Can the A-10 fire APFSDS rounds?

[marcos]

I knew that they were available in 25x137mm so I wondered if they existed in 30x173mm. Seems they do:

 

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_30mm_BushmasterII.htm

 

So can the A10 use them? 1430m/s!

 

Edited August 23, 2012 by marcos

[Bushmanni]

The pieces of sabots will do wonders to the engines.

[marcos]

The pieces of sabots will do wonders to the engines.

A valid point. Good job someone thought of that.:megalol:

 

How does it eject the casings out of the way, or does it eject them externally?

Edited August 24, 2012 by marcos

[cichlidfan]

A valid point. Good job someone thought of that.:megalol:

 

How does it eject the casings out of the way, or does it eject them externally?

 

The GAU-8 collects the shells. They come back with the aircraft.

[marcos]

The GAU-8 collects the shells. They come back with the aircraft.

I see.

[AlphaOneSix]

EDIT: Nevermind, I'm late to the party.

Edited August 24, 2012 by AlphaOneSix

[OutOnTheOP]

Short version (as has been mostly covered above): the GAU-8 CAN (as in, it's physically possible) fire them, but the sabot petals (jetisonned as the projo leaves the barrel) would eat up the engines, as they have very unpredictable paths on exit.

 

The APFSDS rounds are designed for use with the Goalkeeper CIWS system, a naval anti-missile system that uses the GAU-8 cannon.

[Jordan4]

I still do not understand whatsoever why they cant just put up some kind of gate/filter in front of the fans so that in the case that a sabot pedal does end up in the flight path of the engine it is blocked off. It seems like a real performance disadvantage to be limited to full bore AP projectiles. Perhaps they could create a sabot pedal that has a more predictable flight path and engineer it to stay clear of the engines. Or simply put up some sort of gate to stop the things from hitting the fans in the first place. If it effects airflow and subsequently engine performance that much than just make the damn engines more efficient. There is plenty of power to be squeezed out of those ancient T-34's by use of contemporary materials and re-engineering. Perhaps some sort of combustible sabot pedal that once exposed to the drag forces of air once exiting the barrel disintegrates or ignites? I don't know but you would think that they would put some further work into making the damn thing fire real ap stuff instead of just a full bore 30mm slug of D.U. If they are going to do that then why not just develop an H.E.D.P round for it. I mean if the AH-64's 30x113 H.E.D.P ammo can penetrate 50mm R.H.A than that is already an improvement especially considering that that penetration is possible from any range ( chemical vs. kinetic penetration ) unlesss behind armor effects are not as severe. Another thought. Slats similar to window blinds that are horizontal during normal flying conditions and then as soon as the gun is fired they angle down 60-70 degrees so that airflow is still permited however f.o.d has no room to enter. Just a thought.

Edited August 27, 2012 by Jordan4

[OutOnTheOP]

.... or you could just fire the current GAU8 projos at the tank from aspects at which it can penetrate.

 

Or use a Maverick.

 

Or a CBU97.

 

No need to add weight and complexity to the aircraft just for marginal gains to the gun's capabilities.

[Echo38]

I still do not understand whatsoever why they cant just put up some kind of gate/filter in front of the fans so that in the case that a sabot pedal does end up in the flight path of the engine it is blocked off.

 

Not an engineer, but pretty sure that would kill engine performance. I doubt the engine could even run with the air intake restricted in that fashion. That's why aircraft do not have grates over the intakes to remove the threat of bird strikes, nor screens to remove the threat of smaller particles such as dust and pebbles.

 

Regarding why they don't try to come up with methods of allowing more devastating projectiles: if it ain't broke, don't fix it! I'm not aware of anyone in the field complaining about the GAU-8 not being effective enough. : )

Edited August 31, 2012 by Echo38

[sobek]

I think that the only reason that there even is a sabot round for the GAU-8 is increased muzzle velocity to increase the chance of a hit on a maneuvering missile when used with a CIWS, not so much penetration. If used correctly, the standard ammunition for the A-10 deployed Avenger is capable of doing what it is supposed to do, without necessitating major reengineering of the weapons platform.

