Register here

Author Topic: The future of aircraft mounted guns  (Read 3509 times)

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.