Close air support at its finest, from the squaddie's perspective
 

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=0b5_1...9&c=1#comments


Incredible video of how A-10s are snuggling up to Royal Marines to fight the obnoxious Taliban.

A-10 = CLOSE Air Support.

More close air support, this time from Apaches. Fireworks for the new year.


http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e46_1199008814

Like the way everything goes from laughs an mickey taking and 'yeah were cool', to PULL BACK, PULL BACK and 'christ I nearly s**t myself' then someone with a stripe or two ordering 'single file and lofty off doubly'.


WOW Like Minded, bet that got your juices flowing didn't it??? Must have reminded you of that horrific action that you witnessed whilst playing the 'Death from above' mission on Call of Duty 4 on xbox. Crikey bet your stare is at least 2000yds long.......

Is there any major difference in the CAS offered by the UK and USA forces in terms of effect (yes the A-10 has a big gun). Would the UK's forces find any greater capability offered by a few A-10s in the inventory for example?

And what will replace it?

In my book this aircraft and the SU25 will always be needed as long as we have troops fighting with rifles,grenades and bayonets. Until we get say a UAV armed with miniguns that can hover with, and close to the troops.

I'd love to find a "guns on aircraft are out of date thread"

Have a look at the early Typhoon threads.:)

Not saying the gun isn't an amazing bit of kit on the A-10, just can't remember if the GR-7/9 ever got the Aden cannons of their predecessors?
I'm making the assumption that the Harrier is the UK's main CAS aircraft used in theatre which in itself could well be wrong
As for the early Typhoon threads, I'm not sure even the UK's procurement system could get the gun taken out of an A-10.

aaaahhhh....guns on UK combat aircraft, and lack thereof....

GR7 was going to get a 25mm version of the Aden 30mm, but the project got canned in late 90s due to problems with getting gun and pod to work together. Would have been a good weapon, high velocity and very high rate of fire, but it got cancelled along with the Typhoon cannon at the same time - Air Staffs had decided that guns were 'not a viable weapon' (thsi analysis was built around air to air scenarios). Doesn't look so good a decision now, but at the time, it was made in good faith.

IMHO, we will see a comeback for guns as long as we are in the sort of war Afghanistan presents. The debate over guns on the JSF in the States was effectively closed the day the USAF used F-16 guns again in anger against ground targets in Iraq. JSF CTOL variant has a 25mm gatling built in, STOVL has a centreline podded version of the same gun.

Guns
 

Don't know about the gun on the Typhoon, but I can say from first hand observation the 25mm Aden for the Harrier 2 GR5 was binned simply because it didn't work !

I had an irritated reply from one of the 25mm's designers when I mentioned this a while ago, quoting all sorts of record breaking rates of fire etc; well personally I was convinced otherwise by the damage I photographed after test firings, when the thing fired it's own innards at least as far as the shells !

To a simpleton trained in some engineering like me, it seemed they were trying to bypass the simple laws of barrel cooling v. rate of fire & metallurgy.

The GR7/9's - and their colleagues on the ground - deserve to be supplied with the GAU-12 gatling the American AV-8B's use; but that's not politically handy, so the very second best bet is rocket pods...

This is an example of a total lack of balls by RAF senior officers; if a built on gunpod is so difficult ( why not Aden 30mm's, the shape of the gunpod for the GR5 etc is already designed - ? ) or failing that a pylon mounted gunpod off the shelf, which would only require a short trials programme & suitable aiming software.

If aiming software is difficult or expensive, how come that's been chosen rather than a real gun on the RAF's Hawk 128's ?!

"There's one, and the other."

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=cb4_1199400402

Guns - A reply
 

Double Zero,

Some info on the Aden 25 - I was associated with the project, but not clever enough to be a designer. Just to set the record straight....

The Aden 25 was started as a 'cheap' programme to convert the Aden 30 to use the incoming 'standard' 25mm high velocity round. The Aden 30 round was ineffective in the ground attack role, and rate of fire was too slow to give acceptable probability of hit in air to ground. The programme was constrained to use the existing gun pod as far as possible, and also the existing gun mounting points - this was a serious mistake. They were also constrained to use Mauser 27mm barrel forgings.

The Aden 25 was, as you correctly said, a disaster first time around - guns were failing after about 100 rounds due to poor design and incorrect selection of materials. RO were the guilty party.

