All of your comments are true but the R3350 is pretty damn robust capable of having two cylinder heads shot off and still getting the A/C home. This happened on multiple occasions so is not a random occurence. The one comment you made about having the space to fit your countermeasures really reinforces the advantage of the SPAD. Space is not an issue!
If MANPADS do become an issue it is just as easy to fit IR countermeasures to a PC-9, EMB 312 or an IA 58 as it is to fit them to a Mi-35, AH-64, EC-665 gunship as long as you have the space to fit these countermeasures on your aricraft and money to pay for it. Most of what gets thrown at COIN aircraft are small arms in the 5.45-14.5mm range MANPADS are also used but small-arms fire is the most common dange. Personally I’d just feel safer in a IA-58 than a PC-9 or any other single engine COIN aircraft simply because of the twin engines. If one engine gets shot out I can still get far enough away on the second one before bailing out to give the pilot a chance of being picked up by CSAR forces before the opposition gets to him. The same experience was made by the RhodAF using the Cessna 337 as a COIN aircraft. The 337 was totally unsuited to the COIN role without major modifications but the twin engines were an advantage, if you lost an engine you had to jettison everything you didn’t necessarily need to stay airborne but if you did that you stood a chance of clawing your way back to base on the second engine. If I was shopping for a COIN aircraft I’d pick a twin engine design over a single engine one If I could get one. I don’t see why the EMB 312 or PC-9 are any more suited to the COIN role than an IA-58 or a more modern aircraft designed to the same formula as the IA-58.
Pioneer makes some very valid points and I agree with all of them. One thing that needs to mentioned is the advantage that a new build AD-1 would have is that with the improved materials available its allready extraordinary strength would be enhanced adding to its survivability in the COIN role. It is also large enough that it would be able to soak up quite a bit more damage, than a Pucara for instance, and still make it back to base. Also the ideas for side mounted weapons is very good, though I think a weapon that can traverse throughout the rear 180 degree quadrant would be more useful, something along the lines of a remotely targeted Emerson TAT for instance. The Skyraider has a very useful layout and it would be possible to make it better yet with the newer sytems that take up much less space.
Pioneer makes some very valid points and I agree with all of them. One thing that needs to mentioned is the advantage that a new build AD-1 would have is that with the improved materials available its allready extraordinary strength would be enhanced adding to its survivability in the COIN role. It is also large enough that it would be able to soak up quite a bit more damage, than a Pucara for instance, and still make it back to base. Also the ideas for side mounted weapons is very good, though I think a weapon that can traverse throughout the rear 180 degree quadrant would be more useful, something along the lines of a remotely targeted Emerson TAT for instance. The Skyraider has a very useful layout and it would be possible to make it better yet with the newer sytems that take up much less space.
All of the Global Warming idiots are fools. It has become a religion. Every time I talk with one of them the intellectual dishonesty is simply amazing. Whenever I point out to them that a single volcanic eruption puts more pollutants into the atmosphere than all of mans pollution for all of mans history they say well then we have to prevent whatever we are adding!
Lunatics.
I think they were way to busy to worry about radio protocol. The checklist for an engine out emergency has 19 items on it for the A320, then from below 3000 feet they had to wade through 45 items in the Ditching checklist,
kudos to the entire crew for getting their jobs done.
Gary
Here are some pictures as she was pulled out of the river.
Sorry my friend I am keeping this one:D
Easy. Put it in Ebay as from…….a Spitfire, obviously!
(like it could have been anything else:diablo:)
Gentlemen! You are bang on! It is a 6A/1512 and appears to be from 1944 or there abouts and looks to be standard on just about everything!
Alan,
That is a great website!
Cheers!
Gary
Cool photos!
Let’s see a B-2 drop off a SEAL team off a terrorist country, or sink an enemy sub(much less find it!), or interdict pirates off of Somalia, or rescue its citizens from iminent death in a revolution, or conduct elint recon off an enemy shore, or launch 20 Tomahawks against 20 different targets, or ….I think you may get the idea. And all of this without the risk of a bird knocking it out of the sky.
Cheers
Gary
Yeah? Let’s see it get from San Diego to Afghanistan in less than a day.
I think the only Soviet aircraft that have not been extensivly tested are the SU27-30 and MiG 35.
Spraying all over the place…..uhhhh sort of. Certainly the M61A1 is designed to spew them out fast and with a fairly large dispersion but it’s primary job is to put rounds into air space that will be very fleetingly filled with an opposing jet. So it is primarily expected to perform like a shotgun. The GAU 8 on the other hand has a much tighter pattern and will deliver all 80 rounds from a 1 second burst onto a single vehicle. I have seen this at Edwards AFB when they used to do live shoots at the airshows and my aformentioned friend also witnessed this ability and used it to good effect calling fire down to within 100 meters of his position on a couple of occasions.
One problem that the fast mover supporters are forgetting is quite simply speed. A fast mover(A-7 for example, Jaguar for another) passes over a target so fast that the pilot has almost no chance to spot the target. With the A-10 and the SU 25 this is not the case. They are able to loiter in a high threat environment looking for the bad guys and deliver ordnance exceptionally fast and accurately. As far as a preferance between the A-10 and the SU-25, I currently lean toward the A-10 simply because I have no real experience of the SU-25 other than what I have read. I know what the A-10 is capable of and have seen its after effects on a couple of occasions and I can state without reservation that I would not want to be on the recieving end of its attack….but then again I would’nt want to be on the recieving end of a strafing attack by a SPAD VII either!
Gary
Gatlings are only interesting for burst longer than 1.33 seconds or so (the light-barrel version a little less). The GSh-30-2 and the GAU-8/A deliver almost exactly the same amount of HE within the first half second. The GAU has somewhat flatter trajectory, but Gatlings tend to shoot all over the place like a drunk hoosier before it’s up to speed.
True but the VLS versions(heck even the ones with the quad Tomahawk launchers would do) with the right weapons load can do more for less and with more time on station. It is also capable of more mission types than a B-2.
Spruance??? More like a couple of them. IMO they should have kept the VLS ones around. Depressing to see one of them busted in half with it’s nose in the air during a SINKEX. 🙁 Still though, a Spruance can’t do what a B-2 can.
Yes I know the one lost on Guam was not a bird strike. I am merely pointing out that a bird can knock down a 1.2 BILLION with a B weapon system! That to me is absurd.
Gary
The B-2 wasn’t brought down by a bird…it was a sensor having to do with the aftifical stability system (or something similar..I know I’m not using the correct words here). It was something that had been noticed before and warned about, but hadn’t yet made it into the manuals.
A B-1 was brought down during a low lever run by a large bird in the wing root that caused a fire. The area was later “beefed up”.
The A-10 is simply an awesome COIN A/C and should be retained. A good friend of mine just recently returned from Afghanistan swears by them, he’s a FO so knows of what he speaks. The B-2 to me is a simply ridiculous aircraft. I find it amazing that my government would spend 1.2 Billion dollars on a plane that can be brought down by a bird! Put another way, that 1.2 Billion buys you a complete Spruance Class destroyer with a full combat load and the crew to man it.
Cheers