Register here

Author Topic: The future of aircraft mounted guns  (Read 2494 times)

Offline MihoshiK

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 93
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: 510
  • 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: 93
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: 1163
  • 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: 585
  • 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: 93
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: 1163
  • 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: 45
  • 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: 1163
  • 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: 510
  • 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: 1163
  • 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: 510
  • 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: 1163
  • 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: 70
  • 無尾霊狐
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: 1123
  • GSATH is coming
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