Future military fighters and guns - yes or no ? [Archive]

Guy Alcala

February 15th 04, 08:01 AM

JDupre5762 wrote:

> >I'm interested in canvassing opinions regarding the inclusion of a gun
> >on future military aircraft.
>
> There seems to be a remarkable coincidence every time that pundits or experts
> decide that something can never happen again it will. I would think that the
> cost of an internal gun is small enough to be included in a future design based
> on the possibility of it being needed at some time somewhere. The military
> needs to be prepared for almost any eventuality. I know that the USAF has had
> occasion to use guns ony strafing runs from F-15s in Afghanistan and would bet
> that if someone had said there was a need for that ten years ago many people
> would have laughed at the thought. I would think too that any nation in Europe
> with its congested airspace ought to see that at some point it will probably
> become necessary to establish visual range only (VRO) intercept and firing
> parameters lest a lot of neutrals end up dead.

The thing is, modern dogfight missiles cued by HMS, radar or IRSTS are effective
down well inside classical gun ranges at much higher off-boresight angles, making
the gun far less likely to be used for A/A combat. There is an issue of
countermeasures susceptibility with missiles (as there is with gun fire control
systems), but the general conclusion of the analysts, this time backed up by combat
experience (unlike the case in the '50s) is that the gun really is excess weight
these days, at least for A/A combat use. It still may have a place in peacetime
for firing warning shots or the occasional troops in contact emergency, but the
general feeling seems to be that the first situation can be catered for with podded
guns, while in the second the weight/volume otherwise dedicated to an internal gun
installation can be better used for carrying more A/G (like the SSB or rockets) or
A/A weapons, fuel or avionics, or can just be left out and the a/c as a whole can
be smaller, lighter and cheaper.

Guy

Tony Williams

February 15th 04, 08:04 AM

(championsleeper) wrote in message >...
> Hi,
>
> I'm interested in canvassing opinions regarding the inclusion of a gun
> on future military aircraft. If you listen to some of the blurb out
> there (government, aircraft manufacturers, hollywood) it would appear
> that its all going to be BVR (beyond visual range) type stuff with no
> need for a gun. That seems a bit of a cold-war type idea. It would
> appear that the way the world is going that CIC (close in combat) is
> going to be a requirement in future combat, namely because:
> - it is not going to be that easy to identify the enemy
> - bvr assault is not as accurate as people would make you think
> - there have been improvements in technology (firing control in
> particular) which improves the accuracy of CIC
> All of these points would appear to suggest that there are benefits to
> including a gun in future aircraft.
>
> However, I've read that one modern aircraft, the eurofighter typhonn,
> will not have a gun. The RAF/MOD have apparently decided to drop it on
> the grounds of operational costs stating it is unnecessary.

All Eurofighters, even the RAF's, will carry the Mauser BK 27 cannon,
but the RAF is not activating it (for the time being at least).

This has been posted before on this board, but it's relevant to your
question. It comes from 'Flying Guns: the Modern Era' by Emmanuel
Gustin and myself (due to be published by The Crowood Press next
month):

"Modern short-range missiles have minimum ranges as low as 300 m, well
within gun range, and are highly agile, with wide engagement
envelopes, which make them able to hit targets well off to one side of
the firing aircraft, especially when cued by a helmet-mounted sight:
in fact, the capabilities of most recent models are such that the
aircraft carrying them barely need to manoeuvre. This does not mean
that guns are useless for air-to-air work. They have a particular
value in modern 'policing' applications, as they enable warning shots
to be fired in front of suspect aircraft. They also provide an
economical way of engaging low-value targets such as unmanned
reconnaissance drones, transport and liaison aircraft, or
drug-smugglers. In a 'hot' war they still have certain advantages in
close-quarter fighting, for example in 'picking off' an enemy
attacking a wingman, who may be too close for a safe missile shot. The
ability of modern fighters to adopt extreme attitudes, pointing well
away from the line of flight, significantly assists gun aiming in
dogfights. Cannon projectiles have a shorter flight time than a
missile, a significant advantage in a dogfight.

Finally, the gun provides a last-ditch capability if the missiles run
out, or are defeated by advanced countermeasures or simply by
circumstances. The 1991 Gulf War revealed the deficiencies of modern
IR-homing missiles when faced with trying to pick up a low-flying
target against a hot desert background (helicopters being in any case
difficult for IR seekers to lock on to from above). USAF A-10
aircraft achieved two helicopter kills with the GAU-8/A (using 275 and
550 rounds respectively) in one case when the IR missiles failed to
lock on. Furthermore, the performance of even the best missiles cannot
always be guaranteed, for various reasons. In Kosovo, a US fighter
engaging a Serbian plane needed to fire three AMRAAMs to bring it
down. In other engagements in the late 1990s, USAF and USN fighters
fired a total of seven Sparrows, AMRAAMs, and Phoenix missiles against
Iraqi MiG-25s without scoring a single hit (although the Phoenix shots
were taken at extreme range).
In part, the low success rates are due to tactical considerations, in
that missiles may deliberately be launched outside the normal
engagement envelope to distract or scare off the enemy, and sometimes
two missiles are launched at one target to increase the hit
probability. Whatever the reason, this results in missiles being used
up at a high rate, making it more likely that they will run out during
a sortie. A cannon will typically carry enough ammunition for several
engagements, usefully increasing combat persistence at a minimal cost
in weight and performance.

One curious aspect to the use of AAMs in combat is that of the
approximately 1,000 kills achieved between 1958 and 1991, only a
handful were scored beyond visual range, which does raise questions
about the significance of the very long ranges of which some missiles
are capable. It is sometimes argued that modern short-range missiles
are so good that any aircraft with the benefit of long-range sensors
and missiles should use them to try to stay outside the envelope of
the enemy's short-range AAMs. However, it is not always possible to
dictate the terms of an engagement. The Iranians made good use of the
long-range AIM-54 in the war with Iraq, but the F-14s which carried it
still found themselves engaged in gunfights from time to time.

There is a continual battle between missile sensor and countermeasure
technology. In the future, stealth technology applied to aircraft may
considerably shorten target acquisition and combat ranges, putting
into question the worth of modern BVR (beyond visual range) AAMs. The
possible future use of anti-radar missile guidance as a way of
overcoming stealth characteristics may force fighters to make minimal
use of their own radars, further reducing acquisition and combat
distances. It may also prove increasingly difficult for either IR or
radar-homing missiles to lock on to their stealthy targets,
additionally protected by extensive electronic jamming and IR
countermeasures.

Of course, modern guns are usually aimed by the plane's radar which
could also be jammed (although less easily than the much smaller and
less powerful missile seekers) but laser rangefinders could make an
acceptable alternative in providing fire control data. If planes
eventually become 'laser-proof' as well, the possibility presumably
exists of linking variable magnification optical sights to a computer
which would be able to analyse the image, identify the plane,
calculate its distance, speed and heading and provide gunsight aiming
information accordingly, all without emitting any signals.

The emphasis in the use of aircraft guns has now shifted more to
air-to-ground work, although even this is becoming increasingly
hazardous in a 'hot' war. With the proliferation of anti-aircraft gun
and missile systems, including MANPADS, even the specialist
ground-attack aircraft, fitted with powerful cannon, have found it to
be safer to rely on the long range of their air-to-ground guided
weapons rather than close to gun range, although as we have seen the
USAF's A-10s still made good use of their cannon against Iraqi targets
in 1991.

This trend is aided by the continued development of air-to-surface
missiles, with the latest ones having autonomous homing systems to
provide "fire and forget" capability over long ranges. Another current
development is the GD Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System, which
aims to achieve low-cost accuracy by fitted a laser homer to the
little 2.75 inch (70 mm) rocket. The target is to achieve a CEP of 1 –
2 m at ranges of up to 5 – 6 km at a price of US$ 8 – 10,000;
one-sixth the cost of a Hellfire anti-tank missile.

However, not all conflicts involve front-line opposition; in fact,
armed forces are now commonly engaged on police work, frequently
dealing with guerrilla forces. In these circumstances, rockets and
missiles may represent an inappropriate degree of destruction, with a
high risk of collateral damage. The RAF was embarrassed during
operations against insurgents in Sierra Leone in 2000 to find that
they had no suitable weapon for their gunless Harrier GR.7 aircraft to
attack small groups of rebels operating close to innocent civilians.

Another advantage of using cannon was demonstrated in the invasion of
Afghanistan in 2002. During an intense infantry battle at Takur Ghar
in late May, in which US forces were ambushed and in considerable
danger, air support was called for. The AC-130 was not permitted to
intervene in daylight due to its vulnerability, so USAF fighters were
sent to help. For a part of the battle the Afghan combatants were too
close to the Americans for rockets or bombs to be used, so the
fighters – F-16s and even F-15s – went in strafing with their 20 mm
cannon, as did the Navy's F-14s and F/A-18s on other occasions. Even
RAF Tornadoes were reported to have carried out gun strafing runs on
at least one occasion. It may logically be argued that it is foolish
to risk an extremely expensive aircraft, with its expensively trained
pilot, to being lost due to very low-tech ground fire, but sometimes
the risk needs to be taken to save friendly lives."

Tony Williams
Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk
Discussion forum at: http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/

Ian

February 15th 04, 08:51 AM

<snip>
> Another advantage of using cannon was demonstrated in the invasion of
> Afghanistan in 2002. During an intense infantry battle at Takur Ghar
> in late May, in which US forces were ambushed and in considerable
> danger, air support was called for. The AC-130 was not permitted to
> intervene in daylight due to its vulnerability, so USAF fighters were
> sent to help. For a part of the battle the Afghan combatants were too
> close to the Americans for rockets or bombs to be used, so the
> fighters - F-16s and even F-15s - went in strafing with their 20 mm
> cannon, as did the Navy's F-14s and F/A-18s on other occasions. Even
> RAF Tornadoes were reported to have carried out gun strafing runs on
> at least one occasion. It may logically be argued that it is foolish
> to risk an extremely expensive aircraft, with its expensively trained
> pilot, to being lost due to very low-tech ground fire, but sometimes
> the risk needs to be taken to save friendly lives."

Are you saying that RAF Tornado aircraft were involved in the Afghanistan
fighting? Just surprised as I didn't think we'd sent the big boys over?

Tony Williams

February 15th 04, 04:40 PM

phil hunt

February 15th 04, 10:11 PM

On 14 Feb 2004 13:50:53 -0800, championsleeper > wrote:
>
>However, I've read that one modern aircraft, the eurofighter typhonn,
>will not have a gun. The RAF/MOD have apparently decided to drop it on
>the grounds of operational costs stating it is unnecessary.

British Typhoons are dropping the guns, supposedly as they are
unnecessary, but in reality as a cost-saving measure.

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: zen19725 at zen dot co dot uk)

February 15th 04, 10:16 PM

"Ian" > wrote in message >...
> <snip>
> > Another advantage of using cannon was demonstrated in the invasion of
> > Afghanistan in 2002. During an intense infantry battle at Takur Ghar
> > in late May, in which US forces were ambushed and in considerable
> > danger, air support was called for. The AC-130 was not permitted to
> > intervene in daylight due to its vulnerability, so USAF fighters were
> > sent to help. For a part of the battle the Afghan combatants were too
> > close to the Americans for rockets or bombs to be used, so the
> > fighters - F-16s and even F-15s - went in strafing with their 20 mm
> > cannon, as did the Navy's F-14s and F/A-18s on other occasions. Even
> > RAF Tornadoes were reported to have carried out gun strafing runs on
> > at least one occasion. It may logically be argued that it is foolish
> > to risk an extremely expensive aircraft, with its expensively trained
> > pilot, to being lost due to very low-tech ground fire, but sometimes
> > the risk needs to be taken to save friendly lives."
>
> Are you saying that RAF Tornado aircraft were involved in the Afghanistan
> fighting? Just surprised as I didn't think we'd sent the big boys over?

Correct. No Tornados were not used over Afghanistan (Op Veritas).

The first 55 Typhoon will be fitted with the cannon. The plan was for
it to be deleted in the follow on tranches. In Parliament the
following disclosure was made:

http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm199900/cmselect/cmdfence/528/52804.htm

"The Eurofighter Cannon

23. Although perhaps the most important of Eurofighter's armaments,
the BVRAAM missile is just one of a range of weapons with which the
aircraft will be equipped to tackle targets at different ranges. One
of Admiral Blackham's roles is to assess the appropriate weapons mix
to provide the capabilities needed for Eurofighter—

We need to provide ourselves with a reasonable mix of weapons.
Sometimes, for example, we shall demand that our pilots visually
identify contacts before they engage them and in those circumstances
we would want a short-range missile. In other circumstances we may be
prepared to have different sorts of rules of engagement and that would
allow us to use a longer range missile such as a BVRAAM ... The actual
balance of numbers of weapons will obviously depend on the relative
likelihood of the threats ... identified.[84]
24. As a result of such deliberations, the MoD has now decided not to
fit the Mauser cannon on the RAF's Eurofighters in the second and
subsequent batches of the aircraft, and those to be fitted to the 55
aircraft of the first batch would not be used. The Parliamentary
Under-Secretary told the House—

The Mauser 27mm cannon will be installed in tranche-1 Eurofighter
aircraft for the Royal Air Force. However, we are not planning to
procure stocks of spares or ammunition following our decision not to
use the gun, or to fit it to subsequent tranches of aircraft ... We
have assessed that the minimal operational utility of the Mauser
cannon on Eurofighter in any role is outweighed by its support,
fatigue and training cost implications, particularly given the
capability of the advanced short-range air-to-air missiles with which
the aircraft will be armed ... The advantages in deleting the Mauser
cannon from our Eurofighter aircraft derive from avoiding the support,
fatigue and cost implications which we would otherwise have to
bear.[85]

25. Admiral Blackham told us that this decision was one of the
earliest made by his newly established Equipment Capability
organisation.[86] Although most comparable aircraft had a cannon
(including the F-22, most variants of the Joint Strike Fighter,[87]
the Rafale, the Gripen and, notably, the Eurofighters of the other
three partners'airforces), he believed that the decision would have no
operational impact for Eurofighter,[88] as the cannon would give the
MoD no capability that it did not already have.[89] In engaging likely
air threats—generally high performance aircraft built in the West or
in the former Soviet Union—it was very unlikely that the RAF would not
want to use a missile.[90] Even for very short range air-to-air combat
the MoD were acquiring ASRAAM missiles.[91] In its written evidence,
the MoD stated that—

Since the introduction of air-to-air missiles, the gun has been used
for very close range engagements where the target was inside a
short-range air-to-air missile's minimum range. The improved minimum
range capability and agility of the ASRAAM missiles with which the
aircraft will be armed greatly decrease the likelihood of such
engagements. ASRAAM, including a Helmet Mounted Sight targetting
system, offers the pilot a shot with a very high probability of
success in almost every conceivable situation. And were these missiles
to be exhausted, it is unlikely that a cannon would be of use as the
risk would remain that aircraft could be engaged by missiles from well
outside the gun's range. Furthermore, in order to use the gun the
pilot would have to point the aircraft directly at the target, thereby
making less effective the aircraft's integrated Defensive Aids
Sub-System (whose towed decoys operate best when the aircraft is not
head on to the threat) for the small probability of a successful gun
shot.[92]

26. The MoD does not envisage Eurofighter having a ground attack
role.[93] The cannon on other current RAF aircraft have never been
used in anger, even for strafing—the most likely possible
scenario.[94] The MoD told us that, in such an air-to-ground role, it
found it difficult to anticipate circumstances which would justify the
relatively indiscriminate nature of gun firing in an age of
precision-guided munitions.[95] Admiral Blackham told us that the MoD
had concluded that "in the circumstances that we face today, the
cannon does not represent a very sensible use of our money and does
not provide a capability we really want".[96] The MoD has however
already sunk £90 million into the cannon which has now been wasted.
The savings from not using the gun would only be £2.5 million a
year.[97] Admiral Blackham believed that that was no reason to go on
sinking more money unnecessarily.[98] We are less convinced of the
economic sense of this decision at this late stage of the aircraft's
development, and we look to the MoD in its response to this report to
provide further explanation of its rationale for not using the cannon,
and how a very close range engagement capability could otherwise be
provided."

Other links of interest discussing the subject:

http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm199900/cmselect/cmdfence/528/0052303.htm

http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm199900/cmhansrd/vo001026/debtext/01026-32.htm

TJ

James Hart

February 15th 04, 10:52 PM

TJ wrote:
> "Ian" > wrote in message
> >...
>> <snip>
>>> Another advantage of using cannon was demonstrated in the invasion
>>> of Afghanistan in 2002. During an intense infantry battle at Takur
>>> Ghar in late May, in which US forces were ambushed and in
>>> considerable danger, air support was called for. The AC-130 was not
>>> permitted to intervene in daylight due to its vulnerability, so
>>> USAF fighters were sent to help. For a part of the battle the
>>> Afghan combatants were too close to the Americans for rockets or
>>> bombs to be used, so the fighters - F-16s and even F-15s - went in
>>> strafing with their 20 mm cannon, as did the Navy's F-14s and
>>> F/A-18s on other occasions. Even RAF Tornadoes were reported to
>>> have carried out gun strafing runs on at least one occasion. It may
>>> logically be argued that it is foolish to risk an extremely
>>> expensive aircraft, with its expensively trained pilot, to being
>>> lost due to very low-tech ground fire, but sometimes the risk needs
>>> to be taken to save friendly lives."
>>
>> Are you saying that RAF Tornado aircraft were involved in the
>> Afghanistan fighting? Just surprised as I didn't think we'd sent
>> the big boys over?
>
> Correct. No Tornados were not used over Afghanistan (Op Veritas).
>
> The first 55 Typhoon will be fitted with the cannon. The plan was for
> it to be deleted in the follow on tranches. In Parliament the
> following disclosure was made:
>
>
http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm199900/cmselect/cmdfence/528/52804.htm
>
> "The Eurofighter Cannon
>
>
> 23. Although perhaps the most important of Eurofighter's armaments,
> the BVRAAM missile is just one of a range of weapons with which the
> aircraft will be equipped to tackle targets at different ranges. One
> of Admiral Blackham's roles is to assess the appropriate weapons mix
> to provide the capabilities needed for Eurofighter-
>
> We need to provide ourselves with a reasonable mix of weapons.
> Sometimes, for example, we shall demand that our pilots visually
> identify contacts before they engage them and in those circumstances
> we would want a short-range missile. In other circumstances we may be
> prepared to have different sorts of rules of engagement and that would
> allow us to use a longer range missile such as a BVRAAM ... The actual
> balance of numbers of weapons will obviously depend on the relative
> likelihood of the threats ... identified.[84]
> 24. As a result of such deliberations, the MoD has now decided not to
> fit the Mauser cannon on the RAF's Eurofighters in the second and
> subsequent batches of the aircraft, and those to be fitted to the 55
> aircraft of the first batch would not be used. The Parliamentary
> Under-Secretary told the House-
>
> The Mauser 27mm cannon will be installed in tranche-1 Eurofighter
> aircraft for the Royal Air Force. However, we are not planning to
> procure stocks of spares or ammunition following our decision not to
> use the gun, or to fit it to subsequent tranches of aircraft ... We
> have assessed that the minimal operational utility of the Mauser
> cannon on Eurofighter in any role is outweighed by its support,
> fatigue and training cost implications, particularly given the
> capability of the advanced short-range air-to-air missiles with which
> the aircraft will be armed ... The advantages in deleting the Mauser
> cannon from our Eurofighter aircraft derive from avoiding the support,
> fatigue and cost implications which we would otherwise have to
> bear.[85]
>
> 25. Admiral Blackham told us that this decision was one of the
> earliest made by his newly established Equipment Capability
> organisation.[86] Although most comparable aircraft had a cannon
> (including the F-22, most variants of the Joint Strike Fighter,[87]
> the Rafale, the Gripen and, notably, the Eurofighters of the other
> three partners'airforces), he believed that the decision would have no
> operational impact for Eurofighter,[88] as the cannon would give the
> MoD no capability that it did not already have.[89] In engaging likely
> air threats-generally high performance aircraft built in the West or
> in the former Soviet Union-it was very unlikely that the RAF would not
> want to use a missile.[90] Even for very short range air-to-air combat
> the MoD were acquiring ASRAAM missiles.[91] In its written evidence,
> the MoD stated that-
>
> Since the introduction of air-to-air missiles, the gun has been used
> for very close range engagements where the target was inside a
> short-range air-to-air missile's minimum range. The improved minimum
> range capability and agility of the ASRAAM missiles with which the
> aircraft will be armed greatly decrease the likelihood of such
> engagements. ASRAAM, including a Helmet Mounted Sight targetting
> system, offers the pilot a shot with a very high probability of
> success in almost every conceivable situation. And were these missiles
> to be exhausted, it is unlikely that a cannon would be of use as the
> risk would remain that aircraft could be engaged by missiles from well
> outside the gun's range. Furthermore, in order to use the gun the
> pilot would have to point the aircraft directly at the target, thereby
> making less effective the aircraft's integrated Defensive Aids
> Sub-System (whose towed decoys operate best when the aircraft is not
> head on to the threat) for the small probability of a successful gun
> shot.[92]
>
> 26. The MoD does not envisage Eurofighter having a ground attack
> role.[93] The cannon on other current RAF aircraft have never been
> used in anger, even for strafing-the most likely possible
> scenario.[94] The MoD told us that, in such an air-to-ground role, it
> found it difficult to anticipate circumstances which would justify the
> relatively indiscriminate nature of gun firing in an age of
> precision-guided munitions.[95] Admiral Blackham told us that the MoD
> had concluded that "in the circumstances that we face today, the
> cannon does not represent a very sensible use of our money and does
> not provide a capability we really want".[96] The MoD has however
> already sunk £90 million into the cannon which has now been wasted.
> The savings from not using the gun would only be £2.5 million a
> year.[97] Admiral Blackham believed that that was no reason to go on
> sinking more money unnecessarily.[98] We are less convinced of the
> economic sense of this decision at this late stage of the aircraft's
> development, and we look to the MoD in its response to this report to
> provide further explanation of its rationale for not using the cannon,
> and how a very close range engagement capability could otherwise be
> provided."
>
> Other links of interest discussing the subject:
>
>
http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm199900/cmselect/cmdfence/528/0052303.htm
>
>
>
http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm199900/cmhansrd/vo001026/debtext/01026-32.htm
>
> TJ

