F-35 25mm cannon 180 round ammo load too low?

[Sorja]

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/planes/q0163.shtml

This page will need to be highlighted with the left mouse button to be seen in
it's entirety:
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:WG7VYQrXWlsJ:www.dtic.mil/ndia/2004gu
ns/wed/maher.ppt+%22F-35%22+%2225mm%22&hl=en

It looks like either 180 or 182 rounds for the CTOL variant and either 220 or
225 rounds for the gunpod for the CV and STOVL variants. 4,000 shots per
minute is 66 rounds per second which gives the CTOL variant 3 shots with the
gun and the CV and STOVL variants 4 shots with the gun. I'm no expert, but to
me, it seems like a kinda low ammo supply for a close air support aircraft.
Anyone agree? Disagree? Since the program is still in early stages, is it
possible the ammo load would be increased?

Thanks

[David E. Powell]

"Sorja" > wrote in message
...
> http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/planes/q0163.shtml
>
> This page will need to be highlighted with the left mouse button to be
seen in
> it's entirety:
> http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:WG7VYQrXWlsJ:www.dtic.mil/ndia/2004gu
> ns/wed/maher.ppt+%22F-35%22+%2225mm%22&hl=en
>
> It looks like either 180 or 182 rounds for the CTOL variant and either 220
or
> 225 rounds for the gunpod for the CV and STOVL variants. 4,000 shots per
> minute is 66 rounds per second which gives the CTOL variant 3 shots with
the
> gun and the CV and STOVL variants 4 shots with the gun. I'm no expert,
but to
> me, it seems like a kinda low ammo supply for a close air support
aircraft.
> Anyone agree? Disagree? Since the program is still in early stages, is
it
> possible the ammo load would be increased?
>
> Thanks

They are probably thinking the gun won't see much use in Air-To-Air and that
missiles and bombs are more likely for Air-To-Ground as well. I seem to
recall 400-600 rounds being loaded for Vulcans on 20mm armed fighters. It
might be wise to increase it in the F-35, but we will see. The 25mm should
be a good weapon on a per-shot basis, though.

[Ragnar]

"Sorja" > wrote in message
...
> http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/planes/q0163.shtml
>
> This page will need to be highlighted with the left mouse button to be
seen in
> it's entirety:
> http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:WG7VYQrXWlsJ:www.dtic.mil/ndia/2004gu
> ns/wed/maher.ppt+%22F-35%22+%2225mm%22&hl=en
>
> It looks like either 180 or 182 rounds for the CTOL variant and either 220
or
> 225 rounds for the gunpod for the CV and STOVL variants. 4,000 shots per
> minute is 66 rounds per second which gives the CTOL variant 3 shots with
the
> gun and the CV and STOVL variants 4 shots with the gun. I'm no expert,
but to
> me, it seems like a kinda low ammo supply for a close air support
aircraft.
> Anyone agree? Disagree? Since the program is still in early stages, is
it
> possible the ammo load would be increased?
>

Admittedly, you are no expert. Neither am I, but the question I have is:

How often is the gun used to strafe ground targets in the first place? If
the gun isn't used much, there isn't much point to wasting the space/weight,
is there?

[Thomas Schoene]

Sorja wrote:
> It looks like either 180 or 182 rounds for the CTOL variant and
> either 220 or 225 rounds for the gunpod for the CV and STOVL
> variants. 4,000 shots per minute is 66 rounds per second which gives
> the CTOL variant 3 shots with the gun and the CV and STOVL variants 4
> shots with the gun. I'm no expert, but to me, it seems like a kinda
> low ammo supply for a close air support aircraft. Anyone agree?
> Disagree? Since the program is still in early stages, is it possible
> the ammo load would be increased?

It seems unlikely that the gun ammo will be increased given the weight
issues that have been raised.

But I doubt that this is a real problem. The gun is necessary as an
in-extremis weapon, but I've not heard of any AV-8s shooting dry their
300-round magazines in CAS missions. The STOVL JSF's 225 rounds is only one
fewer burst (by your calculations). That should be enough for amost all
uses.

