Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Random Thoughts on the Mighty Hog - Part 2

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Gun Grape View Post
    Actually the c-130 did 29 touch-and-go landings, 21 unarrested full-stop landings, and 21 unassisted takeoffs at gross weights of 85,000 pounds up to 121,000 pounds.

    As far as "Unique to the A-10" they must only talking about USAF planes. Or they forgot Harriers operating during ODS from a soccer stadium. Or F-18s operating from the austere/Expeditionary landing field at 29 Palms during just about every CAX since the 90s.
    1) One crew (pilot Lt. James A. Flatley III) flying one C-130 (actually a slightly modified KC-130F - BuNo 149798) indeed successfully negotiated 29 touch-and-go landings, 21 unarrested full-stop landings, and 21 unassisted takeoffs at gross weights of 85,000 pounds up to 121,000 pounds.

    2) As far as the F/A-18 is concerned, I'd be delighted to see any pic showing either take-off or landing from a sand strip like the A-10 does in the clips posted earlier (and the pics posted below).

    3) Once again, the Hog does it on a regular basis (different planes, different pilots, different units) :

    2014 : 104th Fighter Squadron (source)

    Click image for larger version

Name:	A-10-landing-on-sand.jpg
Views:	2
Size:	110.4 KB
ID:	1471945

    2011 : 104th Fighter Squadron again (source)

    Click image for larger version

Name:	Touchdown.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	67.8 KB
ID:	1475613

    Click image for larger version

Name:	NVG-taxi.jpg
Views:	2
Size:	141.3 KB
ID:	1475614

    Comment


    • Originally posted by ArmchairGeneral
      Yeah, it must be nice to have an inch of titanium surrounding you.
      1) Compared with RHA (MIL-A-12560), Titanium (Ti-6Al-4V, MIL-A-4607) has a Mass Efficiency of 1.5.

      2) A 1-sqm titanium plate with a thickness of 1" thick titanium (i.e. 2.54 cm) is 114.3 kg (1 sqm = 10,000 cm^2 @ 2.54 cm = 25,400 cc @ 4.5 g/cc = 114,300 g = 114.3 kg).

      3) Given a Mass Efficiency of 1.5, 114.3 kg of Titanium is ballistically equivalent to 171.5 kg of RHA.

      4) Given a density of 7.86 g/cc, 171.5 kg of RHA represents a volume of 21,820 cc, meaning that a 1-sqm RHA plate is 2.182 cm thick, i.e. 0.86".

      Whatever the actual titanium thickness might be, you have to figure out the equivalent RHA thickness to assess the ballistic protection provided by the bathtub.
      Last edited by SW4U; 09 Dec 17,, 02:23.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Shipwreck
        Originally posted by M21Sniper
        The reason the A-10 has a tactical advantadge with it's gun is not just because it's more powerful, but also because it's shooting down whereas the enemy AAA piece is shooting up. Obviously that translates to a huge increase in retained energy at any given range for the A-10s rounds.
        That actually translates into a higher relative IV versus the ground target, which admittedly slightly increase the *nominal* range. It has no impact on velocity retention which depends primarily on the characteritics of the projectile and the resistance it encounters during its trajectory.
        1) A speed of 350 knots adds 180 m/s to the muzzle velocity, i.e. an 18% increase which is anything but a marginal improvement. It certainly gave the Hog an appreciable edge over land-based AAA, until advanced ammunition became available for some Soviet-era guns.

        2) For instance, there's an increasing number of suppliers offering APFSDS-T or FAPDS-T for the popular 23x152mm caliber (ZU-23-2, ZSU-23-4).

        3) Compared with the traditional API-T (BZT), these modern rounds offer two benefits :

        a) increased muzzle velocity : from 970 m/s to 1,170 m/s.

        b) improved ballistic coefficient (due to the combination of increased sectional density & better drag coefficient), which results in better velocity retention.

