The Nightstar Zoo

Nightstar IRC Network - irc.nightstar.net
It is currently Wed Oct 18, 2017 7:12 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 32 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat Jan 14, 2017 9:34 pm 
Offline
Arctic Exhibit
Arctic Exhibit
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2015 12:07 am
Posts: 85
So Tagon´s new ship is getting a main gun. Any ideas?

I think an improved version of the long gun

_________________
Image


Last edited by Zeus67 on Sat Jan 14, 2017 9:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 14, 2017 9:46 pm 
Offline
Entertainment
Entertainment

Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2012 10:54 am
Posts: 682
Long guns are an invitation to galactic war, so probably not. Hmm, or not just that.
If you really wanted to, you could put a long gun and a really good plasma lance together. Shoot them with the lance, blow them up with the long gun.
"Honest officer, his shields just weren't up to it."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 14, 2017 9:48 pm 
Offline
Safari Exhibit
Safari Exhibit

Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2016 8:00 pm
Posts: 149
Maybe he can call his ship "Spitfire"


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 14, 2017 10:42 pm 
Offline
Aquarium Exhibit
Aquarium Exhibit

Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2015 11:17 pm
Posts: 28
Not spitfire, but while I admit he's unlikely to actually use the name Warthog, never-the-less the image we're given of the new dragon class ship is much more reminiscent of an A-10, which is actually built AROUND the main gun.

How big a gun you ask? Let me give you an image that is MUCH more useful than the tank in the first post above.

Image

Or to put another way, you think that's a gun, no, THIS is a gun. :lol:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:GAU-8_meets_VW_Type_1.jpg

My favorite quote from the description of the gun:

Quote:
The average recoil force of the GAU-8/A is 10,000 pounds-force (45 kN), which is slightly more than the output of one of the A-10's two TF34 engines (9,065 lbf / 40.3 kN each). While this recoil force is significant, in practice a cannon fire burst only slows the aircraft a few miles per hour in level flight.


(Emphasis mine.)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 14, 2017 10:54 pm 
Offline
Aquarium Exhibit
Aquarium Exhibit

Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2015 11:17 pm
Posts: 28
OK, i'll admit that the size ratio is off, but still... Here's the A10's gun against it's side-view silhouette. -- the drum holds 1174 rounds of the 30mm (1.2 inch) diameter bullets.

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 15, 2017 12:07 am 
Offline
Entertainment
Entertainment

Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2015 10:40 pm
Posts: 596
Location: Land of the webbed feet
The A10 was sometimes known as The Flying Gun or The Silent Gun.

The USAF has been trying to get rid of it since before it was in service . . . because it's not a sexy go-fast fighter jet.

--FreeFlier


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 15, 2017 1:02 am 
Offline
Monkey House Exhibit
Monkey House Exhibit

Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2016 8:10 am
Posts: 370
FreeFlier wrote:
The A10 was sometimes known as The Flying Gun or The Silent Gun.

The USAF has been trying to get rid of it since before it was in service . . . because it's not a sexy go-fast fighter jet.

--FreeFlier


That's an interesting thing, because I'm fairly certain the Air Force *doesn't have a say in it*, since the A-10 is one of the few planes that the *Army* is allowed to fly, since it's a fixed-wing aircraft with minimal, if any, anti-air capabilities.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 15, 2017 1:15 am 
Offline
Safari Exhibit
Safari Exhibit

Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2016 11:41 pm
Posts: 145
The A-10 is besides the AC-130 the best ground support aircraft we have.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 15, 2017 1:41 am 
Offline
Monkey House Exhibit
Monkey House Exhibit

Joined: Sun Feb 29, 2004 2:40 am
Posts: 488
Location: Eugene, OR
Kendrakirai wrote:
FreeFlier wrote:
The A10 was sometimes known as The Flying Gun or The Silent Gun.

The USAF has been trying to get rid of it since before it was in service . . . because it's not a sexy go-fast fighter jet.

