How the USAF reloads the largest combat jet gun in the planet

[Blitzvogel]

Excuse me?

I said "turbojets are not turbofans", and that's a fact Jack. What about that are you disputing exactly? They are two distinct engine designs: one is a simple turbine engine, the other is a more complex turbine design involving a large bypass and more moving parts, made for efficiency at sub-sonic speeds. Two different animals serving different roles. You do realize the TF34s on the hog are classified as turbofans, right?

I don't call it a jet for the same reason I don't call SUVs trucks, even if they're built on a truck frame. Semantics aside I think some of you are confusing my take on the engines with my take on the aircraft. For the life of me I can't think of a single occasion where I've ever heard anyone refer to a hog as a jet.

It counts as a jet regardless because the actual core exhaust makes up a significant portion of the thrust and there is a jet of air created by the fan. Are you going to tell me a 777 isn't a jet because it has high-bypass ratio engines? And what about low-bypass ratio engines like an F110? Is it not a jet until the pilot hits the afterburning?

 

[Fenixgoon]

Excuse me?

I said "turbojets are not turbofans", and that's a fact Jack. What about that are you disputing exactly? They are two distinct engine designs: one is a simple turbine engine, the other is a more complex turbine design involving a large bypass and more moving parts, made for efficiency at sub-sonic speeds. Two different animals serving different roles. You do realize the TF34s on the hog are classified as turbofans, right?

I don't call it a jet for the same reason I don't call SUVs trucks, even if they're built on a truck frame. Semantics aside I think some of you are confusing my take on the engines with my take on the aircraft. For the life of me I can't think of a single occasion where I've ever heard anyone refer to a hog as a jet.

Doesn't matter whether someone calls it a jet or not.

Is it powered by jet engines? The answer is Yes.

A turbofan is a fan-ducted turbojet engine.

One is a sunset of the other.

Wikipedia
A jet engine is a reaction engine discharging a fast moving jet that generates thrust by jet propulsion in accordance with Newton's laws of motion. This broad definition of jet engines includes turbojets, turbofans, rockets, ramjets, and pulse jets. In general, jet engines are combustion engines but non-combusting forms also exist.

Thus, whereas all the air taken in by a turbojet passes through the turbine (through the combustion chamber), in a turbofan some of that air bypasses the turbine. A turbofan thus can be thought of as a turbojet being used to drive a ducted fan, with both of those contributing to the thrust

And may I remind you that your first quote was the generalized "jet", so please see my first response in this thread.

Tldr: stop digging yourself a hole

 

[freeskier93]

Incorrect

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GAU-8_Avenger#Recoil

Whoops, looks like I am wrong.

 

[jagec]

You do realize that just about EVERY modern combat aircraft (and civilian jetliner) uses turbofans right? The differences found are whether or not they are low bypass or high bypass and whether the low bypass are equipped with an afterburner.

You mean "civilian fanliner"?

 

[pauldun170]

You mean "civilian fanliner"?

lol

Actually
Fanliner is an actual thing
Grumman Fanliner
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RFB/Grumman_American_Fanliner

 

[kage69]

Yeah, I definitely should have taken more time on that first post. Mea culpa all. I think the intent behind my disdain for calling a slow moving, low level pain wagon a 'jet' was interpreted as me denying that generic turbojets are involved in both designs. I guess the hogs powerplants being very mission specific maybe had me overemphasizing the distinctions of the turbofan?


Anyway, can't believe I'm about to type this but, WAY TO GO CONGRESS! I see they just told the AF tough shit on retiring the A-10. Sorry F-35, you heap of shit.
That's literally the best news I've had in weeks. I really thought the bureaucracy was going to shoot us in the foot again, really screw pilots and ground-pounders alike.

 

[kage69]

You mean "civilian fanliner"?

You've never heard the term airliner? Really?

 

[kage69]

lol

Actually
Fanliner is an actual thing
Grumman Fanliner
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RFB/Grumman_American_Fanliner

WANT.

 

[Homerboy]

Stolen from P&N:

http://news.yahoo.com/us-deploys-ground-attack-10-planes-turkey-155644211.html

US deploys ground-attack A-10 planes to Turkey

 

[skyking]

Yeah, I definitely should have taken more time on that first post. Mea culpa all. I think the intent behind my disdain for calling a slow moving, low level pain wagon a 'jet' was interpreted as me denying that generic turbojets are involved in both designs. I guess the hogs powerplants being very mission specific maybe had me overemphasizing the distinctions of the turbofan?


Anyway, can't believe I'm about to type this but, WAY TO GO CONGRESS! I see they just told the AF tough shit on retiring the A-10. Sorry F-35, you heap of shit.
That's literally the best news I've had in weeks. I really thought the bureaucracy was going to shoot us in the foot again, really screw pilots and ground-pounders alike.

Planes like the F-35 are the last of the pilot flown aircraft. They just botched this last one miserably.
The F-16, F-18 and A-10 combination just mops the floor with the F-35. Pretty shameful to say so but it is the truth.

 

[Phoenix86]

Planes like the F-35 are the last of the pilot flown aircraft.

Absolutely. Pull out the cockpit, all the electronics associated with it, and life support and you drop a ton of weight. Need to do a 12G snap turn? No biggie, as long as the airframe will hold. Besides it's looking more and more like a complete stealth/range game for air to air combat so who really cares about doing those kinds of maneuvers anyways.

