Best dogfight gun?

20 20mm hits to bring down a modern fighter? Where are they located?
I'd say it would take some pretty selective hit location to place 20
hits on any fighter (well, maybe a Frogfoot) and still have the target
perform at any level close to its pristine capability. Since the M61's
shells are coming in trail about 50 feet apart they will be clustered
- meaning the hit damage will accumulate pretty much in the same area.
Bye-bye wing surface, and now control that airplane! Of course, if the
shot comes in from the six o-clock, the length of the fuselage is
subject to damage. Nowadays a gun shot is so rare that the shooter
will most likely hold the trigger down to see what happens, instead of
the half-second burst most good shooters use in a smooth tracking pass
when firing on the dart target. In that case, the armor may survive
but nothing else will after say 50-150 hits.
Walt BJ

(Tony Williams) wrote in message m...
A few comments on recent posts:

The M61 is an extremely reliable and long-lasting gun. However, the
little 20mm shells only weigh 102g compared with 180g for the 25mm
GAU-12/U, 260g for the 27mm BK 27, 270g for the 30mm GIAT 30M791 and
390g for the Russian 30mm guns. This means that the M61 has to score
many more hits than 30mm guns to have the same effect on the target (I
have read an estimate of around 20 hits needed to bring down a modern
fighter).


I suspect it may be possible to fit proximity fuses to 27mm/30mm class
amunition to improve Pk and open up engagement envelope. Los Alamos
Labs developed single chip radars sever years ago and combined with
new explosives and fragmentation methods migh make such munitions
usefull.

Here is a swedish 'radar on a chip' program:
http://www.ek.isy.liu.se/2003/radaronchip/

Also laser beam riding guidence similar to the guided darts on the BAE
starstreak MANPADS missile could be integrated into 27mm/30mm class
munitions.

There have been a number of guided cannon shell projects. The Italian
OTO Malera companies efforts on is 76.2mm cannon (laser beam rider I
think) and then efforts by the USAF for the 105mm howitzers on the
AC130 gunships (laser spot homming to open up range) and USN work on
its 5 inch rocket boosted shells and US Army work on its 155mm
howizers. (GPS and/or laser homming)

Actuators relying on piezioelectric forces working on nose twisting
simplify such shells.

Such development smigh extend the effective range of cannon by a large
amount (out to 3-4 km I suspect) and favour big 30mm cannon such as
the Oerlikon KCA used on the Viggen.

On the other hand a turreted or tail sting 30mm cannon of ADEN sized
recoil firing guided munitions might make possible some interesting
defensive/offensive concepts.

In article ,
Keith Willshaw wrote:

Then again the control authority of modern aorcraft is higher
and the fly by wire control system can compensate for
gyroscopic forces rather better than a human being.

And assymetric recoil as well I assume, but I think I read
that test firing of the F-22's gun induced yaw, but little
enough that the pilot easily could compensate, which must
mean the FCS doesn't try to.
--
Urban Fredriksson http://www.canit.se/%7Egriffon/
Things that try to look like things often look more like
things than things do.

"Tony Volk" wrote in message ...
I have been setting up some scenaries with the LO-MAC "Lock On- Modern Air
Combat" Sim/Game,
involving A-10s vs Su27/33, and it often is not too pretty for the Su's in
a
head on merge..The A-10s gun does a good job of reaching out and touching
someone But if the Su survives that, then the A-10 is at a bad
disadvantage.

I have to get that game myself, but it brings up an important point.
What are the avionics behind the gun? I'd imagine that an A-10 would lack
an accurate a-a mode for aiming its gun. The same thing applies to the
other guns mentioned in the debate. A gun's merits are important, but they
don't mean squat if it's impossible to hit anything with it! The
laser-rangefinders on the latest Russian jets (e.g., Su-27 series, Mig-29
too I believe) stand out as an excellent example of using superior avionics
to make a gun more effective. Anything similar on the Rafale, Grippen,
Raptor?

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

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/

On 8 Dec 2003 10:14:03 +0100, (Urban Fredriksson)
wrote:

In article ,
Keith Willshaw wrote:

Then again the control authority of modern aorcraft is higher
and the fly by wire control system can compensate for
gyroscopic forces rather better than a human being.

