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 |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
"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/ |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
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/ |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
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 |