--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"Our country, right or wrong. When right, to be kept right, when
wrong to be put right." - Senator Carl Schurz, 1872

[John Cook]

On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 11:44:42 +0900, "Ragnar" >
wrote:


>Admittedly, you are no expert. Neither am I, but the question I have is:
>
>How often is the gun used to strafe ground targets in the first place? If
>the gun isn't used much, there isn't much point to wasting the space/weight,
>is there?
>

The same sort of reasoning was applied to the lifeboats on the
Titanic......

Cheers

John Cook

Any spelling mistakes/grammatic errors are there purely to annoy. All
opinions are mine, not TAFE's however much they beg me for them.

Email Address :-
Spam trap - please remove (trousers) to email me
Eurofighter Website :- http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk

[Jeroen Wenting]

> >Admittedly, you are no expert. Neither am I, but the question I have is:
> >
> >How often is the gun used to strafe ground targets in the first place?
If
> >the gun isn't used much, there isn't much point to wasting the
space/weight,
> >is there?
> >
>
> The same sort of reasoning was applied to the lifeboats on the
> Titanic......
>
which weren't much use as most people didn't get to them in time anyway...

[Guy Alcala]

John Cook wrote:

> On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 11:44:42 +0900, "Ragnar" >
> wrote:
>
> >Admittedly, you are no expert. Neither am I, but the question I have is:
> >
> >How often is the gun used to strafe ground targets in the first place? If
> >the gun isn't used much, there isn't much point to wasting the space/weight,
> >is there?

In that case, how many rounds do YOU think the F-35 should carry -- 250, 500,
1,000, 10,000? What other equipment are you willing to do without, since
space/weight will always be limited? Have you factored into your calculations
that the F-35's FCS is likely to be far more accurate than the previous
generation, meaning that fewer rounds are needed to hit and kill a target? Will
the GAU-12 have selectable rates of fire, and burst limiters? Autofire
capability? Here's your chance to show us your skills as an analyst.

> The same sort of reasoning was applied to the lifeboats on the
> Titanic......

Well, no, the reasoning was rather different in that case, having to do with the
feeling that making the ship itself safer was more important than the lifeboats,
and the lifeboats would be used to transfer passengers to a rescue ship rather
than needing to carry the entire complement at once. Also, there was the thought
that in many sea conditions where ships would likely be in trouble it would be
impossible to launch the lifeboats or keep them from swamping. This in fact
happened about a year after the Titanic, when a passenger ship, the Volturno
IIRR, caught on fire in bad weather on the North Atlantic run. Rescue ships
reached her, but the first few attempts to launch lifeboats resulted in them
being lost with all aboard in the heavy seas. They were later able to get a few
away safely, but had to wait until a US navy ship showed up (an oiler IIRR) and
could lay down a slick to calm the seas, to allow the lifeboats to be launched
and row back and forth. Fortunately the fire was kept away from the remaining
passengers and crew until that could be done, but it was a near thing. See

homepages.rootsweb.com/~daamen1/volturno/story.htm

So, post-Titanic everyone agreed that there had to be sufficient lifeboats for
everyone on board, but that doesn't guarantee your safety. Depending on how the
ship is damaged and how quickly it sinks, you may not be able to use the
lifeboats on one side or the other, even if the sea conditions allow it. Both
the Lusitania and Andrea Doria took on such big lists in a short time that the
lifeboats on the high side of the ship couldn't be launched (wouldn't clear the
side of the ship), cutting the total available in half. Do we then require that
every passenger ship have sufficient lifeboats _on each side_ to accommodate
everyone on board? But that's no guarantee of success either; the Lusitania sank
so fast (ca. 18 minutes) that she still had way on, and several of the starboard
lifeboats were lost while launching owing to that. And being steeply down by the
bow or stern may also prevent boats from being launched, so do we now require
sufficient boats fore and aft, on each side, so that any one quadrant will have
sufficient capacity for everyone on board even if the other three quadrants'
boats are unusable? This also provides redundancy in the event of fire, which
seems to be the main threat to cruise and passenger ships.

