The sky-high aircraft and aviation thread

^^ Look on the bright side, it'd be one less problem it has to answer for.

edited 19th Jan '17 7:35:18 PM by MajorTom

AFP: Fly at supersonic speeds and throw water melon seeds out the window at targets.

It's a textbook case of it. We've spent 25 years investing in it, funding it, and distributing the logistics base across 16 countries, and yet because the possibly final product we see is massively underwhelming we can't cancel it because no alternatives?

Textbook Sunk Cost Fallacy.

Name one successful design that has taken 20+ years to go from drawing board to acceptance and thus mass production.

Tom: No it isn't textbook sunk cost fallacy and citing TV tropes page is about the least credible thing you can do and only further proves my point. To make matters worse Tom even using Tv Tropes cliff notes variation it still is not a sunk cost fallacy. You really have no clue how to accurately apply it at all and are still trying to badly shoe horn it into a bad argument with no legs, yet again. You clearly don't know what you are talking about which should be your catch phrase at this point. Contrary to your grossly inaccurate personal assessment, the F-35 and all its attached programs have been examined in terms of continuing the program, its possible costs and the possible costs of stopping it. In fact this program far above others has been scrutinized in extensive detail far beyond pretty much any other program out there. Amazingly the actual people with responsibility to make decisions have yet to agree with your point and insist it goes forward. It might be because Tom they are using the facts not some blindly entrenched notions that will invariably be attached to "the good ole days" that you constantly espouse without a thought.

That the costs in just about every regard has been studied for the program is patently and rather unambiguously clear by the actual official assessments. Which in quite droll fashion you can't ever be bothered to read or acknowledge the facts and details. Pretty much every single time without fail. Really 3 seconds to debunk that bit of sloppy argument and I would almost bet big money you will try and cling to it still or will bring it up again in the not so distant future.

Oh and for the craft with amazingly long development cycles. F-117 from first requirement to first accepted craft 20+ years give or take a year for the parts that are still classified. B-2 Spirit same thing. F-22 same thing. Oh and all of those craft's development didn't end at acceptance or initial start of production either a fact you can't ever seem to wrap your head around. Something else of note. Those are some of the US's most sophisticated craft to boot. The fact that development doesn't stop at manufacture and seldom has by the way applies to a multitude of even older craft. Yet another fact you refuse to acknowledge. Then again you have constantly and repeatedly shown a deliberate unwillingness to accept or even address facts and reality and that will not change in the foreseeable future.

edited 19th Jan '17 8:43:21 PM by TuefelHundenIV

I need to find the source agian, but apparently after you train a bit the UCAV can out fighter a fighter, it is true it has latency yes, but the thing is without the flesh sack in side it, it can pull a MUCH higher g-load and do maneuvers a traditional fighter wouldn't even dream of.

You just need an operator that can deal with the latency.

Edit: Maneuverability Augmentation System for Tactical Air Combat Simulation, A fire-bee drone proceeded to kick the asses of multiple F-4 phantoms because it could pull and MAINTAIN constant 6g, preventing the Phantoms from ever getting a lock.

I cant find the original documentation, but I have found multiple articles mentioning it including Popular Mechanics, which AFIAK is reliable?

edited 20th Jan '17 1:17:03 AM by Imca

Immy: Pop Mech is usually pretty good. Combine that with the AI for dog fighting. Good find Immy.

As for that example i wonder if they were having to use a relay or used the long range LOS controls which were commonly used for recon missions and EW work with those drones. If not they had a chase craft that they controlled the Firebees from. Regardless though that is pretty impressive combat capability in terms of dog fight maneuvering.

I also found this with a quick poke around. "UCAV – THE NEXT GENERATION AIR-SUPERIORITY FIGHTER?" BY MAJOR WILLIAM K. LEWIS

A quick extract relative to Immy's post.

Honestly I think the things would make superb carrier aircraft myself, even without this itself.

Drones tend to be smaller, and less space hogging then traditional fighters, which means a carrier with an all drone compliment could probably be smaller itself... Combined with the fact that carriers usually have a fairly significant communications suite any way because they often function as flag ships, and it just strikes me as the perfect match.

Would the drones being smaller mean they could stop easier? I am not entirely sure, but I do think it would mean you would need a less beefy and thus cheaper catapult as well to get them off an even smaller ship.

edited 20th Jan '17 1:45:32 AM by Imca

The new tentative budget and recommendations for military spending is out. This is the early recommendation so it is subject to change and the whims of politics.

It is looking at big funding for lots of military aviation and related fields.

