de4eb9 No.575578
4 × 20 mm (0.79 in) AN/M3 autocannon
15 external hardpoints with a capacity of 8,000 lb (3,600 kg)
She killed commies in Korea
She killed commies in Vietnam
She killed commies in Algeria
I love a girl who is tough, strong, and has one goal: Remove as much fucking ugly reds as possible within a 1,316 mile radius, and you should too.
Dedicated Skyraider appreciation thread. Fellow prop driven attackers are welcome and encouraged to introduce themselves.
f78440 No.575603
>>575578
Criminally underrated thread.
Who would win?
A B-21 Raider or the cost-equivalent amount of the Skyraider?
250218 No.575605
>>575603
>cost-equivalent
You cost equivalent fags always seem to forget that pilots don't grow on fucking trees and modern AA is a hell of a lot more effective than it was in the 40's
f78440 No.575607
>>575605
>pilots don't grow on fucking trees
Too bad because it would make them more familiar with high altitudes and increase their spatial awareness skills.
ec6bb0 No.575608
>>575605
>modern AA
What modern AA?
Those things were retired because they were getting shot down by DshkM today in use in even the poorest terror group, let alone something beefier like a ZPU-2 or technicals favorites like ZU-23-2 or S-60.
The idea to use those for COIN is retarded.
297a6f No.575614
>>575605
Which is why I am wondering why not give P-38 another go?
Oh right. It's a Lockheeb plane.
483c2a No.575615
>>575605
I doubt you would ever use a turbo or regular prop in a situation where the enemy has AA tbh, you would use it to bomb random ragheads on the cheap.
8b6865 No.575620
Why is everyone so set on using a fixed wing aircraft for COIN? Something like the AH-56, hopefully armed with a laser-guided rocket system like the SYROCOT or APKWS, an AGL, and an accurate 30mm gun would seem to be a better choice. It's easier for it to stay on station and watch its area, can carry enough hardware that even if things do heat up beyond what you'd expect from COIN missions it can handle itself, and wouldn't be a specialised system meaning it could be used for general air support etc reducing overall operation, production & procurement costs.
f78440 No.575625
>>575608
The Cheyenne always intuitively looked like bad idea to me. There must be a reason no other attack heli is anywhere near being that slim.
0e2a1b No.575636
>>575605
We lost 100,000 aircraft in WWII. The US army air force USAAF alone had 2.4 million personnel and 80,000 aircraft.
You're telling me that today, given all the modern safety features, with ejection seats and easy ways to find pilots, we can't field a few hundred prop CAS and absorb a few dozen losses?
>pilots don't grow on fucking trees
They do if you make the controls simple enough.
0e2a1b No.575638
>>575614
Modern engines could give it a fuckhuge boost.
P-38's allison engines give it max 1,250 hp at a weight of 707kg. Times two of course. A modern PT6C-67C weighs 188kg while providing 1,679 hp.
Empty weight of P-38 is 5,800 kg, minus the two engines is 4,386kg. Composites can further reduce that by 30% for a total of 3,066kg.
The cannon can also be made about 6x lighter, and the undercarriage reduced in weight, but we won't go into all that since it only saves a few hundred kilos.
Add the new PT6T-6B for a total empty weight of 3,442kg.
Given that the new engine develops over a 1/3 more horsepower, lets assume the weight it can raise in the air is also proportionally larger, from 7,940kg to 10,663kg.
Legacy P-38 original payload (fuel and ammo) was 2,140kg. Modernized P-38 new payload (fuel and ammo) is 7,221kg!
Fuel and ammo weight for the A-10 it's 10,040kg, so the modernized P-38 (MP-38?) still lags behind a bit, the raw power of the turbofan is just unbeatable. But the MP-38 aircraft itself would still be a third of the price of an A-10, in my estimation.
0e2a1b No.575643
>>575620
Helicopters are generally less efficient, and thus have lower loiter times. Look at Ahrlac holdings Ahrlac, it carries more weapons than any modern attack helicopter… now look at its size, weight, range, and speed…
Although a gyro in the cheyenne configuration would improve efficiency a lot over a pure helicopter.
>>575625
It's slim to maximize thrust from the main rotor. If it was fat, the body of the aircraft would block some of the thrust. It always helps me to imagine the rotor as a giant circular wing, a parasol, a parachute…
0e2a1b No.575646
YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.
>>575643
I should say, helicopters come with two stated benefits, the ability to take off vertically and the ability to hover in place.
But when do you really need to take off directly upwards? Even in the most urban or forested scenario, it is possible to find a clearing a hundred meters long, on which something like an Ahrlac can land. In fact google some Alaskan Bush Pilot landings, they carry cargo and can land in under 50m. So the advantage of VTOL is not really needed and this "advantage" can be ignored for military situations.
Next is the advantage of hover…. when does an aircraft need to hover? This is only useful in a single tactic: Popping below and above the tree line, to shoot guided missiles at tanks. It is an ambush tactic only useful in a Fulda Gap scenario, and not in any other warfare scenario in history. Is hovering worth it? You need to make something larger, more expensive, less capable in every dimension, just in order to have hover, for a single combat scenario that can be handled by a crane! In fact the only situation when hovering is useful is in search and rescue, therefore only search and rescue helicopters should be kept.
All attack and transport helicopters should be scrapped and replaced with turboprops.
adb44b No.575650
>>575605
>pilots don't grow on fucking trees
I thought that was where Leaf pilots came from?
>>575620
Range, loiter time, and honestly that's not how fucking attack helicopters work. Last time someone was dumb enough to use helicopters for something like COIN Karbala happened.
Also
>Shilling a Lockheeb product
Come on now.
e94db9 No.575661
>>575608
>What modern AA?
SA-18 and FeiNu-6.