As we (the Brits) don't seem to go to war with anyone now on our own then it
would appear to be a good cost saving idea at a first glance, if we can't do
the job then someone else in the alliance will take up the slack in that
role. If at a later date it turns out to be a mistake then with the rest of
the Eurofighter client nations taking up the gun then posibly there would be
a route for us reinstating it.

--
James...
www.jameshart.co.uk

Kevin Brooks

February 15th 04, 11:00 PM

"Guy Alcala" > wrote in message
. ..
> JDupre5762 wrote:
>
> > >I'm interested in canvassing opinions regarding the inclusion of a gun
> > >on future military aircraft.
> >
> > There seems to be a remarkable coincidence every time that pundits or
experts
> > decide that something can never happen again it will. I would think
that the
> > cost of an internal gun is small enough to be included in a future
design based
> > on the possibility of it being needed at some time somewhere. The
military
> > needs to be prepared for almost any eventuality. I know that the USAF
has had
> > occasion to use guns ony strafing runs from F-15s in Afghanistan and
would bet
> > that if someone had said there was a need for that ten years ago many
people
> > would have laughed at the thought. I would think too that any nation in
Europe
> > with its congested airspace ought to see that at some point it will
probably
> > become necessary to establish visual range only (VRO) intercept and
firing
> > parameters lest a lot of neutrals end up dead.
>
> The thing is, modern dogfight missiles cued by HMS, radar or IRSTS are
effective
> down well inside classical gun ranges at much higher off-boresight angles,
making
> the gun far less likely to be used for A/A combat. There is an issue of
> countermeasures susceptibility with missiles (as there is with gun fire
control
> systems), but the general conclusion of the analysts, this time backed up
by combat
> experience (unlike the case in the '50s) is that the gun really is excess
weight
> these days, at least for A/A combat use. It still may have a place in
peacetime
> for firing warning shots or the occasional troops in contact emergency,
but the
> general feeling seems to be that the first situation can be catered for
with podded
> guns, while in the second the weight/volume otherwise dedicated to an
internal gun
> installation can be better used for carrying more A/G (like the SSB or
rockets) or
> A/A weapons, fuel or avionics, or can just be left out and the a/c as a
whole can
> be smaller, lighter and cheaper.

If that is the "general feeling", then why will the Typhoon, Rafael, Su-30
and derivitives, F-22, and F-35 all still have internal guns?

Brooks
>
> Guy
>

Guy Alcala

February 16th 04, 02:01 AM

Kevin Brooks wrote:

> "Guy Alcala" > wrote in message
> . ..
> > JDupre5762 wrote:
> >
> > > >I'm interested in canvassing opinions regarding the inclusion of a gun
> > > >on future military aircraft.
> > >
> > > There seems to be a remarkable coincidence every time that pundits or
> experts
> > > decide that something can never happen again it will. I would think
> that the
> > > cost of an internal gun is small enough to be included in a future
> design based
> > > on the possibility of it being needed at some time somewhere. The
> military
> > > needs to be prepared for almost any eventuality. I know that the USAF
> has had
> > > occasion to use guns ony strafing runs from F-15s in Afghanistan and
> would bet
> > > that if someone had said there was a need for that ten years ago many
> people
> > > would have laughed at the thought. I would think too that any nation in
> Europe
> > > with its congested airspace ought to see that at some point it will
> probably
> > > become necessary to establish visual range only (VRO) intercept and
> firing
> > > parameters lest a lot of neutrals end up dead.
> >
> > The thing is, modern dogfight missiles cued by HMS, radar or IRSTS are
> effective
> > down well inside classical gun ranges at much higher off-boresight angles,
> making
> > the gun far less likely to be used for A/A combat. There is an issue of
> > countermeasures susceptibility with missiles (as there is with gun fire
> control
> > systems), but the general conclusion of the analysts, this time backed up
> by combat
> > experience (unlike the case in the '50s) is that the gun really is excess
> weight
> > these days, at least for A/A combat use. It still may have a place in
> peacetime
> > for firing warning shots or the occasional troops in contact emergency,
> but the
> > general feeling seems to be that the first situation can be catered for
> with podded
> > guns, while in the second the weight/volume otherwise dedicated to an
> internal gun
> > installation can be better used for carrying more A/G (like the SSB or
> rockets) or
> > A/A weapons, fuel or avionics, or can just be left out and the a/c as a
> whole can
> > be smaller, lighter and cheaper.
>
> If that is the "general feeling", then why will the Typhoon, Rafael, Su-30
> and derivitives, F-22, and F-35 all still have internal guns?

Because most of them entered development long ago, and many of them will
probably wind up deleting the guns somewhere down the road (as is the case with
the 2nd and 3rd tranche RAF Typhoons now), especially if something else comes
along that provides greater utility for the space and weight (whether a laser
weapon, DECM, fuel, avionics or what have you). Last I heard, the STOVL version
of the F-35 definitely wasn't going to have an internal gun, although that seems
to change almost weekly. We'' see what happens to the CTOL and carrier versions
down the line. Of course, should a war come along where the gun demonstrates
its utility on a regular (as opposed to occasional) basis, the pendulum may
swing back the other way again.

Guy

George

February 16th 04, 03:27 AM

(Tony Williams) wrote in message >...
> (championsleeper) wrote in message >...
> > Hi,
> >
> > I'm interested in canvassing opinions regarding the inclusion of a gun
> > on future military aircraft. If you listen to some of the blurb out
> > there (government, aircraft manufacturers, hollywood) it would appear
> > that its all going to be BVR (beyond visual range) type stuff with no
> > need for a gun. That seems a bit of a cold-war type idea. It would
> > appear that the way the world is going that CIC (close in combat) is
> > going to be a requirement in future combat, namely because:
> > - it is not going to be that easy to identify the enemy
> > - bvr assault is not as accurate as people would make you think
> > - there have been improvements in technology (firing control in
> > particular) which improves the accuracy of CIC
> > All of these points would appear to suggest that there are benefits to
> > including a gun in future aircraft.

>
The RAF was embarrassed during
> operations against insurgents in Sierra Leone in 2000 to find that
> they had no suitable weapon for their gunless Harrier GR.7 aircraft to
> attack small groups of rebels operating close to innocent civilians.

> Tony Williams

The US is looking at putting a 100kW laser on the JSF. Does anyone
think this could supplant the gun? It is precise, effective (when they
get its power up), aimable (including well off boresight), has a
longer range than a gun, doesn't require ammo, and if you aim it up,
you don't have to worry about shells splashing at the wrong place. The
only disadvantage I can see is charge time (a second shot could take a
few seconds) and the fact that the beam is invisible to the naked eye.
Plus the laser takes electricity from an engine-driven generator
(slight fuel efficiency loss). Any thoughts?

Kevin Brooks

February 16th 04, 03:56 AM

"Guy Alcala" > wrote in message
. ..
> Kevin Brooks wrote:
>
> > "Guy Alcala" > wrote in message
> > . ..
> > > JDupre5762 wrote:
> > >
> > > > >I'm interested in canvassing opinions regarding the inclusion of a
gun
> > > > >on future military aircraft.
> > > >
> > > > There seems to be a remarkable coincidence every time that pundits
or
> > experts
> > > > decide that something can never happen again it will. I would think
> > that the
> > > > cost of an internal gun is small enough to be included in a future
> > design based
> > > > on the possibility of it being needed at some time somewhere. The
> > military
> > > > needs to be prepared for almost any eventuality. I know that the
USAF
> > has had
> > > > occasion to use guns ony strafing runs from F-15s in Afghanistan and
> > would bet
> > > > that if someone had said there was a need for that ten years ago
many
> > people
> > > > would have laughed at the thought. I would think too that any
nation in
> > Europe
> > > > with its congested airspace ought to see that at some point it will
> > probably
> > > > become necessary to establish visual range only (VRO) intercept and
> > firing
> > > > parameters lest a lot of neutrals end up dead.
> > >
> > > The thing is, modern dogfight missiles cued by HMS, radar or IRSTS are
> > effective
> > > down well inside classical gun ranges at much higher off-boresight
angles,
> > making
> > > the gun far less likely to be used for A/A combat. There is an issue
of
> > > countermeasures susceptibility with missiles (as there is with gun
fire
> > control
> > > systems), but the general conclusion of the analysts, this time backed
up
> > by combat
> > > experience (unlike the case in the '50s) is that the gun really is
excess
> > weight
> > > these days, at least for A/A combat use. It still may have a place in
> > peacetime
> > > for firing warning shots or the occasional troops in contact
emergency,
> > but the
> > > general feeling seems to be that the first situation can be catered
for
> > with podded
> > > guns, while in the second the weight/volume otherwise dedicated to an
> > internal gun
> > > installation can be better used for carrying more A/G (like the SSB or
> > rockets) or
> > > A/A weapons, fuel or avionics, or can just be left out and the a/c as
a
> > whole can
> > > be smaller, lighter and cheaper.
> >
> > If that is the "general feeling", then why will the Typhoon, Rafael,
Su-30
> > and derivitives, F-22, and F-35 all still have internal guns?
>
> Because most of them entered development long ago,

Design freeze on the F-35 only happened what, a year or eighteen months
back?

and many of them will
> probably wind up deleting the guns somewhere down the road (as is the case
with
> the 2nd and 3rd tranche RAF Typhoons now),

Come on now--that was a purely economic decision, and a lot of the RAF folks
have screamed about this supposedly "generally accepted" removal of those
guns.

especially if something else comes
> along that provides greater utility for the space and weight (whether a
laser
> weapon, DECM, fuel, avionics or what have you).

"If" is a long way from having generally accepted that the gun should be
deleted.

Last I heard, the STOVL version
> of the F-35 definitely wasn't going to have an internal gun, although that
seems
> to change almost weekly. We'' see what happens to the CTOL and carrier
versions
> down the line. Of course, should a war come along where the gun
demonstrates
> its utility on a regular (as opposed to occasional) basis, the pendulum
may
> swing back the other way again.

Well, AFAIK there has been no general consensus regarding deleting the gun
armament, and everyone continues to do so. If there was such a feeling, we
would expect customers to be deleting them left and right as a weight saving
and space creating measure (adding that big spine to the Block 60 F-16's
indicates that volume usage is growing critical with that design), but we
have not seen this happen.

Brooks

>
> Guy
>

Dweezil Dwarftosser

February 16th 04, 08:04 AM

George wrote:

> The US is looking at putting a 100kW laser on the JSF. Does anyone
> think this could supplant the gun? It is precise, effective (when they
> get its power up), aimable (including well off boresight), has a
> longer range than a gun, doesn't require ammo, and if you aim it up,
> you don't have to worry about shells splashing at the wrong place.

Cool... if (and only if):

- the laser has the same optical path as the video-
aiming device. (May be slaved to radar aim point,
but it is essential the trigger-puller be able to
SEE the effectiveness of the aim/shot).
- all battles are over a sunny, clear desert.
- there is no smoke from previous targets, ground or air.
- There is no "Interlocks out" switch in the cockpit, so
the pilot cannot short-cuircuit the mandatory charge time.
(prevents him from firing "blanks"...)

Tony Williams

February 16th 04, 08:25 AM

(TJ) wrote in message >...
>
> The first 55 Typhoon will be fitted with the cannon. The plan was for
> it to be deleted in the follow on tranches. In Parliament the
> following disclosure was made:
>
> http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm199900/cmselect/cmdfence/528/52804.htm

Thanks for the link, a useful reference. However, you will note that
the report was 'ordered to be published' on 28 June 2000. This was,
IIRC, before the embarrassing incident in Sierra Leone when the lack
of a gun meant that the RAF Harriers had to pass up opportunities to
attack rebels who were too close to friendlies to use rockets or
bombs, and the strafing attacks in Afghanistan and Iraq, not only by
USAF and USN fighters but reportedly by RAF Tornados also.

More recently, I have heard that the RAF will not be dropping the gun
from later batches of Eurofighter. This is what I have put in 'Flying
Guns: The Modern Era':

"At one point the RAF reportedly decided to omit the BK 27 as a
cost-saving measure, but the first batch of weapons had already been
purchased and the acquisition of the remainder had been included in
the production contract. Furthermore, the presence of the gun is
described as 'Class 1 Safety Critical' which means that it may not be
omitted. It now seems likely that the cannon will be fitted, and
functional, in service RAF Eurofighters."

Tony Williams
Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk
Military gun and ammunition discussion forum:
http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/

Guy Alcala

February 16th 04, 10:09 AM

Kevin Brooks wrote:

> "Guy Alcala" > wrote in message
> . ..

<snip>

> There is an issue
> of
> > > > countermeasures susceptibility with missiles (as there is with gun
> fire
> > > control
> > > > systems), but the general conclusion of the analysts, this time backed
> up
> > > by combat
> > > > experience (unlike the case in the '50s) is that the gun really is
> excess
> > > weight
> > > > these days, at least for A/A combat use. It still may have a place in
> > > peacetime
> > > > for firing warning shots or the occasional troops in contact
> emergency,
> > > but the
> > > > general feeling seems to be that the first situation can be catered
> for
> > > with podded
> > > > guns, while in the second the weight/volume otherwise dedicated to an
> > > internal gun
> > > > installation can be better used for carrying more A/G (like the SSB or
> > > rockets) or
> > > > A/A weapons, fuel or avionics, or can just be left out and the a/c as
> a
> > > whole can
> > > > be smaller, lighter and cheaper.
> > >
> > > If that is the "general feeling", then why will the Typhoon, Rafael,
> Su-30
> > > and derivitives, F-22, and F-35 all still have internal guns?
> >
> > Because most of them entered development long ago,
>
> Design freeze on the F-35 only happened what, a year or eighteen months
> back?

I'm not sure that you could call the design frozen now. But the F-35 is the
most recent one of the bunch (and it dates back to at least 1993, and its
precursor programs even earlier), and the service most likely to be flying
missions where a gun could come in handy, the USMC, has decided that they don't
need one (internally). Personally, I've always thought that it would have made
far more sense for the USAF or USN versions to be sans gun. I'd love to see the
study that the USMC undoubtedly did that led them to that decision.

> and many of them will
> > probably wind up deleting the guns somewhere down the road (as is the case
> with
> > the 2nd and 3rd tranche RAF Typhoons now),
>
> Come on now--that was a purely economic decision, and a lot of the RAF folks
> have screamed about this supposedly "generally accepted" removal of those
> guns.

I have seen no concrete evidence that it was a "purely economic" decision (but
see Tony Williams' post). I'm sure cost played a part, but I imagine there were
a multitude of factors involved. I don't doubt that a lot of RAF people
screamed at the idea, just as many people have screamed at virtually every
deletion of some weapon capability (or loss of their personal warm and fuzzy),
no matter how little utility it may have in changed circumstances. The
battleship people screamed too. Who's right in this instance has yet to be
proved. We all agree that there are some cases where a gun provides a useful
capability, but then so does a sword. As always, it's a question of tradeoffs.

> especially if something else comes
> > along that provides greater utility for the space and weight (whether a
> laser
> > weapon, DECM, fuel, avionics or what have you).
>
> "If" is a long way from having generally accepted that the gun should be
> deleted.

I said it was (becoming) generally accepted by analysts, not (necessarily) by
the user community. If it were possible to provide for every possible
contingency, someone in the user community would want to have it all, but that's
not very realistic.

> Last I heard, the STOVL version
> > of the F-35 definitely wasn't going to have an internal gun, although that
> seems
> > to change almost weekly. We'' see what happens to the CTOL and carrier
> versions
> > down the line. Of course, should a war come along where the gun
> demonstrates
> > its utility on a regular (as opposed to occasional) basis, the pendulum
> may
> > swing back the other way again.
>
> Well, AFAIK there has been no general consensus regarding deleting the gun
> armament, and everyone continues to do so. If there was such a feeling, we
> would expect customers to be deleting them left and right as a weight saving
> and space creating measure (adding that big spine to the Block 60 F-16's
> indicates that volume usage is growing critical with that design), but we
> have not seen this happen.

But that assumes that they have something better to put in its place, can afford
to buy it, can afford to design and test the installation themselves, and their
governments are willing to do so. None of that is cheap or easy. There have
been gun deletions (or de-emphasis) in the past, either in whole or in part --
the Tornado F.3 lost one BK 27 (space needed for Skyflash avionics, I think);
the Mirage F.1C when upgraded to the F-1CT multi-role variant lost one DEFA 553
(replaced by the LRMTS boxes, IIRC), the F-4G lost its M61 for antennas and
avionics (and the screams of the crews protesting that decision were loud and
long); the F/A-18G will apparently lose its Vulcan for the same reason, and so
on. And of course, the F-15E gave up over half its gun ammo (and some fuel)
compared to the F-15D, because DECM was considered more important for its
mission; the same thing happened to the F-8 during Vietnam. As in the past, I
expect the gun will stay in a/c that already have it, until the operators decide
they've got something more important to put there, which is worth the
development effort to do the installation. I expect that it will most likely
involve ECM, Laser or HPM weapons, or EO/FLIR/Laser targeting devices. Which
one(s) reaches a deployable state first, and is considered valuable enough that
a major operator (like the US) decides to do the R&D to install and test it,
will almost certainly determine what gets widely installed by second-tier users.