 

Remember how there already is no money to fund the program for new engines for the A-10? Well, there's even less money to reengineer major parts of the airplane to fill operational needs that do not exist...

[marcos]

Could place a vacuum cleaner beside the muzzle.;):D

[Jordan4]

I think that the only reason that there even is a sabot round for the GAU-8 is increased muzzle velocity to increase the chance of a hit on a maneuvering missile when used with a CIWS

 

APFSDS Ammo for any gun especially a 30mm is substantially more effective at armor penetration than full caliber ammo especially when range is considered.

[sobek]

APFSDS Ammo for any gun especially a 30mm is substantially more effective at armor penetration than full caliber ammo especially when range is considered.

 

Yes, but missiles are not armored. It may offer advantages in armor penetration for the Bushmaster, but since the Goalkeeper is the only application of the GAU-8 where APFSDS can be used, the point still stands.

Edited September 9, 2012 by sobek

[Jordan4]

I wasn't talking about CIWS systems. In that application TOF is the only reason an apfsds is used. Maybe they could use a delayed sabot so that the sabot only sheds from the projectile after a certain distance when it is no longer a threat to the host aircraft. Just a thought.

[Pyroflash]

Adding complexity to an already expensive bullet in order to marginally increase its effectiveness? I don't think so.

[sobek]

I wasn't talking about CIWS systems. In that application TOF is the only reason an apfsds is used. Maybe they could use a delayed sabot so that the sabot only sheds from the projectile after a certain distance when it is no longer a threat to the host aircraft. Just a thought.

 

At which point is it no longer a threat to the aircraft? ;)

 

Also, that would mean sacrificing the one advantage that this bullet has for the A-10, penetration.

[marcos]

At which point is it no longer a threat to the aircraft? ;)

The further away, the worse it is in a way. If the sabot gets thrown straight away, it has a chance of not getting into the engine's airflow.

[Weta43]

"Also, that would mean sacrificing the one advantage that this bullet has for the A-10, penetration. "

 

Don't forget, the "AP" at the start of "APFSDS" does stand for Armour Piercing...

You can still get a simillar kinetic energy into the round, and a tungsten or DU discarding sabot round would concentrate this on a very small area...

 

(but the sabots do mess things up... can't see the A-10 pilot wanting to fly through a hail of those...)

Edited September 11, 2012 by Weta43

[WildBillKelsoe]

like the gun is not powerful already ?! :noexpression:

[sobek]

You can still get a simillar kinetic energy into the round, and a tungsten or DU discarding sabot round would concentrate this on a very small area...

 

Duh, yes, i know. :)

 

But if the sabot stays on for some time, it has essentially the same or even worse cw than a conventional AP round.

[marcos]

like the gun is not powerful already ?! :noexpression:

Oerlikon 35x228mm upgrade is what it requires.

[Jordan4]

At which point is it no longer a threat to the aircraft?

 

The point where the sabot's trajectory is no longer able to hit the host aircraft.

 

Also, that would mean sacrificing the one advantage that this bullet has for the A-10, penetration.

 

You might want to do more research for yourself on this topic because APFSDS is substantially more effective at armor penetration than a full bore projectile. Which is the exact reason that every modern tank in the world carries apfsds as its primary anti armor round. Im not sure some of you realize just how much more armor an apfsds round is capable of penetrating than a full bore projectile. The sectional density of a small diameter/length ratio dart far exceeds that of a conventional projectile. It sounds like you are trying to say that apfsds is a less capable armor penetrator than the A-10's full bore AP which is completley false.

[sobek]

The point where the sabot's trajectory is no longer able to hit the host aircraft.

 

What if there are thermals? I'm not trying to be argumentative, just trying to establish that it is next to impossible to ensure under any circumstances that parts from the sabot do not intercept the aircraft.

 

It sounds like you are trying to say that apfsds is a less capable armor penetrator than the A-10's full bore AP which is completley false.

 

I am not, please revisit our exchange. You suggested that the sabot be discarded of later, which means that the round would cover a significant distance with the sabot on, thus decreasing its velocity and hence its penetration drastically.

Edited September 21, 2012 by sobek

[marcos]

You could make the sabot combustible.