Military Review

Americans big guns

Americans big guns

This is not Photoshop. It looks like a 30 mm aviation GAU-8A gun, which is armed with the American A-10 attack aircraft.

In fact, the A-10 attack aircraft are built around this gun. His entire layout is subject to the need to lift this monster into the air and not fall apart when firing from it.

A typical example. A very strange and unusual placement of engines in the tail of the aircraft is a necessary measure in an attempt to prevent them from stopping due to falling into the air intakes of powder gases when firing. Well, so stupidly done. When carrying out (in 1974 in March) flight fire tests of the GAU-8A cannon mounted on an A-10A aircraft, abnormal operation of the aircraft’s engines was observed, caused by the ingress of gunpowder gases generated during firing. Therefore, we had to add two nozzles in the nose of the plane, into which, when fired, compressed air is supplied in order to blow away the powder gases to the side.

Are you funny? Me too.

To ensure a more complete combustion of the propellant composition inside the trunks (to eliminate the burning of powder gases in front of the aircraft), potassium nitrate is added to it. This additive is either injected into the propellant or in a separate plastic bag is embedded in the cartridge. However, it helps not so much:

During the operation of the A-10A aircraft, it was found that when firing from a gun, powder gases are still sucked into the engine, and unburned powder particles are deposited on the blades of a fan and engine compressor. The accumulation of unburned particles after every 1000 shots reduces engine thrust by 1%. The overall reduction in thrust with a nastrelom reached 10%, which increased the likelihood of disruption of the flow from the blades of the compressor and the stop of the engines.

To reduce the likelihood of disruption of the flow from the compressor blades, the following restrictions were introduced:

- Ignition devices (torches at the air inlet) that ignite unburned powder particles were built into the engines of the aircraft in 1981;

- firing from the gun is allowed only in short bursts and only with low (2100 rds / min) rate of fire;

- mandatory flushing of the engine after every 2600-3000 shots with soap and water to remove soot from the fan and compressor blades.

In order for you to appreciate how tightly the GAU-8A gun fits into the А-10 plane, I’ll let you know that this gun comes in two versions: for a two-seater and a single-seater. Compared to the gun system of a single-seat aircraft, the ammunition store for the two-seater is shortened from 492 to 408 mm. Otherwise, the second person would have nowhere to plant.

The development of the 30-mm seven-barreled GAU-8A gun was launched by General Electric in 1971. The gun was designed specifically for the A-10A attack aircraft. In February, 1974 was launched by General Electric to manufacture a pre-production lot of GAU-8A guns. In May, the 1975 was successfully completed flight fire tests of the gun GAU-8A. The test results showed that the installation and use of the gun on the A-10A did not adversely affect the aircraft’s handling. One of the main factors checked by the compatibility test of the gun with the aircraft was the effect of recoil force on the aircraft when fired. According to calculations, the recoil force of the gun was supposed to be about 7700 kg, in fact, when fired, it was about 6800 kg.

During the tests, firing was conducted with a high and low rate of fire at flight speeds of 300-740 km / h at altitudes from 850 to 3900 m and overload aircraft up to fourfold.

The GAU-8A cannon is located along the longitudinal axis of the aircraft and is offset to the left side on the 0,3 m. It works according to the Gatling principle, has a hydraulic external drive and a cartridgeless feed system. A drum magazine holds 1350 cartridges. The spent cartridges are assembled onboard the aircraft in a drum-type container and can be reused.

You ask: why is all this needed?

The fact is that in 1971 it was discovered that the Soviet Tanks can be successfully hit when attacking from above with armor-piercing shells of 30 mm caliber. Well, the tank has thin armor from above - and therefore it can be pierced with such a caliber.

But in order for an airplane flying over the battlefield over enemy tanks not to be knocked down, it must fly fast. And this requires a high rate of fire to get at least 1-2 shells into the tank at that speed.

The drive of the barrel unit and the power supply system is powered by two hydraulic motors using the hydraulic system of the aircraft. Both engines together generate power in 77 hp. (57,4 kW) required to fire at maximum rate of fire 4200 shots / min. If one of the motors fails, the shooting is carried out at a speed of 2100 rpm.

Well, in general, the United States built such joy and were pleased. But not for long - because they raskkovany Uralvagonkolkhoz something podhimichili in the layout of the tank, hung additional screens and armor, and the tank 30-mm projectile from above to stop breaking. The use of depleted uranium cores also did not save the situation - but it sharply increased the price of the projectile. The economics of the A-10 plane went the same way the US economy went - in the ass.

