ELPExactly, very well put. The USA, Australia, Canada and the Netherlands are doing their bit with the British, where is the rest of NATO?
NATO is pulling their weight. However there just is only so much you can do when you add up all the other worldwide U.N. taskings, exercises etc etc.
ELPExactly, very well put. The USA, Australia, Canada and the Netherlands are doing their bit with the British, where is the rest of NATO?
NATO is pulling their weight. However there just is only so much you can do when you add up all the other worldwide U.N. taskings, exercises etc etc.
ELPBe nice if it could save fuel on it’s orbits like the A-37 by shutting down one engine. :p
ELPGood over view. Thanks for finding that. NCW is the way to go.
On the downside: All that skill wasted on useless dirt. Technology or no, need about 300,000 boots on the ground as a bare minimum to secure Iraq. Otherwise this will go on forever. The training of Iraqi troops still isn’t going all that well.
“This will not be quick… this will not be easy….” ( especially since there was no occupation plan when we went in there. )
And add, ….”this will not be unprofitable for several major defense contractors profiting over the sweat and blood of our troops”.
ELPI’ll talk to the depot pukes and find out. :p
ELPIn that case it is of very little use to anyone. To effectively use the gun you are assuming the enemy does not have MANPADS or any sort of sophisticated air defence network in place. The US likes to fight third world countries and as long as it does it is OK with such an inefficient setup. The reality is that the A-10 pilot would be better served with cheap guided air to ground munitions and the sensors and equiment to target enemy ground forces. Remember the 30mm gun is for engaging enemy tanks well behind enemy lines… if you think it is going to be useful helping grunts work their way through a built up area then keep dreaming. They are not allowed to use the gun within 500m of friendlies because of its CEP. Even at ideal ranges its armour penetration values are something like 70mm penetration… there are plenty of smaller, lighter guns that can match that performance now without weighing more than the armour fitted to the aircraft.
So a new design that wasn’t the size of a B-25 might be a good idea, but as the gun and its systems are not a structurally integral part of the aircraft perhaps its replacement would make a lot of sense. Extra armour, extra fuel, a new flixed twin barrel gun and you have something much more practical and you don’t even need to up engine it because it is so much lighter than the original.
But the A-10 is just all about the gun. Yeah… that is so much more important that getting a tool that can do the job… bring back the Iowa class… :rolleyes:
…right… they probably enjoyed the experience of getting on TV and want to share that experience around with other families of servicemen and women… NOT.
So firing it would therefore be a bad idea right? Perhaps better sensors on the A-10 might help the pilot work out better where the good guys and the bad guys are… but we can’t discuss that because the family of a recently killed soldier wouldn’t care about such improvements.
I am not talking about changing to a 50 cal MG. The US has plenty of calibres that could do a good enough job… the AP shell with DU in it is a health hazard anyway. The HE shell for the GAU is not that amazing… many other 30mm shells would be just as effective and could be fired from a similar range. The reality is that if you are firing a gun at a target then it is weakly defended… so if it is weakly defended who cares if your 30mm HE shells come in at 1,100m/s or 900m/s? The difference is several tons and seeral cubic metres of space on board the aircraft. I doubt the target would notice the difference, except the A-10 would fly faster and use less fuel.
Unfortuneately your theory that the gun needs to be changed out for something else holds no water. It is very useful for insurg bug hunts. And if you are going to take out the gun, any PGM work I can do better/faster with existing fixed wings. A-10s would get murdered facing new low altitude flak, SAM threats. However, the way we work, after large SAMs and enemy aircraft are beaten down to no useful threat, Fast fixed wings, plink away a conventional enemy formation for a day or so until it is just an unorganized mob with no heavy equipment. Starts the day as a mech division and two days later, its TO & E is largely smashed. AAA, MANPADs, small battlefield SAMs, Medium SAMs can’t stop death from raining down from 35~40,000 ft. Contempt of engagement. I can touch you, but you can’t touch me in near any weather. And that is before our troops even make contact. We could have a full conventional war without the A-10 and never really miss it. However it is useful.
ELPI would have to agree with spectre there would be no point taking out the Avenger canon out of the A10 as it would dramatically effect the aircrafts weight distribution and balance bare in mind the aircraft was designed around the gun in the first place.
However the A10 is one of the worlds most potent CAS aircraft due to its gun, i was reading in a recent magazine article however that the A10 is suffering with wiring problems due to the age of the airframes and that any full upgrade would demand a complete strip back and re-build and would probably be horrendously expensive.
