The future of aircraft mounted guns

DrRansom

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Dec 15, 2012
Messages
513
Reaction score
0
Why is there a model of the PCA with a large gun? Just curious.
 

MihoshiK

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Feb 9, 2007
Messages
96
Reaction score
0
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
96
Reaction score
0
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
1,186
Reaction score
0
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
11,340
Reaction score
1
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
1,186
Reaction score
0
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
11,340
Reaction score
1
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
1,186
Reaction score
0
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
Joined
Oct 25, 2013
Messages
525
Reaction score
0
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.
 

MihoshiK

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Feb 9, 2007
Messages
96
Reaction score
0
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
1,186
Reaction score
0
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
96
Reaction score
0
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
1,186
Reaction score
0
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
96
Reaction score
0
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
1,186
Reaction score
0
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
Joined
Oct 25, 2013
Messages
525
Reaction score
0
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
2,126
Reaction score
0
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.
 
Top