Best dogfight gun?

In message , Chad Irby
writes
In article ,
"Paul J. Adam" wrote:
Actually, the Hog does, if it knows what direction the other guy is
coming from.

First, you're addressing a more "average" scenario than the one I was
talking about (no missiles for the F-15, A-10 ready for the incoming
threat).

Pretty extreme, then...

That's an extremely large "if", given the extensive air-to-air sensor
suite fitted to the A-10...

It's called a "radar warning receiver," and it tells you which direction
you're being radiated from. If the other guy isn't using radar, they're
proabably not going to see you in the weeds at all from any rational
distance.

Are there no AWACS? And does nobody use eyeball-shooter tactics?

I can easily construct highly scenarios where enemy tanks down attaking
Warthogs with accurately-thrown dinnerware, but that doesn't make
cutlery into a generally useful anti-aircraft munition...

Are you keeping your ordnance for this turn? How long does it take to
get the nose pointed at the target while still having time to get that
shot off? (driving your required detection range).

Lots of time, in the case I was originally talking about (F-15s on the
way back from an air-to-air sortie going after an opportune A-10
target). If you allow missiles for the F-15s and no cover for the A-10,
it's a turkey shoot. But we were talking about gun tactics...

I'm reminded of some of Jeff Cooper's rules.

I'm also considering that if you're engaging A-10s, you'd do so to
maximise your strengths and their weaknesses; which among other things
means staying off their nose.

How much airspeed do you have left at the end of it, which has a
serious effect on your ability to escape the wingman?

Not as such, since the only reason you need a lot of energy going into
this sort of fight is to match someone else with a similar weapon. If
you're up against someone who can blow you out of the sky from a mile or
so further out than your weapon can reach, and who can fly below treetop
level for a good part of the engagement, it's a whole different ballgame.

And what happens when you discover the
attacking aircraft was firing a missile, rather than making a gun pass?

Not in this scenario. Sorry you came in late.

If this analysis was accurate, the F-15 and F-22 would be screaming for
27mm or 30mm guns...

...or more bullets.

What's the point of more ammunition, if you can't get into range to use
what you already have?

It's a very narrow scenario, and in this case, the
A-10 isn't the helpless target you seem to want it to be.

You misspelled "is", against any sort of capable air opposition.
Fortunately, the A-10 has always operated under air supremacy and
there's no sign of that changing soon.

--
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

In message , Kevin Brooks
writes
"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message
...
I hate to be contrarian... all right, I don't. I _like_ being
contrarian. Lessons from the past suggest that getting missiles working
and crews trained is a better path to dead enemies for air-to-air work.
Air-to-ground, guns pull you into IR-SAM range and even for A-10s that
isn't healthy.

Paul, doing away with a tool from your kit without a compelling reason to do
so, along with having a danged foolproof method of handling the situations
that said tool could handle, is unwise.

Sure, but insisting on keeping kit because it used to be essential and
still might be useful is equally risky: especially when it can't be
jettisoned.

As to air-to-ground use, I believe
the resident Strike Eagle driver has already provided a reason for retaining
a strafe capability, i.e., recent operations in Afghanistan. During Anaconda
the need for up-close-and-personal support (read that as well within the
danger-close margin) was reported. You can't *always* use your LGB's or
JDAM's, which is why the grunts liked the cannon armed aircraft during that
fight.

Are there no gun pods? This has always been a capability that can be
bolted onto aircraft as necessary.

Yes, it brings the air in within MANPADS range--but that is a risk
those guys are willing to accept when the fight on the ground gets hairy
(and thank goodness for that). Arguing that they can't (or never should)
face such a risk is a bit illogical--if all services followed that thought
process, we'd stop issuing rifles to infantrymen because in order to use one
you have to close to within the effective range of the other guy's weapons.

More like issuing lances to tankers so they can run down enemy
soldiers...

Sure, just as a modern bayonet is a miserable weapon compared to a Light
Infantry sword (a proper sword that just happened to have fittings to
mount onto a Baker rifle... beat _that_ for close quarters combat! Other
than by eschewing melee and throwing in a grenade, or shooting the
enemy, or otherwise cheating...)

One 2Lt Patton wrote the US Army's last swordsmanship manual... doesn't
make swords a useful weapon, whatever the advantages his technique had
over the enemy's _code duello_, if you find yourself trying to use a
sabre against an enemy with a pistol (or, worse, an enemy luring you
into the beaten zone of a machinegun)

But there are tasks for which that bayonet is oh-so-much better than say, an
M16A2 with state-of-the-art night optics.

True, but how much does a bayonet weigh and what else can you use it
for? I notice that while the bayonet I was issued for use with L1A1 was
strictly and firmly only for fixing to the muzzle and jabbing enemy
with... probing for mines was a grudgingly acceptable alternative. But
Nothing Else! Hence even when I was issued a bayonet I at least had a
good lock knife for utility task.

