The future of aircraft mounted guns

DrRansom

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Dec 15, 2012
Messages
517
Reaction score
1
Why is there a model of the PCA with a large gun? Just curious.
 

MihoshiK

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Feb 9, 2007
Messages
101
Reaction score
4
DrRansom said:
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.
 

MihoshiK

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Feb 9, 2007
Messages
101
Reaction score
4
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.
 

jsport

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
1,204
Reaction score
4
MihoshiK said:
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.
 

Attachments

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,604
Reaction score
110
jsport said:
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?
 

jsport

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
1,204
Reaction score
4
sferrin said:
jsport said:
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..
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,604
Reaction score
110
jsport said:
sferrin said:
jsport said:
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?
 

jsport

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
1,204
Reaction score
4
sferrin said:
jsport said:
sferrin said:
jsport said:
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
 

Attachments

kaiserd

I really should change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2013
Messages
546
Reaction score
7
jsport said:
sferrin said:
jsport said:
sferrin said:
jsport said:
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.
 

AeroFranz

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
May 4, 2008
Messages
2,152
Reaction score
15
up there with combatreform.org
 

MihoshiK

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Feb 9, 2007
Messages
101
Reaction score
4
jsport said:
MihoshiK said:
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.
 

jsport

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
1,204
Reaction score
4
AeroFranz said:
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
 

MihoshiK

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Feb 9, 2007
Messages
101
Reaction score
4
jsport said:
AeroFranz said:
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.
 

jsport

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
1,204
Reaction score
4
MihoshiK said:
jsport said:
AeroFranz said:
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.
 

Attachments

MihoshiK

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Feb 9, 2007
Messages
101
Reaction score
4
jsport said:
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.
 

Attachments

jsport

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
1,204
Reaction score
4
kaiserd said:
jsport said:
sferrin said:
jsport said:
sferrin said:
jsport said:
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.
 

Attachments

kaiserd

I really should change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2013
Messages
546
Reaction score
7
jsport said:
kaiserd said:
jsport said:
sferrin said:
jsport said:
sferrin said:
jsport said:
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.
 

AeroFranz

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
May 4, 2008
Messages
2,152
Reaction score
15
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.
 

flateric

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
8,738
Reaction score
143
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 ..
 

Arjen

It's turtles all the way down
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2010
Messages
2,268
Reaction score
32
jsport said:
Computers, much like myself are seldom correct and always sure ;D
 

DrRansom

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Dec 15, 2012
Messages
517
Reaction score
1
Thanks for clearing that up - the howitzer armed fighter is the fever dream of a unacknowledged online visionary.
 

jsport

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
1,204
Reaction score
4
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.
 

Attachments

MihoshiK

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Feb 9, 2007
Messages
101
Reaction score
4
jsport said:
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.
 

jsport

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
1,204
Reaction score
4
MihoshiK said:
jsport said:
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.
 

Dragon029

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Mar 17, 2009
Messages
657
Reaction score
13
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?
 

Sundog

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2006
Messages
2,580
Reaction score
18
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.
 

MihoshiK

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Feb 9, 2007
Messages
101
Reaction score
4
jsport said:
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.
 

jsport

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
1,204
Reaction score
4
Dragon029 said:
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.
 

LowObservable

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
2,163
Reaction score
18
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.
 

djfawcett

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Dec 16, 2012
Messages
39
Reaction score
0
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.
 

kaiserd

I really should change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2013
Messages
546
Reaction score
7
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.
 

jsport

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
1,204
Reaction score
4
kaiserd said:
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.
 

marauder2048

"I should really just relax"
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
2,209
Reaction score
23
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.
 

SpudmanWP

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2008
Messages
1,071
Reaction score
17
Air-dropped guided mortar rounds... No need for a heavy gun or propellant.
 

jsport

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
1,204
Reaction score
4
SpudmanWP said:
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.
 

SpudmanWP

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2008
Messages
1,071
Reaction score
17
Sorry, I was thinking of dropping them from a VLO CM or drone.
 

jsport

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
1,204
Reaction score
4
SpudmanWP said:
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.
 

SpudmanWP

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2008
Messages
1,071
Reaction score
17
I was thinking more of DEAD/SEAD targets.

Once they are taken care of, bigger assets can bring in the big suff.
 
Top