Future military fighters and guns - yes or no ?

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

(Tony Williams) wrote in message om...
(championsleeper) wrote in message . com...
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?

"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

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"...)

(TJ) wrote in message . com...

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.../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/

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

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
. com...

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...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/

"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?

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)

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.