Future military fighters and guns - yes or no ?

TJ wrote:
"Ian" wrote in message
...
snip
Another advantage of using cannon was demonstrated in the invasion
of Afghanistan in 2002. During an intense infantry battle at Takur
Ghar in late May, in which US forces were ambushed and in
considerable danger, air support was called for. The AC-130 was not
permitted to intervene in daylight due to its vulnerability, so
USAF fighters were sent to help. For a part of the battle the
Afghan combatants were too close to the Americans for rockets or
bombs to be used, so the fighters - F-16s and even F-15s - went in
strafing with their 20 mm cannon, as did the Navy's F-14s and
F/A-18s on other occasions. Even RAF Tornadoes were reported to
have carried out gun strafing runs on at least one occasion. It may
logically be argued that it is foolish to risk an extremely
expensive aircraft, with its expensively trained pilot, to being
lost due to very low-tech ground fire, but sometimes the risk needs
to be taken to save friendly lives."

Are you saying that RAF Tornado aircraft were involved in the
Afghanistan fighting? Just surprised as I didn't think we'd sent
the big boys over?

Correct. No Tornados were not used over Afghanistan (Op Veritas).

The first 55 Typhoon will be fitted with the cannon. The plan was for
it to be deleted in the follow on tranches. In Parliament the
following disclosure was made:


http://www.parliament.the-stationery.../528/52804.htm

"The Eurofighter Cannon


23. Although perhaps the most important of Eurofighter's armaments,
the BVRAAM missile is just one of a range of weapons with which the
aircraft will be equipped to tackle targets at different ranges. One
of Admiral Blackham's roles is to assess the appropriate weapons mix
to provide the capabilities needed for Eurofighter-

We need to provide ourselves with a reasonable mix of weapons.
Sometimes, for example, we shall demand that our pilots visually
identify contacts before they engage them and in those circumstances
we would want a short-range missile. In other circumstances we may be
prepared to have different sorts of rules of engagement and that would
allow us to use a longer range missile such as a BVRAAM ... The actual
balance of numbers of weapons will obviously depend on the relative
likelihood of the threats ... identified.[84]
24. As a result of such deliberations, the MoD has now decided not to
fit the Mauser cannon on the RAF's Eurofighters in the second and
subsequent batches of the aircraft, and those to be fitted to the 55
aircraft of the first batch would not be used. The Parliamentary
Under-Secretary told the House-

The Mauser 27mm cannon will be installed in tranche-1 Eurofighter
aircraft for the Royal Air Force. However, we are not planning to
procure stocks of spares or ammunition following our decision not to
use the gun, or to fit it to subsequent tranches of aircraft ... We
have assessed that the minimal operational utility of the Mauser
cannon on Eurofighter in any role is outweighed by its support,
fatigue and training cost implications, particularly given the
capability of the advanced short-range air-to-air missiles with which
the aircraft will be armed ... The advantages in deleting the Mauser
cannon from our Eurofighter aircraft derive from avoiding the support,
fatigue and cost implications which we would otherwise have to
bear.[85]

25. Admiral Blackham told us that this decision was one of the
earliest made by his newly established Equipment Capability
organisation.[86] Although most comparable aircraft had a cannon
(including the F-22, most variants of the Joint Strike Fighter,[87]
the Rafale, the Gripen and, notably, the Eurofighters of the other
three partners'airforces), he believed that the decision would have no
operational impact for Eurofighter,[88] as the cannon would give the
MoD no capability that it did not already have.[89] In engaging likely
air threats-generally high performance aircraft built in the West or
in the former Soviet Union-it was very unlikely that the RAF would not
want to use a missile.[90] Even for very short range air-to-air combat
the MoD were acquiring ASRAAM missiles.[91] In its written evidence,
the MoD stated that-

Since the introduction of air-to-air missiles, the gun has been used
for very close range engagements where the target was inside a
short-range air-to-air missile's minimum range. The improved minimum
range capability and agility of the ASRAAM missiles with which the
aircraft will be armed greatly decrease the likelihood of such
engagements. ASRAAM, including a Helmet Mounted Sight targetting
system, offers the pilot a shot with a very high probability of
success in almost every conceivable situation. And were these missiles
to be exhausted, it is unlikely that a cannon would be of use as the
risk would remain that aircraft could be engaged by missiles from well
outside the gun's range. Furthermore, in order to use the gun the
pilot would have to point the aircraft directly at the target, thereby
making less effective the aircraft's integrated Defensive Aids
Sub-System (whose towed decoys operate best when the aircraft is not
head on to the threat) for the small probability of a successful gun
shot.[92]