        Furthermore, FC improvements (either EO/IR or radar) from a wide number of suppliers allows Soviet-era AAA to make the most of these new ammunitions.

        This certainly reduces the edge the Hog had over these weapons in the past.
        Last edited by SW4U; 09 Dec 17,, 03:12.

        Comment


        • From OPERATION DESERT STORM Evaluation of the Air Campaign http://www.gao.gov/archive/1997/ns97134.pdf

          From Pg 36 ..... Other operating decisions were also taken to increase survivability. For example, after two F-16 losses on day three in the Baghdad area, the Air Force ceased tasking large package daylight strikes of F-16s against metropolitan Baghdad targets. Similarly, after A-10 attacks on the Republican Guard, during which two aircraft were hit while operating at lower altitudes, the A-10s were ordered to cease such attacks. Instead, much higher altitude attacks by F-16s and B-52s, with unguided bombs,
          were used. (See apps. II and III.)

          Pg 79 ...A-10 Target search and detection sensor Infrared and electro-optical Prewar description of target-sensing capability(Maverick) Day and night capable; “adverse weather” (Maverick) Our findings on Desert Storm actual
          capability
          Clear weather only for guided (Maverick) and unguided munitions; Clear weather only; Clear weather only for guided (Maverick) and unguided munitions; flew day and night.

          Pg 94... 6 A-10's lost (IR SAM) 14 Damaged [3 (IR SAM) 11(AAA)] .... If we sum the losses and damage by cause, portable IR SAMs accounted for 31 percent of the total casualties, and AAA accounted for 38 percent—

          Pg 106 ...A total of 20 A-10s was hit during the war—nearly 25 percent of all aircraft casualties.

          On of my co workers flew A-10's and F-16's for the Wisconsin Air National Guard. yes they flew off unpaved surface because they could but it a very special perk to check off the I've done it list.. Kind a because we can do it. They don't fly off sand, look at the video that is hard packed dense dirt. There nothing on the nose wheel to prevent FOD from being thrown up in the engines. Dust is hell on turbines. To operate off dirt you still need all the same support logistic capability as pavement. Pavement doesn't stop ops when the rain soaks the dirt. A-10 great aircraft to fly and shoot the gun awesome, but if he went to war his choice would be in the F-16

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Dazed View Post
            They don't fly off sand, look at the video that is hard packed dense dirt. There nothing on the nose wheel to prevent FOD from being thrown up in the engines. Dust is hell on turbines.
            Below is a short paragraph of an article authored by Kris Osborne @ Scout Warrior :

            The engines of the A-10 are mounted high so that the aircraft can land in austere environments such as rugged, dirty or sandy terrain, Haden* said. The engines on the A-10 are General Electric TF34-GE-100 turbofans.

            I’ve seen this airplane land on a desert strip with the main gear buried in a foot of sand. On most planes, this would have ripped the gear up, but the A-10 turned right around and took off,” he added.

            * A-10 pilot Lt. Col. Ryan Haden, 23rd Fighter Group Deputy, Moody AFB

            Comment


            • Originally posted by SW4U View Post
              Below is a short paragraph of an article authored by Kris Osborne @ Scout Warrior :
              We're two guys who will never touch the controls of nor would we ever be allowed to have anything to do with the operation of the A-10 or the USAF. Fanboy pride

              Not that it has anything to do with it, but I have flown off of dirt delivering equipment to energy producers in the in the US and Canada. The A/C was STC to 19000lbs and they put a gravel sweep on the nose strut to prevent FODing the engines. Once in Canada I went off the designated operating error and buried the main while taxing. The right Garret screamed but I wasn't going anywhere. There was an armed response, in case of bears. I got a lot of ridicule for that.

              The A-10 in the article did it just decide to do a touch and go in the middle of the desert? If it buried a main the pilot would know. The world is slightly slanted the aircraft yaws to to one side and no matter how much differential braking /tiller/rudder input and asymmetrical trust is applied the aircraft will not track straight

              I don't deny they fly off dirt, but can the fuel and ordnance vehicle operate off the sand? The logistics become more difficult. I know about the placement of the engines but they would most be likely be vacuuming sand if the pilot tried to power out of it.