The other allowable uses of a good stout sharp knife have grown
steadily: I was always amused that the cheap copy of a K-Bar I carried
on my webbing was much mocked at the start of an exercise and much
demanded by the end. Now, bayonets are having their utility as tools
rated as important as their ability to become improvised spears.


But the knife bayonet is a small, light, handy item that can replace
what a soldier would carry anyway (not many of us carried knives to
fight with, certainly not in peacetime, and I'd certainly not have
bothered with both bayonet and K-bar-clone). The analogy for air combat
is nearer to a full-size sword, lance or pike: a large, hefty item that
weighs as much as several magazines for your rifle or a day or two's
rations, even if it's more lethal in hand-to-hand combat.

And can you _guarantee_ that soldiers will never find themselves in
close-quarter battle? Would you have them carry puny knives, or would
you give them mighty swords, spears and/or axes to smite their foes with
as a permanent addition to their CEFO? Okay, they don't fight like that
too often... and it's more weight for them to carry... but there will
always be cases where soldiers find themselves fighting at arm's length,
so wouldn't issuing everyone a sword or axe be useful then?

I saw a fair amount of peanut
butter spread with bayonets; had we had to use our M16's for that it would
have been rather messy. Now that is I admit a rather extreme example, but
again it points out the wisdom of retaining those tools we have even in the
face of longer ranged/more lethal options.

Depends on a lot of factors. For instance, the F-15E both kept a gun
that isn't ideal for its primary mission of ground attack (shell too
light, slant range on the short size, rate of fire derated for strafing)
and halved the ammunition supply. It's not a bad decision because it's
quick and saves money, but it reflects the low priority.

If you were designing the capability from scratch, would you insist on
the M61? Consider a larger-calibre weapon with more A/G punch like a
KCA? Or go for fuel and/or lightness, and hang a podded gun for 'danger
close' missions?


Trouble is, stories of "F-15E bravely makes strafing passes" deservedly
get headlines. "F-15E really regrets having to call skosh fuel and leave
station" don't: but an internal gun is getting on for a thousand pounds
of fuel, which translates to more loiter time or range. And it isn't
negotiable.

--
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

In article ,
"Paul J. Adam" wrote:

Chad Irby writes

First, you're addressing a more "average" scenario than the one I was
talking about (no missiles for the F-15, A-10 ready for the incoming
threat).

Pretty extreme, then...

Only for a "first day," "first hour" war. But yes, it's odd, which is
why I've mentioned it as such two or three times so far.

I can easily construct highly scenarios where enemy tanks down attaking
Warthogs with accurately-thrown dinnerware, but that doesn't make
cutlery into a generally useful anti-aircraft munition...

If you're comparing forks and knives to 30mm HEI at a couple of thousand
yards, we can tell where your argument has gone.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

In article ,
"Paul J. Adam" wrote:

Are there no gun pods? This has always been a capability that can be
bolted onto aircraft as necessary.

"Hey, Bob, there's a couple of MiGs between us and the base, I'm a
little low on fuel, no missiles, and we've got no guns."

"Better strap one on, then..."

The "missiles will rule" argument is coming back, I see. But McNamara
is still alive and well...

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message
...
In message , Kevin Brooks
writes
"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message
...
I hate to be contrarian... all right, I don't. I _like_ being
contrarian. Lessons from the past suggest that getting missiles working
and crews trained is a better path to dead enemies for air-to-air work.
Air-to-ground, guns pull you into IR-SAM range and even for A-10s that
isn't healthy.

Paul, doing away with a tool from your kit without a compelling reason to
do
so, along with having a danged foolproof method of handling the
situations
that said tool could handle, is unwise.

Sure, but insisting on keeping kit because it used to be essential and
still might be useful is equally risky: especially when it can't be
jettisoned.

And I suppose designing that feature in and then doing away with it because
of its (relatively slight) increase in unit cost, as was done with the RAF
Typhoon, is not risky?


As to air-to-ground use, I believe
the resident Strike Eagle driver has already provided a reason for
retaining
a strafe capability, i.e., recent operations in Afghanistan. During
Anaconda
the need for up-close-and-personal support (read that as well within the
danger-close margin) was reported. You can't *always* use your LGB's or
JDAM's, which is why the grunts liked the cannon armed aircraft during
that
fight.

Are there no gun pods? This has always been a capability that can be
bolted onto aircraft as necessary.

Let's see, which would I rather have orbiting about in the CAS stack,
aircraft that are capable of both without requiring special ordinance
request, or a requirement for the FSE and ALO to put their heads together
and route a request for such specialized ordnance to be fitted...? I believe
the former wins.