For the Navy the acceleration as much as possible of the F-35C acquisition, continuing a mixed technology fleet with more Super Hornets and Growlers, recommendation of purchasing the MQ-25 for tanker and intel missions but also development of a strike drone for long range penetration missions. Also creation of smaller conventional power carriers ideal from converted big deck amphib ships to do "day to day" missions like CAS, Sea Lane Control, COIN, etc. with cheaper craft.

Also funding to restock munitions but also suggesting funding for new munitions for long range air to air, anti-surface, and anti-shipping. This includes funding for the hypersonic cruise missile.

For the Marines a suggestion to find a solution to their current air fleets maintenance issues to buy time to field replacement craft. I have feeling the USMC may have no choice but to take on some Super Hornets. A recommendation to increase the purchased number of F-35 B for the corps. Also recommendations to help expedite the acquisition of the CH-35K helicopter and KC-130J tanker and support aircraft.

The USAF would get a big boost with increased combat squadrons alone. Also a suggestion to field low cost systems for low threat environments. A recommendation to develop a new long range craft capable of penetration missions possibly in a UCAV form in the future. A replacement for the F-22 saying that while impressive it's technology is dated and it is not feasible to restart production to up the crafts numbers and recommends development of a new craft. Sustaining and putting improvements into the F-16 and F-15 for more common use instead of the more expensive Gen 5 craft. Suggested improvements include teaming capabilities with drones.

They will maintain the A-10 but it is recommended that they acquire several hundred cheaper light attack craft for the same missions in permissive environments. They would be cheap and a way to train or keep trained USAF fighter pilots. Also expanding pretty much all of the air forces support craft including cargo lift. Pushing emphasis on restocking expended munitions but also development of new munitions just like the Navy.

Missile Defense will get a boost and development recommendations as will space based funding in general.

A replacment for the F-22 but no dedicated heavy CAS replacment for the A-10? Really?

As much as that thing is defended, it could really use some new engines, and new bodies at this point, just keep the GAU-8 and every one would be happy.

edited 21st Jan '17 12:32:53 AM by Imca

The role the A-10 was made to fill doesn't really exist anymore is the problem.

It's current job can easily be fulfilled just as well with a Reaper drone.

Then why not stuff a GAU-8 in a drone.

Its not just the role alone, its also the morale that massive beast of a canon provides, either making or breaking it.

edited 21st Jan '17 12:38:55 AM by Imca

Cause the GAU-8 is useless. Sure it looks super cool but it can't kill modern tanks. And the stuff it can kill can also be killed by the Vulcans we put in everything else.

Gar, your looking at it soley from a damage done standpoint, you cant do that.

War is won or lost on morale, breaking the enemies will to fight is just as effective as killing them, and making your troops feel like there powerful does affect there effectiveness.

I'm not sure the morale boost is worth the cost though.

You don't want the A-10? Give them over here. I'm sure the British Army would be delighted to get much better CAS assets than they currently have access to.

And everyone seems to forget that the primary weapons of the A-10 aren't its seven barrels of 30mm righteousness - they're the Mavericks and other missiles/bombs the thing carries.

Its a gun, the whole thing put together probaly costs less then the missile loadout on the aircraft which is only good once.

Not really, I do realize that it is, but it is, but those aren't really used for soft targets, which is the things primary role any more.

The problem with the GAU-8 is cost and weight.

A mission load of 30mm rounds can cost more and a PGM and isn't anywhere as near accurate and doesn't have the range to ensure the aircraft won't be harmed by someone who slapped a AA gun on the back of a truck or is holding a MANPAD. The gun plus ammo themselves weight like a handful of weapons that would do the same job.

Morale impact of the weapon is questionable at most and if the reports are to be believed the Reaper drones are just as scary because they don't give the enemy time to seek cover, thus create an entire feeling of paranoia and dread. Because with an A-10 you can take out a few targets and the rest can scatter to cover, with an drone you can target all of them almost simultaneously without giving them enough time to react.

Besides the A-10 isn't really using its cannon that often, most of the times it is dropping the few GB Us it can carry and Maverick missiles on their targets.

The problem with the A-10's role as a missile/bomb truck is that it then has to compete with everything else capable of being a missile/bomb truck. Which usually can get on target faster or have the speed to avoid sticking around too long should the opposing forces have air superiority.

You know what would give me a warm fuzzy in a firefight? The baddies shooting at me getting killed. I don't really care if that happens with a precisely delivered 40mm grenade or with God's own penis compensation device. If "warm fuzzies" are literally your only justification for keeping the Avenger cannon, then by all means, cut them all up to make razors for the troops to shave with.

Now there are some good arguments for using gun for CAS/COIN missions. High accuracy gun platforms have a fairly small foot print in general and are effective against a reasonably wide range of targets. However you don't need the GAU-8 to do that. We have covered this before in fact.

