Register here

Author Topic: The future of aircraft mounted guns  (Read 3508 times)

Offline jsport

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1182
  • I really should change my personal text
The future of aircraft mounted guns
« on: December 29, 2018, 05:03:11 am »
Think-pieces w/ some thought for scale. Open barrel recoilless tech allows large gun to fit w/o large drag as proposed back in the day.
« Last Edit: December 29, 2018, 07:12:02 am by jsport »

Offline DrRansom

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 512
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: The future of aircraft mounted guns
« Reply #1 on: December 29, 2018, 06:39:53 am »
Why is there a model of the PCA with a large gun? Just curious.

Offline MihoshiK

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 96
Re: The future of aircraft mounted guns
« Reply #2 on: December 29, 2018, 02:13:50 pm »
Why is there a model of the PCA with a large gun? Just curious.
There aren't. The upper piece, for example, has those holes crudely photoshopped in. This is just jsport engaging in pie-in-the-sky thinking. Nobody is seriously thinking of putting howitsers on fighter planes.

Offline jsport

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1182
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: The future of aircraft mounted guns
« Reply #3 on: December 29, 2018, 08:43:53 pm »
A reminder.

Offline MihoshiK

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 96
Re: The future of aircraft mounted guns
« Reply #4 on: December 29, 2018, 09:31:10 pm »
A Study initiated by a single man (and not part of any official chain of command USAF request) is not "serious". The US military regularly plans for weird things, but nobody thinks they'll ever actually use the plans for when the Girl Scouts of America will try to over throw the government in a bloody coup. It's just mental excercises.

Offline jsport

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1182
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: The future of aircraft mounted guns
« Reply #5 on: December 30, 2018, 08:26:18 am »
A Study initiated by a single man (and not part of any official chain of command USAF request) is not "serious". The US military regularly plans for weird things, but nobody thinks they'll ever actually use the plans for when the Girl Scouts of America will try to over throw the government in a bloody coup. It's just mental excercises.
A gun was built and tested. guns simply deliver more payload per sortie than missiles ever will. period. . His highness. And your tone is uncivilized. You clearly haven't done your homework even on this thread there is discussion Pg 174-5 let alone reflected on your vast DoD/aircraft industry experience.
« Last Edit: December 30, 2018, 08:43:06 am by jsport »

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11251
Re: The future of aircraft mounted guns
« Reply #6 on: December 30, 2018, 08:55:10 am »

A gun was built and tested. guns simply deliver more payload per sortie than missiles ever will. period.

Is this supposed to be a joke?
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline jsport

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1182
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: The future of aircraft mounted guns
« Reply #7 on: December 30, 2018, 09:36:04 am »

A gun was built and tested. guns simply deliver more payload per sortie than missiles ever will. period.

Is this supposed to be a joke?

Have you read any of the PDF around p 175 or are we off the cuffing..

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11251
Re: The future of aircraft mounted guns
« Reply #8 on: December 30, 2018, 10:37:42 am »

A gun was built and tested. guns simply deliver more payload per sortie than missiles ever will. period.

Is this supposed to be a joke?

Have you read any of the PDF around p 175 or are we off the cuffing..

I didn't see any PDFs that demonstrated a gun is going to deliver 4000lbs of BOOM in one sortie.  Perhaps you could direct me to the relevant document?
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline jsport

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1182
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: The future of aircraft mounted guns
« Reply #9 on: December 30, 2018, 11:08:41 am »

A gun was built and tested. guns simply deliver more payload per sortie than missiles ever will. period.

Is this supposed to be a joke?

Have you read any of the PDF around p 175 or are we off the cuffing..

I didn't see any PDFs that demonstrated a gun is going to deliver 4000lbs of BOOM in one sortie.  Perhaps you could direct me to the relevant document?
From cannonfighter PDF
Logistically a equivalent shell is always lighter than a missile. A heavy weight Paul Cyzsz would not have pursued this nor money be spent to build it if it didnt have some prospective serious advantage. For the equivalent size of the craft the more payload  is always w/ a gun. The bigger the craft the more efficient large weights delivered at stand-off range

Offline kaiserd

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 522
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: The future of aircraft mounted guns
« Reply #10 on: December 30, 2018, 12:55:57 pm »

A gun was built and tested. guns simply deliver more payload per sortie than missiles ever will. period.

Is this supposed to be a joke?

Have you read any of the PDF around p 175 or are we off the cuffing..

I didn't see any PDFs that demonstrated a gun is going to deliver 4000lbs of BOOM in one sortie.  Perhaps you could direct me to the relevant document?
From cannonfighter PDF
Logistically a equivalent shell is always lighter than a missile. A heavy weight Paul Cyzsz would not have pursued this nor money be spent to build it if it didnt have some prospective serious advantage. For the equivalent size of the craft the more payload  is always w/ a gun. The bigger the craft the more efficient large weights delivered at stand-off range

I had read the start of these comments and also assumed a joke or perhaps a significant translation/ cross-language terminology breakdown.

This is weird wacky stuff even in comparison with the more eccentric contributions you’d see on this site.

Offline AeroFranz

  • Aerospace Engineer
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2115
Re: The future of aircraft mounted guns
« Reply #11 on: December 30, 2018, 01:26:23 pm »
up there with combatreform.org
All modern aircraft have four dimensions: span, length, height and politics.   TSR.2 got the first three right - Sir Sydney Camm

Offline MihoshiK

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 96
Re: The future of aircraft mounted guns
« Reply #12 on: December 30, 2018, 04:02:20 pm »
A Study initiated by a single man (and not part of any official chain of command USAF request) is not "serious". The US military regularly plans for weird things, but nobody thinks they'll ever actually use the plans for when the Girl Scouts of America will try to over throw the government in a bloody coup. It's just mental excercises.
A gun was built and tested. guns simply deliver more payload per sortie than missiles ever will. period. . His highness. And your tone is uncivilized. You clearly haven't done your homework even on this thread there is discussion Pg 174-5 let alone reflected on your vast DoD/aircraft industry experience.
My tone is disrespectful because to be frank, sillyness like this doesn't deserve respect. On page 174 you quote the Rand study as if it proves your point about a cannon armed fighter, but it really really doesn't. The two are entirely unrelated. And I'd like to see the high velocity aircraft cannon that can engage enemy planes from dozens of kilometers away (there isn't one), like a missile armed fighter can.

Furthermore I'd like to see some evidence apart from ONE study that anybody is seriously thinking about a cannon armed aircraft. Such a thing would be a paradigm shift, and people would be putting a lot of money into it if anyone seriously thought it would be worth to follow up on.

Go on. Provide sources. You'll forgive me if I won't hold my breath.

Offline jsport

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1182
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: The future of aircraft mounted guns
« Reply #13 on: December 30, 2018, 04:03:54 pm »
up there with combatreform.org
Pretty sure I have more confidence in the opinion of late Paul C who oversaw the built gun program than any opinion here.
https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=20180.0

Offline MihoshiK

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 96
Re: The future of aircraft mounted guns
« Reply #14 on: December 30, 2018, 04:08:59 pm »
up there with combatreform.org
Pretty sure I have more confidence in the opinion of late Paul C who oversaw the built gun program than any opinion here.
https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=20180.0
I have a lot of respect for the man. That's not to say that he was infallible. Just because he proposed something doesn't means that it was an immutable truth, and in fact, going from the complete and utter lack of follow-up on that concept, nobody else of note thought much of it.
« Last Edit: December 30, 2018, 04:14:27 pm by MihoshiK »

Offline jsport

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1182
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: The future of aircraft mounted guns
« Reply #15 on: December 30, 2018, 04:24:56 pm »
up there with combatreform.org
Pretty sure I have more confidence in the opinion of late Paul C who oversaw the built gun program than any opinion here.
https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=20180.0
I have a lot of respect for the man. That's not to say that he was infallible. Just because he proposed something doesn't means that it was an immutable truth, and in fact, going from the complete and utter lack of follow-up on that concept, nobody else of note thought much of it.
Failing to see any contribution here.

 It was built (not proposed) for what ever wrong reason not adopted though calculations The  logistic superiority is clear.  or are you again not even following the thread. Missile mafia killed it most likely  Needs a serious relook ..as especailly w/ material science evolution.

Offline MihoshiK

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 96
Re: The future of aircraft mounted guns
« Reply #16 on: December 30, 2018, 05:23:40 pm »
Failing to see any contribution here.

 It was built (not proposed) for what ever wrong reason not adopted though calculations The  logistic superiority is clear.  or are you again not even following the thread. Missile mafia killed it most likely  Needs a serious relook ..as especailly w/ material science evolution.
Here, something else which was build but which was never developed further. Just because someone build it doesn't mean that it was useful.

As for logistics, they're only part of a weapon system. Show me a cannon which can engage enemy fighters at dozens of miles distance, or hit a target with a guided two thousand pound payload. And I don't mean two thousand ponds worth of ammo, I mean two thousand pound payload at once.

Missiles and bombs have this big advantage where you can tailor your loadout to the threat you're engaging. With a cannon you're far much more limited. An F35 can fire an AIM-9 in a dogfight, an AMRAAM at a BVR threat, or drop a JDAM on a bunker.
Each of those weapons is better at what it does than a cannon round. By being a generalist in it's weaponry the F-35 can in fact be specialized for a mission task. 

You once heard that logistics win wars, and thus simplified logistics must be better at winning wars, right? Wrong. Oversimplification is not good. There has to be a balance, and it's telling that there isn't a single military in existence that has chosen the kind of oversimplification  that you are proposing.

Edit:
Dear God, we're seriously debating putting howitsers on fighters.
« Last Edit: December 30, 2018, 05:40:35 pm by MihoshiK »

Offline jsport

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1182
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: The future of aircraft mounted guns
« Reply #17 on: December 30, 2018, 06:39:56 pm »

A gun was built and tested. guns simply deliver more payload per sortie than missiles ever will. period.

Is this supposed to be a joke?

Have you read any of the PDF around p 175 or are we off the cuffing..

I didn't see any PDFs that demonstrated a gun is going to deliver 4000lbs of BOOM in one sortie.  Perhaps you could direct me to the relevant document?
From cannonfighter PDF
Logistically a equivalent shell is always lighter than a missile. A heavy weight Paul Cyzsz would not have pursued this nor money be spent to build it if it didnt have some prospective serious advantage. For the equivalent size of the craft the more payload  is always w/ a gun. The bigger the craft the more efficient large weights delivered at stand-off range

I had read the start of these comments and also assumed a joke or perhaps a significant translation/ cross-language terminology breakdown.

This is weird wacky stuff even in comparison with the more eccentric contributions you’d see on this site.
Given this is forum for mil tech mavens, it is weird wacky that folks some how think large gun on aircraft are strange.

The Cavalier almost beat the A-10 a CAS aircraft as it hit tank size targets on the ground.

The B-25 75mm was use extensively in combat.

Other projects were killed by the missile mafia.

Shells 1/5th the payload of missiles

BTW A gun would not replace bombs or even all missiles. Strictly for standoff KE effects. the idea that artillery warheads are monolithic is moronic, A shell is just that. You can put anything mission payload one desires.

Raytheon is proposing 155mm rd that dive and reverse into a opposite slope emplacement. Guided shells can in fact maneuver.

« Last Edit: December 30, 2018, 07:04:04 pm by jsport »

Offline kaiserd

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 522
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: The future of aircraft mounted guns
« Reply #18 on: December 31, 2018, 01:22:30 am »

A gun was built and tested. guns simply deliver more payload per sortie than missiles ever will. period.

Is this supposed to be a joke?

Have you read any of the PDF around p 175 or are we off the cuffing..

I didn't see any PDFs that demonstrated a gun is going to deliver 4000lbs of BOOM in one sortie.  Perhaps you could direct me to the relevant document?
From cannonfighter PDF
Logistically a equivalent shell is always lighter than a missile. A heavy weight Paul Cyzsz would not have pursued this nor money be spent to build it if it didnt have some prospective serious advantage. For the equivalent size of the craft the more payload  is always w/ a gun. The bigger the craft the more efficient large weights delivered at stand-off range

I had read the start of these comments and also assumed a joke or perhaps a significant translation/ cross-language terminology breakdown.

This is weird wacky stuff even in comparison with the more eccentric contributions you’d see on this site.
Given this is forum for mil tech mavens, it is weird wacky that folks some how think large gun on aircraft are strange.

The Cavalier almost beat the A-10 a CAS aircraft as it hit tank size targets on the ground.

The B-25 75mm was use extensively in combat.

Other projects were killed by the missile mafia.

Shells 1/5th the payload of missiles

BTW A gun would not replace bombs or even all missiles. Strictly for standoff KE effects. the idea that artillery warheads are monolithic is moronic, A shell is just that. You can put anything mission payload one desires.

Raytheon is proposing 155mm rd that dive and reverse into a opposite slope emplacement. Guided shells can in fact maneuver.

You appear to be miss-representing or just failing to understand the critiques of your proposal/ argument.
And the examples you quote above appear to be inaccurate and largely unrelated and irrelevant to the argument you are trying to use them as support for.

Offline AeroFranz

  • Aerospace Engineer
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2115
Re: The future of aircraft mounted guns
« Reply #19 on: December 31, 2018, 01:31:10 am »
Jsport, you know what? you're right and you should write to aerospace primes so they can get on this right away. The people they employ do this for a living, but they must not be aware of the opportunity. It's the only explanation.


All modern aircraft have four dimensions: span, length, height and politics.   TSR.2 got the first three right - Sir Sydney Camm

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8658
Re: The future of aircraft mounted guns
« Reply #20 on: December 31, 2018, 02:07:39 am »
A student comes to the veterinary academy for a biology exam, but he knows nothing, except fleas.
Gets an exam question about a cow. He comes out and begins: “A cow is an animal, on four legs, covered with wool. There are fleas in the wool ... - And then he tells everything about fleas.
The teacher stops him and says: - Good, good. Tell us now about the dog. The student begins again: - The dog is an animal on four legs, covered with wool, there are fleas in its fur. And then talks about fleas.
The examiner is fed up, and he says: - Ok, tell us about the fish. - Fish is an animal that lives in water. Fish do not have wool, but if there were, there would be fleas in it ..
« Last Edit: December 31, 2018, 02:13:15 am by flateric »
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline Arjen

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2205
  • It's turtles all the way down
Re: The future of aircraft mounted guns
« Reply #21 on: December 31, 2018, 04:25:10 am »
Computers, much like myself are seldom correct and always sure ;D

Offline DrRansom

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 512
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: The future of aircraft mounted guns
« Reply #22 on: December 31, 2018, 05:40:26 am »
Thanks for clearing that up - the howitzer armed fighter is the fever dream of a unacknowledged online visionary.


