> The GAU-8 Avenger fires up to sixty one-pound bullets a second. It produces almost five tons of recoil force, which is crazy considering that it’s mounted in a type of plane (the A-10 “Warthog”) whose two engines produce only four tons of thrust each. If you put two of them in one aircraft, and fired both guns forward while opening up the throttle, the guns would win and you’d accelerate backward.
> To put it another way: If I mounted a GAU-8 on my car, put the car in neutral, and started firing backward from a standstill, I would be breaking the interstate speed limit in less than three seconds.
More likely, you would have a cabrio in 1.62 seconds.
http://i.imgur.com/CFtOzAD.jpg
;)
As good as this gun would be as a rocket pack engine, the Russians built one that would work even better. The Gryazev-Shipunov GSh-6-30 weighs half as much as the GAU-8 and has an even higher fire rate. Its thrust-to-weight ratio approaches 40, which means if you pointed one at the ground and fired, not only would it take off in a rapidly expanding spray of deadly metal fragments, but you would experience 40 gees of acceleration. This is way too much. In fact, even when it was firmly mounted in an aircraft, the acceleration was a problem:
[T]he recoil … still had a tendency to inflict damage on the aircraft. The rate of fire was reduced to 4,000 rounds a minute but it didn't help much. Landing lights almost always broke after firing … Firing more than about 30 rounds in a burst was asking for trouble from overheating …
But if you somehow braced the human rider, made the craft strong enough to survive the acceleration, wrapped it in an aerodynamic shell, and made sure it was adequately cooled... ... with a GSH-6-30, you could jump mountains.
When we look at cutaway drawings of the A-10, we see that it's almost more like the A-10 is mounted on the GAU-8 Avenger. Seriously, it's a pretty major part of the fuselage!
http://www.foodman123.com/cut42.jpg http://img143.imageshack.us/img143/5306/v38136usa10fairchild...
I say all that as a huge fan of the A-10c, with many hours spent in the DCS sim. People seem to get bizarrely hyperbolic over the capabilities of this plane, but it's really a dinosaur.
I ask as an actual A-10C pilot, with many more hours flying it than you have in a "sim".
I wonder if there has been an affect like that on the A10s. And I wonder if anybody who knows is actually allowed to tell us.
But, seriously, there's that old saying: the only way to bring down an A-10 is to put a suicidal pilot in the cockpit.
You're neglecting one of the most valuable roles for the A-10: close air support for ground troops in contact.
In that situation (read: the entirety of our conflict in Afghanistan/Iraq) tanks had NO ROLE. You're fighting a highly mobile ground force that often have an armament/position advantage and that's where the A-10 CAS really really makes a difference. Nobody fought TANKS in Afghanistan.
Ask anyone who's been in contact with the enemy how they feel when they hear that distinctive "BRRRRRRRAAAAAP!"
It's like FSCKING CHRISTMAS.
My father worked on A-10s in the Air Guard, I thought was very familiar with them... but it wasn't really until I saw that video that I realized how terrifying they are in the appropriate situation. While the above video is a friendly-fire close call, you're probably not going to find video like that from the other side of the line.
Having that pilot in that seat removes the need to replicate the kind of situational awareness you have when you're flying your plane 100-1000 feet off the ground and making passes to identify who is who so you avoid a friendly fire incident. Until we have the kind of immersive, low-latency, realtime kind of virtual reality you'd need, using drones for CAS is a pipe-dream.
Doing close air support you want A-10 pilots or Marines.
Even if the machine could not be retrofitted for carrier operations, the Corps could fly them from airfields ashore, and would really value an excellent ground-attack aircraft, and would take good extra-special care of them.
[1] in the Marine Corps Gazette I think.
Secondly, not every enemy has the latest tank. In fact, most potentially hostile nations (speaking from the POV of NATO) do NOT have modern tanks.
Because tanks only have that sort of armour on their frontal aspect and turret sides, and the top armour is very thin. Even if the turret top is armoured enough it is likely the engine deck can be penetrated and produce a mobility kill.
Also, hardly anyone besides the US and extremely close allies has ultra-modern tanks like late series Abrams or the Challenger II (and I have seen no evidence that those tanks are immune to the GAU-8).
P.S. There are also cheap ways to reduce shape charge effectiveness that don't work against solid penetrators. Things like the TUSK upgrade are designed to defeat RPGs not 30mm cannon.
That was a fairly long time ago, but unless armor has made huge progress since then, producing something hard enough to deflect this kind of force and yet light enough that the tank can move, I'd still bet on an A10 against anything rolling on the ground.
The top of a tank not so much and if you blow a track of that's a mobility kill - almost as good as a full brew up.
How about building a ground support platform that can deal with this? Apparently, the Army has tried with helicopters with instrument pods above their rotors, so they can target enemies from behind cover. Perhaps the solution will be many small drones taking the place of one manned aircraft.
After an AC-130 was shot down in Iraq, they only fly at night.
This one came back with bullet holes, but still had both wings.
http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/9884/did-an-f-15...
An F-8 Crusader Navy jet could take off with its wings still folded, then come around and land again.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vought_F-8_Crusader#Operational...
(Search for "wings folded". I like the part about the pilot complaining that the controls felt "heavy.")
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/can-gun-recoil-rea...
Yes, but AFAIK, the A-10 is the only plane that was designed by starting with a BFG, then building a plane around it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_P-39_Airacobra#Circular_Pr...
The A10 doesnt do this either of course. It produces more recoil force than one engine, but not both.
The A-10 engines were initially susceptible to flameout when subjected to gases generated in the firing of the gun. When the GAU-8 is being fired, the smoke from the gun can make the engines stop, and this did occur during initial flight testing. Gun exhaust is essentially oxygen-free, and is certainly capable of causing flame-outs of gas turbines. The A-10 engines now have a self-sustaining combustion section. When the gun is fired the igniters come on to reduce the possibility of a flame-out.
"The recoil force of the GAU-8/A[16] is 10,000 pounds-force (45 kN),[3] which is slightly more than the output of one of the A-10's two TF34 engines (9,065 lbf / 40.3 kN each).[17] While this recoil force is significant, in practice cannon fire only slows the aircraft a few miles per hour in level flight."
The gun firing produces more force through recoil on the plane then is produced by one of the plane's engines. That is simply amazing.
Edit: The guns wiki page(it has a wiki page).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GAU-8_Avenger