If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#241
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 03:22:08 GMT, Chad Irby wrote:
In article , Mary Shafer wrote: On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 20:46:54 GMT, Chad Irby wrote: Funny, I keep finding quite large ones. Like the Predator, the Darkstar, the Global Hawk, or one of several Russian designs that are basically reworked large cruise missiles or former target drones. Darkstar wasn't that big. I used to see it out on the ramp all the time. It was definitely is T-37 size class at the most. That's pretty small. http://www.fas.org/irp/program/collect/darkstar.htm The Darkstar has a 69 foot wingspan, about twice that of the T-37, and about 50 percent wider than the F-22. I consider that big. Certainly big enough to hit with cannon fire. You wouldn't be comparing it to the F-22 if you'd ever seen it. DarkSpot was really short and thin. Gliders have wing spans bigger than the F-22, too, but no one really compares them. Actually, the DarkStar-glider comparison isn't a bad one, now that I think about it. About the same volume and bulk. Same kind of materials for the airframe, too. Of course you can hit it with cannon fire. You can hit a cruise missile with cannon fire, too. You just have to work at it. I am reminded of the story about the time an ALCM escaped control at EDW. It went into some sort of holding pattern and AFFTC whistled up some armed F-4s from George. They came over and chased it around the sky, as it flew a predictable path without any sort of evasive maneuvering, for about a half an hour. They took a fair number of shots against it and missed it every time. The ALCM finally ran out of fuel and fell out of the sky. This may or may not be true, and accuracy was probably sacrificed for laughs by the third time someone told it, but it was widely accepted at EDW as being a reasonable representation of the events. Maybe you saw a sub-scale prototype? Nope. Mary -- Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer |
#242
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 17:02:23 GMT, Chad Irby wrote:
In article et, "Thomas Schoene" wrote: Chad Irby wrote: In article , Mary Shafer wrote: Darkstar wasn't that big. I used to see it out on the ramp all the time. It was definitely is T-37 size class at the most. That's pretty small. http://www.fas.org/irp/program/collect/darkstar.htm The Darkstar has a 69 foot wingspan, about twice that of the T-37, and about 50 percent wider than the F-22. I consider that big. Sure, the span is twice that of a T-37. But Darkstar was only 15 feet long, which is quite short for a plane of its span, and about half the length of a Tweet. Between those two dimensions, I could certainly understand describing it as "T-37-class." But that certainly does *not* make it too small to shoot down with aerial guns, or everyone would be using T-37s as "gunproof planes." First you have to find it, though. You can't get a guns kill on an airplane you can't find in the sky. Guns kills are close-up kills. The T-37 isn't a low-observables airplane and DarkSpot most certainly was. Actually, it looked like a cross between the B-2 and the U-2; the project team got tired of hearing it called the UB-2 fairly quickly. The Tweet shows up on radar just fine; DarkSpot didn't. You knew, didn't you, that DarkSpot flew out of Dryden? It was housed in the building I worked in and it spent a fair amount of time out on the ramp. I saw it fairly often. Mary -- Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer |
#243
|
|||
|
|||
|
#244
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
Mary Shafer wrote: On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 03:22:08 GMT, Chad Irby wrote: In article , Mary Shafer wrote: On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 20:46:54 GMT, Chad Irby wrote: Funny, I keep finding quite large ones. Like the Predator, the Darkstar, the Global Hawk, or one of several Russian designs that are basically reworked large cruise missiles or former target drones. Darkstar wasn't that big. I used to see it out on the ramp all the time. It was definitely is T-37 size class at the most. That's pretty small. http://www.fas.org/irp/program/collect/darkstar.htm The Darkstar has a 69 foot wingspan, about twice that of the T-37, and about 50 percent wider than the F-22. I consider that big. Certainly big enough to hit with cannon fire. You wouldn't be comparing it to the F-22 if you'd ever seen it. Actually, I have, and it's still really obviously big enough to shoot down with a gun. Of course you can hit it with cannon fire. You can hit a cruise missile with cannon fire, too. You just have to work at it. In visual size, the DarkStar (and most of the other "big" UAVs) are several times the size of a cruise missile, not to mention one-quarter the speed. -- cirby at cfl.rr.com Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations. Slam on brakes accordingly. |
#245
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
Mary Shafer wrote: On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 17:02:23 GMT, Chad Irby wrote: But that certainly does *not* make it too small to shoot down with aerial guns, or everyone would be using T-37s as "gunproof planes." First you have to find it, though. You can't get a guns kill on an airplane you can't find in the sky. Guns kills are close-up kills. Since the whole point of this thread was on missiles versus guns, how in the heck does that help the "missiles only" camp? If you can't find the thing with radar or with your eyes, how are you going to shoot it with a missile? If it's findable with either, then shooting it with a cannon is just gunnery practice... and with that nice big wingspan and slow airspeed, it's going to be easy as hell to shoot. -- cirby at cfl.rr.com Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations. Slam on brakes accordingly. |
#246
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 19:06:28 GMT, Chad Irby wrote:
In article , Mary Shafer wrote: First you have to find it, though. You can't get a guns kill on an airplane you can't find in the sky. Guns kills are close-up kills. Since the whole point of this thread was on missiles versus guns, how in the heck does that help the "missiles only" camp? If you can't find the thing with radar or with your eyes, how are you going to shoot it with a missile? That's the point I was making. Little, LO aircraft are maybe not the best example to use in such a comparison. Mary -- Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer |
#247
|
|||
|
|||
Ed Rasimus wrote in message . ..
