![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message ...
In message , Tony Williams writes Provided, of course, that you can get and hold a solid radar lock on the target; the lack of which ability is sometimes cited as a reason to keep guns, which of course are wonderful because they're just 'point and shoot' with no fancy sensors or expensive jammable radars needed ![]() True. I do include this statement in the book: "The percentage of shots which hit the target in air-to-air firing exercises varies greatly depending on the circumstances. Modern fire control systems can calculate the correct aiming point, taking into account such variables as the effects of gravity (if the gun is fired when the aircraft is banking) and of relative wind (if the aircraft is manoeuvring so that its gun is pointing away from the direction of flight). If the radar is locked on to the target, a high percentage of hits can be achieved; if not, then the scores drop down to optical gunsight levels. If a pilot knows he is under gun attack, he can make a radar lock virtually impossible by constantly making small changes in direction every couple of seconds. The number of hits required to destroy a modern aircraft is estimated at four to six hits of 30 mm fire and perhaps three times as many with a 20 mm gun." However, it obviously takes an aware and skilled pilot to stop his attacker from getting a radar lock. Tony, you get picked on because you're a reasonable man advancing good arguments and so I can have a civil debate with you. It's not your fault that others have advanced some rather poor arguments... you just get hit with defending them sometimes as well as arguing your own position. I appreciate your forbearance. No problem - I enjoy a good debate and learn from it; it's only the idiots who occasionally irritate me! I sometimes have to remind myself of the sound advice someone once used as a signatu "Never argue with an idiot. He'll drag you down to his level and beat you with experience." The Iranians used the F-14's superior radar as a kind of mini-AWACS, orchestrating air combats and trying to fight at long range. However, tactical situations can change unexpectedly, especially at fighter jet closing speeds, hence their occasional need to use guns. Out of interest, how many Iranian Tomcats were lost in air combat? Umm. I don't know off hand. The major failing of the book is that it doesn't have an index. However, Tom Cooper helps to manage the acig.org site which collects and posts shoot-down stats for post-WW2 conflicts. I presume because the SHARs were seen as primarily fighters, the GR.7s were specialised for ground attack - so they were the obvious ones to use. True to a point, but the SHars are at least multi-role and could even be swing-role with the right loadout (what does the A in FA.2 stand for, after all?) and there wasn't a noticeable fixed-wing air threat in Sierra Leone that would require a CAP or DLI presence. Well, I presume that the GR.7s were specifically sent along to do the job; the RN doesn't normally carry them unless they're needed, AFAIK. Also, can't the RAF Harriers use the 30mm gun packs? I doubt that very much. Apart from the fact that their 'gunpods' are now stuffed with electronics which are presumably a part of their system, they almost certainly don't have the gun programme in their FCS. I remember some years ago there was a series on DERA which incidentally included some footage of a GR.7 testing the unfortunate 25mm Aden installation (the test had to be aborted as one of the guns broke...). They were having great difficulty adjusting the system to get the guns firing accurately - they were missing the targets by scores of metres. There's more to installing a gun than just bolting it on. I've personally come to the conclusion that the "guns are a waste of space" movement was clearly and provably premature[1], but as combat experience improved tactics and equipment the backlash was almost counterproductive. By the time the USAF were fielding the F-4E, the desperate need for its M61 had gone; but it was a lot easier to say "that useless Navy fighter we were forced to buy didn't have a gun!" than to admit to significant doctrinal, tactical and maintenance shortcomings. I also include the following in the book, which illustrates your point rather better than Vietnam: "The growing importance of missiles is graphically demonstrated by the experience of the Israeli Air Force, which has experienced more air-to-air combat in this period than any other. In the Six Day War of 1967, guns scored 100% of the Israeli fighter kills. Between then and 1973, the figure dropped to 70%. In the Yom Kippur War there was a further drop to 30%, between 1973 and 1979 it was 20%, from 1979 to 1982 it was 10%, in the Lebanon campaign of 1982 it was 7%, and since then 0%." I do note that the US Navy, flying in the same area (though with significant differences) never felt the need to field either gun pods for air-to-air or to insist on an internal gun on any Phantom. (Though the F-14 acquired one: interesting, that, and I'd like to know why. For that matter, was the F-111B meant to have an internal gun?) I presume that the F-14 installation, along with the F-15, was part of the 'backlash' against the gunless planes (for the initially lower-capability, general-purpose F-16 the gun was more understandable). The F-111B could carry a gun - another quote: "The F 111 had an internal weapons bay in the front fuselage and one of the loads that could be accommodated was a M61A1 with a generous 2,048 rounds, with the gun in the left half of the bay. The only version that regularly carried this weapon was the F 111D, and although it was carried in Vietnam the weapon saw no use there. It was soon decided to carry AIM 9 missiles for self-defence instead." Who knows, if I can find the time I may follow your example and write a book with this as a chapter ![]() Join the club - but be prepared to give up your social life and get a pittance in return! Tony Williams Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk Discussion forum at: http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/ |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Best dogfight gun? | Bjørnar Bolsøy | Military Aviation | 317 | January 24th 04 06:24 PM |
Remote controled weapons in WWII | Charles Gray | Military Aviation | 12 | January 21st 04 05:07 AM |
Why did Britain win the BoB? | Grantland | Military Aviation | 79 | October 15th 03 03:34 PM |
P-47/51 deflection shots into the belly of the German tanks,reality | ArtKramr | Military Aviation | 131 | September 7th 03 09:02 PM |