Future military fighters and guns - yes or no ?

"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

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



This trend is aided by the continued development of air-to-surface
missiles, with the latest ones having autonomous homing systems to
provide "fire and forget" capability over long ranges. Another current
development is the GD Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System, which
aims to achieve low-cost accuracy by fitted a laser homer to the
little 2.75 inch (70 mm) rocket. The target is to achieve a CEP of 1 ?
2 m at ranges of up to 5 ? 6 km at a price of US$ 8 ? 10,000;
one-sixth the cost of a Hellfire anti-tank missile.

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.

"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

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

"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
__________________

"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
__________________

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
__________________

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
__________________

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

"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
__________________