The MoD switched contractor and gave the guns to a small outfit (AeI) to sort, which they did to very good effect. Final test firings of the gun showed excellent reliability at 1800 rpm, with very low wear on the gun system components (around one tenth of that experienced by the Mauser 27mm, in itself a very good weapon). This was the best performance ever achievd by a mechanically fired weapon (another MoD requirement).

But, the gun pod design had been left to BAE, and the split between gun and pod design was a bad mistake - when the gun got to trials on the aircraft, ammunition feed problems were very common. The team also experienced problems with spent links striking the composite tailplane - not a problem with the tin versions on the GR3. The link collector designed to solve this issue was not at all elegant.

Barrel wear - the Aden 25 designers weren't trying to bypass any laws of physics - had the weapon gone on to service, a burst limiter would have been fitted, like any almost any other cannon firing at over 1500 rpm.

The total spent on developing, building and rebuilding the Aden 25s was about one quarter of the UK share of developing the Mauser 27mm - as ever, you get what you pay for.

I agree that the best way forward from where we are now would be a GAU-12 fit for the GR7/9 - but I suspect that our aircraft would need quite a bit of work to take it - the system needs external power drives and additional hardpoints. Incidentally, the JSF gun is a development of the GAU-12, using the same 25mm round.

Pylon mounted cannon do not have a good track record - add up the various errors and flexures and the chance of hitting the target goes way down - that's why almost all types are fuselage mounted.

Aiming software for a gun is not difficult, and with new sensors (electro optical and millimetric radars), the performance (accuracy, kill probability) can be really good. Apache is a good example of a really effective gun system. It's a shame that the RAF staffs were slow to realise that technology had moved on from the Aden 30 and Mauser 27mm systems.

Hope this helps - as ever, the truth can be complex. Once upon a time the UK had some very talented gun designers and makers - they deserve a fair hearing.

Regards

Engines

All the Typhoons have got guns...not up to A10 spec though unfortunately!

Just to open a can of worms, are the Typhoon guns actually plugged in these days or are they still filling the role of "something gun sized with the same weight distribution to replace the guns taken out in the first place"

I'd love to see a few A-10s in use by the British forces, I'm sure Harrier is great, but it's always struck me as a strange aircraft to be using when there are runways available. If it was me waiting for CAS I'd love the extra fire power and weapons load of the A-10 to support me. From the pilots view an ugly twin engined over engineered aircraft with an armoured cockpit must be prefferable to a composite aircraft such as Harrier or Typhoon. I'm sure greater minds than mine must have thought the issue through

Interesting video, the following. GLMRS (multiple rocket artillery with laser guidance) is now revealed to be as accurate as air dropped laser bombs.


http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=9e5_1199572862


Nothing stings you awake in the morning than going to find out what happened to your insurgent buddy and getting a fussilade of 30mm in the head.

Nostrinian. Kind'a new here, aren't you son?

Seriously, that is a fair point but nobody planned for scrapping with tribesmen in the middle of bum f**k nowhere. Why should they when they were basking in the euphoria of the Cold War peace dividend?

Gi'z a clue; how much do you reckon it would cost at today's prices to build some Tempests or Mustangs?

Something that strikes me from viewing some of that footage ( http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e46_1199008814 frame 00.54, say, or

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=cb4_1199400402 );

how much effort would have gone into positive ID of the terrs?

GBZ

You may have a point there. Not quite sure what part of ROE can be used to justify using a minigun on an apparently unarmed "hoodie" walking past a row of buildings. Can someone enlighten me ?

So we must now ask to see their Al-Queda membership card before we can decide that the guy who has just dropped off 30 RPG rounds to what the locals call a IED factory is a threat?

Just for example, no specific knowledge of that particular "hoodie" involved.

has it ever occurred to you, that this is only a tiny part of a longer video?

that chav in the hoodie has a rifle tucked under his left arm in his jacket, it was observed earlier, which is why his left arm doesn't move.

he was also observed to have placed an IED earlier.

besides he's a chav, which is the most important thing.

".....what part of ROE can be used to justify using a minigun on an apparently unarmed 'hoodie'"

Surely wearing a 'hoodie' is sufficient ID to waste the little $od?

Mind you, a baseball cap on backwards, inflatable crack-dealers' trainers and jeans at half mast would certainly be sufficient corroborating evidence!

An offer of paying some of the costs of the A-10 upgrade in return for a 10 year lease of the aircraft? I'm sure there are a few spare airframes at AMARC that could be added to the program.

