100% same-same...
Posted on 07/06/2016 3:50:50 PM PDT by DUMBGRUNT
If the aircraft loses all of its electronics including its digital displays and targeting systems, the pilot of an A-10 can still fly, drop general purpose bombs and shoot the 30mm cannon, Haden explained.
“So when I lose all the computers and the calculations, the targeting pod and the heads up display, you can still point the aircraft using a degraded system at the target and shoot. We are actually trained for that,” he said.
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalinterest.org ...
Give the A-10’s to the Army. Problem solved.
Now I don’t know nothin about no airplanes, but they are promising some kind of helmet targeting.
I think they are also promising some pie in the sky, to go with it.
I know diddly squat about planes and even less about military aircraft.
BUT, looking at a picture of an A10 makes me hear Clint Eastwood whisper “Do ya feel lucky punk? Well, do ya?”
Which is why that type of hardware is always targeted first. Going into the future it’s probably going to be done or augmented with software and conventional explosives activated EMP weapons.
If the loiter time on FPV flying vehicles is increased while retaining their small size it might include them too.
Speaking of stealth being defeated, I recall reading an intriguing piece some years back noting that stealth aircraft leave “wakes” in the RF “sea” emitted by cellular towers, I wonder whatever became of that?
I still would pay money to see the movie “One A-10 vs. The Whole Iranian Navy”.
Huey baby. Huey.
100% same-same...
Air or RF, stealth or not, everything leaves a wake. Commercial weather radars are tracking wind speed and direction, and getting better all the time.
Is the military (ours or theirs) really behind that kind of tech?
I don’t think so. Add in RF and IR and who knows what else; you’re gonna be seen.
A hummingbird traveling at 500+ knots leaving a big ass wake, and a heat signature, is gonna be noticed.
Whatever works huh
Mostly because of job security with the A-10 being phased out and the Gubmint doubling down on the F-35.
But I get your point.
right? if it's stooopid but it works, it ain't stooopid...
When I went throughout The Basic School (Basic Infantry Officer's course) at Quantico after being commissioned in 1972 we were taught that "Every Marine is a Rifleman, every Marine officer is an Infantry Platoon commander.
When Mrs BN & I made a call on our XO & his lady as part of our Social Graces training, he emphasized that all we future Marine aviators who were chomping at the bit, wanting to get to flight school, really needed to pay attention during our 6 months at The Basic School.
He told me of how he ended up being the G-3 (Operations Officer) of the 3rd Marine Division in Vietnam. He was running the day to day operations of the division sitting just south of the DMZ. He said that he had two regimental G-3s serving under him who were pilots and two rifle (infantry) company commanders IN THE BUSH who were also pilots. "Pay attention, Lieutenant!"
"Aye aye, Sir!
BTW, that XO was a fighter jock. He flew RF-8 Crusaders and was one of the pilots who blasted across Cuba at 200 feet, AGL, taking photos of the Russian missiles Castro had allowed in.
.jpg)
The AF’s first attempt at a helmet mounted targeting system was in the early 1970s during Nam. Even with all the money available back then it couldn’t be made to work.
Now? I will believe it when I see it used during a no notice ORI and not until then
BTW did you see some of the drawings of such a system about a decade ago? There was no way that any pilot wearing that proposed system could safely eject in a hurry.
My son served two tours of Iraq as a combat medic. They loved the A-10 and Apache. They knew if everything went to sh-t, the fly boys would save their butts.
Yeah I know. I was AF for 8 years.
Change the law.
Understood. JHMCS is a helmet-mounted cueing system. Been around a while. Works great and would cost little to add/improve for the A-10.
The JSF has a system that is integrated with strike role and this system really doesn’t add much to current designation system we have for CAS.
Basically, the A-10 has loiter time and an ability for multiple passes and is built to take a hit (triple redundant flight control system). The JSF, not so much.
Survivability and an ability to shape the battlefield are key to CAS.
Its actually a pylon turn, and yea with a grease pencil crosshair and a pylon turn it was pretty accurate.
Apparently it comes from a old delivery system they used to use for jungle/treed areas. Consisted of a collapsae bucket on a rope and in a pylon turn you could keep the rope and bucket in line, while you flew around it. I guess thats where the idea came from, only rope became stream of rounds. Apparently the old daredevil pilots of the 20s knew about the pylon turn and its effects.
You are making sweeping generalizations about what pilots want, please tell me how you can do that. All pilots (sweeping generalization) are different. A major conflict (I imagine you are referring to a high threat scenario) is rare and besides, we A10 drivers always knew we were going to be chewed up in any confrontation with the Soviets—most of us were thinking we would be lucky if we lasted three days in a major war with the Soviets.
I said “Soviets” presents the most lethal threat because it is the operator behind the trigger that makes a difference—see Gulf War I where the Iraqis had loads of sophisticated Soviet/Russian gear making up their integrated Air Defense Network, too include state of the art Soviet fighters. Didn’t do them much good.
Cheers, my FRiend.
A dumb question, The guns are fixed to the airframe?
To change the aim point the heading and pitch are changed?
All this by the input of the helmet position?
With the target moving, the helmet must track the target?
Very complex.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.