Yes, it brings the air in within MANPADS range--but that is a risk
those guys are willing to accept when the fight on the ground gets hairy
(and thank goodness for that). Arguing that they can't (or never should)
face such a risk is a bit illogical--if all services followed that
thought
process, we'd stop issuing rifles to infantrymen because in order to use
one
you have to close to within the effective range of the other guy's
weapons.

More like issuing lances to tankers so they can run down enemy
soldiers...

No, you were arguing that use of the gun is dumb because it brings the CAS
platform down lower into the MANPADS envelope. That is not something we
would prefer to have happen, but when the situation requires it, the risk
may have to be accepted. If you are going to argue the necessity of CAS
*always* staying outside the bad guys response envelope, then the "can't
issue rifles to grunts because they will have to get within the bad guy's
engagement range" is the groundpounder's equivalent solution. Neither of
them makes much sense to me.


Sure, just as a modern bayonet is a miserable weapon compared to a
Light
Infantry sword (a proper sword that just happened to have fittings to
mount onto a Baker rifle... beat _that_ for close quarters combat!
Other
than by eschewing melee and throwing in a grenade, or shooting the
enemy, or otherwise cheating...)

One 2Lt Patton wrote the US Army's last swordsmanship manual... doesn't
make swords a useful weapon, whatever the advantages his technique had
over the enemy's _code duello_, if you find yourself trying to use a
sabre against an enemy with a pistol (or, worse, an enemy luring you
into the beaten zone of a machinegun)

But there are tasks for which that bayonet is oh-so-much better than say,
an
M16A2 with state-of-the-art night optics.

True, but how much does a bayonet weigh and what else can you use it
for? I notice that while the bayonet I was issued for use with L1A1 was
strictly and firmly only for fixing to the muzzle and jabbing enemy
with... probing for mines was a grudgingly acceptable alternative. But
Nothing Else! Hence even when I was issued a bayonet I at least had a
good lock knife for utility task.

The other allowable uses of a good stout sharp knife have grown
steadily: I was always amused that the cheap copy of a K-Bar I carried
on my webbing was much mocked at the start of an exercise and much
demanded by the end. Now, bayonets are having their utility as tools
rated as important as their ability to become improvised spears.


But the knife bayonet is a small, light, handy item that can replace
what a soldier would carry anyway (not many of us carried knives to
fight with, certainly not in peacetime, and I'd certainly not have
bothered with both bayonet and K-bar-clone). The analogy for air combat
is nearer to a full-size sword, lance or pike: a large, hefty item that
weighs as much as several magazines for your rifle or a day or two's
rations, even if it's more lethal in hand-to-hand combat.

And can you _guarantee_ that soldiers will never find themselves in
close-quarter battle? Would you have them carry puny knives, or would
you give them mighty swords, spears and/or axes to smite their foes with
as a permanent addition to their CEFO? Okay, they don't fight like that
too often... and it's more weight for them to carry... but there will
always be cases where soldiers find themselves fighting at arm's length,
so wouldn't issuing everyone a sword or axe be useful then?

Well, you always have that nifty wire-cutting feature for the latest US
bayonet in combination with its scabbard (though I am not sure how effective
it really is in that role)...


I saw a fair amount of peanut
butter spread with bayonets; had we had to use our M16's for that it
would
have been rather messy. Now that is I admit a rather extreme example, but
again it points out the wisdom of retaining those tools we have even in
the
face of longer ranged/more lethal options.

Depends on a lot of factors. For instance, the F-15E both kept a gun
that isn't ideal for its primary mission of ground attack (shell too
light, slant range on the short size, rate of fire derated for strafing)
and halved the ammunition supply. It's not a bad decision because it's
quick and saves money, but it reflects the low priority.

Low priority and outright elimination are two different things. ISTR reading
that those 10th LID guys in Anaconda were *very* happy to have strafe
support from F-15E's, A-10's, and even AH-64's.


If you were designing the capability from scratch, would you insist on
the M61? Consider a larger-calibre weapon with more A/G punch like a
KCA? Or go for fuel and/or lightness, and hang a podded gun for 'danger
close' missions?

That depends. Since cost is always a factor at some point, the use of the
M61 may be the best solution (you still retain an inherent marginal strafe
capability at minimal cost, and if you want more punch you can still *add*
those pods you keep talking about). Or maybe use a 25mm weapon, or the
Mauser 27mm. Details are rather unimportant to the current question at hand
(courtesy thread drift), which is, "Gun versus no gun". You say no gun, I
say if possible retain the gun and remain more flexible by doing so.



Trouble is, stories of "F-15E bravely makes strafing passes" deservedly
get headlines. "F-15E really regrets having to call skosh fuel and leave
station" don't: but an internal gun is getting on for a thousand pounds
of fuel, which translates to more loiter time or range. And it isn't
negotiable.