And assymetric recoil as well I assume, but I think I read
that test firing of the F-22's gun induced yaw, but little
enough that the pilot easily could compensate, which must
mean the FCS doesn't try to.


The would really surprise me as the thing tries to use control
surfaces to account for little bumps and gusts on the runway :-)

On 8 Dec 2003 03:59:15 -0800, (Tony
Williams) wrote:

"Tony Volk" wrote in message ...
I have been setting up some scenaries with the LO-MAC "Lock On- Modern Air
Combat" Sim/Game,
involving A-10s vs Su27/33, and it often is not too pretty for the Su's in
a
head on merge..The A-10s gun does a good job of reaching out and touching
someone But if the Su survives that, then the A-10 is at a bad
disadvantage.

I have to get that game myself, but it brings up an important point.
What are the avionics behind the gun? I'd imagine that an A-10 would lack
an accurate a-a mode for aiming its gun. The same thing applies to the
other guns mentioned in the debate. A gun's merits are important, but they
don't mean squat if it's impossible to hit anything with it! The
laser-rangefinders on the latest Russian jets (e.g., Su-27 series, Mig-29
too I believe) stand out as an excellent example of using superior avionics
to make a gun more effective. Anything similar on the Rafale, Grippen,
Raptor?

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


From what I've read (albeit it was years ago) the KCA hits damn near
as hard as the GAU-8. It just doesn't have the rate of fire.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul J. Adam"
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Sent: Sunday, December 07, 2003 11:52 AM
Subject: Best dogfight gun?


In message , Chad Irby
writes
In article ,
"Paul J. Adam" wrote:
Going slow and turning with an A-10 is about as smart as "turning with
a
Zero" used to be in 1942.

Unfortunately, the A-10 doesn't have many ways to prevent an adversary
using energy tactics, and can't do more than dodge and pray in that
fight.

Actually, the Hog does, if it knows what direction the other guy is
coming from.

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

Well, using AWACS and mutual support tactics, the A-10 pilots are going to
have an idea where to pick up the tally. Once that happens, it isn't the
best 'suite' that is going to win the fight, it's the best BFM to get to the
WEZ.


Turn into the oncoming fighter, and open fire from a mile or so further
out...

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). How much airspeed do
you have left at the end of it, which has a serious effect on your
ability to escape the wingman? And what happens when you discover the
attacking aircraft was firing a missile, rather than making a gun pass?

It all depends upon the situation. Hopefully the A-10 pilot(s) pick up the
tally at least 3 or 4 miles out near 3 or 9 o'clock, coming out of a good
RMD. Then they only have slightly more than 90 degrees to get the nose to
bear. Even with all the ordnance still on the jet, at the most a six to
seven second turn in the A-10 not including reaction lag time. Again,
depending on lots of factors, they may get nose-on in time to hose off a
sidewinder and open up with the gun around or slightly inside 9,000' (no
peacetime TRs to worry about). Most likely it will be a beak-to-beak pass
with the A-10s not getting a shot off, which they will try to drive to a
one-circle if the idiot(s) hang around. If bad guy decides to go vertical,
the engaged A-10 may go with him energy dependant and hose off a sidewinder
to give him sometime to think about, even with an opening Vc. Smart A-10
driver won't continue uphill, instead try to keep tally and get a circle of
hogs going.

If the A-10s get any ordnance off prior to the merge, it might coax the bad
guy into thinking twice about keeping his fangs out. Since the primary A-10
role is to kill them by the bushels instead of one at a time, most A-10
pilots won't hit the emer jett until they get wrapped up with the guy for
180 degrees of turn. Again, situation dependent, lots of 'what ifs' that
you can't know about until you are there.

Or, the possibility exists that he shows up at 6 o'clock and the first
indication is the wingman calls a break turn and chaff and flares. Get the
jet moving, start puking out stuff, and at the earliest opportunity hit the
emer jett. Do best defensive BFM, try to get nuetral or in the best case
reverse or have the wingman schwack him (if the wingman isn't already tied
up with the bad guy's #2).

