The Hs 129 idea done 'right', and for everyone

GrauGeist said:

One of the first purpose built ground attack aircraft, was the Junkers J.I, which went into service in 1917.

Click to expand...

Hi
The Junkers J.I was not a ground attack aircraft, it undertook 'contact patrols' to locate friendly troops and to report on location of enemy troops (called 'counter attack patrol' by the British but could be a combined role by an individual aircraft). It was mainly equipped with a single machine gun in the observer's position for defence, although there were experiments with two downward firing MGs (considered unsuccessful by the Germans) and a Becker 20mm (again considered unsuccessful for this type). The aircraft was heavy and extra equipment being fitted was problematic, it also lacked the manoeuvrability that was useful for ground attack aircraft. It carried mainly a wireless and hand held camera (the Germans photographed ground troops' cloth signals) plus message streamers. This was an important role, the J.I was issued in ones and twos to units.
There were other German armoured aircraft and Jack Herris has covered them in his 'German Armoured Warplanes of WWI', Aeronaut Books 2012, and some of these were used for ground attack. However, most ground attack aircraft used by the Germans in the Schlachtflieger units appear to be only lightly armoured or non-armoured (see 'Schlachtflieger!' by Rick Duiven & Dan-San Abbott) to keep up their performance and weapons carrying ability.

Mike

I have already cited several times the example of successful use of obsolete I-153s to attack ground targets, where they suffered losses from anti-aircraft fire significantly less than IL-2.
Maneuverability was much more important than armoring, which provided little (if any) protection against 20mm. The use of heavily armored aircraft was a mistake.

bf109xxl said:

I have already cited several times the example of successful use of obsolete I-153s to attack ground targets, where they suffered losses from anti-aircraft fire significantly less than IL-2.
Maneuverability was much more important than armoring, which provided little (if any) protection against 20mm. The use of heavily armored aircraft was a mistake.

Click to expand...

This may also show the problem of designing for your own weapons and not the enemies weapons.

Adopted in 1938.
The Soviet DShK 1938 was also adopted in 1938 but it really didn't a lot of use in WW II. Wiki says 9000 guns built in WW II which is ludicrously small amount for WW II.
Does anybody else have better numbers?
Germans built over 8,000 Flak 30s (?) before switching over to the Flak 38s (over 40,000 built?)
And built around 3800 Flakvierlings. (?)

The IL-2 might have been pretty good against the MG 34 in single and twin mounts but unlike a lot of other armies. The rifle caliber MG was not the only light AA gun in the German Arsenal. And the Germans pretty much skipped the 12.7-15mm class until things got really desperate.

I don't know how many 37mm AA guns the Germans started with but they built around 20,000 of the early versions during the war.

The Soviets were working on 25mm and 37mm AA guns before the war broke out and built a lot of them in last years of the war (and post war) but they may not have done much in 1941-43?

bf109xxl said:

The use of heavily armored aircraft was a mistake.

Click to expand...

Tell that on a modern aviation forum and the Spanish Inquisition from the Church of the Immortal A-10 Thunderbolt II will burn you at the stake!

Word.

z42 said:

Tell that on a modern aviation forum and the Spanish Inquisition from the Church of the Immortal A-10 Thunderbolt II will burn you at the stake!

Click to expand...

If you have plenty of power, you don't have to do the "twine" between armoring and combat load as it was in WWII. However, the operational experience of the Su-25 was rather negative, AFAIK. Jet engines, lighter construction materials (titanium alloys), higher speeds, and modern air defenses preclude the extrapolation of my words to the present day.

Just as an aside, how many targets were destroyed by the A-10 during Desert storm (targets = AFVs, AAA sites, hardened positions, meatbags, etc.) In exchange for the six lost?

In wartime, crew safety and asset survival is a consideration, but one has to look at the ultimate goal of destroying the enemy (aka war).

During WWII, ground attack types (either purpose built or adapted) were invaluable as they were as fluid as the battle lines they were challenging.

