"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 signatu "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