During Operation Desert Storm, A-10 attack aircraft from the United States Air Force used PGU-14 / B depleted uranium shells. 148 aircraft based in Saudi Arabia, performed 8077 combat missions. XUUMX PGU-783.514 / B 14 and almost 200 thousands of incendiary projectiles were spent. Based on the fact that each PGU-14 projectile contains about 300 of depleted uranium, the US Air Force scattered around the Persian Gulf about 259 tons of OU.

In theory, in such a quantity it was possible to destroy all the armored vehicles of all the Gulf countries. However, the real success of the shooting was almost zero - and this despite the fact that the targets were heavily outdated tanks. In fact, the gun GAU-8A signed her impotence against the tanks.

As a result, the United States ended up with an attack aircraft, the main weapon which does not perform the main task of the aircraft. The whole system began to look unusually stupid - since such a monstroid gun is simply not needed for firing at enemy infantry and BTR am, there is quite enough 23 mm caliber and much lower projectile kinetics, and it was almost useless against tanks.

Then, A-10 was equipped with command and control equipment for anti-tank missiles Hellfire. However, the cannon that has become useless from an airplane cannot be removed - at least the alignment of the aircraft will be disrupted. And A-10 carry an almost useless, multi-toned piece of iron, and cannot take any significant amount of rockets.

See the photo? To take so many missiles, the A-10 flies without any shells at all to the main cannon.

PS The funny thing is that the cunning Russians also have an 30-mm aircraft gun - GSH-6-30 (TKB-635):

As you can see, at the rate of firing at 5000 shots per minute, it is much more compact.

The operation of the gun of the HS-6-30 gun (TKB-635) is based on the principle of using the energy of powder gases. diverted alternately from each trunk. Preliminary acceleration of the barrel assembly at the beginning of each line is carried out with compressed air (pneumatic starter).

The HS-6-30 gun was adopted in 1974 and received the index 9-А-621. The GS-6-30 cannon are armed with Su-24MK (single, 500 ammunition) and MiG-27 aircraft. In the aviation version with low ballistics, GSH-6-30А had a return in 5500 kgf. Shock loads when shooting were very powerful for the design of the aircraft (yet its airframe was a remake of a fairly lightweight fighter). The first shooting made in flight ended with the failure of all the instruments in the cockpit after the queue of 25 shells.

In combination with the sighting system GSH-6-30А had a high accuracy of fire. A factory test pilot, M. Turkin, offered to get into a dispute to get into a white T-shirt fixed on the target and clearly visible, and even to take down his cap on top. After making a couple of visits, he put a queue on the target. It was not possible to determine who won the dispute: the queue scattered the timbered target so that there were not even scraps left.

In the combat parts of the firing of the gun were quite frequent, but always impressive for the pilots themselves - the rolling thunderbolt of the queue, emitting a hundred shells per second, and the recoil shaking through the machine caused an incomparable feeling of power and strength in their hands. No less impressive was the view of the work of the "six arms" from the side: the leading fire plane was enveloped for a few moments with a cloud of flame, from which a fiery downpour stretched to the ground. Usually, two OFZ shells alternated in ribbons through a single BR.

MiG-27 aiming system

In automatic mode, the PrNN-23 aim-navigation complex was used. He gave the necessary corrections and preemptions for the sight, and the aiming was carried out by imposing on the target a mobile aiming mark C-17ВГ, on which the current distance to the object of attack and the sector of the effective range (beginning and ending) of shooting were highlighted. Unlike other machines, a second combat button was mounted on the MiG-27 control stick, specifically for the gun. By the pilots themselves, firing from a cannon was considered more attractive than the bombing or launch of the NAR, which had already exploded after the plane, leaving the attack, and then observed from above as dusty clouds at best. The gun gave a tangible and visible result: immediately after the "emergence" of the aiming mark, the shells went almost to the place where the mark was applied. Thanks to the powerful ballistics and high rate of fire, it was possible to see how the first projectiles of the queue bite into the target. Then I had to take the handle on myself, and the bulk of the volley fell into the target, a fraction of a second behind the aircraft emerging from the dive. The withdrawal was usually performed with a lapel to the side, moving away from the fragments and ricocheting of its own projectiles. Shards from them rose to a height of 200 m and represented a serious danger to the aircraft.