The thing is if it was not for the current wars in Afghanistan & Iraq the A10 would be back to where it was 10 years ago and be due for retirement as some have already become museum pieces, but the aircraft has the in built survivability factor to take into account but i dont think the USAF would put loads of expenditure into updating it as there are not enough airframes to cover a removal from service to upgrade.
There has been talk of some museums been asked if they could return their A10s but this maybe just speculation on their part.
curlyboy
A-10s have already been going through a wing/airframe improvement process that will add another 25 years of life to them.
ELP-Ability to be air to air refueled ( of course ) —Thay have this ability now
-Current guns minus the 105mm — why would you get rid of the 105?? the 20MM are long gone off of the H model, the 25MM are not that great on the U model. the 40MMs are still good but I would update/upgrade them.
a 155 is way too big for a C-130.
-Hellfire
-Maverick—- the U model is hardwired for this capability right now. It has never been used and I really do not see any use for it. You would have to come in at a differient angle and would defeat the whole perpose for having a gunship on station. Might as well us an A-10.
-Already knew ACs had refueling ability. Just re-enforcing the obvious.
-Unless there was an upgrade there are a few U’s that don’t have the 105. Although that may have changed.
-Most of my suggestions are companion airframes to compliment existing airframes. So some new ones not having the 105 and supporting appliances means weight to trade off where you have one or two airframes having the ability to drop big PGMs. A nice option. I would rather see a variety of airframes above the existing requirement for the existing design. A few bomber only versions would also mean staying power for the current COIN work.
ELPSorry, here is the link to the above article….
http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/September2006/21/c8839.html
ELPSorry, here is the link to the above article….
http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/September2006/21/c8839.html
ELPI’m not really big on the mission in Afghanistan but if it is going to be done, as mentioned here in this thread already… lets do it right.
Unfortunately doing things on the cheap for the MOD is nothing new. The old timers on this forum have seen this go on for years and years. The mission of the hacks at MOD/Politicos is to cut things. What effect that has on a fine military is of no consequence to them.
ELPI’m not really big on the mission in Afghanistan but if it is going to be done, as mentioned here in this thread already… lets do it right.
Unfortunately doing things on the cheap for the MOD is nothing new. The old timers on this forum have seen this go on for years and years. The mission of the hacks at MOD/Politicos is to cut things. What effect that has on a fine military is of no consequence to them.
ELPReality doesn’t back that up though. Afghanistan – Iraq,Numerous times F-14s, 15s, 16s, 18s have run out of all of their bombs and there was still work to be done to support a GFAC. Numberous times they have had to swoop down and use the gun. Not the greatest of guns but the 20mm M61 has proved it’s value in CAS. Not putting a gun on an aircraft that has to do CAS is dumb. Someone fielding a jet without a gun that will do CAS, isn’t especially bright either. They are working on theory as opposed to combat reality.
ELPWould take a while to add up the cost. The airframe has been mod’ed so many times. Things like little engineering fixes/improvements here, software updates there, adding/changing netcentric gear, avionics improvements of various flavors… modifying self protection systems…etc. etc.
Would be neat to see if the J could hack it though. The extra power/performance might be a nice thing. Here though re: price …anything to do with the base cost of a J airframe, by it’s very nature, is expensive,…… thats before you do even one AC mission specific mod/attaching AC related equipment.
Wish we had more AC’s. They are really powerful for night time bug hunts.
–fun–Make your own AC based on the J model….
I would take an approach that is a different flavor than the u boats and would compliment, but not upstage them:
-Current guns minus the 105mm
-Sniper XR pod
-Ability to be air to air refueled ( of course )
-Wing hardpoints that could have the option of carrying the following:
–Hellfire
–SDB
–GBU-12
–GBU-38
—- Another accessory to the AC squadron – B-130
-Ability to be air to air refueled ( of course )
-Sniper XR pod
Ability to drop the following munitions-
-Hellfire
-Maverick
-SDB
-GBU-12, 24 ( and or enhanced version of the Paveway )
-GBU-31, 32, 35, 38
-JASSM ( to help out on big wars if there was nothing for it to do in the early phase of a war )
ELPGreenpeace co-founder asks UK’s Royal Society to stop playing political blame game on global warming
VANCOUVER, Sept. 21 /CNW/ – Greenpeace co-founder and former leader Dr.
