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 |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Guns on fighters?
All...I was wondering: have there been any guns-only air to air kills by US
aircraft since SE Asia? As an aside, what are the thoughts of those who have been in combat? Are guns on board nostalga, or, are they a practical weapon? Thanks in advance. Stefan Humble Cessna Driver |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
All...I was wondering: have there been any guns-only air to air kills by US
aircraft since SE Asia? As an aside, what are the thoughts of those who have been in combat? Are guns on board nostalga, or, are they a practical weapon? Duke Cunningham will tell you that if his Navy F-4 had a gun he might have got three more kills in his famous day of fighting when he made ace. While not air combat there were guns only strafing runs made in Afghanistan during a fight over a downed helicopter. While air to air and air to ground missiles are now far more reliable than during Vietnam and far more capable than during Desert Storm I think history shows us that whenever we think that some weapon is obsolete along comes a conflict where that weapon is needed. Often the weapon is not used in its original form but a good use is found for it. In regards to combat aircraft guns there might come a time when the combat arena is so circumscribed that beyond visual range weapons will not be practical due to the chance of "collateral damage". Then only visual range weapons could be used and the gun takes on a new importance. Imagine if in the Balkans one of our opponents (I can't remember whose side we weren't on!) had put up a decent aerial opposition, would we really have been launching a lot of long range weapons in one of the most heavily air traveled areas of the world? As in Afghanistan in a future conflict at the extreme of range for some aircraft might make it necessary to use every weapon they brought along right down to the guns when all other ordnance was expended. Not because they could not loiter in terms of fuel but because it would take too long to return to base and reload. The gun will never again be a primary or even secondary weapon but as a tertiary one it will have its uses and you can never be sure when that will be. John Dupre' |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
"SKSvilich" wrote in message ... All...I was wondering: have there been any guns-only air to air kills by US aircraft since SE Asia? As an aside, what are the thoughts of those who have been in combat? Are guns on board nostalga, or, are they a practical weapon? Thanks in advance. Stefan Humble Cessna Driver A-10 vs helicopter. Desert Storm. Tex |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
"Tex Houston" wrote in message news:... "SKSvilich" wrote in message ... All...I was wondering: have there been any guns-only air to air kills by US aircraft since SE Asia? As an aside, what are the thoughts of those who have been in combat? Are guns on board nostalga, or, are they a practical weapon? Thanks in advance. Stefan Humble Cessna Driver A-10 vs helicopter. Desert Storm. Tex The more I think about this the more I think it may be wrong. I now think they may have used bombs. Sorry, Tex |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Tex Houston wrote:
"Tex Houston" wrote in message news:... "SKSvilich" wrote in message ... All...I was wondering: have there been any guns-only air to air kills by US aircraft since SE Asia? As an aside, what are the thoughts of those who have been in combat? Are guns on board nostalga, or, are they a practical weapon? Thanks in advance. Stefan Humble Cessna Driver A-10 vs helicopter. Desert Storm. Tex The more I think about this the more I think it may be wrong. I now think they may have used bombs. No, you're correct the first time. There were two helo kills by A-10s using the GAU-8. The LGB kill was by an F-15E. Guy |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
But to answer the question- As an aside, what are the thoughts of those who
have been in combat? Are guns on board nostalga, or, are they a practical weapon? BRBR Not been in combat but the onboard gun is a reliable and cheap weapon that is essential if you find yourself close to your adversary or if you are armed A-A only weapons-wise and you need to do some damage on the ground. P. C. Chisholm CDR, USN(ret.) Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
JDupres- In regards to combat aircraft guns there might come a time when the
combat arena is so circumscribed that beyond visual range weapons will not be practical due to the chance of "collateral damage" BRBR Just like nuclear weapons making the world safe for conventional warfare, long range missiles and the need to VID, makes the gun essential. P. C. Chisholm CDR, USN(ret.) Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Lawrence- Some radars carried aboard fighters have the capability of ID-ing
an enemy a/c simply from its radar-return. Hence it is considered safe to fire from beyond visual range, which allows the avoidance of close-in WWI-WWII-Korea dogfighting. BRBR Sometimes...many friendly and foe A/C use the same engine, the basis of some long range ID and it is not unusual for the good guys and bad guys to fly the same A/C..Particularly after the fall of the Soviet Union...Flankers and Fulcrums come to mind. Nonetheless, most pilots desire to have some sort of reserve punch, just to cover the odd case where missiles haven't done the job or have been expended, and an opportunity to disengage successfully coud hinge on being able to shoot your way out. BRBR There hasn't been any actual swirling air battles for a while but if there is another one, I don't think it will be an odd case at all..if the many v many engagements I have seen in training is any indication... Wandering around in a A-4, I was surprised how many really big fighters found me in their rear view mirrors.. P. C. Chisholm CDR, USN(ret.) Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