8 August 1988 of the year in 19-m gv. apib in the GSVG after firing on the MiG-XNUMHD of Lieutenant MV Poluektova, the front desk did not release due to the fact that the fuselage was “led” and the flap was jammed. As noted in the report, "the pilot had a high moral and political preparation" and was able to land the plane on the main wheels, put out the speed and touched the nose of the concrete with minimal damage. In 27, the 599 apib of May 15, a similar case occurred with more severe consequences: the localizer was torn from the gun with a burst, the doors shut in, the rack did not come out and the MiG-1990K plowed the nose of the runway, after which the car had to be written off. Occurred "knocking out" gas stations, disconnecting the equipment, refused communication and systems. Some of the cases, for all the seriousness of the situation, bordered on curiosity. In the 27 th 24 air division, on April 18, the MiG-1988 came to the airfield, not only deafening, but also left without PrNK - the cannon line at once cut down all the radio equipment and gyroscopes. In the GSNG 27 of September 2, the MiG-1989 cannon volley led to a complete loss of radio communications - contacts and flying out of the radio were broken off and the printed circuit boards cracked. In 27, the VA in January, 23, gunfire led directly to two incidents: in the 1989, the overspeed fuse caused an almost complete de-energization of the “board” with a failure to control the stabilizer, flaps, chassis, and MRCs, and a week earlier in the next 58. Apib MiG-266K returned from a flight without a lantern cover, torn when fired (emergency locks themselves opened, releasing the lantern into "free flight").

Even against this background, the case that occurred in the 24 March 29 1989 division of the year looked unique: the dashboard panel fell apart at the exit from a dive after shooting at the pilot's feet, the fixture of which killed itself. Holding the panel hanging on the harnesses with his hand, the pilot flew to the airfield. More than once it happened that the reflector of the sight burst from the blows of the line. The landing lights were split so often that they were removed and replaced with plugs before flying into the shooting area. The introduction of deflector shields did not completely save the situation, which required that the Instructions be clarified to the pilot: after night firing, landing was allowed only on the runway-illuminated floodlights.

But on the other hand, our gun weighed only 149-160 kg, and the GAU-8A weighed almost 300 kg, plus the drive systems, without which our gun managed.

In the end, the 30-mm gun was considered excessively powerful and was replaced by a lighter (76 kg total) 23-mm GSH-6-23 gun (TKB-613), which had a rate of firing 9000 shots per minute. She was armed with MiG-27, MiG-31, Su-24, Su-24M aircraft.

The Su fighters (Su-27, Su-30, Su-35, Su-37) use the GSH-301 gun (9A4071K) in the same caliber 30 mm, but single-barreled, with water vapor-cooled barrel. It weighs only 50 kg and has an 1500 firing rate per rpm.

The difference between the Russian and American approach to the 30-mm aircraft cannon is that in Russia this gun has never (since the time of piston aircraft) been considered as the main armament of the aircraft. Hence the consequence that the Russians implemented the cannon into the finished aircraft, and did not make the aircraft under the cannon, and, accordingly, the Russians received the flexibility that the Americans did not achieve.

Well, the Russian anti-attack attack aircraft initially focused on missile weapons.

An attack aircraft capable of fighting small-sized and heavily protected targets (including new generation NATO tanks) was originally intended to be carried out in a double version and equipped with Raduga anti-tank systems, but later the choice was made on the advanced Vikhr anti-tank systems, which could use single plane. As another weapon of the upgraded attack aircraft, the 45-mm perspective gun, moving in a vertical plane, was considered, however, due to the difficulties with working out this system, it was decided to equip the aircraft with a fixed double-barreled gun GSH-30 (30 mm).

The anti-tank attack aircraft is called Su-25TM (or Su-39). Here is this monster:

The difference in the combat load with the American is perfectly noticeable.

Gun GSH-30

Rate of Fire - 2460 shots per minute. For firing from a GSH-30 gun used 30-mm ammunition with high-explosive-incendiary BFL-30-GSH, tracer OFZT-30-GSH, armor-piercing discontinuous BR-30-GSH and multielement ME (contains 28 bullets in a package and expelling charge) projectiles (mass of projectile 400 g).
31 comment
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. luiswoo
    luiswoo 24 January 2014 09: 41
    I wonder what an attack aircraft should be to carry a 57 mm gun of the Gast system. For tanks of the past, present and near future, this would be a real bogey. On the one hand, even having compensated for 60% of the recoil, could at least the IL-76 use it? On the other hand, 57 mm can be made "reasonable", corrected for relatively reasonable money, the need for unguided close-range missiles can be reduced ...
    1. Wedmak
      Wedmak 24 January 2014 10: 39
      - 25-mm General Electric GAU-12 / U Gatling five-barreled cannon (1800 firing rate per rounds / min, 3000 rounds of ammunition);
      - 40-mm gun Bofors L-60 Bofors (rate of fire 100 shots / min, ammunition 256 shells);
      - X-NUMX-mm howitzer M-105, designed on the basis of standard army howitzer (102-6 firing rate / min, 10 ammunition ammunition).