Offline jsport

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1182
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: The future of aircraft mounted guns
« Reply #23 on: December 31, 2018, 06:09:30 am »
Sensing allot of personal animus even from our erstwhile leadership on allegedly a strictly technical forum. Personal attack parables, really. Alot of piling on, shouild make those members feel proud of their gang's independent thought.  Such goodwill on the this New Year's Eve.  :)


Numbers matter. ah made somebody think.. consider that a win.
« Last Edit: December 31, 2018, 06:13:33 am by jsport »

Offline MihoshiK

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 96
Re: The future of aircraft mounted guns
« Reply #24 on: December 31, 2018, 06:41:52 am »
Sensing allot of personal animus even from our erstwhile leadership on allegedly a strictly technical forum. Personal attack parables, really. Alot of piling on, shouild make those members feel proud of their gang's independent thought.  Such goodwill on the this New Year's Eve.  :)


Numbers matter. ah made somebody think.. consider that a win.
Ah, I see. You're not being obtuse or plain daft, you're an "independant thinker". Thanks for clearing that up.

Offline jsport

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1182
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: The future of aircraft mounted guns
« Reply #25 on: December 31, 2018, 07:06:07 am »
Sensing allot of personal animus even from our erstwhile leadership on allegedly a strictly technical forum. Personal attack parables, really. Alot of piling on, shouild make those members feel proud of their gang's independent thought.  Such goodwill on the this New Year's Eve.  :)


Numbers matter. ah made somebody think.. consider that a win.
Ah, I see. You're not being obtuse or plain daft, you're an "independant thinker". Thanks for clearing that up.
Said nothing about being a an independent thinker. Said the gang should be proud they are.  :)

There appears to be no contribution of late to the forums goals. So thinkin conversation should stop.

Offline Dragon029

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 623
Re: The future of aircraft mounted guns
« Reply #26 on: December 31, 2018, 07:13:45 am »
Ultimately:

What is the purpose of having shells-type weaponry?

Is it to engage ground targets? If so, why are we talking about this in relation to a 6th gen fighter program that's designed to go against high-end threats where weapons with a max range of a few tens of kilometres won't be sufficient against high-end IADS, etc? Even for strategic strike, etc missions, how is a gun / shell superior to a bomb where the payload / warhead makes up an even larger portion of the munition?

Is it to engage air targets? If so, is it wise to have an expensive 6th gen fighter get within guns range - what kind of range are we predicting from these sorts of guns / shells? Can a shell realistically match the agility of an AIM-9X? If we're talking about something like a guided sabot round with a decent sustainer motor, then how is that different or superior to something like a notional miniature self defense missile? Is it wise to make major airframe structural design investments in a system that might be outclassed by a combination of missiles and directed energy weapons?

Offline Sundog

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2535
Re: The future of aircraft mounted guns
« Reply #27 on: December 31, 2018, 07:28:49 am »
Partly you have to understand the thinking behind that graphic. What date is the document that is from? As it looks like it's from the late '70s, given that the aircraft design is one of the old MAC VLF designs from that time period. They were looking at using VLF for CAS since it had nose pointing abilities separate from the velocity vector.

As such, I doubt it would make sense for a sixth gen fighter. In fact, I think those Northrop short range air defense missiles would make more sense than a gun, as I'm sure they could be used offensively as well.

Offline MihoshiK

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 96
Re: The future of aircraft mounted guns
« Reply #28 on: December 31, 2018, 07:29:56 am »
There appears to be no contribution of late to the forums goals. So thinkin conversation should stop.
Well you got one thing right in the last two pages.

Offline jsport

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1182
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: The future of aircraft mounted guns
« Reply #29 on: December 31, 2018, 08:01:25 am »
Ultimately:

What is the purpose of having shells-type weaponry?

Is it to engage ground targets? If so, why are we talking about this in relation to a 6th gen fighter program that's designed to go against high-end threats where weapons with a max range of a few tens of kilometres won't be sufficient against high-end IADS, etc? Even for strategic strike, etc missions, how is a gun / shell superior to a bomb where the payload / warhead makes up an even larger portion of the munition?

Is it to engage air targets? If so, is it wise to have an expensive 6th gen fighter get within guns range - what kind of range are we predicting from these sorts of guns / shells? Can a shell realistically match the agility of an AIM-9X? If we're talking about something like a guided sabot round with a decent sustainer motor, then how is that different or superior to something like a notional miniature self defense missile? Is it wise to make major airframe structural design investments in a system that might be outclassed by a combination of missiles and directed energy weapons?

DEW is necessary for close rg. as stated the does not replace all missiles. Loiter and agile short range for instance are still missile.

if gun velocity is sufficient the rd preempts target maneuver though and can be guided to the extreme as Raytheon is after +turn back to opposite slope artillery --against NK Arty.

any conventional gun would be useless.  advanced propellant and EM component for standoff against IADS (meed many lg rg standoff shots) ie rocket assisted, very high velocity, guided rds even against movers.

 These near recoiless guns but able to destroy many hardened structures per sortie. The pacific problem.

Current missile/truck/arsenal planes would be necessary for the pacific problem yet they would be either too expensive or insufficent munitions ie F-22 or F-35 missile trucks configs, to overcome the IADS and destroy the structures in numbers, over time.. Need precision standoff bombardment.
« Last Edit: December 31, 2018, 08:21:47 am by jsport »

Offline LowObservable

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2146
Re: The future of aircraft mounted guns
« Reply #30 on: December 31, 2018, 09:07:23 am »
Seriously, has everyone been overdoing the eggnog?

While Cannon Fighter depended on a somewhat back-of-the-envelope vehicle and weapon concept and fairly basic ops analysis, it was a serious effort by one of the industry's most innovative thinkers and skilled engineers (Barnes Wallis meets Burt Rutan?) to deal with the Fulda Gap problem (we ran out of anti-armor fires before they ran out of tanks) in the early evolution of the Air Land Battle concept.

The requirement was to put a whole lot of high-Pk fires into the target area without getting killed (the latter being the drawback of the 30-mm.).

It used technology that was futuristic, but real (such as IFFC and guided rounds, and remote-set fused frag rounds). I suspect AWACS is a surrogate for the early Pave Mover concept, which was sensitive at the time.

Now that guided rounds are a reality and migrating into smaller calibers, the gun could make a serious comeback.

Offline djfawcett

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 37
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: The future of aircraft mounted guns
« Reply #31 on: December 31, 2018, 11:28:22 am »
Thank you lowobservable for putting an end to the nonsensical narrow mindness.  A serious study did exist behind the 5 walls.  Unfortunately, the required technology was slightly ahead of its time.

Offline kaiserd

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 522
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: The future of aircraft mounted guns
« Reply #32 on: December 31, 2018, 12:29:36 pm »
And further to discussions above and back to topic is there any likelihood that such a next-generation gun and “bullets” would be a good match for a high-end 6 generation fighters role and mode of operation?

Or that such a gun and it projectiles will be able to out range the equivalent (or, shock, missile-based) air defense systems that it would have to or else be an expensive waste of time, money, space & payload.

There may be potential for such weapons at the lower spectrum (say a semi-disposable CAS-dedicated drone).

But all the same technology that’s makes it theoretically possible is also at play for small cheap more-capable missiles.

Offline jsport

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1182
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: The future of aircraft mounted guns
« Reply #33 on: December 31, 2018, 01:34:34 pm »
And further to discussions above and back to topic is there any likelihood that such a next-generation gun and “bullets” would be a good match for a high-end 6 generation fighters role and mode of operation?

Or that such a gun and it projectiles will be able to out range the equivalent (or, shock, missile-based) air defense systems that it would have to or else be an expensive waste of time, money, space & payload.

There may be potential for such weapons at the lower spectrum (say a semi-disposable CAS-dedicated drone).

But all the same technology that’s makes it theoretically possible is also at play for small cheap more-capable missiles.
There is no such thing as cheap more capable missile. If that were the case there would be no artillery in the world. Even a guided rd is cheaper.

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2164
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: The future of aircraft mounted guns
« Reply #34 on: December 31, 2018, 02:06:19 pm »
If cruise missile defense is part of the mission brief, guided medium caliber cannon rounds make
a great deal of sense. 

Chucking MRM-CE rounds at ground targets does sound like something better suited to drones since
in the cannon fighter the pilot is essentially a passenger during strafing runs anyway.

Online SpudmanWP

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 970
Re: The future of aircraft mounted guns
« Reply #35 on: December 31, 2018, 02:13:36 pm »
Air-dropped guided mortar rounds... No need for a heavy gun or propellant.
WE4-45-1-08     OMHIWDMB
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

Offline jsport

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1182
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: The future of aircraft mounted guns
« Reply #36 on: December 31, 2018, 02:19:45 pm »
Air-dropped guided mortar rounds... No need for a heavy gun or propellant.

As stated if you are not standoff in pacific problem (deep IADS, hardened aircraft structures) ur dead not sead.

Online SpudmanWP

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 970
Re: The future of aircraft mounted guns
« Reply #37 on: December 31, 2018, 02:23:03 pm »
Sorry, I was thinking of dropping them from a VLO CM or drone.
WE4-45-1-08     OMHIWDMB
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

Offline jsport

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1182
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: The future of aircraft mounted guns
« Reply #38 on: December 31, 2018, 02:33:34 pm »
Sorry, I was thinking of dropping them from a VLO CM or drone.
VLO drones will be needed for recon but can't finish against Hardened struct. Needs high KE.

Online SpudmanWP

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 970
Re: The future of aircraft mounted guns
« Reply #39 on: December 31, 2018, 02:47:21 pm »
I was thinking more of DEAD/SEAD targets.

Once they are taken care of, bigger assets can bring in the big suff.
WE4-45-1-08     OMHIWDMB
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

Offline jsport

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1182
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: The future of aircraft mounted guns
« Reply #40 on: December 31, 2018, 03:16:39 pm »
I was thinking more of DEAD/SEAD targets.

Once they are taken care of, bigger assets can bring in the big suff.
Hardened structures defeat when you really never defeat the IADS (likely the case) requires close big bombs or KE gun. Close big bombs means big craft shot down.
« Last Edit: December 31, 2018, 03:30:14 pm by jsport »

Online SpudmanWP

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 970
Re: The future of aircraft mounted guns
« Reply #41 on: December 31, 2018, 03:32:01 pm »
Name a radar dish that can withstand a hit from a 120mm mortar?

No radar means no missiles

No missiles means that the bomber can easily get within 40nmi to pound the snot out of any hardened target it wants to.
WE4-45-1-08     OMHIWDMB
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

Offline jsport

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1182
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: The future of aircraft mounted guns
« Reply #42 on: December 31, 2018, 03:37:41 pm »
Name a radar dish that can withstand a hit from a 120mm mortar?

No radar means no missiles

No missiles means that the bomber can easily get within 40nmi to pound the snot out of any hardened target it wants to.

A huge landmass even w/ numbers of VLO UAS assures you never complete SEAD. A 120mm mortar equipped UAS will never get close enough to destroy anything protected by AAA belts (SAMs and radars) as they will be detected w/ advanced techniques and shot down w/ AAA and counter precision munitions technology (Chinese -(PLA has AHEAD guided gun rd tech) and Russian anti-precision munition tech). Even powered JSOWs will also be easily destroyed w/ anti-precision munition tech and precisely guided guns and rds.

Likewise, VLO UAS can not execute attrition of interceptor aircraft hardened structures as they are also surrounded by SAMs w/ AAA belts.

Need real KE @ standoff or watch an expensive fireworks show w/ no result.
« Last Edit: December 31, 2018, 05:17:44 pm by jsport »

Offline kaiserd

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 522
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: The future of aircraft mounted guns
« Reply #43 on: December 31, 2018, 05:02:30 pm »
So the argument appears to be that stand-off long range reach is critical against advance air defenses and that somehow (?) a gun is the best way of doing this.

I really don't get the 2nd part of that at all (how remotely realistically could a gun carried in a fighter sized aircraft out-range or even be competitive with bigger guns of the same type and advanced SAMs on the ground and medium & long range AAMs carried by defending fighters?).

As discussed the continuing development of advanced air to ground (and air to air) missiles (tailored or tailor-able to specific target sets & threat levels) would appear to continue to be the best way to go, while the discussed gun developments being potentially more useful for very specific jobs like CAS which are unlikely to be primary roles of expensive top of the range 6th generation fighters which would likely delegate these tasks to cheaper more disposable unmanned UCAVs which everyone would be more willing to risk and lose (and which it would be easier and more realistic to have numbers/ redundancy for).

And wouldn't gun rounds fired at long range with likely highly predictable ballistic trajectories be at least as vulnerable to air defenses as missiles (which can likely be stealthier and fly more complicated approach paths and be more capable of effective evasive measures)?   

Offline jsport

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1182
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: The future of aircraft mounted guns
« Reply #44 on: December 31, 2018, 05:32:17 pm »
So the argument appears to be that stand-off long range reach is critical against advance air defenses and that somehow (?) a gun is the best way of doing this.

I really don't get the 2nd part of that at all (how remotely realistically could a gun carried in a fighter sized aircraft out-range or even be competitive with bigger guns of the same type and advanced SAMs on the ground and medium & long range AAMs carried by defending fighters?).

As discussed the continuing development of advanced air to ground (and air to air) missiles (tailored or tailor-able to specific target sets & threat levels) would appear to continue to be the best way to go, while the discussed gun developments being potentially more useful for very specific jobs like CAS which are unlikely to be primary roles of expensive top of the range 6th generation fighters which would likely delegate these tasks to cheaper more disposable unmanned UCAVs which everyone would be more willing to risk and lose (and which it would be easier and more realistic to have numbers/ redundancy for).

And wouldn't gun rounds fired at long range with likely highly predictable ballistic trajectories be at least as vulnerable to air defenses as missiles (which can likely be stealthier and fly more complicated approach paths and be more capable of effective evasive measures)?
Please see above posting mods.. FA-XX is not small aircraft a possible FB-XX is even bigger.

AAMs are not catered to threats--they evolve as the tech/contractor develops.(costly and really not advanced as claimed) Raytheon Quickill APS is advanced and its a 40mm interceptor. Helicopters may soon have anti-missile mini missiles so when will fighters. One needs to blow by any defense.

but to address the the ballistics. These are high velocity (difficult for missile to react to by the time the radar has it its over)  but as stated Raytheon is developing a rd that can reverse into a oppose slope. Maneuver yes but artillery simple smashes thru a missiles attempted intercept completes trajectory to target. A bunch nails are stopping it.

What will be stopped is US missiles by Counter precision munitions various guided guns, guided rds etc etc. 

Offline kaiserd

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 522
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: The future of aircraft mounted guns
« Reply #45 on: December 31, 2018, 05:46:40 pm »
So the argument appears to be that stand-off long range reach is critical against advance air defenses and that somehow (?) a gun is the best way of doing this.

I really don't get the 2nd part of that at all (how remotely realistically could a gun carried in a fighter sized aircraft out-range or even be competitive with bigger guns of the same type and advanced SAMs on the ground and medium & long range AAMs carried by defending fighters?).

As discussed the continuing development of advanced air to ground (and air to air) missiles (tailored or tailor-able to specific target sets & threat levels) would appear to continue to be the best way to go, while the discussed gun developments being potentially more useful for very specific jobs like CAS which are unlikely to be primary roles of expensive top of the range 6th generation fighters which would likely delegate these tasks to cheaper more disposable unmanned UCAVs which everyone would be more willing to risk and lose (and which it would be easier and more realistic to have numbers/ redundancy for).

