Hotshot– Is that really helpful (or appropriate) to have a open discussion on a forum about CAS Hotshot? Do you think that Coalition airstrikes are not killing people too?
Of course the coalition air strikes cause some casualties, but at least we try to do what we can to reduce them. Pilots are sometimes unable to open fire because of rules of engagements, which reduces good opportunities to kill targets.
The Russians on another hand are killing thousands of people without really giving a **** apparently. And they try to give us lessons…
Can’t stand them!!
Anyways back on topic.
HotshotYou have to show me what is the cost of GAU-8 ammo first.
Just as the accuracy of any gun operations depends on the pilot, so does the S-8/13 Rockets. The Russian seems to have got the job done in Syria would you not say?
BS. The gun is inherently more accurate than any rocket, cut the ****.
The situation in Syria is not stabilized yet, and how many civilians have been killed by russian unguided bombs? What a ********** shame…
And you do not fire that gun in any Urban area if you are considering avoiding collateral damage, so pls stop that ****ty US P-ganda that US being so much better.
There are 1000’s of unreported US airstrike tha last few years.. i wonder why.
US and allied planes use mostly guided bombs. I am not against the idea of a CAS plane using unguided rockets, but only when there is limited risks to civilians, other than that the gun is the best option in terms of cost effectiveness. As for the US they use the SDB for lower lethality in urban warfare when possible. They’ve even designed a version with smaller warhead:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/sdb-flm.htm
The Russians don’t give a **** about collateral damage, bunch of a$$holes…
HotshotI witnessed some of the F-16 30mm gun pod testing. It wasn’t encouraging because fuselage/pylon deflection caused excessive dispersion of the burst.
Maybe they should have modified the F-16 more to give it a chance to succeed for CAS. Like different centerline attachements to be able to carry the gun pod effectively, and maybe larger wings with more pylons for weapons and better maneuvrability at low altitude. Maybe with larger wings it would have behaved more like an F-18, so that variant would still have had significant a2a capability..
HotshotVery effective..? Very effective compared to what?
Very cheap compared to what?I seriously doubt its cheaper and more effective against any one of these weapons systems:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-8_rocket
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-13_rocket
The GAU-8 is a monster on both size and weight. There are so many limitions with mounting this gun on other platforms. Its a big no-no.
And the ammo for GAU-8 is not cheap at all. What other weapon system use the same ammo? Does the Navy use it? Does the army use it?
So you end up with producing ammo rounds for the quite limited array of guns only used on A-10. I’m not sure about the gun on Apache, but i would be surprised its the same type of ammo.
The GAU-8 is far more accurate than non guided rockets, so it reduced collateral damage. But of course we know that the Russians don’t give a flying ******* about collateral damage.
And any guided munition would cost way more than a gun burst.
HotshotSorry that I was not clear enough and was referencing old info. While the laser does some leading, the weapon has to be able to constantly change it’s angle of attack to keep up with the new point of impact. The spec calls for a 70mph (112kph & constant velocity) target. The spec also refers to Block3F in which the EOTS laser will meet the full spec. I’m not even sure if Block3i requires moving target designation but I’d have to look that up.
Not sure what you mean by that, the report says that block 3F won’t have lead laser guidance:
Lead-laser guidance is currently not planned for Block 3F.
The pilots will have to resort to doing it manually, and apparently even at that it won’t be that easy due to the was the interface is designed:
Instead, F35 pilots can only use basic rules-of-thumb when attempting to engage moving targets with the GBU-12, resulting in very limited effectiveness. Also, limitations with cockpit controls and displays have caused the pilots to primarily use two-ship “buddy lasing” for GBU-12 employment, which isn’t always possible during extended CAS engagements when one of the aircraft has to leave to refuel on a tanker.
The GBU-12 can probably hit slow moving targets, and its relatively large warhead will help. Hard to say what would be the speed at which it becomes a problem.
HotshotThe spec is for 70mph moving target capability and the GBU-12 simply cannot do that. The weapon needs to properly lead the target and be able to change direction as needed (per the .2g @ 40mph spec).
The laser never “leads” the target, it’s up to the weapon to lead the target based on speed, angle of attack, altitude, etc.
Well the report doesn’t say that:
Limited capability to engage moving targets. Even though the Block 3i F-35A does not have a functioning gun, it can carry the GBU-12 laser guided bomb which can be used against moving targets. However, Block 3i does not have an automated targeting function with lead-laser guidance (i.e., automatically computing and positioning the laser spot proportionately in front of the moving target to increase the likelihood of hitting the target) to engage moving targets with the GBU-12, like most legacy aircraft that currently fly CAS missions. Lead-laser guidance is currently not planned for Block 3F. Instead, F35 pilots can only use basic rules-of-thumb when attempting to engage moving targets with the GBU-12, resulting in very limited effectiveness. Also, limitations with cockpit controls and displays have caused the pilots to primarily use two-ship “buddy lasing” for GBU-12 employment, which isn’t always possible during extended CAS engagements when one of the aircraft has to leave to refuel on a tanker.
HotshotKind of strange that the GBU-12 can’t be used for that? Would that suggest that Gilmore was right when he wrote in his report that the F-35 targetting system cannot attack moving targets with LGBs due to a lack of lead capability?
HotshotBearing, yes – but distance?
The bomb could send a signal with a time stamp. If the pane and the bomb clocks are synchronized the plane can know the distance by looking at the time difference – knowing that the signal travels at the speed of light. Problem is the plane wouldn’t have the bearing with a sufficient precision.
HotshotAASM has a way better firing envelope than the GBU12, which means you can fire almost instantly after detecting a target. With GBU12 you need to maneuver, which will make you waste time, esp in a A400M.