Guy

Ian

February 16th 04, 09:38 PM

The great thing about this is that the guys making the decision don't know
what they're on about. The actual saving that would be made by not having
the gun is wasted now - the entire airframe and forward avionics kit has
been designed to work with gunfire vibration and exhaust fumes.

So the gun hasn't been used that often (I know we've done trials where its
been fired so it is used (although maybe not in anger of war). But show me
a pilot who'd rather have the empty space where it should be when it comes
down it?
"Tony Williams" > wrote in message
m...
> (TJ) wrote in message
>...
> >
> > The first 55 Typhoon will be fitted with the cannon. The plan was for
> > it to be deleted in the follow on tranches. In Parliament the
> > following disclosure was made:
> >
> >
http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm199900/cmselect/cmdfe
nce/528/52804.htm
>
> Thanks for the link, a useful reference. However, you will note that
> the report was 'ordered to be published' on 28 June 2000. This was,
> IIRC, before the embarrassing incident in Sierra Leone when the lack
> of a gun meant that the RAF Harriers had to pass up opportunities to
> attack rebels who were too close to friendlies to use rockets or
> bombs, and the strafing attacks in Afghanistan and Iraq, not only by
> USAF and USN fighters but reportedly by RAF Tornados also.
>
> More recently, I have heard that the RAF will not be dropping the gun
> from later batches of Eurofighter. This is what I have put in 'Flying
> Guns: The Modern Era':
>
> "At one point the RAF reportedly decided to omit the BK 27 as a
> cost-saving measure, but the first batch of weapons had already been
> purchased and the acquisition of the remainder had been included in
> the production contract. Furthermore, the presence of the gun is
> described as 'Class 1 Safety Critical' which means that it may not be
> omitted. It now seems likely that the cannon will be fitted, and
> functional, in service RAF Eurofighters."
>
> Tony Williams
> Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk
> Military gun and ammunition discussion forum:
> http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/

Ian

February 16th 04, 09:40 PM

"Dweezil Dwarftosser" > wrote in message
...
> George wrote:
>
> > The US is looking at putting a 100kW laser on the JSF. Does anyone
> > think this could supplant the gun? It is precise, effective (when they
> > get its power up), aimable (including well off boresight), has a
> > longer range than a gun, doesn't require ammo, and if you aim it up,
> > you don't have to worry about shells splashing at the wrong place.
>
> Cool... if (and only if):
>
> - the laser has the same optical path as the video-
> aiming device. (May be slaved to radar aim point,
> but it is essential the trigger-puller be able to
> SEE the effectiveness of the aim/shot).
> - all battles are over a sunny, clear desert.
> - there is no smoke from previous targets, ground or air.
> - There is no "Interlocks out" switch in the cockpit, so
> the pilot cannot short-cuircuit the mandatory charge time.
> (prevents him from firing "blanks"...)

From what I've read, I'd say it is viable to do this, but questions have
been asked about the "recharge" time for the laser?

phil hunt

February 16th 04, 09:51 PM

On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 22:52:39 -0000, James Hart > wrote:
>
>As we (the Brits) don't seem to go to war with anyone now on our own then it
>would appear to be a good cost saving idea at a first glance, if we can't do
>the job then someone else in the alliance will take up the slack in that
>role. If at a later date it turns out to be a mistake then with the rest of
>the Eurofighter client nations taking up the gun then posibly there would be
>a route for us reinstating it.

Following that logic we could scrap the entire armed forces!

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: zen19725 at zen dot co dot uk)

steve gallacci

February 16th 04, 11:31 PM

Ian wrote:
>
> "Dweezil Dwarftosser" > wrote in message
> ...
> > George wrote:
> >
> > > The US is looking at putting a 100kW laser on the JSF. Does anyone
> > > think this could supplant the gun? It is precise, effective (when they
> > > get its power up), aimable (including well off boresight), has a
> > > longer range than a gun, doesn't require ammo, and if you aim it up,
> > > you don't have to worry about shells splashing at the wrong place.
> >
> > Cool... if (and only if):
> >
> > - the laser has the same optical path as the video-
> > aiming device. (May be slaved to radar aim point,
> > but it is essential the trigger-puller be able to
> > SEE the effectiveness of the aim/shot).
> > - all battles are over a sunny, clear desert.
> > - there is no smoke from previous targets, ground or air.
> > - There is no "Interlocks out" switch in the cockpit, so
> > the pilot cannot short-cuircuit the mandatory charge time.
> > (prevents him from firing "blanks"...)
>
> From what I've read, I'd say it is viable to do this, but questions have
> been asked about the "recharge" time for the laser?

While lasers could be cool, I have doubts about effectiveness,
especially once they become operational, as ablatives and other
protections/countermeasures could reduce them to little more than
over-built flashlights.
I suspect a lot of talk about no need for guns/BVR missile environments
assumes a US style total air superiority situation with everything
working just like the advertisements claim. And those aircraft tasked
for that kind of air superiority role may well not need guns. However,
for everyone else in less than ideal situations, having a gun option
would seem prudent, especially for multi-role machines that end up being
in inventory for a few decades longer than expected, fighting wars in
places/circumstances that their designers never dreamed of.

Bjørnar Bolsøy

February 16th 04, 11:45 PM

steve gallacci > wrote in
:
> Ian wrote:
>>
>> "Dweezil Dwarftosser" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > George wrote:

>> > Cool... if (and only if):
>> >
>> > - the laser has the same optical path as the video-
>> > aiming device. (May be slaved to radar aim point,
>> > but it is essential the trigger-puller be able to
>> > SEE the effectiveness of the aim/shot).
>> > - all battles are over a sunny, clear desert.
>> > - there is no smoke from previous targets, ground or air.
>> > - There is no "Interlocks out" switch in the cockpit, so
>> > the pilot cannot short-cuircuit the mandatory charge time.
>> > (prevents him from firing "blanks"...)
>>
>> From what I've read, I'd say it is viable to do this, but
>> questions have been asked about the "recharge" time for the
>> laser?
>
> While lasers could be cool, I have doubts about effectiveness,
> especially once they become operational, as ablatives and other
> protections/countermeasures could reduce them to little more
> than over-built flashlights.

What about the heat generated by it? A 100KW laser means many
times that in generated electrical power. Where do you put it?

Regards...

Bjørnar Bolsøy

February 16th 04, 11:49 PM

(George) wrote in
om:

> The US is looking at putting a 100kW laser on the JSF. Does
> anyone
> think this could supplant the gun? It is precise, effective
> (when they get its power up), aimable (including well off
> boresight), has a longer range than a gun, doesn't require ammo,
> and if you aim it up, you don't have to worry about shells
> splashing at the wrong place. The only disadvantage I can see is
> charge time (a second shot could take a few seconds) and the
> fact that the beam is invisible to the naked eye. Plus the laser
> takes electricity from an engine-driven generator (slight fuel
> efficiency loss). Any thoughts?

I think they should just build the X-Wing and be done with it.

Regards...

Paul J. Adam

February 17th 04, 01:16 AM

In message >, Tony
Williams > writes
>This does not mean
>that guns are useless for air-to-air work. They have a particular
>value in modern 'policing' applications, as they enable warning shots
>to be fired in front of suspect aircraft.

However, you have to load tracer for that: which reduces effectiveness
in combat.

>They also provide an
>economical way of engaging low-value targets such as unmanned
>reconnaissance drones, transport and liaison aircraft, or
>drug-smugglers.

"Economical" is extremely dependent on assumptions: while a burst of
cannon shells is cheaper than a missile, keeping your entire fighter
force trained and ready to be proficient in gun use is not cost-free.

>In a 'hot' war they still have certain advantages in
>close-quarter fighting, for example in 'picking off' an enemy
>attacking a wingman, who may be too close for a safe missile shot.

Last time this occurred?

>The
>ability of modern fighters to adopt extreme attitudes, pointing well
>away from the line of flight, significantly assists gun aiming in
>dogfights.

Only if the extreme attitude can be sustained and controlled long enough
for a gun snapshot: meanwhile a less extreme diversion wastes less
energy yet still allows an off-boresight missile shot.

>Cannon projectiles have a shorter flight time than a
>missile, a significant advantage in a dogfight.

Can't miss fast enough to win: and it takes significantly longer to get
into guns parameters.

>Finally, the gun provides a last-ditch capability if the missiles run
>out,

If an infantryman runs out of ammunition, should he continue to close
with the enemy in hopes of getting into bayonet, buttstock, boots and
teeth range?

When you find yourself at a major disadvantage, it's rarely wise to
press on through the killing zone.

>or are defeated by advanced countermeasures or simply by
>circumstances.

The trouble is that gunsights require significant sensor input:
particularly if the aircraft is flying extreme manoeuvres to generate
snapshots. This means that an enemy able to deceive radar-guided
missiles is also generating miss distance for cannon rounds.

>The 1991 Gulf War revealed the deficiencies of modern
>IR-homing missiles when faced with trying to pick up a low-flying
>target against a hot desert background (helicopters being in any case
>difficult for IR seekers to lock on to from above). USAF A-10
>aircraft achieved two helicopter kills with the GAU-8/A (using 275 and
>550 rounds respectively) in one case when the IR missiles failed to
>lock on.

550 rounds is more than many fighters carry, even when using less potent
Gatling guns. Is the problem "only guns can kill low-flying
helicopters", or "there's a need to improve capability against
low-flying helicopters"?

> Furthermore, the performance of even the best missiles cannot
>always be guaranteed, for various reasons. In Kosovo, a US fighter
>engaging a Serbian plane needed to fire three AMRAAMs to bring it
>down.

How many cannon rounds were fired, out of interest?

>In other engagements in the late 1990s, USAF and USN fighters
>fired a total of seven Sparrows, AMRAAMs, and Phoenix missiles against
>Iraqi MiG-25s without scoring a single hit (although the Phoenix shots
>were taken at extreme range).

Again, how many gun shots were fired?

The Iraqi aircraft were evading at the edges of the missile envelope:
what improvements to the US aircraft's gunnery systems would have
changed the outcome?

>Whatever the reason, this results in missiles being used
>up at a high rate, making it more likely that they will run out during
>a sortie. A cannon will typically carry enough ammunition for several
>engagements, usefully increasing combat persistence at a minimal cost
>in weight and performance.

Trouble is, just because _you_ are out of missiles doesn't mean the
enemy will chivalrously cease fire: and it's much easier for the enemy
to get you into missile parameters, than for you to lure an enemy into a
guns shot. (Especially when you're having to break off your approaches
to evade enemy AAMs)

>One curious aspect to the use of AAMs in combat is that of the
>approximately 1,000 kills achieved between 1958 and 1991, only a
>handful were scored beyond visual range, which does raise questions
>about the significance of the very long ranges of which some missiles
>are capable.

Restrictive ROE accounts for a great deal (Vietnam): limited conflict
area (Middle East); and weapon availability (Falklands).

Also, define "visual range". The definition usually cited is "within
five miles", which is well outside guns range and only useful for
head-on Sidewinder shots: "long-range" missiles may struggle to close
five miles of seperation in a low-altitude, co-speed tailchase.

>There is a continual battle between missile sensor and countermeasure
>technology.

And the gun is not immune, since it requires sensor input for any but
the crudest shot.

>In the future, stealth technology applied to aircraft may
>considerably shorten target acquisition and combat ranges, putting
>into question the worth of modern BVR (beyond visual range) AAMs. The
>possible future use of anti-radar missile guidance as a way of
>overcoming stealth characteristics may force fighters to make minimal
>use of their own radars, further reducing acquisition and combat
>distances.

And making guns use equally problematic, as snapshots become much more
demanding and gyro gunsights demand tracking shots.

>Of course, modern guns are usually aimed by the plane's radar which
>could also be jammed (although less easily than the much smaller and
>less powerful missile seekers) but laser rangefinders could make an
>acceptable alternative in providing fire control data.

Only for range: not for angular rate.

>If planes
>eventually become 'laser-proof' as well, the possibility presumably
>exists of linking variable magnification optical sights to a computer
>which would be able to analyse the image, identify the plane,
>calculate its distance, speed and heading and provide gunsight aiming
>information accordingly, all without emitting any signals.

If you can do all this and compute a gunnery solution, why can you not
fly a much larger guided warhead into the target from greater range than
a cannon will allow?

>However, not all conflicts involve front-line opposition; in fact,
>armed forces are now commonly engaged on police work, frequently
>dealing with guerrilla forces. In these circumstances, rockets and
>missiles may represent an inappropriate degree of destruction, with a
>high risk of collateral damage. The RAF was embarrassed during
>operations against insurgents in Sierra Leone in 2000 to find that
>they had no suitable weapon for their gunless Harrier GR.7 aircraft to
>attack small groups of rebels operating close to innocent civilians.

Given the lack of air opposition, why not use Sea Harriers with their
reliable, proven 30mm ADENs for the role? It seems more is being made of
the story than might actually exist.

>Another advantage of using cannon was demonstrated in the invasion of
>Afghanistan in 2002. During an intense infantry battle at Takur Ghar
>in late May, in which US forces were ambushed and in considerable
>danger, air support was called for. The AC-130 was not permitted to
>intervene in daylight due to its vulnerability, so USAF fighters were
>sent to help. For a part of the battle the Afghan combatants were too
>close to the Americans for rockets or bombs to be used, so the
>fighters â€“ F-16s and even F-15s â€“ went in strafing with their 20 mm
>cannon, as did the Navy's F-14s and F/A-18s on other occasions.

And, curiously, the ground troops reported how the enemy refused to be
suppressed, neutralised or destroyed by those strafing passes: though
PGMs dropped carefully in "danger close" proved effective.

>Even
>RAF Tornadoes were reported to have carried out gun strafing runs on
>at least one occasion. It may logically be argued that it is foolish
>to risk an extremely expensive aircraft, with its expensively trained
>pilot, to being lost due to very low-tech ground fire, but sometimes
>the risk needs to be taken to save friendly lives."

I'm automatically wary of this variation of "If it saves the life of
even one small child..."

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

Paul J. Adam

February 17th 04, 01:19 AM

In message >, Guy Alcala
> writes
>There have
>been gun deletions (or de-emphasis) in the past, either in whole or in part --
>the Tornado F.3 lost one BK 27 (space needed for Skyflash avionics, I think);

The Tornado GR.4 also loses one gun IIRC, and the recce GR.1A and
matching GR.4 version deleted the guns completely (as, from memory, did
the German ECR variant)

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

Tony Williams

February 17th 04, 03:59 AM

Guy Alcala > wrote in message >...
>
> I have seen no concrete evidence that it was a "purely economic" decision (but
> see Tony Williams' post). I'm sure cost played a part, but I imagine there were
> a multitude of factors involved. I don't doubt that a lot of RAF people
> screamed at the idea, just as many people have screamed at virtually every
> deletion of some weapon capability (or loss of their personal warm and fuzzy),
> no matter how little utility it may have in changed circumstances. The
> battleship people screamed too. Who's right in this instance has yet to be
> proved. We all agree that there are some cases where a gun provides a useful
> capability, but then so does a sword. As always, it's a question of tradeoffs.

Agree with the points you make, Guy. My argument would be that
although the gun is no longer of primary importance in a fighter, it
can fulfil a wide range of secondary roles (see my original post)
especially in situations short of a 'hot' war. The theorists have
frequently tried to keep their concepts 'clean' (what was the USAF
fighter whose development was said to include 'not one pound for air
to ground'?) but the even the most specialised interceptors have
frequently found themselves carrying bombs once combat required it.

I would argue that for the present at least, the small weight penalty
and cost of a gun (compared with the whole-life cost of the aircraft)
makes it worth keeping.

Tony Williams
Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk
Discussion forum at: http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/

Guy Alcala

February 17th 04, 06:48 AM

"Paul J. Adam" wrote:

> In message >, Guy Alcala
> > writes
> >There have
> >been gun deletions (or de-emphasis) in the past, either in whole or in part --
> >the Tornado F.3 lost one BK 27 (space needed for Skyflash avionics, I think);
>
> The Tornado GR.4 also loses one gun IIRC, and the recce GR.1A and
> matching GR.4 version deleted the guns completely (as, from memory, did
> the German ECR variant)

Thanks. I couldn't remember for sure on any of them except the F.3.

Guy

Guy Alcala

February 17th 04, 07:14 AM

Tony Williams wrote:

> Guy Alcala > wrote in message >...
> >
> > I have seen no concrete evidence that it was a "purely economic" decision (but
> > see Tony Williams' post). I'm sure cost played a part, but I imagine there were
> > a multitude of factors involved. I don't doubt that a lot of RAF people
> > screamed at the idea, just as many people have screamed at virtually every
> > deletion of some weapon capability (or loss of their personal warm and fuzzy),
> > no matter how little utility it may have in changed circumstances. The
> > battleship people screamed too. Who's right in this instance has yet to be
> > proved. We all agree that there are some cases where a gun provides a useful
> > capability, but then so does a sword. As always, it's a question of tradeoffs.
>
> Agree with the points you make, Guy. My argument would be that
> although the gun is no longer of primary importance in a fighter, it
> can fulfil a wide range of secondary roles (see my original post)
> especially in situations short of a 'hot' war. The theorists have
> frequently tried to keep their concepts 'clean' (what was the USAF
> fighter whose development was said to include 'not one pound for air
> to ground'?)

Of course, that wasn't true even at the time the claim was made, as a glance at a photo of the armament control panel and
Master Mode Switches of an F-15A will show.

> but the even the most specialised interceptors have
> frequently found themselves carrying bombs once combat required it.

Which is a question of adding a capability that has been routinely exercised by fighters in combat at least since they
dropped Cooper bombs in WW1, right up through the most recent conflicts, and which, in the context of the air supremacy the
US (at least) has enjoyed in our most recent wars, is more generally useful.

> I would argue that for the present at least, the small weight penalty
> and cost of a gun (compared with the whole-life cost of the aircraft)
> makes it worth keeping.

And I am essentially agnostic on the matter, perhaps leaning slightly towards the gun pod solution for those "short of hot
war" situations. Kind of depends what makes it through the R&D pipeline. If, for example, the only place to put the black
boxes and/or the laser itself for an active laser missile defense system to protect the a/c against IR SAMs was where the
gun was, then it's probably bye-bye gun (depending on the delivery profile of the weapons and sensors of the a/c in
question). Data links, almost certainly. that's a question of retro-fitting a/c currently in service or soon to be. The
next generation, though, is another matter, as the tradeoff between potential airframe size and cost with/without a gun will
be more obvious than is the case with removing a gun from an a/c already sized to carry it. Personally, I'd think that
putting a gun (if necessary) on a long endurance UCAV along with various other weapons may be the way CAS will go, but
that's without knowing a whole lot about what's practical now.

Guy

Tony Williams

February 17th 04, 12:28 PM

"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message >...
> In message >, Tony
> Williams > writes
>
> >They also provide an
> >economical way of engaging low-value targets such as unmanned
> >reconnaissance drones, transport and liaison aircraft, or
> >drug-smugglers.
>
> "Economical" is extremely dependent on assumptions: while a burst of
> cannon shells is cheaper than a missile, keeping your entire fighter
> force trained and ready to be proficient in gun use is not cost-free.