8b6865 No.575662
>>575643
>>575646
>>575650
I stand corrected. The Ahrlac looks pretty awesome, but I can't find any information on confirmed buyers or when it's coming out of development, has AHRLAC published any of that?
b19f78 No.575669
>>575650
>Karbala
>hey guys lets send our helicopters into an urban area
>no don't worry, that's not at all the most dangerous area to send helicopters
>oh also we don't know where the Iraqis are
>lol just have the helicopters look for them when they get there
>don't worry though, we have SEAD on station
>I mean we had it on station three hours ago
>btw, the Iraqis know you're coming
>stick around for the better part of an hour
>still only lose one helicopter in action
I'm forever convinced that Karbala was an attempt to do as many things wrong as possible in one action.
f78440 No.575670
>>575638
Do the Spitfire now!
0e2a1b No.575679
>>575662
It's definitely going to be used by South Africa, and its also being bought in small batches by other countries. Last I heard the Ahrlac entered a competition in America to compete with Tucano and AT6.
http://en.c4defence.com/Agenda/ahrlac-proposes-bronco-ii-for-oax-program/5778/1
It's fairly hard to find that info on the net now because all search engines are either retarded or actively suppressing military news (google).
>>575670
Merlin engine, provides 1,470 hp, weighs 744kg. Spitfire weighs 2,297kg empty, 1,539kg with composites, 795kg without engine.
A PT6C-67A develops 1,940 hp and weighs only 190kg dry. The modern Spitfire would be 985kg empty with new engine, 1688kg loaded with fuel and ammo.
It now weighs less loaded than it used to full, and it has 470 more horsepower in its back pocket.
At ceiling altitude, the old Spitfire is only operating on about 100hp. At same altitude the new Spitfire will have 200hp, and be able to go 10,000ft higher. Although I'm not calculating in the fact that it's lighter, that would be too complicated, but it can only mean improved performance at those altitudes.
In terms of speed it should easily reach ~700km/h, at which point the sweep of its wings will slow it down a lot more than the engine does…
Caveat: I'm not sure that the 30% rule of thumb for composites holds for Spitfire, some parts of it may be nonmetal. Not familiar with design…
0e2a1b No.575680
The british actually designed a turboprop powered modern aircraft called the BAE SABA, it was the only modern turboprop designed for performance. And although their turboprop is still decades behind modern electronically controlled engines, it still traveled at around 825km/h.
In the time it took a helicopter to turn on its axis and meet it, the SABA was designed to shoot it, turn around, and come in again for another pass on the same helicopter (still turning to catch it). The g-forces were in excess of what a modern pilot in a fighter feels.
I can't google it now because when I google bae it shows sluts, and when I google saba it thinks im brazillian, when I put them together it shows me brazillian sluts.
8b6865 No.575681
>>575680
Try searching "BAE Small, Agile, Battlefield Aircraft". It's much harder for a search engine to misinterpret, and it's what the acronym stands for.
297a6f No.575682
>>575638
And it would have two engines. Two obvious downsides that immediately come to mind are that visibility to ground would suck dicks, which could be mitigated to a certain degree with the use of electronics and optics. Another would or might be insufficient armor and countermeasures. Oh, and as a third, lack of proper air-brakes but who needs those nowadays.
>>575680
I can just imagine what brazilian interceptor slut would look like.
de4eb9 No.575688
>>575603
>A B-21 Raider or the cost-equivalent amount of the Skyraider?
For a single b-21 you could buy 1362 AD-1s.
That's about as many F-15s and A-10s in service, combined.
You could black out the sky with skyraiders.
3f04d6 No.575692
>>575607
Underrated (if a bit autistic) post.
b55637 No.575693
>>575688
autistic math thread all over again
spend the entire f35 program and come away with 4802547 ad-1`s
cappable of dropping 5.6 times more bombs in one pass than the entirety dropped by the allies in ww2
pic of how much space for that much plane
273f09 No.575695
>>575638
>Modernized WWII planes doing fast attack bombing runs on ragheads
Anon, please, I can only get so erect.
0e2a1b No.575710
>>575696
It had a partly welded fuselage. When it came time to decommission pancake-craft, they couldn't cut it apart. That thing's hull was so tough it had to be bent with a hydraulic hammer, and housed in a desert somewhere because even bent it was too large to fit into a furnace.
f78440 No.575712
>>575682
>I can just imagine what brazilian interceptor slut would look like.
Think we could stick a couple of Meteors on her?
8e8e46 No.575721
What would have to be done to fix the flaws of attack helicopters? Alternate rotor systems like cycloidal rotors? Hybridizing them with jets? It seems like on a modern battlefield a helo is at risk of dying to pretty much anything because it's not specialized enough. It can fly, but not as fast as a jet fighter, and it uses up more fuel. You can afford to armor them relatively well, but that's about it.
cac117 No.575729
>>575721
Replace them with Gekko.
6057ef No.575750
>>575721
Helos die because they are inherently death traps.
8e8e46 No.575754
>>575729
I have to ask if this is a serious statement, because there are probably some legitimate military uses for a Gekko. You could use them to jump onto enemy tanks and fortifications and drop explosives, which is basically what the Suicide Gekko were used for in Chapter 4 of MGS4, but you could also attempt to have them survive instead of having them be suicide swarms. You could use them as scouts, which is the function that they'd be best able to compete with choppers at, but they won't be able to carry nearly the amount of weapons or equipment that choppers can.
>>575750
Is that so? I read in the Wiki article on them that an attack chopper is expected to destroy 20 times its own monetary value in enemy equipment before going down. That doesn't seem like something a death trap can do, unless that statement is based on outdated military doctrine.
c46880 No.575757
>>575754
You could also use them as military-sanctioned sexual relief aides
0e2a1b No.575763
>>575721
They're fine for search and rescue, hovering is actually important there. If you need something that pops out of trees to kill a tank, use >>575729 or more realistically picrel.
