Best dogfight gun?

"Chad Irby" wrote
"Paul J. Adam" wrote:

If "lack of guns" is the real problem, surely gun-armed fighters are
a complete and satisfactory answer?

It's not a simple question of "lack of guns."

It's "relying on missiles 100% and not having guns when they're really
bloody useful."

We learned that lesson over 30 years ago, and a whole new generation of
bean counters are trying to resurrect the kind of silliness that the
McNamara school brought us in Vietnam...

Now, here's a question: for the 200Kg or so weight budget (I have no idea
about volume) of an internal gun and ammo tank, would you rather have 1, 2
or 3 more AIM-9Xs/ASRAAMs?

There's always a lip-curl reflex about "bean counters" but every time you
make a choice, you've rejected an alternative. There's money, weight, volume
and time budgets because all of those are fungible, exchangeable among the
possible choices.

Remove a gun and save money? Sure, but you spend that money, space, power
and weight for something else, possibly more ordnance of a different kind.
Or maybe not. Maybe more volume for better ESM or countermeasures or a lower
crap-out rate for your RADAR.

The guy who straps on the airplane (which I will never do) has to live with
those choices and he may curse the "bean counters" who made them but every
single characteristic (not just gun/no gun) within a weapons system competes
with some other alternative. The payoff for some of these trades isn't
always as obvious as a tank full of cannon rounds but it's there.

In article ,
"Paul F Austin" wrote:

Now, here's a question: for the 200Kg or so weight budget (I have no idea
about volume) of an internal gun and ammo tank, would you rather have 1, 2
or 3 more AIM-9Xs/ASRAAMs?

It's not a question of "just weight," or we'd just build C-5s with a big
automated missile launcher in them.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

"Chad Irby" wrote
"Paul F Austin" wrote:

Now, here's a question: for the 200Kg or so weight budget (I have no
idea
about volume) of an internal gun and ammo tank, would you rather have 1,
2
or 3 more AIM-9Xs/ASRAAMs?

It's not a question of "just weight," or we'd just build C-5s with a big
automated missile launcher in them.

Nope, I just used weight as an example of the "cost" paid for a gun. And my
question stands: At the initial design stage of an aircraft when you're
making choices, is a gun worth more than a couple of SRAAMs? Or some of the
other goods that you snipped. Those are real choices and a gun has to earn
its place on the airframe just like every other piece of gear. You (the
customer and systems designers) make choices that affect the aircraft
thoughout its life.

Yes, the "no-guns" fighter was 'way premature in 1955, the year the F4H
configuration was frozen. It's_really_not clear that's still the case now.
Minimum range engagement? ASRAAM claim 300m minimum range and with "looks
can kill" helmet sights, it's really not clear that a gun brings much to the
table.. Strafing? Having 6 SDBs tucked away seems more useful.

It's not just weapons fit either. The vibration from gun firing costs
significantly higher failure rates in electronics near the gun. Having a
major electronics failure is a mission kill these days.

In article ,
"Paul F Austin" wrote:

Nope, I just used weight as an example of the "cost" paid for a gun.
And my question stands: At the initial design stage of an aircraft
when you're making choices, is a gun worth more than a couple of
SRAAMs?

Yes. For flexibility, and for having a system independnt of the missile
system.

Yes, the "no-guns" fighter was 'way premature in 1955, the year the
F4H configuration was frozen. It's_really_not clear that's still the
case now.

Funny, the fighter pilots keep telling us differently.

It's not just weapons fit either. The vibration from gun firing costs
significantly higher failure rates in electronics near the gun.

That's a nice theory, but not proven anywhere, and it certainly didn't
show up on the F-4Es I used to work on.

Having a major electronics failure is a mission kill these days.

So you want a non-electronic weapon. Like a gun, instead of a missile.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

"Chad Irby" wrote ..
"Paul F Austin" wrote:

Nope, I just used weight as an example of the "cost" paid for a gun.
And my question stands: At the initial design stage of an aircraft
when you're making choices, is a gun worth more than a couple of
SRAAMs?

Yes. For flexibility, and for having a system independnt of the missile
system.

But you aren't buying "a missile system". Because you're building in the
interfaces (structural and electronic) for any missile that meets the
stowage and attachment envelope and interface specification, in fact the gun
is "less flexible" since over the life of the platform you can roll in a new
AAM every few years. With the gun, aside from changing ammunition natures,
you're stuck with the original decision for the life of the platform.


Yes, the "no-guns" fighter was 'way premature in 1955, the year the
F4H configuration was frozen. It's_really_not clear that's still the
case now.

Funny, the fighter pilots keep telling us differently.

