A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Military Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Future military fighters and guns - yes or no ?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old February 17th 04, 09:16 PM
George
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Bjørnar Bolsøy" wrote in message ...
steve gallacci wrote in
:
Ian wrote:

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


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.


What about the heat generated by it? A 100KW laser means many
times that in generated electrical power. Where do you put it?


Regards...


So far the way I've seen is to use water-cooling internally which
radiates through air cooled fins, using ram-air from the slipstream to
insure rapid air movement. How well this works, I don't know. For the
electrical power and placing, Lockheed has suggested using the STOVL
model and taking out the lift fan, using the large amount of shaft
horsepower to run a generator for power and the space for the laser
and generator.
  #32  
Old February 17th 04, 11:48 PM
Guy Alcala
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Tony Williams wrote:

Guy Alcala wrote in message ...


snip

And I am essentially agnostic on the matter, perhaps leaning slightly towards the gun pod solution for those "short of hot
war" situations.


This is my comment on gunpods:

"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."


No argument with any of the above, with the exception of the "use up a hardpoint otherwise available for fuel," as that's design
dependent (you sort of cover that when mentioning the conformal pods). And, on the flip side, you can always use the internal
space that would otherwise have a gun in it for fuel or electronics, meaning it's low drag and you won't be jettisoning any of
it to maximise performance. In a peacetime "identify and escort" role, the extra drag and loss of stealth of the gun pod is
pretty irrelevant, and in wartime you can do without. of course, if you want to have a convertible internal space,
fuel/guns/what have you, that's one option, but then you're guaranteeing that the airframe will be larger than it would
otherwise need to be.

Guy

  #33  
Old February 18th 04, 12:03 AM
Guy Alcala
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Paul J. Adam" wrote:

In message , Tony
Williams writes
"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message
...
"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.


No it isn't - but UAVs/UCAVs are likely to proliferate rapidly, and
dealing with them is likely to shift up the scale of importance.


I'm still unconvinced that a gun (in its current incarnation) is the
best option, if that's a key driver.


Now here, Tony raises an interesting point. Talking with a serving IAF pilot
some years back, he mentioned that all their tactical a/c have their guns
loaded on every flight, including training, just so they'll have something to
fire if they get diverted to an interception. He said that an IAF Brigadier
General had shot down a foreign recon drone while on a training flight in his
(IIRR) F-15 . Of course, lasers or cheap missiles may do the job as well, and
high-performance UAVs are never going to be _that_ cheap.

snip

How many cannon rounds were fired, out of interest?


Irrelevant - the point I am making is that missiles run out very fast.


A few examples where this has befallen Western pilots would be handy. It
was a problem in Vietnam for the USAF, for example, where they were
plagued by poor reliability of the weapons and by doctrinal guidance to
volley every selected weapon at a target (so a F-4 Phantom effectively
had one Sidewinder shot and one Sparrow shot); the USN used different
doctrine based on single firings and got much better results.

A strong example for your case should be the Falklands, where the SHars
only had two AIM-9Ls apiece, yet it's an interesting commentary on
relative envelopes that there were very few (three IIRC) guns kills, one
a C-130 finished off with gunfire after Sidewinder hits and one Pucara:
though on several occasions the SHars emptied their guns at Argentine
aircraft without results (LCdrs Mike Blissett and 'Fred' Frederiksen,
and Lt. Clive Morell, all had this experience on the 21st May, for
instance: Sharkey Ward recalls firing on and missing a Turbo-Mentor, as
well as three SHars taking five firing passes to down a single Pucara;
Flight Lieutenant Dave Morgan scored two kills with two Sidewinders on
8th June, and shot his guns dry to no effect before his wingman got a
third kill with another Sidewinder...)

Having the guns along when the missiles were exhausted was no guarantee
of being able to get into range, let alone score disabling damage: with
hindsight, trading the gun pods for more fuel and twin-rail Sidewinder
launchers (giving four rather than two shots) would have been much more
effective.


snip

Yup. Of course, the lack of IR decoys in most of the Argentine a/c also played
a part, but we're now in the age of IIR seekers, and decoying _them_ is going
to be very difficult if not impossible. They may require damage or destruction
to make them miss. And if the SHARs had had RH missiles and PD radar (and
AEW), then chances are they would have shot down many of the Argentine aircraft
long before they'd even have closed to visual range, even if they were using
older generation missiles.

Guy

  #34  
Old February 18th 04, 12:36 AM
James Hart
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

phil hunt wrote:
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!


That would be the logical progression of the cost saving plans.
It would make us an incredibly weak country though, virtually anyone could
sail in and cause us some major damage, or try to nibble away at our
outlying territories like the Falklands. Wasn't there a big round of cost
cutting implemented just before the Argies invaded? I recall seeing a docu
that seemed to imply if the full cutbacks had been implemented we'd never of
had the capability to go to war that far away.

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


  #35  
Old February 18th 04, 12:48 AM
Thomas Schoene
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

George wrote:

So far the way I've seen is to use water-cooling internally which
radiates through air cooled fins, using ram-air from the slipstream to
insure rapid air movement. How well this works, I don't know.


I've seen mention of fuel cooling. Use the fuel tanks as a heat sink, then
burn the heated fuel. There's a slight efficiency loss in the engine, I
think.