>>575754
> 20 times its own monetary value in enemy equipment before going down
Given that a helicopter costs $40 million, and 20 times that is $800 million. An average armored vehicle costs about $100,000, that's roughly 8000 vehicles. Given that an average attack helicopter mission involves eight missiles, that's 1000 wildly successful missions before being shot down.
Doesn't really sound realistic.
be8f7e No.575764
>>575754
>I have to ask if this is a serious statement, because there are probably some legitimate military uses for a Gekko.
Well, what other options are there really to replace helicopters that aren't just as equally flying targets? Gekko would be more mobile than wheeled vehicles and could leap around from cover to cover, though they would be less armed.
We could also create Jumpjet Infantry in powered exoskeletons for ambush though they too would carry less.
Against AAA you can't stay in the air and against ground forces you can't risk envelopment. The A-10 was the cream of CAS designed for nigh-suicidal runs on Soviet columns in WW3 and couldn't be expected to last long. With Russian systems going to extremes to negate Western air superiority the attack helicopter concept seems very much in the shitter. There's the F-35 but that's the F-35, you aren't going to waste that on fire support.
Could maybe try a drone launcher but you're going to run out of drones some time. Cutting the pilot out of the helicopter would mean less expenses, smaller profiles.
8e8e46 No.575767
>>575757
>clang with a mech that's half-biological
What do you even call this?
>>575763
The Kamov Ka-50 is only $16 million and IMO is a better attack chopper than most. Still, that's 3200 vehicles. I just went back to the Wiki article again to make sure, and it said the figure was 17 times its production cost, so that makes 2720 vehicles. What would you consider a reasonable figure? Whatever it is, it's hard to say how it would compare cost-wise to using Gekko, because no production cost is ever given for the Gekko in any official Metal Gear materials. The Gekko isn't going to be able to carry as many missiles as a chopper, but you could solve that by using gangs of them. Just have them jump up above the treetops/mountains and launch missiles at the tanks at the apex of the jump.
>>575764
>Well, what other options are there really to replace helicopters that aren't just as equally flying targets?
This is a good question, and the answer might very well be that there are no other ground-based options.
>Gekko would be more mobile than wheeled vehicles and could leap around from cover to cover, though they would be less armed.
It would be more maneuverable than wheeled vehicles, but wheeled vehicles would still have a higher top speed. How about making roller skates/rollerblades for the Gekko to help its top speed? With the kinds of moves Gekko have been shown to do, this isn't a stretch at all.
>We could also create Jumpjet Infantry in powered exoskeletons for ambush though they too would carry less.
That'd be fun, but power armor already has a hell of a time with low fuel capacity even when it stays on the ground, so it's hard to see it being a replacement for a chopper in the same way as a Gekko.
>With Russian systems going to extremes to negate Western air superiority the attack helicopter concept seems very much in the shitter.
This is the biggest problem with attack choppers. Anti-air systems have been getting steadily more advanced to the point that aircraft in general are starting to be threatened.
>There's the F-35 but that's the F-35, you aren't going to waste that on fire support.
Right, you're going to scrap it and buy a plane that isn't pork barrel garbage.
>Could maybe try a drone launcher but you're going to run out of drones some time.
Depends on how big the drones are.
2d7f0e No.575772
>>575578
I would add glorious Po-2 from Comissioner stalin but I would be sent to gulag for leaking state secrets.
de4eb9 No.575783
>>575772
>The Po-2 is also the only biplane credited with a documented jet-kill, as one Lockheed F-94 Starfire was lost while slowing down to 110 mph – below its stall speed – during an intercept in order to engage the low flying Po-2.
8e8e46 No.575787
>>575764
>Well, what other options are there really to replace helicopters
I thought of two flying options, but both are iffy. Armored airships, maybe? Expensive, though, and not good for scouting because they'll be spotted. A Slider swarm would be cheaper, but much easier to shoot down individually. Gekko would be better than both. Chances are that airship's hangar is full of Gekko anyway. Even copters could be adapted to carry Gekko.
The problem with replacing attack choppers with Gekko is that .50-cal rounds are shown to be able to destroy a Gekko. This could also happen with a chopper, but it's much less likely, whereas any IFV with an autocannon would take out whole legions of Gekko. By the time you armored the Gekko up enough to withstand a sustained barrage of autocannon fire, they'd be too heavy to jump around. It may be possible to put arms on them and give them a ballistic shield that they can put down when they want to jump, but this is probably a waste of material. Also, Gekko only have a .50-cal machine gun, which isn't going to be enough to get through the armor of any half-decent IFV. They can launch missiles at IFVs, but active protection can deal with those. You could always just not fight IFVs with Gekko, but attack choppers can deal with IFVs, so you'd be replacing your old unit with a unit that can't do nearly as much.
25e43e No.575797
>>575605
They also ignore the fact that - when properly maintained - maintenance cost will far surpass the initial purchase.
0e2a1b No.575814
>>575767
>What would you consider a reasonable figure?
Shooting durka technicals? 2000 sounds about right. But in an actual war with a peer foe I'd be surprised if it destroyed fifty vehicles before being shot down.
>>575783
>>575772
Fun fact it's not just possible but trivial to build an all composite prop plane today that would be virtually invisible on radar, especially if it flew low.
8e8e46 No.575835
>>575814
>in an actual war with a peer foe I'd be surprised if it destroyed fifty vehicles before being shot down.
Maybe so. Wikipedia is very unreliable, so it's good not to take what you find there on faith. What would you expect the figure to be for CAS planes? I'd think they'd have most of the same problems as choppers against modern AAA, hence some people's desire to replace both CAS planes and attack choppers with a ground vehicle that can do most of the same things.
8b6865 No.575841
>>575835
>replace both CAS planes and attack choppers with a ground vehicle that can do most of the same things.
As in high speed missile carriers? Or something more fun and less sane?