And wouldn't gun rounds fired at long range with likely highly predictable ballistic trajectories be at least as vulnerable to air defenses as missiles (which can likely be stealthier and fly more complicated approach paths and be more capable of effective evasive measures)?
Please see above posting mods.. FA-XX is not small aircraft a possible FB-XX is even bigger.

AAMs are not catered to threats--they evolve as the tech/contractor develops.(costly and really not advanced as claimed) Raytheon Quickill APS is advanced and its a 40mm interceptor. Helicopters may soon have anti-missile mini missiles so when will fighters. One needs to blow by any defense.

but to address the the ballistics. These are high velocity (difficult for missile to react to by the time the radar has it its over)  but as stated Raytheon is developing a rd that can reverse into a oppose slope. Maneuver yes but artillery simple smashes thru a missiles attempted intercept completes trajectory to target. A bunch nails are stopping it.

What will be stopped is US missiles by Counter precision munitions various guided guns, guided rds etc etc.

Sorry Jsport I’m not understanding your comments or how they materially address any of the points I (and other contributors) have raised.
If other contributors can provide more clarity it would be greatly appreciated.

Perhaps a separate topic on the future of aircraft mounted guns would help prevent the core topic (US 6th Gen fighters) being sidelined?

Offline jsport

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1182
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: The future of aircraft mounted guns
« Reply #46 on: December 31, 2018, 06:08:47 pm »
Non hypersonic Missiles and slow precision munitions are ever more subject to counter-precision munitions technology (you will have to do your own homework.) an advanced EMTC gun ordance would simply be too fast for any of these technologies to defeat and it would have the added bonus of destroying hardened structures (fighters shelters/SAMs/radar sites shelters) ie the Pacific problem-the real goal and it would have 1/5th the logistics ie more shots per sortie than missiles ever could.

Offline kaiserd

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 522
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: The future of aircraft mounted guns
« Reply #47 on: December 31, 2018, 07:05:57 pm »
Non hypersonic Missiles and slow precision munitions are ever more subject to counter-precision munitions technology (you will have to do your own homework.) an advanced EMTC gun ordance would simply be too fast for any of these technologies to defeat and it would have the added bonus of destroying hardened structures (fighters shelters/SAMs/radar sites shelters) ie the Pacific problem-the real goal and it would have 1/5th the logistics ie more shots per sortie than missiles ever could.

Are you referring to an aircraft mounted rail gun?
In a fighter sized aircraft? If you are is that even remotely realistic given size and power requirements?
And even if so is combining that with guided precision projectile also remotely realistic?
And if we’re not talking about a rail gun but a developed “conventional” gun then how do you combine a substantial precision projectile with the necessary velocity and range you are advocating within the size and weight constraints associated with a fighter sized aircraft?
And that’s before thinking about the associated new tailored targeting systems to allow accurate shooting of this weapon (be it a rail gun or developed “conventional” gun) and the combined weight and size of the gun and of the number of projectiles a fighter sized aircraft could realistically carry.

So all in all please clarify and explain because at the moment you appear to have identified a genuine problem (the growing lethality of advance air defense systems) but not a realistic solution.
« Last Edit: December 31, 2018, 07:08:22 pm by kaiserd »

Offline kaiserd

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 522
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: The future of aircraft mounted guns
« Reply #48 on: December 31, 2018, 07:20:54 pm »
Non hypersonic Missiles and slow precision munitions are ever more subject to counter-precision munitions technology (you will have to do your own homework.) an advanced EMTC gun ordance would simply be too fast for any of these technologies to defeat and it would have the added bonus of destroying hardened structures (fighters shelters/SAMs/radar sites shelters) ie the Pacific problem-the real goal and it would have 1/5th the logistics ie more shots per sortie than missiles ever could.

Are you referring to an aircraft mounted rail gun?
In a fighter sized aircraft? If you are is that even remotely realistic given size and power requirements?
And even if so is combining that with guided precision projectile also remotely realistic?
And if we’re not talking about a rail gun but a developed “conventional” gun then how do you combine a substantial precision projectile with the necessary velocity and range you are advocating within the size and weight constraints associated with a fighter sized aircraft?
And that’s before thinking about the associated new tailored targeting systems to allow accurate shooting of this weapon (be it a rail gun or developed “conventional” gun) and the combined weight and size of the gun and of the number of projectiles a fighter sized aircraft could realistically carry.

So all in all please clarify and explain because at the moment you appear to have identified a genuine problem (the growing lethality of advance air defense systems) but not a realistic solution.

As an addendum I would also flag the A-10s avenger cannons reported effective max. range (approx. 4,000 feet or 3/4’s of a mile) and absolute max range (approx 12,000 feet, 2 & 1/4 miles) as a benchmark for the order of magnitude change that would need to be seen in the size and range that a round could be thrown with precision in order for your proposed solution to be even very remotely realistic.

Offline jsport

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1182
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: The future of aircraft mounted guns
« Reply #49 on: December 31, 2018, 07:36:32 pm »
Non hypersonic Missiles and slow precision munitions are ever more subject to counter-precision munitions technology (you will have to do your own homework.) an advanced EMTC gun ordance would simply be too fast for any of these technologies to defeat and it would have the added bonus of destroying hardened structures (fighters shelters/SAMs/radar sites shelters) ie the Pacific problem-the real goal and it would have 1/5th the logistics ie more shots per sortie than missiles ever could.

Are you referring to an aircraft mounted rail gun?
In a fighter sized aircraft? If you are is that even remotely realistic given size and power requirements?
And even if so is combining that with guided precision projectile also remotely realistic?
And if we’re not talking about a rail gun but a developed “conventional” gun then how do you combine a substantial precision projectile with the necessary velocity and range you are advocating within the size and weight constraints associated with a fighter sized aircraft?
And that’s before thinking about the associated new tailored targeting systems to allow accurate shooting of this weapon (be it a rail gun or developed “conventional” gun) and the combined weight and size of the gun and of the number of projectiles a fighter sized aircraft could realistically carry.

So all in all please clarify and explain because at the moment you appear to have identified a genuine problem (the growing lethality of advance air defense systems) but not a realistic solution.

As an addendum I would also flag the A-10s avenger cannons reported effective max. range (approx. 4,000 feet or 3/4’s of a mile) and absolute max range (approx 12,000 feet, 2 & 1/4 miles) as a benchmark for the order of magnitude change that would need to be seen in the size and range that a round could be thrown with precision in order for your proposed solution to be even very remotely realistic.
An EMTC not railgun  w/ next generation energetics which are the size of conventional tank guns. The Future Combat System program perfected the gun. Little research is even needed. The Army is talking about the 1000mile non EMRG. This smaller gun would have rocket assisted high energtic rds w/ ~50 or more miles from altitude.

 You simply will not defeat defended targets (the Pacific problem) in the future w/ any alternative. As far as knowing what is realistic. would have know your creds otherwise.. just .... Thinkin again this is going nowhere.
« Last Edit: December 31, 2018, 07:47:01 pm by jsport »

Offline kaiserd

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 522
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: The future of aircraft mounted guns
« Reply #50 on: January 01, 2019, 02:22:35 am »
Non hypersonic Missiles and slow precision munitions are ever more subject to counter-precision munitions technology (you will have to do your own homework.) an advanced EMTC gun ordance would simply be too fast for any of these technologies to defeat and it would have the added bonus of destroying hardened structures (fighters shelters/SAMs/radar sites shelters) ie the Pacific problem-the real goal and it would have 1/5th the logistics ie more shots per sortie than missiles ever could.

Are you referring to an aircraft mounted rail gun?
In a fighter sized aircraft? If you are is that even remotely realistic given size and power requirements?
And even if so is combining that with guided precision projectile also remotely realistic?
And if we’re not talking about a rail gun but a developed “conventional” gun then how do you combine a substantial precision projectile with the necessary velocity and range you are advocating within the size and weight constraints associated with a fighter sized aircraft?
And that’s before thinking about the associated new tailored targeting systems to allow accurate shooting of this weapon (be it a rail gun or developed “conventional” gun) and the combined weight and size of the gun and of the number of projectiles a fighter sized aircraft could realistically carry.

So all in all please clarify and explain because at the moment you appear to have identified a genuine problem (the growing lethality of advance air defense systems) but not a realistic solution.

As an addendum I would also flag the A-10s avenger cannons reported effective max. range (approx. 4,000 feet or 3/4’s of a mile) and absolute max range (approx 12,000 feet, 2 & 1/4 miles) as a benchmark for the order of magnitude change that would need to be seen in the size and range that a round could be thrown with precision in order for your proposed solution to be even very remotely realistic.
An EMTC not railgun  w/ next generation energetics which are the size of conventional tank guns. The Future Combat System program perfected the gun. Little research is even needed. The Army is talking about the 1000mile non EMRG. This smaller gun would have rocket assisted high energtic rds w/ ~50 or more miles from altitude.

 You simply will not defeat defended targets (the Pacific problem) in the future w/ any alternative. As far as knowing what is realistic. would have know your creds otherwise.. just .... Thinkin again this is going nowhere.

I’ve googled much of what you’ve mentioned.
You appear to be referring to potential future developments of US Army 150mm howitizers that (1) are not at all all capable of the ranges you are ascribing to them and (2) will never realistically fit in a fighte-sized aircraft.
While the US Army appear to have an aspiration for a 1,000 mile range strategic gun I haven’t found any indication of its likely size and weight (presumably would have to be bigger and heavier than current 150mm howitizers so at least equally unrealistic to be expect it to fit in a fighter sized aircraft and there appears to be no aspiration for it to do so.)
So while related gun developments appear to offer the scope for increased range and accuracy versus current aircraft gun systems for very specific tasks (like CAS) the does not appear to be the described “magic bullet” (or magic gun) coming any time remotely soon.

Offline MihoshiK

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 96
Re: The future of aircraft mounted guns
« Reply #51 on: January 01, 2019, 03:29:02 am »
Not to mention there will allways be a huge difference in range between a conventional cannon and a recoilless rifle of the same caliber. Unless one makes the round for the rifle unfeasibly large, but at that moment you might as well take a slower burning drive charge, put drive charge in the projectile and... call it a missile. You'll even have the good fortune of no longer needing a barrel, so that's parasitic weight lost.

I still utterly fail to see what a discussion based on a decades old study, two photoshopped pictures and a posters fever dreams is doing in a topic concerning an actual program. We have ZERO indications that a large caliber cannon is going to be adopted for the USAs coming 6th generation fighter, and thus this whole discussion shouldn't be part of this topic.
This belongs in Theoretical and speculative projects.

Offline Foo Fighter

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 649
  • I came, I saw, I drank some tea (and had a bun).
Re: The future of aircraft mounted guns
« Reply #52 on: January 01, 2019, 03:33:27 am »
Agreed, the practical application would appear not to exist.  Perhaps the thought of one is what drives this thread but, wherever it is, it is a pointless discussion.

Offline kaiserd

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 522
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: The future of aircraft mounted guns
« Reply #53 on: January 01, 2019, 04:57:50 am »
Not to mention there will allways be a huge difference in range between a conventional cannon and a recoilless rifle of the same caliber. Unless one makes the round for the rifle unfeasibly large, but at that moment you might as well take a slower burning drive charge, put drive charge in the projectile and... call it a missile. You'll even have the good fortune of no longer needing a barrel, so that's parasitic weight lost.

I still utterly fail to see what a discussion based on a decades old study, two photoshopped pictures and a posters fever dreams is doing in a topic concerning an actual program. We have ZERO indications that a large caliber cannon is going to be adopted for the USAs coming 6th generation fighter, and thus this whole discussion shouldn't be part of this topic.
This belongs in Theoretical and speculative projects.

I agree with both MihoshiK & Foo Fighter, no need to take this topic discussion any further down this particular tangential rabbit-hole.

Offline jsport

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1182
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: The future of aircraft mounted guns
« Reply #54 on: January 01, 2019, 07:47:18 am »
There is no informed opinon here whatsoever. A bunch of google bunnies. No historic knowledge of the history of companies like UTron or ETC.

Offline MihoshiK

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 96
Re: The future of aircraft mounted guns
« Reply #55 on: January 01, 2019, 12:07:59 pm »
There is no informed opinon here whatsoever. A bunch of google bunnies. No historic knowledge of the history of companies like UTron or ETC.
Have you looked in a mirror lately mate?

Offline lastdingo

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 552
  • Blogger http://defense-and-freedom.blogspot.de/
    • Defence and Freedom blog
Re: The future of aircraft mounted guns
« Reply #56 on: January 01, 2019, 02:00:47 pm »
This has to be mentioned in context of OP:


Offline jsport

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1182
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: The future of aircraft mounted guns
« Reply #57 on: January 01, 2019, 02:42:52 pm »
There is no informed opinon here whatsoever. A bunch of google bunnies. No historic knowledge of the history of companies like UTron or ETC.
Have you looked in a mirror lately mate?

30yrs experience, was in the intell community for 10yrs, had a desk in the Pentagon.
fathered a JCTD.
LO (authority mentioned in the title page of this forum) ended this argument some time ago for those paying attention.
Some disgruntled, uninformed, blogger w/ a grudge ..very pedestrian.
no prob w/ mirror mate.

Offline kaiserd

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 522
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: The future of aircraft mounted guns
« Reply #58 on: January 01, 2019, 02:48:57 pm »
There is no informed opinon here whatsoever. A bunch of google bunnies. No historic knowledge of the history of companies like UTron or ETC.
Have you looked in a mirror lately mate?

Hi jsport, in the context of your latest comments I would suggest you think about the intent/purpose of your earlier contributions.
If other contributors have to have pre-existing historic knowledge of companies like UTron or ETC to understand and be convinced by your case then you have no audience and your comments were only for yourself and getting frustrated with us is utterly futile and predictable.
If you were trying to inform and “educate” other contributors/ readers then your incoherence (I had to repeatedly ask for clarification) and clear hostility got in the way and you ultimately frustrated yourself.
We all at times explain something poorly or use wording we would in retrospect regret and would re-think if we could; you are not alone in this and I hope no offense is taken.

Back to topic it is possible you have extremely specialist knowledge and you are right and the rest of us are wrong on the basis of our lack of this specialist knowledge. I would not pretend to be an expert - I’d be at most (very charitably) considered a knowledgeable enthusiast.
However you have failed to provide a coherent convincing case for this and to the rest of us it sounds like you are bending the facts to suit your case rather than the other way around.
« Last Edit: January 01, 2019, 02:55:11 pm by kaiserd »

Offline jsport

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1182
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: The future of aircraft mounted guns
« Reply #59 on: January 01, 2019, 02:50:33 pm »
Politics are the only thing that matters and the missile mob rules now. Technology or even threats, apparently does not.

As stated LO, ended this sometime ago.. not wasting more effort or time on uninformed bloggers w/ a grudge. Nice try

« Last Edit: January 01, 2019, 02:55:26 pm by jsport »

Offline Kadija_Man

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1856
Re: The future of aircraft mounted guns
« Reply #60 on: January 01, 2019, 02:53:05 pm »
First aircraft is, I believe, a Ju288, not a Do217.
The second aircraft is, I believe a Do17, not a Do217, used in a mockup.