26. The MoD does not envisage Eurofighter having a ground attack
role.[93] The cannon on other current RAF aircraft have never been
used in anger, even for strafing-the most likely possible
scenario.[94] The MoD told us that, in such an air-to-ground role, it
found it difficult to anticipate circumstances which would justify the
relatively indiscriminate nature of gun firing in an age of
precision-guided munitions.[95] Admiral Blackham told us that the MoD
had concluded that "in the circumstances that we face today, the
cannon does not represent a very sensible use of our money and does
not provide a capability we really want".[96] The MoD has however
already sunk £90 million into the cannon which has now been wasted.
The savings from not using the gun would only be £2.5 million a
year.[97] Admiral Blackham believed that that was no reason to go on
sinking more money unnecessarily.[98] We are less convinced of the
economic sense of this decision at this late stage of the aircraft's
development, and we look to the MoD in its response to this report to
provide further explanation of its rationale for not using the cannon,
and how a very close range engagement capability could otherwise be
provided."

Other links of interest discussing the subject:


http://www.parliament.the-stationery...28/0052303.htm



http://www.parliament.the-stationery...t/01026-32.htm

TJ

As we (the Brits) don't seem to go to war with anyone now on our own then it
would appear to be a good cost saving idea at a first glance, if we can't do
the job then someone else in the alliance will take up the slack in that
role. If at a later date it turns out to be a mistake then with the rest of
the Eurofighter client nations taking up the gun then posibly there would be
a route for us reinstating it.

--
James...
www.jameshart.co.uk

On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 22:52:39 -0000, James Hart wrote:

As we (the Brits) don't seem to go to war with anyone now on our own then it
would appear to be a good cost saving idea at a first glance, if we can't do
the job then someone else in the alliance will take up the slack in that
role. If at a later date it turns out to be a mistake then with the rest of
the Eurofighter client nations taking up the gun then posibly there would be
a route for us reinstating it.

Following that logic we could scrap the entire armed forces!

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: zen19725 at zen dot co dot uk)

(TJ) wrote in message . com...

The first 55 Typhoon will be fitted with the cannon. The plan was for
it to be deleted in the follow on tranches. In Parliament the
following disclosure was made:

http://www.parliament.the-stationery.../528/52804.htm

Thanks for the link, a useful reference. However, you will note that
the report was 'ordered to be published' on 28 June 2000. This was,
IIRC, before the embarrassing incident in Sierra Leone when the lack
of a gun meant that the RAF Harriers had to pass up opportunities to
attack rebels who were too close to friendlies to use rockets or
bombs, and the strafing attacks in Afghanistan and Iraq, not only by
USAF and USN fighters but reportedly by RAF Tornados also.

More recently, I have heard that the RAF will not be dropping the gun
from later batches of Eurofighter. This is what I have put in 'Flying
Guns: The Modern Era':

"At one point the RAF reportedly decided to omit the BK 27 as a
cost-saving measure, but the first batch of weapons had already been
purchased and the acquisition of the remainder had been included in
the production contract. Furthermore, the presence of the gun is
described as 'Class 1 Safety Critical' which means that it may not be
omitted. It now seems likely that the cannon will be fitted, and
functional, in service RAF Eurofighters."

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/

The great thing about this is that the guys making the decision don't know
what they're on about. The actual saving that would be made by not having
the gun is wasted now - the entire airframe and forward avionics kit has
been designed to work with gunfire vibration and exhaust fumes.

So the gun hasn't been used that often (I know we've done trials where its
been fired so it is used (although maybe not in anger of war). But show me
a pilot who'd rather have the empty space where it should be when it comes
down it?
"Tony Williams" wrote in message
m...
(TJ) wrote in message
. com...

The first 55 Typhoon will be fitted with the cannon. The plan was for
it to be deleted in the follow on tranches. In Parliament the
following disclosure was made:


http://www.parliament.the-stationery...cmselect/cmdfe
nce/528/52804.htm

Thanks for the link, a useful reference. However, you will note that
the report was 'ordered to be published' on 28 June 2000. This was,
IIRC, before the embarrassing incident in Sierra Leone when the lack
of a gun meant that the RAF Harriers had to pass up opportunities to
attack rebels who were too close to friendlies to use rockets or
bombs, and the strafing attacks in Afghanistan and Iraq, not only by
USAF and USN fighters but reportedly by RAF Tornados also.