5d591a No.575846
>>575841
A realistic option would be >>575763 along with drones and artillery.
8b6865 No.575848
>>575846
So *not* a pair of Streloks on a motorbike and side-car, tearing through woodland at 50mph, with the driver firing a PDW one handed while the passenger leans out of the side-car with an AT4 on one shoulder waiting for a clear shot?
0e2a1b No.575874
>>575835
CAS planes are slightly less vulnerable, due to their speed and being able to carry more armor. Also they can destroy more due to their higher payload. I think their kill ratio should be bigger, more than 50 four wheeler AFVs against a near peer foe. A single cluster bomb it carries can kill dozens at once.
2e5c31 No.575930
>>575643
The Ahrlac only came in recently though. Comparing it to the Rooivalk is a tad disengenuous but your point is valid. Fuel and loiter time is probably the USP to fixed wing most of the time though.
0e2a1b No.575935
>>575930
>south africa
Shut up you slut, and show me your Buffel titties.
8e8e46 No.575982
>>575841
See >>575729.
>>575846
There's a place for this, but it's not going to replace helicopters entirely.
a1bf63 No.576006
Are guided munitions such as bombs essential for coin?
Also what happened to the Wasp?
240aea No.576624
>>576006
>Are guided munitions such as bombs essential for coin?
Wouldn't you be better off just using a couple of 30mm cannons and a couple of unguided rocket pods? The targets you're likely to engage are small, lightweight, and poorly armed/armoured. If you're faced with something that needs bigger guns to deal with then wouldn't you just call in CAS?
2f5e38 No.576631
>>576006
Hell no.
>>576624
I prefer 14.5mm machine guns for COIN, here's why:
- 30mm cartridge is 725 grams while a 14.5mm is 206 grams, meaning for every 200 autocannon cartridges you can pack 700 heavy machine gun cartridges.
- Since they don't have explosive in them, they're less likely to cook off if your airplane is hit. I would +P+ the 14.5mm though.
- The cannons themselves are lighter, which is good considering how light COIN aircraft are.
- 14.5mm comes in belted boxes, so it's easy to reload. 30mm is too large for belts, it comes individually and has to be loaded one by one into the linkless internal feed.
- COIN by its nature involves shooting people through foliage, and sometimes 30mm rounds tend to detonate on upper branches and don't hurt the guys on the ground that much.
- 14.5mm armor piercing high explosive incendiary variants are just as good at fucking over structures, at 1000m they can penetrate 20mm armor plating, at 500m it can penetrate 32mm RHA, and at 100m it can penetrate 40mm. After penetration the APHEI produces 80 incendiary fragments.
2f5e38 No.576632
YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.
I would say:
- .50BMG isn't too bad as long as you understand the limitation, those values are halved (1000m/10mm; 500m/21mm; 100m/29mm; 10 fragments) but the weight isn't quite halved at 117g vs 206g.
- There are 30mm shells which aren't quite so heavy or large, a 30mm AGS wouldn't hurt since it does come linked, as long as the ammo box is larger than just 30 grenades. Need at least three times that.
2f5e38 No.576634
I'm not against mixing loadouts.
Maybe each side of the aircraft can have:
- super long 14.5mm KPV, with its own 400 round ammo box.
- .50bmg (or 12.7x108) with its own 1200 round ammo box
- ags-30 with 100 round box
Those all put together would equal in weight a 30mm autocannon with a 200 round ammo box.
As in pic.
eadc92 No.576636
>>576634
How much ammo would the KPVs have if you dropped the NSVs? Also, you could have only one AGS-30 and move it into the fuselage and use the weight of the other gun for even more grenades or cartridges.
41d6fc No.576641
>>576631
That's good analysis but I still think anything under 25mm lacks punch against mechanized shit. Also lack of explosive filling makes strafing essentially spray and pray.
2f5e38 No.576648
>>576641
>>576636
There is very little mechanized stuff in COIN, basically only civilian vehicles. The real armor penetration problem is regular old structures guerillas use for command centers, ammo dumps, drug labs… a concrete floor or several layers of brick can stop 12.7mm easily.
This is my thinking for that 3x gun arrangement:
- When we're doing COIN we have to avoid being shot, which means we will open fire at 2000m and break off at 1000m.
- At this range 12.7mm is useful for taking out civilian vehicles in use by insurgents, like pickup trucks and larger supply trucks.
- At this range 14.5mm is useful for taking out structures, it can go through brick houses pretty reliably.
- At this range 30mm AGL is useful for blanketing an area with fragments, for anti personnel. Could also use a rack of 7.62 guns for the same thing, but they would impose a weight penalty.
I don't like larger 30mm autocannons because they limit ammo, while not being specific to any target. So you have to load up on anti-armor rounds for structures, but then end up wasting them on soft skinned pickup trucks and dispersed troops.
240aea No.576649
>>576631
>>576632
>>576634
Your point about weight makes sense, but I'd suggest cutting the .50s and going for more AGL rounds, or possibly cutting the KPVs as well and going for a (small) number of rockets backed up with a nose mounted AGL. The expected targets for a COIN aircraft are groups of foot-mobiles and maybe the occasional civilian vehicle, you don't need high calibre AP rounds as much as you need explosions and fragmentation. As I said before if the COIN aircraft spots anything that can ignore AGL rounds then that's a job for other units.
2f5e38 No.576651
>>576649
I'd rather cut the .50s for AGLs, because AGLs can still take out trucks too.
Losing the KPVs without adding a way to penetrate structures is not an option. Maybe you can replace it with bombs, if your COIN aircraft is a dive bomber. Then you'd only need the AGLs for forward firing ordnance.
240aea No.576676
>>576651
Why does a COIN aircraft need to deal with targets in structures? I thought that they were armed surveillance designed to engage unarmoured targets rather than dealing with anyone inside a building.