Corporate experience is valuable but can sometimes lead us astray. As
another example, just about every fast mover pilot I've ever talked
to_thoroughly_believes "speed is life" when it comes to CAS/BAI. If that
advice had been heeded in the late sixties, there would be no A-10s.
Experience has shown that the original analysis, that using an airframe
that's tough enough and slow enough that the pilot can get lined up and nail
a CAS or BAI target first time is lots better than a Speed O'Heat pass that
minimizes the exposure to ground fire but which misses the target and means
you have to make another run. Now of course, since we have ubiquitous PGMs,
"speed is life" looks better and medium altitude weapons release looks
better still.

The point of that interminable one sentence analysis of a complex subject is
that technology really does work better now than it did in 1970 and because
it does work better, the answers to key questions changes with time.

High utility of an internal gun in air combat isn't what's reflected in
recent air combat experience nor in systems evaluations of latest-generation
platforms, sensors and missile systems. In fact, some reports I've read from
Air Force evaluations of off-platform sensor fusion and intraflight datalink
operation seem to say that even SRAAMs are rarely be used. That's one of the
reasons the Europeans bought Meteor. AAMs really have improved tremendously
in thirty years. The minimum range of SRAAMs has moved in, squeezing out the
place where guns clearly had utility and the effectiveness of current
seekers combined with helmet-mounted sights is clearly much higher than a
fixed gun. The 0.15 Pk days for AIM-7Es is 'way distant

So you really do need to justify a gun's place on the airframe on more than
"it might be useful and you never know"..


It's not just weapons fit either. The vibration from gun firing costs
significantly higher failure rates in electronics near the gun.

That's a nice theory, but not proven anywhere, and it certainly didn't
show up on the F-4Es I used to work on.

That's a good point and one I didn't know. From an analysis standpoint, an
F-4E's RADAR system should have experienced higher failure rates, especially
since that generation of avionics had much higher base failure rates than do
current systems. Reliability "analysis" as opposed to failure analysis and
"lessons learned" incorporation has always had a high bogosity index.

Hi!

"Paul F Austin" writes:
So you really do need to justify a gun's place on the airframe on more than
"it might be useful and you never know"..

A gun is probably the cheapest way of killing low-performace targets
like UAV:s, cheap targets that an enemy can produce in large numbers
forcing you to deplete your stock of expensive AA-misiles.

The gun system reuse all the expensive parts, radar, electronics for
aiming the aeroplane and the gun while the ammunition can be dumb
and is easy to mass produce.

It is of course possible to develop a fairly cheap and small low
performance AA-missile but it is hard to get it as cheap as a gun
system. This gun competitor might be developed if someone decides to
arm small UAV:s with AA-missiles for killing other UAV:s and
helicopters.

And I realy like the idea of a backup weapon if the enemy has superior
countermeasures for your AA-missiles. But you can have that with a pod
filled with unguided rockets.

Best regards,
---
Titta gärna på http://www.lysator.liu.se/~redin och kommentera min
politiska sida.
Magnus Redin, Klockaregården 6, 586 44 LINKöPING, SWEDEN
Phone: Sweden (0)70 5160046

"Magnus Redin" wrote in message
...
Hi!

"Paul F Austin" writes:
So you really do need to justify a gun's place on the airframe on more
than
"it might be useful and you never know"..

A gun is probably the cheapest way of killing low-performace targets
like UAV:s, cheap targets that an enemy can produce in large numbers
forcing you to deplete your stock of expensive AA-misiles.

The gun system reuse all the expensive parts, radar, electronics for
aiming the aeroplane and the gun while the ammunition can be dumb
and is easy to mass produce.

It is of course possible to develop a fairly cheap and small low
performance AA-missile but it is hard to get it as cheap as a gun
system. This gun competitor might be developed if someone decides to
arm small UAV:s with AA-missiles for killing other UAV:s and
helicopters.

And it's cheaper still to have a dedicated anti-UAV system, possibly like a
turboprop P-51. Using a $60M+ fighter to bust $100K UAVs is stupid. It's
also nearly impossible. A low signature, low altitide target loitering along
at 100kts is tough to manage in a fast mover. You'll blow though a tank of
ammunition killing very few UAVs.


And I realy like the idea of a backup weapon if the enemy has superior
countermeasures for your AA-missiles. But you can have that with a pod
filled with unguided rockets.

That's also why you have the next generation AAM. A major portion of the
AIM-9 development over the last 50 years (!) has been improvements to
seekers to get Pk up, including in the face of better countermeasures..

In message , Magnus Redin
writes
Hi!