More recently, I have heard that the RAF will not be dropping the gun
from later batches of Eurofighter. This is what I have put in 'Flying
Guns: The Modern Era':

"At one point the RAF reportedly decided to omit the BK 27 as a
cost-saving measure, but the first batch of weapons had already been
purchased and the acquisition of the remainder had been included in
the production contract. Furthermore, the presence of the gun is
described as 'Class 1 Safety Critical' which means that it may not be
omitted. It now seems likely that the cannon will be fitted, and
functional, in service RAF Eurofighters."

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 om...
(championsleeper) wrote in message . com...
Hi,

I'm interested in canvassing opinions regarding the inclusion of a gun
on future military aircraft. If you listen to some of the blurb out
there (government, aircraft manufacturers, hollywood) it would appear
that its all going to be BVR (beyond visual range) type stuff with no
need for a gun. That seems a bit of a cold-war type idea. It would
appear that the way the world is going that CIC (close in combat) is
going to be a requirement in future combat, namely because:
- it is not going to be that easy to identify the enemy
- bvr assault is not as accurate as people would make you think
- there have been improvements in technology (firing control in
particular) which improves the accuracy of CIC
All of these points would appear to suggest that there are benefits to
including a gun in future aircraft.



The RAF was embarrassed during
operations against insurgents in Sierra Leone in 2000 to find that
they had no suitable weapon for their gunless Harrier GR.7 aircraft to
attack small groups of rebels operating close to innocent civilians.

Tony Williams

The US is looking at putting a 100kW laser on the JSF. Does anyone
think this could supplant the gun? It is precise, effective (when they
get its power up), aimable (including well off boresight), has a
longer range than a gun, doesn't require ammo, and if you aim it up,
you don't have to worry about shells splashing at the wrong place. The
only disadvantage I can see is charge time (a second shot could take a
few seconds) and the fact that the beam is invisible to the naked eye.
Plus the laser takes electricity from an engine-driven generator
(slight fuel efficiency loss). Any thoughts?

George wrote:

The US is looking at putting a 100kW laser on the JSF. Does anyone
think this could supplant the gun? It is precise, effective (when they
get its power up), aimable (including well off boresight), has a
longer range than a gun, doesn't require ammo, and if you aim it up,
you don't have to worry about shells splashing at the wrong place.

Cool... if (and only if):

- the laser has the same optical path as the video-
aiming device. (May be slaved to radar aim point,
but it is essential the trigger-puller be able to
SEE the effectiveness of the aim/shot).
- all battles are over a sunny, clear desert.
- there is no smoke from previous targets, ground or air.
- There is no "Interlocks out" switch in the cockpit, so
the pilot cannot short-cuircuit the mandatory charge time.
(prevents him from firing "blanks"...)

"Dweezil Dwarftosser" wrote in message
...
George wrote:

The US is looking at putting a 100kW laser on the JSF. Does anyone
think this could supplant the gun? It is precise, effective (when they
get its power up), aimable (including well off boresight), has a
longer range than a gun, doesn't require ammo, and if you aim it up,
you don't have to worry about shells splashing at the wrong place.

Cool... if (and only if):

- the laser has the same optical path as the video-
aiming device. (May be slaved to radar aim point,
but it is essential the trigger-puller be able to
SEE the effectiveness of the aim/shot).
- all battles are over a sunny, clear desert.
- there is no smoke from previous targets, ground or air.
- There is no "Interlocks out" switch in the cockpit, so
the pilot cannot short-cuircuit the mandatory charge time.
(prevents him from firing "blanks"...)

From what I've read, I'd say it is viable to do this, but questions have
been asked about the "recharge" time for the laser?

Ian wrote:

"Dweezil Dwarftosser" wrote in message
...
George wrote:

The US is looking at putting a 100kW laser on the JSF. Does anyone
think this could supplant the gun? It is precise, effective (when they
get its power up), aimable (including well off boresight), has a
longer range than a gun, doesn't require ammo, and if you aim it up,
you don't have to worry about shells splashing at the wrong place.

