Thread: Ask An Expert- Aviation

Originally Posted by Porsche917LH

Subject fighters: Can A2A missiles ever be employed against ground targets with some effectiveness?

We often wondered about this! The main problems would be the warhead and fusing.

An AIM-9 will easily track a decent IR source, regardless of target velocity. A diesel exhaust from a tank or truck is more than adequate, and the missile would likely guide with no problems so long as the background isn't too hot. With the missile enroute, the next step is fusing. A-A fuses are contact and proximity, and there is no way to select/deselect one. As the missile approaches, its prox fuse will likely be triggered by mother Earth too early to be effective against anything even moderately armored. Thin-skinned vehicles or radar might take acceptable damage, though.

The warhead is optimized for the flying fuel tanks that are airplanes. They deliver large volumes of pyrophoric debris at high velocity, but nothing remotely that might be considered lethal to armor. So you might trash a truck or car, definitely would trash a radar (if you have a heat source to track), but real armor would probably remain unharmed.

AIM-7/AIM-120 - same fusing problems, same warhead problems, but more importantly, no doppler signal. Anything on the ground would be seen as a rock, a tree, and couldn't be tracked to begin with. There is some potential to track RF signals, but that is the realm of HARM and similar.

Subject tiltrotors: Do you ever see tiltrotors supplanting helos and or the ac130 in slow CAS?

This is outside my expertise, but I would have to say no. Tiltrotors combine helicopter and fixed wing functionality, but we already have superb platforms for both when it comes to delivering ordnance. I cannot imagine an Osprey ever coming close to the performance of either an A-10/AC-130, or an Apache, and its unique mechanism makes it a bit more vulnerable than any of the traditional attack assets.

Subject: Ejection seats

What conditions are necessary for one of you guys to attempt punching out. Altitude, attitude, airspeed etc.

Originally Posted by Porsche917LH

Subject: Ejection seats

What conditions are necessary for one of you guys to attempt punching out. Altitude, attitude, airspeed etc.

zero-zero seats can do it sitting on the ground at a dead stop.

YouTube - A-7 Corsair Brake Failure and Zero-Zero Ejection

YouTube - Early zero zero ejection seat

YouTube - ACES II ejection seat test

As long as the seat is not aimed at the ground anyway.

As long as the seat is not aimed at the ground anyway.

To clarify this a bit, even with a good zero-zero seat, the initial vector of the seat + man system must be taken into account. An aircraft in a 40 degree dive at 500 knots will enter a zone where an ejection will not be successful somewhere in the first 1,000' above the ground. Part of ejection training is to arrest this downward vector before pulling the handle; otherwise, all bets are off. But at the core of it, it is true, a good zero-zero seat would allow you to eject from a parked aircraft and walk away.

Flail injuries are another matter. High-speed ejections are extremely dangerous, almost guaranteed to produce severe injuries.

Interestingly, I have a sister-in-law who worked for years on egress systems for the U.S. Navy. She said that Soviet/Russian seats are significantly better/safer than Western seats like the ACES II and Martin-Baker.

Originally Posted by Chogy

To clarify this a bit, even with a good zero-zero seat, the initial vector of the seat + man system must be taken into account. An aircraft in a 40 degree dive at 500 knots will enter a zone where an ejection will not be successful somewhere in the first 1,000' above the ground. Part of ejection training is to arrest this downward vector before pulling the handle; otherwise, all bets are off. But at the core of it, it is true, a good zero-zero seat would allow you to eject from a parked aircraft and walk away.

Flail injuries are another matter. High-speed ejections are extremely dangerous, almost guaranteed to produce severe injuries.

Interestingly, I have a sister-in-law who worked for years on egress systems for the U.S. Navy. She said that Soviet/Russian seats are significantly better/safer than Western seats like the ACES II and Martin-Baker.

The current Russian seats have a sheild that pops up. Although the US does hold the speed record for ejection- mach 3.5 at 80,000' from a M-21. One of the crew survived, one drowned on landing.

Wow. Was that where the drone whacked into the mothership?

Hypothetical here: You lose all control surfaces. (who knows why) as an A10 driver and are at a typical attack altitude flying inverted in a slow roll. Are you screwed?

Oh yeah: When do you guys prefer being called a driver vs. a pilot. Kind of confuses me.

Originally Posted by Porsche917LH

Wow. Was that where the drone whacked into the mothership?

I can actually answer this one (finally!): yes, it was the last launch of a D-21 drone from an M-21 "mothership" at M3.5. The D-21 porpoised at release, and took out one of the vertical stabs on the M-21. As you can imagine, instability set in rather quickly, and both the pilot and the LSO elected to eject. Both survived the ejection at M3.5 and 80K but, as zraver mentioned, the LSO drowned after landing in the ocean. After that, Clarence "Kelly" Johnson cancelled all further D-21/M-21 drone flights, and all futher D-21 launches were made from modified B-52's.

Originally Posted by Porsche917LH

Hypothetical here: You lose all control surfaces. (who knows why) as an A10 driver and are at a typical attack altitude flying inverted in a slow roll. Are you screwed?
.

Not necessarily, both the ACESII and the latest Martin Baker seats can eject inverted down to as low as 200ft. No idea how they achieve this as it obviously involves reorienting the seat and giving a boost to gain altitude. Got to be one heck of a ride.

Regards

Arty

opsec questions are not allowed.

Originally Posted by Porsche917LH

Subject fighters:
Are there any instances of aircraft surviving direct hits with missiles. How likely is this?

My own airline has classified the answer as business confidential, but I have an open source that says the answer is 42 civilian aircraft have been hit by missiles fired from the ground (mostly MANPADS) and 29 of them destroyed. Roughly 69% of hits kill the civilian aircraft. The source, the FBI, is comprehensive from 1978 - 2000. No comment on how my airline's security department views the study.

Welcome back, Commander, welcome back. Do you want us to merge with your all account?