Levsha@Levsha, the GSh-2-30 is used on the Su-25 for anti-armour. It’s not as effective as the GAU-8 so it’s really used for soft targets and rockets or other external munitions against armour…theoretically, I don’t think they’ve ever shot at armour in warfare, just in testing.
I think this gun was first developed for a specialised anti-armour variant of the Hind (Mi-24P). Newer Russian attack helicopters (like the Hokum) use a more advanced single barrel 30mm which I believe has better projectile performance. On these 23mm gunpods are used for soft targets suggesting the main gun has a usable anti-armour performance.Similarly I believe the GSh-6-30 is best suited to soft targets, but I mean it’d do a job on an armoured scout car, ACV or typical SPG just not so much an MBT.
Sorry, that was just a misprint, should have been Gsh-6-30.
All this talk of how slow American Gatling Guns are to spin up to speed, I dare say the M61 20mm is the most successful cannon in the jet combat age. The F-105 ‘Thud’ is supposed to have scored all its 26 or so kills with the M61.
Apparently, the F-16 has gained itself a reputation as soon sort of “strafing king” in Afghanistan using the M61…
LevshaNews just coming in:
Theirry Henry has been caught consuming illlegal substances in his hotel room!!:eek::eek::eek:
There’s even film evidence (see link). Seems he won’t be playing any more games in the competition… :D:D
http://www.footballtransfertavern.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/Henry.jpg
Yours,
Another disgruntled Paddy
LevshaNews just coming in:
Theirry Henry has been caught consuming illlegal substances in his hotel room!!:eek::eek::eek:
There’s even film evidence (see link). Seems he won’t be playing any more games in the competition… :D:D
http://www.footballtransfertavern.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/Henry.jpg
Yours,
Another disgruntled Paddy
LevshaWrong. The capability was surpassed from the very start. Soviet GSh-30-2 was a much lighter and simpler concept providing superior or comparable performance for bursts up to 0.8 sec. How many times have your pilot used longer bursts than that?
In my opinion, GAU-8 was an impressive but overengineered piece of hardware. As much as I love the A-10, the gun was quite weird.
Isn’t that the gun that the MiG-27 pilots used to get the jitters firing?
here’s what Wiki has to say:
On the MiG-27 the Gsh-6-30 had to be mounted obliquely to absorb recoil (5,500kg). The gun was noted for its high (often uncomfortable) vibration and extreme noise. The airframe vibration lead to fatigue cracks in fuel tanks, numerous radio and avionics failures, the necessity of using runways with floodlights for night flights (as the landing lights would often be destroyed), tearing or jamming of the forward landing gear doors (leading to at least three crash landings), cracking of the reflector gunsight, an accidental jettisoning of the cockpit canopy and at least one case of the instrument panel falling off in flight. The number of fragments from detonating shells was sufficient to damage aircraft firing (or flying) within 200 metres of the impact area.[2]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gryazev-Shipunov_GSh-6-30
Reading up on the Gsh-2-30 it seems it wasn’t that successful. The Russians don’t seem to use it on aircraft any more. Perhaps the Indian air force might, but the have more or less grounded their MiG-27 fleet indefinately.:rolleyes:
Levshathe Royal Navy’s attrition record with its Sea Harriers wasn’t particularly great either with around 27-28 Sea Harriers having been lost.
You can see the number of ejections (that may not include the entire list of SHar accidents in case there was no ejections during a fatal crash, more informed members may correct me if I’m wrong) on this link to Martin Baker’s ejection history list on the Sea Harrier.
And I certainly wasn’t trying to speak against the professionalism of the IN, it was the characteristics of the aircraft itself I was focused on.
Thanks for the information on how hot and humid climate affects the SHars – it’s as much as I could have guessed, and even if it could be shown that the IN had a worse record with the Harrier than the Royal Navy they at least have a sensible excuse…
Here’s a list of entire Indian Navy losses of the Sea Harrier from Warbirds of India:
http://www.warbirds.in/Crashes/crpage.php?qacid=103&qafdb=IAF&datesall=ON
Hmmm… I wonder how the F-35B will be affected by “hot and Humid” climes?;)
LevshaJust watched that, was that an underwater ejection and parachuting back down on to the deck of the carrier!:eek:
It certainly was!:cool:
Let’s just say that the Yak-38 had one or two ‘issues’ to deal with…
One of which was the fact that it had such a poor payload, so poor in fact, that when the ship it was operating off sailed in to more tropical high temperature zones the Yak couldn’t carry any kind of payload at all, if it could even lift itself of the deck!:eek:
This provokes the question, to what extent are high temps a problem for the SHAR, do they degrade its payload capacity – bearing in mind we’re talking about the Indian Navy here.
After all, aren’t hot and high conditions a bigger problem for High-bypass turbofans like the Pegasus than for pure turbojets (as found on the Yak-38)?:confused:
Levsha😮
Most definately not! Maybe first Indian underwater ejection but it was performed in a Sea Hawk in March 1976 and there had been a few USN and RN ejections by then.