Fixed assets like artillery could only refuse (to a certain degree) an enemy's advance. AFVs (MBTs, TDs, etc.) were only as effective as their mobility.

GA aircraft, on the otherhand, could cime and go, they could attack across the battle line, from behind, from ahead and so on.

Purpose built ground attack aircraft were built with the idea that they would be challenged and thus armored in that respect.
Adapted types like the P-47, Typhoon and others used their speed as a survival asset.

Neither of the above were immune from ground fire. There is absolutely no perfect formula for ground attack.

Waving off the A-10 or Hs129 as flawed misses the point of their performance - both produced results that their enemy felt. Both types had a direct impact on the course of the battlefield.

Modern stand-off attack methods can produce results, but a direct, up close and personal ground attack engagement by fixed or rotary wing types will still provide immediate results on the battlefield.

I was wondering what practical good the A-10 could bring. Does the A-10 have any stand-off missile lobbing capability? I have read that it does have some avionics upgrades. If only to release the F-16s and aging MiG-29s for other duties.

SaparotRob said:

I was wondering what practical good the A-10 could bring. Does the A-10 have any stand-off missile lobbing capability? I have read that it does have some avionics upgrades. If only to release the F-16s and aging MiG-29s for other duties.

Click to expand...

The A-10C has an entire suite of precision, stand-off weapons.

It doesn't need to get down in the weeds in order to bring hurt.

GrauGeist said:

The A-10C has an entire suite of precision, stand-off weapons.

It doesn't need to get down in the weeds in order to bring hurt.

Click to expand...

But if you're lobbing precision guided stand-off weapons then any aircraft with the appropriate hardpoints and electronics can do it, it's not a capability unique to the A-10. Of course, the A-10 airframes exist and are probably a lot cheaper to operate on a $$$/hour basis than the flashy new jets, so I'm not saying it isn't useful tool in the box. But at that point all that armor and the big heavy gun is just deadweight.

And AFAIU that's why the USAF wants to kill it; they think it's not survivable doing the mission it was intended for in a modern high-threat environment. Modern short-range air defense systems (aka. radar-guided guns, manpads and other short-range missiles) are cheap (well, expensive as f*ck, but a lot cheaper than the aircraft they're shooting down), ubiquitous, and very deadly. Even if your side ostensibly has air superiority, a guy sitting in a bush with a MANPAD can definitely ruin your day if you get close enough.

Now, I think the colonial-style wars over the past few decades (Iraq, Afghanistan) have shown the need for a plane that would be cheap to operate and has a long loiter time, and can fire off these precision-guided weapons (why not dumb bombs too when appropriate), it's a bit silly to use up the airframe hours on your fast jets just trucking bombs in low-intensity conflicts. Something like the At-802U, maybe?

z42 said:

But if you're lobbing precision guided stand-off weapons then any aircraft with the appropriate hardpoints and electronics can do it, it's not a capability unique to the A-10. Of course, the A-10 airframes exist and are probably a lot cheaper to operate on a $$$/hour basis than the flashy new jets, so I'm not saying it isn't useful tool in the box. But at that point all that armor and the big heavy gun is just deadweight.

And AFAIU that's why the USAF wants to kill it; they think it's not survivable doing the mission it was intended for in a modern high-threat environment. Modern short-range air defense systems (aka. radar-guided guns, manpads and other short-range missiles) are cheap (well, expensive as f*ck, but a lot cheaper than the aircraft they're shooting down), ubiquitous, and very deadly. Even if your side ostensibly has air superiority, a guy sitting in a bush with a MANPAD can definitely ruin your day if you get close enough.

Now, I think the colonial-style wars over the past few decades (Iraq, Afghanistan) have shown the need for a plane that would be cheap to operate and has a long loiter time, and can fire off these precision-guided weapons (why not dumb bombs too when appropriate), it's a bit silly to use up the airframe hours on your fast jets just trucking bombs in low-intensity conflicts. Something like the At-802U, maybe?

Click to expand...

