AT-6 Weapons Question

[rickshaw]

That goes without saying.  I'm sure that from a maintenance/reliability point of view, A400s, etc, etc are quite good.  My only concerns are the cost of those conversions and their vulnerability/hardiness within a military environment.

As they say, there is no such thing as a free lunch, Mav.   You get what you pay for.  A dedicated bomber design would be cheaper initially - you're not adapting a design already made and having to add handling gear, etc. to move the bombs out the hatches - in a dedicated design you have bomb bays already cut into the fuselage which allows all bombs to drop.   Perhaps the best solution would be to design a proper bomber fuselage and use commercial wings and engines?

As for the concept, if a large bomber (or whatever) were beyond the threat envelope of the enemy (whether that be MANPADS, SAMs or guns), surely they could also be the carrier of the designation / acquisition equipment.  They would be too high (I would assume) to be heard or seen, as has been the case in current warzones and be able to 'be there' with both acquisition and weapons release and be capable of assessing the strike and engaging again if required.  All this in one platform rather than two.  Seems the obvious choice to me from a cost perspective, although once again, there is the issue of being invested in the battle below.

There are limits on detection.  Being closer to the action is better in that regard - atmospherics and dust/smoke aren't as likely to interfere with detecting and designating the target.   Further, UAVs are small, hard to detect and can loiter for extended periods with change over of contollers more easily effected than is the case with a manned aircraft.

I sometimes wonder if the current fad with UAVs is trying to find roles for them regardless of the actual application or the logic of the employment.

Regards,

Mav

To a certain degree you're right.  There are four competing pulls on the use of UAVs.  The Air Force are worried about the career path for pilots (no one wants to fly a computer when they can fly a fighter).  The Bean Counters see them as being cheaper.  The Politicians see them as being safer.   The Boffins are still enamoured of the "gee, whiz" factor.   One's trying to stop their use, the other three are trying to extend their use.

[Maverick]

Perhaps the best solution would be to design a proper bomber fuselage and use commercial wings and engines?

Would commercial wings, etc, have the relevant tolerances for military operations? 

One has to think that a bomber that isn't the cutting edge anymore could be refurbished for duty, whilst designing a new fuselage for mating with 'off the shelf' civilian kit would be a fairly expensive solution and not necessarily a good one.  How many 'off the shelf' things have been marketed with disastrous results? (M247 comes to mind)

There are limits on detection.  Being closer to the action is better in that regard - atmospherics and dust/smoke aren't as likely to interfere with detecting and designating the target.   Further, UAVs are small, hard to detect and can loiter for extended periods with change over of contollers more easily effected than is the case with a manned aircraft.

Being closer to the action tends to lean back towards the concept of a manned aircraft performing the role in many ways.  Whilst UAVs are harder to detect and have good loiter capabilities, with every new arrow, a new shield is made.  How soon will it be before there are electronic warfare systems specifically designed to foil the link between drone and pilot?  A human pilot can't be short-circuited from his aircraft, whilst I think there's every chance of that countermeasure being developed in the near future given the amount of emphasis the types are being given by the US in particular.

To a certain degree you're right.  There are four competing pulls on the use of UAVs.  The Air Force are worried about the career path for pilots (no one wants to fly a computer when they can fly a fighter).  The Bean Counters see them as being cheaper.  The Politicians see them as being safer.   The Boffins are still enamoured of the "gee, whiz" factor.   One's trying to stop their use, the other three are trying to extend their use.

I can't say I'm surprised that there are those conflicting concepts.  I believe the current crop of drone pilots are actual pilots, but how soon until they are merely 'operators' of the type?  Much cheaper to train a console kid than an actual pilot I'd wager.  Once again, however, we are talking about a breed of 'soldier' who won't ever see combat in a real sense and who will, I feel certain, have a degree of detachment from the battlefield.  That's the future that I'm personally dreading.

Regards,

Mav

[rickshaw]

US Army UAV controllers are I understand it "operators" and non-pilots.  USAF UAV controllers are pilots.   Interestingly there was a report last year or the year before which showed that the US Army had fewer accidents than the USAF with their drones.  The conclusion was that actually being a qualified pilot was detrimental to successful use of UAVs.  I am unsure whether other military UAV controllers are pilots or not.  It would be interesting to see a comparison across different nationalities.

As to mating COTs components such as wings and engines to MILSTD fuselages - it was how early aircraft were once designed.     Personally, I'd suggest you'd see a reduction in manoeuvrability but not necessarily speed, range, payload, etc.   If its a "bomb truck" you're after, I can't see a problem with the compromise.

[Maverick]

When I mentioned the pilots, I meant the USAF variety as I don't think that the US Army use the aircraft in such a way to designate for LGBs etc.  US Army aerial combat platforms are, by and large, helos and wouldn't need designation per se, unless you were designating for the Apaches.

As to whether civilian parts could be mated with military ones, I expect it would be quite simple.  Defence contractors are, after all, civilians anyway, but it would have two spinoffs as I've mentioned previously, increased costs of development and, I suspect, issues with payload.  Carrying passengers or freight from A to B would be different to the stresses involved with dropping that freight halfway along the flight 

Regards,

Mav

[rickshaw]

When I mentioned the pilots, I meant the USAF variety as I don't think that the US Army use the aircraft in such a way to designate for LGBs etc.  US Army aerial combat platforms are, by and large, helos and wouldn't need designation per se, unless you were designating for the Apaches.

I believe that US Army drones can designate for USAF aircraft when CAS is called.  AIUI, US Army drones don't carry weapons themselves (that damn Key West Agreement strikes again, I suspect) though.  Isn't the internecine squabbling amongst the various services wonderful?   

As to whether civilian parts could be mated with military ones, I expect it would be quite simple.  Defence contractors are, after all, civilians anyway, but it would have two spinoffs as I've mentioned previously, increased costs of development and, I suspect, issues with payload.  Carrying passengers or freight from A to B would be different to the stresses involved with dropping that freight halfway along the flight 

Regards,

Mav

I wouldn't expect initial costs to be higher than designing a purpose built military bomber.  Production costs though, would be lower - afterall economies of scale would come into play.  Maintenance costs would be lower as well.  Total life-cycle costs therefore would I suspect be lower.   This is of course all conjecture anyway and it would need to be costed properly.

[pyro-manic]

Hmmm - C-17 wings and tail, with a new fuselage? That could be interesting.

[kitnut617]

I wonder how long it will be before this thread gets locked down too ----

[Jschmus]

I wonder how long it will be before this thread gets locked down too ----

Since I posted the original question, and it has been answered, I hereby request that the thread be locked.  The conversation has wandered a bit, and gotten needlessly heated.

[rickshaw]

I wonder how long it will be before this thread gets locked down too ----

Since I posted the original question, and it has been answered, I hereby request that the thread be locked.  The conversation has wandered a bit, and gotten needlessly heated.

While I agree it has wandered, there is no heat here that I can perceive.  I think Mav would concur, this is just friendly discussion.

[Maverick]

Definitely wandered, although that's me & Brian everyday of the week when we get talking on here it seems.  No heat from either end that I can see, just valid differences of opinion methinks.

Regards,

Mav

[Old Wombat]

Maybe you 2 need your own thread?


[insert Jschmus' avatar here]

[mchoo2005]

<snip> followed by either a Small Diameter bomb <snip>

That looks like Mk-82 GP bomb to me.