t6mx@vax5.cit.cornell.edu (02/09/91)
From: t6mx@vax5.cit.cornell.edu I just read a A-10 shot down a Iraqi fighter for the first time in history Any ideas of what weapons were used. Do you think the cannon could be effecitive in high speed air warfare. Can't remember if the A-10 carries air to air's as standard payload? t6mx@vax5.cit.cornell.edu
aroe@jarthur.Claremont.edu (Mother Goose) (02/11/91)
From: Mother Goose <aroe@jarthur.Claremont.edu> In article <1991Feb9.025209.29262@cbnews.att.com> t6mx@vax5.cit.cornell.edu writes: > >I just read a A-10 shot down a Iraqi fighter for the first time in history > >Any ideas of what weapons were used. The Times (LA) this morning published an "interview" with the pilot of the A-10. The A-10 shot down an Iraqi helicopter (one of two that was found, the other escaped) with the 30mm cannon. (OUCH!) about 300 rounds were fired into the chopper (which disintegrated). The A-10 also had Maverick heat-seekers, but they couldn't lock on at the time, so the cannon was used instead. ----- Andrew Roe aroe@jarthur.claremont.edu
c60b-1er@web-3a.berkeley.edu (Roy S. Rapoport) (02/11/91)
From: c60b-1er@web-3a.berkeley.edu (Roy S. Rapoport) In article <1991Feb9.025209.29262@cbnews.att.com> t6mx@vax5.cit.cornell.edu writes: >I just read a A-10 shot down a Iraqi fighter for the first time in history >Any ideas of what weapons were used. Do you think the cannon could be >effecitive in high speed air warfare. Can't remember if the A-10 carries >air to air's as standard payload? Source: Air Force Magazine, May 1990 Almanac Issue. "Gallery of USAF Weapons," under Attack and Observation Aircraft A10 Armament: One 30-mm GAU-8/A gun; eight underwing hard points and three under fuselage for up to 16,000 lb of ordnance, including various types of free-fall or guided bombs, combined effects munition (CEM) dispensers, gun pods, six AGM-65 Maverick missiles, or four AIM-9 Sidewinder missiles, and jammer pods. . . ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ I assumed that A10's would be armed with Sidewinders if there was a chance of meeting hostile air forces...
tkogoma%triton.unm.edu@ariel.unm.edu (Gym Z. Quirk) (02/11/91)
From: tkogoma%triton.unm.edu@ariel.unm.edu (Gym Z. Quirk) The report I heard was that the A-10 downed a helicopter with it's 30mm canon. I still have my doubt as to whether the "'hog" could do *any* serious ACM... However, a friend of mine had been speculating about mounting an all-aspect Sidewinder to fire *backwards* from the A-10. (Scneario: MiG-23 jumps Thundrebolt and closes to about 5 miles to nail it with aphids (AA-2). Thunderbolt pops off a Nine-Lima right into the nosecone of the Flogger. Result: No more tailgating Flogger. ;-) I realize that this is probably infeasable, but it sure sounds like fun... -- Capt. Gym Z. Quirk net.terrorist (reformed) | This space tkogoma@triton.unm.edu | intentionally (Known to some as Taki Kogoma) | left blank
henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (02/11/91)
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) >From: t6mx@vax5.cit.cornell.edu >I just read a A-10 shot down a Iraqi fighter for the first time in history >Any ideas of what weapons were used. Do you think the cannon could be >effecitive in high speed air warfare... If the A-10 can get a head-on shot at the attacker, the 30mm gun is reportedly extremely effective. The gunsight isn't built for air combat, so something like a head-on encounter is needed to have much chance of hitting. However, it's not prohibitively difficult to turn an encounter into a head-on one, because the A-10's low speed and high lift make it very maneuverable. The trick is to see the attacker early, because all the maneuverability in the world won't do you any good if you're taken by surprise. >Can't remember if the A-10 carries air to air's as standard payload? I don't remember A-10s with Sidewinders before the war, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if they're carrying them now. Sidewinder does not need much cooperation from its launch aircraft, so it's an easy add-on weapon; the British improvised a Sidewinder fit for the Nimrod patrol aircraft in a matter of days during the Falklands war, after an incident in which a Nimrod on long-range recon encountered an Argentine 707 doing the same and couldn't do anything about it. (Later on, the armed Nimrods were used for a variety of things, including providing ultra-long-range fighter cover [!] for Thatcher's visit to the Falklands.) Rumor is that Sidewinders are showing up on *everything* in the Gulf. -- "Maybe we should tell the truth?" | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology "Surely we aren't that desperate yet." | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry
larmo@pro-odyssey.cts.com (System Administrator) (02/12/91)
From: larmo@pro-odyssey.cts.com (System Administrator)
In-Reply-To: message from t6mx@vax5.cit.cornell.edu
>Ilust read a A-10 shot down a Iraqi fighter for the first time in history
This is not surprising. the A-10 though not developed for air to air is
capable of defending itself VIA AIM's and the 30 mm gatling gun.