Cool... if (and only if):

- the laser has the same optical path as the video-
aiming device. (May be slaved to radar aim point,
but it is essential the trigger-puller be able to
SEE the effectiveness of the aim/shot).
- all battles are over a sunny, clear desert.
- there is no smoke from previous targets, ground or air.
- There is no "Interlocks out" switch in the cockpit, so
the pilot cannot short-cuircuit the mandatory charge time.
(prevents him from firing "blanks"...)

From what I've read, I'd say it is viable to do this, but questions have
been asked about the "recharge" time for the laser?

While lasers could be cool, I have doubts about effectiveness,
especially once they become operational, as ablatives and other
protections/countermeasures could reduce them to little more than
over-built flashlights.
I suspect a lot of talk about no need for guns/BVR missile environments
assumes a US style total air superiority situation with everything
working just like the advertisements claim. And those aircraft tasked
for that kind of air superiority role may well not need guns. However,
for everyone else in less than ideal situations, having a gun option
would seem prudent, especially for multi-role machines that end up being
in inventory for a few decades longer than expected, fighting wars in
places/circumstances that their designers never dreamed of.

(George) wrote in
om:

The US is looking at putting a 100kW laser on the JSF. Does
anyone
think this could supplant the gun? It is precise, effective
(when they get its power up), aimable (including well off
boresight), has a longer range than a gun, doesn't require ammo,
and if you aim it up, you don't have to worry about shells
splashing at the wrong place. The only disadvantage I can see is
charge time (a second shot could take a few seconds) and the
fact that the beam is invisible to the naked eye. Plus the laser
takes electricity from an engine-driven generator (slight fuel
efficiency loss). Any thoughts?

I think they should just build the X-Wing and be done with it.


Regards...

In message , Tony
Williams writes
This does not mean
that guns are useless for air-to-air work. They have a particular
value in modern 'policing' applications, as they enable warning shots
to be fired in front of suspect aircraft.

However, you have to load tracer for that: which reduces effectiveness
in combat.

They also provide an
economical way of engaging low-value targets such as unmanned
reconnaissance drones, transport and liaison aircraft, or
drug-smugglers.

"Economical" is extremely dependent on assumptions: while a burst of
cannon shells is cheaper than a missile, keeping your entire fighter
force trained and ready to be proficient in gun use is not cost-free.

In a 'hot' war they still have certain advantages in
close-quarter fighting, for example in 'picking off' an enemy
attacking a wingman, who may be too close for a safe missile shot.

Last time this occurred?

The
ability of modern fighters to adopt extreme attitudes, pointing well
away from the line of flight, significantly assists gun aiming in
dogfights.

Only if the extreme attitude can be sustained and controlled long enough
for a gun snapshot: meanwhile a less extreme diversion wastes less
energy yet still allows an off-boresight missile shot.

Cannon projectiles have a shorter flight time than a
missile, a significant advantage in a dogfight.

Can't miss fast enough to win: and it takes significantly longer to get
into guns parameters.

Finally, the gun provides a last-ditch capability if the missiles run
out,

If an infantryman runs out of ammunition, should he continue to close
with the enemy in hopes of getting into bayonet, buttstock, boots and
teeth range?

When you find yourself at a major disadvantage, it's rarely wise to
press on through the killing zone.

or are defeated by advanced countermeasures or simply by
circumstances.

The trouble is that gunsights require significant sensor input:
particularly if the aircraft is flying extreme manoeuvres to generate
snapshots. This means that an enemy able to deceive radar-guided
missiles is also generating miss distance for cannon rounds.

The 1991 Gulf War revealed the deficiencies of modern
IR-homing missiles when faced with trying to pick up a low-flying
target against a hot desert background (helicopters being in any case
difficult for IR seekers to lock on to from above). USAF A-10
aircraft achieved two helicopter kills with the GAU-8/A (using 275 and
550 rounds respectively) in one case when the IR missiles failed to
lock on.

550 rounds is more than many fighters carry, even when using less potent
Gatling guns. Is the problem "only guns can kill low-flying
helicopters", or "there's a need to improve capability against
low-flying helicopters"?

Furthermore, the performance of even the best missiles cannot
always be guaranteed, for various reasons. In Kosovo, a US fighter
engaging a Serbian plane needed to fire three AMRAAMs to bring it
down.

How many cannon rounds were fired, out of interest?