      Not 57 mm, of course, and not Gatling, but also an unpleasant thing.
      1. PLO
        PLO 24 January 2014 10: 45
        well this is not a completely correct example
        with this arrangement, rollback systems are used without problems so that the recoil is easily compensated
        1. Wedmak
          Wedmak 24 January 2014 10: 54
          well this is not a completely correct example

          I agree, not entirely correct, but there are no others, even similar ones. But I’m even afraid to imagine HOW a plane with such a gun mounted along the axis of the fuselage will look like. And how will he shoot ...
      2. luiswoo
        luiswoo 24 January 2014 15: 43
        a) AC-130 is not a ground attack aircraft. In any case, not in the usual sense.
        b) The Gast system is not a Gatling system.
        1. bask
          bask 24 January 2014 16: 10
          Quote: luiswoo
          gatling system.

          With such a return, when firing a gun, the A10 attack aircraft loses speed.

      3. badger1974
        badger1974 24 January 2014 23: 33
        "expelled" after catastrophic losses in the Vietnam War, further use only after reconnaissance, in non-ZRK zones
  2. The comment was deleted.
  3. Wedmak
    Wedmak 24 January 2014 10: 03
    Only now the Su-39 did not go into the series. And the Su-25 still has the main armament - NURSs and free-falling bombs.
  4. Soldier
    Soldier 24 January 2014 13: 06
    You can certainly be ironic, but actually, the A-10 Thunderbolt firework is a fairly serious attack aircraft with a high degree of survivability. For this it has such an unusual engine layout (on top, on both sides of the fuselage that practically eliminates the simultaneous defeat of both) By the way, a certain amount of A-10 was concentrated in the summer of 2008 in Turkey. Yes, to support stsukashvilli, in case of strategic success.
  5. Nayhas
    Nayhas 24 January 2014 13: 07
    Well, actually, in the original the article is called somewhat differently, instead of "Americans" another word is indicated that the moderators will not miss. Accordingly, the task of the article was to say as much bad as possible about the GAU-8A and vice versa about the GSh-6-30. The article is interesting, but the author clearly does not achieve his goal, although he tried to slide down to expressions like:
    The very strange and unusual placement of engines in the tail of the aircraft is a necessary measure in an attempt to prevent them from stopping due to the ingress of powder gases into the air intakes during firing. Well, so stupidly done. .... are you already funny? Me too. ...

    The author is pretty good at understanding the issue, but either intentionally or by misunderstanding draws wrong conclusions. So for comparison, one should indicate not only their mass, but also:
    barrel length-2229mm.
    the initial velocity of the projectile-BPS is 980 m / s, OFZ 1070 m / s.
    barrel survivability-21000 rds.
    barrel length-1320mm.
    the initial velocity of the projectile is 876-900m / s.
    barrel survivability-6000 rds.
    As can be seen from the characteristics presented, a smaller mass of GSh-6-30 was not without casualties. Moreover, installing it on the MiG-27 was a mistake, the plane was not designed for such loads, and what the author admires (turning off the on-board equipment due to vibrations during recoil) is a clear sign of this. When firing from GSh-6-30, cracks appeared in the center section at the point of its attachment, and this is very bad. Losing cars is stupid. I'm not saying that under GSh-6-30 it was necessary to create an airplane by analogy with Thunderbolt-2, just an air gun of such power is redundant.
    But the most important thing is to remember the time when the Thunderbolt-2 was created, then (the end of the 60s) few people knew about the prospects of guided munitions, and the existing ones cost a lot more than 30mm. shells, Thunderbolt-2 itself was created to break through air defense at low altitude under the fire of small arms and MZA.
    Now about the protection of tanks from above. The author claims that:
    because they were rakhovanny from the Uralvagonkolkhoz something chemical in the layout of the tank, hung additional screens and armor, and the tank stopped making a 30-mm shell from above.

    But this is not so, armoring the roof of the tower and over motor armor was never particularly thick, they did not differ in extra armor. BPS PGU-14 / B at a range of 1000m. punched 38mm. armor, which is enough to break through the motor armor with the failure of the engine.
    Regarding combat load:
    See the photo? To take so many missiles, the A-10 flies without any shells at all to the main cannon.