What I find interesting about this discussion is that the issue of range and velocity have largely been ignored.  A missile has considerably greater quantities of both, whereas the a gun has less.   A gun is a good close range, relatively low velocity (unless some exotic means of increasing velocity is used, such as a sabot, liquid propellant, etc.).  However, unless the gun's rounds are guided, with some means of post firing impulse to allow increased turns, it will be possible at longer range to out maneuver the rounds.   If it has a guidance system and post-launch impulse systems all you are doing is arguing about the means of launching what is essentially a guided missile.   It then comes down to which is easier to design into an aircraft?  A missile or a gun?  I think you'll find the gun loses out because in order to absorb the recoil a heavy structure is required (unless we are discussing a recoil-less weapon?) and if we are talking about guided gun shells, the supposed savings must be questionable...

Some time ago, there was talk of laser guided mini-missiles eventually replacing the gun in fighter aircraft.  What ever happened to those?

Offline Airplane

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 432
Re: The future of aircraft mounted guns
« Reply #61 on: January 01, 2019, 05:27:18 pm »
This would have been neat on a plane, but guns on planes for aerial combat are so 20 years ago.
"The test of success is not what you do when your on top. Success is how high you bounce when you hit bottom.”
– General George S. Patton

Offline kcran567

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 660
Re: The future of aircraft mounted guns
« Reply #62 on: January 01, 2019, 08:27:44 pm »


Are you referring to an aircraft mounted rail gun?
In a fighter sized aircraft? If you are is that even remotely realistic given size and power requirements?
And even if so is combining that with
guided precision projectile also remotely realistic?
And if we’re not talking about a rail gun but a developed “conventional” gun then how do you combine a substantial precision projectile with the necessary velocity and range you are advocating within the size and weight constraints associated with a fighter sized aircraft?
And that’s before thinking about the associated new tailored targeting systems to allow accurate shooting of this weapon (be it a rail gun or developed “conventional” gun) and the combined weight and size of the gun and of the number of projectiles a fighter sized aircraft could realistically carry.

So all in all please clarify and explain because at the moment you appear to have identified a genuine problem (the growing lethality of advance air defense systems) but not a realistic solution.

As an addendum I would also flag the A-10s avenger cannons reported effective max. range (approx. 4,000 feet or 3/4’s of a mile) and absolute max range (approx 12,000 feet, 2 & 1/4 miles) as a benchmark for the order of magnitude change that would need to be seen in the size and range that a round could be thrown with precision in order for your proposed solution to be even very remotely realistic.
[/quote]
An EMTC not railgun  w/ next generation energetics which are the size of conventional tank guns. The Future Combat System program perfected the gun. Little research is even needed. The Army is talking about the 1000mile non EMRG. This smaller gun would have rocket assisted high energtic rds w/ ~50 or more miles from altitude.

 You simply will not defeat defended targets (the Pacific problem) in the future w/ any alternative. As far as knowing what is realistic. would have know your creds otherwise.. just .... Thinkin again this is going nowhere.
[/quote]

I’ve googled much of what you’ve mentioned.
You appear to be referring to potential future developments of US Army 150mm howitizers that (1) are not at all all capable of the ranges you are ascribing to them and (2) will never realistically fit in a fighte-sized aircraft.
While the US Army appear to have an aspiration for a 1,000 mile range strategic gun I haven’t found any indication of its likely size and weight (presumably would have to be bigger and heavier than current 150mm howitizers so at least equally unrealistic to be expect it to fit in a fighter sized aircraft and there appears to be no aspiration for it to do so.)
So while related gun developments appear to offer the scope for increased range and accuracy versus current aircraft gun systems for very specific tasks (like CAS) the does not appear to be the described “magic bullet” (or magic gun) coming any time remotely soon.
[/quote]

You mean like this?
« Last Edit: January 01, 2019, 08:35:48 pm by kcran567 »

Offline MihoshiK

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 96
Re: The future of aircraft mounted guns
« Reply #63 on: January 02, 2019, 02:22:22 am »
There is no informed opinon here whatsoever. A bunch of google bunnies. No historic knowledge of the history of companies like UTron or ETC.
Have you looked in a mirror lately mate?

30yrs experience, was in the intell community for 10yrs, had a desk in the Pentagon.
fathered a JCTD.
LO (authority mentioned in the title page of this forum) ended this argument some time ago for those paying attention.
Some disgruntled, uninformed, blogger w/ a grudge ..very pedestrian.
no prob w/ mirror mate.
And I'm a blue-eyed blonde male supermodel with godlike trombone playing skills who also has a degree in particle physics*. Unless you pony up those credentials  or several people vouch for you it's just your word.

But lets assume you're for real. For someone with 30 years of experience, ten of which in Intel, with a desk in the pentagon, you sure sound like an obsessed person who has found the latest ghee-whiz gimmick which will REVOLUTIONIZE WARFARE!, if only people could see your brilliance. There's a reason people mentioned the combat reform website. It's because you sound just like Mike Sparks.

I mean, do you seriously believe that you happened upon something new here? Something utterly forgotten by the military-industrial complex at large for over thirty years?

People have been telling you why this won't work. High parasitic mass and volume, low range compared to missiles, less flexible than being able to pick and choose ordnance for a mission. If random Joes on the internet can point this out to you, do you honestly think industry professionals won't see the same problems? This is plain and simple physics. Back when that study was made, there might have been a point. But technology marches on, and missiles have had decades in both guidance and in propulsion tech to get better. Meanwhile guns are a very mature field. Barring some kind of supermaterials you're not going to get radically improved range performance out of conventional propellant driven guns.
Just look at the Navy's ERGM round. 127 mm, 60 mile range, guided, and with a rocket booster to get it up to that range. The thing never worked properly, and it isn't as if the Navy didn't pour money into it. And that was a round launched from a solid platform which could take the recoil (a recoilles rifle would need several times the propellant of a cannon to get anywhere near to the same performance!). Unfortunately the electronics and guidance section frequently couldn't take that recoil.
Meanwhile we have no problems making rockets and missiles with that kind of range. They're pretty reliable too.

And you're proposing to essentially mount ERGM as a recoilles rifle onto a plane. But why would we? We've already got missiles to do that job!



*Warning. Product might exhibit minor differences from description

« Last Edit: January 02, 2019, 04:00:22 am by MihoshiK »

Offline Jeb

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 246
Re: The future of aircraft mounted guns
« Reply #64 on: January 02, 2019, 06:05:13 am »
This would have been neat on a plane, but guns on planes for aerial combat are so 20 years ago.


I'm instantly reminded of the F-89D's wingtip rocket pods.

Offline Airplane

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 432
Re: The future of aircraft mounted guns
« Reply #65 on: January 02, 2019, 06:33:46 am »
This would have been neat on a plane, but guns on planes for aerial combat are so 20 years ago.


I'm instantly reminded of the F-89D's wingtip rocket pods.

Kind of.... but MetalStorm is unique and different.

How does 1,000,000 rounds per minute sound? That's right.... 1 Million dollars, muh ha ha ha ha... Errrr, I mean 1 million rounds per minute.

Just imagine this in 20, 23, or 30mm trim. Wow!


Here is the mortar version....

« Last Edit: January 02, 2019, 06:45:19 am by Airplane »
"The test of success is not what you do when your on top. Success is how high you bounce when you hit bottom.”
– General George S. Patton

Offline Jeb

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 246
Re: The future of aircraft mounted guns
« Reply #66 on: January 02, 2019, 10:45:41 am »
This would have been neat on a plane, but guns on planes for aerial combat are so 20 years ago.


I'm instantly reminded of the F-89D's wingtip rocket pods.

Kind of.... but MetalStorm is unique and different.


Yeah, I remember MetalStorm. Neat concept but as far as I can tell, it dead-ended. I think the two heavy guns on my War Robots video game brawler mech are supposed to be MS-type cannon, working like giant shotguns.

Offline cluttonfred

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1307
    • Eric Clutton's classic homebuilt FRED and more!
Re: The future of aircraft mounted guns
« Reply #67 on: January 02, 2019, 11:38:39 am »
The demise of the aircraft-mounted gun has been predicted, and even implemented, before.  It didn't work out.  See the history of the F-4 Phantom.  It's hard to imagine a day when guided ordnance gets so cheap that there is no place for a plain old cannon or machine gun.  Even if you want to use a drone for close support (more plausible every day) why would you give up the ability to take out one or two bad guys at low cost?
*******
Matthew Long, Editor
cluttonfred.info
A site for builders, owners and fans of Eric Clutton's FRED
and other safe, simple, affordable homebuilt aircraft

Offline MihoshiK

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 96
Re: The future of aircraft mounted guns
« Reply #68 on: January 02, 2019, 11:57:00 am »
The demise of the aircraft-mounted gun has been predicted, and even implemented, before.  It didn't work out.  See the history of the F-4 Phantom.  It's hard to imagine a day when guided ordnance gets so cheap that there is no place for a plain old cannon or machine gun.  Even if you want to use a drone for close support (more plausible every day) why would you give up the ability to take out one or two bad guys at low cost?
We're not talking about removing minor caliber cannons though, jsport wants to mount major caliber recoilles rifles in the 127 mm - 155 mm range into fighters as their principle weapon.

That's a whole different ball of wax.

Offline paralay

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • **
  • Posts: 139
    • "Стелс машины"
Re: The future of aircraft mounted guns
« Reply #69 on: January 02, 2019, 12:04:38 pm »
The development of small-caliber guns came to a guided projectile. 57 mm is already a reality. Three projectiles provide a chance of hitting more than 0.9. High rate of fire is no longer needed

Offline jsport

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1182
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: The future of aircraft mounted guns
« Reply #70 on: January 02, 2019, 12:19:55 pm »
There is no informed opinon here whatsoever. A bunch of google bunnies. No historic knowledge of the history of companies like UTron or ETC.
Have you looked in a mirror lately mate?


30yrs experience, was in the intell community for 10yrs, had a desk in the Pentagon.
fathered a JCTD.
LO (authority mentioned in the title page of this forum) ended this argument some time ago for those paying attention.
Some disgruntled, uninformed, blogger w/ a grudge ..very pedestrian.
no prob w/ mirror mate.
And I'm a blue-eyed blonde male supermodel with godlike trombone playing skills who also has a degree in particle physics*. Unless you pony up those credentials  or several people vouch for you it's just your word.

But lets assume you're for real. For someone with 30 years of experience, ten of which in Intel, with a desk in the pentagon, you sure sound like an obsessed person who has found the latest ghee-whiz gimmick which will REVOLUTIONIZE WARFARE!, if only people could see your brilliance. There's a reason people mentioned the combat reform website. It's because you sound just like Mike Sparks.

I mean, do you seriously believe that you happened upon something new here? Something utterly forgotten by the military-industrial complex at large for over thirty years?

People have been telling you why this won't work. High parasitic mass and volume, low range compared to missiles, less flexible than being able to pick and choose ordnance for a mission. If random Joes on the internet can point this out to you, do you honestly think industry professionals won't see the same problems? This is plain and simple physics. Back when that study was made, there might have been a point. But technology marches on, and missiles have had decades in both guidance and in propulsion tech to get better. Meanwhile guns are a very mature field. Barring some kind of supermaterials you're not going to get radically improved range performance out of conventional propellant driven guns.
Just look at the Navy's ERGM round. 127 mm, 60 mile range, guided, and with a rocket booster to get it up to that range. The thing never worked properly, and it isn't as if the Navy didn't pour money into it. And that was a round launched from a solid platform which could take the recoil (a recoilles rifle would need several times the propellant of a cannon to get anywhere near to the same performance!). Unfortunately the electronics and guidance section frequently couldn't take that recoil.
Meanwhile we have no problems making rockets and missiles with that kind of range. They're pretty reliable too.

And you're proposing to essentially mount ERGM as a recoilles rifle onto a plane. But why would we? We've already got missiles to do that job!



*Warning. Product might exhibit minor differences from description

Again not a single relevant subject to respond to. No railguns, Electrothermal Chemcial (ETC/EMTC) plus next generation energitics. An ARL specialty.
« Last Edit: January 02, 2019, 12:34:48 pm by jsport »

Offline jsport

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1182
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: The future of aircraft mounted guns
« Reply #71 on: January 02, 2019, 12:22:00 pm »
Seriously, has everyone been overdoing the eggnog?

While Cannon Fighter depended on a somewhat back-of-the-envelope vehicle and weapon concept and fairly basic ops analysis, it was a serious effort by one of the industry's most innovative thinkers and skilled engineers (Barnes Wallis meets Burt Rutan?) to deal with the Fulda Gap problem (we ran out of anti-armor fires before they ran out of tanks) in the early evolution of the Air Land Battle concept.

The requirement was to put a whole lot of high-Pk fires into the target area without getting killed (the latter being the drawback of the 30-mm.).

It used technology that was futuristic, but real (such as IFFC and guided rounds, and remote-set fused frag rounds). I suspect AWACS is a surrogate for the early Pave Mover concept, which was sensitive at the time.

Now that guided rounds are a reality and migrating into smaller calibers, the gun could make a serious comeback.[/b]
Thank you Mr Sweetman for being a if not thee authority on this forum.


https://www.military.com/defensetech/2018/09/14/army-eyeing-strategic-cannon-tech-1000-mile-range.html

The Army gave EMRG back in the Future Combat Systems times, although that is when the EMTC tank gun was perfected. Next Gen Energetics continue to advanced energies hundreds of times.

"We are looking very hard and starting down the path of hypersonics and also looking at what we call the Strategic Long Range Cannon, which conceivably could have a range of up to 1,000 nautical miles," he said.
« Last Edit: January 02, 2019, 01:35:45 pm by jsport »

Offline MihoshiK

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 96
Re: The future of aircraft mounted guns
« Reply #72 on: January 02, 2019, 01:01:25 pm »
30yrs experience, was in the intell community for 10yrs, had a desk in the Pentagon.
fathered a JCTD.
LO (authority mentioned in the title page of this forum) ended this argument some time ago for those paying attention.
Some disgruntled, uninformed, blogger w/ a grudge ..very pedestrian.
no prob w/ mirror mate.
And I'm a blue-eyed blonde male supermodel with godlike trombone playing skills who also has a degree in particle physics*. Unless you pony up those credentials  or several people vouch for you it's just your word.

But lets assume you're for real. For someone with 30 years of experience, ten of which in Intel, with a desk in the pentagon, you sure sound like an obsessed person who has found the latest ghee-whiz gimmick which will REVOLUTIONIZE WARFARE!, if only people could see your brilliance. There's a reason people mentioned the combat reform website. It's because you sound just like Mike Sparks.

I mean, do you seriously believe that you happened upon something new here? Something utterly forgotten by the military-industrial complex at large for over thirty years?

People have been telling you why this won't work. High parasitic mass and volume, low range compared to missiles, less flexible than being able to pick and choose ordnance for a mission. If random Joes on the internet can point this out to you, do you honestly think industry professionals won't see the same problems? This is plain and simple physics. Back when that study was made, there might have been a point. But technology marches on, and missiles have had decades in both guidance and in propulsion tech to get better. Meanwhile guns are a very mature field. Barring some kind of supermaterials you're not going to get radically improved range performance out of conventional propellant driven guns.
Just look at the Navy's ERGM round. 127 mm, 60 mile range, guided, and with a rocket booster to get it up to that range. The thing never worked properly, and it isn't as if the Navy didn't pour money into it. And that was a round launched from a solid platform which could take the recoil (a recoilles rifle would need several times the propellant of a cannon to get anywhere near to the same performance!). Unfortunately the electronics and guidance section frequently couldn't take that recoil.
Meanwhile we have no problems making rockets and missiles with that kind of range. They're pretty reliable too.