2f5e38 No.576703
>>576676
I don't think so, maybe you're thinking of strike capable ISR.
ISR = intelligence, surveillance, reconaissance. sometimes they have strike, so they can immediately hit what they find. (textron scorpion is one, most drones…)
COIN = counter insurgency. mostly going out to known guerilla bases and killing them. it's basically CAS without supporting a ground based element.
240aea No.576706
>>576703
Ah, I see where the disagreement is coming from. I was under the impression that COIN was mostly focused on area denial, sort of like an airborne blockhouse - that the idea was to limit the insurgents/guerrillas mobility in order to prevent attacks and give your forces time to locate and destroy their strongholds, which would seem to fit with what you describe as 'strike capable ISR'.
eadc92 No.576710
>>576703
>>576706
COIN is indeed counter-insurgency, but it's not about flying planes in a certain way, it's about putting down an insurgency. As such it's an incredibly fascinating area full of politics, culture, economy, human psychology and ruling over a population in general. Preferably you don't even want to fire a single shot, just use the secret services to find the insurgents and then tell the police to crack them down. If you are at the point where you need a plane like this, then you already kind of fucked up.
240aea No.576712
>>576710
>If you are at the point where you need a plane like this, then you already kind of fucked up.
So it's perfectly suited for modern 'peace keeping' in 'friendly Middle Eastern Nations' then.
eadc92 No.576713
>>576712
Indeed. But would you think that your government is still in control if they started demolishing buildings with 14.5mm bullets, or would you think that shit suddenly got very serious?
240aea No.576716
>>576713
Considering that you can still set your watch by the car-bombs in downtown Baghdad … I think they're already there.
2f5e38 No.576750
>>576713
Better than barrel bombing 4 city blocks to destroy the third floor in one building, 14.5mm can take out just the floor…
41d6fc No.576781
YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.
>>576750
>Better than barrel bombing 4 city blocks to destroy the third floor in one building
>better
38642b No.576856
YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.
>>576006
Why not be smart about it and have your aircraft do the bomb guidance? Like SU-25 is doing. Basically pilot locks the target computer on some spot, computer gives pilot some direction relating to the target, and computer releases the bomb automatically so that that dumb bomb will drop on to the fucking target.
I see absolutely no reason as to why on earth would you need complicated guided ammunition to deal with gorilla warfare, or even low level warfare like in Syria.
Certainly, helicopters are absolutely stellar when it comes to supporting infantry, or atleast when there's a ex-infantryman in the cockpit, but judging by the whole Syrian thing, I feel like the rather recent combination of drones, tanks and infantry get shit done more cost effectively even in urban environment, as they all compliment each other extremely well in the actual direct combat phase. Fixed wing aircraft and artillery works fine in the fire-preparation work.
240aea No.576858
>>576856
>I see absolutely no reason as to why on earth would you need complicated guided ammunition to deal with gorilla warfare, or even low level warfare like in Syria.
You need them because the Defense Contractor told your government that you needed them.
bf4269 No.576860
>>576856
We've had good electronic bombsights since the mid-60s, the problem is that the bomb itself has a CEP of close to 100m. Improving accuracy past that requires some sort of mid-course guidance, and existing guidance kits are already about as cost-effective as they can get.
38642b No.576895
>>576860
>CEP of close to 100m
Clearly, the problem here is that your bombs are not big enough. If the people calling airsupport are not terrified of calling it, your bombs are not big enough.
2f5e38 No.576899
>>576860
A regular bombsight calculates how the bomb will fall from the airplane as a starting point, and then displays it in a curved targeting reticle for the pilot. The pilot then has to guide the reticle on the ground at a target, which is insanely hard.
What the finn >>576856 is talking about is the SVP-24 drop system, which is a:
REVERSE BOMBSIGHT
The reverse bombsight has a GPS map with all the targets on it labeled, it then uses the targets location, atmospheric condition, and ballistic path of bomb, to reverse calculate from the the target to an altitude, airspeed and vector where the airplane must drop the bomb to hit the target. Instead of calculating from the aircraft, it calculates from the target, this eliminates a lot of the human error in "judging" where the reticule was.
The pilot is then instructed to fly at a certain airspeed, altitude and vector to a precise location where the computer calculated the bomb must be dropped from. The pilot then pushes and holds the button which releases the computer to act, and the computer initiates the drop when its satisfied, eliminating even more human error while keeping a human in the loop.
Because of how the reverse bombsight works, the CEP is on average 25m depending on how well the pilot threads the needle, but it would be trivial to just tell the computer not to drop unless it's a 10m CEP. The pilot would have to make more runs at threading the needle to get it right, but it's not an issue.
tl;dr The reverse-bombsight is a 4x accuracy improvement over regular bombsights with no "mid-course guidance". The yield on their FAB bombs is a hundred and forty meters against people and sixty meters against lightly armored vehicles, so this is more than enough for any practical bombing purpose.
The pilot has $25,000 cash magically appear in the cockpit every time he drops a bomb, they are unjammable, and no one has to risk their life lasing the target.
The future reverse-bombsight in the Su-57 is going to actually have the pilot approach the needle, flip a switch, and let the computer thread the needle itself instead of relying on the pilots reflexes. That's the "AI autopilot" feature they keep bragging about. They expect a massive reduction in CEP.
e0d48c No.576903
>>576648
>>576641
Why not go with a 40mm cannon. That way you can use those nice programmable fuses and start doing air burst and delayed explosions.
They also send way more explosives downrange than 30mm.
e0d48c No.576905
>>576899
>Read your post
>Sounds neat, but why not let the aircraft control the final part of the approach, seems like a good idea
>Russians are going to do it.
Maybe I should change careers to defense.
2f5e38 No.576908
>>576905
svp 24 is a strapon system, can't control the airplane without full integration. so only new build airplanes will have the autopilot.