No it isn't - but UAVs/UCAVs are likely to proliferate rapidly, and
dealing with them is likely to shift up the scale of importance.
>
> >The 1991 Gulf War revealed the deficiencies of modern
> >IR-homing missiles when faced with trying to pick up a low-flying
> >target against a hot desert background (helicopters being in any case
> >difficult for IR seekers to lock on to from above). USAF A-10
> >aircraft achieved two helicopter kills with the GAU-8/A (using 275 and
> >550 rounds respectively) in one case when the IR missiles failed to
> >lock on.
>
> 550 rounds is more than many fighters carry, even when using less potent
> Gatling guns. Is the problem "only guns can kill low-flying
> helicopters", or "there's a need to improve capability against
> low-flying helicopters"?

The A-10 was not equipped (nor are the pilots trained, AFAIK) for
air-to-air gunnery.

> > Furthermore, the performance of even the best missiles cannot
> >always be guaranteed, for various reasons. In Kosovo, a US fighter
> >engaging a Serbian plane needed to fire three AMRAAMs to bring it
> >down.
>
> How many cannon rounds were fired, out of interest?

Irrelevant - the point I am making is that missiles run out very fast.

>
> Trouble is, just because _you_ are out of missiles doesn't mean the
> enemy will chivalrously cease fire: and it's much easier for the enemy
> to get you into missile parameters, than for you to lure an enemy into a
> guns shot. (Especially when you're having to break off your approaches
> to evade enemy AAMs)

The Iranian F-14s made good use of their Phoenix missiles, and
Sparrows, but still ended up in gunfights on occasions and even scored
kills with the gun. Nice theories about how engagements ought to go
tend to break down in real life.
>
> >If planes
> >eventually become 'laser-proof' as well, the possibility presumably
> >exists of linking variable magnification optical sights to a computer
> >which would be able to analyse the image, identify the plane,
> >calculate its distance, speed and heading and provide gunsight aiming
> >information accordingly, all without emitting any signals.
>
> If you can do all this and compute a gunnery solution, why can you not
> fly a much larger guided warhead into the target from greater range than
> a cannon will allow?

Because an aircraft has far more space for sensors and computing
capacity than a missile does.

> >However, not all conflicts involve front-line opposition; in fact,
> >armed forces are now commonly engaged on police work, frequently
> >dealing with guerrilla forces. In these circumstances, rockets and
> >missiles may represent an inappropriate degree of destruction, with a
> >high risk of collateral damage. The RAF was embarrassed during
> >operations against insurgents in Sierra Leone in 2000 to find that
> >they had no suitable weapon for their gunless Harrier GR.7 aircraft to
> >attack small groups of rebels operating close to innocent civilians.
>
> Given the lack of air opposition, why not use Sea Harriers with their
> reliable, proven 30mm ADENs for the role? It seems more is being made of
> the story than might actually exist.

The Sea Harriers have, what - two or three more years? Then what? Do
guns suddenly stop being useful for such purposes?

Tony Williams
Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk
Discussion forum at: http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/

Tony Williams

February 17th 04, 12:34 PM

Guy Alcala > wrote in message >...
> Tony Williams wrote:
>
>
> > I would argue that for the present at least, the small weight penalty
> > and cost of a gun (compared with the whole-life cost of the aircraft)
> > makes it worth keeping.
>
> And I am essentially agnostic on the matter, perhaps leaning slightly towards the gun pod solution for those "short of hot
> war" situations.

This is my comment on gunpods:

"Podded guns have the advantage that they don't need to be lugged
around unless the planes are in circumstances in which a gun is likely
to be needed. Like any other piece of hardware, they can be fitted
according to requirements. The downside of this is that you first have
to make sure that the gunpods are available when required, you have to
be psychic to determine when they might be useful, they use up a
hardpoint which would otherwise be available for fuel or other
weapons, they take some time to harmonise – and keep harmonised – when
fitted, and even then are less accurate than integral guns. Gunpods
generate more drag, usually affect handling and are also much less
"stealthy" than integral guns; a factor likely to be increasingly
important as stealth measures are leading to the internal carriage of
all weapons. This solution is therefore very much second best, but it
is better than nothing. The installation of weapons in
purpose-designed conformal pods fitted directly to the fuselage and
intended to be more or less permanent fixtures does reduce or avoid
some of the above problems."

Tony Williams
Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk
Discussion forum at: http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/

Paul J. Adam

February 17th 04, 06:25 PM

In message >, Tony
Williams > writes
>"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message
>...
>> "Economical" is extremely dependent on assumptions: while a burst of
>> cannon shells is cheaper than a missile, keeping your entire fighter
>> force trained and ready to be proficient in gun use is not cost-free.
>
>No it isn't - but UAVs/UCAVs are likely to proliferate rapidly, and
>dealing with them is likely to shift up the scale of importance.

I'm still unconvinced that a gun (in its current incarnation) is the
best option, if that's a key driver.

>> 550 rounds is more than many fighters carry, even when using less potent
>> Gatling guns. Is the problem "only guns can kill low-flying
>> helicopters", or "there's a need to improve capability against
>> low-flying helicopters"?
>
>The A-10 was not equipped (nor are the pilots trained, AFAIK) for
>air-to-air gunnery.

So? Helicopters are closer to air-to-ground strafing than air-to-air,
looking at the velocity and altitude differentials.

>> How many cannon rounds were fired, out of interest?
>
>Irrelevant - the point I am making is that missiles run out very fast.

A few examples where this has befallen Western pilots would be handy. It
was a problem in Vietnam for the USAF, for example, where they were
plagued by poor reliability of the weapons and by doctrinal guidance to
volley every selected weapon at a target (so a F-4 Phantom effectively
had one Sidewinder shot and one Sparrow shot); the USN used different
doctrine based on single firings and got much better results.

A strong example for your case should be the Falklands, where the SHars
only had two AIM-9Ls apiece, yet it's an interesting commentary on
relative envelopes that there were very few (three IIRC) guns kills, one
a C-130 finished off with gunfire after Sidewinder hits and one Pucara:
though on several occasions the SHars emptied their guns at Argentine
aircraft without results (LCdrs Mike Blissett and 'Fred' Frederiksen,
and Lt. Clive Morell, all had this experience on the 21st May, for
instance: Sharkey Ward recalls firing on and missing a Turbo-Mentor, as
well as three SHars taking five firing passes to down a single Pucara;
Flight Lieutenant Dave Morgan scored two kills with two Sidewinders on
8th June, and shot his guns dry to no effect before his wingman got a
third kill with another Sidewinder...)

Having the guns along when the missiles were exhausted was no guarantee
of being able to get into range, let alone score disabling damage: with
hindsight, trading the gun pods for more fuel and twin-rail Sidewinder
launchers (giving four rather than two shots) would have been much more
effective.

>> Trouble is, just because _you_ are out of missiles doesn't mean the
>> enemy will chivalrously cease fire: and it's much easier for the enemy
>> to get you into missile parameters, than for you to lure an enemy into a
>> guns shot. (Especially when you're having to break off your approaches
>> to evade enemy AAMs)
>
>The Iranian F-14s made good use of their Phoenix missiles, and
>Sparrows, but still ended up in gunfights on occasions and even scored
>kills with the gun.

The Iranians also used human wave attacks against prepared defensive
positions, using unarmed schoolboys carrying plastic "keys to heaven" in
the first wave (they were expendable, available, and revealed the
locations of minefields and concealed bunkers for the armed fighters
following). I would be somewhat wary of taking a cue from Iranian
tactics without much more detail of the encounters involved.

>Nice theories about how engagements ought to go
>tend to break down in real life.

True: like the notion that any gunless fighter is doomed :)

>> If you can do all this and compute a gunnery solution, why can you not
>> fly a much larger guided warhead into the target from greater range than
>> a cannon will allow?
>
>Because an aircraft has far more space for sensors and computing
>capacity than a missile does.

But the gun is still a fixed installation and you have to point it at
where the target will be one time-of-flight after firing: and you have
to fly through the enemy's weapons envelope(s) to do so.

>> Given the lack of air opposition, why not use Sea Harriers with their
>> reliable, proven 30mm ADENs for the role? It seems more is being made of
>> the story than might actually exist.
>
>The Sea Harriers have, what - two or three more years?

They were available, why weren't they used? Did nobody consider the
chances of a 'danger close'?

>Then what? Do
>guns suddenly stop being useful for such purposes?

They were available then - the story seems to have more agenda behind it
than it would like to admit.

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

George

February 17th 04, 08:16 PM

"Bjørnar Bolsøy" > wrote in message >...
> steve gallacci > wrote in
> :
> > Ian wrote:
> >>
> >> "Dweezil Dwarftosser" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > George wrote:
>
> >> > Cool... if (and only if):
> >> >
> >> > - the laser has the same optical path as the video-
> >> > aiming device. (May be slaved to radar aim point,
> >> > but it is essential the trigger-puller be able to
> >> > SEE the effectiveness of the aim/shot).
> >> > - all battles are over a sunny, clear desert.
> >> > - there is no smoke from previous targets, ground or air.
> >> > - There is no "Interlocks out" switch in the cockpit, so
> >> > the pilot cannot short-cuircuit the mandatory charge time.
> >> > (prevents him from firing "blanks"...)
> >>
> >> From what I've read, I'd say it is viable to do this, but
> >> questions have been asked about the "recharge" time for the
> >> laser?
> >
> > While lasers could be cool, I have doubts about effectiveness,
> > especially once they become operational, as ablatives and other
> > protections/countermeasures could reduce them to little more
> > than over-built flashlights.
>
> What about the heat generated by it? A 100KW laser means many
> times that in generated electrical power. Where do you put it?
>
>
> Regards...

So far the way I've seen is to use water-cooling internally which
radiates through air cooled fins, using ram-air from the slipstream to
insure rapid air movement. How well this works, I don't know. For the
electrical power and placing, Lockheed has suggested using the STOVL
model and taking out the lift fan, using the large amount of shaft
horsepower to run a generator for power and the space for the laser
and generator.

Guy Alcala

February 17th 04, 10:48 PM

Tony Williams wrote:

> Guy Alcala > wrote in message >...

<snip>

> > And I am essentially agnostic on the matter, perhaps leaning slightly towards the gun pod solution for those "short of hot
> > war" situations.
>
> This is my comment on gunpods:
>
> "Podded guns have the advantage that they don't need to be lugged
> around unless the planes are in circumstances in which a gun is likely
> to be needed. Like any other piece of hardware, they can be fitted
> according to requirements. The downside of this is that you first have
> to make sure that the gunpods are available when required, you have to
> be psychic to determine when they might be useful, they use up a
> hardpoint which would otherwise be available for fuel or other
> weapons, they take some time to harmonise – and keep harmonised – when
> fitted, and even then are less accurate than integral guns. Gunpods
> generate more drag, usually affect handling and are also much less
> "stealthy" than integral guns; a factor likely to be increasingly
> important as stealth measures are leading to the internal carriage of
> all weapons. This solution is therefore very much second best, but it
> is better than nothing. The installation of weapons in
> purpose-designed conformal pods fitted directly to the fuselage and
> intended to be more or less permanent fixtures does reduce or avoid
> some of the above problems."

No argument with any of the above, with the exception of the "use up a hardpoint otherwise available for fuel," as that's design
dependent (you sort of cover that when mentioning the conformal pods). And, on the flip side, you can always use the internal
space that would otherwise have a gun in it for fuel or electronics, meaning it's low drag and you won't be jettisoning any of
it to maximise performance. In a peacetime "identify and escort" role, the extra drag and loss of stealth of the gun pod is
pretty irrelevant, and in wartime you can do without. of course, if you want to have a convertible internal space,
fuel/guns/what have you, that's one option, but then you're guaranteeing that the airframe will be larger than it would
otherwise need to be.

Guy

Guy Alcala

February 17th 04, 11:03 PM

"Paul J. Adam" wrote:

> In message >, Tony
> Williams > writes
> >"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message
> >...
> >> "Economical" is extremely dependent on assumptions: while a burst of
> >> cannon shells is cheaper than a missile, keeping your entire fighter
> >> force trained and ready to be proficient in gun use is not cost-free.
> >
> >No it isn't - but UAVs/UCAVs are likely to proliferate rapidly, and
> >dealing with them is likely to shift up the scale of importance.
>
> I'm still unconvinced that a gun (in its current incarnation) is the
> best option, if that's a key driver.

Now here, Tony raises an interesting point. Talking with a serving IAF pilot
some years back, he mentioned that all their tactical a/c have their guns
loaded on every flight, including training, just so they'll have something to
fire if they get diverted to an interception. He said that an IAF Brigadier
General had shot down a foreign recon drone while on a training flight in his
(IIRR) F-15 . Of course, lasers or cheap missiles may do the job as well, and
high-performance UAVs are never going to be _that_ cheap.

<snip>

> >> How many cannon rounds were fired, out of interest?
> >
> >Irrelevant - the point I am making is that missiles run out very fast.
>
> A few examples where this has befallen Western pilots would be handy. It
> was a problem in Vietnam for the USAF, for example, where they were
> plagued by poor reliability of the weapons and by doctrinal guidance to
> volley every selected weapon at a target (so a F-4 Phantom effectively
> had one Sidewinder shot and one Sparrow shot); the USN used different
> doctrine based on single firings and got much better results.
>
> A strong example for your case should be the Falklands, where the SHars
> only had two AIM-9Ls apiece, yet it's an interesting commentary on
> relative envelopes that there were very few (three IIRC) guns kills, one
> a C-130 finished off with gunfire after Sidewinder hits and one Pucara:
> though on several occasions the SHars emptied their guns at Argentine
> aircraft without results (LCdrs Mike Blissett and 'Fred' Frederiksen,
> and Lt. Clive Morell, all had this experience on the 21st May, for
> instance: Sharkey Ward recalls firing on and missing a Turbo-Mentor, as
> well as three SHars taking five firing passes to down a single Pucara;
> Flight Lieutenant Dave Morgan scored two kills with two Sidewinders on
> 8th June, and shot his guns dry to no effect before his wingman got a
> third kill with another Sidewinder...)
>
> Having the guns along when the missiles were exhausted was no guarantee
> of being able to get into range, let alone score disabling damage: with
> hindsight, trading the gun pods for more fuel and twin-rail Sidewinder
> launchers (giving four rather than two shots) would have been much more
> effective.

<snip>

Yup. Of course, the lack of IR decoys in most of the Argentine a/c also played
a part, but we're now in the age of IIR seekers, and decoying _them_ is going
to be very difficult if not impossible. They may require damage or destruction
to make them miss. And if the SHARs had had RH missiles and PD radar (and
AEW), then chances are they would have shot down many of the Argentine aircraft
long before they'd even have closed to visual range, even if they were using
older generation missiles.

Guy

James Hart

February 17th 04, 11:36 PM

phil hunt wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 22:52:39 -0000, James Hart
> > wrote:
>>
>> As we (the Brits) don't seem to go to war with anyone now on our own
>> then it would appear to be a good cost saving idea at a first
>> glance, if we can't do the job then someone else in the alliance
>> will take up the slack in that role. If at a later date it turns out
>> to be a mistake then with the rest of the Eurofighter client nations
>> taking up the gun then posibly there would be a route for us
>> reinstating it.
>
> Following that logic we could scrap the entire armed forces!

That would be the logical progression of the cost saving plans.
It would make us an incredibly weak country though, virtually anyone could
sail in and cause us some major damage, or try to nibble away at our
outlying territories like the Falklands. Wasn't there a big round of cost
cutting implemented just before the Argies invaded? I recall seeing a docu
that seemed to imply if the full cutbacks had been implemented we'd never of
had the capability to go to war that far away.

--
James...
www.jameshart.co.uk

Thomas Schoene

February 17th 04, 11:48 PM

George wrote:
>
> So far the way I've seen is to use water-cooling internally which
> radiates through air cooled fins, using ram-air from the slipstream to
> insure rapid air movement. How well this works, I don't know.

I've seen mention of fuel cooling. Use the fuel tanks as a heat sink, then
burn the heated fuel. There's a slight efficiency loss in the engine, I
think.

--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)

Tony Williams

February 18th 04, 09:29 AM

"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message >...
> In message >, Tony
> Williams > writes
>
> A strong example for your case should be the Falklands, where the SHars
> only had two AIM-9Ls apiece, yet it's an interesting commentary on
> relative envelopes that there were very few (three IIRC) guns kills, one
> a C-130 finished off with gunfire after Sidewinder hits and one Pucara:
> though on several occasions the SHars emptied their guns at Argentine
> aircraft without results (LCdrs Mike Blissett and 'Fred' Frederiksen,
> and Lt. Clive Morell, all had this experience on the 21st May, for
> instance: Sharkey Ward recalls firing on and missing a Turbo-Mentor, as
> well as three SHars taking five firing passes to down a single Pucara;
> Flight Lieutenant Dave Morgan scored two kills with two Sidewinders on
> 8th June, and shot his guns dry to no effect before his wingman got a
> third kill with another Sidewinder...)

Fair points. However, the 30mm Aden is an old gun with poor ballistics
by modern standards and there are now much better guns available for
air combat. The critical factor is of course the quality of the gun
fire control system. I don't know how good it was in the SHARs, but
what I have read about modern fighters is that once they've got a
radar lock there is a strong probability of a gun kill, with only a
short burst normally being required. In some cases, the FCS actually
takes over control of some elements of the flight controls to ensure
that the gun is correctly aimed.

> >The Iranian F-14s made good use of their Phoenix missiles, and
> >Sparrows, but still ended up in gunfights on occasions and even scored
> >kills with the gun.
>
> The Iranians also used human wave attacks against prepared defensive
> positions, using unarmed schoolboys carrying plastic "keys to heaven" in
> the first wave (they were expendable, available, and revealed the
> locations of minefields and concealed bunkers for the armed fighters
> following). I would be somewhat wary of taking a cue from Iranian
> tactics without much more detail of the encounters involved.

There's loads of detail available in Cooper and Bishop's 'Iran-Iraq
War in the Air 1980-1988' (Schiffer Military History, 2000). The
Iranians used the F-14's superior radar as a kind of mini-AWACS,
orchestrating air combats and trying to fight at long range. However,
tactical situations can change unexpectedly, especially at fighter jet
closing speeds, hence their occasional need to use guns.

> >> Given the lack of air opposition, why not use Sea Harriers with their
> >> reliable, proven 30mm ADENs for the role? It seems more is being made of
> >> the story than might actually exist.
> >
> >The Sea Harriers have, what - two or three more years?
>
> They were available, why weren't they used? Did nobody consider the
> chances of a 'danger close'?

I presume because the SHARs were seen as primarily fighters, the GR.7s
were specialised for ground attack - so they were the obvious ones to
use.

Tony Williams
Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk
Military gun and ammunition discussion forum:
http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/

Tony Williams

February 18th 04, 09:36 AM

Guy Alcala > wrote in message >...
> "Paul J. Adam" wrote:
>
> > In message >, Tony
> > Williams > writes
> > >"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message
> > >...
> > >> "Economical" is extremely dependent on assumptions: while a burst of
> > >> cannon shells is cheaper than a missile, keeping your entire fighter
> > >> force trained and ready to be proficient in gun use is not cost-free.
> > >
> > >No it isn't - but UAVs/UCAVs are likely to proliferate rapidly, and
> > >dealing with them is likely to shift up the scale of importance.
> >
> > I'm still unconvinced that a gun (in its current incarnation) is the
> > best option, if that's a key driver.
>
> Now here, Tony raises an interesting point. Talking with a serving IAF pilot
> some years back, he mentioned that all their tactical a/c have their guns
> loaded on every flight, including training, just so they'll have something to
> fire if they get diverted to an interception. He said that an IAF Brigadier
> General had shot down a foreign recon drone while on a training flight in his
> (IIRR) F-15 . Of course, lasers or cheap missiles may do the job as well, and
> high-performance UAVs are never going to be _that_ cheap.