Patrick Moore said the United Kingdom’s Royal Society should stop playing a
political blame game on global warming and retract its recent letter that
smacks of a repressive and anti-intellectual attitude.
“It appears to be the policy of the Royal Society to stifle dissent and
silence anyone who may have doubts about the connection between global warming
and human activity,” said Dr. Moore, Chairman and Chief Scientist of
Vancouver, Canada-based Greenspirit Strategies Ltd.
“That kind of repression seems more suited to the Inquisition than to a
modern, respected scientific body,” said Moore.
In a letter dated September 4 and published this week in a London
newspaper, the Royal Society’s Bob Ward accused ExxonMobil of misleading the
public by daring to question the link between human activity and increases in
global temperatures.
Dr. Moore responded today in an open letter sent to the Royal Society:
“Certainly the Royal Society would agree there is no scientific proof of
causation between the human-induced increase in atmospheric CO2 and the recent
global warming trend, a trend that has been evident for about 500 years, long
before the human-induced increase in CO2 was evident.
“While I may agree with certain statements made by the IPCC, surely you
and the Royal Society would respect my right to disagree with other statements
or at least to call them into question.”
Dr. Moore writes further, “I am sure the Royal Society is aware of the
difference between an hypothesis and a theory. It is clear the contention that
human-induced CO2 emissions and rising CO2 levels in the global atmosphere are
the cause of the present global warming trend is an hypothesis that has not
yet been elevated to the level of a proven theory. Causation has not been
demonstrated in any conclusive way.
Dr. Moore also notes in the letter that while the Royal Society likes to
quote from the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the IPCC itself
admits its conclusions are uncertain.
“The Royal Society needs to retract its anti-intellectual and
heavy-handed letter to ExxonMobil, and allow reasoned scientific debate on
this issue,” said Dr. Moore.
Dr. Moore said he is speaking out on this issue because “the last thing
the world needs, in the midst of a warming trend, is for the Royal Society to
cast a chill over science.”
Dr. Moore and his firm Greenspirit Strategies Ltd. have no links,
financial or otherwise, to ExxonMobil.
OPEN LETTER:
Bob Ward
Senior Manager
Policy Communication
The Royal Society
6-9 Carlton House Terrace
London, England SW1Y 5AG
September 21, 2006
Dear Mr. Bob Ward,
I am in receipt of a copy of your letter to ExxonMobil in which you
accuse them of misleading the public on the science of climate change.
I would be pleased to have your qualifications in science and to know how
you have decided the question of human causation of global warming has been
conclusively determined.
While I may agree with certain statements made by the IPCC, surely you
and the Royal Society would respect my right to disagree with other statements
or at least to call them into question.
You cite the IPCC as the authority yet surely you are aware that science
does not work by committee or by “consensus.”
Certainly the Royal Society would agree there is no scientific proof of
causation between the anthropogenic increase in atmospheric CO2 and the recent
global warming trend, a trend that has been evident for about 500 years, long
before human-caused increase in CO2 was evident.
I am sure the Royal Society is aware of the difference between an
hypothesis and a theory. It is clear the contention that human-induced CO2
emissions and rising CO2 levels in the global atmosphere are the cause of the
present global warming trend is an hypothesis that has not yet been elevated
to the level of a proven theory. Causation has not been demonstrated in any
conclusive way.
This is no doubt why the authors of the IPCC report use the word “likely”
in their concluding statement “most of the global warming over the past 50
years is likely due to the increase in greenhouse gases.”
Even more important, it is a fundamental precept in science that rigorous
objection to “consensus” be encouraged in order to avoid “politically correct”
conclusions that stifle dissent and intellectual exploration.
I say shame on the Royal Society – one of the world’s top science bodies
– for allowing such a political “blame” letter to be sent. The correspondence
smacks of a repressive and anti-intellectual attitude that can only harm our
efforts to understand the true nature of climate change, both non-human and
human in origin.
Please retract this letter and instead encourage debate and dialogue on
this most important subject for the future of humankind and the environment
Sincerely,
Patrick Moore, PhD
An advisor to government and industry, Dr. Patrick Moore is a co-founder
and former leader of Greenpeace, and chair and chief scientist of Greenspirit
Strategies Ltd. in Vancouver, Canada. http://www.GreenspiritStrategies.com
For further information: Dr. Patrick Moore or Jeremy Twigg, (604)
681-4122 or http://www.GreenspiritStrategies.com
http://www.newswire.ca/en/info/about.cgi
——————————–
Oh my….. :p
Sign In