You could add some brimstones under the other wing.
AASMs and brimstones are very expensive weapons. It sounds illogical to use guns on one hand to lower the cost per kill and on another hand to use weapons that cost 10 times more than a low cost PGMs. The US bombers have used the JDAM and laser guided bombs successfully, I see no reason why an A400M wouldn’t be able to do the same.
As for the accuracy of the gun, you don’t have to fire all 8 at the same time. And you’d obviously install them on mobile mounts in order to be able to aim them accurately.
Nic
I think the GAU-8s would have to be mounted on a heavy mobile mount like on a CIWS to absorb the vibration. I don’t think that would be that easy. If you use 8 guns that would increase the cost. Maybe you’d be better off with 105mms or single barrel 30mms like on the AC-130.
Another thing is that if you have more cheaper platforms in the air you can have more sensors so you can find more targets. Or maybe your plane could be equipped with a system like gorgon stare with hundreds of cheap cameras. Gorgon stare uses a software that can track a very large number of targets.
HotshotThat is one of the most critical points in the whole complex. The question what are the Combat Controllers allowed to do. And that is much more a cultural / tribal question than a technical question. You don’t need the whole fancy C2 structure if the CC teams are running the show on their own.
If the JTAC could control the fight that would reduce the intermediates and increase the effectiveness.
Aside from that: Precision Fires is not CAS. CAS has a psychological component (I’m being watched …) that precision fires can’t match. And Afghanistan overall is a dangerous to bad example for CAS. For one it was / is a static war (up a mountain, up a valley a few meters, often within walking distance). So precision fires (can) work(s) here. For two it was a services tribal effort to be part of the game, a way to make each weapon system relevant (see using B-2 from out of theatre instead of flooding the country with A-10). A P-47 could do the CAS job in Afghanistan! And it would be right perfect. Real CAS against infantry hasn’t changed since ’45.
Technology increases the possible alternatives to perform CAS so figuring what would be the best way to do it is not obvious.
I think that it’s not because the enemy doesn’t see the CAS plane that he wouldn’t be scared if he knows he can be hit at any time. As an analogy, a 4th gen pilot is probably scared of a stealth plane because he can’t see it.
The enemy infantry will also probably be very scared of the XM-25s. It will be hard to hide from them, especially if they are used in conjunction with micro drones. The fact that it will be almost impossible to take cover is likely to cause panic among them.
HotshotThe Aircraft that guides the bomb would have to be relatively close to have the best accuracy possible for the bomb position and speed.
A stealth aircraft could get close and use its AESA radar to guide glide bomb dropped from further by non stealth planes.
Maybe the bomb could have a cheap IR camera, costing around $1000 or so to lock on the target within a few hundreds meters and correct for a final hit, because I don’t think the bomb would have a very high precision.
HotshotThe GAU8s would all fire on the same side. You’d also want a side looking AESA with GMTI & GMTT and good SAR aperture and a six shot AASM pylon under the wing.
Nic
The AASM sounds too expensive for that kind of target, a GBU-12 can do the job.
One thing I am a bit skeptical about is the accuracy if you fire the gun to the side like that. The gun is particularly useful for danger close situations, so you want to keep the accuracy.
HotshotYes that rate of fire is needed.
Say you stumble upon a concentration of jihadi pickup trucks or of oil trucks. You could set up the geometry of your 8 GAU8 array (say target an area in a square or circular shape or more rectangular and stretched in the case of a convoy for instance according to the concentration configuration) & in a second you’d obliterate a couple soccer field’s worth at once. No time to scatter or run away from the attack as it’s done in a couple second bursts at max. 2 seconds = 1120 30mm shells
Plus just imagine the mere psychological effect… plus the sound from hell.
Also you can add DIRCM & armor it for good measure just in case.
Nic
Sorry but I am still not convinced it would make so much difference if it takes 2 or 8 seconds to wipe out the targets. You would pay an enormous cost to acquire that plane.
In most circumstances the target would not be such a concentrated enemy force, so that much firepower would be a waste.
I don’t think you could use the GAU-8s of the 2 sides at the same time. I doubt the GAUs would be mounted on a system with a large orientation angle like a turret. It would be more like the gun on the AC-130.
Also the plane would need a few GBUs against fortifications and buildings, 4 would be enough I think. The main weapon would be the GAU-8 to save on PGMs.
HotshotWe should buy a few dozen GAU8 and convert a few A400M as gunships with 8 side firing GAU8 in two groups of 4. You could install small synchronized rockets opposite the guns to offset the recoil in order to increase burst lenght. You could add another twin pair on a mobile mount on the rear ramp just in case something is still moving in the area you just mowed down.
At a firing rate of 4200 rpm each a 1 second burst would rain 560 rounds of 30mm goodness on a target area.
Nic
You’re sure that rate of fire is really needed? Why not just fire a longer burst instead. If you use only one GAU-8 you need a much smaller and cheaper plane. Maybe something like an atlantic with one GAU-8 with 2000-3000 rounds instead of the bay for instance.
You could afford a lot more of those, and the cost per flight hour would be a lot less.
As for the recoil, the gun could be mounted near the center of gravity. Maybe as you suggest retro-rockets could help if the recoil has to be countered.
HotshotWhy on the earth would anyone put the A-10 gun on a small CAS platform in the first place??
That gun was not created for fighting cave people in middle-East. End of story.
The gun is very effective for that and inexpensive. In fact, the question is rather why would anyone want to use gun tactics against a high end enemy given that it would be extremely dangerous to do so.
Sign In