In other engagements in the late 1990s, USAF and USN fighters
fired a total of seven Sparrows, AMRAAMs, and Phoenix missiles against
Iraqi MiG-25s without scoring a single hit (although the Phoenix shots
were taken at extreme range).

Again, how many gun shots were fired?

The Iraqi aircraft were evading at the edges of the missile envelope:
what improvements to the US aircraft's gunnery systems would have
changed the outcome?

Whatever the reason, this results in missiles being used
up at a high rate, making it more likely that they will run out during
a sortie. A cannon will typically carry enough ammunition for several
engagements, usefully increasing combat persistence at a minimal cost
in weight and performance.

Trouble is, just because _you_ are out of missiles doesn't mean the
enemy will chivalrously cease fi and it's much easier for the enemy
to get you into missile parameters, than for you to lure an enemy into a
guns shot. (Especially when you're having to break off your approaches
to evade enemy AAMs)

One curious aspect to the use of AAMs in combat is that of the
approximately 1,000 kills achieved between 1958 and 1991, only a
handful were scored beyond visual range, which does raise questions
about the significance of the very long ranges of which some missiles
are capable.

Restrictive ROE accounts for a great deal (Vietnam): limited conflict
area (Middle East); and weapon availability (Falklands).

Also, define "visual range". The definition usually cited is "within
five miles", which is well outside guns range and only useful for
head-on Sidewinder shots: "long-range" missiles may struggle to close
five miles of seperation in a low-altitude, co-speed tailchase.

There is a continual battle between missile sensor and countermeasure
technology.

And the gun is not immune, since it requires sensor input for any but
the crudest shot.

In the future, stealth technology applied to aircraft may
considerably shorten target acquisition and combat ranges, putting
into question the worth of modern BVR (beyond visual range) AAMs. The
possible future use of anti-radar missile guidance as a way of
overcoming stealth characteristics may force fighters to make minimal
use of their own radars, further reducing acquisition and combat
distances.

And making guns use equally problematic, as snapshots become much more
demanding and gyro gunsights demand tracking shots.

Of course, modern guns are usually aimed by the plane's radar which
could also be jammed (although less easily than the much smaller and
less powerful missile seekers) but laser rangefinders could make an
acceptable alternative in providing fire control data.

Only for range: not for angular rate.

If planes
eventually become 'laser-proof' as well, the possibility presumably
exists of linking variable magnification optical sights to a computer
which would be able to analyse the image, identify the plane,
calculate its distance, speed and heading and provide gunsight aiming
information accordingly, all without emitting any signals.

If you can do all this and compute a gunnery solution, why can you not
fly a much larger guided warhead into the target from greater range than
a cannon will allow?

However, not all conflicts involve front-line opposition; in fact,
armed forces are now commonly engaged on police work, frequently
dealing with guerrilla forces. In these circumstances, rockets and
missiles may represent an inappropriate degree of destruction, with a
high risk of collateral damage. The RAF was embarrassed during
operations against insurgents in Sierra Leone in 2000 to find that
they had no suitable weapon for their gunless Harrier GR.7 aircraft to
attack small groups of rebels operating close to innocent civilians.

Given the lack of air opposition, why not use Sea Harriers with their
reliable, proven 30mm ADENs for the role? It seems more is being made of
the story than might actually exist.

Another advantage of using cannon was demonstrated in the invasion of
Afghanistan in 2002. During an intense infantry battle at Takur Ghar
in late May, in which US forces were ambushed and in considerable
danger, air support was called for. The AC-130 was not permitted to
intervene in daylight due to its vulnerability, so USAF fighters were
sent to help. For a part of the battle the Afghan combatants were too
close to the Americans for rockets or bombs to be used, so the
fighters – F-16s and even F-15s – went in strafing with their 20 mm
cannon, as did the Navy's F-14s and F/A-18s on other occasions.

And, curiously, the ground troops reported how the enemy refused to be
suppressed, neutralised or destroyed by those strafing passes: though
PGMs dropped carefully in "danger close" proved effective.

Even
RAF Tornadoes were reported to have carried out gun strafing runs on
at least one occasion. It may logically be argued that it is foolish
to risk an extremely expensive aircraft, with its expensively trained
pilot, to being lost due to very low-tech ground fire, but sometimes
the risk needs to be taken to save friendly lives."

I'm automatically wary of this variation of "If it saves the life of
even one small child..."

--
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