And you're proposing to essentially mount ERGM as a recoilles rifle onto a plane. But why would we? We've already got missiles to do that job!



*Warning. Product might exhibit minor differences from description

Again not a single relevant subject to respond to. No railguns, Electrothermal Chemcial (ETC/EMTC) plus next generation energitics. An ARL specialty.
Again not a single rebuttal of any actual points I made.

Railguns are not recoilless, and not exactly small enough to mount on a plane either, not for what you want to do with it. We know what the Navy's 64 megajoule railgun looks like, you know. ETC, not recoilless, and if you have evidence someone is working on a ETC recoilless rifle, that would be one heck of a coup. Go for it mate, show us the evidence! And yes yes, ARL is working on next generation energetics. That's nice dear. Improved propellants also give a bonus to missiles. They on't fly on unicorn farts, you know?

But we all know by now you won't present a single piece of evidence anyone is actually looking at any of this.

Considering the last real investigation into this was done last century, and not in the nineties either, and your remarks in other topics (Low Observability is passe, nothing more than something for contractors to make money off? Really?), I think that I can safely say that your illustrious career in intelligence was mostly spend in the sanitation department. You certainly seem to have a lot of experience with bullshit.

Edit: Let's fit a large caliber long range railgun onto a jet fighter guys! It should fit right in!
« Last Edit: January 02, 2019, 01:13:22 pm by MihoshiK »

Offline jsport

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1182
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: The future of aircraft mounted guns
« Reply #73 on: January 02, 2019, 01:36:23 pm »
Seriously, has everyone been overdoing the eggnog?

While Cannon Fighter depended on a somewhat back-of-the-envelope vehicle and weapon concept and fairly basic ops analysis, it was a serious effort by one of the industry's most innovative thinkers and skilled engineers (Barnes Wallis meets Burt Rutan?) to deal with the Fulda Gap problem (we ran out of anti-armor fires before they ran out of tanks) in the early evolution of the Air Land Battle concept.

The requirement was to put a whole lot of high-Pk fires into the target area without getting killed (the latter being the drawback of the 30-mm.).

It used technology that was futuristic, but real (such as IFFC and guided rounds, and remote-set fused frag rounds). I suspect AWACS is a surrogate for the early Pave Mover concept, which was sensitive at the time.

Now that guided rounds are a reality and migrating into smaller calibers, the gun could make a serious comeback.[/b]
Thank you Mr Sweetman for being a if not thee authority on this forum.


https://www.military.com/defensetech/2018/09/14/army-eyeing-strategic-cannon-tech-1000-mile-range.html

The Army gave EMRG back in the Future Combat Systems times, although that is when the EMTC tank gun was perfected. Next Gen Energetics continue to advanced energies hundreds of times.

"We are looking very hard and starting down the path of hypersonics and also looking at what we call the Strategic Long Range Cannon, which conceivably could have a range of up to 1,000 nautical miles," he said.

Offline Colonial-Marine

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 586
  • Fighting the UAV mafia.
Re: The future of aircraft mounted guns
« Reply #74 on: January 02, 2019, 02:08:33 pm »
I've read on these same boards that EMTC tank guns didn't really work out well, the added complexity and weight not being worth the performance.

As for Army developments in artillery I'll wait until I actually see them fielded. I'd be pleased just to see an advanced "conventional" 155mm self-propelled gun to replace the M109A7/A8 or whatever its going to get up to.
« Last Edit: January 02, 2019, 02:55:40 pm by Colonial-Marine »
"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedy."

Offline jsport

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1182
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: The future of aircraft mounted guns
« Reply #75 on: January 02, 2019, 02:35:27 pm »
I've read on these same boards that EMTC tank guns didn't really work out well, the added complexity and weight not being worth the performance.

As for Army developments in artillery I'll wait to I actually see them fielded. I'd be pleased just to see an advanced "conventional" 155mm self-propelled gun to replace the M109A7/A8 or whatever its going to get up to.
The US was not the only one to perfect and cost was an issue even in Europe as well again advanced teh easy to perfect. USN Automatic 60mm ETC was demonstrated and video posted on the this forum functioning as an automatic.

Offline Airplane

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 432
Re: The future of aircraft mounted guns
« Reply #76 on: January 02, 2019, 05:06:55 pm »
The demise of the aircraft-mounted gun has been predicted, and even implemented, before.  It didn't work out.  See the history of the F-4 Phantom.  It's hard to imagine a day when guided ordnance gets so cheap that there is no place for a plain old cannon or machine gun.  Even if you want to use a drone for close support (more plausible every day) why would you give up the ability to take out one or two bad guys at low cost?

The phantom was a fleet interceptor and didn't need a gun for that mission. It was employed as a fighter. It didn't take a physicist to know missiles of the day sucked goose eggs and guns were still needed. It was stifling politics that led to that failure. I would take a gunless lo fighter with 2 aim9x any day and save the weight of the gun for fuel or better t/w. Guns are dead except for a2g. I remember the phantom, no need to look it up.

If you expend your aams the last thing you went to do as a aviator is close into a furball and throw away your stealth and situation awareness to throw bullets. Real life ain't like the finale of top gun.

Even a hornet can shoot a raptor.  ::)

I don't know much about future aams but hopefully pca  ngad will come equipped with 2 to 3 9x.
« Last Edit: January 02, 2019, 05:16:45 pm by Airplane »
"The test of success is not what you do when your on top. Success is how high you bounce when you hit bottom.”
– General George S. Patton

Offline GWrecks

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 75
  • Big Wingy Thingy
Re: The future of aircraft mounted guns
« Reply #77 on: January 02, 2019, 05:33:46 pm »
Do you folks have any hunch that guided shells might make aircraft-mounted guns relevant again?

I mean, I thought that up after reading this thread for fifteen seconds, so I'm probably not considering things closely.
↑↑↓↓LRLRBA

Offline Airplane

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 432
Re: The future of aircraft mounted guns
« Reply #78 on: January 02, 2019, 06:46:10 pm »
Do you folks have any hunch that guided shells might make aircraft-mounted guns relevant again?

I mean, I thought that up after reading this thread for fifteen seconds, so I'm probably not considering things closely.

Shells on airplanes? C130 gunship. Else, go back to ww2 and not to 6th gen machines. Missiles and the vague term directed energy are the future. We've all seen guided bullets on history or science channel.... Will never see it on a US fighter, especially for a2a. Missiles are better. Launch. Leave. Don't even turn towards your prey.

Maybe we should add navigators or flight engineers to 6th gen as well to lighten pilot load.
« Last Edit: January 02, 2019, 06:48:13 pm by Airplane »
"The test of success is not what you do when your on top. Success is how high you bounce when you hit bottom.”
– General George S. Patton

Offline _Del_

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 338
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: The future of aircraft mounted guns
« Reply #79 on: January 02, 2019, 10:31:54 pm »
Quote
Maybe we should add navigators or flight engineers to 6th gen as well to lighten pilot load.

We will.

I think there's a place for a gun in tactical fighters. A2G especially. There will almost certainly be times in A2A that you're unable to control engagement distance or to disengage despite any signature advantages. Maybe even 40mm or 60mm guided shells from an autocannon that you could lob a dozen at a time from a distance like an airborne mortar someday. There may be a niche there if you can tackle the details. The more range you want, the more rapidly the missile/rocket solution starts making lots more sense than the cannon though.


It isn't going to be a rail gun or giant recoilless with ridiculous range anytime in the next 25 years. I'm not convinced we're exceptionally close to a practical DEW that fits in tactical aircraft either. That seems like a better option for several reasons if it became available.

Offline Dilandu

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 58
  • I really should change my personal text
    • fonzeppelin.livejournal.com
Re: The future of aircraft mounted guns
« Reply #80 on: January 03, 2019, 01:05:00 am »
IMHO, of course, but the retractable pod of small-size, short-range laser guided missiles may be a better solution than gun. Less recoil, more hitting power per projectile, better against maneuvering & small targets.

Considering that even large drones now could carry short-range AAM, the gun seems not a optimal weapon even against such "light" targets.

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2164
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: The future of aircraft mounted guns
« Reply #81 on: January 03, 2019, 01:37:32 am »
Defeating a large number of hardened aircraft shelters, aboveground munitions bunkers etc. at airfields
is going to require a large number of accurate penetrator munitions.

Getting high-loadout per sortie typically drives you towards smaller, rocket boosted penetrator designs.
But the rocket motor is still a large portion, mass-wise and potentially volume-wise of the design:
Lockheed described a 2700 lb rocket boosted penetrator where the rocket was 1000 lbs of that total.

But *if* you could get substantial boost from from a gun some relatively small penetrators can do
some real damage; Sandia described a 30 inch length, 95 pound, 4 inch diameter monolithic ballasted
penetrator that at an impact velocity of 3050 fps penetrated 12 feet of 5000 psi concrete.

Achieving the above is a huge, maybe impractical reach for airborne guns but one of those
things that's worth at least examining given the proliferation of hardened targets.



Offline Dilandu

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 58
  • I really should change my personal text
    • fonzeppelin.livejournal.com
Re: The future of aircraft mounted guns
« Reply #82 on: January 03, 2019, 02:26:59 am »

But *if* you could get substantial boost from from a gun some relatively small penetrators can do
some real damage; Sandia described a 30 inch length, 95 pound, 4 inch diameter monolithic ballasted
penetrator that at an impact velocity of 3050 fps penetrated 12 feet of 5000 psi concrete.


I REALLY doubt that you could achieve a required penetration from the gun of tactical aircraft size... Something like "Spectre" gunboat, armed with heavy cannon, might do the trick.

Must also point out, that aircraft shelters are usually heavily protected by SAM's & AA guns, so the idea of strafing them with tactical aircraft does not look good.

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2164
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: The future of aircraft mounted guns
« Reply #83 on: January 03, 2019, 07:02:59 pm »

I REALLY doubt that you could achieve a required penetration from the gun of tactical aircraft size... Something like "Spectre" gunboat, armed with heavy cannon, might do the trick.

Must also point out, that aircraft shelters are usually heavily protected by SAM's & AA guns, so the idea of strafing them with tactical aircraft does not look good.

I'm not sure that it's strafing in the conventional sense but you're probably right in that it's not
going to be for something that's been considered tactical aircraft size.

There's some semi-recent AFRL work on airborne railguns in transport aircraft which seems to
stem from McNab et al's AFOSR sponsored work on airborne railgun launched small sats.

Offline Dilandu

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 58
  • I really should change my personal text
    • fonzeppelin.livejournal.com
Re: The future of aircraft mounted guns
« Reply #84 on: January 03, 2019, 11:50:01 pm »


There's some semi-recent AFRL work on airborne railguns in transport aircraft which seems to
stem from McNab et al's AFOSR sponsored work on airborne railgun launched small sats.

It is possible, yes, but it would clearly took a lot of time to develop a working example. By now, only the Chinese naval railgun is seems to be anywhere close to actual weapon system. Dahlgren one is still on static prototype stage, not clear about Blitzer.

Offline lastdingo

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 552
  • Blogger http://defense-and-freedom.blogspot.de/
    • Defence and Freedom blog
Re: The future of aircraft mounted guns
« Reply #85 on: January 04, 2019, 02:28:43 am »
Defeating a large number of hardened aircraft shelters, aboveground munitions bunkers etc. at airfields
is going to require a large number of accurate penetrator munitions.

Getting high-loadout per sortie typically drives you towards smaller, rocket boosted penetrator designs.
But the rocket motor is still a large portion, mass-wise and potentially volume-wise of the design:
Lockheed described a 2700 lb rocket boosted penetrator where the rocket was 1000 lbs of that total.

But *if* you could get substantial boost from from a gun some relatively small penetrators can do
some real damage; Sandia described a 30 inch length, 95 pound, 4 inch diameter monolithic ballasted
penetrator that at an impact velocity of 3050 fps penetrated 12 feet of 5000 psi concrete.

It's been shown that SDB can defeat ordinary hardened aircraft shelters. A normal Central European airbase could have all its HVTs hit with effect by a 4-ship F-16 flight.
Even smaller bombs could do the trick if they were equipped with a structure-weakening precursor shaped charge.
Long ago (IIRC 90's or ealy 00's) I saw an article about a M0.7 Tomahawk penetrating metres of high quality reinforced concrete by employing shaped charge + follow-through warhead in a R&D test.
That's actually really, really old tech; Germans already applied a precursor shaped charge to a SD 250 bomb in WW2 (see "German Explosive Ordnance" on Scribd, I also blogged about it ages ago).

Rocket boosting for penetration (no need to elaborate on how Germans did it in WW2 already as well, right?) was used for Durandal IIRC, but right away I don#t remember any other prominent somewhat modern examples.

Offline jsport

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1182
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: The future of aircraft mounted guns
« Reply #86 on: January 04, 2019, 08:38:41 am »
Precision guided bombs will simply be shot down. Must have standoff and speed or even your bombs and missiles are defeated by SAM and AAA belts.

https://www.nairaland.com/3220297/technical-discussions-international-military-equipments/5

"NORINCO is currently marketing a complete family of 35 mm ammunition including high-explosive incendiary (HEI), high-explosive incendiary-tracer (HEI-T), and semi-armour piercing HEI-T (SAPHEI-T) with all of these having a muzzle velocity of 1,175 m/s and fitted with a self-destruct fuze. In addition it can fire the recently developed Programmable Time Fuze Pre-fragmented (PTFP) round, which has a muzzle velocity of 1,050 m/s.

This contains more than 100 spin-stabilised tungsten sub-projectiles and is optimised to engage smaller targets such as unmanned aerial vehicles and is equivalent to the Rheinmetall Air Defence 35 mm Advanced Hit Efficient And Destruction (AHEAD) ammunition. This 35 mm ammunition can also be fired by the Chinese PG99 35 mm anti-aircraft gun (AAG), truck-mounted CS/SA1 twin 35 mm AAG, and the Rheinmetall Air Defence 35 mm KD series twin towed 35 mm AAG."
« Last Edit: January 04, 2019, 08:42:23 am by jsport »

Offline Dilandu

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 58
  • I really should change my personal text
    • fonzeppelin.livejournal.com
Re: The future of aircraft mounted guns
« Reply #87 on: January 04, 2019, 09:01:22 am »
Precision guided bombs will simply be shot down.

IMHO, it would be simpler to just equip bombs with chaff & deployable lightweight decoys with similar radar cross-section.

Offline jsport

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1182
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: The future of aircraft mounted guns
« Reply #88 on: January 04, 2019, 09:22:49 am »
Precision guided bombs will simply be shot down.

IMHO, it would be simpler to just equip bombs with chaff & deployable lightweight decoys with similar radar cross-section.

there is little decoying opportunity at the response distances we are discussing.