While I agree in principle with what is stated here, I have to point
out some errors. "Lawrence Dillard" wrote: Viet Nam warfare proved to be a learning experience for the US aviation community, which had come to believe, by the 1960's, that guided missiles were all that would prove to be needed to prosecute aerial warfare. Let's note that there was really only one tactical jet procurred by the "US aviation community" which was missile only. The F-4. In the mid-60's when the Vietnam War expanded, the USAF was operating the F-100, F-105, F-104. The USN was flying the A-4, F-8. All gun equipped. Later (besides the F-4 B/C/D/J) there were the F-5, A-37, A-1, A-7---all gun equipped. Alarming, if not distressing reports were received fairly early on that a number of US a/c downed over N Viet Nam had been shot down in error by US missiles fired from beyond range of positive visual identification by other US a/c. ROE in MiG country until 1972--eight years into combat--always required VID, except for a small number of Combat Tree, close-controlled F-4s out of Udorn in '72. I can recall no "distressing reports" of losses due to A/A fratricide. Simply didn't happen. That led to a belatedly-responded-to request, in which a redesign of the F-4 (which took over from the F-105) to include a useable integral cannon (F4E) was accomplished. While the F-4 was certainly deployed in-theater in '66, it didn't "take over" for the F-105 which continued to carry most of the iron into NVN until 1968 when it was finally attrited to the point of no longer being combat effective. The US aviation community learned that it had to be especially careful in reaching the decision to fire a missile at another a/c, if only because under the stress of "g"-forces, hurried identifications of fleetingly-sighted targets, occasional failures of IFF squawks, and the workload imposed on the friendly pilot team, enemy a/c were not so easy to distinguish from friendlies as it appeared to be in training. If "under the stress of "g" forces" it would certainly mean visual conditions and tail aspect in '66, '67. Certainly not a player for AIM-7 shots and with the AIM-9B of the period, the firing limit was max of 2.5 G. IFF squawk was irrelevant to missile firing or fighter-to-fighter ID. We didn't have that kind of equipment until a limited number of Combat Tree birds showed up in '72. The solution was to close to ranges, before firing, at which a sound visual ID could be obtained. That measure not only tended to reduce friendly-fire losses, but also meant that rather often a US a/c would get so close to an enemy that the minimum firing distance for the missiles carried might be reached before the positive ID could be made. Under such circumstances, it made sense to have an onboard cannon so as to deal with the situation. It wasn't just tactically sound, it was ROE required. I agree completely. Missiles nowadays are far superior in reliability, and have much-improved ranges. Some radars carried aboard fighters have the capability of ID-ing an enemy a/c simply from its radar-return. Hence it is considered safe to fire from beyond visual range, which allows the avoidance of close-in WWI-WWII-Korea dogfighting. And that's good because it is hard enough to maintain situational awareness even at a distance from an opponent with the aid of positive control via AWACS, much less than in a complicated encounter at close range. Nonetheless, most pilots desire to have some sort of reserve punch, just to cover the odd case where missiles haven't done the job or have been expended, and an opportunity to disengage successfully coud hinge on being able to shoot your way out. More important than what you've said regard reserve punch is the tactical practice of having a gun to threaten your opponent into predictable action. Firing sequence wisely should be--BVR radar missile, BVR/WVR all-aspect IR missile, then high angle gun shot as you blow through the merge. Turn-n-burn should be avoided at all costs. If in a X-v-X engagement, your wingman maneuvers to insure the gun threat on your adversary to allow for safe separation--i.e. keep him turning as you break away to separate. If we've got a man in the seat, we need a gun in the nose. Ed Rasimus Fighter Pilot (ret) ***"When Thunder Rolled: *** An F-105 Pilot Over N. Vietnam" *** from Smithsonian Books ISBN: 1588341038 |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
I have to add one thing to this discussion.
The R.O.E. will always require visual I.D. Why? Because somewhere there is always someone with stars on his colar, (or who wants stars on his colar) that is deathly afraid that someone will screw-up. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
B-17s Debut, RAF Wellingtons Bomb & Fighters Sweep at Zeno's Video Drive-In | zeno | Instrument Flight Rules | 0 | October 30th 04 06:20 PM |
B-17s Debut, RAF Wellingtons Bomb & Fighters Sweep at Zeno's Video Drive-In | zeno | Home Built | 0 | October 30th 04 06:19 PM |
Future military fighters and guns - yes or no ? | championsleeper | Military Aviation | 77 | March 3rd 04 04:11 AM |
US (Brit/Japanese/German/USSR) Use of Gun Cameras in Fighters?? | ArtKramr | Military Aviation | 3 | July 17th 03 06:02 AM |
Scrambling fighters | John Doe | Military Aviation | 7 | July 2nd 03 09:26 PM |