Yes I have tried using the search function to find if any dedicated discussions on this probably ubiquitous topic exist.
I question the value of today’s internal gun pods on aircraft on the grounds that we are far away from the experiences of the F-4 Phantom where sidewinders did not have the long range of an AMRAAM or an AIM-7. We also reduced the minimum range of Sidewinders to a generally short enough distance so that in a dogfight, missiles are not useless as they will not arm.
Also today’s gun pods only hold a measly 480 rounds firing about 6000 RPM leading to only 5 seconds worth of fire on the F-22. F-15 does better with about twice amount of time with it’s capability to fire. The rare situations where you would use a gun in an AA fight would be if you…
A: Ran out of missiles.
B: Can’t escape to home and refuel.
Or
C: You engage in basically knife fighting distance where sidewinders aren’t going to do the trick in super close quarter combat.
Of course there is something to be said about a backup weapon system, but it’s a backup weapon system that weighs about 200-300 pounds and can be used to mount on vehicles that would have a primary purpose for it (Perhaps the future Stryker could utilize a Gatling gun instead of the M2 Browning.) It’s debatable in adding that additional cost to an aircraft that could be easily modified after the fact perhaps in a situation where advisories have stealth technologies and cold infrared signatures which leads to the only choice of gun based weapon systems is a valuable enough asset to today’s fighters.
What is this board's opinion on an internal gun on at very least an AS fighter?
The ability to have one last weapon to use after you've shot off all of your missiles, or, a weapon to use against "soft" targets that a missile would be wasted on, IMO justifies the presence of an internal gun.
I think I'd rather have a Ma Duece myself, for the larger cartridge. Although as I understand it, there's now a .50 cal Gatling gun...but do you really need that high rate of fire when you've got such a large round?Originally Posted by roffelskates
Top not to be a pain but the 20MM round is larger than a .50 round. It is equal to something just over .75. Now That said I really like having an internal gun however I am more inclined to believe in a smaller round with more of them. It would be just as effective against ground targets and with something like a Mk 300 Mod 0 or the explosive round as well.
Slight thread hijack, but in the IDF some of the tanks have M2's mounted above the cannon, and they're used not to suppress the enemy, but used as a sniper weapon. Controlled from inside the tank from the gunners position, it can easily take out a soft target in a urban environment without taking out the whole apartment
Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.
Abusing Yellow is meant to be a labor of love, not something you sell to the highest bidder.
Right, but I was referring to his mention of a Gatling-type gun replacing the .50 cal on Strykers.
So, I was referring to the 7.62mm Minigun Gatling-type guns with their high rate of fire, versus the slower ROF but bigger 12.7mm cartridge Ma Duece.
At which point I threw all of that out the window by referencing the GAU-19 12.7mm Gatling gun.
I think an internal cannon on an AS fighter is justified for all the reasons cited above; a statement I just read on Wikipedia concerning the M61 in the Raptor adds further evidence to the need for an internal gun of some sort. It read: "The F-22 has been able to close to gun range in training dogfights without being detected, which can be necessary when missiles are depleted." It seems a gun is even more useful on a stealthy platform, as long as you're not detected.
I also think the 20mm round is about right for an airborne weapon; I know there are some 25mm & 30mm weapons out there (Adens, the GAU-12, the Hughes Chain Gun & the GAU-8/A), but IMO these rounds are overly large for general-purpose use. Several dozen rounds of twenty mike mike is usually enough to take care of most problems, especially if that "problem" is another aircraft. The 20mm round is a good compromise between being able to put enough kinetic energy on the target, and being able to carry enough rounds to get the job done.
Last edited by Stitch; 21 Jan 10, at 05:10.
"Yeah. See, we plan ahead, that way we don't do anything right now. Earl explained it to me." - Tremors, 1990
Im more in favour of recessed housings for external carriage rather than internal. The problem with guns is using them in the wrong environment on a 100 million dollar airframe invariably has nasty effects if your exposed to a el cheapo MANPAD shot up the tail pipe. See you say air superiority, but the reality is aircraft being built these days will invariably be tasked with other missions.
