Future military fighters and guns - yes or no ?

what sort of ranges is a modern aircraft gun effective at in the air to air
role?

"Guy Alcala" wrote in message
. ..
Tony Williams wrote:

"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.

ISTM we're ignoring Laser/IRSTS here, but many of the same comments apply.
However, if you're locking someone
up then you're almost certainly setting off his radar/laser warning
systems (assuming he's so fitted).

snip

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%."

Someone else has a copy of "Fighters over Israel" ;-)

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."

snip

FWIW, Tony Thornborough's first book on the 'Vark (and probably the bigger
one, which I haven't read) contains
interviews with a fair number of F-111A crews who flew in Vietnam. Their
comment was that they were ordered to
carry the loaded gun on every mission and did so, but absolutely no one
ever used it or intended to do so, and
they considered it and its ammo unnecessary weight. It made no sense to
use it, given their mission
(night/all-weather, Lo-Lo-Lo-Hi, single-ship laydown attacks). The last
thing they were going to do was to
come around and make strafing passes on an alerted target -- they figured
if a full load of Slicks/Snakes/CBUs
didn't do the job the cannon wasn't going to, and it's not as if there
were any MiGs flying around in the
conditions they operated in.

Guy

"Boomer" wrote in message ...
what sort of ranges is a modern aircraft gun effective at in the air to air
role?

It depends very much on the circumstances. In a high-speed tail chase
at low altitude, the projectiles will experience the maximum
aerodynamic drag and will slow down rapidly, reducing effectiveness to
only a few hundred metres.

At the opposite extreme is the head-on attack at high altitude. The
range for opening fire can be as much as 3,000m.

The gun makes a difference; other things being equal, the bigger the
calibre, the slower the shells will lose velocity and the longer will
be their effective range. The Russian 30mm shells are particularly
heavy at 390 grams (typical Western 30mm = 240-270 grams, 20mm = 100
grams), so they will slow down least of all among the fighter guns.
The most long-ranging fighter gun however is probably the SAAB
Viggen's 30mm Oerlikon KCA; it uses basically the same ammunition as
the GAU-8/A 'tankbuster' in the A-10.

Tony Williams
Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk
Military gun and ammunition discussion forum:
http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/

Thanks a bunch, I wasnt aware of the Oerlikons power!

"Tony Williams" wrote in message
m...
"Boomer" wrote in message
...
what sort of ranges is a modern aircraft gun effective at in the air to
air
role?

It depends very much on the circumstances. In a high-speed tail chase
at low altitude, the projectiles will experience the maximum
aerodynamic drag and will slow down rapidly, reducing effectiveness to
only a few hundred metres.

At the opposite extreme is the head-on attack at high altitude. The
range for opening fire can be as much as 3,000m.

The gun makes a difference; other things being equal, the bigger the
calibre, the slower the shells will lose velocity and the longer will
be their effective range. The Russian 30mm shells are particularly
heavy at 390 grams (typical Western 30mm = 240-270 grams, 20mm = 100
grams), so they will slow down least of all among the fighter guns.
The most long-ranging fighter gun however is probably the SAAB
Viggen's 30mm Oerlikon KCA; it uses basically the same ammunition as
the GAU-8/A 'tankbuster' in the A-10.

Tony Williams
Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk
Military gun and ammunition discussion forum:
http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/

"Tony Williams" wrote in message
m...
"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'm 99% sure the GR7 (well the GR9 in development so hopefully it goes
backwards?) can carry and use the gunpod - have to check my contacts

Of course, should a war come along where the gun
demonstrates
its utility on a regular (as opposed to occasional) basis, the pendulum
may
swing back the other way again.

Well, AFAIK there has been no general consensus regarding deleting the gun
armament, and everyone continues to do so. If there was such a feeling, we
would expect customers to be deleting them left and right as a weight
saving
and space creating measure (adding that big spine to the Block 60 F-16's
indicates that volume usage is growing critical with that design), but we
have not seen this happen.