No, the USAF wants to "get rid of it" because of logistics.

The reduced airframe variety in their inventory means better budget distribution across fewer types.

The Airforce itself clearly states that the A-10C is a leading edge asset, but they don't want to pay for it.

The ultimate goal is to phase out the F-15, F-16, A-10 and F-22 - which would mean their budget would focus on the F-35.

z42 said:

But if you're lobbing precision guided stand-off weapons then any aircraft with the appropriate hardpoints and electronics can do it, it's not a capability unique to the A-10. Of course, the A-10 airframes exist and are probably a lot cheaper to operate on a $$$/hour basis than the flashy new jets, so I'm not saying it isn't useful tool in the box. But at that point all that armor and the big heavy gun is just deadweight.

And AFAIU that's why the USAF wants to kill it; they think it's not survivable doing the mission it was intended for in a modern high-threat environment. Modern short-range air defense systems (aka. radar-guided guns, manpads and other short-range missiles) are cheap (well, expensive as f*ck, but a lot cheaper than the aircraft they're shooting down), ubiquitous, and very deadly. Even if your side ostensibly has air superiority, a guy sitting in a bush with a MANPAD can definitely ruin your day if you get close enough.

Now, I think the colonial-style wars over the past few decades (Iraq, Afghanistan) have shown the need for a plane that would be cheap to operate and has a long loiter time, and can fire off these precision-guided weapons (why not dumb bombs too when appropriate), it's a bit silly to use up the airframe hours on your fast jets just trucking bombs in low-intensity conflicts. Something like the At-802U, maybe?

Click to expand...

That's pretty much the point I going for. Yes, a lot of planes could do it. It's the A-10 that USAF would like to unload, not some other craft.
IF the A-10 is actually available, IF the Ukrainian Air Force now wants them (they didn't almost two years ago), how best to use it. If Ukraine now wants them it's probably because what they have is worn out. The use I see for the A-10 is hauling NATO missiles up high enough to do useful work and save some hours on other airframes. The U.S. unloads donates needed equipment to a friend. The USAF gets to use scarce resources to maintain its current fleet.
Apologies to BiffF15, GregP, Drgondog, Der Eagle, Mlflyer for use of "worn out" without documentary evidence.

Bear in mind that the A-10 is roughly the same age as the F-16 and F-15 though much newer than the B-52 and C-130.

Just curious how that's funny.

The F-15 first flew in 1972 and was accepted into service in 1976.

The F-16 first flew in 1974 and was accepted into service in 1978.

The A-10 first flew in 1972 and was accepted into service in 1977.

The B-52 first flew in 1952 and was accepted into service in 1955.

The C-130 first flew in 1954 and was accepted into service in 1956.

I'm honestly trying to see where the joke is, in these statistics...

I just imagined a B-52 in a CAS role.

SaparotRob said:

I just imagined a B-52 in a CAS role.

Click to expand...

The point was the USAF has old aircraft, however, the AC-130 does do CAS.

GrauGeist said:

The point was the USAF has old aircraft, however, the AC-130 does do CAS.

Click to expand...

Which is why I didn't mention it.

Revisiting this

tomo pauk said:

Hs 129 was a result of specification that required a small 2-engined aircraft, powered by 'non-strategic' engines (ie. by the engines not required for the 1st line A/C), well armored, and with some meaningful firepower.
(the non-strategic engine part was flawed IMO - once you must manufacture two engines per A/C, and the total HP provided is lower than on a single 'normal' engine, while needing two propellers, two oil systems, that math falls in the water, but I digress)
Let's change the spec a bit, and apply it for other countries, too. Still a small 2-engined A/C is required, well armored, with very good firepower, preferably 1-seater, engines in question are preferred to be of non-strategic type, but without going into extremes so the AC is under-powered, IOW no need to go for 400-600 HP engines. Good guns' firepower is needed, so is the carriage of a lot of small bombs. No bomb bay is required.
Yes, some air forces don't have a thing for tactical A/C that much, let's have that changed for the purposes of this thread.
Aircraft needs to be in service by early 1940 in it's 1st version.