    It is worth arguing about it, citing specific data comparing existing (here emphasis) aircraft.
    The Thunderbolt-2 combat load is more than 7 tons (16 thousand pounds), in this indicator (and not in the pictures) only Su-24 and Su-34 can be compared with it, and the MiG-27, Su-17 and Su- 25 more than 4 tons cannot be lifted.
    Undoubtedly, the concept of "attack around the gun" is outdated in the last century, but despite this, the A-10 Thunderbolt II is still in demand and flies a lot (in 201 the Air Force fleet consisted of 187 vehicles, in 2013 they flew 94353 hours).
    PS: returning to the phrase:
    A very strange and unusual placement of the engines in the tail of the aircraft is a necessary measure in an attempt to prevent them from stopping due to the ingress of powder gases into the air intakes during firing. Well, so stupidly done.

    The location of the Thunderbolt-2 engines on the contrary is very wise. The engine nozzles are covered from the most dangerous direction (back-to-bottom) with horizontal plumage, thereby shielding the hot exhaust preventing the MANPADS from capturing its TGSN missiles.
    1. luiswoo
      luiswoo 24 January 2014 16: 10
      The Thunderbolt-2 engine layout is, on the contrary, very wise.

      With its cruising speed, it was possible to use screw engines, rather than jet ones, the former did not emit so much heat and you couldn’t particularly be smart with the installation site.
      In the options for the further development of Su-25, the designers, the idea of ​​a screw attack aircraft attracted quite a lot:
      1. Nayhas
        Nayhas 24 January 2014 16: 15
        Quote: luiswoo
        With its cruising speed, it was possible to use screw engines, rather than jet ones, the former did not emit so much heat and you couldn’t particularly be smart with the installation site.

        Come on, it has a maximum mass of 20 tons, which theater would accelerate it to 800 km / h and what size would it be?
        1. luiswoo
          luiswoo 25 January 2014 09: 46
          800 seems to be the maximum allowable at altitude. Near the ground, in its natural "area", cruising 500 km / h. With its normal take-off weight, a TV7-117S would be enough (Emergency 3500 hp, versus 4116 hp TF34-GE-100).

    2. badger1974
      badger1974 24 January 2014 23: 58
      I would like to note that the 10th 2nd already does not use the big gun, the Meverik missile launcher is its main armament, and the A-10 of the first series turned out to be bad in the concept of anti-tank battles, since in the first Iraqi there was the fact of the loss of two thunderbolts from the "shilok" and this, with the almost complete suppression of Iraqi air defense, firing from GAU was carried out in purely scientific practice, in battle they were revealed by the specialists of the Stars and Stripes Air Force themselves as ineffective in terms of anti-air defense, as well as undemoralized enemy units that use MANPADS, Igla and Stinger -2 "in paired use force the A-10 of the first" cannon "series to stop the attack, and now the A-10 is irrelevant, this is a fact
      1. Nayhas
        Nayhas 25 January 2014 20: 03
        Quote: badger1974
        since in the first Iraqi there was the fact of the loss of two thunderbolts from the "shilok", and this was with the almost complete suppression of the Iraqi air defense

        The Americans themselves created the myth of the complete suppression of Iraq's air defense. It is simply not possible to completely suppress air defense. Of course, the MZA has fewer opportunities than the KUB SAM, but it does not become safe from this, the Americans, in spite of the myth they created, created a wide range of ammunition in order to destroy targets outside the MZA strike zone.
      2. Saboteur
        Saboteur 26 January 2014 08: 45
        A-10 shows itself very well in Afghanistan. The Marines love to call them for help. They have been working recently with MARSOC, ODA and NAVY SEAL. Due to their powerful weapons and very low noise, they are ideal for night operations. 30mm is ideal for breaking through thick walls of villages.
      3. Saboteur
        Saboteur 26 January 2014 08: 45
        A-10 shows itself very well in Afghanistan. The Marines love to call them for help. They have been working recently with MARSOC, ODA and NAVY SEAL. Due to their powerful weapons and very low noise, they are ideal for night operations. 30mm is ideal for breaking through thick walls of villages.
  6. spirit
    spirit 24 January 2014 13: 46
    How long did the F117 fly? And how much is a warthog? If a plane has been flying for so many years and the post is being modernized, rather than being replaced by a new one (35 I consider it to be not a serious replacement), this is what it says.
  7. Professor
    Professor 24 January 2014 15: 22
    Well, in general, the United States built such joy and were pleased. But not for long - because they raskkovany Uralvagonkolkhoz something podhimichili in the layout of the tank, hung additional screens and armor, and the tank 30-mm projectile from above to stop breaking. The use of depleted uranium cores also did not save the situation - but it sharply increased the price of the projectile. The economics of the A-10 plane went the same way the US economy went - in the ass.