The GAU-8 was designed along a false premise. That is that medium caliber guns are effective anti-tank platforms when mounted on aircraft. That premise is from early bad data days of WWII including dubious German and American pilot claims that were pretty thoroughly debunked by BDA teams.

The GAU-8's weight is in part because it has 2 meter plus long barrels to accelerate the 30mm projectile to its muzzle velocity for kinetic effect. Those barrels add a lot of weight. You can get comparable muzzle velocity, effective ranges, and max ranges out of other weapons. For example the GAU-12/U which uses some limited technology developed off of the GAU-8 to begin with. The gun has been mounted on both Harrier II's and AC-130U craft and by all reports did pretty well. They even developed a version for use as ADA weapon on LAV-25 ADA Variant. They even hammered out a variant that could possibly have replaced the 20mm defensive guns on ships before they went to the remote 25mm stations. It was cheaper to use the Bushmasters 25mm IIRC so that was chosen instead.

They did more work on the GAU-12 making the GAU-22/A a lighter and more accurate version of the GAU-12/U. That weapon is for use initially in the F-35 craft. Even better the same company that made the Raufoss MK-211 .50 BMG round is making the ammo for the GAU-22/A. PGU-47 Armor Piercing High Explosive Incendiary-Traced 25mm Cartridge

We know the heavier version works on aircraft so it is not unreasonable to assume the GAU-22/A could be fitted to other craft. Lighter auto-cannon weapon with a new MP ammo sounds like it might be a winner.

Another option was the gun armed version of the OV-10 Bronco. The 20mm does the same job and allows you to pack in a fair bit of ammo into a small space. The system even being Vintage Vietnam era tech was pretty accurate and used advanced night fighting kit at the time.

Basically there are reasons to have guns for CAS/COIN operations but we don't actually need the GAU-8 to do them. Short of the heavy APC's even a 20mm can do a number on armored vehicles less protected than a tank.

edited 23rd Jan '17 4:13:09 PM by TuefelHundenIV

To be fair, the GAU-8 worked against those early T-54/55s and even did a good number on T-64s. And of course ate BMPs for breakfast

I had always heard that originally the A-10 was made to make these heroic passes on advancing Soviet armored columns, desperately trying to buy time for the West Germans while diving back into clouds of Shilka fire and soaking it all up trying to make just one more pass.

But then the whole MANPAD thing happened and later model T-64s were made and suddenly the A-10 couldn't do anything unique at all.

edited 21st Jan '17 12:25:14 PM by LeGarcon

MANPADS. The S is a part of the name, not a plural S.

Septimus: It is safe to leave in or out the S is not essential. Man Portable Air Defense MANPAD still works to accurately describe the type of weapon.

Garcon: Maybe against a T-54/55 but they had notably reduced efficacy against even the T-62.

If you go by the A-10 colouring book the A-10 could not do a frontal pen at all. Side pen against the hull only at less then Km no quartering shots possible to the sides. The only angle it got any decent range against was the rear of the T-62. Basically A-10's would have to fly well into SHORAD envelopes to try and get behind T-62's for longer ranged shots or risk a shorter ranged shot with no quartering against the hull side. Now imagine the T-64, T-72 that they updated for the front line, or even the T-80.

As for missiles the Russians had been fielding light weight SHORAD missile platforms since the late 60's. By the time the A-10 was introduced the Russians were on 2nd Generation light weight SHORAD platforms. The A-10 would have been flying into the teeth of a mixed gun/missile ADA element covering Rifle and Tank armored groups. The standard mix for an ADA unit was four Shilka and four missile vehicles. That isn't even touching on troops with MANPAD arms. It would have not gone easy for the A-10. We know for a fact those light weight missiles can bring down A-10's from experiences in Desert Storm. They also are believed to be behind the downing of an AC-130H which by the way was also an armored aircraft in a CAS role.

edited 21st Jan '17 12:58:19 PM by TuefelHundenIV

And the A-10 is redundant when you have the "Sensor Fused Weapon" - smart cluster bombs that send projectiles into the backs of enemy tanks. Not to mention anti-tank cluster bombs and better missiles.

The Warsaw Pact SAM belt was the reason the F-117 and latter the F-22 were conceived: given the heavy losses in Vietnam, the USAFE saw 50% losses as a good day.

Tuffle is right - the GAU-8 is a Cold War relic. There are lighter guns for CAS/COIN. And in permissive airspace, you want a low, slow prop-plane, a "Sandy" for the 21st century.

Now if Congress can force this down the jowls of the Chair Force.

edited 22nd Jan '17 10:36:06 PM by TairaMai

BUT MUH SUPERSONIC STEALTH