Can the A-10 fire APFSDS rounds?

[sobek]

So it would burn up inside the barrel? Not sure that is a good idea either.

[marcos]

So it would burn up inside the barrel? Not sure that is a good idea either.

There is a precedent for using combustible cases with a 25x152mm GAU-7/A round.

 

The other option is to use a telescoped case and a secondary ejector at the end of the barrel, which ejects the telescope case internally.

 

[sobek]

There is a precedent for using combustible cases with a 25x152mm GAU-7/A round.

 

Well, yes, combustible casings are not uncommon, but there's a huge difference between burning the casing that only holds the submunition before being fired or burning the sabot that serves to stabilize the rod inside the barrel as well as seal the barrel so that the rod is accellerated properly.

[marcos]

Well, yes, combustible casings are not uncommon, but there's a huge difference between burning the casing that only holds the submunition before being fired or burning the sabot that serves to stabilize the rod inside the barrel as well as seal the barrel so that the rod is accellerated properly.

Maybe but then the secondary ejector near the end of the barrel could work. Stop the sabot from exiting then eject it.

[Jordan4]

What if there are thermals?

 

Not exactley sure what you mean by this.

 

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.

 

Ok now I understand. I thought you were saying that using an apfsds would be sacrificing penetration as aposed to full bore. I do not suspect that the sabot would need to stay on for more than a few micro seconds to be clear of the aircrafts trajectory at which point any losses in velocity would be mitigated by the fact that the aircraft itself propels the projectile with its own speed aswell. I havent engineered exactley how it would work rather than just suggesting that it could be feasible.

 

Oerlikon 35x228mm upgrade is what it requires.

 

I have also thought about this. Imagine a milleneum revolver gun in place of the GAU-8. Then imagine using the Ahead ammo for ground suppression role. Absolutley devestating area coverage of tungsten shot with variable altitutude detination. I do wonder however how much better a full bore penetrator of 35mm would be than 30mm. Either way that would be alot of gun for an aircraft. I think the ac-130 should be stripped of its bofors and gau-12 in place of a millenium gun. I have also pondered about taking out the 105 in place of a mk110 naval gun however I am not sure that system could be installed on a c-130. If it could than that would be absolutley devastating against any and all targets. However if you are suggesting a GAU-8 version of the 35x228 I think that would make for too big of a gun. Besides once you step up to a round that big you dont need such a high rate of fire for your intended effect. The 1000 RPM of the Millenium gun is more than adequate. I would be suprised if you would be able to carry more than 400 or 500 35x228 rounds but even that would be plenty as few targets will require more than 1-2 hits to be taken out of action.

Edited September 25, 2012 by Jordan4

[marcos]

I have also thought about this. Imagine a milleneum revolver gun in place of the GAU-8. Then imagine using the Ahead ammo for ground suppression role. Absolutley devestating area coverage of tungsten shot with variable altitutude detination. I do wonder however how much better a full bore penetrator of 35mm would be than 30mm. Either way that would be alot of gun for an aircraft. I think the ac-130 should be stripped of its bofors and gau-12 in place of a millenium gun. I have also pondered about taking out the 105 in place of a mk110 naval gun however I am not sure that system could be installed on a c-130. If it could than that would be absolutley devastating against any and all targets. However if you are suggesting a GAU-8 version of the 35x228 I think that would make for too big of a gun. Besides once you step up to a round that big you dont need such a high rate of fire for your intended effect. The 1000 RPM of the Millenium gun is more than adequate. I would be suprised if you would be able to carry more than 400 or 500 35x228 rounds but even that would be plenty as few targets will require more than 1-2 hits to be taken out of action.

They did briefly work on a 35mm gatling gun for AAA but that's all I've heard.

 

I've often considered replacing the L60 with an L70 or Mk110 or even an Otobreda 76mm. A 120mm tank gun seems like an obvious upgrade for the 105 but they seem intent on using guided rounds, which means a 120mm mortar.

 

As a GAU-12 replacement a millenium gun could work, but the telescoped 40x255mm ammunition from a CTWS 40mm also looks promising, and mounted aft of engines, the sabot wouldn't be a problem:

 

Millenium

 

40mm CTWS cannon

 

40x255 APFSDS-T (550g/1600m/s), (150mm RHA at 1.5km)

 

HE GPR-T (1000g/1000m/s)

 

 

In other news the Tiger may get an RMK30 (30x250mm) eventually.

Edited September 25, 2012 by marcos

[Jordan4]

I've often considered replacing the L60 with an L70 or Mk110 or even an Otobreda 76mm. A 120mm tank gun seems like an obvious upgrade for the 105 but they seem intent on using guided rounds, which means a 120mm mortar.