>>576903
Because then you have like a 2000-5000kg gun and 20 shells worth of ammo. And when you spend your shells on a bunch of guys on the ground, you still have 2-5t gun weighing you down.
At that point a rocket pod makes more sense.
e0d48c No.576915
>>576908
>2000-5000kg
I looked it up, it's way less than that. Maybe about 300-400 kg iirc. It is totally doable. As a matter of fact, it has been done before in ww2 where they mounted an even bigger gun to take down bombers beyond their defensive range.
38642b No.576924
>>576903
Oh you mean something like this?
9c3018 No.576933
>>576915
Well, if you don't mind paying lots of shekels for a technology that is yet to reach mass production, then there is this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CTA_International
https://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/cased-telescoped-armament-system/
e0d48c No.576934
>>576924
Something like that, but higher rate of fire and velocity. I don't thing you can straight mount a bofors 40mm on a plane, but something along those lines.
Add a nice targeting/ballistics system on there and you'd have a pretty nice setup I think.
And against things like aircraft, drones and helicopters, you don't even need a direct hit since it has a proximity fuse.
>>576933
Storage space on board is a premium so that would help.
f57b83 No.576938
4de545 No.576942
>>576938
>muh fallacies, muh logic, muh arguments
No-one cares tbh
f57b83 No.576943
>>576940
>>576942
Retards. Then how come you are literal brainlets.
e0d48c No.576955
>>576943
BK3,7 295 Kg
BK5 510 Kg
Both were mounted on planes during ww2
No please point how today we couldn't mount a 40mm autocannon on a turboprop.
8c317b No.576960
>>576955
I'm going to need a source for that, because I know that that's not true.
2f5e38 No.576966
>>576915
When you said 40mm cannon I wasn't exactly thinking of half-cannons used in aircraft, or of magic telescoping tech just coming out. It's kind of unfair to compare those to unoptimized ground equipment strapped onto an aircraft.
Previous equipment:
>NSV: 25kg +1200rds
>AGS-30: 16kg +100rds
>KPV: 49kg +400rds
>total times two wings: 700kg
This is the total weight the aircraft carries, and when it wastes the ammo the dead weight is 180kg, not something too huge to carry around.
A pair of 40mm CTA guns in the wings give 680kg dead weight, which is a LOT of weight to carry around. Also it would only have 22 shells per gun.
And I seriously doubt the 340kg of the CTA gun is including the complicated linkless feed system…
52aba3 No.576971
>>576960
The stuka in this webm >>576924
has the BK 3.7 mounted. And a B25 variant had a 75 mm gun mounted in the nose. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_B-25_Mitchell#Use_as_a_gunship
The Italians produced a prototype with a 102 mm gun in the nose https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piaggio_P.108#P.108A
e0d48c No.576976
>>576960
Stumbled upon this pic related.
45mm autocannon the Russians mounted on the Yak-9
9c3018 No.576981
>>576966
>A pair of 40mm CTA guns in the wings give 680kg dead weight
Why do you need two guns? Just build the aircraft around a single one in the nose.
2f5e38 No.576983
>>576977
Again that's a cannon cut down in weight and size, it's designed to destroy bombers not to shoot targets on the ground that are firing back.
I could cut the KPV weight in half if I was willing to contend with a reduction in fire rate. I could cut the weight even more, if I was willing to shorten the barrel to get ~700m/s speeds.
It's not a fair comparison.
bf4269 No.576984
>>576908
>Because then you have like a 2000-5000kg gun and 20 shells worth of ammo
Most 37mm aircraft guns weighed no more than 200kg. Even monsters like the 57mm Molins gun weighed less than 400kg.
Ammunition stowage is only really a problem for wing mounts, centerline guns can just use a belt of arbitrary length.
2f5e38 No.576986
>>576981
Because you're comparing it to aircraft that have two sets of guns in each wing, it's not a fair comparison to cut that in two…. and because you presumably want more than two rounds per second fire rate.
A single cannon with two rounds per second would be competing with all of this in one aircraft: An AGLs with 13 rounds per second, KPVs with 20 rounds per second and NSVs with 23 rounds per second.
>>576984
See >>576983
If speed/range isn't an issue, and all you care about is caliber, fusing and explosive charge… we already have that in a 16kg form instead of hundreds of kilos:
>40mm CT is 440g per cartridge, 250g per shell.
>30mm AGL is 358g per cartridge, 286g per shell.
e0d48c No.576995
>>576983
>cut down
True, they have significantly lower velocity, which is undesirable of course
However, it seems the Hung aryans were crazy enough to mount an actual cannon (bofors 40mm/60) onto a plane. Pic related.
Caveat, an operator fed it with clips.
From what I could find online is that the spooky 40mm bofors is about 300kg.
8c2250 No.577058
>>576634
Single 30mm autocannon with 200 rounds would be far more effective gun armament than all that junk, pretty much any autocannon in any of common calibers would be more effective than that mixture of guns. Mixing machine gun calibers isn't smart move due to different ballistics of different calibers, but that 30mm automatic grenade launcher takes the cherry. Automatic grenade launchers as aircraft armament is really bad idea, rounds are very low velocity and have way different ballistics than other armament. US used AGL's in attack helicopters in Vietnam and quickly got rid of after the war in favor of 20mm M197's. Too low rate of fire and horribly bad accuracy being main reasons, grenades had slow enough velocity and big enough cross section to be affected by rotor down wash. Aerodynamics around aircraft wing might be even worse, but that depends a lot on location gun on the wing. Helicopters tend to do their attack runs at slower speeds than fixed wing aircraft, as result accuracy of AGL would be even worse worse from fixed wing aircraft.
There are different 30mm autocannons. DEFA or ADEN in 30x113mm are lighter than something like Oerlikon KCA in 30x173mm. Like 85kg for the gun with both ADEN and DEFA. KCA is about 135kg.