    But from now on, please, in more detail. I'm not talking about the American economy, which is in the "ass", and the rest before it like Paris with cancer, but about the airplane.
  8. rolik2
    rolik2 24 January 2014 15: 41
    Hmm, the density of fire is amazing, I just can’t imagine what will happen to the column on the march to iron her Warthogs
    1. Nayhas
      Nayhas 24 January 2014 16: 20
      Quote: rolik2
      Hmm, the density of fire is amazing, I just can’t imagine what will happen to the column on the march to iron her Warthogs

      A cannon is an anachronism, the United States now has a wide range of weapons that can slaughter enemies from afar, for which an armored Thunderbolt-2 is not needed.
      1. rolik2
        rolik2 24 January 2014 22: 11
        so what year are they released? Now it’s possible they (Warthogs) are outdated, but this is not a reason to throw them in a landfill, our Su-25s also operate uncontrollable weapons, but are we in no hurry to write them off?
      2. Professor
        Professor 25 January 2014 00: 26
        Quote: Nayhas
        The gun is an anachronism

        Yeah of course. See how this "anachronism" works in Afghanistan.
        1. badger1974
          badger1974 25 January 2014 12: 40
          HAHA, ZERO RESULT, which was required to prove, even the Stars and Stripes are right in the inefficiency of the cannon with wings, although this video is in question - who struck? in any case, the building remained a building after the "shooting gallery" - effect -0
  9. barbiturate
    barbiturate 24 January 2014 16: 14
    the author clearly exaggerated the colors on the American car, the gun is a very good weapon for attacking and, moreover, such a gun, and besides, the carrying capacity allows him to carry missiles along with the ammunition of the gun. Take such an attack aircraft over the convoy of vehicles to the tanks inclusively and I won’t envy them very much) He can do 100% and will not put the gun out of action, but mounted gear, sights, antennas, etc. will go into oblivion, which means the tank will be practically no BG. The construction is also very interesting and the location of the engines has its advantages. Another thing is conflicts in which he had to participate and maybe his power (specifically guns for example) is really somewhere redundant, but that's another matter.
  10. Jet
    Jet 24 January 2014 16: 24
    the article is generally interesting, but written in the spirit of the majority of the VO articles about American weapons: "oh, those stupid, stupid Americans" ...
    1. Shur
      Shur 25 January 2014 00: 33
      In the same spirit, the "partners" write about "Russian" weapons. Although no, here at least they don't write that everything was done with a hammer on an anvil by drunken comrades.
  11. Fofan
    Fofan 24 January 2014 19: 33
    su 39 Units produced 4. envy stupid Americans!
  12. kafa
    kafa 24 January 2014 20: 03
    Well, guns, of course, are an old story, especially in aviation, but so far there is no cheaper melee weapon supporting infantry and attack. blasters so far only in the movies or on board the Boeing repeat
  13. cesar65
    cesar65 24 January 2014 22: 12
    The question is, why do we need such a huge ammunition? About 15-20 years ago I read in "TV" that our helicopter pilots in Afghanistan took half the ammunition for the YakB-12.7, since there were no targets for the entire ammunition (YakB-12.7 is a four-barreled heavy machine gun).
    1. badger1974
      badger1974 25 January 2014 00: 07
      there were goals for 12.7, but there were no thrusts for the turntable engines at an altitude of 2000m to 4000m, especially for the Mi-24
  14. badger1974
    badger1974 25 January 2014 00: 15
    a sensible article, but only Gryazev Shipunov 6-30 was created not for aviation, but for the Navy, this is a forced measure for high-ranking uncles of the USSR, who pointed their fingers at Tander's GAU - "I want the same on an attack aircraft" - no question, the current is fucking goat accordion
  15. Rurikovich
    Rurikovich 25 January 2014 01: 20
    Always in the production of any weapon, no matter small or large, in the form of ships, aircraft and tanks, all factors that affect what these weapons will be should be taken into account. It is impossible to create a perfect weapon. Always with advertised positive characteristics, a dark shadow will be found and not always publicized negative sides of the weapon model. The criterion "efficiency - cost" has not yet been canceled. And if a weapon is always designed for a specific task, then it will most likely meet the main requirements, sometimes to the detriment of others. In this case, the article coped with this condition. The advantages and disadvantages of a particular weapon are listed, attempts are made to create a weapon similar to that of other manufacturers. The difference in approach to design can also be traced. How some characteristics were brought to the detriment of others. All. All logic. And then it begins "but we have, but the Americans, and they are loshary, but we are not, and blah, blah, blah ...." You always need to consider everything as a whole, and only then, based on the tasks of this weapon, the success will become clear weapon or its inferiority.
  16. Bosk
    Bosk 25 January 2014 01: 49
    To build a plane around a gun ... that's cool!, Though with a perspective, it’s kind of stressful.
    1. papik09
      papik09 25 January 2014 06: 24
      And so it was - the plane around the gun. Moreover, the aircraft is armored, as it was intended for flights at a low altitude in the range of small arms with a small-caliber receiver. It was Vietnam. soldier
      1. badger1974
        badger1974 25 January 2014 12: 58
        There was no tander in Vietnam, the 10th was created for "work" in Europe, where the Soviets in the West Military District had a lot of tanks, and shooting partisans in the jungle with a Thunder is an absolutely stupid idea, I said that the career of the anti-guerrilla Geules C-130 was not decided in his (hercules) benefit, the installation of the GAU was at his "disposal", however, for the arrow-2m MANPADS it was an ideal target, for modern MANPADS of the "needle" or "stinger-2" type having a lower target capture of 10 meters, the tander does not work
  17. Phaeton
    Phaeton 25 January 2014 04: 32
    The author is trying to spill mud on the GAU-12 and A-10, respectively. True, mainly disadvantages are listed. Yes, the plane is really built around the gun. This has its advantages and disadvantages. No one has anything like this in power! This monster can hit cheaply and very angrily any ground targets, if the tanks are not even destroyed, they will definitely be disabled. Even with a low rate of fire, but according to the cost-effectiveness criterion, this is the best gun on a ground attack aircraft, which has proved its effectiveness.
    1. badger1974
      badger1974 25 January 2014 10: 37
      All A-10 targets were destroyed by UR Meverik, including allied ones, on various videos the GAU was fired in range or almost range conditions at abandoned Iraqi T-55s, all the main combat "work" on processing ground targets is performed by hornets and intruders, The tander is recognized as expensive and weakly protected from active anti-air defense, and all because it was created around the gun and is only suitable for a shooting range at training grounds
      1. Phaeton
        Phaeton 30 January 2014 03: 58
        Well, if you talk like that, then the Su-25 will even lose the thunderbolt at the training ground. Flight time is incomparable, weapons are weaker
  18. Chicot 1
    Chicot 1 25 January 2014 10: 53
    Well, so stupidly done