Give it 10 years and a couple of blokes in a porta cabin outside of Sandhurst ought to have the gear to do the job with whatever wonderful craft are in developement (still haven't worked out why you can't take the crews out of modern aircraft such as Typhoon and Apache and replace them with 250 kgs of comms and IT gear)

Like Minded,

As I understand the ROE only allows a kill if the player is in the middle of a hostile act. This is why insurgents choose their firing points carefully and then walk away in full view of the place they have just mortared after the dirty deed is done. Or is that only the British ROE ? does the US operate to a different standard ? maybe the UK should too ?

In fact, stretching it a bit further, how about giving the Met police a couple of Apaches on loan :eek: or do you think they would hose down a bus full of Brazilian students by accident ?:E

>> As I understand the ROE only allows a kill if the player is in the middle of a hostile act.


This is not so. Have you never served before? The ROE you mention is only before any hostile act. If after the hostile act and the identified target walks away instead of surrendering, you clamp your jaws around his jugular and shake until his brains fall out.

If not you have a situation akin to the skit from Minister of Silly Walks, really.

Nostrinian,
A valid question which is being asked elsewhere. Firstly, don't be suckered into thinking terry Taliban and his mates don't have access to some pretty decent threat systems. That's why we have to spend a fair bit of cash equipping our helos and mulit engined assets with advanced defensive aids systems (DAS).

Looking specifically at procuring a low cost CAS asset along the lines of a PC-21 or Super Tucano, there is undoubtedly some role for these assets in an Afghan type scenario. Their main limitation is their ability to persist around the battlespace and be retasked quickly.

Having flown in a C2 role over both Afghanistan and Iraq, it was and remains common for assets to be dynamically retasked. For instance, a USAF F-15E may be retasked from providing convoy route overwatch for NATO forces in Northern Afghanistan to providing CAS to UK ground forces in Helmand. Fast jets (even GR9s!) can get there quickly and have the ability to go and tank to maintain persistance.

A PC-21 type would take a lot longer (this is even a problem with the A-10 which would sometimes be overlooked for retasking simply because we knew it wouldn't get to an incident in time), and would be unable to tank. Yes you could fit AAR probes to a wing location but then you'd have to buy some C-130 type tankers which adds to the cost of procurement. It could be argued that the cheaper cost of a PC-21 allows persistence to be obtained by procuring more aircraft. However, to do this you'd need to stick turbo-prop CAS all over the place which is a very uneconomical way to use Air Power (and personnel). Deploy them to FOBs and hold them on GCAS? Trouble is you then immediately increase massively the force protection elements deployed out in the field and create numerous 'tethered goat' targets for the enemy!

Turbo-props also lack the sheer psychological impact of a fast and low 'show of force' which will often avoid the actual employment of weapons, and lack the sensors and payload of most fast jets. The sensor issue is another rarely acknowledged limitation of the A-10 which is a very good clear weather asset but severely limited when the weather clamps in.

In summary, cheap turbo-prop CAS would have some use in a modern COIN campaign, especially in an AFAC or SCAR type role. However, their slow speed and limited payload/sensors in particular limit their value in comparison to a combination of fast air, armed UAVs and AH.

If we were going to spend the cash on anything, a few AC-130s would be of more use. However, they'd be hugely expensive to operate unless we could get some sort of Ro-Ro 'Spooky-lite' capability for our Js.

Cyclone,

Because you'd need a lot more than that to even come close to what a soft pink body or 2 can achieve. The technology is just not mature enough yet.

LM,

Please don't ever stop posting your comments on this board!! I know you're busy at the 'tip of the (combat flight sim) spear' seeing things that 'we can only dream of' but you brighten my day considerably with your descriptions of RoE application and kinematography etc!!!! Priceless!!!:D

Regards,
MM

Magic Mushroom,

Good staff paper on the merits of various types of air power, well explained.

With regards to ROE and " having served before" next comments to Like Minded refers

Like Minded,

Answer to the first question, yes, glad to get that out of the way.