>>576648
Autocannon would be more effective against all of those targets.
>>576966
Mauser BK-27 would weight 100kg each, ammo would weight 516g per round and has 260g projectile. Single gun can put out 4kg projectiles in half second and 7kg in second. Basically you could have two 27x145mm autocannons with almost 500 rounds each. Shells are already big enough to incorporate sophisticated programmable proximity fuses for HE and there are options like FAP ammo, Frangible Armour Piercing that has pretty fucked up after armor effects on lightly armored vehicles and behind walls in case of buildings even without bursting charge.
2f5e38 No.577095
>>577058
Compared individually, the 30mm might have some benefits over each of those three guns. Compared together… it just doesn't.
It lacks the explosive filler of the grenade, which acts as a directed cluster munitions dispenser. Under optimum conditions (standing targets), the lethal radius against bare flesh is three meters. AGS-30 shot is twice that at 6m.
The cannon lacks the standoff range and penetration of the KPV, it fires almost 200m/s slower and the 30x113 penetrates 25mm RHA at 500m which is 28% less than the KPV.
The one role it might shine is defeating unarmored vehicles, but the 12.7mm is more than adequate.
>200 rounds
That's ten seconds of fire. If you're going such a route at least load up with a few thousand rounds.
>Mauser BK-27
Come on now, that's a specially designed air to air cannon, it's absolute shit against ground targets. It penetrates 10mm steel at 500m, I remind you the KPV does over three times that. A fuse is useless if it doesn't have the fragments to take out groups of troops, it only has a 260g projectile because it's 100% metal with no low-density explosives inside it.
KPV has the same after-effects frangible munition, it produces ~80 incendiary fragments after penetration. It's a standard anti-air munition.
2f5e38 No.577096
For reference not the only commonly used COIN aircraft that carries internal cannon is the Pucara, and even it has 7.62 machine guns for backup when it runs out of the 540 autocannon rounds. Nose prop single engined COIN usually uses a mix of 12.7mm and 7.62mm, but most carry a lot of 7.62.
2f5e38 No.577100
Also to avoid confusion, something like 2/3rds of COIN aircraft don't even have internal guns of any kind, they just carry pylon racks of bombs and rockets. Of the 1/3 that does carry guns, most carry machine guns, not cannon.
ebb27b No.577109
>>577095
>Compared individually, the 30mm might have some benefits over each of those three guns. Compared together… it just doesn't.
No. Three different lines of ammunition might cause some problems with reloading plane after sortie and different ballistics of different guns is huge problem for accurate gunnery, especially with any kind of automatic grenade launcher. Either going with 6 12.7mm guns or four KPV's would be better alternative or as saturation is accuracy with strafing runs. Some rotary barrel gun in either caliber would probably be better alternative as well, for reliability reasons alone.
>AGS-30 shot is twice that at 6m.
That is gun that would be extremely bad as helicopter weaponry and completely useless when fired from faster fixed wing aircraft. Trajectory is simply too arched and that makes accurate gunnery extremely hard at fast speeds, even if aerodynamics would be non issue and that is pretty unlikely. Point of impact would be on sight only for extremely short time, on range that is anything but optimal shots would land either too short or too far. Americans ditched 40mm AGL's as helicopter armament for a very good reason.
>That's ten seconds of fire. If you're going such a route at least load up with a few thousand rounds.
I said that 200 rounds because even that would probably be more firepower than machine guns and AGL's. At weight of your mixed armament and ammo you could carry a lot more rounds for most autocannons.
>Come on now, that's a specially designed air to air cannon, it's absolute shit against ground targets.
Nope. Its is perfectly useful against ground targets as well with right ammunition and ammunition mix. It is used as close defense weapon on warships. There are plenty of other alternatives as well like GIAT 30 with versions chambered in 30x113mm and 30x150mm. If commie calibers are preferable there are guns alternatives like GSh-23, GSh-30-1, GSh-30-2 and GSh-6-30.
>It penetrates 10mm steel at 500m
FAPDS might solve that issue against lightly armored vehicles.
>A fuse is useless if it doesn't have the fragments to take out groups of troops, it only has a 260g projectile because it's 100% metal with no low-density explosives inside it.
There are effective HE rounds for the caliber and anything above 25mm caliber can be equipped with programmable proximity fuse, but generally bigger caliber takes better use of that fuse.
>>577096
>For reference not the only commonly used COIN aircraft that carries internal cannon is the Pucara, and even it has 7.62 machine guns for backup when it runs out of the 540 autocannon rounds. Nose prop single engined COIN usually uses a mix of 12.7mm and 7.62mm, but most carry a lot of 7.62.
Pucara is rare case of COIN aircraft that isn't actually modified trainer. Wings have limited space for guns and ammunition. 12.7mm is a good compromise between firepower and gunnery training tool as lot of COIN aircraft are used for training as well. Twin engine aircraft would be better alternative if we are talking about purpose built COIN aircraft. Picture related.
>>577100
>Also to avoid confusion, something like 2/3rds of COIN aircraft don't even have internal guns of any kind, they just carry pylon racks of bombs and rockets. Of the 1/3 that does carry guns, most carry machine guns, not cannon.
Most COIN aircraft are re-purposed or modified transports, transport aircraft or even general aviation planes.
12accf No.577124
>>575682
I know this is terribly anecdotal, but every sim I have played that has had the P-38 in it, has a flight model that is overwhelmingly stable and comfy all around.
Don't expect to outclimb, outdive or really outperform any other contemporary aircraft, but ease of maneuver, payload, twin engine reliability, range, cockpit layout and visibility are all extremely good, which lend toward good CAS/strike fighter depending on context.