Brooks


Guy

The only fighter that needs a gun is the Warthog. All others, waste of time
and weight post Cold War.
As far as the F-15 strafing runs in Afghanistan, that would almost certainly
have to be Strike and not Air Superiority Eagles.

"Puppinator" wrote in message
...
Of course, should a war come along where the gun
demonstrates
its utility on a regular (as opposed to occasional) basis, the
pendulum
may
swing back the other way again.

Well, AFAIK there has been no general consensus regarding deleting the
gun
armament, and everyone continues to do so. If there was such a feeling,
we
would expect customers to be deleting them left and right as a weight
saving
and space creating measure (adding that big spine to the Block 60 F-16's
indicates that volume usage is growing critical with that design), but
we
have not seen this happen.

Brooks


Guy

The only fighter that needs a gun is the Warthog. All others, waste of
time
and weight post Cold War.

The SOF types who found their bacon saved during OIF by a Strike Eagle
conducting a strafe, providing *effective* (see that , Paul?) suppression
(see the latest AFM, an article by our very own Steve Davies) would probably
disagree with your assessment a bit.

As far as the F-15 strafing runs in Afghanistan, that would almost
certainly
have to be Strike and not Air Superiority Eagles.

So? They are not A-10's, now are they?

Brooks

You proved my point...they were strike eagles...not a/b/c/d model F-15's


--
Pup
USAF, Retired
Go #88 UPS Racing, Detroit Red Wings,
Ohio State Buckeyes
__________________

"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
...

"Puppinator" wrote in message
...
Of course, should a war come along where the gun
demonstrates
its utility on a regular (as opposed to occasional) basis, the
pendulum
may
swing back the other way again.

Well, AFAIK there has been no general consensus regarding deleting the
gun
armament, and everyone continues to do so. If there was such a
feeling,
we
would expect customers to be deleting them left and right as a weight
saving
and space creating measure (adding that big spine to the Block 60
F-16's
indicates that volume usage is growing critical with that design), but
we
have not seen this happen.

Brooks


Guy

The only fighter that needs a gun is the Warthog. All others, waste of
time
and weight post Cold War.

The SOF types who found their bacon saved during OIF by a Strike Eagle
conducting a strafe, providing *effective* (see that , Paul?) suppression
(see the latest AFM, an article by our very own Steve Davies) would
probably
disagree with your assessment a bit.

As far as the F-15 strafing runs in Afghanistan, that would almost
certainly
have to be Strike and not Air Superiority Eagles.

So? They are not A-10's, now are they?

Brooks

"Puppinator" wrote in message
...
You proved my point...they were strike eagles...not a/b/c/d model F-15's

The F-16's did it as well. So..? You just told us that the *only* aircraft
that needs a gun is the A-10, now you seem to be saying thet the Strike
Eagle does as well. What about the F-16? The F-35, which will replace the
F-16 and A-10?

Brooks



--
Pup
USAF, Retired
Go #88 UPS Racing, Detroit Red Wings,
Ohio State Buckeyes
__________________

"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
...

"Puppinator" wrote in message
...
Of course, should a war come along where the gun
demonstrates
its utility on a regular (as opposed to occasional) basis, the
pendulum
may
swing back the other way again.

Well, AFAIK there has been no general consensus regarding deleting
the
gun
armament, and everyone continues to do so. If there was such a
feeling,
we
would expect customers to be deleting them left and right as a
weight
saving
and space creating measure (adding that big spine to the Block 60
F-16's
indicates that volume usage is growing critical with that design),
but
we
have not seen this happen.

Brooks


Guy

The only fighter that needs a gun is the Warthog. All others, waste of
time
and weight post Cold War.

The SOF types who found their bacon saved during OIF by a Strike Eagle
conducting a strafe, providing *effective* (see that , Paul?)
suppression
(see the latest AFM, an article by our very own Steve Davies) would
probably
disagree with your assessment a bit.

As far as the F-15 strafing runs in Afghanistan, that would almost
certainly
have to be Strike and not Air Superiority Eagles.