--FreeFlier


That's an interesting thing, because I'm fairly certain the Air Force *doesn't have a say in it*, since the A-10 is one of the few planes that the *Army* is allowed to fly, since it's a fixed-wing aircraft with minimal, if any, anti-air capabilities.


And that's the other reason they hate it, because it's an exception to their monopoly.
Doesn't matter that they'd never want to provide close-air support themselves.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 15, 2017 1:43 am 
Offline
Entertainment
Entertainment

Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2015 10:40 pm
Posts: 596
Location: Land of the webbed feet
Kendrakirai wrote:
FreeFlier wrote:
The A10 was sometimes known as The Flying Gun or The Silent Gun.

The USAF has been trying to get rid of it since before it was in service . . . because it's not a sexy go-fast fighter jet.
That's an interesting thing, because I'm fairly certain the Air Force *doesn't have a say in it*, since the A-10 is one of the few planes that the *Army* is allowed to fly, since it's a fixed-wing aircraft with minimal, if any, anti-air capabilities.

Wrong. The AS Army does not operate fixed-wing combat aircraft since the so-called "Treaty of Key West" in 1948.

Giving the US Army the authority to operate ground-support aircraft would be the logical solution to the USAF not wanting the role, but it's not going to happen.

--FreeFlier


Last edited by FreeFlier on Fri Jan 20, 2017 8:42 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 15, 2017 4:18 am 
Offline
Janitor
Janitor
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2004 10:28 pm
Posts: 1951
Zeus67 wrote:
So Tagon´s new ship is getting a main gun. Any ideas?

The infamous 30-inch sniper rifle of course. (That's caliber, not length.) What else would you expect from this forum?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 15, 2017 4:33 pm 
Offline
Intern
Intern
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2015 9:52 pm
Posts: 1046
JohnSmith wrote:
Long guns are an invitation to galactic war, so probably not. Hmm, or not just that.
If you really wanted to, you could put a long gun and a really good plasma lance together. Shoot them with the lance, blow them up with the long gun.
"Honest officer, his shields just weren't up to it."

A plasma lance as a laser targeting system. Not a bad idea.

_________________
If you need to use a squeegee, they're probably at least Laz-4


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 15, 2017 11:34 pm 
Offline
Janitor
Janitor
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2004 11:15 pm
Posts: 2388
Location: In the middle of the Pacific Ocean, somewhere.
FreeFlier wrote:
The A10 was sometimes known as The Flying Gun or The Silent Gun.

The USAF has been trying to get rid of it since before it was in service . . . because it's not a sexy go-fast fighter jet.

--FreeFlier


Mm? Would that make the above posted photos-of the weapon system without a plane wrapped around it- the Naked Gun?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 15, 2017 11:47 pm 
Offline
Entertainment
Entertainment

Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2015 10:40 pm
Posts: 596
Location: Land of the webbed feet
Ishidan wrote:
FreeFlier wrote:
The A10 was sometimes known as The Flying Gun or The Silent Gun.

The USAF has been trying to get rid of it since before it was in service . . . because it's not a sexy go-fast fighter jet.
Mm? Would that make the above posted photos-of the weapon system without a plane wrapped around it- the Naked Gun?

Pun jar. Now!

/flrrds holding nose/

--FreeFlier


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 16, 2017 12:20 am 
Offline
Intern
Intern
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 11:03 am
Posts: 1138
FreeFlier wrote:
Giving the US Army the authority to operate ground-support aircraft would be the logical solution to the USAF not wanting the role, but it's not going to happen.
The only thing the Air Force hates more than doing ground support is letting the Army do it themselves. That's the only reason they still have this plane.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 16, 2017 12:42 am 
Offline
Janitor
Janitor
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2004 10:28 pm
Posts: 1951
Ishidan wrote:
the Naked Gun


Oh! Oh! Can I get one of those for a a forum weapon weapon?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 16, 2017 1:04 am 
Offline
Entertainment
Entertainment

Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2015 10:40 pm
Posts: 596
Location: Land of the webbed feet
Fishman wrote:
FreeFlier wrote:
Giving the US Army the authority to operate ground-support aircraft would be the logical solution to the USAF not wanting the role, but it's not going to happen.
The only thing the Air Force hates more than doing ground support is letting the Army do it themselves. That's the only reason they still have this plane.

