![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Best dogfight gun? | Bjørnar Bolsøy | Military Aviation | 317 | January 24th 04 06:24 PM |
Remote controled weapons in WWII | Charles Gray | Military Aviation | 12 | January 21st 04 05:07 AM |
Why did Britain win the BoB? | Grantland | Military Aviation | 79 | October 15th 03 03:34 PM |
P-47/51 deflection shots into the belly of the German tanks,reality | ArtKramr | Military Aviation | 131 | September 7th 03 09:02 PM |