The reason for the MiG-31 (a specialised, long-range interceptor if
ever there was one) carrying the GSh-6-23 gun is reportedly
specifically to deal with recon drones etc.

Tony Williams
Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk
Military gun and ammunition discussion forum:
http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/

Paul J. Adam

February 18th 04, 10:14 PM

In message >, Tony
Williams > writes
>"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message
>...
>> A strong example for your case should be the Falklands, where the SHars
>> only had two AIM-9Ls apiece, yet it's an interesting commentary on
>> relative envelopes that there were very few (three IIRC) guns kills

>Fair points. However, the 30mm Aden is an old gun with poor ballistics
>by modern standards and there are now much better guns available for
>air combat. The critical factor is of course the quality of the gun
>fire control system. I don't know how good it was in the SHARs, but
>what I have read about modern fighters is that once they've got a
>radar lock there is a strong probability of a gun kill, with only a
>short burst normally being required. In some cases, the FCS actually
>takes over control of some elements of the flight controls to ensure
>that the gun is correctly aimed.

Provided, of course, that you can get and hold a solid radar lock on the
target; the lack of which ability is sometimes cited as a reason to keep
guns, which of course are wonderful because they're just 'point and
shoot' with no fancy sensors or expensive jammable radars needed :)

Tony, you get picked on because you're a reasonable man advancing good
arguments and so I can have a civil debate with you. It's not your fault
that others have advanced some rather poor arguments... you just get hit
with defending them sometimes as well as arguing your own position. I
appreciate your forbearance.

I'd personally like to keep the gun a little longer, especially in cases
like EF2000 where the fitting costs are paid already: but there _is_ the
problem that training costs are significant, and the UK defence budget
_is_ so straightened that "deleting maintenance and training for
Eurofighter guns" is operationally significant and funds more urgent
requirements, and seems to be less bad than the alternatives. It sucks
but there it is.

>>I would be somewhat wary of taking a cue from Iranian
>> tactics without much more detail of the encounters involved.
>
>There's loads of detail available in Cooper and Bishop's 'Iran-Iraq
>War in the Air 1980-1988' (Schiffer Military History, 2000).

Thanks for the cue. Tom Cooper posts on occasion and comes across well:
another author found via Usenet, it seems.

>The
>Iranians used the F-14's superior radar as a kind of mini-AWACS,
>orchestrating air combats and trying to fight at long range. However,
>tactical situations can change unexpectedly, especially at fighter jet
>closing speeds, hence their occasional need to use guns.

Out of interest, how many Iranian Tomcats were lost in air combat?

>> They were available, why weren't they used? Did nobody consider the
>> chances of a 'danger close'?
>
>I presume because the SHARs were seen as primarily fighters, the GR.7s
>were specialised for ground attack - so they were the obvious ones to
>use.

True to a point, but the SHars are at least multi-role and could even be
swing-role with the right loadout (what does the A in FA.2 stand for,
after all?) and there wasn't a noticeable fixed-wing air threat in
Sierra Leone that would require a CAP or DLI presence.

Also, can't the RAF Harriers use the 30mm gun packs?

I've personally come to the conclusion that the "guns are a waste of
space" movement was clearly and provably premature[1], but as combat
experience improved tactics and equipment the backlash was almost
counterproductive. By the time the USAF were fielding the F-4E, the
desperate need for its M61 had gone; but it was a lot easier to say
"that useless Navy fighter we were forced to buy didn't have a gun!"
than to admit to significant doctrinal, tactical and maintenance
shortcomings.

I do note that the US Navy, flying in the same area (though with
significant differences) never felt the need to field either gun pods
for air-to-air or to insist on an internal gun on any Phantom. (Though
the F-14 acquired one: interesting, that, and I'd like to know why. For
that matter, was the F-111B meant to have an internal gun?)

Who knows, if I can find the time I may follow your example and write a
book with this as a chapter :)

[1] Based on sound analysis for the expected wars, is the worst thing.
Fighter-versus-fighter shootouts at low level in Southeast Asia were not
a high priority compared to keeping nuclear missile-armed bombers from
hitting USN carrier groups or US cities, back when design decisions were
being made...

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

Tony Williams

February 19th 04, 04:53 AM

"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message >...
> In message >, Tony
> Williams > writes
>
> Provided, of course, that you can get and hold a solid radar lock on the
> target; the lack of which ability is sometimes cited as a reason to keep
> guns, which of course are wonderful because they're just 'point and
> shoot' with no fancy sensors or expensive jammable radars needed :)

True. I do include this statement in the book:

"The percentage of shots which hit the target in air-to-air firing
exercises varies greatly depending on the circumstances. Modern fire
control systems can calculate the correct aiming point, taking into
account such variables as the effects of gravity (if the gun is fired
when the aircraft is banking) and of relative wind (if the aircraft is
manoeuvring so that its gun is pointing away from the direction of
flight). If the radar is locked on to the target, a high percentage of
hits can be achieved; if not, then the scores drop down to optical
gunsight levels. If a pilot knows he is under gun attack, he can make
a radar lock virtually impossible by constantly making small changes
in direction every couple of seconds. The number of hits required to
destroy a modern aircraft is estimated at four to six hits of 30 mm
fire and perhaps three times as many with a 20 mm gun."

However, it obviously takes an aware and skilled pilot to stop his
attacker from getting a radar lock.

> Tony, you get picked on because you're a reasonable man advancing good
> arguments and so I can have a civil debate with you. It's not your fault
> that others have advanced some rather poor arguments... you just get hit
> with defending them sometimes as well as arguing your own position. I
> appreciate your forbearance.

No problem - I enjoy a good debate and learn from it; it's only the
idiots who occasionally irritate me! I sometimes have to remind myself
of the sound advice someone once used as a signature: "Never argue
with an idiot. He'll drag you down to his level and beat you with
experience."

> >The
> >Iranians used the F-14's superior radar as a kind of mini-AWACS,
> >orchestrating air combats and trying to fight at long range. However,
> >tactical situations can change unexpectedly, especially at fighter jet
> >closing speeds, hence their occasional need to use guns.
>
> Out of interest, how many Iranian Tomcats were lost in air combat?

Umm. I don't know off hand. The major failing of the book is that it
doesn't have an index. However, Tom Cooper helps to manage the
acig.org site which collects and posts shoot-down stats for post-WW2
conflicts.

> >I presume because the SHARs were seen as primarily fighters, the GR.7s
> >were specialised for ground attack - so they were the obvious ones to
> >use.
>
> True to a point, but the SHars are at least multi-role and could even be
> swing-role with the right loadout (what does the A in FA.2 stand for,
> after all?) and there wasn't a noticeable fixed-wing air threat in
> Sierra Leone that would require a CAP or DLI presence.

Well, I presume that the GR.7s were specifically sent along to do the
job; the RN doesn't normally carry them unless they're needed, AFAIK.

> Also, can't the RAF Harriers use the 30mm gun packs?

I doubt that very much. Apart from the fact that their 'gunpods' are
now stuffed with electronics which are presumably a part of their
system, they almost certainly don't have the gun programme in their
FCS. I remember some years ago there was a series on DERA which
incidentally included some footage of a GR.7 testing the unfortunate
25mm Aden installation (the test had to be aborted as one of the guns
broke...). They were having great difficulty adjusting the system to
get the guns firing accurately - they were missing the targets by
scores of metres. There's more to installing a gun than just bolting
it on.

> I've personally come to the conclusion that the "guns are a waste of
> space" movement was clearly and provably premature[1], but as combat
> experience improved tactics and equipment the backlash was almost
> counterproductive. By the time the USAF were fielding the F-4E, the
> desperate need for its M61 had gone; but it was a lot easier to say
> "that useless Navy fighter we were forced to buy didn't have a gun!"
> than to admit to significant doctrinal, tactical and maintenance
> shortcomings.

I also include the following in the book, which illustrates your point
rather better than Vietnam:

"The growing importance of missiles is graphically demonstrated by the
experience of the Israeli Air Force, which has experienced more
air-to-air combat in this period than any other. In the Six Day War of
1967, guns scored 100% of the Israeli fighter kills. Between then and
1973, the figure dropped to 70%. In the Yom Kippur War there was a
further drop to 30%, between 1973 and 1979 it was 20%, from 1979 to
1982 it was 10%, in the Lebanon campaign of 1982 it was 7%, and since
then 0%."

> I do note that the US Navy, flying in the same area (though with
> significant differences) never felt the need to field either gun pods
> for air-to-air or to insist on an internal gun on any Phantom. (Though
> the F-14 acquired one: interesting, that, and I'd like to know why. For
> that matter, was the F-111B meant to have an internal gun?)

I presume that the F-14 installation, along with the F-15, was part of
the 'backlash' against the gunless planes (for the initially
lower-capability, general-purpose F-16 the gun was more
understandable). The F-111B could carry a gun - another quote:

"The F 111 had an internal weapons bay in the front fuselage and one
of the loads that could be accommodated was a M61A1 with a generous
2,048 rounds, with the gun in the left half of the bay. The only
version that regularly carried this weapon was the F 111D, and
although it was carried in Vietnam the weapon saw no use there. It was
soon decided to carry AIM 9 missiles for self-defence instead."

> Who knows, if I can find the time I may follow your example and write a
> book with this as a chapter :)

Join the club - but be prepared to give up your social life and get a
pittance in return!

Tony Williams
Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk
Discussion forum at: http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/

Guy Alcala

February 19th 04, 07:38 AM

Tony Williams wrote:

> "Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message >...
> > In message >, Tony
> > Williams > writes
> >
> > Provided, of course, that you can get and hold a solid radar lock on the
> > target; the lack of which ability is sometimes cited as a reason to keep
> > guns, which of course are wonderful because they're just 'point and
> > shoot' with no fancy sensors or expensive jammable radars needed :)
>
> True. I do include this statement in the book:
>
> "The percentage of shots which hit the target in air-to-air firing
> exercises varies greatly depending on the circumstances. Modern fire
> control systems can calculate the correct aiming point, taking into
> account such variables as the effects of gravity (if the gun is fired
> when the aircraft is banking) and of relative wind (if the aircraft is
> manoeuvring so that its gun is pointing away from the direction of
> flight). If the radar is locked on to the target, a high percentage of
> hits can be achieved; if not, then the scores drop down to optical
> gunsight levels. If a pilot knows he is under gun attack, he can make
> a radar lock virtually impossible by constantly making small changes
> in direction every couple of seconds. The number of hits required to
> destroy a modern aircraft is estimated at four to six hits of 30 mm
> fire and perhaps three times as many with a 20 mm gun."
>
> However, it obviously takes an aware and skilled pilot to stop his
> attacker from getting a radar lock.

ISTM we're ignoring Laser/IRSTS here, but many of the same comments apply. However, if you're locking someone
up then you're almost certainly setting off his radar/laser warning systems (assuming he's so fitted).

<snip>

> > I've personally come to the conclusion that the "guns are a waste of
> > space" movement was clearly and provably premature[1], but as combat
> > experience improved tactics and equipment the backlash was almost
> > counterproductive. By the time the USAF were fielding the F-4E, the
> > desperate need for its M61 had gone; but it was a lot easier to say
> > "that useless Navy fighter we were forced to buy didn't have a gun!"
> > than to admit to significant doctrinal, tactical and maintenance
> > shortcomings.
>
> I also include the following in the book, which illustrates your point
> rather better than Vietnam:
>
> "The growing importance of missiles is graphically demonstrated by the
> experience of the Israeli Air Force, which has experienced more
> air-to-air combat in this period than any other. In the Six Day War of
> 1967, guns scored 100% of the Israeli fighter kills. Between then and
> 1973, the figure dropped to 70%. In the Yom Kippur War there was a
> further drop to 30%, between 1973 and 1979 it was 20%, from 1979 to
> 1982 it was 10%, in the Lebanon campaign of 1982 it was 7%, and since
> then 0%."

Someone else has a copy of "Fighters over Israel" ;-)

> > I do note that the US Navy, flying in the same area (though with
> > significant differences) never felt the need to field either gun pods
> > for air-to-air or to insist on an internal gun on any Phantom. (Though
> > the F-14 acquired one: interesting, that, and I'd like to know why. For
> > that matter, was the F-111B meant to have an internal gun?)
>
> I presume that the F-14 installation, along with the F-15, was part of
> the 'backlash' against the gunless planes (for the initially
> lower-capability, general-purpose F-16 the gun was more
> understandable). The F-111B could carry a gun - another quote:
>
> "The F 111 had an internal weapons bay in the front fuselage and one
> of the loads that could be accommodated was a M61A1 with a generous
> 2,048 rounds, with the gun in the left half of the bay. The only
> version that regularly carried this weapon was the F 111D, and
> although it was carried in Vietnam the weapon saw no use there. It was
> soon decided to carry AIM 9 missiles for self-defence instead."

<snip>

FWIW, Tony Thornborough's first book on the 'Vark (and probably the bigger one, which I haven't read) contains
interviews with a fair number of F-111A crews who flew in Vietnam. Their comment was that they were ordered to
carry the loaded gun on every mission and did so, but absolutely no one ever used it or intended to do so, and
they considered it and its ammo unnecessary weight. It made no sense to use it, given their mission
(night/all-weather, Lo-Lo-Lo-Hi, single-ship laydown attacks). The last thing they were going to do was to
come around and make strafing passes on an alerted target -- they figured if a full load of Slicks/Snakes/CBUs
didn't do the job the cannon wasn't going to, and it's not as if there were any MiGs flying around in the
conditions they operated in.

Guy

Boomer

February 19th 04, 08:28 AM

what sort of ranges is a modern aircraft gun effective at in the air to air
role?

"Guy Alcala" > wrote in message
. ..
> Tony Williams wrote:
>
> > "Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message
>...
> > > In message >, Tony
> > > Williams > writes
> > >
> > > Provided, of course, that you can get and hold a solid radar lock on
the
> > > target; the lack of which ability is sometimes cited as a reason to
keep
> > > guns, which of course are wonderful because they're just 'point and
> > > shoot' with no fancy sensors or expensive jammable radars needed :)
> >
> > True. I do include this statement in the book:
> >
> > "The percentage of shots which hit the target in air-to-air firing
> > exercises varies greatly depending on the circumstances. Modern fire
> > control systems can calculate the correct aiming point, taking into
> > account such variables as the effects of gravity (if the gun is fired
> > when the aircraft is banking) and of relative wind (if the aircraft is
> > manoeuvring so that its gun is pointing away from the direction of
> > flight). If the radar is locked on to the target, a high percentage of
> > hits can be achieved; if not, then the scores drop down to optical
> > gunsight levels. If a pilot knows he is under gun attack, he can make
> > a radar lock virtually impossible by constantly making small changes
> > in direction every couple of seconds. The number of hits required to
> > destroy a modern aircraft is estimated at four to six hits of 30 mm
> > fire and perhaps three times as many with a 20 mm gun."
> >
> > However, it obviously takes an aware and skilled pilot to stop his
> > attacker from getting a radar lock.
>
> ISTM we're ignoring Laser/IRSTS here, but many of the same comments apply.
However, if you're locking someone
> up then you're almost certainly setting off his radar/laser warning
systems (assuming he's so fitted).
>
> <snip>
>
> > > I've personally come to the conclusion that the "guns are a waste of
> > > space" movement was clearly and provably premature[1], but as combat
> > > experience improved tactics and equipment the backlash was almost
> > > counterproductive. By the time the USAF were fielding the F-4E, the
> > > desperate need for its M61 had gone; but it was a lot easier to say
> > > "that useless Navy fighter we were forced to buy didn't have a gun!"
> > > than to admit to significant doctrinal, tactical and maintenance
> > > shortcomings.
> >
> > I also include the following in the book, which illustrates your point
> > rather better than Vietnam:
> >
> > "The growing importance of missiles is graphically demonstrated by the
> > experience of the Israeli Air Force, which has experienced more
> > air-to-air combat in this period than any other. In the Six Day War of
> > 1967, guns scored 100% of the Israeli fighter kills. Between then and
> > 1973, the figure dropped to 70%. In the Yom Kippur War there was a
> > further drop to 30%, between 1973 and 1979 it was 20%, from 1979 to
> > 1982 it was 10%, in the Lebanon campaign of 1982 it was 7%, and since
> > then 0%."
>
> Someone else has a copy of "Fighters over Israel" ;-)
>
> > > I do note that the US Navy, flying in the same area (though with
> > > significant differences) never felt the need to field either gun pods
> > > for air-to-air or to insist on an internal gun on any Phantom. (Though
> > > the F-14 acquired one: interesting, that, and I'd like to know why.
For
> > > that matter, was the F-111B meant to have an internal gun?)
> >
> > I presume that the F-14 installation, along with the F-15, was part of
> > the 'backlash' against the gunless planes (for the initially
> > lower-capability, general-purpose F-16 the gun was more
> > understandable). The F-111B could carry a gun - another quote:
> >
> > "The F 111 had an internal weapons bay in the front fuselage and one
> > of the loads that could be accommodated was a M61A1 with a generous
> > 2,048 rounds, with the gun in the left half of the bay. The only
> > version that regularly carried this weapon was the F 111D, and
> > although it was carried in Vietnam the weapon saw no use there. It was
> > soon decided to carry AIM 9 missiles for self-defence instead."
>
> <snip>
>
> FWIW, Tony Thornborough's first book on the 'Vark (and probably the bigger
one, which I haven't read) contains
> interviews with a fair number of F-111A crews who flew in Vietnam. Their
comment was that they were ordered to
> carry the loaded gun on every mission and did so, but absolutely no one
ever used it or intended to do so, and
> they considered it and its ammo unnecessary weight. It made no sense to
use it, given their mission
> (night/all-weather, Lo-Lo-Lo-Hi, single-ship laydown attacks). The last
thing they were going to do was to
> come around and make strafing passes on an alerted target -- they figured
if a full load of Slicks/Snakes/CBUs
> didn't do the job the cannon wasn't going to, and it's not as if there
were any MiGs flying around in the
> conditions they operated in.
>
> Guy
>

Tony Williams

February 19th 04, 04:19 PM

"Boomer" > wrote in message >...
> what sort of ranges is a modern aircraft gun effective at in the air to air
> role?

It depends very much on the circumstances. In a high-speed tail chase
at low altitude, the projectiles will experience the maximum
aerodynamic drag and will slow down rapidly, reducing effectiveness to
only a few hundred metres.

At the opposite extreme is the head-on attack at high altitude. The
range for opening fire can be as much as 3,000m.

The gun makes a difference; other things being equal, the bigger the
calibre, the slower the shells will lose velocity and the longer will
be their effective range. The Russian 30mm shells are particularly
heavy at 390 grams (typical Western 30mm = 240-270 grams, 20mm = 100
grams), so they will slow down least of all among the fighter guns.
The most long-ranging fighter gun however is probably the SAAB
Viggen's 30mm Oerlikon KCA; it uses basically the same ammunition as
the GAU-8/A 'tankbuster' in the A-10.

Tony Williams
Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk
Military gun and ammunition discussion forum:
http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/

Boomer

February 19th 04, 05:10 PM

Thanks a bunch, I wasnt aware of the Oerlikons power!