Then again depends whether it's on a boat or land based as well.
Ego Numquam
The hue and cry from the Vietnam experience has made the thought of eliminating the gun yet again to be a real argument-inducer. "Remember Vietnam! We NEED the gun!" Uh, not so fast.
The original problem was the unreliability of the stock AA missiles, the sparrow and sidewinder, leaving a fighter helpless against the nimble MiG-17's, 19's, and 21's of the NVAF. Times and technologies change. The AIM-9 especially is exceptionally lethal; the loadout of an aircraft like the F-15, 16, and 18 is quite high, and when they are expended, it is time to go home. It is insanity to be mucking around a contested piece of sky with nothing but a gun.
It would be analogous to a guy in WW1 no man's land, carrying a big knife, and screaming "C'mon, let's fight!" to an enemy equipped with Maxims and rifles.
We haven't had a real AA gun kill since Vietnam. There's been no need. Guns are heavy, occupy precious internal space, and in the modern air to air world, are antiques. Fill the vacant area with fuel or electronics.
For any airborne mission OTHER than A2A, a gun is not only helpful, it is probably essential. A pod can be used, but in my mind, a better answer is separate, specialized platforms, like the F-22, the A-10, and for the F-35... if the intent is to use it in a CAS/SEAD/Interdiction role, then perhaps it might be useful, but 20mm is capable only of penetrating thin-skinned vehicles.
In general, though, as an air to air weapon, I think it's time to be retired.
20 MM without alot of deflection angle will go through the top of a BMP 3. I'm not sure if I'd want to be in the plane diving to strafe it but I also know that I definately wouldn't want to be in the IVF. This says nothing of all the Duce and a half type vechiles in the militaries of the world. While 20mm is going to do nothing to most tanks it will eat the hell out of a supply convoy and most field positions. (yes to the enegineer officer A properly fortified position will have protection from the air but most people aren't building that for short term use.). Its not a standard every day useful item for air to air combat, as for the guy who pointed out the number of gun kills since vietnam but US forces, the missile kills aren't exactly huge total numbers either and most of them haven't exactly been against numberous or frontline airforces. I actually see a coming problem with complaceny in US air superiority, where 1. The ground forces take having it as a given, and 2. The airforce and navy are counting on easily being able to obtain it even as the rest of the worlds airforces are closing the gap.
Isn't the cannon for the F-35 going to be a 25mm cannon? If I remember correctly, this is supposed to offer better accuracy, range, and firepower, etc.
GAU-12 25MM gun
I understand the gun eats up weight, space, etc. and isn't needed on every mission. So here's what I propose: a "missionized utility space."
This space would occupy the space usually allocated for a gun and would be well-plumbed and wired. It could be used to store a EW gear, cameras, extra fuel, communications gear, or even...a gun.
This would allow for more operational flexibility and a hedge for the future. While I do agree with Chogy that current trends tend to point away from gun, we should at least have the option to carry an integrated one.
USNA 2014?
Major Thread Jack!
M-1A1/A2 TUSK tanks also have a M2 slaved to the main gun. It was one of the original design requirements for M-1 to be able to do so, but the US Army decided against mounting a 50 cal on every tank because there was no percieved need. In Iraq the extra M2 was used in the same manner.
All those who are merciful with the cruel will come to be cruel to the merciful.
-Talmud Kohelet Rabbah, 7:16.
I always think this discussion about "fighter needing a gun" is very analogous to "does an infantryman need a bayonette" The answer to both I believe is an emphatic "Yes". For the pure simple fact that you just never know what situation the pilot or infantryman is goin to find themselves in ;}
Here is an article from the early days of the Iraq conflict, hope it illustrates teh point
WITH BAYONETS ATTACHED, THEY FINISHED OFF THE ENEMY WHO HAD NOT RUN AWAY..
May 21 2004
SCOTS TELL OF CHARGE
By Keith Mcleod And Michael Christie
SCOTS soldiers last night told how they launched a bayonet charge on Iraqi militiamen after hours of battle.