What does this ship look like? Can anyone make money with it? Will anyone want
to travel on it? After all, any view of the surroundings is blocked by the boats
stacked four or five high and six across from prow to counter. There have been
improvements in lifeboats and launching methods in the last 90+ years, but not
enough to meet all of those requirements. The best idea is still to make the
ship itself sufficiently safe so that rescue ships (and aircraft) have time to
arrive.

Guy

[Guy Alcala]

Jeroen Wenting wrote:

> > >Admittedly, you are no expert. Neither am I, but the question I have is:
> > >
> > >How often is the gun used to strafe ground targets in the first place?
> If
> > >the gun isn't used much, there isn't much point to wasting the
> space/weight,
> > >is there?
> > >
> >
> > The same sort of reasoning was applied to the lifeboats on the
> > Titanic......
> >
> which weren't much use as most people didn't get to them in time anyway...

Which was a failure of organisation, not of the boats themselves. Except for
the last couple of collapsible lifeboats all of Titanic's boats were
successfully launched in sufficient time, but owing to poor regulations and the
lack of any lifeboat drill many were only partly full. IIRR they held something
like 700 of the 1,100 or so they could have.

Guy

[Ragnar]

"John Cook" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 11:44:42 +0900, "Ragnar" >
> wrote:
>
>
> >Admittedly, you are no expert. Neither am I, but the question I have is:
> >
> >How often is the gun used to strafe ground targets in the first place?
If
> >the gun isn't used much, there isn't much point to wasting the
space/weight,
> >is there?
> >
>
> The same sort of reasoning was applied to the lifeboats on the
> Titanic......

Nice try. There were legally enough lifeboats on the Titanic, the designers
very carefully followed existing laws that governed ships over 10,000 tons.

Now, show me the law that says how many rounds a gun should carry on the
F35.

[Ragnar]

"Guy Alcala" > wrote in message
. ..
> John Cook wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 11:44:42 +0900, "Ragnar" >
> > wrote:
> >
> > >Admittedly, you are no expert. Neither am I, but the question I have
is:
> > >
> > >How often is the gun used to strafe ground targets in the first place?
If
> > >the gun isn't used much, there isn't much point to wasting the
space/weight,
> > >is there?
>
> In that case, how many rounds do YOU think the F-35 should carry -- 250,
500,
> 1,000, 10,000? What other equipment are you willing to do without, since
> space/weight will always be limited? Have you factored into your
calculations
> that the F-35's FCS is likely to be far more accurate than the previous
> generation, meaning that fewer rounds are needed to hit and kill a target?
Will
> the GAU-12 have selectable rates of fire, and burst limiters? Autofire
> capability? Here's your chance to show us your skills as an analyst.

You did read my reply to the original post, right? I'm not an expert on the
F35, so how can I show analyst skills in a subject I don't know? I could
care less how many rounds the gun carries, so long as the platform
effectively carries out the intended mission.

[John Cook]

On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 11:40:19 +0900, "Ragnar" >
wrote:

>
>"John Cook" > wrote in message
...
>> On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 11:44:42 +0900, "Ragnar" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >Admittedly, you are no expert. Neither am I, but the question I have is:
>> >
>> >How often is the gun used to strafe ground targets in the first place?
>If
>> >the gun isn't used much, there isn't much point to wasting the
>space/weight,
>> >is there?
>> >
>>
>> The same sort of reasoning was applied to the lifeboats on the
>> Titanic......
>
>Nice try. There were legally enough lifeboats on the Titanic, the designers
>very carefully followed existing laws that governed ships over 10,000 tons.
>
>Now, show me the law that says how many rounds a gun should carry on the
>F35.

Legally enough is fine... as long as your not the one whos left at the
end.

The point I was trying to make was the gun should not be left out,
because its rarely used, that 'rarely' might come in very handy one
day, its not a question of the number of rounds, 180 rounds seems
quite enough to me.

The same with the Titanic you can have legally enough lifeboats, or in
the extremly unlikely event of it hitting an iceberg a glancing blow
( a full head on impact would have been much better), a sufficent
number of life boats to accomadate the large number of disorganised
untrained people who in the confusion of an actual sinking didn't pack
enough in each lifeboat..

Or the cost of a walkway across the world trade centres was too
expensive, due to it being only needed in very unlikely events.

