OK, since Elendil, our A-10 fanboy (you’d accept that, right?) opened the thread, I was going to post this, decided against it, but here it is: F-35 doing a low-pass strafing run.
Didn’t wan’t this to spiral into an F-35 thread, but of course half of it is anyway. This recent vid is simply the first time I’ve seen the F-35 doing it’s “yeah, we’re handling the old A-10 stuff” and so it’s worth posting.
And all her campaign ads bill her as a “fighter pilot”. The A10 is a lot of things, but a fighter jet it ain’t.
Cool stuff, that was near me. I see the F-35’s from Hill buzzing around periodically.
Well, it’s not the classic air-superiority fighter, but I doubt the general public makes much of a distinction between air-superiority, ground-attack, interceptor, or escort. It shoots stuff, most people will call it a fighter.
??? A chain gun is a gun that is run off a chain, connected to a motor. Or it’s a brand name of a particular chain gun. A gun that is not a chain gun is powered by energy from expanding gasses. I’m not saying, I’m asking – I don’t know anything about this. ???
And now it’s available as a 1/72 scale die-cast model: http://www.militaryissue.com/A-10C-Warthog-1_72-Die-Cast-Model/productinfo/0980837/
That is correct. An electric motor drives the firing/feeding mechanism using a chain. Hence, chain gun.
Other feed methods:
Gas operated. Gas is bled from the gun barrel just before the bullet exits. The gas impinges on a piston attached to a rod that drives the bolt unlocking operations, drives the bolt backwards while the extractor flings the expended cartridge case out. At the end of the bolt travel, a spring drives the bolt assembly picking up a fresh cartridge from a magazine or belt and driving the ctg. into the weapon chamber. A ramp/cam then rotates the bolt to lock the ctg. in the chamber. Along the way the firing pin has been cocked and Bobs your uncle.
Recoil method. It’s late. Look up the M2 .50 cal. machine gun for the operation.
Blowback. The bolt isn’t locked and there is just a big-ass spring driving the mechanism once the first round is fired. More if you look up blowback in far better detail.
Combinations of above and of course manual bolt action loading.
And then you wander off into automatic, semi-automatic, single fire and books are written with thousand page critiques.
But the most effective would be a motor that powers a hydraulic system to operate the gun.
Re: the F-35. What weapons system is it supposed to have that will allow it to take over the A-10’s role?
Yeah, it’s not a fighter in any definition of the word.
And just because my audience might not know the difference between a desk and an elephant, I’m not within my right to call one the other. Her and her people think that makes her sound more bad-ass, pure and simple.
If she was really a fighter pilot and her bio read “human resources Officer,” you can be darn sure that would be corrected in a heart beat.
:dubious: The A-10 carries 1174 rounds (enough for 18 seconds of fire), while the F-35 only carries 180 rounds (enough for just over three seconds of fire). So yeah, if you want to send six F-35s, I suppose they can do the job of an A-10.
I don’t think anyone is really suggesting that the F-35 is going to be doing a lot of strafing, so it isn’t quite right to think of the F-35 as doing the job in the same way as the A-10.
Instead, the argument is that the F-35 will rely on its stealth to get into highly contested airspaces that the A-10 has literally no chance of surviving, due to advanced SAMs that are very, very capable. And then, instead of the perception of the A-10 zooming around and doing tons of strafing runs, the F-35 would use advanced sensors to deliver precision munitions (like the Small Diameter Bomb for example) from further away, keeping the aircraft out of the range of short range air defenses.
There’s of course debate on whether this is a good idea or not, but it should be made clear that the F-35 just isn’t going to be employed in the same way as the A-10. For the proponents of the F-35, the question is somewhat like Archie Bunker getting rid of his old RCA TV for a modern flat screen and wondering how to adjust the vertical hold – of course his new TV isn’t going to operate just like his old one, that’s the whole point!
And for proponents of the A-10, the question may be framed more like:“You expect me to get rid of my F-150 truck and replace it with a Nissan Leaf with only 85 miles of range? Are you nuts?”
I think the vast majority of the close air support missions are already being done with stuff like the F-16 and the B-1B, not the A-10, and I believe most of the CAS ground kills that the A-10 has racked up have been with ordnance at medium altitudes, not the cannon.
The F-35 does pretty much the same CAS as the above. Get to where it’s needed fast (2X the speed of the A-10) and drop some SDB IIs. It’s not going to be loitering low, or using its cannon much, but it can still pretty much get the job done.
The A-10 does what it does well, but it’s limited to areas where there is no enemy air threat, or AA, or manpads. Titanium bathtub or no, it’ll get shredded in a higher threat environment, and is it worth keeping a one-trick-pony around, or should that money be spend on more cost effective low-threat CAS like Super Tucanos?
No, this is not correct. A chain gun uses a short section of chain, with one end connected to the bolt of the gun. An external power source cycles the bolt via the chain. This reduces the likelihood of jams and allows the gun to cycle even if a round does not fire. A chain gun has a single-barrel, though I suppose you could have multiple barrels if you designed it that way.
The A-10 uses a rotary, multi-barrel cannon. It is a completely different animal.
Either you’re wrong, or Wikipedia’s wrong.
To be clear, my goal in making my comment was to make sure that it is understood that using a motor and chain to rotate barrels does not make a gun into a “chain gun.” A chain gun has a much different design and method of operation.
Wikipedia is wrong, or at least the impression that quotation gives.
All chain guns are externally powered, not all externally powered guns are chain guns. The term ‘chain gun’ originated as a marketing term for a particular type of single barrel gun where the bolt is cycled by an externally powered mechanism that features a length of industrial chain.
Gatling guns are not chain guns and multibarrel rotary guns are nor even necessarily externally powered. The A-10’s gun is strictly externally powered as are most other modern era US Gatling guns, like the old hand crank ones in the 19th century. But the 20mm Gatling gun in the US SUU-23 gun pod is only started by an electric motor after which it’s self powered by cartridge gas. Soviet/Russian rotary cannon like the GSh-6-30 are purely gas operated.
There were also various other externally powered multi-barrel machine guns in the Gatling gun’s original time which had different mechanisms (Gardner, Nordenfelt, Hotchkiss rotary but which wasn’t identical to Gatling, etc)
It kills me to say it as the A-10 is easily my favorite airplane post WWII, but it’s time is past. It is my understanding all aircraft are kept above a 10,000 foot floor in current combat zones and thus the A-10 almost never using it’s gun anymore. All USA aircraft now use precision guided bombs instead of bullets.
There are massive costs required required to keep each class of airplanes in service. (Schools for training Maintenance personal being one of the big ones but there are many others) We can save a lot more money by retiring a whole class of planes that we can’t do just by cutting the same number of planes across several airframe types.
We just can’t afford to keep a single purpose aircraft in service when we have other aircraft that can do the job. The A-10 is useless against any opponent with any air defenses it only real bonus is it is cheaper to operate. But against low level threats the Super Tucanos are a MUCH cheaper and better option so there really isn’t any reason to keep them around.
The quote I posted included both of those features, defining a chain gun as being externally powered, and using a loop of chain to utilize that power. I took issue with ZonexandScout’s claim that a chain gun used a discontinuous length of chain, as opposed to the continuous loop of chain claimed by Wikipedia.
I think the Air Force is keeping that beast around for another 10 years or so, so not quite past!
For chain gun vs rotary gun here is a decent non Wikipedia reference. http://www.cmchant.com/the-chain-gun.
TLDR: The chain drives the bolt in a chain gun. The chain drives the rotation of the barrels in a rotary like the M61A1 in the F-18 and it is electrically fired. Both use chains but only one uses the chain to drive the bolt.