GAU-8 aren't exactly cheap, nor is the price of designing the aircraft around them. Forgive me for being dense, but I still fail to see how a fixed gun on a tactical aircraft has a unique ability to 'shape the battlefield'. I'll agree that AC-130-like gun mounts definitely have unique capability. But I don't see what a gun can do that, say, APKWS won't be able to do (assuming they can iron out the bugs). If you really want a gun-armed aircraft, I'd say go with a turreted 30mm mk44 on the belly of a small (but fat) UAV. At least then it could stay up out of the AAA envelope and could provide 360 degree suppressive and killing fire while orbiting. And if you're going to make it big enough to have a turret, it'll probably have sufficient room for SDBs, Viper Strikes, LGB/JDAMs and other small PGMs.
JOE BRENNAN Posted June 22, 2005 Posted June 22, 2005 Yes, and the total available bandwidth is HUGE. Plus, new active array antenna designs can transmit/receive on a narrow beam rather than broadcasting an omni-directional blast. Moving LOS comms have issues, but again, I'm confident modern signal processing techniques can overcome them.186773[/snapback]Also the whole trend in manned CAS is to put actual images of the desired target in the cockpit, and show what's viewed from the cockpit to those being supported, so every increasing hunger for bandwidth isn't just a matter of UAV's. Technology can be overhyped. OTOH the idea of embarking on a clean sheet of paper a/c development aimed to employ verbal radio communication only, and maybe smoke? as the means of communication of target locations strikes me as way overboard resistance to technology. And airplanes just hunting around for targets autonomously near friendly troops has never worked, means either pulling lots of punches or else hitting friendlies not infrequently. The idea of a whole new airplane to operate on the concept of verbal radio exchange "I see some guys, now what do you guys look like, I don't want to hit you...." to reach service say 2015, strikes me as utterly ridiculous. As mentioned CAS is a mission not a plane. A part or aspect is and increasingly will be hitting specific GPS coordinates. *Any* airplane (or simply boosting JDAM's from the ground, does anybody remember the USN's abortive SMARTROC, ASROC booster propelling a 500# LGB from an ASROC launcher?, neat system shouldn't have been cancelled) can do that, manned or not. A sort of armed reconnaisance/CAS role exists too. Here a man in plane may make sense even though video will be streaming to and from the plane and require lots of total bandwith, guns/strafing has its place too, but perrhaps more in post Bagdad-fall Iraq than the typical future situation. Good article on ground supporting armed recon in Iraq in AWST a couple of weeks ago. Given the sensors used don't I see any *technical* reason this can't be a multipurpose fast jet (or partly covered by UAV too). Maybe it's back to the semi-religious idea it has to be plane without other capabilities or else its operators won't properly prepare for the mission. But that doesn't justify large expenditures IMO, you fix the org problem instead. And once again the org problem is often painted in dramatic terms that don't seem well supported by the actual evidence of US joint ops in recent years. Anyway for quite some years, the A-10C is the A-10 replacement, for sure. Joe
EchoFiveMike Posted June 22, 2005 Posted June 22, 2005 Why bother with a gun run on an IFV when you can use a Maverick, GBU-12, Hellfire or WCMD from the safety of altitude and standoff range?For the same reasons artillery or mortars doesn't do you any good in most real squad level gunfights, they happen at 20-60m. Supporting arms will do more damage to you than the enemy will. Forgive me for being dense, but I still fail to see how a fixed gun on a tactical aircraft has a unique ability to 'shape the battlefield'. I'll agree that AC-130-like gun mounts definitely have unique capability. But I don't see what a gun can do that, say, APKWS won't be able to do (assuming they can iron out the bugs). Hit a linear target rapidly with a limited amount of offline blast and fragmentation. If you really want a gun-armed aircraft, I'd say go with a turreted 30mm mk44 on the belly of a small (but fat) UAV. At least then it could stay up out of the AAA envelope and could provide 360 degree suppressive and killing fire while orbiting. And if you're going to make it big enough to have a turret, it'll probably have sufficient room for SDBs, Viper Strikes, LGB/JDAMs and other small PGMs.Fuck AAA. SEAD is going to