Hell, you could go a step or two bigger than the reaper and just swarm the enemy. Who cares if we lose a dozen if you have hundreds and they are cheaper/easier to crank out. Current version is what 20:1 cost ratio vs F-35s?

Could you take out an F-35 with 20 reapers assuming each had support (awacs/ground radar/etc)?

 

[OverVolt]

Absolutely. Pull out the cockpit, all the electronics associated with it, and life support and you drop a ton of weight. Need to do a 12G snap turn? No biggie, as long as the airframe will hold. Besides it's looking more and more like a complete stealth/range game for air to air combat so who really cares about doing those kinds of maneuvers anyways.

Hell, you could go a step or two bigger than the reaper and just swarm the enemy. Who cares if we lose a dozen if you have hundreds and they are cheaper/easier to crank out. Current version is what 20:1 cost ratio vs F-35s?

Could you take out an F-35 with 20 reapers assuming each had support (awacs/ground radar/etc)?

So you are saying the empire has the advantage with its tie fighters vs the A-wing?

 

[master_shake_]

3900 rounds??

that a lot of freedoms per minute!

 

[OverVolt]

I didn't know tanks were made of butter.

 

[Phoenix86]

So you are saying the empire has the advantage with its tie fighters vs the A-wing?

No, because the tie fighters are still manned.

 

[jlee]

No, because the tie fighters are still manned.

Are clones people too? :hmm:

 

[pauldun170]

Could you take out an F-35 with 20 reapers assuming each had support (awacs/ground radar/etc)?

Not when the F-35 has already taken out the AWACS\Ground Radar and is using EW to wreak havoc on the signal used to control the reaper.
Also considering that 20 reapers buzzing along at 250 MPH would basically be worthless against 1 F-35.

So one AWACS (300-400 milllion ) + 20 reapers (260 million for 20 because bulk discount)
vs 1 F-35 (90-120million) equals 1 destroyed AWACS + 16-18 crew members), a couple of dead reapers and a bunch of reapers on auto, humming along at the a blistering cruise speed of 250mph, because their signal with ops is being disrupted by the F-35.

 

[Phoenix86]

Not when the F-35 has already taken out the AWACS\Ground Radar and is using EW to wreak havoc on the signal used to control the reaper.
Also considering that 20 reapers buzzing along at 250 MPH would basically be worthless against 1 F-35.

So one AWACS (300-400 milllion ) + 20 reapers (260 million for 20 because bulk discount)
vs 1 F-35 (90-120million) equals 1 destroyed AWACS + 16-18 crew members), a couple of dead reapers and a bunch of reapers on auto, humming along at the a blistering cruise speed of 250mph, because their signal with ops is being disrupted by the F-35.

Does the F-35 carry enough to destroy that many targets w/o getting close?

I figured, drones aren't quite up to par with real jets yet, they aren't designed for it. Going to have to start with a new jet and basically strip the cockpit?

Jamming the signal would be risky no? Isn't that basically broadcasting your location?

 

[Phoenix86]

Are clones people too? :hmm:

Do they still use clones? I thought they were regular peeps after the clone wars.

 

[Ns1]

Does the F-35 carry enough to destroy that many targets w/o getting close?

I figured, drones aren't quite up to par with real jets yet, they aren't designed for it. Going to have to start with a new jet and basically strip the cockpit?

Jamming the signal would be risky no? Isn't that basically broadcasting your location?

the F35 carries like <400 rounds, and that's with the "extended" load. It's like 180 rounds or some stupid shit on one of the F35 models. What's 180 rounds, a single trigger pull from an A10? lol

 

[Blitzvogel]

What will be needed is an "AWACS fighter" armed to the teeth with frontal, cheek, and even side looking radars that commands a number of UCAVs in a battlespace. The UCAVs radar and detection systems will be fused to the AWACS fighter's. The plane will have weapons as an emergency measure but essentially the UCAVs will be like attack dogs.

It is possible that electronic warfare systems could jam satellite and theatre communications systems so a manned command system would be necessary in the battlespace to keep things kosher where such short distances can be "burned through" to reach the UCAVs.

 

[MrSquished]

Happy BRRRRRRRRRRT-day compilation of the Warthog:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NvIJvPj_pjE

 

[Ns1]

What will be needed is an "AWACS fighter" armed to the teeth with frontal, cheek, and even side looking radars that commands a number of UCAVs in a battlespace. The UCAVs radar and detection systems will be fused to the AWACS fighter's. The plane will have weapons as an emergency measure but essentially the UCAVs will be like attack dogs.

It is possible that electronic warfare systems could jam satellite and theatre communications systems so a manned command system would be necessary in the battlespace to keep things kosher where such short distances can be "burned through" to reach the UCAVs.

so...this?

 

[TechBoyJK]

So ignoring the ramp up time, the gun can fire for a (assuming it doesn't over heat in constant use) solid 18s... (3,900/60=65shots per s, 1174/65 = 18.06). Doesn't seem THAT long in the post Michael Bay movie fantasy world, but I bet if you were taking fire from this thing, 18s would never end.

If imagining 65 rounds per second coming at you... try counting out 18s.

lol. would be a long 18 seconds.