Offline _Del_

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 338
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: The future of aircraft mounted guns
« Reply #89 on: January 04, 2019, 11:16:35 am »
Quote
Must have standoff and speed or even your bombs and missiles are defeated by SAM and AAA belts.
I guess I'm confused on how an auto-cannon, or even super-howitzer, mounted on a tactical aircraft will result in more standoff range or higher munition velocities in the target area.

Also, if the IADS is competent enough to knockout significant portions of your PGM loadout, the ability to put multiple munitions on target quickly and in a sustained manner becomes key. I'm not clear that an air-howitzer and associated advanced munitions are going to allow a higher or sustainable rate of fire than a comparable weight of other more conventional range of PGM's like bombs, missiles, rockets.

That scenario would seem to call for something like the old AGM-124 concept or rather larger missiles with submunitions targeting air-defense sites. Perhaps taking advantage of a MALD package delivery.

Bonus points for not having to drag along the air-howitzer on all the missions that don't require it.

Offline GTX

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2583
  • All hail the God of Frustration!!!
    • Beyond The Sprues
Re: The future of aircraft mounted guns
« Reply #90 on: January 04, 2019, 11:58:01 am »
The demise of the aircraft-mounted gun has been predicted, and even implemented, before.  It didn't work out.  See the history of the F-4 Phantom.  It's hard to imagine a day when guided ordnance gets so cheap that there is no place for a plain old cannon or machine gun.  Even if you want to use a drone for close support (more plausible every day) why would you give up the ability to take out one or two bad guys at low cost?

Never ceases to amuse me when people enviably bring up the spectre of the F-4 Phantom II and by default the Vietnam war in these sorts of debates.  The Missile Technology used in Vietnam was 1950s/1960s technology.  This was 50+ years ago!!!  Anyone want to say that their TV or Music system from 50 years ago is better than that from today...honestly?  This sort of argument is no different to those who before WWII were saying that aircraft had to be open cockpit biplanes so as to dogfight.  It would also have us still fighting modern Wars with canvas covered mainplanes and rifle calibre guns (if that).

Offline jsport

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1182
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: The future of aircraft mounted guns
« Reply #91 on: January 04, 2019, 12:22:13 pm »
Quote
Must have standoff and speed or even your bombs and missiles are defeated by SAM and AAA belts.
I guess I'm confused on how an auto-cannon, or even super-howitzer, mounted on a tactical aircraft will result in more standoff range or higher munition velocities in the target area.

Also, if the IADS is competent enough to knockout significant portions of your PGM loadout, the ability to put multiple munitions on target quickly and in a sustained manner becomes key. I'm not clear that an air-howitzer and associated advanced munitions are going to allow a higher or sustainable rate of fire than a comparable weight of other more conventional range of PGM's like bombs, missiles, rockets.

That scenario would seem to call for something like the old AGM-124 concept or rather larger missiles with submunitions targeting air-defense sites. Perhaps taking advantage of a MALD package delivery.

Bonus points for not having to drag along the air-howitzer on all the missions that don't require it.
A 1 megajoule SAM vs a 10 megajoule projectile (light gas ETC EMRG etc (projectile 1/5th at the logistics also) the gun projectile keeps goin even if it ever tracked. IADS simply can not react fast enough and again small projectiles are their own stealth.
 Modern material science would allow a barrel be built as part of the fuselage. It is recoiless so very breech mechanism weight. So dont see real weight w/ decent science.
Not sure how missile launch could ever compete w/ automatic fire.

These AAA belts are dense w/ ever increasing fire control overtime and would never likely be overcome by submuntions completely. Therefore the slower PGMs always being attrted at high rates.

Offline _Del_

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 338
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: The future of aircraft mounted guns
« Reply #92 on: January 04, 2019, 01:19:27 pm »
I can imagine few things I'd less like than making the barrel of a high-energy weapon exposed to brutal wear and tear and extremely short shelf-life an integral part of my fuselage.

You also have to lug gunpowder, gas storage/distribution mechanisms, and a power source along with the projectiles for your ELGGun.  ETC isn't exactly mature; are we sure it scales down? How do you power your automatic, recoiless railgun without adding substantial weight gain? How do you charge capacitors quickly enough to produce your stream of "automatic fire"?  Are our "smart" projectiles hardened to take the g-load of your hyper velocity super-cannon? Are you looking at smaller sizes yet? Or are you stuck on making a 120mm recoiless autocannon? Has some great revolution taken place that I'm unaware of?

Offline MihoshiK

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 96
Re: The future of aircraft mounted guns
« Reply #93 on: January 04, 2019, 01:45:22 pm »
I can imagine few things I'd less like than making the barrel of a high-energy weapon exposed to brutal wear and tear and extremely short shelf-life an integral part of my fuselage.

You also have to lug gunpowder, gas storage/distribution mechanisms, and a power source along with the projectiles for your ELGGun.  ETC isn't exactly mature; are we sure it scales down? How do you power your automatic, recoiless railgun without adding substantial weight gain? How do you charge capacitors quickly enough to produce your stream of "automatic fire"?  Are our "smart" projectiles hardened to take the g-load of your hyper velocity super-cannon? Are you looking at smaller sizes yet? Or are you stuck on making a 120mm recoiless autocannon? Has some great revolution taken place that I'm unaware of?
I'm sure these are all just minor* details!


*Warning: Details might be more complicated than advertized.

Offline jsport

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1182
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: The future of aircraft mounted guns
« Reply #94 on: January 04, 2019, 02:30:48 pm »
I can imagine few things I'd less like than making the barrel of a high-energy weapon exposed to brutal wear and tear and extremely short shelf-life an integral part of my fuselage.

You also have to lug gunpowder, gas storage/distribution mechanisms, and a power source along with the projectiles for your ELGGun.  ETC isn't exactly mature; are we sure it scales down? How do you power your automatic, recoiless railgun without adding substantial weight gain? How do you charge capacitors quickly enough to produce your stream of "automatic fire"?  Are our "smart" projectiles hardened to take the g-load of your hyper velocity super-cannon? Are you looking at smaller sizes yet? Or are you stuck on making a 120mm recoiless autocannon? Has some great revolution taken place that I'm unaware of?
We are not aware of much on this forum we'll agree on that. I'll keep my opinion and you yours. Material science has went wild some time ago and much has even been discussed on this forum. Light gas and even coilguns have been being developed for decades. Not going argue it. AF is interested a railgun it just keeps goin.

Offline jsport

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1182
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: The future of aircraft mounted guns
« Reply #95 on: January 04, 2019, 02:32:47 pm »
I can imagine few things I'd less like than making the barrel of a high-energy weapon exposed to brutal wear and tear and extremely short shelf-life an integral part of my fuselage.

You also have to lug gunpowder, gas storage/distribution mechanisms, and a power source along with the projectiles for your ELGGun.  ETC isn't exactly mature; are we sure it scales down? How do you power your automatic, recoiless railgun without adding substantial weight gain? How do you charge capacitors quickly enough to produce your stream of "automatic fire"?  Are our "smart" projectiles hardened to take the g-load of your hyper velocity super-cannon? Are you looking at smaller sizes yet? Or are you stuck on making a 120mm recoiless autocannon? Has some great revolution taken place that I'm unaware of?
I'm sure these are all just minor* details!


*Warning: Details might be more complicated than advertized.
When folks actually start contributing rather than being a hater w/ no innovation one might pay attention.

Offline kcran567

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 660
Re: The future of aircraft mounted guns
« Reply #96 on: January 04, 2019, 03:13:42 pm »
I've asked this question before that might relate to this discussion, but never got a good answer...

In the 80's/90's there was an F-15 with a computer controlled gun aiming/Laying system where the F-15 was able to shoot targets with its cannon bursts very accurately beyond visual ranges. The computer taking control from the pilot to fire short bursts. The system worked very well but was too expansive and/or "pilots didn't like it," which seems stupid to me because why wouldn't pilots want to able to shoot air to air and other targets with their cannon beyond visual range even if it was something at the time only a computer would do?
Apparently the Mig-29 (operationally) had such an automatic cannon laying system as well? I can no longer find the thread on this forum or anywhere else on this topic.
Why would a system like this not find its way on a future fighter, and would it be useful when future more advanced gun systems are developed for beyond visual range uses?

And anybody who knows about the F-15/Mig-29 systems please share.

Offline _Del_

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 338
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: The future of aircraft mounted guns
« Reply #97 on: January 04, 2019, 03:44:31 pm »
I'm sure things will keep on going.

Light gas guns and rail/coil guns continue to be demonstrated, it's true. But an ELGG isn't a quickly reusable "automatic firing" system in an incarnation. I don't think anyone is even looking at that. GA actually has a railgun it thinks is near ready. It (Blitzer) takes two giant generators connected to the massive railgun. The 3MJ system takes three tractor trailers. It certainly isn't recoilless.  I suppose given enough time and money, one might get that down to a size useful for tactical fighter aircraft, but it won't be anytime soon. We're probably much closer to a useful DEW than that.
Why not go for a laser or particle (proton) beam if you have that sort of space and power?


Quote
Why would a system like this not find its way on a future fighter, and would it be useful when future more advanced gun systems are developed for beyond visual range uses?

I've only sort of skimmed the topic, but I imagine something like this especially with slightly larger, perhaps even "smart", shells is/could be viable near-future. Even 40-60mm with a high-enough rate of fire could be a menace if you're just lofting shells ballistically into a pattern the target is likely to have to fly through at (in terms of a gun engagement) long-range. To evade, they have to first be aware and then maneuver -- which puts you back in the driver's seat to either continue to close or to disengage. Being able to do that against ground targets seems even easier to do and just as useful. This is basically what I had in mind with my first post. 

I just don't see the viability for a giant howitzer anytime soon.

Offline LowObservable

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2146
Re: The future of aircraft mounted guns
« Reply #98 on: January 04, 2019, 04:11:20 pm »
Kcran - that was Integrated Fire and Flight Control or IFFC. If I recall correctly, you put the target in a HUD reticle, pulled the trigger, and the radar and FCS put the airplane in the right position and fired the gun. It was expensive to test because it invariably zorched the target into fairy dust.

I've seen a reference that suggests that something similar was implemented on the JA 37, with its big nasty 30 mm. Painful. But not for long.

Offline jsport

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1182
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: The future of aircraft mounted guns
« Reply #99 on: January 04, 2019, 04:17:46 pm »
I'm sure things will keep on going.

Light gas guns and rail/coil guns continue to be demonstrated, it's true. But an ELGG isn't a quickly reusable "automatic firing" system in an incarnation. I don't think anyone is even looking at that. GA actually has a railgun it thinks is near ready. It (Blitzer) takes two giant generators connected to the massive railgun. The 3MJ system takes three tractor trailers. It certainly isn't recoilless.  I suppose given enough time and money, one might get that down to a size useful for tactical fighter aircraft, but it won't be anytime soon. We're probably much closer to a useful DEW than that.
Why not go for a laser or particle (proton) beam if you have that sort of space and power?


Quote
Why would a system like this not find its way on a future fighter, and would it be useful when future more advanced gun systems are developed for beyond visual range uses?

I've only sort of skimmed the topic, but I imagine something like this especially with slightly larger, perhaps even "smart", shells is/could be viable near-future. Even 40-60mm with a high-enough rate of fire could be a menace if you're just lofting shells ballistically into a pattern the target is likely to have to fly through at (in terms of a gun engagement) long-range. To evade, they have to first be aware and then maneuver -- which puts you back in the driver's seat to either continue to close or to disengage. Being able to do that against ground targets seems even easier to do and just as useful. This is basically what I had in mind with my first post. 

I just don't see the viability for a giant howitzer anytime soon.

A 60mm ETC already developed and tested could add w/ rocket assisted rds (always the assumption) would be an over the horizon AAA/ SAM suppressor. Yes  EMTC 30mms have been studied heavy.  Pg 174 of the FA-XX thread..

The aircraft would be a gun/missile launcher essentially anyway.  Missiles evolution should be toward being fired by guns. Just like UAS and munitions are melding into one so should missiles/gun projectiles.

A Naval gun or the Army's 1000mile gun will be contenders and should be. Service rivalry does feed the options. However, these other guns WOULD be reacted to by air defense due to their distance. An aircraft would be too fast to react to and thus be able to degrade IADS enough for the Naval and Army gun to then take over. Therefore, If you don start developing a aircraft gun.... Not a fan of EMRG anyway, and not sure how you know an ELGG is not an automatic. May not be fast but automatic may well already have been perfected. We dont know if it is being looked at and again politics over tech. Could easily be worked on and slow automatic easily made. An simple ETC w/ next gen energetics (both in the firing and in the rocket) as stated earlier does need to be a ELGG and may well match its extreme performance.

Likewise electronics taking G-load aint a thing.

A deep magazine PBW is an alternative, but current DEWs dont have the range and can be countered thus survive AAA/SAM belts. Yes PBW argues for a large craft, a FB-XX at least.

Offline DrRansom

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 512
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: The future of aircraft mounted guns
« Reply #100 on: January 04, 2019, 05:15:40 pm »
From what LowObservable said, the Cannon Fighter is a niche solution to a niche problem - lots of tanks in the narrow space of WW3 Germany. That isn't really the case in either Europe or Pacific - hostile force concentrations are going to be much lower than 1980s central front.

For technological advances, I don't think that guided rounds will be a major advantage for aircraft; the GAU-8 has the benefit of low dispersion with no guidance and little warhead. Guided rounds seem to be more important for CRAM / C-UAV missions.


What I think will be more important is the ~10km stand-off munition with some form of point-defense defeat technology: perhaps cooperative swarm or cooperate ECM / decoys.

Offline jsport

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1182
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: The future of aircraft mounted guns
« Reply #101 on: January 04, 2019, 05:28:00 pm »
From what LowObservable said, the Cannon Fighter is a niche solution to a niche problem - lots of tanks in the narrow space of WW3 Germany. That isn't really the case in either Europe or Pacific - hostile force concentrations are going to be much lower than 1980s central front.

For technological advances, I don't think that guided rounds will be a major advantage for aircraft; the GAU-8 has the benefit of low dispersion with no guidance and little warhead. Guided rounds seem to be more important for CRAM / C-UAV missions.


What I think will be more important is the ~10km stand-off munition with some form of point-defense defeat technology: perhaps cooperative swarm or cooperate ECM / decoys.

One has to get the swarm (high volumn inside small fighter travel a long distance) there. Much like tanks in WW3 you dispersed armored targets in the form of hardened structures and nasty capable AAA guns. HAve you seen the PLA AAA belts. Highly dense. Swarming minis don't defeat armor or hardened structures. Wont even defeat any 35mm w/ AHEADs. AHEADs will knock down all day.  In fact LO analogy fits well.

PS Fit better in anti-island invasion .

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2164
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: The future of aircraft mounted guns
« Reply #102 on: January 04, 2019, 07:00:28 pm »

It's been shown that SDB can defeat ordinary hardened aircraft shelters. A normal Central European airbase could have all its HVTs hit with effect by a 4-ship F-16 flight.
Even smaller bombs could do the trick if they were equipped with a structure-weakening precursor shaped charge.
Long ago (IIRC 90's or ealy 00's) I saw an article about a M0.7 Tomahawk penetrating metres of high quality reinforced concrete by employing shaped charge + follow-through warhead in a R&D test.
That's actually really, really old tech; Germans already applied a precursor shaped charge to a SD 250 bomb in WW2 (see "German Explosive Ordnance" on Scribd, I also blogged about it ages ago).