"Paul F Austin" writes:
So you really do need to justify a gun's place on the airframe on more than
"it might be useful and you never know"..

A gun is probably the cheapest way of killing low-performace targets
like UAV:s, cheap targets that an enemy can produce in large numbers
forcing you to deplete your stock of expensive AA-misiles.

UAVs are going to be really tough gun targets: just look at the size of
them. Aircraft guns aren't a good option, if only because you're going
to need so many rounds per target.

It is of course possible to develop a fairly cheap and small low
performance AA-missile but it is hard to get it as cheap as a gun
system.

"a gun", or "a gun system"? Be careful about actually costing everything
you need for a gun system, including the total cost of the training
sorties needed for pilots to reliably hit Predator-size or smaller
targets.

This gun competitor might be developed if someone decides to
arm small UAV:s with AA-missiles for killing other UAV:s and
helicopters.

See the armed variant of Predator already for the air-to-ground
version...

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

"Paul F Austin" wrote in message
...

"Chad Irby" wrote
"Paul F Austin" wrote:

Now, here's a question: for the 200Kg or so weight budget (I have no
idea
about volume) of an internal gun and ammo tank, would you rather have
1,
2
or 3 more AIM-9Xs/ASRAAMs?

It's not a question of "just weight," or we'd just build C-5s with a big
automated missile launcher in them.

Nope, I just used weight as an example of the "cost" paid for a gun. And
my
question stands: At the initial design stage of an aircraft when you're
making choices, is a gun worth more than a couple of SRAAMs? Or some of
the
other goods that you snipped. Those are real choices and a gun has to earn
its place on the airframe just like every other piece of gear. You (the
customer and systems designers) make choices that affect the aircraft
thoughout its life.

Yes, the "no-guns" fighter was 'way premature in 1955, the year the F4H
configuration was frozen. It's_really_not clear that's still the case now.
Minimum range engagement? ASRAAM claim 300m minimum range and with "looks
can kill" helmet sights, it's really not clear that a gun brings much to
the
table.. Strafing? Having 6 SDBs tucked away seems more useful.

Minimum safe distance (to friendly troops) for surface targets using the
20mm is 25 meters (according to a USAF chart included in the 1996 edition of
CGSC ST 100-3). The same chart indicates minimum distance for bombs under
500 pounds is 145 meters (for protected friendlies, ie., bunkers, trenches,
fighting positions) or 500 meters (if friendlies are in the open). Even
given a significant reduction in the latter figures for the smaller SDB, it
is going to be substantially more than 25 meters. So what do you use to
engage bad guys located in the 25 meter to something-under-500 meter gap if
you have no gun? This is not a purely hypothetical--it happened during
Anaconda.

Brooks

snip

"Kevin Brooks" wrote
"Paul F Austin" wrote

"Chad Irby" wrote
"Paul F Austin" wrote:

Now, here's a question: for the 200Kg or so weight budget (I have no
idea
about volume) of an internal gun and ammo tank, would you rather
have
1,
2
or 3 more AIM-9Xs/ASRAAMs?

It's not a question of "just weight," or we'd just build C-5s with a
big
automated missile launcher in them.

Nope, I just used weight as an example of the "cost" paid for a gun. And
my
question stands: At the initial design stage of an aircraft when you're
making choices, is a gun worth more than a couple of SRAAMs? Or some of
the
other goods that you snipped. Those are real choices and a gun has to
earn
its place on the airframe just like every other piece of gear. You (the
customer and systems designers) make choices that affect the aircraft
thoughout its life.

Yes, the "no-guns" fighter was 'way premature in 1955, the year the F4H
configuration was frozen. It's_really_not clear that's still the case
now.
Minimum range engagement? ASRAAM claim 300m minimum range and with
"looks
can kill" helmet sights, it's really not clear that a gun brings much to
the
table.. Strafing? Having 6 SDBs tucked away seems more useful.

Minimum safe distance (to friendly troops) for surface targets using the
20mm is 25 meters (according to a USAF chart included in the 1996 edition
of
CGSC ST 100-3). The same chart indicates minimum distance for bombs under
500 pounds is 145 meters (for protected friendlies, ie., bunkers,
trenches,
fighting positions) or 500 meters (if friendlies are in the open). Even
given a significant reduction in the latter figures for the smaller SDB,
it
is going to be substantially more than 25 meters. So what do you use to
engage bad guys located in the 25 meter to something-under-500 meter gap
if
you have no gun? This is not a purely hypothetical--it happened during
Anaconda.

That's a good point and one I can't answer. If it was me though, I'd expect
that the answer would lie with more organic fires available at the battalion
level rather than depending on CAS for "men in the wire".