We have KC's that refuel TACAIR. If you are talking the CAS mission, which
we are now doing, then it is reasonable to accept that those assets will be
doing their thing relatively close to the EA. And stop acting as if a
thousand pounds of fuel is the end of the world--that works out to what, a
whopping 125 gallons? If your CAS effort is dependent upon a 125 gallon fuel
margine you are likely in deep do-do already.

Brooks

On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 04:51:34 GMT, Kevin Brooks wrote:

And I suppose designing that feature in and then doing away with it because
of its (relatively slight) increase in unit cost, as was done with the RAF
Typhoon, is not risky?

How much does a Mauser BK 27 cost, I wonder? I bet removing it would
save them no more than the cost of one plane, over the entire
programme.


--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: , but first subtract 275 and reverse
the last two letters).

Chad Irby wrote in message ...
In article ,
"Paul J. Adam" wrote:

Are there no gun pods? This has always been a capability that can be
bolted onto aircraft as necessary.

"Hey, Bob, there's a couple of MiGs between us and the base, I'm a
little low on fuel, no missiles, and we've got no guns."

"Better strap one on, then..."

The "missiles will rule" argument is coming back, I see. But McNamara
is still alive and well...

This is from 'Flying Guns: the Modern Era':

"Podded guns have the advantage that they don't need to be lugged
around unless the planes are in circumstances in which a gun is likely
to be needed. Like any other piece of hardware, they can be fitted
according to requirements. The downside of this is that you first have
to make sure that the gunpods are available when required, you have to
be psychic to determine when they might be useful, they use up a
hardpoint which would otherwise be available for fuel or other
weapons, they take some time to harmonise – and keep harmonised – when
fitted, and even then are less accurate than integral guns. Gunpods
generate more drag, usually affect handling and are also much less
"stealthy" than integral guns; a factor likely to be increasingly
important as stealth measures are leading to the internal carriage of
all weapons. This solution is therefore very much second best, but it
is better than nothing. The installation of weapons in
purpose-designed conformal pods fitted directly to the fuselage and
intended to be more or less permanent fixtures does reduce or avoid
some of the above problems."

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

"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message
...
In message , Kevin Brooks
writes
As to air-to-ground use, I believe
the resident Strike Eagle driver has already provided a reason for
retaining
a strafe capability, i.e., recent operations in Afghanistan. During
Anaconda
the need for up-close-and-personal support (read that as well within the
danger-close margin) was reported. You can't *always* use your LGB's or
JDAM's, which is why the grunts liked the cannon armed aircraft during
that
fight.

Are there no gun pods? This has always been a capability that can be
bolted onto aircraft as necessary.

Gun pods are great draggy things that really cut in to performance.

If you were designing the capability from scratch, would you insist on
the M61? Consider a larger-calibre weapon with more A/G punch like a
KCA? Or go for fuel and/or lightness, and hang a podded gun for 'danger
close' missions?

The problem is that those danger close missions tend to be unpredicted
by their nature otherwise we would simply avoid the great majority all
together. And in many cases arming up a plane specifically to fly one
-say in Qatar- and getting it on station -oh, over Afghanistan- is going to
take too long.

Tony Williams wrote in message ...

Sorry, but I must disagree with you. It may be that some MiG-27s were
fitted with the GSh-6-23, but the GSh-6-30 is the more common fit.
This is from 'Flying Guns: the Modern Era':
lots of good stuff snipped

I have nothig to say but to agree with You and Mr. Gustin. I have been on
Indian military site and they also state GSh-6-30 -only one correction-it is
6,000 RPM, not 5,000 (they were licence-building MiG-27M, so I assume they
know better). However, I have also read about problems with the MiG-27 gun
installation (vibrations!), but that gun was GSh-6-23 (sorry I cannot give
reference, the link is dead). I assume that they've tried '23 gun first,
went on short production, but discarded it for more 'docile' 30 mm gun.

GSh-6-23 is installed in Su-24 Fencer and MiG-31. I am surprised that such a
light and powerful gun was not installed in other figters. Its construction
is ingenious-it requires no external power source (gas-operated!), fires
10-12,000RPM (which probably can be reduced) and have a good ammunition.

Nele

NULLA ROSA SINE SPINA

In article ,
Tony Williams wrote:

I understand that the SAAB Viggen armed with Oerlikon KCA has an
'AutoAim' system which effectively takes over the autopilot

But actually only the pitch and yaw channels.

and aims
the plane at the designated target to ensure that the gun is properly
aimed. This enables engagement at up to 3,000m in a head-on attack.

And letting the pilot look at something other when firing.
--
Urban Fredriksson http://www.canit.se/%7Egriffon/
There is always a yet unknown alternative.