Secondly I didn't want to get in to a complex discussion on ROE as we were apparently bantering, but as you want to;

In the case suggested by me, of the mortar tubes, if you can see them putting bombs in the tubes, or actually ID the tubes (threat) being carried by them, then go ahead. If however you see a bunch of guys moving in to dead ground, experience an indirect attack from that direction and subsequently see the same bunch of guys moving back the other way, you technically should not engage, as you have no way of knowing if they indeed actually were the firing team, if you believe that its OK to take a chance and remove them in that situation, then perhaps ROE should also include provision for the assassination of their known leaders and organisers in their own homes . And yes at times it does appear that ROE are drafted in the Ministry of Silly Walks, which is where IMHO the entire bloody war plan was drafted :ugh:

Related to our exchange on the hoodie friend and the IED, it may be the case that the IED and the weapon were positively identified, but given that he was not an immediate threat, perhaps the option of lifting him for interrogation, or at least trying to, may have been a viable option. Maybe not, who knows, its a snapshot image, and a very dangerous one at that. If we need to kill in that manner, and maybe we do, there is little positive PR to be gained by putting it in the public forum.

Now can we drop the serious sh1t and get back to the banter ? :E

If a german company can make brand new FW190's for a few million a pop then surely we can sort out a few real Typhoons.
Thats a joke comment by the way LM.

The blokes on the ground would be glad of anything with wings and a gun to take the enemies mind of off the situation. Even the Gloster Gladiator at Old Warden. Note that I did not mention the Bleriot and some chap with an old Webley.....that would be plain daft wouldnt it?

MM,

Please explain how the A10 becomes so disadvantaged when the weather clamps in in comparison to say the GR9?

I believe the Women's Auxiliary Balloon Corps are next in line for mobilisation, but that says more about recruitment and manning than it does for their aerial carriages :E

Now now there darling, There's nothing cushy about life in the Womens Auxiliary Balloon Corps.

I would add to MM's point:

A fast jet can do CAS, but a CAS "mudfighter" can't do counterair or air defense. And just because you're not doing the latter today does not mean that you will not do it in the lifecycle of a modern military aircraft.

The A-10C upgrade currently underway adds precision-munition and some bad-weather capability to the already night-attack/LGB equipped A-10 force.

LikeMinded

What does that mean, exactly? Is that an extract from a Guard Commander's brief? If so, which planet?

The decision to return fire depends on a satisfactory answer to three questions;

Is my or my comrades' life in danger?
Is my pension in danger?:)
Are my promotion prospects in danger?

or

Who can afford the best lawyer:ugh:

Foghorn,

I don't believe that I actually compared the GR9 and A-10.

However, the GR7/9 have enjoyed a couple of key advantages over the A-10 for quite a period in that the Harriers have had GPS weapons capability and a data link. In comparison the A-10s only had laser guided weapons which, in many scenarios prevented them dropping through cloud.

The A-10C upgrade aluded to by Green Knight is just starting to reach operational theatres and will add J series weapons to the aircraft as well as the SADL (although some have had a data link for a little while). When added to the already partially fielded and very capable Sniper XR targeting pod, this should address some of the A-10s limitations in terms of all weather capability.

Regards,
MM

Riskman,

I wouldn't take simple-minded too seriously. It is clear by his posts that he is a Jedi Walt of the highest order who has had little if any military service. However, his continued participation on PPRUNE should be encouraged for the following reasons:

1. He causes us all enormous amusement.

2. It means he's not hanging around outside primary schools.

your assertions of American trigger-happiness and lack of IFF is completely wrong. Look at the following video:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=87f_1198860424

where they took extraordinary effort to identify a weapon, call back to the frontline lawyers and allowed a number to get away.

If I were one of the pair of Apache pilots, I would have thumbed the fire button repeatedly in the first few seconds when the truck was trundling along full of insurgents in the back, simply because they have already transgressed the Health and Safety law related to transport.

Boldface,

I apologise unreservedly for having me serious head on. :ugh: I will try to keep things in perspective from now on.;)

Oh my, the Apache is such a sexy beast (like Britney before her brain transplant), that it now has its own music video of its greatest hits.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=fb5_1200009506

Surely, this is a better brochure than any Discovery documentary.

tucanos
 

I may be talking B0ll0k5 here! But im sure a couple of tucanos fitted with some sort of cannons and rockets with chaff and flares should do it. As long as its got a weapon sight and armour.

im sure if p47 and p51s and the good old typhoons and hurricane can do it im sure they can.

im sure the coloumbians have em

http://www.embraerdefensesystems.com...multi_role.asp

heres a link to the tucano web site.

why cant we spend a little money upgrading the tucanos that are in storage already?

im sure it wouldnt be that much.