On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 12:33:04 -0800, Lyle wrote: Ed, What is the difference between direct close airsupport, and close airsupport, or is it just all lumped together and called close air support. Sounds like some sort of semantic argument. I never heard the term "direct close air support" used in any official context. Close Air Support is the employment of tac air assets in direct support of ground units. It would, by its very nature be "direct". The only distinctions I am aware of are between CAS (i.e. hitting the enemy's front line) and BAI (Battlefield Air Interdiction) which is hitting the enemy's assets slightly behind their front line to get supplies, units moving up etc. Of course, since some elements of 'CAS' are now delivered from bombers cruising at altitude, perhaps they've added to the nomenclature! Tony Williams Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk Discussion forum at: http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/ |
#248
|
|||
|
|||
"Brett" wrote in message ...
"Tony Williams" wrote: | | 1. The German Mauser BK 27 was selected by both Boeing and | Lockheed-Martin over the GAU-12/U as the best and most cost-effective | gun for the JSF (documented fact). That isn't a documented fact. The documented fact is that the GAU-12/U has just been selected as the best and most cost-effective gun for the JSF in open competition with the BK 27 (the original selection of the BK 27 in 2000 was not an open competition) by LMT. It's as well documented as the decision to use the GAU-12/U: the source for both being official press statements, placed on the web. You seem to be very selective in the press statements you're prepared to credit. What makes you say that the original decision in favour of the BK 27 wasn't 'in open competition'? It was clear that when Boeing decided in favour of the BK 27 in 1999, the GAU-12/U WAS in the frame, because GD withdrew it from the JSF competition in 2000, just before L-M selected the BK 27 as well (which looks very much like a case of 'resign before you're sacked'). Tony Williams Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk Discussion forum at: http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/ |
#249
|
|||
|
|||
Chad Irby wrote in message . com...
In article , (Tony Williams) wrote: So to sum up, the F-35 will be getting the second-best gun because Mauser's US partners couldn't keep their costs down. No, the F-35 will be getting a gun that's at least as good, because the "cheap" gun wasn't nearly as cheap as we'd been led to believe. This from the Boeing press release in 1999: 'Citing lower costs, greater lethality and improved supportability, The Boeing Company has selected the Advanced 27mm Aircraft Cannon for its next generation JSF combat aircraft.....The gun is also a candidate for the Lockheed Martin version of the JSF...."It's the lightest, most accurate and reliable gun based on our initial studies" said Dennis Muilenburg, JSF weapon system director for Boeing. "Our comparative assessment found the 27mm cannon to be more affordable, more lethal and more supportable than any of its competitors".' Note that cost is only one of the factors mentioned. Words like 'more lethal', 'lightest', 'most accurate and reliable' are in there too. That provides no evidence for claiming that the GAU-12/U is 'at least as good'. Tony Williams Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk Discussion forum at: http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/ |
#250
|
|||
|
|||
"Tony Williams" wrote in message ... Ed Rasimus wrote in message . .. On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 12:33:04 -0800, Lyle wrote: Ed, What is the difference between direct close airsupport, and close airsupport, or is it just all lumped together and called close air support. Sounds like some sort of semantic argument. I never heard the term "direct close air support" used in any official context. Close Air Support is the employment of tac air assets in direct support of ground units. It would, by its very nature be "direct". The only distinctions I am aware of are between CAS (i.e. hitting the enemy's front line) and BAI (Battlefield Air Interdiction) which is hitting the enemy's assets slightly behind their front line to get supplies, units moving up etc. There are two types of CAS--immediate and preplanned. Preplanned icludes CAS sorties integrated into the ground maneuver plan and submitted IAW the ATO. Immediate CAS is not included in the ATO (at least not specifically; CAS sorties can be included in the ATO without specifications, from what I gather, sort of a "CAS reserve") and addresses those situations not foreseen in the planning process. According to CGSC ST 100-3 (1996 edition), immediate CAS provides the commander with flexibility, and can be used to exploit success, reinforce or retain momentum, deal with enemy counterattacks, and provide security. Either Buffdriver or the resident Strike eagle Driver might be able to shed light on any doctrinal changes in the CAS arena that have occurred since the publication of that text. Brooks Of course, since some elements of 'CAS' are now delivered from bombers cruising at altitude, perhaps they've added to the nomenclature! Tony Williams Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk Discussion forum at: http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/ |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
AIM-54 Phoenix missile | Sujay Vijayendra | Military Aviation | 89 | November 3rd 03 09:47 PM |
P-39's, zeros, etc. | old hoodoo | Military Aviation | 12 | July 23rd 03 05:48 AM |