In answer to your airspeed question, the A-10 will be headed downhill the
entire time to maintain corner velocity, and if he's coming out of RMD, he
should know what's coming so he'll probably be carrying extra knots for the
initial turn at the merge.

The smart A-10 pilot will be flaring and chaffing early and often in
anticipation of that missile shot you are talking about...and keeping the
jet moving.

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

I think we both know that the possibility of air-to-air gun fighting today
is highly unlikely. Lessons learned from the past would behoove us to have
them on our jets, or in the case of the A-10, use them to really screw up
the bad guys on the ground.

The initial question asked was how multi-barrel and single barrel cannons
stack up, and the subject is best dogfight guns. Just because the A-10 is
built around the GAU-8 doesn't mean it is any less of an effective dogfight
gun, especially with the high rates of turn the A-10 is capable of, small
bullet dispersion over the tac effective range, and relatively high rate of
fire.

ATTACK!

I have been setting up some scenaries with the LO-MAC "Lock On- Modern
Air
Combat" Sim/Game,
involving A-10s vs Su27/33, and it often is not too pretty for the Su's
in
a
head on merge..The A-10s gun does a good job of reaching out and
touching
someone But if the Su survives that, then the A-10 is at a bad
disadvantage.

I have to get that game myself, but it brings up an important point.
What are the avionics behind the gun? I'd imagine that an A-10 would lack
an accurate a-a mode for aiming its gun. The same thing applies to the
other guns mentioned in the debate. A gun's merits are important, but
they
don't mean squat if it's impossible to hit anything with it! The
laser-rangefinders on the latest Russian jets (e.g., Su-27 series, Mig-29
too I believe) stand out as an excellent example of using superior
avionics
to make a gun more effective. Anything similar on the Rafale, Grippen,
Raptor?

Superior avionics do not make a superior pilot.

The A-10 uses three different A-A sights, and these sights use pilot inputs
of enemy aircraft airspeed, wingspan, and fuselage length. These inputs are
usually set up pre-mission (they can be set in the air as well, just
time-consuming) and the pilot can cycle through the presets in flight. All
three sights are displayed on the HUD at the same time.

The reason for the three different sights is the required lead isn't
computed by a radar, so depending on aspect (simplified definition:
difference in fuselage alignment between the two aircraft) the pilot must
choose the proper sight to use. It just so happens that if the A-10 pilot
is pulling the proper lead, and is 'in plane' with the target (two of the
three requirements for a gunshot to work), then the proper sight picture
usually develops and the high-aspect and medium-aspect sights will line up
over the target (those are the two most commonly used sights, since your
target will most likely be maneuvering).

Smart A-10 pilot will pull slightly too much lead, open up with the gun,
then ease off slightly on the lead to 'rake' bullets through and reduce
inaccuracies in the sight. Hammer down until the enemy aircraft explodes,
just like you see in WWII gun camera footage.

A-10 pilots who go through weapons school and get to shoot at the dart
(towed target) say the gun is deadly accurate out to the A-A tac effective
range, which is a lot farther than an M61A1. Granted, it's not a
maneuvering target, but it does prove the sight(s) works.

ATTACK!

Smart A-10
driver won't continue uphill, instead try to keep tally and get a circle of
hogs going.

Exactly what one of my Viper friends was faced with, going up against some
Battle Creek A-10s....Never was able to get a shot off


Ron
Pilot/Wildland Firefighter

"Ron" wrote in message
...
Smart A-10
driver won't continue uphill, instead try to keep tally and get a circle
of
hogs going.

Exactly what one of my Viper friends was faced with, going up against some
Battle Creek A-10s....Never was able to get a shot off

I have some great guncamera footage of an A-10 saddling up on a Viper who
had two full bags of gas and decided to stick with the Hog and slow
down...the A-10 driver was also tuned into the F-16s VHF air-air freq, and
the Viper driver says, "I don't believe it...I'm about to get gunned by a
Hog!" Sure enough, a few seconds later guns-track-kill by the Hog on the
floundering Viper.

ATTACK!