True, except that the main reason they still have the A10 is that congress won't let the USAF kill it in favor of misusing their sleek and sexy go-fast fighters as ground attackers.

USAF doesn't want to do the ground-attack mission, but they don't want anybody else to do it either. This has been the case since the middle of WWII . . . when it was the US Army Air Corps.

This is also why the US Army keeps trying to build attack helicopters that have the range, speed and lift of a dedicated fixed-wing ground attack aircraft.

According to each of the services, the other two are the real enemy . . . whoever the US is fighting this week is merely the opposition.

--FreeFlier


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 16, 2017 9:20 am 
Offline
Reptile House Exhibit
Reptile House Exhibit

Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 10:10 pm
Posts: 344
This may be unpopular, and make me a pariah for saying, but I think Congress should have told the nascent Air Force, back in 1947, that they couldn't have any of their own medical staff.
Or any of the other specialties that the Marines are denied.

FreeFlier wrote:
Fishman wrote:
FreeFlier wrote:
Giving the US Army the authority to operate ground-support aircraft would be the logical solution to the USAF not wanting the role, but it's not going to happen.
The only thing the Air Force hates more than doing ground support is letting the Army do it themselves. That's the only reason they still have this plane.

True, except that the main reason they still have the A10 is that congress won't let the USAF kill it in favor of misusing their sleek and sexy go-fast fighters as ground attackers.

USAF doesn't want to do the ground-attack mission, but they don't want anybody else to do it either. This has been the case since the middle of WWII . . . when it was the US Army Air Corps.

This is also why the US Army keeps trying to build attack helicopters that have the range, speed and lift of a dedicated fixed-wing ground attack aircraft.

According to each of the services, the other two are the real enemy . . . whoever the US is fighting this week is merely the opposition.

--FreeFlier


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 16, 2017 2:51 pm 
Offline
Monkey House Exhibit
Monkey House Exhibit

Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2016 8:10 am
Posts: 370
FreeFlier wrote:
Kendrakirai wrote:
FreeFlier wrote:
The A10 was sometimes known as The Flying Gun or The Silent Gun.

The USAF has been trying to get rid of it since before it was in service . . . because it's not a sexy go-fast fighter jet.
That's an interesting thing, because I'm fairly certain the Air Force *doesn't have a say in it*, since the A-10 is one of the few planes that the *Army* is allowed to fly, since it's a fixed-wing aircraft with minimal, if any, anti-air capabilities.

Wrong. The AS Army does not operate fixed-wing combat aircraft since the so-called "Treaty of Key West" in 1948.

Giving the US Army the authority to operate ground-support aircraft would be the logical solution to the USAF not wanting the role, but it's not going to happen.

--FreeFlier


I misunderstood/misremembered what I read then, sorry~


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 17, 2017 10:39 am 
Offline
Aquarium Exhibit
Aquarium Exhibit

Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2015 11:17 pm
Posts: 28
Kendrakirai wrote:
FreeFlier wrote:
The A10 was sometimes known as The Flying Gun or The Silent Gun.

The USAF has been trying to get rid of it since before it was in service . . . because it's not a sexy go-fast fighter jet.

--FreeFlier


That's an interesting thing, because I'm fairly certain the Air Force *doesn't have a say in it*, since the A-10 is one of the few planes that the *Army* is allowed to fly, since it's a fixed-wing aircraft with minimal, if any, anti-air capabilities.


Nope. The army is NOT allowed to fly the A-10. It's entirely an airforce beast, and the airforce mostly hates the close air support role.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 17, 2017 2:24 pm 
Offline
Entertainment
Entertainment

Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2015 10:40 pm
Posts: 596
Location: Land of the webbed feet
RickBoatright wrote:
Kendrakirai wrote:
FreeFlier wrote:
The A10 was sometimes known as The Flying Gun or The Silent Gun.