The point is risks can be forseen, adequate protection comes at a
cost, unfortunatly costs usually win.

By all means remove the gun on an aircraft, but I think you would also
have to remove the title 'Fighter' from its name.

Cheers




John Cook

Any spelling mistakes/grammatic errors are there purely to annoy. All
opinions are mine, not TAFE's however much they beg me for them.

Email Address :-
Spam trap - please remove (trousers) to email me
Eurofighter Website :- http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk

[T3]

"Guy Alcala" > wrote in message
. ..
> Jeroen Wenting wrote:
>
> > > >Admittedly, you are no expert. Neither am I, but the question I have
is:
> > > >
> > > >How often is the gun used to strafe ground targets in the first
place?
> > If
> > > >the gun isn't used much, there isn't much point to wasting the
> > space/weight,
> > > >is there?
> > > >
> > >
> > > The same sort of reasoning was applied to the lifeboats on the
> > > Titanic......
> > >
> > which weren't much use as most people didn't get to them in time
anyway...
>
> Which was a failure of organisation, not of the boats themselves. Except
for
> the last couple of collapsible lifeboats all of Titanic's boats were
> successfully launched in sufficient time, but owing to poor regulations
and the
> lack of any lifeboat drill many were only partly full. IIRR they held
something
> like 700 of the 1,100 or so they could have.
>
> Guy
>
I little off topic but according to the History channel I watched last
night. The Captain ordered almost half the life boats removed the day of
sailing as " they looked appalling and were not needed", man, he knew what
he was talking about, huh?


T3

[Ian]

"T3" > wrote in message
om...
>
> "Guy Alcala" > wrote in message
> . ..
> > Jeroen Wenting wrote:
> >
> > > > >Admittedly, you are no expert. Neither am I, but the question I
have
> is:
> > > > >
> > > > >How often is the gun used to strafe ground targets in the first
> place?
> > > If
> > > > >the gun isn't used much, there isn't much point to wasting the
> > > space/weight,
> > > > >is there?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > The same sort of reasoning was applied to the lifeboats on the
> > > > Titanic......
> > > >
> > > which weren't much use as most people didn't get to them in time
> anyway...
> >
> > Which was a failure of organisation, not of the boats themselves.
Except
> for
> > the last couple of collapsible lifeboats all of Titanic's boats were
> > successfully launched in sufficient time, but owing to poor regulations
> and the
> > lack of any lifeboat drill many were only partly full. IIRR they held
> something
> > like 700 of the 1,100 or so they could have.
> >
> > Guy
> >
> I little off topic but according to the History channel I watched last
> night. The Captain ordered almost half the life boats removed the day of
> sailing as " they looked appalling and were not needed", man, he knew what
> he was talking about, hu

Sounds \a little bit wrong - according to Harland & Wolff, it was White Star
who specified the number fo lifeboats - the captain knew there weren't
enough, but relied on the fact that it was unsinkable (which it may have
been if the correct steel had been delivered and not diverted to other
tasks)

[Marc Reeve]

T3 > wrote:
> "Guy Alcala" > wrote in message
> . ..
> > Jeroen Wenting wrote:
> >

> > > > >the gun isn't used much, there isn't much point to wasting the
> > > space/weight,
> > > > >is there?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > The same sort of reasoning was applied to the lifeboats on the
> > > > Titanic......
> > > >
> > > which weren't much use as most people didn't get to them in time
> anyway...
> >
> > Which was a failure of organisation, not of the boats themselves.
> > Except for the last couple of collapsible lifeboats all of Titanic's
> > boats were successfully launched in sufficient time, but owing to poor
> > regulations and the lack of any lifeboat drill many were only partly
> > full. IIRR they held something like 700 of the 1,100 or so they could
> > have.
> >
> > Guy
> >
> I little off topic but according to the History channel I watched last
> night. The Captain ordered almost half the life boats removed the day of
> sailing as " they looked appalling and were not needed", man, he knew what
> he was talking about, huh?
>
Not true. It is true that the davits were designed by Welin to carry two
lifeboats each, but the White Star Line decided long before the maiden
voyage of the Titanic that they didn't need that many. I believe the
Olympic may have made its maiden voyage with a full load of lifeboats,
but the second rank was removed after passengers in the Promenade Deck
cabins (the luxury suites) complained that they spoiled the view.