Surely the first was Lt McFarlane RN ejection from a Wyvern under the Albion in October 1955?!Just to bring it back to topic, I love the dear old Sea Harrier, and am enjoying the thread!
Yeah, good thread, IN SHARs are an interesting topic. When I read that 17 out of 30 SHARS delivered have been lost it reminded me of the Yak-38’s safety record, which must be the worst of any modern combat aircraft, must be the nature of the beast I guess.
I agree with what you say above, I recall reading about a USN pilot ejecting from a submerged A-7 during the Vietnam war. I done some Google Fu to check it out, but I found this Youtube clip of a Yak-38 instead. Sorry for being off-topic:
LevshaHornet v. MiG
U.S. Marine aviators to Malaysian MiG pilots: Show us what you got.
By Ed Darack
Somewhat ironic you should mention the Malaysian MiG-29s. Their air force has recently been discussing getting rid of the MiG-29 as they were too expensive to maintain, as with quite a lot of other air arms (including Rumania).
The Fulcrum just isn’t as cheap as a MiG-21 to fly. The ’21’ probably already outnumbers the ’29’ in world service.
LevshaNobody in Sukhoi knows what the RCS of the T-50 is.
It could be several years of flight testing before they have an accurate idea. At the moment they have nothing but computer modelling projections and estimates to offer as an RCS figure.
I’m curious to know how many flight hours and years passed before anyone in the USAF and Lockheed Martin had any idea of the RCS of the YF-22 or its successers?:confused:
Levshalittle correction, you should say:
“the operational costs is expected to be less”.. for now, the only thing certain is that the aircraft is late and costlier than expected… how much it will cost and how it will perform is just speculations for now, as it’s still in development stages
So how much does the T-50 ‘cost’?
LevshaI’ve always thought that the An-225 actually had a shorter take-off/landing run than the An-124?:confused:
Yes, supplementing the C-5B/C-5M with some An-124 is a good idea… since no more C-5s can be built.
I should think the USAF could have up to a 110 or so C-5Ms if it wanted to (US Congress willing) the ‘M’ being an upgraded ‘A’ or ‘B’, of which most of the airframes built in the 1970s still exist in airworthy condition and are still not near any airframe time expiry limits.
LevshaIs it true that helicopter pilots (military at least, perhaps civilian as well) never ever call their machines “Choppers”?:confused:
LevshaHoly 1970s, Batman!
1970s science fiction perhaps??:cool::cool:
The Tu-160’s control panel brings to my mind the control panel on Apollo command module… and Dewey the drone robot from the Seventies sci-fi movie Silent Running.:D:D
LevshaI’m not though, that is absolutely fantastic, thanks for sharing! Was that the same guy that would take pictures of steam trains at night using thousands of flash bulbs?
I’m glad you like it, thanks. As regards the photographer, ‘Feininger’, I had a quick look at the link I provided to to find out more about any ‘Locomotive’ photos. Still not sure about this, but I did find this “rare” photo on the same website.
Sikorsky after setting helicopter endurance record, May 6th, 1941
You can find more info about this photo and the aircraft on this link:
http://industrialphotos.industrialartifactsreview.com/photos_02_2010/photo_114.htm
Levsha…Finally, the R-5 in it’s two seat initial form ff in 1943. It was later developed into larger 4-seat military models which saw combat in Korea (as mentioned above in their role in Bridges at Toko-Ri) into the commercial S-51 and Dragonfly/Widgeon. Became the basis for Westland production in the UK.
All groundbreaking stuff.
Early YR-5 R-4, R-6.
J B, I’m sure your familiar with this famous ‘LIFE magazine’ photo.:)
Sikorsky helicopter, night exposure, Feb. 1949 by Andreas Feininger
The caption for this famous LIFE magazine image of a U.S. Navy Sikorsky S-51 helicopter reads: “Slinky like light pattern in the blackness of moonlight sky produced by a time exposure of the light tipped rotor blades of a grounded helicopter as it takes off into the dark sky. Location: Anacostia, MD.” At first glance, the picture seems to show a helicopter landing, but the nature of time exposure is such that it captured the stationary machine only before it took off—the rapid motion as it ascended made it invisible to the camera.
This image was created by one of America’s leading photographers in the mid-20th century, Andreas Feininger (1906-1999). Born in Paris, and raised and educated as an architect in Germany, Feininger opted for a career as a freelance photographer and emigrated to the United States in 1936. He was a staff photographer for LIFE magazine from 1943 until 1962, and industrial subjects appear frequently in his work. Thirteen of his Kodachrome images of mines and steel mills, taken in 1942, are in the Library of Congress collection, featured in Flickr’s The Commons.
The reference to Slinky in the LIFE caption may seem like a later addition, but the first Slinky toys actually went on sale in November 1945.
http://industrialphotos.industrialartifactsreview.com/photos_05_2009/photo_004.htm
Sign In