Given an update, I could certainly see the P-38 frame working as a low cost CAS, but I think there are other cool ideas that should be experimented with as well, such as due to its superior low speed performance. >>575696
e0d48c No.577139
How about a Bushmaster IV
>Receiver: 198 kg (437 lb)
>Feeder: 29 kg (64 lb)
>Barrel: 138 kg (304 lb)
>Total: 365 kg (805 lb)
Fires 40x365 so that would be more than enough dakka I would guess.
41d6fc No.577202
2f5e38 No.577215
>>577109
I don't think feeding would be an issue, since all this is belted ammo.
>Americans ditched 40mm AGL's as helicopter armament
I assume you're talking about M129? It was ditched because the American 40mm is inferior to Russian 30mm grenade, it carries less explosives and its shitty ballistic coefficient means it slows down a lot faster… effective range was 600m shorter with the high pressure grenades they used, and over 1700m shorter with the low pressure grenades they used, compared to the Russian 30mm. In a helicopter that's suicide, any enemy close enough for you to shoot with the AGL can shoot back at your hovering contraption with HMG.
The fact that AGS-30 is superior, on top of the fact that we're in a faster aircraft, and on top of yet another fact that AGS-30 is a tertiary armament…. I don't see any parallels to the example.
>I said that 200 rounds because even that would probably be more firepower than machine guns and AGL's
In what way? The pathetic 3m blast radius can be simulated by a few 12.7mm machine gun rounds. That's not counting the ridiculously superior fire from the AGS-30 or the KPV.
>with right ammunition and ammunition mix.
>FAPDS might solve that issue
>effective HE rounds for the caliber
I see. And what switch do you press to go from APDS to HE, so you aren't wasting APDS on infantry or HE on structures? There is no such switch. You will mix after-effect munition with HE with APDS and waste three rounds to gain that 3m kill radius against infantry, where as I will use five or six 12.7mm or a single 30mm - an infinitely better trade!
>>577139
Quantity > quality, what will a bushmaster IV be useful fighting an enemy plotting in brick housing and driving in toyota trucks?
2f5e38 No.577216
It would almost be better to have a rack of 7.62 machine guns with 10,000 rounds than a single 40mm cannon with 20 rounds or a single 27mm cannon with 200 rounds.
Then you could strafe for hours.
e0d48c No.577261
>>577216
>bushmaster is useless against indoor jihadis.
Well, if you ignore the fact that 40mm can penetrate concrete, and explode indoors.
But yes, if they are walking around in the field and driving unarmored trucks, then yes, 7.62 or .50 will do. I guess. In that case I would just mount a single minigun in one of those calibers and call it a day.
Or maybe dust off the plans for the XM301 if you want a bit more bang.
ebb27b No.577289
>>577215
>I don't think feeding would be an issue, since all this is belted ammo.
It isn't feeding ammo to guns issue as if it would be reliability issue. It is mess of having three different ammo feeding carts around airplane when it returns from sortie. Extra men required and extra equipment as well in turning around that aircraft.
>I assume you're talking about M129?
Yes, it was bad idea. As if Russian 30mm's would do any better…. because that is Russian weapon? In reality that would be a marginaly less bad weapon for helicopters or COIN aircraft. Marginally less shitty.
4ea5f2 No.577402
>>576905
This is literally how famous Norden bombsight operated.
ff5d1a No.577524
You guys realize COIN are light airplanes? Having two M2s is already taxing their maneuvering.
>>577402
The norden bombsight operated without knowing the position of the target at all. They're completely different systems.
cd254b No.578506
>>575767
>clang with a mech that's half-biological
>What do you even call this?
Societal progress™
25c61d No.578719
>develop fetish for prop driven ground attack aircraft over the past few months
>tfw /k/indred spirits
a63b89 No.584858
>>575797
>They also ignore the fact that - when properly maintained - maintenance cost will far surpass the initial purchase.
Are you basically making a decent point for single-use disposable aircraft?
>polite sage
a5ac45 No.588965
>>578719
Do you mean an actual fetish or do you just mean you've grown to like them?
de793c No.589111
>>577289
>As if Russian 30mm's would do any better…. because that is Russian weapon?
I don't think you understand how slavaboos work Fingolia. If it came from the based collapsed commie empire, then it was automatically better. Hell, if the concept was outright fucking retarded it still gets nothing but praise from these idiots.
48fb89 No.589118
>>589111
I might be drunk/phoneposting, but that aircraft turret looks like it has a shot of some soldier fucking a girl in a dress reverse-cowgirl
7884d3 No.589143
>>576899
>Reverse Bombsight
That's known as CCRP or Continuously Computed Release Point.
It's the counterpart to CCIP (i for impact), which calculates where the bomb would impact if it was released right now. CCRP calculates where the pilot would have to fly for the bomb to impact at the designated target.
>>576905
This technology has been around for ages, and is widely used by both NATO and PACT airplanes. Gun sights, rocket pods, missile and bombs all use this technology.
If any of you think this is some advanced tech you should honestly feel ashamed.
f6b008 No.589163
>>577289
>>589111
You are retarded, you can't just go by caliber to determine which thing is better.
30x29mm HE grenade has a round with a caliber of 30mm and length of 103mm, and 32g explosive filling. It is shot out at 185m/s, but due to better ballistic coefficient (it is slimmer) doesn't slow down as fast as the American 40mm.
40x46 mm HE grenade is 40mm wide and 58mm long, and carries 32g explosive filling also. It is fired out at 76m/s, and due to its shittier BC (it is very thick) also slows down quite faster and is affected by wind more.
The 40x53mm grenade was invented to solve the problems of the above, and give something comparable to Russians. It's the same filler, length and width of the projectile, but it uses more propellant pushing it out at 200m/s. Still, the ballistic coefficient is so bad that it only gives this much heavier cartridge to 100m more effective range than 30x29mm.
f6b008 No.589164
>>589143
>That's known as CCRP or Continuously Computed Release Point.
>It's the counterpart to CCIP (i for impact),
THANK YOU BASED GERMAN