Click to expand...

What is non-strategic varied a bit from country to country in 1938-40.
For instance for the Japanese the Nakajima Ha1 Kotobuki or around 700hp was mostly definitely a strategic engine at this time.
Italy is in the neighboring boat, if your strategic engines are around 800-840hp what are the non-strategic engines?
For some of the other countries engines existed or were advertised but the abilit to build large numbers may have been lacking?

For France the Gnome-Rhone company offered both 7 and 9 cylinder radials of 350-500hp and 600-700hp but since they used the same cylinder assemblies as the 14 cylinder engines actual production without cutting into the 14 cylinder production may have been limited. The 9K engine was sort of a 2 valve Mercury.
Or production capability cutting into the 14M and 14N.
HS had the X series engine of around 700hp but how many they could get while trying to build as many 12Y engines as they could get?
Lorraine may have been on their way out. There was 300-500hp 9 cylinder radial of 20.8liters. They advertised larger engines but actual use?
Getting into the Renault air cooled V-12 here, There really wasn't a lot else.

Germany has the two 9 cylinder radial already discussed

Italy has the air cooled Isotta V-12s (two sizes) and a few 7 and 9 cylinder radials of 700hp and under.

Soviets have...............not a lot that doesn't impact 1st class production unless you take used engines off old aircraft.
Trying to make a 9 cylinder engine out of M-88 parts might work but then you have sort of a Mercury engine but you are cutting into M-88 production.

British have similar problems, after you go lower than Mercury engines (being build in a shadow factory for Blenheims) you wind up with AS Cheetahs or DH V-12s of about 500hp.

The US isn't much better. Only P&W and Wright are building radials of over 300-350hp. and Wright has a gap between the Whirlwind 9 (R-975) and the R-1820. Now Wright does have several different R-1820s in production at the same time. Not sure how the production is handled. Production of the "G" series continued on for a while but mostly as replacement engines for existing aircraft. G-100s and G-200s are front line engines.
P&W has the R-1340 (500-600hp) to go below the R-1830. They have or want to stop R-1535 production.

There is a gap in many countries between the 500hp and under and the 850hp and above engines. The 700hp G-R 14M was something of a rarity.

Guns can be another post.

tomo pauk said:

Hs 129 was a result of specification that required a small 2-engined aircraft, powered by 'non-strategic' engines (ie. by the engines not required for the 1st line A/C), well armored, and with some meaningful firepower.
(the non-strategic engine part was flawed IMO - once you must manufacture two engines per A/C, and the total HP provided is lower than on a single 'normal' engine, while needing two propellers, two oil systems, that math falls in the water, but I digress)
Let's change the spec a bit, and apply it for other countries, too. Still a small 2-engined A/C is required, well armored, with very good firepower, preferably 1-seater, engines in question are preferred to be of non-strategic type, but without going into extremes so the AC is under-powered, IOW no need to go for 400-600 HP engines. Good guns' firepower is needed, so is the carriage of a lot of small bombs. No bomb bay is required.
Yes, some air forces don't have a thing for tactical A/C that much, let's have that changed for the purposes of this thread.
Aircraft needs to be in service by early 1940 in it's 1st version.

Click to expand...

The secret is to use any one of the early AIR COOLED V-12s. The Ranger V-770 is top of the heap here and makes the most power. The key is the installation of good baffling to ensure good cooling. The gun could be the NAVY's 1.1" Machine gun with new ammo to suite the target. Think Beach Twin Trainer like the one in the Museum of the USAF in Dayton.

Frank Stewart said:

The secret is to use any one of the early AIR COOLED V-12s. The Ranger V-770 is top of the heap here and makes the most power. The key is the installation of good baffling to ensure good cooling.

Click to expand...

Hs 129, even with two 700 HP engines, was underpowered. Why should an armored aircraft with less power count as the 'done right' spin-off to the idea?