as for history every new event for the A-10 is a first since it has never been
in combat. It is doing one hell of a job too. I hope this conflict changes the
Air Forces ideas of retiring the fleet.
The A-10 is one aircraft that you do not want to get into a close proximity
dogfight with. You will more than likely overfly it and you definantly will
not out manuver it.
---- ---- ---- ----
ProLine: larmo@pro-odyssey AOL: ODYSSEY 1
Internet: larmo@pro-odyssey.cts.com Pro-Odyssey: 707/437-4734
ARPA: crash!pro-odyssey!larmo@nosc.mil UUCP: crash!pro-odyssey!larmov059l49z@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Paul C Stacy) (02/13/91)
From: v059l49z@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Paul C Stacy) In article <1991Feb12.012847.6752@cbnews.att.com>, larmo@pro-odyssey.cts.com (System Administrator) writes... > >>I just read a A-10 shot down a Iraqi fighter for the first time in history I'vew seen pictures of the A-10 carrying a 2 Sidewinder mounting on an outer pylon. It resembles one I've seen used on the Harriers used in the Falklands. Paul "Joe Friday" Stacy
adrian@cs.heriot-watt.ac.uk (Adrian Hurt) (02/13/91)
From: Adrian Hurt <adrian@cs.heriot-watt.ac.uk> In article <1991Feb11.043358.27375@cbnews.att.com> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: >I don't remember A-10s with Sidewinders before the war, but I wouldn't be >at all surprised if they're carrying them now. It isn't rumour, it's TV news coverage. I have seen film of an A-10 with at least one Sidewinder. Buccaneers have also appeared on TV carrying AIM-9's, as have Jaguars. The Jaguar has its Sidewinders above the wings! "Keyboard? How quaint!" - M. Scott Adrian Hurt | JANET: adrian@uk.ac.hw.cs UUCP: ..!ukc!cs.hw.ac.uk!adrian | ARPA: adrian@cs.hw.ac.uk
tohall@helios.lerc.nasa.gov (Dave Hall (Sverdrup)) (02/14/91)
From: tohall@helios.lerc.nasa.gov (Dave Hall (Sverdrup)) In article <1991Feb11.043245.27178@cbnews.att.com>, tkogoma%triton.unm.edu@ariel.unm.edu (Gym Z. Quirk) writes... >However, a friend of mine had been speculating about mounting an >all-aspect Sidewinder to fire *backwards* from the A-10. >I realize that this is probably infeasable, but it sure sounds like >fun... As a matter of fact, you need to change the laws of physics governing the mechanics of flight. When the missile came off, it would have to reduce its forward velocity to zero, then accelerate in the opposite direction. All tactical missiles rely on the lift generated by their wings/fins for stabilization. Backwards firing would result in a total wing stall as the airframe approached zero forward velocity and an uncontrollable roll maneuver.