The USAF has been trying to get rid of it since before it was in service . . . because it's not a sexy go-fast fighter jet.
That's an interesting thing, because I'm fairly certain the Air Force *doesn't have a say in it*, since the A-10 is one of the few planes that the *Army* is allowed to fly, since it's a fixed-wing aircraft with minimal, if any, anti-air capabilities.
Nope. The army is NOT allowed to fly the A-10. It's entirely an airforce beast, and the airforce mostly hates the close air support role.

More like totally hates the CAS role . . .

--FreeFlier


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 17, 2017 3:07 pm 
Offline
Reptile House Exhibit
Reptile House Exhibit

Joined: Sat Nov 09, 2013 1:22 pm
Posts: 224
FreeFlier wrote:
More like totally hates the CAS role . . .

The people who actually do it seem to quite like it. There have also been moments when USAF theatre commanders have been grateful the A-10s were around. Mind you, the point in the Gulf War of 1991 when the A-10s had more air-to-air kills than the F-15s was not conducive to long-term acceptance by the brass.

The A-10s had two kills, both of Iraqi helicopters; the F-15s had none, because the Iraqi Air Force knew danger when it saw it, and wasn't playing.

_________________
Weapon: Meal, Ready to Explode.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 17, 2017 3:18 pm 
Offline
Safari Exhibit
Safari Exhibit
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 01, 2006 12:07 pm
Posts: 113
FreeFlier wrote:
More like totally hates the CAS role . . .

--FreeFlier

Enough so that hey have been misrepresenting the platform's actual capabilities, in a deliberate effort to mislead Congress. One of their generals went as far as to order his airmen to withhold accurate info from Congress, accusing them of treason if they don't comply with the order. In a rare outbreak of common sense (or, perhaps, in response to a public/Congressional backlash), the offending general was relieved of his post as a result of the event.

I almost get why they want to do it; they really believe that the F-35 can do the job well enough, and they'd rather spend $0.8 Billion/year on F-35s than on A-10s. Having just one plane in the arsenal would simplify lots of things for the Air Force.

Having been on the Army side of this equation, "well enough" isn't good enough. It's like saying a crescent wrench is "good enough" and throwing away your socket set. If the Air Force thinks it doesn't like the CAS mission now, they'll like it even less when they're trying to do it with a fast airframe struggling to not stall out over the target.

John Dallman wrote:
The people who actually do it seem to quite like it. There have also been moments when USAF theatre commanders have been grateful the A-10s were around. Mind you, the point in the Gulf War of 1991 when the A-10s had more air-to-air kills than the F-15s was not conducive to long-term acceptance by the brass.

The A-10s had two kills, both of Iraqi helicopters; the F-15s had none, because the Iraqi Air Force knew danger when it saw it, and wasn't playing.

You are quite right, the Warthog crew members are honorable men and women who serve their country well and take pride in their work. It is unfortunate how little respect they get within the ranks of their own branch of service. God bless'em, every one.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 17, 2017 7:10 pm 
Offline
Entertainment
Entertainment

Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2015 10:40 pm
Posts: 596
Location: Land of the webbed feet
Right, the problem is with the higher brass . . . what I like to refer to as The Echelons Beyond Reality.

And diversity creates trouble in procurement, training and supply . . . but specialized weapons can be essential.

--FreeFlier


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 17, 2017 10:07 pm 
Offline
Aquarium Exhibit
Aquarium Exhibit

Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2015 11:17 pm
Posts: 28
FreeFlier wrote:
More like totally hates the CAS role . . .

--FreeFlier


The A-10 pilots and crew seem to like it a lot. A-10 pilots get more air hours in training than any other airforce pilots since the A-10 is the cheapest plane the airforce has to fly, and essentially all of them are focused on CAS.

Oddly, when eliminating the A10 was last proposed, there was NO proposal to increase the training hours for F35 pilots for CAS.