Rocket boosting for penetration (no need to elaborate on how Germans did it in WW2 already as well, right?) was used for Durandal IIRC, but right away I don#t remember any other prominent somewhat modern examples.

The issue with all of these is that the the angle of obliquity requirements for the penetrator results in very predictable trajectories
which makes the sub-sonic weapons vulnerable to the terminal defenses jsport has mentioned; the boosted
weapons typically first align themselves with the target and then boost in the last few seconds (few thousand feet) of flight.

For the high-loadout, precursor shaped charge penetrators, JSOW unitary with BROACH can penetrate 4-5 feet of 2000 psi concrete.
and a 1000 lb penetrator (BLU-109 dimensions) with a shaped charge precursor is in the same penetration range for 5500 psi concrete.

But the ultra-high performance concrete that's available, with inherent anti-spalling and better resistance
to shaped charges is in the  16,000 psi - 35,000 psi range at ~ 5x the cost of standard concrete.

Offline Dilandu

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 58
  • I really should change my personal text
    • fonzeppelin.livejournal.com
Re: The future of aircraft mounted guns
« Reply #103 on: January 05, 2019, 12:43:55 pm »

Not sure how missile launch could ever compete w/ automatic fire.

Actually, they could rather easily, because the missile launch required very little mechanical action & very little stress to the launching aircraft. Notice how fast helicopter-launched rockets - like classic Hydra - could be fired.

Offline kcran567

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 660
Re: The future of aircraft mounted guns
« Reply #104 on: January 05, 2019, 05:37:11 pm »
Thanks Low Observable...


Offline MihoshiK

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 96
Re: The future of aircraft mounted guns
« Reply #105 on: January 06, 2019, 02:30:04 am »

Not sure how missile launch could ever compete w/ automatic fire.

Actually, they could rather easily, because the missile launch required very little mechanical action & very little stress to the launching aircraft. Notice how fast helicopter-launched rockets - like classic Hydra - could be fired.
And they make laser-guided add-on kits for those nowadays. Much more guaranteed to survive launch than from out of a cannon barrel.

Offline kaiserd

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 522
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: The future of aircraft mounted guns
« Reply #106 on: January 06, 2019, 06:35:37 am »

Not sure how missile launch could ever compete w/ automatic fire.

Actually, they could rather easily, because the missile launch required very little mechanical action & very little stress to the launching aircraft. Notice how fast helicopter-launched rockets - like classic Hydra - could be fired.
And they make laser-guided add-on kits for those nowadays. Much more guaranteed to survive launch than from out of a cannon barrel.

So - as the one contributor contends - we are supposed to be talking about a system with a very high rate of fire (automatic), recoil-less, very high velocity & very long range (able to out-range and defeat with sheer velocity the most advance defences, including those using larger longer range ground based versions of the same gun technology), with large and extremely accurate and versatile precision rounds, and with an associated weapon system to allow extremely long range high velocity shooting day and night in all conditions, all with the size and weight and power demands that would allow it to fit inside a fighter sized 6th generation advanced high-tier fighter aircraft, with a magazine of rounds that would be superior than equivalent missiles in the same the same overall weight, dimensions, etc.
For the same (or less) development and procurement risks, costs, time and effort as expending all of this on equivalent missiles development and procurement.

And that’s supposed to be a clear, reasonable and credible proposition?

If such technology had any realistic likelihood of existing wouldn’t the larger more capable ground based versions chew-up any aircraft and gun rounds that it fires unless the aircraft uses a mixture of avoiding detection and out-ranging that weapon with different (missile) technology?
« Last Edit: January 06, 2019, 06:45:42 am by kaiserd »

Offline MihoshiK

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 96
Re: The future of aircraft mounted guns
« Reply #107 on: January 06, 2019, 08:03:43 am »

Not sure how missile launch could ever compete w/ automatic fire.

Actually, they could rather easily, because the missile launch required very little mechanical action & very little stress to the launching aircraft. Notice how fast helicopter-launched rockets - like classic Hydra - could be fired.
And they make laser-guided add-on kits for those nowadays. Much more guaranteed to survive launch than from out of a cannon barrel.

So - as the one contributor contends - we are supposed to be talking about a system with a very high rate of fire (automatic), recoil-less, very high velocity & very long range (able to out-range and defeat with sheer velocity the most advance defences, including those using larger longer range ground based versions of the same gun technology), with large and extremely accurate and versatile precision rounds, and with an associated weapon system to allow extremely long range high velocity shooting day and night in all conditions, all with the size and weight and power demands that would allow it to fit inside a fighter sized 6th generation advanced high-tier fighter aircraft, with a magazine of rounds that would be superior than equivalent missiles in the same the same overall weight, dimensions, etc.
For the same (or less) development and procurement risks, costs, time and effort as expending all of this on equivalent missiles development and procurement.

And that’s supposed to be a clear, reasonable and credible proposition?

If such technology had any realistic likelihood of existing wouldn’t the larger more capable ground based versions chew-up any aircraft and gun rounds that it fires unless the aircraft uses a mixture of avoiding detection and out-ranging that weapon with different (missile) technology?
Well, to be honest, a similar argument can be made for missiles and missile based defenses. But yes, a paradigm shift in cannon capabilities would go both ways. So OP is basically totally proposing a completely new class of wunderwaffe with unheard of performance for little actual gain. And he wanted to put it in currently in-development 6th generation fighters.

Because forty years ago a smart man proposed something that was looked at and then discarded by equally smart people. I mean, wargaming simulations and such aren't actually done by total morons...
« Last Edit: January 06, 2019, 08:05:52 am by MihoshiK »

Offline jsport

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1182
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: The future of aircraft mounted guns
« Reply #108 on: January 06, 2019, 08:38:29 am »

Not sure how missile launch could ever compete w/ automatic fire.

Actually, they could rather easily, because the missile launch required very little mechanical action & very little stress to the launching aircraft. Notice how fast helicopter-launched rockets - like classic Hydra - could be fired.
And they make laser-guided add-on kits for those nowadays. Much more guaranteed to survive launch than from out of a cannon barrel.

So - as the one contributor contends - we are supposed to be talking about a system with a very high rate of fire (automatic), recoil-less, very high velocity & very long range (able to out-range and defeat with sheer velocity the most advance defences, including those using larger longer range ground based versions of the same gun technology), with large and extremely accurate and versatile precision rounds, and with an associated weapon system to allow extremely long range high velocity shooting day and night in all conditions, all with the size and weight and power demands that would allow it to fit inside a fighter sized 6th generation advanced high-tier fighter aircraft, with a magazine of rounds that would be superior than equivalent missiles in the same the same overall weight, dimensions, etc.
For the same (or less) development and procurement risks, costs, time and effort as expending all of this on equivalent missiles development and procurement.

And that’s supposed to be a clear, reasonable and credible proposition?

If such technology had any realistic likelihood of existing wouldn’t the larger more capable ground based versions chew-up any aircraft and gun rounds that it fires unless the aircraft uses a mixture of avoiding detection and out-ranging that weapon with different (missile) technology?
Well, to be honest, a similar argument can be made for missiles and missile based defenses. But yes, a paradigm shift in cannon capabilities would go both ways. So OP is basically totally proposing a completely new class of wunderwaffe with unheard of performance for little actual gain. And he wanted to put it in currently in-development 6th generation fighters.

Because forty years ago a smart man proposed something that was looked at and then discarded by equally smart people. I mean, wargaming simulations and such aren't actually done by total morons...

What wargaming are we even talking about the Cannon fighter was not forgotten because a Mod/Sim. The logisitics always won. Noone on this forum has the foggiest idea there wasnt a cannonfighter. Likely the missile mafia. Why is this being rehashed over and over.

The physics of gun firing a rocket assisted round will always beat a missile alone or a gun alone.  The distances in the Pacific problem against the numerous dispersed targets render a conventional tactical aircraft configuration obsolete before it enters service. New material from super hardened materials which are extremely light weight guns and energtics which allow a rocket assisted rd to begin to solve the problem. Missiles alone will provide nothing but an expensive fireworks show. Those who dont really follow this problem should not bother wasting our time....
« Last Edit: January 06, 2019, 08:41:38 am by jsport »

Offline Foo Fighter

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 649
  • I came, I saw, I drank some tea (and had a bun).
Re: The future of aircraft mounted guns
« Reply #109 on: January 07, 2019, 02:02:41 pm »
Have fun and rock on folks.  Room for everybody.

Offline MihoshiK

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 96
Re: The future of aircraft mounted guns
« Reply #110 on: January 08, 2019, 01:04:26 am »

Not sure how missile launch could ever compete w/ automatic fire.

Actually, they could rather easily, because the missile launch required very little mechanical action & very little stress to the launching aircraft. Notice how fast helicopter-launched rockets - like classic Hydra - could be fired.
And they make laser-guided add-on kits for those nowadays. Much more guaranteed to survive launch than from out of a cannon barrel.

So - as the one contributor contends - we are supposed to be talking about a system with a very high rate of fire (automatic), recoil-less, very high velocity & very long range (able to out-range and defeat with sheer velocity the most advance defences, including those using larger longer range ground based versions of the same gun technology), with large and extremely accurate and versatile precision rounds, and with an associated weapon system to allow extremely long range high velocity shooting day and night in all conditions, all with the size and weight and power demands that would allow it to fit inside a fighter sized 6th generation advanced high-tier fighter aircraft, with a magazine of rounds that would be superior than equivalent missiles in the same the same overall weight, dimensions, etc.
For the same (or less) development and procurement risks, costs, time and effort as expending all of this on equivalent missiles development and procurement.

And that’s supposed to be a clear, reasonable and credible proposition?

If such technology had any realistic likelihood of existing wouldn’t the larger more capable ground based versions chew-up any aircraft and gun rounds that it fires unless the aircraft uses a mixture of avoiding detection and out-ranging that weapon with different (missile) technology?
Well, to be honest, a similar argument can be made for missiles and missile based defenses. But yes, a paradigm shift in cannon capabilities would go both ways. So OP is basically totally proposing a completely new class of wunderwaffe with unheard of performance for little actual gain. And he wanted to put it in currently in-development 6th generation fighters.

Because forty years ago a smart man proposed something that was looked at and then discarded by equally smart people. I mean, wargaming simulations and such aren't actually done by total morons...

What wargaming are we even talking about the Cannon fighter was not forgotten because a Mod/Sim. The logisitics always won. Noone on this forum has the foggiest idea there wasnt a cannonfighter. Likely the missile mafia. Why is this being rehashed over and over.

The physics of gun firing a rocket assisted round will always beat a missile alone or a gun alone.  The distances in the Pacific problem against the numerous dispersed targets render a conventional tactical aircraft configuration obsolete before it enters service. New material from super hardened materials which are extremely light weight guns and energtics which allow a rocket assisted rd to begin to solve the problem. Missiles alone will provide nothing but an expensive fireworks show. Those who dont really follow this problem should not bother wasting our time....
You mean like right now every fighter developing nation out there, from Russia, to China, to the good ole US of A? Or do you have PROOF (there is is again, that word. We see so little of the concept it embodies in this thread, especially from you) that someone, anyone out there is developing cannon fighters?

No, your rambling fever dreams and a fourty year old test are not proof.

Man, it must sure suck to be you, such a visionary, stuck on a message board with all these nincompoops.

Offline jsport

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1182
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: The future of aircraft mounted guns
« Reply #111 on: January 08, 2019, 09:09:05 am »

Not sure how missile launch could ever compete w/ automatic fire.

Actually, they could rather easily, because the missile launch required very little mechanical action & very little stress to the launching aircraft. Notice how fast helicopter-launched rockets - like classic Hydra - could be fired.
And they make laser-guided add-on kits for those nowadays. Much more guaranteed to survive launch than from out of a cannon barrel.

So - as the one contributor contends - we are supposed to be talking about a system with a very high rate of fire (automatic), recoil-less, very high velocity & very long range (able to out-range and defeat with sheer velocity the most advance defences, including those using larger longer range ground based versions of the same gun technology), with large and extremely accurate and versatile precision rounds, and with an associated weapon system to allow extremely long range high velocity shooting day and night in all conditions, all with the size and weight and power demands that would allow it to fit inside a fighter sized 6th generation advanced high-tier fighter aircraft, with a magazine of rounds that would be superior than equivalent missiles in the same the same overall weight, dimensions, etc.
For the same (or less) development and procurement risks, costs, time and effort as expending all of this on equivalent missiles development and procurement.

And that’s supposed to be a clear, reasonable and credible proposition?

If such technology had any realistic likelihood of existing wouldn’t the larger more capable ground based versions chew-up any aircraft and gun rounds that it fires unless the aircraft uses a mixture of avoiding detection and out-ranging that weapon with different (missile) technology?
Well, to be honest, a similar argument can be made for missiles and missile based defenses. But yes, a paradigm shift in cannon capabilities would go both ways. So OP is basically totally proposing a completely new class of wunderwaffe with unheard of performance for little actual gain. And he wanted to put it in currently in-development 6th generation fighters.

Because forty years ago a smart man proposed something that was looked at and then discarded by equally smart people. I mean, wargaming simulations and such aren't actually done by total morons...

What wargaming are we even talking about the Cannon fighter was not forgotten because a Mod/Sim. The logisitics always won. Noone on this forum has the foggiest idea there wasnt a cannonfighter. Likely the missile mafia. Why is this being rehashed over and over.

The physics of gun firing a rocket assisted round will always beat a missile alone or a gun alone.  The distances in the Pacific problem against the numerous dispersed targets render a conventional tactical aircraft configuration obsolete before it enters service. New material from super hardened materials which are extremely light weight guns and energtics which allow a rocket assisted rd to begin to solve the problem. Missiles alone will provide nothing but an expensive fireworks show. Those who dont really follow this problem should not bother wasting our time....
You mean like right now every fighter developing nation out there, from Russia, to China, to the good ole US of A? Or do you have PROOF (there is is again, that word. We see so little of the concept it embodies in this thread, especially from you) that someone, anyone out there is developing cannon fighters?

No, your rambling fever dreams and a fourty year old test are not proof.

Man, it must sure suck to be you, such a visionary, stuck on a message board with all these nincompoops.
truly mad ravings.

Offline Dilandu

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 58
  • I really should change my personal text
    • fonzeppelin.livejournal.com
Re: The future of aircraft mounted guns
« Reply #112 on: January 08, 2019, 12:21:33 pm »
The physics of gun firing a rocket assisted round will always beat a missile alone or a gun alone.

I seriously doubt that. From the practical point of view, the projectile would be forced to fit into not one, but two complicated and pretty contradictory at times set of requirements. Just to fit inside the gun, the projectile diameter must be very limited, it must either have no fins or have retractable fins, it must be able to survive hard acceleration, ect.

 
The distances in the Pacific problem against the numerous dispersed targets render a conventional tactical aircraft configuration obsolete before it enters service.

Since the gun is a short-range weapon, I'm really confused here: how exactly guns would help solving the DISTANCE problems?

 
New material from super hardened materials which are extremely light weight guns and energtics which allow a rocket assisted rd to begin to solve the problem.