              Don't worry I wasn't there and the US DOD doesn't ask the ole Dazed for his input. I will leave you with this A-10 story by the daughter of the former Mayor of San Jose. https://www.aircraftresourcecenter.c.../story0016.htm

              Comment


              • Originally posted by SW4U View Post
                Below is a short paragraph of an article authored by Kris Osborne @ Scout Warrior :
                I failed to see any military significance of landing in a desert. Without a major logistical effort, you will not be able to re-arm and re-fuel. And if you are going to put in that kind of effort, you might as well get the engineers to pave a proper runway with quick drying cement to receive cargo planes to get your supplies in to refuel and rearm these birds.
                Chimo

                Comment


                • Originally posted by WABs_OOE View Post
                  Without a major logistical effort, you will not be able to re-arm and re-fuel.
                  Click image for larger version

Name:	reservoir-helitransportable-132.jpg
Views:	2
Size:	78.6 KB
ID:	1475621

                  Click image for larger version

Name:	size0-army.mil-64045-2010-02-11-140253.jpg
Views:	3
Size:	39.4 KB
ID:	1475622

                  Click image for larger version

Name:	1024px-Marine_CH-53E_Super_Stallion_(2164136649).jpg
Views:	2
Size:	78.0 KB
ID:	1475620
                  Last edited by SW4U; 10 Dec 17,, 17:58.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by WABs_OOE View Post
                    And if you are going to put in that kind of effort, you might as well get the engineers to pave a proper runway with quick drying cement to receive cargo planes to get your supplies in to refuel and rearm these birds.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by SW4U View Post

                      [ATTACH=CONFIG]45001[/ATTACH]

                      [ATTACH]44999[/ATTACH]
                      Nice pictures of both the US Army and the USMC setting up a Forward Arming and Refuel Point (FARP).

                      Show a picture of the USAF doing it in an austere location. I think Desert One left a bad taste in their mouth

                      Comment


                      • Apropos of nothing but the USAF operates C-130s off of ice all of time. During the Cold War, SAC practiced rearm & refuel of B-47s off the ice in Greenland, etc. A couple of C-124s would fly in with CL I, III & V as well as mechanics and CL IX. My old boss' dad was a crew chief and command chief master sergeant of a B-47 squadron 1952-1958. He had tons of stories doing that. Heck, Jimmy Stewart did it!

                        And FYI, most of the those last photos are FAARPs being set up for rotary, not fixed wing, aircraft.
                        “Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
                        Mark Twain

                        Comment


                        • What, No Class VI?

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by SW4U View Post
                            How many of those landings and take offs can you do before that drybed becomes unusable?
                            Chimo

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Gun Grape View Post
                              Nice pictures of both the US Army and the USMC setting up a Forward Arming and Refuel Point (FARP).

                              Show a picture of the USAF doing it in an austere location. I think Desert One left a bad taste in their mouth
                              1) The RH-53D used for Eagle Claw were USN, not USAF.

                              2) As you may know, the USAF doesn't operate H-47s or H-53s.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Albany Rifles View Post
                                Apropos of nothing but the USAF operates C-130s off of ice all of time. During the Cold War, SAC practiced rearm & refuel of B-47s off the ice in Greenland, etc. A couple of C-124s would fly in with CL I, III & V as well as mechanics and CL IX. My old boss' dad was a crew chief and command chief master sergeant of a B-47 squadron 1952-1958. He had tons of stories doing that. Heck, Jimmy Stewart did it!

                                And FYI, most of the those last photos are FAARPs being set up for rotary, not fixed wing, aircraft.


                                Three F-22 Raptors receive fuel from an MC-130J Commando II tanker during a Forward Arming and Refueling Point (FARP) operation.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X