Register here

Author Topic: The future of aircraft mounted guns  (Read 3507 times)

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 youd 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 youd 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 »