One problem - said (fantasy) materials would also allow to build rocket engines with much better characteristics, so the advantages for guns would still be very dubious. :)

Offline jsport

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1182
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: The future of aircraft mounted guns
« Reply #113 on: January 08, 2019, 02:06:16 pm »
The physics of gun firing a rocket assisted round will always beat a missile alone or a gun alone.

I seriously doubt that. From the practical point of view, the projectile would be forced to fit into not one, but two complicated and pretty contradictory at times set of requirements. Just to fit inside the gun, the projectile diameter must be very limited, it must either have no fins or have retractable fins, it must be able to survive hard acceleration, ect.

 
The distances in the Pacific problem against the numerous dispersed targets render a conventional tactical aircraft configuration obsolete before it enters service.

Since the gun is a short-range weapon, I'm really confused here: how exactly guns would help solving the DISTANCE problems?

 
New material from super hardened materials which are extremely light weight guns and energtics which allow a rocket assisted rd to begin to solve the problem.

One problem - said (fantasy) materials would also allow to build rocket engines with much better characteristics, so the advantages for guns would still be very dubious. :)
It was confirmed some way back the AF is after airborne railgun.. travel down the airborne gun development path has started. Actually started back during the AC- X program.  No matter what rantings on this forum... Decisions are ultimately political as explained along time back for those reading.

As far carrying your rocket engine vs as explained physics there nothing to discuss. As far as ur knowing was is fantastic well again there is also nothing to discuss. 

Please feel free to add something worth contemplating.  ;)

Offline kaiserd

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 522
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: The future of aircraft mounted guns
« Reply #114 on: January 08, 2019, 02:34:32 pm »
The physics of gun firing a rocket assisted round will always beat a missile alone or a gun alone.

I seriously doubt that. From the practical point of view, the projectile would be forced to fit into not one, but two complicated and pretty contradictory at times set of requirements. Just to fit inside the gun, the projectile diameter must be very limited, it must either have no fins or have retractable fins, it must be able to survive hard acceleration, ect.

 
The distances in the Pacific problem against the numerous dispersed targets render a conventional tactical aircraft configuration obsolete before it enters service.

Since the gun is a short-range weapon, I'm really confused here: how exactly guns would help solving the DISTANCE problems?

 
New material from super hardened materials which are extremely light weight guns and energtics which allow a rocket assisted rd to begin to solve the problem.

One problem - said (fantasy) materials would also allow to build rocket engines with much better characteristics, so the advantages for guns would still be very dubious. :)
It was confirmed some way back the AF is after airborne railgun.. travel down the airborne gun development path has started. Actually started back during the AC- X program.  No matter what rantings on this forum... Decisions are ultimately political as explained along time back for those reading.

As far carrying your rocket engine vs as explained physics there nothing to discuss. As far as ur knowing was is fantastic well again there is also nothing to discuss. 

Please feel free to add something worth contemplating.  ;)

Are you contending that 6th generation fighter aircraft will have rail guns?
From previous comments you made it was my understanding was that you said no it wouldn’t be rail guns but advanced zero-recoil “conventional” guns; now you appear to be saying yes it will be rail guns.
If you are now saying yes re: rail guns in 6th generation fighter aircraft how do designers and builders overcome the immense power generation, weight, size and material issues?
Your arguments appear to lack any real consistency apart from continual exaggeration of what is even remotely possible, continually mixing in irrelevant details, and a somewhat worrying inability to recognize and/or acknowledge any of this, instead being insistent that you alone see the “truth”.
Hence this becomes less and less like a debate and more and more like an intervention or a psychiatric consultation. Good luck with that jsport.
« Last Edit: January 08, 2019, 02:40:53 pm by kaiserd »

Offline jsport

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1182
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: The future of aircraft mounted guns
« Reply #115 on: January 08, 2019, 02:56:41 pm »
The physics of gun firing a rocket assisted round will always beat a missile alone or a gun alone.

I seriously doubt that. From the practical point of view, the projectile would be forced to fit into not one, but two complicated and pretty contradictory at times set of requirements. Just to fit inside the gun, the projectile diameter must be very limited, it must either have no fins or have retractable fins, it must be able to survive hard acceleration, ect.

 
The distances in the Pacific problem against the numerous dispersed targets render a conventional tactical aircraft configuration obsolete before it enters service.

Since the gun is a short-range weapon, I'm really confused here: how exactly guns would help solving the DISTANCE problems?

 
New material from super hardened materials which are extremely light weight guns and energtics which allow a rocket assisted rd to begin to solve the problem.

One problem - said (fantasy) materials would also allow to build rocket engines with much better characteristics, so the advantages for guns would still be very dubious. :)
It was confirmed some way back the AF is after airborne railgun.. travel down the airborne gun development path has started. Actually started back during the AC- X program.  No matter what rantings on this forum... Decisions are ultimately political as explained along time back for those reading.

As far carrying your rocket engine vs as explained physics there nothing to discuss. As far as ur knowing was is fantastic well again there is also nothing to discuss. 

Please feel free to add something worth contemplating.  ;)

Are you contending that 6th generation fighter aircraft will have rail guns?
From previous comments you made it was my understanding was that you said no it wouldn’t be rail guns but advanced zero-recoil “conventional” guns; now you appear to be saying yes it will be rail guns.
If you are now saying yes re: rail guns in 6th generation fighter aircraft how do designers and builders overcome the immense power generation, weight, size and material issues?
Your arguments appear to lack any real consistency apart from continual exaggeration of what is even remotely possible, continually mixing in irrelevant details, and a somewhat worrying inability to recognize and/or acknowledge any of this, instead being insistent that you alone see the “truth”.
Hence this becomes less and less like a debate and more and more like an intervention or a psychiatric consultation. Good luck with that jsport.


 emrgs vs chemical based guns is something that someone who has a long term understanding Pentagon politics between the services and who has followed this tech for decades would understand. There are very few folks on this forum  w/ that background and understanding. As explained it seems many days ago this will ultimately is a political decision what will arm a 6th G, but the threat is real unanswered. I have not seen a single solution posed by the BS bashers( intervention or a psychiatric consultation maybe for them and you). Not one alternative suggestion just vindictiveness. Missiles and bombs get shot down duh duh. The uninformed and non contributing continue to avoid the basic premise of the need.
The truly ignorant have nothing but provocation left.  Fine that will keep it in the Front pages have at it.
 ::)


« Last Edit: January 08, 2019, 03:00:40 pm by jsport »

Offline kaiserd

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 522
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: The future of aircraft mounted guns
« Reply #116 on: January 08, 2019, 03:24:56 pm »
The physics of gun firing a rocket assisted round will always beat a missile alone or a gun alone.

I seriously doubt that. From the practical point of view, the projectile would be forced to fit into not one, but two complicated and pretty contradictory at times set of requirements. Just to fit inside the gun, the projectile diameter must be very limited, it must either have no fins or have retractable fins, it must be able to survive hard acceleration, ect.

 
The distances in the Pacific problem against the numerous dispersed targets render a conventional tactical aircraft configuration obsolete before it enters service.

Since the gun is a short-range weapon, I'm really confused here: how exactly guns would help solving the DISTANCE problems?

 
New material from super hardened materials which are extremely light weight guns and energtics which allow a rocket assisted rd to begin to solve the problem.

One problem - said (fantasy) materials would also allow to build rocket engines with much better characteristics, so the advantages for guns would still be very dubious. :)
It was confirmed some way back the AF is after airborne railgun.. travel down the airborne gun development path has started. Actually started back during the AC- X program.  No matter what rantings on this forum... Decisions are ultimately political as explained along time back for those reading.

As far carrying your rocket engine vs as explained physics there nothing to discuss. As far as ur knowing was is fantastic well again there is also nothing to discuss. 

Please feel free to add something worth contemplating.  ;)

Are you contending that 6th generation fighter aircraft will have rail guns?
From previous comments you made it was my understanding was that you said no it wouldn’t be rail guns but advanced zero-recoil “conventional” guns; now you appear to be saying yes it will be rail guns.
If you are now saying yes re: rail guns in 6th generation fighter aircraft how do designers and builders overcome the immense power generation, weight, size and material issues?
Your arguments appear to lack any real consistency apart from continual exaggeration of what is even remotely possible, continually mixing in irrelevant details, and a somewhat worrying inability to recognize and/or acknowledge any of this, instead being insistent that you alone see the “truth”.
Hence this becomes less and less like a debate and more and more like an intervention or a psychiatric consultation. Good luck with that jsport.


 emrgs vs chemical based guns is something that someone who has a long term understanding Pentagon politics between the services and who has followed this tech for decades would understand. There are very few folks on this forum  w/ that background and understanding. As explained it seems many days ago this will ultimately is a political decision what will arm a 6th G, but the threat is real unanswered. I have not seen a single solution posed by the BS bashers( intervention or a psychiatric consultation maybe for them and you). Not one alternative suggestion just vindictiveness. Missiles and bombs get shot down duh duh. The uninformed and non contributing continue to avoid the basic premise of the need.
The truly ignorant have nothing but provocation left.  Fine that will keep it in the Front pages have at it.
 ::)

Jsport - I believe you have a real interest in, knowledge of and enthusiasm for gun technology.
However your other claims of insight into Pentagon politics and the many of the technical aspects repeatedly raised with you are not credible given your responses in this discussion.
You have again totally failed to engage or deal with points put to you; no one is saying there aren’t increasing evolving threats but you have again failed to provide a credible realistic solution.
I think your line “the truly ignorant have nothing but provocation left” is very much a self portrait hence I very much wish you well.
« Last Edit: January 08, 2019, 03:26:41 pm by kaiserd »

Offline jsport

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1182
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: The future of aircraft mounted guns
« Reply #117 on: January 08, 2019, 03:41:27 pm »
The physics of gun firing a rocket assisted round will always beat a missile alone or a gun alone.

I seriously doubt that. From the practical point of view, the projectile would be forced to fit into not one, but two complicated and pretty contradictory at times set of requirements. Just to fit inside the gun, the projectile diameter must be very limited, it must either have no fins or have retractable fins, it must be able to survive hard acceleration, ect.

 
The distances in the Pacific problem against the numerous dispersed targets render a conventional tactical aircraft configuration obsolete before it enters service.

Since the gun is a short-range weapon, I'm really confused here: how exactly guns would help solving the DISTANCE problems?

 
New material from super hardened materials which are extremely light weight guns and energtics which allow a rocket assisted rd to begin to solve the problem.

One problem - said (fantasy) materials would also allow to build rocket engines with much better characteristics, so the advantages for guns would still be very dubious. :)
It was confirmed some way back the AF is after airborne railgun.. travel down the airborne gun development path has started. Actually started back during the AC- X program.  No matter what rantings on this forum... Decisions are ultimately political as explained along time back for those reading.

As far carrying your rocket engine vs as explained physics there nothing to discuss. As far as ur knowing was is fantastic well again there is also nothing to discuss. 

Please feel free to add something worth contemplating.  ;)

Are you contending that 6th generation fighter aircraft will have rail guns?
From previous comments you made it was my understanding was that you said no it wouldn’t be rail guns but advanced zero-recoil “conventional” guns; now you appear to be saying yes it will be rail guns.
If you are now saying yes re: rail guns in 6th generation fighter aircraft how do designers and builders overcome the immense power generation, weight, size and material issues?
Your arguments appear to lack any real consistency apart from continual exaggeration of what is even remotely possible, continually mixing in irrelevant details, and a somewhat worrying inability to recognize and/or acknowledge any of this, instead being insistent that you alone see the “truth”.
Hence this becomes less and less like a debate and more and more like an intervention or a psychiatric consultation. Good luck with that jsport.


 emrgs vs chemical based guns is something that someone who has a long term understanding Pentagon politics between the services and who has followed this tech for decades would understand. There are very few folks on this forum  w/ that background and understanding. As explained it seems many days ago this will ultimately is a political decision what will arm a 6th G, but the threat is real unanswered. I have not seen a single solution posed by the BS bashers( intervention or a psychiatric consultation maybe for them and you). Not one alternative suggestion just vindictiveness. Missiles and bombs get shot down duh duh. The uninformed and non contributing continue to avoid the basic premise of the need.
The truly ignorant have nothing but provocation left.  Fine that will keep it in the Front pages have at it.
 ::)

Jsport - I believe you have a real interest in, knowledge of and enthusiasm for gun technology.
However your other claims of insight into Pentagon politics and the many of the technical aspects repeatedly raised with you are not credible given your responses in this discussion.
You have again totally failed to engage or deal with points put to you; no one is saying there aren’t increasing evolving threats but you have again failed to provide a credible realistic solution.
I think your line “the truly ignorant have nothing but provocation left” is very much a self portrait hence I very much wish you well.
Dont see myself at all provoking.
No one on this forum has challenged my assumptions any credible way so why would waste my time. They have not seen understanding of the art/science of currently possible let alone the motivations in the real development world.   The AF is going w/ real money.. What argument has there been for nearly a week?
If there were data it would classified or proprietary or both. This is spin cycle of the grudge, go ahead keep going.
« Last Edit: January 08, 2019, 03:49:25 pm by jsport »

Offline GWrecks

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 75
  • Big Wingy Thingy
Re: The future of aircraft mounted guns
« Reply #118 on: January 18, 2019, 09:23:58 pm »
I guess I should mention something my college professor said.

In Vietnam many of the missiles failed because the igniter was designed for sea level temperatures. However, at the altitudes the missiles were launched it was much colder, and the igniters shrunk and thus failed often. Once the igniters were fixed to account for this problem, the reliability rate for missiles vastly increased.

I haven't asked him what this means for guns yet. However, I guess it's worth noting that he said guns suffered from the same problems at the time, except that the problem was that heating would cause the bolt or cams to expand and again malfunction. Even the M134 Minigun and M61 Vulcan were vulnerable to this - although it would not jam the gun, it would also not fire the bullet/shell. So I guess that implies that guns aren't necessarily more reliable than missiles either.
↑↑↓↓LRLRBA

Offline CJGibson

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1139
  • Shoot him, you fool!
Re: The future of aircraft mounted guns
« Reply #119 on: January 18, 2019, 11:29:54 pm »

In Vietnam many of the missiles failed because the igniter was designed for sea level temperatures. However, at the altitudes the missiles were launched it was much colder, and the igniters shrunk and thus failed often. Once the igniters were fixed to account for this problem, the reliability rate for missiles vastly increased.


I find that hard to believe, but stranger things have happened.

Chris

Offline ouroboros

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 352
Re: The future of aircraft mounted guns
« Reply #120 on: February 04, 2019, 08:08:47 am »
The line of thought behind DEW implies substantial but not overwhelming power generation. Lasers want more continuous power, hard to say if HPM has similar requirement or more pulse based. If you accept that some pulse based power is present, then that could open up opportunities for ETC based guns. Railguns however require a much more serious pulsed power system though. The only immediate solution that comes to my mind is separating bullet from charge essentially, by using expendable cartridges containiing explosive flux compression generator packages. The cartridges functionally are like firing blanks, so point the cartridge chamber aft when firing, feed the generated pulse to the railgun itself while giving the projectile a compressed air puff to start sliding down the rails, and you might have a chemical-electric gun...