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 |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
"Puppinator" wrote in message ... 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. It is? Not from what I have heard about A-10 operations. The Maverick, along with various bombs (guided and dumb) seem to be its primary armament, and the gun is secondary. 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. The resident Buff operator and the resident Strike Eagle guy might tend to disagree with you. A lot of CAS has been flown from altitude during OIF and OEF. Both the Strike Eagles and the Vipers also conducted strafe attacks (Strike Eagles confirmed during both operations, Vipers at least during Anaconda). Brooks -- 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 |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
"Eunometic" wrote in message om... (Tony Williams) wrote in message om... (championsleeper) wrote in message . com... Hi, Since high muzzle velocity would not be so critical for the accuracy of such weapons since the gudience would compensate for fall off and target velocity changes it might be possible to return to lower velocity guns conceived more like the German WW2 MK 103 which was incredibly compact and traded velocity for explosive load. For ultra long ranges rocket boosted guided cannon shells might be used. And then you omit the cannon and call it a Sidewinder Keith |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
In message , Eunometic
writes The same homing system could be hardened for a guided cannon shell. Either laser homing or laser beam riding. If the beam is properly coded a pattern of cannon shells could saturate an area target. Since high muzzle velocity would not be so critical for the accuracy of such weapons since the gudience would compensate for fall off and target velocity changes it might be possible to return to lower velocity guns conceived more like the German WW2 MK 103 which was incredibly compact and traded velocity for explosive load. For ultra long ranges rocket boosted guided cannon shells might be used. ....so why bother with the cannon and the problems of hardening the rounds, if you can get the same result with a simpler, cheaper rocket? For sure it's _much_ easier and cheaper to fit guidance electronics into a couple of soft-launched 70mm rockets, than into a hundred gun-launched 30mm shells: and the rocket gets you more range, more warhead, room for a proximity fuze... Gun-launched guided projectiles currently hover at the 100mm (Russian AT-10 IIRC) mark with 76mm proposed but not yet proven or fielded: I'm not convinced that guided 20-30mm shells are the answer for aircraft. Going larger-calibre gets you a big heavy gun and curiosity why a gun is the answer. For most of the scenarios where guns are suggested as being required, an accurate 27-30mm with a good ranging sight and reversionary gyro mode is a good 'today' answer with laser-guided 70mm rockets a potential replacement. If you need the guidance, the gun loses its charm: if you can't get guidance, then the guided shells are ballast. -- 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 |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message ... "Puppinator" wrote in message ... 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. It is? Not from what I have heard about A-10 operations. The Maverick, along with various bombs (guided and dumb) seem to be its primary armament, and the gun is secondary. I only know this from working 6 years on the A-10 and it's initial primary mission: CAS....but since the A-10 has been multi-roled, those lines have blurred. Initially, it was the gun for CAS/Tank Killer roles. -- Pup USAF, Retired Go #88 UPS Racing, Detroit Red Wings, Ohio State Buckeyes __________________ |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
"Puppinator" wrote in message ... "Kevin Brooks" wrote in message ... "Puppinator" wrote in message ... 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. It is? Not from what I have heard about A-10 operations. The Maverick, along with various bombs (guided and dumb) seem to be its primary armament, and the gun is secondary. I only know this from working 6 years on the A-10 and it's initial primary mission: CAS....but since the A-10 has been multi-roled, those lines have blurred. Initially, it was the gun for CAS/Tank Killer roles. I am getting the distinct impression you are not going to back off from the various incorrect assertions you have made in this thread (to wit: only the A-10 needs a gun and it's primary weapon is the gun, can't do CAS from 10K, failure to recognize that even the F-16 has indeed engaged in strafe operations during both ODS and OEF, etc.). C'est la vie. Brooks -- Pup USAF, Retired Go #88 UPS Racing, Detroit Red Wings, Ohio State Buckeyes __________________ |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
On the contrary...I don't believe "modern fighters" need a gun..is that
