a-10 ?

Personally, I'd say Metalstorm will make service long before railguns.

What could you replace the Thunderbolt II with? The Skyraider? The only other jet that can do the A10's job nearly as well is Russian - the Sukhoi Frogfoot.

I know what you mean about Marines, but how hard would it be to convert the airframe and landing gear to carrier standard? And could you get it off an assault carrier? They're pretty small.

Puff the magic dragon had a 105mm Howitzer up his arse back in VN! But then AC gunships are a different breed.

Even the recoil from the gatling gun throws the A10 off target in sustained bursts!

Seriously ugly jet, but except for Skyhawk when has a ground attack bird been small?

Best reason for keeping A10 - jets vs helicopters, helos lose.

Well in Desert Storm when the Iraqi army was retreating to Basra it was the A-10 and...............The F-16. Turns out the F-16 with a Maveric was devestating to Iraqi armor.

In a much earlier post there was some banter about a friend of mine. KC. Captain Kim Campbell. She sent me a bunch of pictures of her and the torn up hog. If ya want them I can zip em up and email them to you.

Originally posted by Murcielago
Your assuming that rail guns have more recoil then gun powder. I dont know if they do or not, but I would assume that if anything they would have less recoil. Normal guns explode the powder which propels the bullet, but a rail gun is drastically different. It pushes the bullet until it gets to speed. So if it does have a recoil, it would be less then a normal guns recoil. (I think)

[edit on 2-11-2004 by Murcielago]

from what i have seen they do. but chemical weapons have alot of recoil.
yeah i used to think that as well but the way a raoilguns recoil works is slightly diffrent, i think, and it is pretty high.

Originally posted by Aether
4 km/s ? thats like 4000 m/s. Are you sure those numbers are correct?

yup, the SA80 goes at 940 metres a second.
its quite fast and thats why i like it. it doesnt require any chemicals and is totaly clean.

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey


- Devil, I know they can demonstrate the thing - and even do impressive stuff with it in tests - but I was under the impression that it was an enormous big piece of lab equipment that is still decades away from getting out of the lab....if ever.

i think it was the US navy that set up a test station in the north of scotland and ran tests on it. they are still a bit away due to the power issue's, but they are getting there. a guy has made one which is quite small but requires a lot of power

- 6 metres! See what I mean!?

.

yeah but even with 2 or 3 metre rails you could get quite a high speed BUT the power thing again.

- Some people still imagine using them to put things into orbit!

in space is the perfect rail gun territory. no air ressitance,no space constrictions,no power constrictions except when your on the other side of the planet on the dark side.
imagine a 20 metre rail gun. i cant even begin to think of the damage a 20 metre rail gun with a tactical warhead would cause.

Originally posted by Murcielago
sminkeypinkey - It would be a pretty hefty start up cost to build a satellite launching railgun, but over time it would easily pay itself off. But the problem with that is that satellites would have to be built far far stronger then they are today, which might take a good chunk out of the railguns customers.

Railguns are promising, and they will deffiniatly be used in future warfare.

Heres some examples of its uses.

The Navy future Destroyer called the DD(X) might have a railgun. It will be all electric, so it can divert power from the engines and use it to power up the gun.


Lockheed is working on an army railgun version.


They should be entering the US arsenal in under a decade.

dude unless the DD(X) ship is going to have several capacitors and nuclear reactors then its going to be pretty slow projectiles. i mean its going to have a slow rate of fire unless they put 60 capacitors onboard then they can have a 60 rounds per minute rate of fire.
the army one i have my doubts with, mabye as a turret thing but a mobile thing? i dunno.

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
Even the recoil from the gatling gun throws the A10 off target in sustained bursts!

If fired in full auto for sustained period of time, it will actually threaten the planes airspeed to the point where it can and will stall. Thats serious power.

My favourite plane. Ever.

Why update with a new JFS? Think about this: A10 get damaged, due to old technology it can be repaired easily without as much reliance on brand new expensive spares that still have the 'we need to bump the price up because of development' tax on them.

Originally posted by W4rl0rD I disagree. It is a fat piece of titanium that is not majestic at all but does its job extremely well.

Intersting avatar and registration date. Don't personally care if you think its majestic or not. It's majesty is seen in that, not only can it do the job it was designed for - and do it well as you noted - it can also do what it wasn't designed for - and do it well as I noted.

Since you weren't there, I doubt you would understand

Oh yeah.For better jets,try MiG-31s,F-22s,Su-30/37s,F-14s and all other planes that can blast it out of the sky.

I guess we might just find out, huh...

the A10 the ugliest,biggest,meanest,most badass,most efficient and toughest attack plane on the plannet.
mind you i dont personally, but its nasty peice of work.