I agree. At the very least mount a L/70 fast forty and get with the rest of the world. Where talking about a plane that cost over 200 million dollars. You would think that they would have up to date weaponry on the damn thing. A 76mm would be incredible however I think given the size constraints that the MK110 would be more than adequate and you can hold alot of ammo in a cargo plane. Of all the footage I have seen of the AC-130 in action it seems that the gau-12 is practically useless and the 105 as devastating as it is doesn’t seem to really have much of a place other than I guess destroying buildings which the 40mm could do but would take alot more hits. I think that the 57mm would be a great all around gun to do the job of all the currently mounted guns. Thank goodness they didn’t actually end up mounting those two bushmaster 2's. What a horrible downgrade of firepower that would have been. I think a 120mm tank gun would be overkill actually. You cannot expect to get enough precision to get APFSDS rounds on target reliably which would really be the only upside as a 120mm mortar would be able to deliver the same HE firepower ( probably not as accurately though ). They would have to make a breach loaded remote fired version of the 120mm mortar for obvious reasons. Maybe they should just develop a guided 105 round if there isn’t already one. I always thought it was silly to have such an expensive asset without any kind of guided munitions platform. I mean how hard would it be to slap a Litening on and mount some GBU'S. I always envisioned a bottom mounted pop down turret loaded with hellfire’s. From the videos I have seen it seems like they have real issues getting any of the guns on target. I’ve seen clips where their going after one guy on foot for several minutes. In a full scale conflict I just cannot see an AC-130 reliably taking out several targets at once like a convoy or something. Maybe they should work on the fire control/targeting or maybe just the nature of the platform is what makes it so inaccurate. For this reason it seems almost an operational requirement to have some kind of guided munitions. Also a millennium with Ahead or maybe even an L/70 or MK110 with 3P ammo would certainly make the accuracy issue less prominent.

As a GAU-12 replacement a millennium gun could work, but the telescoped 40x255mm ammunition from a CTWS 40mm also looks promising, and mounted aft of engines, the sabot wouldn't be a problem:

The CTA 40 is an awesome weapon system. However its rate of fire compared to the millennium is the only reason I would consider the millennium slightly better suited however they would both work fine. As far as the APFSDS is concerned maybe I am wrong but I just don’t see any gun shooting from an AC-130 being able to achieve a High enough level of accuracy to be able to nail medium or heavy armor with consistent hits that would be required for solid kills. Maybe the videos I have seen were from very high altitudes however it just doesn’t seem like an AC-130 would make a great anti armor asset without some kind of guided munitions. Of course my assessment is based solely on internet videos so perhaps when operating at the right altitude with the right sized target the accuracy is sufficient I don’t know. What about a GAU-13 ( 4 barreled GAU-8 )?

Edited September 29, 2012 by Jordan4

[Jordan4]

They did briefly work on a 35mm Gatling gun for AAA but that's all I've heard.

Actually it started out as a 37mm gun using modified L/60 40mm brass. It was supposed to be used in the T249 Vigilante. Later it was modified for 35x228 for use as a candidate in the Divads requirement which was one by the M247 Sergeant York ( Twin L/70's ) SPAAG which ended up being a flop and never entered service. I’m not sure how they messed it up but if they could have gotten it to work it would have been a damn fine SPAAG. I do think however that it would have been a bit much for the A-10 to carry and the recoil would have been too intense. I do think however that they should get the GPU-5 gun pod back in action and modify a weapon pylon for a permanent rigid mounting. Then we could have F-16's flying around spewing 30mm and when they do retire the A-10 which will be a very sad day then at least we will know that there is something up there with multiple barrels spewing out 30mm rounds.

[marcos]

Thank goodness they didn’t actually end up mounting those two bushmaster 2's. What a horrible downgrade of firepower that would have been.

Amen.

 

I think a 120mm tank gun would be overkill actually. You cannot expect to get enough precision to get APFSDS rounds on target reliably which would really be the only upside as a 120mm mortar would be able to deliver the same HE firepower ( probably not as accurately though ).

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XM1111_Mid-Range_Munition

 

ZdH_i5T40GE

V3eV_ABhG_8

nFwd5sBNbjA

 

 

 

The CTA 40 is an awesome weapon system. However its rate of fire compared to the millennium is the only reason I would consider the millennium slightly better suited however they would both work fine. As far as the APFSDS is concerned maybe I am wrong but I just don’t see any gun shooting from an AC-130 being able to achieve a High enough level of accuracy to be able to nail medium or heavy armor with consistent hits that would be required for solid kills. Maybe the videos I have seen were from very high altitudes however it just doesn’t seem like an AC-130 would make a great anti armor asset without some kind of guided munitions. Of course my assessment is based solely on internet videos so perhaps when operating at the right altitude with the right sized target the accuracy is sufficient I don’t know. What about a GAU-13 ( 4 barreled GAU-8 )?