    Far from stupid, but quite justified on the basis of the specifics of the artillery system and the specifics of the aircraft itself. And the attack aircraft turned out to be very successful and has its advantages compared to the same Su-25 (at least the same gun and the same engines in the pylons), so that they wouldn’t sound the zealous zeppa-patsiros ...
    But to cram such a "gross cannone" as the GSh-6-30 into an aircraft like the MiG-27 is really stupid and unjustified ...
    The minus, dear Author, did not begin to put to you. Exclusively because of respect for the time you spent writing an article ... But next time, be so kind as to submit the material (let’s say so) a little more objectively...
    1. badger1974
      badger1974 25 January 2014 13: 12
      in vain you are so to the author, the A-10 was created to counter the tank armies of the USSR exclusively in the European theater of operations in the 80s, and when "there was such a booze", then "they would cut the last cucumber" affairs, all the superiority in local conflicts "earned" not a thunder, but attack aircraft of the A-6 intruder type (to a lesser extent) and the AF-18 semi-attack aircraft hornet (to a greater extent), which were initially hard workers for all occasions, in the case of the General Staff -6-30 is just a misunderstanding, the need for which disappeared and the fighter-bomber MiG-27 again became the MiG-27, in the case of a thunderbolt, this is impossible. he was born this way
      1. Chicot 1
        Chicot 1 25 January 2014 14: 51
        Quote: badger1974
        in vain you are so to the author

        Taki just right ...
        Quote: badger1974
        A-10 was created to counter the tank armies of the USSR exclusively at the European theater of operations in the 80s

        The result is an excellent "anti-tank". And he remains so to this day ...
        Quote: badger1974
        all superiority in local conflicts was "earned" not by the thunder, but by attack aircraft of the A-6 intruder type (to a lesser extent) and the AF-18 semi-attack aircraft hornet (to a greater extent)

        "Intruder" earned its fame when "Thunder" was not even in sight ... "Hornet" is effective, no words. But "superiority in local conflicts"to a large extent he had to share with the" land "F-15, F-16 and" Tornado ". This trio has also worked pretty well recently ...
        But in any case, they all rest in comparison with the famous (and notorious) "Phantom" ...
        Quote: badger1974
        and when "there was such a booze", then "they would cut the last cucumber", and so he was left out of work

        Maybe he stayed ... Or maybe not. No one has yet canceled tanks ...
        Yes, and we thought about how to "sharpen" the old "Rook" for the use of guided weapons. Including anti-tank, and as a result, the Su-39 appeared ...
        So it turns out that the idea of ​​a flying "anti-tank" has not exhausted itself ...