"Tony Williams" > wrote in message
m...
> "Boomer" > wrote in message
>...
> > what sort of ranges is a modern aircraft gun effective at in the air to
air
> > role?
>
> It depends very much on the circumstances. In a high-speed tail chase
> at low altitude, the projectiles will experience the maximum
> aerodynamic drag and will slow down rapidly, reducing effectiveness to
> only a few hundred metres.
>
> At the opposite extreme is the head-on attack at high altitude. The
> range for opening fire can be as much as 3,000m.
>
> The gun makes a difference; other things being equal, the bigger the
> calibre, the slower the shells will lose velocity and the longer will
> be their effective range. The Russian 30mm shells are particularly
> heavy at 390 grams (typical Western 30mm = 240-270 grams, 20mm = 100
> grams), so they will slow down least of all among the fighter guns.
> The most long-ranging fighter gun however is probably the SAAB
> Viggen's 30mm Oerlikon KCA; it uses basically the same ammunition as
> the GAU-8/A 'tankbuster' in the A-10.
>
> Tony Williams
> Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk
> Military gun and ammunition discussion forum:
> http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/

Ian

February 19th 04, 07:24 PM

"Tony Williams" > wrote in message
m...
> "Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message
>...
> > In message >, Tony
> > Williams > writes
> >
> > Provided, of course, that you can get and hold a solid radar lock on the
> > target; the lack of which ability is sometimes cited as a reason to keep
> > guns, which of course are wonderful because they're just 'point and
> > shoot' with no fancy sensors or expensive jammable radars needed :)
>
> True. I do include this statement in the book:
>
> "The percentage of shots which hit the target in air-to-air firing
> exercises varies greatly depending on the circumstances. Modern fire
> control systems can calculate the correct aiming point, taking into
> account such variables as the effects of gravity (if the gun is fired
> when the aircraft is banking) and of relative wind (if the aircraft is
> manoeuvring so that its gun is pointing away from the direction of
> flight). If the radar is locked on to the target, a high percentage of
> hits can be achieved; if not, then the scores drop down to optical
> gunsight levels. If a pilot knows he is under gun attack, he can make
> a radar lock virtually impossible by constantly making small changes
> in direction every couple of seconds. The number of hits required to
> destroy a modern aircraft is estimated at four to six hits of 30 mm
> fire and perhaps three times as many with a 20 mm gun."
>
> However, it obviously takes an aware and skilled pilot to stop his
> attacker from getting a radar lock.
>
> > Tony, you get picked on because you're a reasonable man advancing good
> > arguments and so I can have a civil debate with you. It's not your fault
> > that others have advanced some rather poor arguments... you just get hit
> > with defending them sometimes as well as arguing your own position. I
> > appreciate your forbearance.
>
> No problem - I enjoy a good debate and learn from it; it's only the
> idiots who occasionally irritate me! I sometimes have to remind myself
> of the sound advice someone once used as a signature: "Never argue
> with an idiot. He'll drag you down to his level and beat you with
> experience."
>
> > >The
> > >Iranians used the F-14's superior radar as a kind of mini-AWACS,
> > >orchestrating air combats and trying to fight at long range. However,
> > >tactical situations can change unexpectedly, especially at fighter jet
> > >closing speeds, hence their occasional need to use guns.
> >
> > Out of interest, how many Iranian Tomcats were lost in air combat?
>
> Umm. I don't know off hand. The major failing of the book is that it
> doesn't have an index. However, Tom Cooper helps to manage the
> acig.org site which collects and posts shoot-down stats for post-WW2
> conflicts.
>
> > >I presume because the SHARs were seen as primarily fighters, the GR.7s
> > >were specialised for ground attack - so they were the obvious ones to
> > >use.
> >
> > True to a point, but the SHars are at least multi-role and could even be
> > swing-role with the right loadout (what does the A in FA.2 stand for,
> > after all?) and there wasn't a noticeable fixed-wing air threat in
> > Sierra Leone that would require a CAP or DLI presence.
>
> Well, I presume that the GR.7s were specifically sent along to do the
> job; the RN doesn't normally carry them unless they're needed, AFAIK.
>
> > Also, can't the RAF Harriers use the 30mm gun packs?
>
> I doubt that very much. Apart from the fact that their 'gunpods' are
> now stuffed with electronics which are presumably a part of their
> system, they almost certainly don't have the gun programme in their
> FCS. I remember some years ago there was a series on DERA which
> incidentally included some footage of a GR.7 testing the unfortunate
> 25mm Aden installation (the test had to be aborted as one of the guns
> broke...). They were having great difficulty adjusting the system to
> get the guns firing accurately - they were missing the targets by
> scores of metres. There's more to installing a gun than just bolting
> it on.
>
I'm 99% sure the GR7 (well the GR9 in development so hopefully it goes
backwards?) can carry and use the gunpod - have to check my contacts

Puppinator

February 25th 04, 06:44 PM

Of course, should a war come along where the gun
> demonstrates
> > its utility on a regular (as opposed to occasional) basis, the pendulum
> may
> > swing back the other way again.
>
> Well, AFAIK there has been no general consensus regarding deleting the gun
> armament, and everyone continues to do so. If there was such a feeling, we
> would expect customers to be deleting them left and right as a weight
saving
> and space creating measure (adding that big spine to the Block 60 F-16's
> indicates that volume usage is growing critical with that design), but we
> have not seen this happen.
>
> Brooks
>
> >
> > Guy
> >
The only fighter that needs a gun is the Warthog. All others, waste of time
and weight post Cold War.
As far as the F-15 strafing runs in Afghanistan, that would almost certainly
have to be Strike and not Air Superiority Eagles.

Kevin Brooks

February 25th 04, 07:24 PM

"Puppinator" > wrote in message
...
> Of course, should a war come along where the gun
> > demonstrates
> > > its utility on a regular (as opposed to occasional) basis, the
pendulum
> > may
> > > swing back the other way again.
> >
> > Well, AFAIK there has been no general consensus regarding deleting the
gun
> > armament, and everyone continues to do so. If there was such a feeling,
we
> > would expect customers to be deleting them left and right as a weight
> saving
> > and space creating measure (adding that big spine to the Block 60 F-16's
> > indicates that volume usage is growing critical with that design), but
we
> > have not seen this happen.
> >
> > Brooks
> >
> > >
> > > Guy
> > >
> The only fighter that needs a gun is the Warthog. All others, waste of
time
> and weight post Cold War.

The SOF types who found their bacon saved during OIF by a Strike Eagle
conducting a strafe, providing *effective* (see that , Paul?) suppression
(see the latest AFM, an article by our very own Steve Davies) would probably
disagree with your assessment a bit.

> As far as the F-15 strafing runs in Afghanistan, that would almost
certainly
> have to be Strike and not Air Superiority Eagles.

So? They are not A-10's, now are they?

Brooks

>
>
>
>

Puppinator

February 26th 04, 03:22 PM

You proved my point...they were strike eagles...not a/b/c/d model F-15's

--
Pup
USAF, Retired
Go #88 UPS Racing, Detroit Red Wings,
Ohio State Buckeyes
__________________

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Puppinator" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Of course, should a war come along where the gun
> > > demonstrates
> > > > its utility on a regular (as opposed to occasional) basis, the
> pendulum
> > > may
> > > > swing back the other way again.
> > >
> > > Well, AFAIK there has been no general consensus regarding deleting the
> gun
> > > armament, and everyone continues to do so. If there was such a
feeling,
> we
> > > would expect customers to be deleting them left and right as a weight
> > saving
> > > and space creating measure (adding that big spine to the Block 60
F-16's
> > > indicates that volume usage is growing critical with that design), but
> we
> > > have not seen this happen.
> > >
> > > Brooks
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Guy
> > > >
> > The only fighter that needs a gun is the Warthog. All others, waste of
> time
> > and weight post Cold War.
>
> The SOF types who found their bacon saved during OIF by a Strike Eagle
> conducting a strafe, providing *effective* (see that , Paul?) suppression
> (see the latest AFM, an article by our very own Steve Davies) would
probably
> disagree with your assessment a bit.
>
> > As far as the F-15 strafing runs in Afghanistan, that would almost
> certainly
> > have to be Strike and not Air Superiority Eagles.
>
> So? They are not A-10's, now are they?
>
> Brooks
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>

Kevin Brooks

February 26th 04, 06:54 PM

"Puppinator" > wrote in message
...
> You proved my point...they were strike eagles...not a/b/c/d model F-15's

The F-16's did it as well. So..? You just told us that the *only* aircraft
that needs a gun is the A-10, now you seem to be saying thet the Strike
Eagle does as well. What about the F-16? The F-35, which will replace the
F-16 and A-10?

Brooks

>
>
> --
> Pup
> USAF, Retired
> Go #88 UPS Racing, Detroit Red Wings,
> Ohio State Buckeyes
> __________________
>
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Puppinator" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > Of course, should a war come along where the gun
> > > > demonstrates
> > > > > its utility on a regular (as opposed to occasional) basis, the
> > pendulum
> > > > may
> > > > > swing back the other way again.
> > > >
> > > > Well, AFAIK there has been no general consensus regarding deleting
the
> > gun
> > > > armament, and everyone continues to do so. If there was such a
> feeling,
> > we
> > > > would expect customers to be deleting them left and right as a
weight
> > > saving
> > > > and space creating measure (adding that big spine to the Block 60
> F-16's
> > > > indicates that volume usage is growing critical with that design),
but
> > we
> > > > have not seen this happen.
> > > >
> > > > Brooks
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Guy
> > > > >
> > > The only fighter that needs a gun is the Warthog. All others, waste of
> > time
> > > and weight post Cold War.
> >
> > The SOF types who found their bacon saved during OIF by a Strike Eagle
> > conducting a strafe, providing *effective* (see that , Paul?)
suppression
> > (see the latest AFM, an article by our very own Steve Davies) would
> probably
> > disagree with your assessment a bit.
> >
> > > As far as the F-15 strafing runs in Afghanistan, that would almost
> > certainly
> > > have to be Strike and not Air Superiority Eagles.
> >
> > So? They are not A-10's, now are they?
> >
> > Brooks
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

Puppinator

February 27th 04, 01:24 AM

Ok, let me explain a little deeper...the A-10 is the only on currently full
up operational that needs a gun....as it is it's primary weapon. The F-16's
(all blocks) and F-15's (all models) do not due to the fact they don't/can't
fly realistic CAS missions. Can't do CAS from above 10,000 ft, sorry. Not
effectively.

--
Pup
USAF, Retired
Go #88 UPS Racing, Detroit Red Wings,
Ohio State Buckeyes
__________________

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Puppinator" > wrote in message
> ...
> > You proved my point...they were strike eagles...not a/b/c/d model F-15's
>
> The F-16's did it as well. So..? You just told us that the *only* aircraft
> that needs a gun is the A-10, now you seem to be saying thet the Strike
> Eagle does as well. What about the F-16? The F-35, which will replace the
> F-16 and A-10?
>
> Brooks
>
> >
> >
> > --
> > Pup
> > USAF, Retired
> > Go #88 UPS Racing, Detroit Red Wings,
> > Ohio State Buckeyes
> > __________________
> >
> > "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Puppinator" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > Of course, should a war come along where the gun
> > > > > demonstrates
> > > > > > its utility on a regular (as opposed to occasional) basis, the
> > > pendulum
> > > > > may
> > > > > > swing back the other way again.
> > > > >
> > > > > Well, AFAIK there has been no general consensus regarding deleting
> the
> > > gun
> > > > > armament, and everyone continues to do so. If there was such a
> > feeling,
> > > we
> > > > > would expect customers to be deleting them left and right as a
> weight
> > > > saving
> > > > > and space creating measure (adding that big spine to the Block 60
> > F-16's
> > > > > indicates that volume usage is growing critical with that design),
> but
> > > we
> > > > > have not seen this happen.
> > > > >
> > > > > Brooks
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Guy
> > > > > >
> > > > The only fighter that needs a gun is the Warthog. All others, waste
of
> > > time
> > > > and weight post Cold War.
> > >
> > > The SOF types who found their bacon saved during OIF by a Strike Eagle
> > > conducting a strafe, providing *effective* (see that , Paul?)
> suppression
> > > (see the latest AFM, an article by our very own Steve Davies) would
> > probably
> > > disagree with your assessment a bit.
> > >
> > > > As far as the F-15 strafing runs in Afghanistan, that would almost
> > > certainly
> > > > have to be Strike and not Air Superiority Eagles.
> > >
> > > So? They are not A-10's, now are they?
> > >
> > > Brooks
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

Puppinator

February 27th 04, 01:27 AM

Besides, I wasn't personally attacking the person (rather it was you or not)
that said F-15's were used in Afghanistan to "Strafe"....I doubted that they
were Air Superiority F-15's....Strike Eagles maybe...not A-D models.

--
Pup
USAF, Retired
Go #88 UPS Racing, Detroit Red Wings,
Ohio State Buckeyes
__________________

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Puppinator" > wrote in message
> ...
> > You proved my point...they were strike eagles...not a/b/c/d model F-15's
>
> The F-16's did it as well. So..? You just told us that the *only* aircraft
> that needs a gun is the A-10, now you seem to be saying thet the Strike
> Eagle does as well. What about the F-16? The F-35, which will replace the
> F-16 and A-10?
>
> Brooks
>
> >
> >
> > --
> > Pup
> > USAF, Retired
> > Go #88 UPS Racing, Detroit Red Wings,
> > Ohio State Buckeyes
> > __________________
> >
> > "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Puppinator" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > Of course, should a war come along where the gun
> > > > > demonstrates
> > > > > > its utility on a regular (as opposed to occasional) basis, the
> > > pendulum
> > > > > may
> > > > > > swing back the other way again.
> > > > >
> > > > > Well, AFAIK there has been no general consensus regarding deleting
> the
> > > gun
> > > > > armament, and everyone continues to do so. If there was such a
> > feeling,
> > > we
> > > > > would expect customers to be deleting them left and right as a
> weight
> > > > saving
> > > > > and space creating measure (adding that big spine to the Block 60
> > F-16's
> > > > > indicates that volume usage is growing critical with that design),
> but
> > > we
> > > > > have not seen this happen.
> > > > >
> > > > > Brooks
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Guy
> > > > > >
> > > > The only fighter that needs a gun is the Warthog. All others, waste
of
> > > time
> > > > and weight post Cold War.
> > >
> > > The SOF types who found their bacon saved during OIF by a Strike Eagle
> > > conducting a strafe, providing *effective* (see that , Paul?)
> suppression
> > > (see the latest AFM, an article by our very own Steve Davies) would
> > probably
> > > disagree with your assessment a bit.
> > >
> > > > As far as the F-15 strafing runs in Afghanistan, that would almost
> > > certainly
> > > > have to be Strike and not Air Superiority Eagles.
> > >
> > > So? They are not A-10's, now are they?
> > >
> > > Brooks
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

Kevin Brooks

February 27th 04, 04:42 AM

"Puppinator" > wrote in message
...

> Ok, let me explain a little deeper...the A-10 is the only on currently
full
> up operational that needs a gun....as it is it's primary weapon.

It is? Not from what I have heard about A-10 operations. The Maverick, along
with various bombs (guided and dumb) seem to be its primary armament, and
the gun is secondary.

The F-16's
> (all blocks) and F-15's (all models) do not due to the fact they
don't/can't
> fly realistic CAS missions. Can't do CAS from above 10,000 ft, sorry. Not
> effectively.

The resident Buff operator and the resident Strike Eagle guy might tend to
disagree with you. A lot of CAS has been flown from altitude during OIF and
OEF. Both the Strike Eagles and the Vipers also conducted strafe attacks
(Strike Eagles confirmed during both operations, Vipers at least during
Anaconda).

Brooks
>
>
> --
> Pup
> USAF, Retired
> Go #88 UPS Racing, Detroit Red Wings,
> Ohio State Buckeyes
> __________________
>
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Puppinator" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > You proved my point...they were strike eagles...not a/b/c/d model
F-15's
> >
> > The F-16's did it as well. So..? You just told us that the *only*
aircraft
> > that needs a gun is the A-10, now you seem to be saying thet the Strike
> > Eagle does as well. What about the F-16? The F-35, which will replace
the
> > F-16 and A-10?
> >
> > Brooks
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Pup
> > > USAF, Retired
> > > Go #88 UPS Racing, Detroit Red Wings,
> > > Ohio State Buckeyes
> > > __________________
> > >
> > > "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > "Puppinator" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > > Of course, should a war come along where the gun
> > > > > > demonstrates
> > > > > > > its utility on a regular (as opposed to occasional) basis, the
> > > > pendulum
> > > > > > may
> > > > > > > swing back the other way again.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Well, AFAIK there has been no general consensus regarding
deleting
> > the
> > > > gun
> > > > > > armament, and everyone continues to do so. If there was such a
> > > feeling,
> > > > we
> > > > > > would expect customers to be deleting them left and right as a
> > weight
> > > > > saving
> > > > > > and space creating measure (adding that big spine to the Block
60
> > > F-16's
> > > > > > indicates that volume usage is growing critical with that
design),
> > but
> > > > we
> > > > > > have not seen this happen.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Brooks
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Guy
> > > > > > >
> > > > > The only fighter that needs a gun is the Warthog. All others,
waste
> of
> > > > time
> > > > > and weight post Cold War.
> > > >
> > > > The SOF types who found their bacon saved during OIF by a Strike
Eagle
> > > > conducting a strafe, providing *effective* (see that , Paul?)
> > suppression
> > > > (see the latest AFM, an article by our very own Steve Davies) would
> > > probably
> > > > disagree with your assessment a bit.
> > > >
> > > > > As far as the F-15 strafing runs in Afghanistan, that would almost
> > > > certainly
> > > > > have to be Strike and not Air Superiority Eagles.
> > > >
> > > > So? They are not A-10's, now are they?
> > > >
> > > > Brooks
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

Eunometic

February 27th 04, 05:23 AM

(Tony Williams) wrote in message >...
> (championsleeper) wrote in message >...
> > Hi,
> >

> This trend is aided by the continued development of air-to-surface
> missiles, with the latest ones having autonomous homing systems to
> provide "fire and forget" capability over long ranges. Another current
> development is the GD Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System, which
> aims to achieve low-cost accuracy by fitted a laser homer to the
> little 2.75 inch (70 mm) rocket. The target is to achieve a CEP of 1 ?
> 2 m at ranges of up to 5 ? 6 km at a price of US$ 8 ? 10,000;
> one-sixth the cost of a Hellfire anti-tank missile.

The same homing system could be hardened for a guided cannon shell.
Either laser homing or laser beam riding. If the beam is properly
coded a pattern of cannon shells could saturate an area target.

Since high muzzle velocity would not be so critical for the accuracy
of such weapons since the gudience would compensate for fall off and
target velocity changes it might be possible to return to lower
velocity guns conceived more like the German WW2 MK 103 which was
incredibly compact and traded velocity for explosive load. For ultra
long ranges rocket boosted guided cannon shells might be used.

Keith Willshaw

February 27th 04, 09:28 AM

"Eunometic" > wrote in message
om...
> (Tony Williams) wrote in message
>...
> > (championsleeper) wrote in message
>...
> > > Hi,
> > >
>
>
> Since high muzzle velocity would not be so critical for the accuracy
> of such weapons since the gudience would compensate for fall off and
> target velocity changes it might be possible to return to lower
> velocity guns conceived more like the German WW2 MK 103 which was
> incredibly compact and traded velocity for explosive load. For ultra
> long ranges rocket boosted guided cannon shells might be used.

And then you omit the cannon and call it a Sidewinder

Keith

Paul J. Adam

February 27th 04, 10:55 PM

In message >, Eunometic
> writes
>The same homing system could be hardened for a guided cannon shell.
>Either laser homing or laser beam riding. If the beam is properly
>coded a pattern of cannon shells could saturate an area target.
>
>Since high muzzle velocity would not be so critical for the accuracy
>of such weapons since the gudience would compensate for fall off and
>target velocity changes it might be possible to return to lower
>velocity guns conceived more like the German WW2 MK 103 which was
>incredibly compact and traded velocity for explosive load. For ultra
>long ranges rocket boosted guided cannon shells might be used.

