Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!att!cbnews!military From: adrian%cs.heriot-watt.ac.uk@NSFnet-Relay.AC.UK (Adrian Hurt) Newsgroups: sci.military Subject: Re: A-10 Thunderbolt -- Who /really/ flys them? Message-ID: <10369@cbnews.ATT.COM> Date: 19 Oct 89 03:33:08 GMT References: <10085@cbnews.ATT.COM> <10139@cbnews.ATT.COM> <10174@cbnews.ATT.COM> Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM Organization: Computer Science, Heriot-Watt U., Scotland Lines: 55 Approved: military@att.att.com From: Adrian Hurt In article <10176@cbnews.ATT.COM> munnari!csc.anu.oz.au!bxr307@uunet.uu.net writes: > > >From: munnari!csc.anu.oz.au!bxr307@uunet.uu.net >The US Air Force ... tested the GAU8 against the English ADEN 30mm >and the French DEFA ... The result was that the GAU8 while firing a slightly >heavier round at a slightly higher muzzle velocity was NOT as accurate as >either of the other weapons. Slightly heavier, and slightly higher muzzle velocity? I don't have any figures for those (can someone oblige, if it's not classified?) but everything I've read about the A-10A really lays it on thick when emphasizing the hitting power of the GAU-8. The info supplied with a model I have calls it a "30mm Gatling gun which can scrap a tank at one blow". The kit is Japanese in origin, so that may be an error on the part of the translator, but it sums up the GAU-8 rather well. For one thing, the shells have depleted uranium cores. They aren't nuclear weapons, but they're the next best thing. For another, being a Gatling means that the GAU-8 has rather a high rate of fire - switchable between 2100 and 4200 rounds per minute. I don't think two DEFA's would match that. >The A10 would have carried two, slightly smaller guns which were more accurate. Which, IMHO, is like saying that Dirty Harry could carry two Walther PPK's instead of one .44 magnum. In article <10139@cbnews.ATT.COM> dela@ee.rochester.edu (Del Armstrong) writes: > >For what it's worth, I think they traded one liability (slow speed) for >a bunch of liabilites (poor survivability, poor loiter capability, poor >accuracy?, need for long runways). Me too. The A-10A was designed specifically for ground attack, and being a specialist, it's unbeatable (so far) at that job. The F-15E's main defence against ground fire is to get in and out before the baddies can shoot back, which means the pilot won't (obviously) take much time making his own attack, therefore he'll be less sure of a kill. By contrast, the A-10A's defence against ground fire is that it's tough - it didn't get the nickname "Warthog" just on the basis of its looks. Control surfaces - who needs them? Well, even the A-10A needs them, but it'll still fly with big holes in its wings and half its tail missing. Even when retracted, the wheels stick out of their nacelles a bit, so the A-10A can land with its wheels up and still have a good chance of surviving with little damage. The titanium bathtub in the cockpit has already been mentioned in other articles. In short, the A-10A is built to take what's thrown at it and survive. I'd guess a lot of Eastern tank crews will sleep easier when they know they don't have to worry about A-10A's. "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