putting it better...however, the A-10 is classified as an "attack" a/c...and before retrofits, it's primary weapon was the gun...could use it remarkable well...and with more variety of PGU 30mm ammunitions than that available to F-16's or F-15s...bottom line, the A-10 was design to use its gun on a daily basis...the F boys weren't. -- Pup USAF, Retired Go #88 UPS Racing, Detroit Red Wings, Ohio State Buckeyes __________________ "Kevin Brooks" wrote in message ... "Puppinator" wrote in message ... "Kevin Brooks" wrote in message ... "Puppinator" wrote in message ... 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. It is? Not from what I have heard about A-10 operations. The Maverick, along with various bombs (guided and dumb) seem to be its primary armament, and the gun is secondary. I only know this from working 6 years on the A-10 and it's initial primary mission: CAS....but since the A-10 has been multi-roled, those lines have blurred. Initially, it was the gun for CAS/Tank Killer roles. I am getting the distinct impression you are not going to back off from the various incorrect assertions you have made in this thread (to wit: only the A-10 needs a gun and it's primary weapon is the gun, can't do CAS from 10K, failure to recognize that even the F-16 has indeed engaged in strafe operations during both ODS and OEF, etc.). C'est la vie. Brooks -- Pup USAF, Retired Go #88 UPS Racing, Detroit Red Wings, Ohio State Buckeyes __________________ |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
Just out of curiousity...what EXPERIENCE do you have working/flying the
A-10? Or do you just quote from Janes and/or CNN. -- Pup USAF, Retired Go #88 UPS Racing, Detroit Red Wings, Ohio State Buckeyes __________________ "Puppinator" wrote in message ... On the contrary...I don't believe "modern fighters" need a gun..is that putting it better...however, the A-10 is classified as an "attack" a/c...and before retrofits, it's primary weapon was the gun...could use it remarkable well...and with more variety of PGU 30mm ammunitions than that available to F-16's or F-15s...bottom line, the A-10 was design to use its gun on a daily basis...the F boys weren't. -- Pup USAF, Retired Go #88 UPS Racing, Detroit Red Wings, Ohio State Buckeyes __________________ "Kevin Brooks" wrote in message ... "Puppinator" wrote in message ... "Kevin Brooks" wrote in message ... "Puppinator" wrote in message ... 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. It is? Not from what I have heard about A-10 operations. The Maverick, along with various bombs (guided and dumb) seem to be its primary armament, and the gun is secondary. I only know this from working 6 years on the A-10 and it's initial primary mission: CAS....but since the A-10 has been multi-roled, those lines have blurred. Initially, it was the gun for CAS/Tank Killer roles. I am getting the distinct impression you are not going to back off from the various incorrect assertions you have made in this thread (to wit: only the A-10 needs a gun and it's primary weapon is the gun, can't do CAS from 10K, failure to recognize that even the F-16 has indeed engaged in strafe operations during both ODS and OEF, etc.). C'est la vie. Brooks -- Pup USAF, Retired Go #88 UPS Racing, Detroit Red Wings, Ohio State Buckeyes __________________ |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
Subject: Future military fighters and guns - yes or no ?
From: "Puppinator" Date: 3/2/04 7:04 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: Just out of curiousity...what EXPERIENCE do you have working/flying the A-10? Or do you just quote from Janes and/or CNN. Pup USAF, Retired Brooks never flew anything. He never fired a shot in anger or saw an enemy. Take that into consideration. Arthur Kramer 344th BG 494th BS England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany Visit my WW II B-26 website at: http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
"Puppinator" wrote in message ... Just out of curiousity...what EXPERIENCE do you have working/flying the A-10? Or do you just quote from Janes and/or CNN. Oh, goodie. Another Art-in-the-making. Never flew an A-10, obviously. Do happen to know that your "the gun is their main armament" is about twenty years out of date, if not more (ISTR Mavericks were included in their warloads from the beginning). The gun was not their primary method of attack during ODS, nor was it during OIF. If you think it is now, or was during those conflicts, provide some sort of evidence that supports that theory. Brooks -- Pup USAF, Retired Go #88 UPS Racing, Detroit Red Wings, Ohio State Buckeyes __________________ "Puppinator" wrote in message ... On the contrary...I don't believe "modern fighters" need a gun..is that putting it better...however, the A-10 is classified as an "attack" a/c...and before retrofits, it's primary weapon was the gun...could use it remarkable well...and with more variety of PGU 30mm ammunitions than that available to F-16's or F-15s...bottom line, the A-10 was design to use its gun on a daily basis...the F boys weren't. -- Pup USAF, Retired Go #88 UPS Racing, Detroit Red Wings, Ohio State Buckeyes __________________ "Kevin Brooks" wrote in message ... "Puppinator" wrote in message ... "Kevin Brooks" wrote in message ... "Puppinator" wrote in message ... 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. It is? Not from what I have heard about A-10 operations. The Maverick, along with various bombs (guided and dumb) seem to be its primary armament, and the gun is secondary. I only know this from working 6 years on the A-10 and it's initial primary mission: CAS....but since the A-10 has been multi-roled, those lines have blurred. Initially, it was the gun for CAS/Tank Killer roles. I am getting the distinct impression you are not going to back off from the various incorrect assertions you have made in this thread (to wit: only the A-10 needs a gun and it's primary weapon is the gun, can't do CAS from 10K, failure to recognize that even the F-16 has indeed engaged in strafe operations during both ODS and OEF, etc.). C'est la vie. Brooks -- Pup USAF, Retired Go #88 UPS Racing, Detroit Red Wings, Ohio State Buckeyes __________________ |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
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 |