....so why bother with the cannon and the problems of hardening the
rounds, if you can get the same result with a simpler, cheaper rocket?

For sure it's _much_ easier and cheaper to fit guidance electronics into
a couple of soft-launched 70mm rockets, than into a hundred gun-launched
30mm shells: and the rocket gets you more range, more warhead, room for
a proximity fuze...

Gun-launched guided projectiles currently hover at the 100mm (Russian
AT-10 IIRC) mark with 76mm proposed but not yet proven or fielded: I'm
not convinced that guided 20-30mm shells are the answer for aircraft.
Going larger-calibre gets you a big heavy gun and curiosity why a gun is
the answer.

For most of the scenarios where guns are suggested as being required, an
accurate 27-30mm with a good ranging sight and reversionary gyro mode is
a good 'today' answer with laser-guided 70mm rockets a potential
replacement. If you need the guidance, the gun loses its charm: if you
can't get guidance, then the guided shells are ballast.

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

Puppinator

February 28th 04, 01:23 AM

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Puppinator" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > Ok, let me explain a little deeper...the A-10 is the only on currently
> full
> > up operational that needs a gun....as it is it's primary weapon.
>
> It is? Not from what I have heard about A-10 operations. The Maverick,
along
> with various bombs (guided and dumb) seem to be its primary armament, and
> the gun is secondary.
>
I only know this from working 6 years on the A-10 and it's initial primary
mission: CAS....but since the A-10 has been multi-roled, those lines have
blurred. Initially, it was the gun for CAS/Tank Killer roles.

--
Pup
USAF, Retired
Go #88 UPS Racing, Detroit Red Wings,
Ohio State Buckeyes
__________________

Kevin Brooks

February 28th 04, 05:36 AM

"Puppinator" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Puppinator" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> > > Ok, let me explain a little deeper...the A-10 is the only on currently
> > full
> > > up operational that needs a gun....as it is it's primary weapon.
> >
> > It is? Not from what I have heard about A-10 operations. The Maverick,
> along
> > with various bombs (guided and dumb) seem to be its primary armament,
and
> > the gun is secondary.
> >
> I only know this from working 6 years on the A-10 and it's initial primary
> mission: CAS....but since the A-10 has been multi-roled, those lines have
> blurred. Initially, it was the gun for CAS/Tank Killer roles.

I am getting the distinct impression you are not going to back off from the
various incorrect assertions you have made in this thread (to wit: only the
A-10 needs a gun and it's primary weapon is the gun, can't do CAS from 10K,
failure to recognize that even the F-16 has indeed engaged in strafe
operations during both ODS and OEF, etc.). C'est la vie.

Brooks

>
> --
> Pup
> USAF, Retired
> Go #88 UPS Racing, Detroit Red Wings,
> Ohio State Buckeyes
> __________________
>
>
>

Puppinator

February 28th 04, 09:30 PM

On the contrary...I don't believe "modern fighters" need a gun..is that
putting it better...however, the A-10 is classified as an "attack" a/c...and
before retrofits, it's primary weapon was the gun...could use it remarkable
well...and with more variety of PGU 30mm ammunitions than that available to
F-16's or F-15s...bottom line, the A-10 was design to use its gun on a daily
basis...the F boys weren't.

--
Pup
USAF, Retired
Go #88 UPS Racing, Detroit Red Wings,
Ohio State Buckeyes
__________________

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Puppinator" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Puppinator" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > >
> > > > Ok, let me explain a little deeper...the A-10 is the only on
currently
> > > full
> > > > up operational that needs a gun....as it is it's primary weapon.
> > >
> > > It is? Not from what I have heard about A-10 operations. The Maverick,
> > along
> > > with various bombs (guided and dumb) seem to be its primary armament,
> and
> > > the gun is secondary.
> > >
> > I only know this from working 6 years on the A-10 and it's initial
primary
> > mission: CAS....but since the A-10 has been multi-roled, those lines
have
> > blurred. Initially, it was the gun for CAS/Tank Killer roles.
>
> I am getting the distinct impression you are not going to back off from
the
> various incorrect assertions you have made in this thread (to wit: only
the
> A-10 needs a gun and it's primary weapon is the gun, can't do CAS from
10K,
> failure to recognize that even the F-16 has indeed engaged in strafe
> operations during both ODS and OEF, etc.). C'est la vie.
>
> Brooks
>
> >
> > --
> > Pup
> > USAF, Retired
> > Go #88 UPS Racing, Detroit Red Wings,
> > Ohio State Buckeyes
> > __________________
> >
> >
> >
>
>

Puppinator

March 2nd 04, 03:04 PM

Just out of curiousity...what EXPERIENCE do you have working/flying the
A-10? Or do you just quote from Janes and/or CNN.

--
Pup
USAF, Retired
Go #88 UPS Racing, Detroit Red Wings,
Ohio State Buckeyes
__________________

"Puppinator" > wrote in message
...
> On the contrary...I don't believe "modern fighters" need a gun..is that
> putting it better...however, the A-10 is classified as an "attack"
a/c...and
> before retrofits, it's primary weapon was the gun...could use it
remarkable
> well...and with more variety of PGU 30mm ammunitions than that available
to
> F-16's or F-15s...bottom line, the A-10 was design to use its gun on a
daily
> basis...the F boys weren't.
>
> --
> Pup
> USAF, Retired
> Go #88 UPS Racing, Detroit Red Wings,
> Ohio State Buckeyes
> __________________
>
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Puppinator" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > "Puppinator" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > >
> > > > > Ok, let me explain a little deeper...the A-10 is the only on
> currently
> > > > full
> > > > > up operational that needs a gun....as it is it's primary weapon.
> > > >
> > > > It is? Not from what I have heard about A-10 operations. The
Maverick,
> > > along
> > > > with various bombs (guided and dumb) seem to be its primary
armament,
> > and
> > > > the gun is secondary.
> > > >
> > > I only know this from working 6 years on the A-10 and it's initial
> primary
> > > mission: CAS....but since the A-10 has been multi-roled, those lines
> have
> > > blurred. Initially, it was the gun for CAS/Tank Killer roles.
> >
> > I am getting the distinct impression you are not going to back off from
> the
> > various incorrect assertions you have made in this thread (to wit: only
> the
> > A-10 needs a gun and it's primary weapon is the gun, can't do CAS from
> 10K,
> > failure to recognize that even the F-16 has indeed engaged in strafe
> > operations during both ODS and OEF, etc.). C'est la vie.
> >
> > Brooks
> >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Pup
> > > USAF, Retired
> > > Go #88 UPS Racing, Detroit Red Wings,
> > > Ohio State Buckeyes
> > > __________________
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

ArtKramr

March 2nd 04, 04:25 PM

>Subject: Re: Future military fighters and guns - yes or no ?
>From: "Puppinator"
>Date: 3/2/04 7:04 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>

>Just out of curiousity...what EXPERIENCE do you have working/flying the
>A-10? Or do you just quote from Janes and/or CNN.

>Pup
>USAF, Retired

Brooks never flew anything. He never fired a shot in anger or saw an enemy.
Take that into consideration.

Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

Kevin Brooks

March 2nd 04, 07:09 PM

"Puppinator" > wrote in message
...
> Just out of curiousity...what EXPERIENCE do you have working/flying the
> A-10? Or do you just quote from Janes and/or CNN.

Oh, goodie. Another Art-in-the-making. Never flew an A-10, obviously. Do
happen to know that your "the gun is their main armament" is about twenty
years out of date, if not more (ISTR Mavericks were included in their
warloads from the beginning). The gun was not their primary method of attack
during ODS, nor was it during OIF. If you think it is now, or was during
those conflicts, provide some sort of evidence that supports that theory.

Brooks
>
>
>
> --
> Pup
> USAF, Retired
> Go #88 UPS Racing, Detroit Red Wings,
> Ohio State Buckeyes
> __________________
>
> "Puppinator" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On the contrary...I don't believe "modern fighters" need a gun..is that
> > putting it better...however, the A-10 is classified as an "attack"
> a/c...and
> > before retrofits, it's primary weapon was the gun...could use it
> remarkable
> > well...and with more variety of PGU 30mm ammunitions than that available
> to
> > F-16's or F-15s...bottom line, the A-10 was design to use its gun on a
> daily
> > basis...the F boys weren't.
> >
> > --
> > Pup
> > USAF, Retired
> > Go #88 UPS Racing, Detroit Red Wings,
> > Ohio State Buckeyes
> > __________________
> >
> > "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Puppinator" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > >
> > > > > "Puppinator" > wrote in message
> > > > > ...
> > > > >
> > > > > > Ok, let me explain a little deeper...the A-10 is the only on
> > currently
> > > > > full
> > > > > > up operational that needs a gun....as it is it's primary weapon.
> > > > >
> > > > > It is? Not from what I have heard about A-10 operations. The
> Maverick,
> > > > along
> > > > > with various bombs (guided and dumb) seem to be its primary
> armament,
> > > and
> > > > > the gun is secondary.
> > > > >
> > > > I only know this from working 6 years on the A-10 and it's initial
> > primary
> > > > mission: CAS....but since the A-10 has been multi-roled, those lines
> > have
> > > > blurred. Initially, it was the gun for CAS/Tank Killer roles.
> > >
> > > I am getting the distinct impression you are not going to back off
from
> > the
> > > various incorrect assertions you have made in this thread (to wit:
only
> > the
> > > A-10 needs a gun and it's primary weapon is the gun, can't do CAS from
> > 10K,
> > > failure to recognize that even the F-16 has indeed engaged in strafe
> > > operations during both ODS and OEF, etc.). C'est la vie.
> > >
> > > Brooks
> > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Pup
> > > > USAF, Retired
> > > > Go #88 UPS Racing, Detroit Red Wings,
> > > > Ohio State Buckeyes
> > > > __________________
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

Kevin Brooks

March 2nd 04, 07:14 PM

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
> >Subject: Re: Future military fighters and guns - yes or no ?
> >From: "Puppinator"
> >Date: 3/2/04 7:04 AM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> >
>
> >Just out of curiousity...what EXPERIENCE do you have working/flying the
> >A-10? Or do you just quote from Janes and/or CNN.
>
> >Pup
> >USAF, Retired
>
> Brooks never flew anything. He never fired a shot in anger or saw an
enemy.
> Take that into consideration.

But I did not have to be threatened with the draft in order to volunteer for
the service I have provided, unlike you. Nor did I volunteer during a period
where had I failed to I would have been labled a shirker, as was the case
when you served; quite the opposite, I actually was sworn in during a time
when being in the military was not quite as well thought of as it is now.
Nor am I compelled to make up things in a vain effort to make myself feel
important, like you habitually do. Finally, I address the queries raised to
me, unlike you. So just what the heck are you so proud of, Art?

Brooks

>
>
> Arthur Kramer

ArtKramr

March 2nd 04, 07:40 PM

>Subject: Re: Future military fighters and guns - yes or no ?
>From: "Kevin Brooks"
>Date: 3/2/04 11:14 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>
>"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
>> >Subject: Re: Future military fighters and guns - yes or no ?
>> >From: "Puppinator"
>> >Date: 3/2/04 7:04 AM Pacific Standard Time
>> >Message-id: >
>> >
>> >
>>
>> >Just out of curiousity...what EXPERIENCE do you have working/flying the
>> >A-10? Or do you just quote from Janes and/or CNN.
>>
>> >Pup
>> >USAF, Retired
>>
>> Brooks never flew anything. He never fired a shot in anger or saw an
>enemy.
>> Take that into consideration.
>
>But I did not have to be threatened with the draft in order to volunteer for
>the service I have provided, unlike you. Nor did I volunteer during a period
>where had I failed to I would have been labled a shirker, as was the case
>when you served; quite the opposite, I actually was sworn in during a time
>when being in the military was not quite as well thought of as it is now.
>Nor am I compelled to make up things in a vain effort to make myself feel
>important, like you habitually do. Finally, I address the queries raised to
>me, unlike you. So just what the heck are you so proud of, Art?
>
>Brooks
>
>>
>>

All the fun and games I was having at 10,000 feet over Germany. And also
attending funerals of friends many of whom still lie in foreign soil Never saw
you there coward. How was the flak behind a desk in Ohio? You could have
volunteered for a combat unit. How come you never did coward? You are the
bottom of he barrel of the military.

Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

ArtKramr

March 2nd 04, 07:44 PM

>Subject: Re: Future military fighters and guns - yes or no ?
>From: "Kevin Brooks"
>Date: 3/2/04 11:09 AM Pacific

>Never flew an A-10, obviously.

You never flew anything. That's the bottom line right? Never fought anyone and
never experienced combat right? Not much left for you is there?

Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

Kevin Brooks

March 2nd 04, 08:02 PM

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
> >Subject: Re: Future military fighters and guns - yes or no ?
> >From: "Kevin Brooks"
> >Date: 3/2/04 11:14 AM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> >
> >"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> >Subject: Re: Future military fighters and guns - yes or no ?
> >> >From: "Puppinator"
> >> >Date: 3/2/04 7:04 AM Pacific Standard Time
> >> >Message-id: >
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> >Just out of curiousity...what EXPERIENCE do you have working/flying
the
> >> >A-10? Or do you just quote from Janes and/or CNN.
> >>
> >> >Pup
> >> >USAF, Retired
> >>
> >> Brooks never flew anything. He never fired a shot in anger or saw an
> >enemy.
> >> Take that into consideration.
> >
> >But I did not have to be threatened with the draft in order to volunteer
for
> >the service I have provided, unlike you. Nor did I volunteer during a
period
> >where had I failed to I would have been labled a shirker, as was the case
> >when you served; quite the opposite, I actually was sworn in during a
time
> >when being in the military was not quite as well thought of as it is now.
> >Nor am I compelled to make up things in a vain effort to make myself feel
> >important, like you habitually do. Finally, I address the queries raised
to
> >me, unlike you. So just what the heck are you so proud of, Art?
> >
> >Brooks
> >
> >>
> >>
>
> All the fun and games I was having at 10,000 feet over Germany.

So you say. Based upon the lack of persoanl integrity you have demonstrated
thus far, it is kind of hard to know how much of your "exploits" are real
and how much is your imagination in overdrive. You see, that is the problem
when you start lying--after you get caught in them, nobody knows which
further statements of yours are fact and which are fiction.

And also
> attending funerals of friends many of whom still lie in foreign soil

One wonders why you continue to sneer at my one and only example of having
served on duty in Ohio (which for some reason you are fascinated with, can't
figure out why), where we performed a similar military funeral.

Never saw
> you there coward.

Oh, gee, maybe that was because I was not born until a bit over fifteen
years AFTER the war was over? Your rants are growing more pathetic...

> How was the flak behind a desk in Ohio?

Again (and I realize that your mind may not be what it once was), I never
served behind a desk in Ohio, OK? Simple concept--even you should be able to
grasp it with enough effort. Again, what is this fixation you have with
Ohio? Did some airman from Ohio knock you on your keister when you gave him
some of your oh-so-mean 19 year old butter-bar lip? Is that why you are
always drawn back to trying to connect someone who has the temerity to
disagree with you, or to call you on your repeated false statements, with
the Buckeye State?

You could have
> volunteered for a combat unit.

I did not have to. My first active duty assignment was to a combat unit (the
19th Engineer battalion (Combat) (Corps) (Wheeled); Company B to be
exact--ran into my old CO years later when he evaluated our unit during a
training exercise). Finished that one up and moved to a construction unit.
Then to a bridge construction unit. Etc. etc. Weren't you the guy who
claimed folks in the military had to do what and go where they are told?

> How come you never did coward?

Being as I did serve in a couple of combat units, that is an irrational
statement.

You are the
> bottom of he barrel of the military.

You are entitled to your opinion. But that does not change the fact that you
remain a proven liar.

Brooks
>
>
>
> Arthur Kramer

Kevin Brooks

March 2nd 04, 08:06 PM

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
> >Subject: Re: Future military fighters and guns - yes or no ?
> >From: "Kevin Brooks"
> >Date: 3/2/04 11:09 AM Pacific
>
> >Never flew an A-10, obviously.
>
> You never flew anything. That's the bottom line right? Never fought anyone
and
> never experienced combat right? Not much left for you is there?

Nope. Never flew other than as a passenger. And that would be important
because...? Not a bit ashamed of my service, and unlike you I have never had
to resort to making things up in order to bolster my own self-image. That
you have to do that is kind of sad, really--one would think you did enough
to be proud of your service without having to go to such extremes. But,
since we can't really place any trust in your claims, maybe you have reason
for fabricating material that you feel better reflects on you.

Brooks

>
>
> Arthur Kramer

ArtKramr

March 2nd 04, 08:29 PM

>Subject: Re: Future military fighters and guns - yes or no ?
>From: "Kevin Brooks"
>Date: 3/2/04 12:06 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>
>"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
>> >Subject: Re: Future military fighters and guns - yes or no ?
>> >From: "Kevin Brooks"
>> >Date: 3/2/04 11:09 AM Pacific
>>
>> >Never flew an A-10, obviously.
>>
>> You never flew anything. That's the bottom line right? Never fought anyone
>and
>> never experienced combat right? Not much left for you is there?
>
>Nope. Never flew other than as a passenger. And that would be important
>because...? Not a bit ashamed of my service, and unlike you I have never had
>to resort to making things up in order to bolster my own self-image. That
>you have to do that is kind of sad, really--one would think you did enough
>to be proud of your service without having to go to such extremes. But,
>since we can't really place any trust in your claims, maybe you have reason
>for fabricating material that you feel better reflects on you.
>
>Brooks
>
>>
>>
>> Arthur Kramer
>
>

comes down to the same thing There are those of us who fought and those who
didn't. You have a a lot to answer for.

Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

Kevin Brooks

March 2nd 04, 08:33 PM

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
> >Subject: Re: Future military fighters and guns - yes or no ?
> >From: "Kevin Brooks"
> >Date: 3/2/04 12:06 PM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> >
> >"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> >Subject: Re: Future military fighters and guns - yes or no ?
> >> >From: "Kevin Brooks"
> >> >Date: 3/2/04 11:09 AM Pacific
> >>
> >> >Never flew an A-10, obviously.
> >>
> >> You never flew anything. That's the bottom line right? Never fought
anyone
> >and
> >> never experienced combat right? Not much left for you is there?
> >
> >Nope. Never flew other than as a passenger. And that would be important
> >because...? Not a bit ashamed of my service, and unlike you I have never
had
> >to resort to making things up in order to bolster my own self-image. That
> >you have to do that is kind of sad, really--one would think you did
enough
> >to be proud of your service without having to go to such extremes. But,
> >since we can't really place any trust in your claims, maybe you have
reason
> >for fabricating material that you feel better reflects on you.
> >
> >Brooks
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> Arthur Kramer
> >
> >
>
> comes down to the same thing There are those of us who fought and those
who
> didn't. You have a a lot to answer for.

No, Art only one of us has repeatedly refused to answer the questions posed
to him (even though they were specifically requested to be put forward), and
that would be you. Other posters have noted your refusal to address your
record of falsehoods, so I don't know who you are trying to mislead.

