Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 11,930
- Points
- 1,160
Any news on the possible deployment to Afghanistan of small turboprops CAS aircraft by the USAF or SF types?
Martin “Mighty Midget”
In 1952, the Martin Company produced a design for a single-seat ground attack plane. Check that… a single *couch* ground attack plane. It didn;t have a seat, as the pilot lay prone. The result was a plane of remarkably small frontal section… and remarkably small overall dimensions. The Mighty Midget was designed to be a small, tough, cheap proto-A-10, able to dish out a truckload of industrial strength whoopass; small, fast and nimble enough to evade enemy fire; and tough enough to take whatever did hit it.
A modernized version could very well do great service in today’s wars. The Marines and the Army would almost certainly love to have such a plane (although the Army would tick off the Air Force if they actually went ahead and bought something like this).
To get more info on the Mighty Midget, check this out.
Gun, guns, *holy crap* helicopter artillery
A Boeing-Vertol design study from October 1972 for the US Army Weapons Command, Rock Island Arsenal, Illinois (just about my home town). The idea was to strap an XM204 105 mm “soft recoil” howitzer to either side of a CH-47C Chinook helicopter. This was not for the purpose of transporting the weapons from place to place, but to actually use them in an air-to-ground “lay down some whoopass” role. A nine man gun crew and 96 rounds of ammo would be carried. Mission radius was 100 n.mi.
The helicopter could be used in two ways:
1) Land, and fire the right-hand gun. A special platform was built for the weapon for crew servicing while on the ground. The left-hand weapon was a complete field piece, and was meant to be easily removed and located for firing.
2) Fire while in flight. As reported:
both XM204 soft-recoil howitzers are
mounted for forward direct air-to-ground firing with automatic
ammunition-loading mechanisms provided for rapid firing (30
rounds per minute each). The copilot is provided with a
simple, fixed, depressible-reticle sight and laser rangefinder
for aiming the helicopter/gun system for firing in this mode.
Preflight adjustments of the howitzer elevation settings will
allow for aiming the weapons with the helicopter at various
airspeeds, rates of climb, and heights above the target.
Yow.
Sadly, the illustrations are of suck quality, but they get the idea across.
Army Eyes Man-Hunting Mini-Blimps?
By Noah Shachtman December 10, 2008 | 7:57 am | Categories: Air Force
We’ll get to the real substance in a second. But first, let’s focus on the man-hunting mini-blimps.
Stephen Trimble flags this odd, odd paragraph in an otherwise straight L.A. Times story about the spending choices facing Defense Secretary Bob Gates in a new administration.
Some Army officials are pushing development of a small blimp equipped with an automated high-powered sniper rifle that could provide a form of inexpensive but effective air support for platoons in Afghanistan.
"Surely, the army is really asking for a small aerostat linked to an actual soldier on the ground with a sniper rifle, no?" Trimble asks.
Maybe a sniper detection system, mounted on an airship? A "Sniper" targeting pod, put on a blimp? The mythical "AirSniper" mini-drone, come to life? Or perhaps some folks in the Army really do want to have a small blimp, floating in the sky, taking out enemies, one by one.
Of course, all of those ideas are pretty wimpy, when you compare ‘em to 1957’s "Operation Plumbob." As part of a series of above-ground nuclear weapons tests, the government hung a-bombs "as large as 74 kilotons beneath blimps," Popular Mechanics says.
And then the unmanned airships dropped the weapons, to see what would happen. Needless to say, the blimps didn’t fare particularly well, after the blasts.
Three years later, notes Airminded, the Navy ran a pair of trials, to see if airships could drop nuclear depth charges on Soviet submarines. The results:
The first airship exposed to overpressure experienced a structural failure of the nose cone when it was rammed into the mooring mast, together with a tear of the forward ballonet which necessitated deflation of the envelope. The second airship broke in half and crashed following a circumferential failure of the envelope originating at the bottom of the envelope, forward of the car.
At leat colateral damage will be almost eliminated. The second half of the piece is a case where common sense just would not do (dropping a nuke from a blimp?):
Well that's should make the planners' and taskers' job even more difficult -- assuming we get the equipment and develop suitable techniques, they'll have to factor in whether each individual pilot thinks the ground controller is sufficiently worthy. :SupersonicMax said:But, a big But...
I would never be willing to let a guy on the ground with no Aviation weapons knowledge or flight experience with them take a weapon on my jet and drop it. I'll let him talk my pod on a target, but not take weapons on my plane.
Journeyman said:Well that's should make the planners' and taskers' job even more difficult -- assuming we get the equipment and develop suitable techniques, they'll have to factor in whether each individual pilot thinks the ground controller is sufficiently worthy. :
SupersonicMax said:The day you sign for the bomb and the Jet, I'll give you full control over it. Until then, I signed for the aircraft and the weapons. I decide who uses them. According to 1 Cdn Air Division orders, the Aircraft Captain (that would be me) is responsible for the safe conduct of a flight. It includes weapons.
Old Sweat said:Max, you do not decide who uses your weapons. The competent ground controller ie a FAC or JTAC decides if your weapon load is appropriate and if so, clears it for use. Rover is a tool that allows that controller to ensure that you are being directed on the correct target and are not endangering friendly forces. I would suggest that actually firing/dropping your weapon remains your responsibility, but I cannot speak for every situation.
Do you know that, if the tool were introduced to the inventory, we would not modify our FAC/JTAC training so that operators might have the full range of knowledge necessary to properly (effectively & safely) operate said new tool?SupersonicMax said:He doesn't have weaponeering experience on our weapons, I do.
MCG said:Do you know that, if the tool were introduced to the inventory, we would not modify our FAC/JTAC training so that operators might have the full range of knowledge necessary to properly (effectively & safely) operate said new tool?