I was thinking of the CTA 40 as an anti-personnel/light armour weapon, especially with the 1000g HE round, which has approximately the same filling weight as an M2 frag grenade.

 

I think the GAU-13 had always suffered accuracy problems but maybe a different mounting could change that. Realistically though, it wouldn't kill a tank from a safe practical altitude, only the XM1111 PGM round or Fireball guided mortar could do that. An Otobreda Super Rapid could probably kill a tank after relentless pounding, or at least leave it crippled.:D

Edited September 29, 2012 by marcos

[marcos]

Actually it started out as a 37mm gun using modified L/60 40mm brass. It was supposed to be used in the T249 Vigilante. Later it was modified for 35x228 for use as a candidate in the Divads requirement which was one by the M247 Sergeant York ( Twin L/70's ) SPAAG which ended up being a flop and never entered service. I’m not sure how they messed it up but if they could have gotten it to work it would have been a damn fine SPAAG. I do think however that it would have been a bit much for the A-10 to carry and the recoil would have been too intense. I do think however that they should get the GPU-5 gun pod back in action and modify a weapon pylon for a permanent rigid mounting. Then we could have F-16's flying around spewing 30mm and when they do retire the A-10 which will be a very sad day then at least we will know that there is something up there with multiple barrels spewing out 30mm rounds.

I think the F-16 is too fast and too poorly armoured to do an A-10's job. Just my opinion though. If they were to armour up an F-35B VTOL aircraft and fit twin 35mm millenium (either side of fuselage) with DU rounds, that could work. Still stuck with the one engine problem though. That engine would need a lot of armour I guess, or convert to 2 smaller engines.

[Jordan4]

I was thinking of the CTA 40 as an anti-personnel/light armor weapon, especially with the 1000g HE round, which has approximately the same filling weight as an M2 frag grenade.

That would be serious firepower. Are you familiar with the AHEAD ammo that is used for CIWS systems like the mantis and skysheild? I think that ammo would excel in the anti personnel role even more so than a larger HE round even without utilizing the full rate of fire of the Millennium.

I think the GAU-13 had always suffered accuracy problems but maybe a different mounting could change that. Realistically though, it wouldn't kill a tank from a safe practical altitude, only the XM1111 PGM round or Fireball guided mortar could do that. An Otobreda Super Rapid could probably kill a tank after relentless pounding, or at least leave it crippled.

I think all of the mention guns with the right ammo would be easily able to take on tanks especially from the top armor however I guess the question is how reliably can you hit a tank sized target in your engagement envelope and how many times do you have to hit it.

I think the F-16 is too fast and too poorly armored to do an A-10's job. Just my opinion though. If they were to amour up an F-35B VTOL aircraft and fit twin 35mm millennium (either side of fuselage) with DU rounds, that could work. Still stuck with the one engine problem though. That engine would need a lot of armor I guess, or convert to 2 smaller engines.

Much agreed but it would still be pretty cool though.

[Jordan4]

I have never seent he XM111 before very cool. Doesnt suprise me. Wont be to long before everything is guided. We will have truly autonomous warfare.

[marcos]

That would be serious firepower. Are you familiar with the AHEAD ammo that is used for CIWS systems like the mantis and skysheild? I think that ammo would excel in the anti personnel role even more so than a larger HE round even without utilizing the full rate of fire of the Millennium.

It appears there is a similar GPR-AB (General Purpose Round Air-Burst) round for the 40mm.

 

http://articles.janes.com/articles/Janes-Ammunition-Handbook/CTA-International-40-x-255-case-telescoped-ammunition-France.html

 

http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2011gunmissile/Wednesday11725_Leslie.pdf

 

Maybe telescoped principles will be applied to larger calibre ammunition in the future but I guess they'll have to compete with rail guns. Time now, they've reached 64MJ, which can lob a 40lb projectile at Mach 8@ sea level. because it's not fired with a blast, a higher filling weight can be used, making it more powerful than a normal 155mm howitzer round and with a range of up to 200km.

 

DWHMIz-wTa4

fLmpFNyELZM&feature=fvwrel

 

This will make Combined Arms play very tricky in the dark too:

 

jkkWya-oun0&NR=1

 

I think all of the mention guns with the right ammo would be easily able to take on tanks especially from the top armor however I guess the question is how reliably can you hit a tank sized target in your engagement envelope and how many times do you have to hit it.

In theory the Fireball and XM1111 MRM are one-shot-one-kill. In theory.

Edited September 30, 2012 by marcos