Originally posted by just_a_pilot
Well in Desert Storm when the Iraqi army was retreating to Basra it was the A-10 and...............The F-16. Turns out the F-16 with a Maveric was devestating to Iraqi armor.

I'll give it that, but retreating armour which wasn't returning a hell of a lot of fire. Fighting Falcon is a little delicate to be flying into small-calibre AAA. I don't think it could do what your friends Thunderbolt did.

DevilWasp
dude unless the DD(X) ship is going to have several capacitors and nuclear reactors then its going to be pretty slow projectiles. i mean its going to have a slow rate of fire unless they put 60 capacitors onboard then they can have a 60 rounds per minute rate of fire.

It will have 4 gas turbines which will be able to generate 80 megewatts of power. As for the per minute rate, its not that big of a deal, I believe its around 2-4 times a minute. and with the inert projectile capable to have a 260 mile range, it could take some of the tomahawks work load. and the projectiles are inert, so its far safer to carry, and no need to be worried about an explosion, or a fire on board wont set any of em off.

Who else has rail guns? NO ONE!

So..exactly...what would happen if you got hit by a railgun? I'm getting the sick image of my head of a ray gun from the movie Mars Attacks

The A-10 has always been one of my fav planes, the teeth just make it look even more bad. I heard from my father (retired USAF 28 years) that these planes could and do cruise 50 feet above the ground safely in an attack mode if neccesary. Could you imagine standing there and seeing an a-10 approach you 50 feet above the ground? Talk about seeing life right before your eyes

Someone posted that a A-10 'out-dog-fought" (i like that word) a F-15? psshh yea...talk about a lousy pilot in the 15.

Originally posted by Aether
Someone posted that a A-10 'out-dog-fought" (i like that word) a F-15? psshh yea...talk about a lousy pilot in the 15.

Why?
P51 Mustangs killed more Me 262s than any other plane did. Prop against Jet.
When they went to the Mid-East post-WW2 the RAF ran specific Spitfire vs Meteor drills because so many Mid-East AFs owned surplus Spits and weren't exactly enamoured of the Brits.

Why update with a new JFS? Think about this: A10 get damaged, due to old technology it can be repaired easily without as much reliance on brand new expensive spares.

Exactly, same as the Hurricane in 1940. Old tech that was easier to repair and service than the state-of-the art Spitfire. Some squadrons refused to convert at the end of the Battle of Britain.

Originally posted by Murcielago

It will have 4 gas turbines which will be able to generate 80 megewatts of power. As for the per minute rate, its not that big of a deal, I believe its around 2-4 times a minute. and with the inert projectile capable to have a 260 mile range, it could take some of the tomahawks work load. and the projectiles are inert, so its far safer to carry, and no need to be worried about an explosion, or a fire on board wont set any of em off.

so it will direct power away from the engiines to the guns? therefore makeing it slower?
2-4 a minute is still going to need 4 -5 capacitors anticipating broken ones.
yeah thats the advantage of a rail gun. wait only 260 miles? what length are the rails?

Originally posted by American Mad Man
Who else has rail guns? NO ONE!

uhh dude WE have rail guns too. if you dont remember there is a small island in the north of scotland doing research on the stuff.

Originally posted by Aether
So..exactly...what would happen if you got hit by a railgun? I'm getting the sick image of my head of a ray gun from the movie Mars Attacks

well imagine a 50kg projectile comeing at you at say about 3km/s now not includeing a possible exsplosive core its going to bes ore.

Originally posted by American Mad Man
Who else has rail guns? NO ONE!

- AMM anyone with even a very basic grasp of physics, 'targeting' capability, superconductors......and especially with something like a mag-lift train program for God's sake.....has all they need to make a very real, very powerful 'rail gun'.

Basically pretty much everyone in the developed world has the capacity; the question is whether they can be bothered going to the trouble and expense of developing one and whether the current size/cost constraints make it feasible compared to existant weaponary and any perceived requirement.

Just because you think a weapon is 'cool' or particularly unique does not really justify it alone, right?

It might interest you to know that rail guns in one form or another have been being toyed with for over 70yrs.

[edit on 5-11-2004 by sminkeypinkey]

Aether
So..exactly...what would happen if you got hit by a railgun? I'm getting the sick image of my head of a ray gun from the movie Mars Attacks

you die.
This has nothing to do with lasers.
If you know how a maglev (aka:floating train) works, then you should understand the basics of this weapon.
Its just magnets and a computer controlling there positve and negitiveness by electricity. A magnet will pull the projectile towards and when it gets up to it then the next magnet in line pulls it, all by using electricity to harness their push/pull power. then wave a wand and say "abra-cadabra", and POOF, you have a electromagnetic gun (aka:EM Gun or Railgun).