aws@uunet.UU.NET (Allen W. Sherzer) (02/15/91)
From: mailrus!sharkey!hela!iti.org!aws@uunet.UU.NET (Allen W. Sherzer) In article <1991Feb11.043358.27375@cbnews.att.com> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: >If the A-10 can get a head-on shot at the attacker, the 30mm gun is reportedly >extremely effective. The gunsight isn't built for air combat, so something >like a head-on encounter is needed to have much chance of hitting. A friend of mine attended a briefing on the A-10 when they first entered the inventory. For the hell of it they tried a 1v1 with an F-4. After they merged, the A-10 would have shot down the F-4 ~8 times but the F-4 didn't get a single good shot at the A-10. Needless to say, had it been real, the F-4 would have put an AIM-7 into him from several miles away. But then, the Warthog is such a tough aircraft that it still might have been able to fly home. Allen -- +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |Allen Sherzer |A MESSAGE FROM THE ANTI-WAR MOVEMENT TO THE PEOPLE OF KUWAIT: | |aws@iti.org | "If rape is inevitable, enjoy it!" | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
mike@siemens.siemens.com (Mike Hoffmann) (02/21/91)
From: ap542!mike@siemens.siemens.com (Mike Hoffmann) The discussion about the A-10 has brought one thing to my mind. There has been a lot of media coverage about Iraq having bought and using decoys, especially inflatable tanks. Equipped with an oven and metal strips they fool Heat-seeking and Radar missiles, resp. Now if what were if the A10 went tank-hunting and used its 30mm gun instead of missiles. A missile explodes, so it's hard to tell if it was also a real tank that blew up. But if the pilot used the gun, firing maybe a small "test-round" first, how would a real tank look compared to a baloon tank? Comments? Mike -- Mike Hoffmann, Siemens-Nixdorf AG, SNI AP 712 UUCP: mike@ap542.uucp | INTERNET: mike%ap542@ztivax.siemens.com "For the new year I resolved, not to be offended by human nature. But I think I blew it already." (Hobbes)
stevenp@decwrl.pa.dec.com (Steven Philipson) (03/14/91)
From: stevenp@decwrl.pa.dec.com (Steven Philipson) In article <1991Feb13.222209.6649@cbnews.att.com>, tohall@helios.lerc.nasa.gov (Dave Hall (Sverdrup)) writes; [re: firing a Sidewinder backwards] > As a matter of fact, you need to change the laws of physics governing > the mechanics of flight. When the missile came off, it would have to > reduce its forward velocity to zero, then accelerate in the opposite > direction. [...] It is not necessary to change the laws of physics to accomplish such a rearward launch. The missile would need some additional hardware, but it wouldn't be particularly difficult to build. The primary addition to existing missiles would be a second set of fins. An additional rocket booster section would probably be added as well. The second, larger set of fins would be used to stabilize the missile while it is flying in the direction of flight of the launching aircraft. The additional booster section would decelerate the missile. The fins would be jettisoned as the missile transitioned through zero airspeed, i.e. as it reversed its direction of flight. The normal fins would then be used in forward flight as the missile accelerated toward its target. This technology appeared in print in the 1960's, by one G. Harry Stein, in a handbook on *model* rocketry. A two stage model was described as follows (this is from memory, and may not be entirely as it was described in the book). Two rocket bodies are assembled coaxially, with the second stage having a smaller set of fins than the primary stage. The first stage would launch the assembly, coast through apogee, then nose over till pointed down. (The velocity vector is now pointed at the ground.) The second stage would then fire on a delayed fuse, stabilized in launch by the body of the first stage, and by its own fins after separation. This was done with a few dollars worth of hardware and no gyros. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see such backward firing missiles built, albeit more advanced control devices, including gyro stabilization, thrust vectoring, reaction controls, and deployable fins. Steve (the certified flying fanatic) stevenp@decwrl.dec.com