--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)




  #36  
Old February 18th 04, 10:29 AM
Tony Williams
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message ...
In message , Tony
Williams writes

A strong example for your case should be the Falklands, where the SHars
only had two AIM-9Ls apiece, yet it's an interesting commentary on
relative envelopes that there were very few (three IIRC) guns kills, one
a C-130 finished off with gunfire after Sidewinder hits and one Pucara:
though on several occasions the SHars emptied their guns at Argentine
aircraft without results (LCdrs Mike Blissett and 'Fred' Frederiksen,
and Lt. Clive Morell, all had this experience on the 21st May, for
instance: Sharkey Ward recalls firing on and missing a Turbo-Mentor, as
well as three SHars taking five firing passes to down a single Pucara;
Flight Lieutenant Dave Morgan scored two kills with two Sidewinders on
8th June, and shot his guns dry to no effect before his wingman got a
third kill with another Sidewinder...)


Fair points. However, the 30mm Aden is an old gun with poor ballistics
by modern standards and there are now much better guns available for
air combat. The critical factor is of course the quality of the gun
fire control system. I don't know how good it was in the SHARs, but
what I have read about modern fighters is that once they've got a
radar lock there is a strong probability of a gun kill, with only a
short burst normally being required. In some cases, the FCS actually
takes over control of some elements of the flight controls to ensure
that the gun is correctly aimed.

The Iranian F-14s made good use of their Phoenix missiles, and
Sparrows, but still ended up in gunfights on occasions and even scored
kills with the gun.


The Iranians also used human wave attacks against prepared defensive
positions, using unarmed schoolboys carrying plastic "keys to heaven" in
the first wave (they were expendable, available, and revealed the
locations of minefields and concealed bunkers for the armed fighters
following). I would be somewhat wary of taking a cue from Iranian
tactics without much more detail of the encounters involved.


There's loads of detail available in Cooper and Bishop's 'Iran-Iraq
War in the Air 1980-1988' (Schiffer Military History, 2000). 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.

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.


The Sea Harriers have, what - two or three more years?


They were available, why weren't they used? Did nobody consider the
chances of a 'danger close'?


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.

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/
  #37  
Old February 18th 04, 10:36 AM
Tony Williams
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Guy Alcala wrote in message ...
"Paul J. Adam" wrote:

In message , Tony
Williams writes
"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message
...
"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.

No it isn't - but UAVs/UCAVs are likely to proliferate rapidly, and
dealing with them is likely to shift up the scale of importance.


I'm still unconvinced that a gun (in its current incarnation) is the
best option, if that's a key driver.


Now here, Tony raises an interesting point. Talking with a serving IAF pilot
some years back, he mentioned that all their tactical a/c have their guns
loaded on every flight, including training, just so they'll have something to
fire if they get diverted to an interception. He said that an IAF Brigadier
General had shot down a foreign recon drone while on a training flight in his
(IIRR) F-15 . Of course, lasers or cheap missiles may do the job as well, and
high-performance UAVs are never going to be _that_ cheap.


The reason for the MiG-31 (a specialised, long-range interceptor if
ever there was one) carrying the GSh-6-23 gun is reportedly
specifically to deal with recon drones etc.

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/
  #38  
Old February 18th 04, 11:14 PM
Paul J. Adam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In message , Tony
Williams writes
"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message
...
A strong example for your case should be the Falklands, where the SHars
only had two AIM-9Ls apiece, yet it's an interesting commentary on
relative envelopes that there were very few (three IIRC) guns kills


Fair points. However, the 30mm Aden is an old gun with poor ballistics
by modern standards and there are now much better guns available for
air combat. The critical factor is of course the quality of the gun
fire control system. I don't know how good it was in the SHARs, but
what I have read about modern fighters is that once they've got a
radar lock there is a strong probability of a gun kill, with only a
short burst normally being required. In some cases, the FCS actually
takes over control of some elements of the flight controls to ensure
that the gun is correctly aimed.


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

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.

I'd personally like to keep the gun a little longer, especially in cases
like EF2000 where the fitting costs are paid already: but there _is_ the
problem that training costs are significant, and the UK defence budget
_is_ so straightened that "deleting maintenance and training for
Eurofighter guns" is operationally significant and funds more urgent
requirements, and seems to be less bad than the alternatives. It sucks
but there it is.

I would be somewhat wary of taking a cue from Iranian
tactics without much more detail of the encounters involved.


There's loads of detail available in Cooper and Bishop's 'Iran-Iraq
War in the Air 1980-1988' (Schiffer Military History, 2000).


Thanks for the cue. Tom Cooper posts on occasion and comes across well:
another author found via Usenet, it seems.

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?

They were available, why weren't they used? Did nobody consider the
chances of a 'danger close'?


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.

Also, can't the RAF Harriers use the 30mm gun packs?



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 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?)

Who knows, if I can find the time I may follow your example and write a
book with this as a chapter



[1] Based on sound analysis for the expected wars, is the worst thing.
Fighter-versus-fighter shootouts at low level in Southeast Asia were not
a high priority compared to keeping nuclear missile-armed bombers from
hitting USN carrier groups or US cities, back when design decisions were
being made...

--
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
  #39  
Old February 19th 04, 05:53 AM
Tony Williams
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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'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%."

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."

Who knows, if I can find the time I may follow your example and write a
book with this as a chapter


Join the club - but be prepared to give up your social life and get a
pittance in return!

Tony Williams
Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk
Discussion forum at: http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/
  #40  
Old February 19th 04, 08:38 AM
Guy Alcala
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Best dogfight gun? Bjørnar Bolsøy Military Aviation 317 January 24th 04 07:24 PM
Remote controled weapons in WWII Charles Gray Military Aviation 12 January 21st 04 06:07 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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:11 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.