--
Marc Reeve
actual email address after removal of 4s & spaces is
c4m4r4a4m4a4n a4t c4r4u4z4i4o d4o4t c4o4m

[Guy Alcala]

Ian wrote:

> "T3" > wrote in message
> om...
> >
> > "Guy Alcala" > wrote in message
> > . ..
> > > Jeroen Wenting wrote:
> > >
> > > > > >Admittedly, you are no expert. Neither am I, but the question I
> have
> > is:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >How often is the gun used to strafe ground targets in the first
> > place?
> > > > If
> > > > > >the gun isn't used much, there isn't much point to wasting the
> > > > space/weight,
> > > > > >is there?
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > The same sort of reasoning was applied to the lifeboats on the
> > > > > Titanic......
> > > > >
> > > > which weren't much use as most people didn't get to them in time
> > anyway...
> > >
> > > Which was a failure of organisation, not of the boats themselves.
> Except
> > for
> > > the last couple of collapsible lifeboats all of Titanic's boats were
> > > successfully launched in sufficient time, but owing to poor regulations
> > and the
> > > lack of any lifeboat drill many were only partly full. IIRR they held
> > something
> > > like 700 of the 1,100 or so they could have.
> > >
> > > Guy
> > >
> > I little off topic but according to the History channel I watched last
> > night. The Captain ordered almost half the life boats removed the day of
> > sailing as " they looked appalling and were not needed", man, he knew what
> > he was talking about, hu
>
> Sounds \a little bit wrong - according to Harland & Wolff, it was White Star
> who specified the number fo lifeboats - the captain knew there weren't
> enough, but relied on the fact that it was unsinkable (which it may have
> been if the correct steel had been delivered and not diverted to other
> tasks)

Seeing as how this is r.a.m. I'm not going to wander even further off charter,
other than to mention that both the lifeboat claim and the steel one have long
since been disproved by reputable researchers. For the lifeboat one I refer you
to the text of both the British and American inquiries, available online. As
for the steel claim Garzke did a metallurgical analysis of steel from various
parts of the hull and rivets and there was noticeable variation in quality
between individual plates, but this was typical at that time. Consistency was
difficult owing to basic lack of knowledge and manufacturing skills compared to
say 20-30 years later.

Guy

[Guy Alcala]

Ragnar wrote:

> "Guy Alcala" > wrote in message
> . ..
> > John Cook wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 11:44:42 +0900, "Ragnar" >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >Admittedly, you are no expert. Neither am I, but the question I have
> is:
> > > >
> > > >How often is the gun used to strafe ground targets in the first place?
> If
> > > >the gun isn't used much, there isn't much point to wasting the
> space/weight,
> > > >is there?
> >
> > In that case, how many rounds do YOU think the F-35 should carry -- 250,
> 500,
> > 1,000, 10,000? What other equipment are you willing to do without, since
> > space/weight will always be limited? Have you factored into your
> calculations
> > that the F-35's FCS is likely to be far more accurate than the previous
> > generation, meaning that fewer rounds are needed to hit and kill a target?
> Will
> > the GAU-12 have selectable rates of fire, and burst limiters? Autofire
> > capability? Here's your chance to show us your skills as an analyst.
>
> You did read my reply to the original post, right? I'm not an expert on the
> F35, so how can I show analyst skills in a subject I don't know? I could
> care less how many rounds the gun carries, so long as the platform
> effectively carries out the intended mission.

Sorry about that - poor snippage on my part. I was replying to John Cook's
earlier post, not yours.