The crews seem as dedicated as the pilots to the mission. It's only the zoomies who want to dump the A10, but who won't back off the Key West accords and allow the Army to take them over. (Which the Army would do in a nanosecond.)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 17, 2017 10:21 pm 
Offline
Aquarium Exhibit
Aquarium Exhibit

Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2015 11:17 pm
Posts: 28
Zinho wrote:
Having been on the Army side of this equation, "well enough" isn't good enough. It's like saying a crescent wrench is "good enough" and throwing away your socket set. If the Air Force thinks it doesn't like the CAS mission now, they'll like it even less when they're trying to do it with a fast airframe struggling to not stall out over the target.


Warning: Topic Drift

It's not just the speed part, The airforce continues to claim that theater tactical aviation is impossible in an age of SAM's and etc. They killed the tactical airlift capabilities of the Army after the Johnson-McConnell agreement in 1966.

The army had planned to get 250 CV-2 Caribou for tactical airlift creating air assault divisions equipped with organic aircraft, supported by air transport brigades equipped with heavy helicopters and Caribou transports.

The air force HATED the idea, and argued that C-123 Providers could fill the role, which was BS since they needed half-again the runway, and where way more expensive to get and operate.

So, the army was forced to try to build helicopters that could do what fixed wing aircraft were better at. The Air Force continues to claim, as they did back in '66 that tactical airlift is impossible due to SAMs, and slow, gun oriented close air support is impossible because the A-10's will be shot down by fast fighters.

The fact that this hasn't happened, and that the army manages to do theater airlift with 'copters doesn't convince the zoomies. They simply ignore the data and point out that it's impossible.

I'm still trying to figure out what the Key West accords, and the subsequent Pace-Finletter and Johnson-McConnell agreements did for the nation that was good.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 17, 2017 10:51 pm 
Offline
Entertainment
Entertainment

Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2015 10:40 pm
Posts: 596
Location: Land of the webbed feet
RickBoatright wrote:
. . . I'm still trying to figure out what the Key West accords, and the subsequent Pace-Finletter and Johnson-McConnell agreements did for the nation that was good.

Kept the services from actually shooting at each other?

--FreeFlier


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 19, 2017 3:37 pm 
Offline
Safari Exhibit
Safari Exhibit
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 06, 2013 4:29 pm
Posts: 150
Meanwhile the F-18s off the carriers keep pounding the enemy day in and day out without fanfare, just getting the job done. Navy: the military's deadliest branch.

_________________
The difference between theory and practice is that theories seldom involve people screaming in terror.

Forum weapon: the humble Northern Pikestaff
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 19, 2017 10:39 pm 
Offline
Aquarium Exhibit
Aquarium Exhibit

Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2015 11:17 pm
Posts: 28
Stanistani wrote:
Meanwhile the F-18s off the carriers keep pounding the enemy day in and day out without fanfare, just getting the job done. Navy: the military's deadliest branch.


Yes, but have you ever tried to get close air support from a Navy aviator? Not going to happen.

The F-18's do what they're good at, over and over and over, but meanwhile, when a grunt needs someone to come in and remove an obstacle, don't call the Navy.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 20, 2017 8:51 am 
Offline
Entertainment
Entertainment

Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2015 10:40 pm
Posts: 596
Location: Land of the webbed feet
RickBoatright wrote:
Stanistani wrote:
Meanwhile the F-18s off the carriers keep pounding the enemy day in and day out without fanfare, just getting the job done. Navy: the military's deadliest branch.
Yes, but have you ever tried to get close air support from a Navy aviator? Not going to happen.

The F-18's do what they're good at, over and over and over, but meanwhile, when a grunt needs someone to come in and remove an obstacle, don't call the Navy.

Not since they deactivated the Iowa class . . . I've spoken to a couple of grunts that got fire support from an Iowa (or the older battleships) . . . they said it was most impressive!

In one case, as near as they could figure the ship - I believe it was the USS New Jersey - had already turned around and was headed back down the coast at speed before the first shells hit. The grunts had expected a destroyer or maybe a cruiser to suppress the island . . . they got radar-laid gunnery: five salvos from nine 16-inch guns from more than twenty miles away!

They got over to the island later . . . there wasn't much left of the North Korean/Chinese positions, and no artillery had survived.

--FreeFlier


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 32 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group