be massive because it'll be the only thing going on until troops make contact. MANPADS may be an issue, best dealt with using blinding lasers or other directed energy weapons(microwaves, etc etc) Well this is more a function of targetting errors and/or weapon inaccuracy than anything, correct? Targetting errors are fact of life. Best have enough ordnance to be able to hit lots of things many times. Plus Man-portable Blue Force Tracker units will allow aircraft to have a better picture of where friendlies are. This and laser designators for every grunt? Fuck that useless weight. Also I have use BFT, OK for vehicles, never have enough batteries for troops, that's also more weight. S/F....Ken M
Samson Posted June 22, 2005 Author Posted June 22, 2005 (edited) I think this video makes a good argument for guns on this type of attack craft. http://www.ehowa.com/showmovie.shtml?movie=apacheattack.wmv I agree with Echo on pretty much all he is saying. I think a UAV would be an interesting avenue to explore for this. Imagine the video above as what the operator in his remote location would be seeing. Basicaly the same amount of info the Apache crew had, maybe more. They cant see anything at night with the naked eye anyway. A VTOL UAV with sprint capabilities would be interesting for this. It could hover above and stay on station until its used its ammo up. The little submunitions are great and should be a major part of the arsenal, but a gun the M230 would be necceasry as well. m230 http://tri.army.mil/LC/CS/csa/apm230.htm M230 Gun Characteristics: Rate-of-fire 625 ± 25 spm Ammo storage capacity 1200 rounds M789 Ammo handling system linear linkless Externally powered 6.5 HP Length 66.0 inches (167.6cm) Total weight 127 lb. (57.5 kg) Anybody know how much armor the 30mm HEDP round can penetrait? Will it be effective against a good range of AFVs from above? Edited June 22, 2005 by Samson
Chris Werb Posted June 22, 2005 Posted June 22, 2005 does anybody remember the USN's abortive SMARTROC, ASROC booster propelling a 500# LGB from an ASROC launcher?, neat system shouldn't have been cancelled) can do that, manned or not. What was going to provide designation for this system?
TheSilentType Posted June 22, 2005 Posted June 22, 2005 (edited) Never heard of SMARTROC before, but I wonder how well it would work with a JDAM instead of an LGB. Ought to solve the designation problem. Didn't ASROC only have a range of a few miles though? That wouldn't be of much use. What was going to provide designation for this system?186876[/snapback] Edited June 22, 2005 by TheSilentType
Matt L. Posted June 22, 2005 Posted June 22, 2005 Drones seem inevitable to me. The pilot is the most irreplacable part of the system so if he can fight on and on, valhalla like; it's a huge advantage. I suppose it's a threat to the fighter culture since it replaces "valedictorian quarterbacks" with "live at home with their parents and play Doom" nerds. There's a techno-thriller in there somewhere that I may write some day. The commo is the weakest link. If you can disrupt it then the drones are useless. The bandwidth seems large, but when you have to frequency-hop to avoid jamming this means a lot of wasted bandwidth (right? This is not my baileywick). I alway figured that LOS control riding a laser would be fast, be unlimitedly expandable, and be unjammable. You could have a trailer with the nerds that uplinks to high flying control drones that forward the signals to the strike drones. Since the drones are cheap you would have several controllers flying for redundancy. GPS makes keeping the laser on target pretty easy. I see no reason why a ground controller could not take control of the drone on the strike run or at least get a video feed to verify the target. Also, each platoon or squad should have a laser designator. Yeah, it's a lot of crap to carry around, but that's where the firepower will be. All this still doesn't help with close infantry combat, but that is looking more and more to me like a specialist job. Once you get the bad guys bottled up then you call in the heavy armor guys to clean them out. They will be supported by drones also but they will be tracked. OT, so we can discuss *that* in a different thread. Regards, Matt
