Credible Chase and PAVE COIN...... and maybe future reincarnations?

[dy031101]

AC-208 with Hellfire...... roughly the kind of things I was talking about.

http://www.longwarjournal.org/photos/2010/11/iraqi_air_force_fires_hellfire.php

http://flyingthecessnacaravan.blogspot.com/2009/11/ac-208-combat-caravans-more-photos.html

[Weaver]

I might have trailed this idea already on another thread, but it seems appropriate to this discussion.

High velocity guns are a desirable weapon because they are reasonably accurate, proportionate to the threat, and cheap to shoot. The problem is that using them brings the aircraft within range of similar guns on the ground or MANPADS. However, there is one factor that a gunship can use to greatly extend the range of it's guns that absolutely cannot be exploited in return by it's targets, and that's gravity.

What I propose is the Vertical Gunship. This is a high-endurance aircraft fitted with a high-velocity, selective-fire gun in a flexible mounting close to it's centre of lift and pointing straight down. The aircraft is also fitted with high magnification sensors, the targeting element of which can also be fitted in the cabin, pointing downwards, rather than having it's size limited by the confines of a highly trainable turret. The aircraft flies above the ceiling of MANPADS (about 15,000 ft), finds targets using it's optics (in co-operation with ground forces if neccessary), flies over them and fires at them straight downwards. The gun needs a certain amount of flexibility in order to make aiming corrections, under the control of a ballistics computer. Proximity-fuses frag rounds are used against soft targets in the open, while APHEs are available for buildings, where they can penetrate the roof and explode inside after a programmable delay.

Why not use a bomb? because bombs need to be over a certain size in order to have accuracy from altitude: make them too small and they're too vulnerable to cross-winds. Why not use a smart weapon? because they're too expensive to justify using against small targets like a sniper in a hut.

[pyro-manic]

Isn't wind going to be as big as, if not a bigger problem for a shell than a small bomb? 15,000 feet gives you plenty of scope for air moving in several directions, so your shell could get blown way off.

[Shasper]

With the US armed forces now equipping the trusty ol' 2.75 unguided rockets with laser guidance, it's now possible to fit these "Light Gunships" with alot of ordnance that can be used in a high-density environment.

[GTX]

What I propose is the Vertical Gunship. This is a high-endurance aircraft fitted with a high-velocity, selective-fire gun in a flexible mounting close to it's centre of lift and pointing straight down. The aircraft is also fitted with high magnification sensors, the targeting element of which can also be fitted in the cabin, pointing downwards, rather than having it's size limited by the confines of a highly trainable turret. The aircraft flies above the ceiling of MANPADS (about 15,000 ft), finds targets using it's optics (in co-operation with ground forces if neccessary), flies over them and fires at them straight downwards. The gun needs a certain amount of flexibility in order to make aiming corrections, under the control of a ballistics computer. Proximity-fuses frag rounds are used against soft targets in the open, while APHEs are available for buildings, where they can penetrate the roof and explode inside after a programmable delay.

Armed version of the Boeing A-160 perhaps: Endurance: 20+ hours



Regards,

Greg

[Weaver]

Isn't wind going to be as big as, if not a bigger problem for a shell than a small bomb? 15,000 feet gives you plenty of scope for air moving in several directions, so your shell could get blown way off.

The difference is that the cannon shell is launched at a high velocity, so it's flight time is much less than a bomb and the time for it to wander is reduced.

[rickshaw]

Isn't wind going to be as big as, if not a bigger problem for a shell than a small bomb? 15,000 feet gives you plenty of scope for air moving in several directions, so your shell could get blown way off.

The difference is that the cannon shell is launched at a high velocity, so it's flight time is much less than a bomb and the time for it to wander is reduced.

However as any rifle shooter will tell, wind is a problem, the greater the range from the target.  While using a cannon will reduce the time of flight to the target, and it will reduce the effect of wind, it will not completely eliminate it.

Much cheaper to use a rocket equipped with GPS or laser homing guidance.   It will correct for windage and carry sufficient explosive to be effective against a small target like your mythical sniper.

Of course, you could go for a super-saturation weapon instead and say to hell with precision.  Might be something Metalstorm is useful for.