        PS The use of the artillery system on the Su-25 attack aircraft is episodic, shooting from it is very rare and only in extreme cases ...

        Su-39 (Su-25TM)
        1. badger1974
          badger1974 25 January 2014 18: 07
          raspedalil perfectly, only this is confirmed by FACT - the A-10 is untenable, the "cannon with wings" is not suitable for anything, and the "comb" has to be replaced, but here zhöppppa, losses in Georgia are only the beginning of the death of the Su-25
          1. Chicot 1
            Chicot 1 25 January 2014 23: 55
            Quote: badger1974
            A-10 is insolvent

            And in what way is it untenable? .. As an attack aircraft in general or as an "anti-tank" in particular (provided that no one has canceled the tanks yet and does not intend to cancel it in the foreseeable future)? ..
            Quote: badger1974
            losses in Georgia is only the beginning of the death of the Su-25

            Losses of the Su-25 were from the very beginning, even starting with Afghanistan. However, he regularly continued to serve, including fighting ...
            Quote: badger1974
            it's time to replace the "scallop"

            And why replace it then? ..
            1. badger1974
              badger1974 27 January 2014 12: 18
              on the first question. pull the extra 2000 kg (a large consumption of ammunition with low efficiency is a fact, noted by the American military analysts themselves), and if we take into account the weight of the airframe's power set, which should provide load and vibration when firing from the main weapon (GAU), which (weight) could can be used for booking or for other "useful" devices. As the attack aircraft itself, the designers tried for 5, excellent visibility, the possibility of an emergency landing on the "belly" with easily eliminated damage, duplication of control surfaces, removal of power units at a distance, that is, if not " dead "weight, he would deserve fame more abruptly than an intruder, all the same an attacker is efficiency at a low price, A-10 is in the last ranks here
              second. Thunder has never been in assault attacks with dense anti-aircraft countermeasures than the Su-25 (deliveries to the counter-zone of Stingers, blowapps, etc.), when this happened occasionally, the death or almost death (write-off) of the "expensive attack aircraft" led to the fact that " the work was "assigned to other types of aircraft with remote missile systems, Grach performed the actions himself, like the Il-2
              third, I see the concept of a new attack aircraft to replace Rook, a high degree of reservation, increased thrust of engines in the afterburner mode, the attack airframe is better done using a bodyless scheme (the power set will be stronger than the mating planes), in this regard, the dimensions of the Su-25 are extremely insufficient, and in no case build an attack aircraft around the gun
          2. samoletil18
            samoletil18 26 January 2014 11: 29
            Quote: badger1974
            and it's time to replace the "scallop" - and here zhöppppa, losses in Georgia are just the beginning of the death of the Su-25

            This is your information from the Georgian side, I guess. And so 3 cars maximum. And this is with our mess, at that moment, although "our mess" works wonders - I understood this in the army.
            1. badger1974
              badger1974 27 January 2014 18: 46
              there’s no reason to argue, no one unexpectedly opposed the Georgian air defense, and as in 1942 the attack aircraft acted at their own risk and fired upon both by the Georgian air defense and the militia and parts of the Russian army, this is a mess, here Grach as always on top, but replacement is essential, MANPADS are being improved, soon the chances of surviving an individual aircraft (MANPADS) will be less, damage will become more extensive than damage to engine nozzles, this must be outstripped, and for this we need a different concept than the Su-25
  19. The comment was deleted.
  20. The comment was deleted.
  21. The comment was deleted.
  22. The comment was deleted.
  23. Duke
    Duke 26 January 2014 15: 22
    A-10 cannot dive in an attack, unlike SU-25
    1. Alwizard
      Alwizard 26 January 2014 18: 01
      Does he need it? It was not designed for uncontrolled bombing.
  24. demon71
    demon71 27 January 2014 17: 26
    And personally, in my opinion, a good device, And probably the dashboard doesn’t fall off after the volley and the flashlight doesn’t break! Although I personally saw the volley of our 23 mm GSH-6-23 air gun, I’m very impressed! Yes, and the barrel survivability is not bad .
  25. Strider
    Strider 4 February 2014 02: 26
    A-10, although outdated, remains in demand in modern conflicts!
  26. dan79
    dan79 4 October 2016 05: 12
    How can you compare gau 8 and this fake gsh 6 30, the article is immediately written by a painful patriot. And 10 destroyed a large number of tanks in the Iraq war, and not only with the help of missiles, but how many destroyed their main guns? If Gau 8 was bad, then the Americans would never have put it. It’s sad and sad to read all this. Here the truth and adequacy did not sleep.