EchoFiveMike Posted June 22, 2005 Posted June 22, 2005 All this still doesn't help with close infantry combat, but that is looking more and more to me like a specialist job. Once you get the bad guys bottled up then you call in the heavy armor guys to clean them out. They will be supported by drones also but they will be tracked. OT, so we can discuss *that* in a different thread. Regards, Matt I disagree 180 degrees. Close combat will be everyone's job, because by and large the enemy is choosing the engagement. In an insurgency, the savages will pick the fight, I saw this happen all the time. They don't get into it with the tank column, they hit the 3 truck chow run. Every patrol must have the good stuff, and every patrol must have their heads on straight. Otherwise, the weak sister patrol will get butchered, while the tanks never make contact and wonder why. Q patrols are a good tactic, to be sure, but that's a limited thing. QRF isn't and never can be wihtout much greater tolerance of risk and resource expenditure than I've seen demonstrated thus far. Isolating shitheads isn't possible unless you willing to declare areas as FFZ's like Fallujah was and isolate them with large numbers of troops. This is politically and operationally difficult. S/F....Ken M
swerve Posted June 22, 2005 Posted June 22, 2005 Drones seem inevitable to me. The pilot is the most irreplacable part of the system so if he can fight on and on, valhalla like; it's a huge advantage. I suppose it's a threat to the fighter culture since it replaces "valedictorian quarterbacks" with "live at home with their parents and play Doom" nerds. There's a techno-thriller in there somewhere that I may write some day. The commo is the weakest link. If you can disrupt it then the drones are useless. The bandwidth seems large, but when you have to frequency-hop to avoid jamming this means a lot of wasted bandwidth (right? This is not my baileywick). I alway figured that LOS control riding a laser would be fast, be unlimitedly expandable, and be unjammable. You could have a trailer with the nerds that uplinks to high flying control drones that forward the signals to the strike drones. Since the drones are cheap you would have several controllers flying for redundancy. GPS makes keeping the laser on target pretty easy. I see no reason why a ground controller could not take control of the drone on the strike run or at least get a video feed to verify the target. Also, each platoon or squad should have a laser designator. Yeah, it's a lot of crap to carry around, but that's where the firepower will be. All this still doesn't help with close infantry combat, but that is looking more and more to me like a specialist job. Once you get the bad guys bottled up then you call in the heavy armor guys to clean them out. They will be supported by drones also but they will be tracked. OT, so we can discuss *that* in a different thread. Regards, Matt186884[/snapback] The Swedes & French are working on the idea of fighters as UAV controllers. So you have a fully combat-capable plane, but with second guy who's acting as drone controller. They'd be fairly autonomous, he wouldn't have to fly them, just select targets, order strikes, etc. So LOS, from a platform that doesn't have to be as many miles away as a big plane or a ground controller. The drones could also be AA-capable. I think the Swedes started working on it, & the French joined in.
JOE BRENNAN Posted June 22, 2005 Posted June 22, 2005 What was going to provide designation for this system?186876[/snapback]Either with a FLIR/laser designator ugrade to the ship's Mk.37 director (this was for Gearing FRAM's) for line of sight shooting (including say against opposing attack craft) or presumably a shore designator for indirect firing. The original version had only ASROC's regular range of around 10k yds, a later version 24k yds, greater than 5"/38. And very low cost. But anyway I was speaking just conceptually, if you're just going to lob bombs onto general coordinates and GPS or laser do the fine tuning, and at short range implied by close support a rocket booster is not necessarily a bad way. Or IOW you can do that just about any which way, roll them out the back of a transport plane if the threat environment permits. For that sort of weapon and employment, which is a lot of CAS now, an A-10 like a/c doesn't do anything special at all. For the armed recon sort of aspect, perhaps it could be argued it does (though still I doubt much difference with targetting pods now v. a fast jet). Joe