Guy

[Guy Alcala]

John Cook wrote:

> On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 11:40:19 +0900, "Ragnar" >
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"John Cook" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 11:44:42 +0900, "Ragnar" >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> >Admittedly, you are no expert. Neither am I, but the question I have is:
> >> >
> >> >How often is the gun used to strafe ground targets in the first place?
> >If
> >> >the gun isn't used much, there isn't much point to wasting the
> >space/weight,
> >> >is there?
> >> >
> >>
> >> The same sort of reasoning was applied to the lifeboats on the
> >> Titanic......
> >
> >Nice try. There were legally enough lifeboats on the Titanic, the designers
> >very carefully followed existing laws that governed ships over 10,000 tons.
> >
> >Now, show me the law that says how many rounds a gun should carry on the
> >F35.
>
> Legally enough is fine... as long as your not the one whos left at the
> end.
>
> The point I was trying to make was the gun should not be left out,
> because its rarely used, that 'rarely' might come in very handy one
> day, its not a question of the number of rounds, 180 rounds seems
> quite enough to me.
>
> The same with the Titanic you can have legally enough lifeboats, or in
> the extremly unlikely event of it hitting an iceberg a glancing blow
> ( a full head on impact would have been much better), a sufficent
> number of life boats to accomadate the large number of disorganised
> untrained people who in the confusion of an actual sinking didn't pack
> enough in each lifeboat..
>
> Or the cost of a walkway across the world trade centres was too
> expensive, due to it being only needed in very unlikely events.
>
> The point is risks can be forseen, adequate protection comes at a
> cost, unfortunatly costs usually win.
>
> By all means remove the gun on an aircraft, but I think you would also
> have to remove the title 'Fighter' from its name.

Ah, so then the F-4B/C/D/G/J/K/M/N/S should also have the title 'Fighter' removed
from its name. And many MiG-21s as well, along with the F-102, the F-106, most
F-101s, etc. I guess you could at least make the argument that the interceptors
shouldn't have been called fighters, but I'd have to say that the Phantom's a
fighter in anyone's book, with or without internal gun.

Guy

[Guy Alcala]

T3 wrote:

> "Guy Alcala" > wrote in message
> . ..
> > Jeroen Wenting wrote:
> >
> > > > >Admittedly, you are no expert. Neither am I, but the question I have
> is:
> > > > >
> > > > >How often is the gun used to strafe ground targets in the first
> place?
> > > If
> > > > >the gun isn't used much, there isn't much point to wasting the
> > > space/weight,
> > > > >is there?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > The same sort of reasoning was applied to the lifeboats on the
> > > > Titanic......
> > > >
> > > which weren't much use as most people didn't get to them in time
> anyway...
> >
> > Which was a failure of organisation, not of the boats themselves. Except
> for
> > the last couple of collapsible lifeboats all of Titanic's boats were
> > successfully launched in sufficient time, but owing to poor regulations
> and the
> > lack of any lifeboat drill many were only partly full. IIRR they held
> something
> > like 700 of the 1,100 or so they could have.
> >
> > Guy
> >
> I little off topic but according to the History channel I watched last
> night. The Captain ordered almost half the life boats removed the day of
> sailing as " they looked appalling and were not needed", man, he knew what
> he was talking about, huh?

If they actually made that claim, then (if it's possible) my opinion of the
accuracy of the 'History Channel' has sunk even lower than the great depth it
had already reached.

Guy

[John Cook]

<snip>


>> By all means remove the gun on an aircraft, but I think you would also
>> have to remove the title 'Fighter' from its name.
>
>Ah, so then the F-4B/C/D/G/J/K/M/N/S should also have the title 'Fighter' removed
>from its name. And many MiG-21s as well, along with the F-102, the F-106, most
>F-101s, etc. I guess you could at least make the argument that the interceptors
>shouldn't have been called fighters, but I'd have to say that the Phantom's a
>fighter in anyone's book, with or without internal gun.
>


I think you just proved the point, the biggist drawback to those
Phantoms was the lack of an internal gun, otherwise it was a bloody
good design... I really like the Phantom!.

Funny thing is I was going to mention what you said about
interceptors(strike/attack) but I deleted it at the last moment...


Cheers







>Guy

John Cook

Any spelling mistakes/grammatic errors are there purely to annoy. All
opinions are mine, not TAFE's however much they beg me for them.