Brooks
>
>
> Arthur Kramer

ArtKramr

March 2nd 04, 08:33 PM

>Subject: Re: Future military fighters and guns - yes or no ?
>From: "Kevin Brooks"
>Date: 3/2/04 12:02 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>
>"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
>> >Subject: Re: Future military fighters and guns - yes or no ?
>> >From: "Kevin Brooks"
>> >Date: 3/2/04 11:14 AM Pacific Standard Time
>> >Message-id: >
>> >
>> >
>> >"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >> >Subject: Re: Future military fighters and guns - yes or no ?
>> >> >From: "Puppinator"
>> >> >Date: 3/2/04 7:04 AM Pacific Standard Time
>> >> >Message-id: >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> >Just out of curiousity...what EXPERIENCE do you have working/flying
>the
>> >> >A-10? Or do you just quote from Janes and/or CNN.
>> >>
>> >> >Pup
>> >> >USAF, Retired
>> >>
>> >> Brooks never flew anything. He never fired a shot in anger or saw an
>> >enemy.
>> >> Take that into consideration.
>> >
>> >But I did not have to be threatened with the draft in order to volunteer
>for
>> >the service I have provided, unlike you. Nor did I volunteer during a
>period
>> >where had I failed to I would have been labled a shirker, as was the case
>> >when you served; quite the opposite, I actually was sworn in during a
>time
>> >when being in the military was not quite as well thought of as it is now.
>> >Nor am I compelled to make up things in a vain effort to make myself feel
>> >important, like you habitually do. Finally, I address the queries raised
>to
>> >me, unlike you. So just what the heck are you so proud of, Art?
>> >
>> >Brooks
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>>
>> All the fun and games I was having at 10,000 feet over Germany.
>
>So you say. Based upon the lack of persoanl integrity you have demonstrated
>thus far, it is kind of hard to know how much of your "exploits" are real
>and how much is your imagination in overdrive. You see, that is the problem
>when you start lying--after you get caught in them, nobody knows which
>further statements of yours are fact and which are fiction.
>
>And also
>> attending funerals of friends many of whom still lie in foreign soil
>
>One wonders why you continue to sneer at my one and only example of having
>served on duty in Ohio (which for some reason you are fascinated with, can't
>figure out why), where we performed a similar military funeral.
>
>Never saw
>> you there coward.
>
>Oh, gee, maybe that was because I was not born until a bit over fifteen
>years AFTER the war was over? Your rants are growing more pathetic...
>
>> How was the flak behind a desk in Ohio?
>
>Again (and I realize that your mind may not be what it once was), I never
>served behind a desk in Ohio, OK? Simple concept--even you should be able to
>grasp it with enough effort. Again, what is this fixation you have with
>Ohio? Did some airman from Ohio knock you on your keister when you gave him
>some of your oh-so-mean 19 year old butter-bar lip? Is that why you are
>always drawn back to trying to connect someone who has the temerity to
>disagree with you, or to call you on your repeated false statements, with
>the Buckeye State?
>
>You could have
>> volunteered for a combat unit.
>
>I did not have to. My first active duty assignment was to a combat unit (the
>19th Engineer battalion (Combat) (Corps) (Wheeled); Company B to be
>exact--ran into my old CO years later when he evaluated our unit during a
>training exercise). Finished that one up and moved to a construction unit.
>Then to a bridge construction unit. Etc. etc. Weren't you the guy who
>claimed folks in the military had to do what and go where they are told?
>
>> How come you never did coward?
>
>Being as I did serve in a couple of combat units, that is an irrational
>statement.
>
>You are the
>> bottom of he barrel of the military.
>
>You are entitled to your opinion. But that does not change the fact that you
>remain a proven liar.
>
>Brooks
>>
>>
>>
>> Arthur Kramer
>
>
So you claim but you have proven nothing. And those of us who went into harms
way for our country have nothing to answer for ever. But you who never
volunteered for any combat duty have everything to answer for. Coward.

Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

ArtKramr

March 2nd 04, 08:42 PM

>Subject: Re: Future military fighters and guns - yes or no ?
>From: "Kevin Brooks"
>Date: 3/2/04 12:33 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>
>"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
>> >Subject: Re: Future military fighters and guns - yes or no ?
>> >From: "Kevin Brooks"
>> >Date: 3/2/04 12:06 PM Pacific Standard Time
>> >Message-id: >
>> >
>> >
>> >"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >> >Subject: Re: Future military fighters and guns - yes or no ?
>> >> >From: "Kevin Brooks"
>> >> >Date: 3/2/04 11:09 AM Pacific
>> >>
>> >> >Never flew an A-10, obviously.
>> >>
>> >> You never flew anything. That's the bottom line right? Never fought
>anyone
>> >and
>> >> never experienced combat right? Not much left for you is there?
>> >
>> >Nope. Never flew other than as a passenger. And that would be important
>> >because...? Not a bit ashamed of my service, and unlike you I have never
>had
>> >to resort to making things up in order to bolster my own self-image. That
>> >you have to do that is kind of sad, really--one would think you did
>enough
>> >to be proud of your service without having to go to such extremes. But,
>> >since we can't really place any trust in your claims, maybe you have
>reason
>> >for fabricating material that you feel better reflects on you.
>> >
>> >Brooks
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Arthur Kramer
>> >
>> >
>>
>> comes down to the same thing There are those of us who fought and those
>who
>> didn't. You have a a lot to answer for.
>
>No, Art only one of us has repeatedly refused to answer the questions posed
>to him (even though they were specifically requested to be put forward), and
>that would be you. Other posters have noted your refusal to address your
>record of falsehoods, so I don't know who you are trying to mislead.
>
>Brooks
>>
>>
>> Arthur Kramer
>
>
The questions are stupid and without any merit whatever as is your pathetic
military reocrd. And those of us who fought have nothing to answer for to
cowardly wannabees.

Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

Paul J. Adam

March 2nd 04, 08:47 PM

In message >, ArtKramr
> writes
>comes down to the same thing There are those of us who fought and those who
>didn't.

No, Art.

There are those who fought: those who trained and were ready, but
weren't called: those who would have enlisted and fought if called: and
those who would refuse.

>You have a a lot to answer for.

In that case so do I, but I'm not sure why. (Wore uniform, took the
Queen's shilling, and now advise and support the frontline. Not my fault
they haven't had a war that they wanted me for combat duty in.)

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

ArtKramr

March 2nd 04, 08:58 PM

>Subject: Re: Future military fighters and guns - yes or no ?
>From: "Paul J. Adam"
>Date: 3/2/04 12:47 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>In message >, ArtKramr
> writes
>>comes down to the same thing There are those of us who fought and those who
>>didn't.
>
>No, Art.
>
>There are those who fought: those who trained and were ready, but
>weren't called: those who would have enlisted and fought if called: and
>those who would refuse.
>
>>You have a a lot to answer for.
>
>In that case so do I, but I'm not sure why. (Wore uniform, took the
>Queen's shilling, and now advise and support the frontline. Not my fault
>they haven't had a war that they wanted me for combat duty in.)
>
>--
>When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
> W S Churchill
>
>Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

Thren there ar ehtose who stepped forward and volunteered for the Air Force,
the Marine Corps, the Paratroopers. Then there are those who didn't. They just
waited to be called many hoping they never would be. I suggest that there is a
difference between these two calibers of men. No offense of course.

Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

Paul J. Adam

March 2nd 04, 09:41 PM

In message >, ArtKramr
> writes
>>There are those who fought: those who trained and were ready, but
>>weren't called: those who would have enlisted and fought if called: and
>>those who would refuse.
>>
>>>You have a a lot to answer for.
>>
>>In that case so do I, but I'm not sure why. (Wore uniform, took the
>>Queen's shilling, and now advise and support the frontline. Not my fault
>>they haven't had a war that they wanted me for combat duty in.)
>>
>>--
>>When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
>> W S Churchill
>>
>>Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk
>
>
>Thren there ar ehtose who stepped forward and volunteered for the Air Force,
>the Marine Corps, the Paratroopers.

Art, I *work* with Royal Marines, Paras and members of other specialist
units. They accept my experience and trust my judgement in my fields of
expertise, just as I have complete faith in theirs.

Many of them have not seen combat, even when other members of their unit
have (assigned to other duties, in the wrong battalion, whatever).
Should we - for an example - denigrate the courage of 1 Para because
they weren't sent to the Falklands? Are they "less brave" than, for
example, the Blues and Royals or the Scots Guards, who despite not being
"Air Force, Marines or Paras" went and fought?

We thankfully don't have to do total wars these days: some regiments are
sent to a conflict, others have other missions to cover.

>Then there are those who didn't.
>They just
>waited to be called many hoping they never would be. I suggest that there is a
>difference between these two calibers of men. No offense of course.

I volunteered for the RAF. They told me that I couldn't join as aircrew
because my eyesight wasn't good enough. I offered to join as an engineer
officer and they told me to come back once I had my engineering degree:
but by then we'd had "Options for Change" and they'd frozen recruitment,
and I got a job designing and building their weapons instead.

I signed up for the part-time Army in the meantime, though it seems that
doesn't count either because you only recognise one regiment: I look
forward to seeing you explain to my cousin (PWRR, but was attached to
the Black Watch for Telic, got an unscheduled self-drive holiday in
Basra) that he's "not a real soldier" because he didn't go Para.

I signed up and served, and made myself ready to go: and a few years on
I signed up in a different capacity and am ready to march to the colours
again. I'm not really sure what more I'm supposed to do: start a war
just so I can fight in it, perchance?

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

ArtKramr

March 2nd 04, 09:45 PM

>Subject: Re: Future military fighters and guns - yes or no ?
>From: "Paul J. Adam"
>Date: 3/2/04 1:41 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>In message >, ArtKramr
> writes
>>>There are those who fought: those who trained and were ready, but
>>>weren't called: those who would have enlisted and fought if called: and
>>>those who would refuse.
>>>
>>>>You have a a lot to answer for.
>>>
>>>In that case so do I, but I'm not sure why. (Wore uniform, took the
>>>Queen's shilling, and now advise and support the frontline. Not my fault
>>>they haven't had a war that they wanted me for combat duty in.)
>>>
>>>--
>>>When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
>>> W S Churchill
>>>
>>>Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk
>>
>>
>>Thren there ar ehtose who stepped forward and volunteered for the Air Force,
>>the Marine Corps, the Paratroopers.
>
>Art, I *work* with Royal Marines, Paras and members of other specialist
>units. They accept my experience and trust my judgement in my fields of
>expertise, just as I have complete faith in theirs.
>
>Many of them have not seen combat, even when other members of their unit
>have (assigned to other duties, in the wrong battalion, whatever).
>Should we - for an example - denigrate the courage of 1 Para because
>they weren't sent to the Falklands? Are they "less brave" than, for
>example, the Blues and Royals or the Scots Guards, who despite not being
>"Air Force, Marines or Paras" went and fought?
>
>We thankfully don't have to do total wars these days: some regiments are
>sent to a conflict, others have other missions to cover.
>
>>Then there are those who didn't.
>>They just
>>waited to be called many hoping they never would be. I suggest that there
>is a
>>difference between these two calibers of men. No offense of course.
>
>I volunteered for the RAF. They told me that I couldn't join as aircrew
>because my eyesight wasn't good enough. I offered to join as an engineer
>officer and they told me to come back once I had my engineering degree:
>but by then we'd had "Options for Change" and they'd frozen recruitment,
>and I got a job designing and building their weapons instead.
>
>I signed up for the part-time Army in the meantime, though it seems that
>doesn't count either because you only recognise one regiment: I look
>forward to seeing you explain to my cousin (PWRR, but was attached to
>the Black Watch for Telic, got an unscheduled self-drive holiday in
>Basra) that he's "not a real soldier" because he didn't go Para.
>
>
>I signed up and served, and made myself ready to go: and a few years on
>I signed up in a different capacity and am ready to march to the colours
>again. I'm not really sure what more I'm supposed to do: start a war
>just so I can fight in it, perchance?
>
>--
>When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
> W S Churchill
>
>Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

They also serve who stand and wait. How would they have done in combat?. We
will never know will we?

Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

Pete

March 3rd 04, 12:48 AM

"ArtKramr" > wrote
>
> They also serve who stand and wait. How would they have done in combat?.
We
> will never know will we?

Art, it seems your dividing line between glory and those of a lesser caliber
is combat/no combat. i.e. being shot at counts. Everything else somewhat
less worthy.

You know as well as most reading this that military personnel don't get to
choose their war, or often even their job. No matter how many people
volunteer for the Green Berets, the military *still* needs supply troops,
bomb loaders, crew chiefs, etc, etc, etc.

Of the many thousands of bombs I loaded in my career, none was dropped in
anger. Not a one. Yet I served during several combat actions. Libya,
Grenada, Panama, Somalia, Iraq. How did THAT happen? Why didn't I
'volunteer' for El Dorado Canyon, or Desert Storm? Because that's not the
way it works anymore. My mission was elsewhere. Why didn't the F-16 pilots
at Ramstein 'volunteer' for Desert Storm? Because that's not the way it
works anymore. They had their own mission with the 86th FW in Germany. Not
everyone gets to go, no matter how bad they want it.

What would you say to Willie the Wolfs' crew chief? Or the bomb loaders? Or
the supply troop that ensured you had good tires? Or the logistics officer
ensuring the entire 8th AF had fresh tires?

Would you call them a lesser caliber of men, simply because they were not
shot at?

No. You would shake their hand, buy them a beer, and thank them for helping
you in *your* mission. They had theirs, you had yours. At least, that's what
I hope you'd do.

Now please extend the same respect to all those others who did serve
honorably, volunteer or draftee, in war or in peace.

Pete

ArtKramr

March 3rd 04, 01:08 AM

>Subject: Re: Future military fighters and guns - yes or no ?
>From: "Pete"
>Date: 3/2/04 4:48 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>
>"ArtKramr" > wrote
>>
>> They also serve who stand and wait. How would they have done in combat?.
>We
>> will never know will we?
>
>Art, it seems your dividing line between glory and those of a lesser caliber
>is combat/no combat. i.e. being shot at counts. Everything else somewhat
>less worthy.
>
>You know as well as most reading this that military personnel don't get to
>choose their war, or often even their job. No matter how many people
>volunteer for the Green Berets, the military *still* needs supply troops,
>bomb loaders, crew chiefs, etc, etc, etc.
>
>Of the many thousands of bombs I loaded in my career, none was dropped in
>anger. Not a one. Yet I served during several combat actions. Libya,
>Grenada, Panama, Somalia, Iraq. How did THAT happen? Why didn't I
>'volunteer' for El Dorado Canyon, or Desert Storm? Because that's not the
>way it works anymore. My mission was elsewhere. Why didn't the F-16 pilots
>at Ramstein 'volunteer' for Desert Storm? Because that's not the way it
>works anymore. They had their own mission with the 86th FW in Germany. Not
>everyone gets to go, no matter how bad they want it.
>
>What would you say to Willie the Wolfs' crew chief? Or the bomb loaders? Or
>the supply troop that ensured you had good tires? Or the logistics officer
>ensuring the entire 8th AF had fresh tires?
>
>Would you call them a lesser caliber of men, simply because they were not
>shot at?
>
>No. You would shake their hand, buy them a beer, and thank them for helping
>you in *your* mission. They had theirs, you had yours. At least, that's what
>I hope you'd do.
>
>Now please extend the same respect to all those others who did serve
>honorably, volunteer or draftee, in war or in peace.
>
>Pete
>
>
Yes. Everything you say is correct. But I must be totally honest. As we rushed
down the runway and lifted off and Willie's wheels came up I would look down at
those on the ground that we were leaving behind and I would think how they will
still be alive tonight. And they would go home after the war and live a full
rich lives with families and friends. And I didn't know for sure that I would
ever see this airfield again or live to see the sunrise tomorrow morning. These
are thoughts I had. And these thoughts create a thin line that separates
those who were with me and those who stayed behind on the ground. And I can't
deny in good conscience having those feelings. And I think many who flew with
me had exactly the same feelings whether they admit it or not. It's a very
thin line of separation. But a very line it is. Can you understand that?

Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

Pete

March 3rd 04, 01:28 AM

"ArtKramr" > wrote

> It's a very
> thin line of separation. But a very line it is. Can you understand that?

Yes, we can. Until you denigrate those on the other side of your line.

Pete

[email protected]

March 3rd 04, 03:29 AM

"Pete" > wrote:

>
>"ArtKramr" > wrote
>
>> It's a very
>> thin line of separation. But a very line it is. Can you understand that?
>
>Yes, we can. Until you denigrate those on the other side of your line.
>
>Pete
>

Close...there is no line actually, there's just those people who
support you, while being likewise supported themselves, and
expecting you to do your part by providing support for others
ahead of you.

When you denigrate them they can no longer support you and large
groups falter.

We all have our place in the scheme of things. Almost all of us
provide support for others while being supported ourselves by yet
others. If you think one level is 'more important' than another
level then you need to stand back and look at the whole
enchilada.

It all works like a well oiled machine 'till some jackass get's
too big for his breeches and puts a crimp in the works. He then
changes from as asset to a liability. Where do you fit Art?
--

-Gord.

Boomer

March 3rd 04, 04:11 AM

Apparently in "Arts war" the rear areas ( England for instance) never got
bombed and those cowardly ground crews always "live to see the sunrise
tomorrow morning". Pitty those cowardly fitters and loaders didnt hitch a
ride on the outside of Arts plane and throw hammers and spanners at nasty
old "jerry".

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
> >Subject: Re: Future military fighters and guns - yes or no ?
> >From: "Pete"
> >Date: 3/2/04 4:48 PM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> >
> >"ArtKramr" > wrote
> >>
> >> They also serve who stand and wait. How would they have done in
combat?.
> >We
> >> will never know will we?
> >
> >Art, it seems your dividing line between glory and those of a lesser
caliber
> >is combat/no combat. i.e. being shot at counts. Everything else somewhat
> >less worthy.
> >
> >You know as well as most reading this that military personnel don't get
to
> >choose their war, or often even their job. No matter how many people
> >volunteer for the Green Berets, the military *still* needs supply troops,
> >bomb loaders, crew chiefs, etc, etc, etc.
> >
> >Of the many thousands of bombs I loaded in my career, none was dropped in
> >anger. Not a one. Yet I served during several combat actions. Libya,
> >Grenada, Panama, Somalia, Iraq. How did THAT happen? Why didn't I
> >'volunteer' for El Dorado Canyon, or Desert Storm? Because that's not the
> >way it works anymore. My mission was elsewhere. Why didn't the F-16
pilots
> >at Ramstein 'volunteer' for Desert Storm? Because that's not the way it
> >works anymore. They had their own mission with the 86th FW in Germany.
Not
> >everyone gets to go, no matter how bad they want it.
> >
> >What would you say to Willie the Wolfs' crew chief? Or the bomb loaders?
Or
> >the supply troop that ensured you had good tires? Or the logistics
officer
> >ensuring the entire 8th AF had fresh tires?
> >
> >Would you call them a lesser caliber of men, simply because they were not
> >shot at?
> >
> >No. You would shake their hand, buy them a beer, and thank them for
helping
> >you in *your* mission. They had theirs, you had yours. At least, that's
what
> >I hope you'd do.
> >
> >Now please extend the same respect to all those others who did serve
> >honorably, volunteer or draftee, in war or in peace.
> >
> >Pete
> >
> >
> Yes. Everything you say is correct. But I must be totally honest. As we
rushed
> down the runway and lifted off and Willie's wheels came up I would look
down at
> those on the ground that we were leaving behind and I would think how they
will
> still be alive tonight. And they would go home after the war and live a
full
> rich lives with families and friends. And I didn't know for sure that I
would
> ever see this airfield again or live to see the sunrise tomorrow morning.
These
> are thoughts I had. And these thoughts create a thin line that
separates
> those who were with me and those who stayed behind on the ground. And I
can't
> deny in good conscience having those feelings. And I think many who flew
with
> me had exactly the same feelings whether they admit it or not. It's a
very
> thin line of separation. But a very line it is. Can you understand that?
>
>
> Arthur Kramer
> 344th BG 494th BS
> England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
> Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
> http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
>