Matt L. Posted June 23, 2005 Posted June 23, 2005 I disagree 180 degrees. Close combat will be everyone's job, because by and large the enemy is choosing the engagement. In an insurgency, the savages will pick the fight, I saw this happen all the time. They don't get into it with the tank column, they hit the 3 truck chow run. Every patrol must have the good stuff, and every patrol must have their heads on straight. Otherwise, the weak sister patrol will get butchered, while the tanks never make contact and wonder why. Q patrols are a good tactic, to be sure, but that's a limited thing. QRF isn't and never can be wihtout much greater tolerance of risk and resource expenditure than I've seen demonstrated thus far. Isolating shitheads isn't possible unless you willing to declare areas as FFZ's like Fallujah was and isolate them with large numbers of troops. This is politically and operationally difficult. S/F....Ken M186897[/snapback] I don't disagree. I never meant to imply that close combat would only be for specialist fighters. I was really talking about those situations when you are dictating the terms of the fight (like Fallujiah) and want to clean out an urban area with minimal casualties. You make a good point that these situations could very well be the exceptions. It seems to me that "cleaning out the rat's nest", while infrequent, is a pretty standard feature of LIC. The whole drone thing is really for a hotter war anyway. The insurgents want to be where the drones are not. If their goal is to attrit then killing robots is not going to score very many political points. Of course they will be gravitating to the CSC units as they would be seen as the weakest. I would expect they avoid infantry units as well as tanks. Force protection is a different beast entirely and I don't see how a drone would be much help in that. Regards, Matt
Matt L. Posted June 23, 2005 Posted June 23, 2005 The Swedes & French are working on the idea of fighters as UAV controllers. So you have a fully combat-capable plane, but with second guy who's acting as drone controller. They'd be fairly autonomous, he wouldn't have to fly them, just select targets, order strikes, etc. So LOS, from a platform that doesn't have to be as many miles away as a big plane or a ground controller. The drones could also be AA-capable. I think the Swedes started working on it, & the French joined in.186902[/snapback] The only problem is that the nerds wouldn't be able to handle the gees.
Talyn Posted June 23, 2005 Posted June 23, 2005 But this can not go on forever. IIRC the only spare parts and such come from scap planes in boneyards, and new production of the A10 is no possible. The A-10 is going to soldier on until 2028 according to the USAF when it will be superseded by the F-35. There is no replacement since neither the F-35 nor a UCAV can go where the A-10 can go & survive and provide the degree of CAS that the A-10 can. That's been proven time & time again in Iraq & Afganistan. The A-10 is a relatively cheap aircraft to maintain & fly and will be upgraded and maintained with a combination of new & existing parts. I know mechanics that work on the aircraft. The A-10C upgrades are long needed for a great aircraft.
Smitty Posted June 23, 2005 Posted June 23, 2005 (edited) The whole drone thing is really for a hotter war anyway. The insurgents want to be where the drones are not. If their goal is to attrit then killing robots is not going to score very many political points. Of course they will be gravitating to the CSC units as they would be seen as the weakest. I would expect they avoid infantry units as well as tanks. Force protection is a different beast entirely and I don't see how a drone would be much help in that. I disagree. Small, arrmed UAVs have two huge advantages over manned aircraft - endurance and price. Flying an armed drone over every convoy to perform route recon and immediate CAS will improve your force protection situation, IMHO. Ambushes in Iraq are, mostly, brief and intense. If you can't deliver fires within a couple minutes, you'll miss the whole fight. A CAS aircaft orbiting 50 or 100 miles away just won't get there in time. Edited June 23, 2005 by Smitty
Smitty Posted June 23, 2005 Posted June 23, 2005 The Swedes & French are working on the idea of fighters as UAV controllers. So you have a fully combat-capable plane, but with second guy who's acting as drone controller. They'd be fairly autonomous, he wouldn't have to fly them, just select targets, order strikes, etc. So LOS, from a platform that doesn't have to be as many miles away as a big plane or a ground controller. The drones could also be AA-capable. This is an interesting idea, but I have a feeling marrying a long-endurance UAV with a relatively short-endurance tactical aircraft isn't an ideal match. I think a bizjet or small airliner would be preferable. Maybe even multitask aircraft like the 737-based MMA, future JSTARS or tanker.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now