Email Address :-
Spam trap - please remove (trousers) to email me
Eurofighter Website :- http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk

[Guy Alcala]

John Cook wrote:

> <snip>
>
> >> By all means remove the gun on an aircraft, but I think you would also
> >> have to remove the title 'Fighter' from its name.
> >
> >Ah, so then the F-4B/C/D/G/J/K/M/N/S should also have the title 'Fighter' removed
> >from its name. And many MiG-21s as well, along with the F-102, the F-106, most
> >F-101s, etc. I guess you could at least make the argument that the interceptors
> >shouldn't have been called fighters, but I'd have to say that the Phantom's a
> >fighter in anyone's book, with or without internal gun.
> >
>
> I think you just proved the point, the biggist drawback to those
> Phantoms was the lack of an internal gun, otherwise it was a bloody
> good design... I really like the Phantom!.

I'd list several other items before the gun as major drawbacks to the Phantom: for
most of its combat career the smoking engines were a major problem, plus poor
visibility from the cockpit, poor switchology, crews that were often less well-trained
in ACM than they could have been, and inadequate A-A dogfight missiles. Given the
missile technology of the time a gun was nice to have for close-in fights but improved
missiles plus better-trained crews could (and did) make more of a difference.
Checking the Israeli total, out of their 116.5 F-4 kill claims, 58 were claimed by
missiles, most of them by AIM-9Ds; 34 by guns (but 14 of those were helos on the first
day of the Yom Kippur war, which the available missiles couldn't lock onto) and the
rest listed as either 'no weapon' kills or unknown. Their F-4s were normally carrying
limited numbers of AAMs on ground attack missions, so an ability to carry more
missiles instead of the gun might have led to an even greater number of kills.

Once the Israelis got decent missiles the gun scored a smaller and smaller percentage
of kills, fading away to almost nothing in Lebanon, and to nothing (of a small sample)
since.

Guy

[Eric Pinnell]

On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 11:44:42 +0900, "Ragnar" >
wrote:


>Admittedly, you are no expert. Neither am I, but the question I have is:
>
>How often is the gun used to strafe ground targets in the first place? If
>the gun isn't used much, there isn't much point to wasting the space/weight,
>is there?

Well, considering they're working on a 100KW laser for the plane,
if they get it to work, the gun will become obsolete.



Eric Pinnell

(Author, "Steel Rain", "Claws of The Dragon", "The Omega File")

For a preview, see: http://www.ericpinnell.com/books/previews.shtml

[Harry Andreas]

In article >, Eric Pinnell <see
my web site> wrote:

> On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 11:44:42 +0900, "Ragnar" >
> wrote:
>
>
> >Admittedly, you are no expert. Neither am I, but the question I have is:
> >
> >How often is the gun used to strafe ground targets in the first place? If
> >the gun isn't used much, there isn't much point to wasting the space/weight,
> >is there?
>
> Well, considering they're working on a 100KW laser for the plane,
> if they get it to work, the gun will become obsolete.

If they get the laser to work, missiles will probably be obsolete, too.

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

[John Keeney]

"Harry Andreas" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, Eric Pinnell <see
> my web site> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 11:44:42 +0900, "Ragnar" >
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> > >Admittedly, you are no expert. Neither am I, but the question I have
is:
> > >
> > >How often is the gun used to strafe ground targets in the first place?
If
> > >the gun isn't used much, there isn't much point to wasting the
space/weight,
> > >is there?
> >
> > Well, considering they're working on a 100KW laser for the plane,
> > if they get it to work, the gun will become obsolete.
>
> If they get the laser to work, missiles will probably be obsolete, too.

Down low, missiles will probably keep a significant range advantage
for a while.

[Eric Pinnell]

On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 09:38:23 -0700, (Harry
Andreas) wrote:

>If they get the laser to work, missiles will probably be obsolete, too.

No. The laser loses power due to things like dust in the atmosphere,
etc. It would be a relatively short ranged weapon, useful for strafing
ground targets.
Mind you, a 100KW laser might be usable in anti-missile mode, which
could really mess things up for an attacker.


Eric Pinnell

(Author, "Steel Rain", "Claws of The Dragon", "The Omega File")

For a preview, see: http://www.ericpinnell.com/books/previews.shtml

[Sorja]

Thanks for all the great info everyone.