So? They are not A-10's, now are they?

Brooks

Ok, let me explain a little deeper...the A-10 is the only on currently full
up operational that needs a gun....as it is it's primary weapon. The F-16's
(all blocks) and F-15's (all models) do not due to the fact they don't/can't
fly realistic CAS missions. Can't do CAS from above 10,000 ft, sorry. Not
effectively.


--
Pup
USAF, Retired
Go #88 UPS Racing, Detroit Red Wings,
Ohio State Buckeyes
__________________

"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
...

"Puppinator" wrote in message
...
You proved my point...they were strike eagles...not a/b/c/d model F-15's

The F-16's did it as well. So..? You just told us that the *only* aircraft
that needs a gun is the A-10, now you seem to be saying thet the Strike
Eagle does as well. What about the F-16? The F-35, which will replace the
F-16 and A-10?

Brooks



--
Pup
USAF, Retired
Go #88 UPS Racing, Detroit Red Wings,
Ohio State Buckeyes
__________________

"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
...

"Puppinator" wrote in message
...
Of course, should a war come along where the gun
demonstrates
its utility on a regular (as opposed to occasional) basis, the
pendulum
may
swing back the other way again.

Well, AFAIK there has been no general consensus regarding deleting
the
gun
armament, and everyone continues to do so. If there was such a
feeling,
we
would expect customers to be deleting them left and right as a
weight
saving
and space creating measure (adding that big spine to the Block 60
F-16's
indicates that volume usage is growing critical with that design),
but
we
have not seen this happen.

Brooks


Guy

The only fighter that needs a gun is the Warthog. All others, waste
of
time
and weight post Cold War.

The SOF types who found their bacon saved during OIF by a Strike Eagle
conducting a strafe, providing *effective* (see that , Paul?)
suppression
(see the latest AFM, an article by our very own Steve Davies) would
probably
disagree with your assessment a bit.

As far as the F-15 strafing runs in Afghanistan, that would almost
certainly
have to be Strike and not Air Superiority Eagles.

So? They are not A-10's, now are they?

Brooks

Besides, I wasn't personally attacking the person (rather it was you or not)
that said F-15's were used in Afghanistan to "Strafe"....I doubted that they
were Air Superiority F-15's....Strike Eagles maybe...not A-D models.


--
Pup
USAF, Retired
Go #88 UPS Racing, Detroit Red Wings,
Ohio State Buckeyes
__________________

"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
...

"Puppinator" wrote in message
...
You proved my point...they were strike eagles...not a/b/c/d model F-15's

The F-16's did it as well. So..? You just told us that the *only* aircraft
that needs a gun is the A-10, now you seem to be saying thet the Strike
Eagle does as well. What about the F-16? The F-35, which will replace the
F-16 and A-10?

Brooks



--
Pup
USAF, Retired
Go #88 UPS Racing, Detroit Red Wings,
Ohio State Buckeyes
__________________

"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
...

"Puppinator" wrote in message
...
Of course, should a war come along where the gun
demonstrates
its utility on a regular (as opposed to occasional) basis, the
pendulum
may
swing back the other way again.

Well, AFAIK there has been no general consensus regarding deleting
the
gun
armament, and everyone continues to do so. If there was such a
feeling,
we
would expect customers to be deleting them left and right as a
weight
saving
and space creating measure (adding that big spine to the Block 60
F-16's
indicates that volume usage is growing critical with that design),
but
we
have not seen this happen.

Brooks


Guy

The only fighter that needs a gun is the Warthog. All others, waste
of
time
and weight post Cold War.

The SOF types who found their bacon saved during OIF by a Strike Eagle
conducting a strafe, providing *effective* (see that , Paul?)
suppression
(see the latest AFM, an article by our very own Steve Davies) would
probably
disagree with your assessment a bit.

As far as the F-15 strafing runs in Afghanistan, that would almost
certainly
have to be Strike and not Air Superiority Eagles.

So? They are not A-10's, now are they?

Brooks