An Army insider last night gave the Record an insight into the bravery of the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders.
They were forced to use 'cold steel' as supplies of ammunition ran low.
Many of the militiamen turned and fled but the close-quarters fighting left around 20 rebels dead.
Thirty-five of Shia Moslem cleric Muqtada al-Sadr's followers died and two British troops were injured during the three-hour battle.
A senior Argylls officer said last night: 'After a fierce fight and with small amounts of ammo left, they put in a conventional left-flanking attack.
'With bayonets attached, they finished off the enemy who had not run off.'
It was the first time in 22 years the Army had used bayonets in action.
The last came when the Scots Guards stormed Argentinian positions during the Falklands War.
The battle developed following a distress call from a group of eight British soldiers last Friday.
The troops under the command of Major Adam Griffiths were surrounded on the notorious Route Six highway while en route to Camp Abu Naji in southern Iraq. Their LandRovers were riddled with bullets and they came under attack from rocket launchers and grenades.
But as a 30-strong platoon of Argylls responded to the SOS, the militia were getting reinforcements.
The men from the Stirlingshire-based regiment were forced to dig in and shoot back.
The Argylls were aided by a detachment of the Princess of Wales' Royal Regiment, who arrived at the scene in armoured Warrior vehicles.
More than 150 Iraqis were said to be involved in last week's battle. Military sources say the militiamen miscalculated the response from the original group of soldiers.
Last night, a source said: 'Morale is very good following this serious incident.
'The insurgents have been laying ambushes on Route Six one of the main roads between Basra and Baghdad for some time.
'Previously, the response from small British groups has been drive on. These militiamen were obviously expecting this to happen again.
'The enemy have been picking their targets, mainly two LandRovers with six to eight soldiers on board. With those odds, it is sometimes best to keep on going, but the attack was so sustained, the LandRovers stopped and returned fire.
'We now hope that these attacks on Route Six will stop, but we are taking nothing for granted.'
Intelligence gathered since the bayonet charge suggests it shocked the militia fighters, who expected the outnumbered Scots to flee.
The source added: 'The injuries received by our troops were shrapnel to the hand and shrapnel to the groin. Both of these casualties were as a result of rocket-propelled grenades fired at them.
'Both the injured guys are back with their units and doing fine.'
The Princess of Wales' Royal Regiment arrived on the scene in 37ton Warriors just as the Scots' ammo was getting low.
They found many Iraqi militia fleeing the bayonet charge.
Around 20 Iraqis who chose to stand and fight were killed by the troops of both regiments.
The Argylls' forebears formed The Thin Red Line which kept 25,000 Russians at bay at Balaclava during the Crimean War of the 1850s.
In 1967, Argylls commander Lieutenant-Colonel Colin Mitchell known as Mad Mitch stormed a rebel stronghold in Yemen.
Accompanied only by 15 pipers playing Scotland The Brave, he recaptured Crater Town, the commercial heart of Aden, which had been in enemy hands for two weeks.
The regiment has won 16 Victoria Crosses.
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/ne...l&siteid=89488
I had heard that the TUSK upgrade allowed the commander to remotely operate the Ma Deuce while being buttoned up, not having it slaved to the 120. That would be like having an extra (heavy) coax when one isn't really needed.
"Yeah. See, we plan ahead, that way we don't do anything right now. Earl explained it to me." - Tremors, 1990
Given that much of the Iraqi's ground based movements in both GW and OIF did not have much in the way of MANPADS travelling en tow it is a probably an area of significant concern for any potential U.S Adversary. I wouldn't be relying on CAS with guns should such an environment be realised... it might as well be lunacy.
Ego Numquam
On that note. I was wondering how an A-10 30mm can penetrate modern battlefield tanks? When it requires a 105mm and greater to kill the same tank on the ground? If the 30mm can do that, if you put that on an IFV with the same ammo will it have the same effect?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
Share this thread with friends: