Is the RAF "anti-cannon" ?

[Fonsini]

Now hear me out here for a second, this is a half-baked theory I'll admit, but I've been idly mulling it for many years.

In the 1950s British designers outfitted our early jets first with the very handy Hispano Mk V typically in a 4 gun configuration, and then we graduated to the venerable ADEN 30mm in first 2 and then impressive 4 gun installations in a wide variety or aircraft (Swift, Hunter, Jaguar, Lightning etc etc).

But then missiles happened.

The gunless Lightning F.3 appeared, and I seem to recall talk that the only reason the Jaguar had any cannon was because the French insisted, ditto our partners on the Tornado project. The Harrier started life with guns but they gradually seemed to disappear. Then when additional space was required in the Tornado F.3 what was the first appliance to be removed to make way - one of the cannon of course. Then finally there was the Typhoon - there was a proposal on cost grounds in 1999 to limit the 27mm cannon fit to only the first 53 batch-1 aircraft destined for the RAF, on the understanding that the guns would be used as ballast and not used operationally, this decision only being reversed in 2006.

So all this is just a personal impression you understand, but I have always had the impression that from about 1960 onwards the RAF didn't really much care for cannon armed aircraft.

For those of you who were actually at the sharp end and not flying the Mark 1 Sofa as I did during those years - does this impression hold any water in your opinion ?

[The Helpful Stacker]

(Neither a pilot then nor now but.....)

Wasn't the version of the Phantom brought for the RAF (F4M or FGR.2) specifically ordered with a radar for use with the SUU-23A pod, unlike the F4K (FG.1) which was brought without?

Wouldn't this show the RAF had a perceived want/requirement for a cannon-armed version rather than a happy coincidence that someone else wanted it and came as part of the package?

[Pontius Navigator]

Cost/Benefit Analysis.

The tank was largely invulnerable to 30mm Aden whereas the aircraft was highly vulnerable in the battlefield hence cluster bombs better.

The fast high flying bomber was equipped with a long range radar controlled barbette so a stand off missile was better.

That new threats arise and old ones go is a fact of life but buying everything just in case is a potential waste of money.

[4Greens]

Moons ago in an exercise a low flying US Skyraider appeared and came towards our carrier. A ( no guns) Vixen intercepted but couldnt get a missile lock so couldnt shoot it down. The eventual solution was to have fired a whole pod of air-ground rockets.

Guns are also useful in ground attack roles.

[Pontius Navigator]

4G, useful yes, but against a mass raid, or Shock army, less so.

Their airships made the decision to equip and arm for the primary threat. Bit like their generalities not buying practice rounds for CRV7, probably thought learn otj would do.

[Courtney Mil]

During F4 design the thinking was that missiles were the way forward - longer range and guided. But pilots in Vietnam soon found themselves in close combat, inside the range of the missiles or in situations were their shots were very low pk. They needed a gun. The Lightning was a victim of the same thinking and, remember, the original concept was a rapid reaction to the Soviet high level bomber threat - get up there fast, shoot missiles, come home (usually single engine).

Multi role aircraft still had some use for strafe until the ground threat and better weapons moved aircraft higher and away from the threat. But again the brains soon discovered that they had thrown away a great tool.

The debate went on, in fact it still does. In my time at 1 Group and the AWC, there were plenty (mainly mud-movers) who questioned the need for guns on fighters, asking when was the last time anyone was shot down with a gun?

We almost lost it from Typhoon, but that was more politics and the potential damage the gun would do to the airframe due to the use of composites - fortunately some better thinkers came along and CofG came to our aid.

Lots of people would like to overlook the amazing results from the A-10 because it's a hard one to argue against. When they say they don't need it in F-35, they mean it won't fit, it would lose the weight-loss program, it would ruin stealth and, anyway, who would put such an expensive aircraft so close to a ground threat. Of course it's invisible so it would really be OK.

Is the RAF anti-gun? Well, some are and others will gladly sacrifice the gun for other stuff where mass and space are issues.

You can't jam bullets.

[Heathrow Harry]

back in the late 40's and the '50's designers had a lot of problems with guns in transonic aircraft - the Swift and the Hunter both had problems and they took quite a while to sort out

By eliminating the guns the designers were removing a known issue

[Courtney Mil]

The poor old Swift had some nasty handling characteristics for a lot of reasons, among other things the fuselage was designed around and older centrifugal engine making the fuselage rather too wide. When they added the capacity for more ammunition, it made the handling difficulties way worse, including (I hope I recall correctly) a nasty C of G shift, especially when the guns were fired and the ammunition used.

[GreenKnight121]

When they say they don't need it in F-35, they mean it won't fit, it would lose the weight-loss program, it would ruin stealth and, anyway, who would put such an expensive aircraft so close to a ground threat. Of course it's invisible so it would really be OK.

Funny - F-35A has internal 25mm cannon.
F-35B & C have external 25mm in pod integrated in and available from the start.
General Dynamics Ordnance and Tactical Systems - Template (http://www.gd-ots.com/armament_systems/ags_F-35.html)

Do go on with more of this, though - it is amusing.

http://images.defensetech.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/f-35b-inverted--490x385.jpg

The Aviationist » Never seen before F-35's centerline gun pod unveiled (http://theaviationist.com/2012/02/23/f-35-gun-pod/)


http://theaviationist.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/430048_328439990535968_104336392946330_928583_1337224421_n.j pg

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b336/Bager1968/Aircraft/jet%20fighters/F35gunPod_zps8a3be5eb.jpg

[Courtney Mil]

GreenKnight. I'm saying that the brains (lots of them) would happily have ditched it for the reasons I mentioned. Read and understand before ridiculing.

[Pontius Navigator]

Lots of people would like to overlook the amazing results from the A-10 because it's a hard one to argue against.


First came the Gun.

[HTB]

That just makes one pug-ugly aeroplane even uglier; a thing of grace and beauty it ain't.

As for strafe against ground targets from a Tornada GR (Not the GR1A, though, the cannons gave way to the recce sensors and recording equipment), the profile for target acquisition, aiming and squirting, recovery and running away were better suited to the benign range enviroment. The exposure time and crew focus on shooting and recovering in a hostile scenario would have made the aeroplane quite vulnerable to small arms fire from the hundreds of annoyed troops below.

And you would need the right sort of bullets for the intended target, taking into consideration ricochet and effectiveness (armour/soft skinned); generally more misses than hits (on the range), limited amount of ammunition. Cost/benefit analysis - not really worth the risk and effort.

And Courtney, you can jam bullets:E, in both the Aden and Mauser in my experience - and the plumbers, ATC and most other ground bods at the recovery base wouldn't be pleased to see you returning with a jammed weapon:ok:

Mister B

[Courtney Mil]

Indeed, HTB. I guessed someone would pick up on that as I wrote it. :ok:

[Typhoon93]

Wasn't the F-35 intended to have all of its weapons and fuel stored inside the aircraft to minimise the chances of being detected by RADAR? So why do the two aircraft pictured have weapon and/or fuel pylons under the wings and (what looks to be a drop tank) under the fuselage?

[Engines]

Gents,

Perhaps I can help a little.

First, the question - yes, there certainly have been times when the RAF has been 'anti-cannon', as I'll confirm. Perhaps the bigger issues are the lack of understanding of what cannon can do, how they do it, and also what the required target set is.

The first two are basic - if the Air Staffs don't know how cannon work, or how to model their effects, they will usually reach the wrong answer. In my direct experience in the mid 90's there was an almost total lack of understanding in this area, across all staffs, including AWC. This was a long running issue.

This is why we had persisted with the Aden 30 for many years. This cannon (and its shell) was designed specifically (by the Germans in 1944) to knock down highly flammable bombers at close range. Thus a correct choice of a high rate of fire weapon plus a low velocity shell with a large charge to blow structure (and fuel systems) apart and start fires/explosions. However, the basic shell was almost ineffective against ground targets. Much better Aden 30 rounds using 'multipurpose' technology were offered for years by RO, with absolutely no interest shown by the RAF. However, they were successfully exported to many foreign users.

The Mauser 27 was a very good cannon with rounds designed for both air and ground use. The large shell gave good anti aircraft performance, the high velocity helped in ground use by extending range. However, it was eye wateringly expensive (around 15 times the cost of a 25mm round), as the calibre wasn't adopted more widely.

The modelling of gun system effectiveness at Farnborough in the 90s was limited and in some cases plain wrong. Some of the models used to assess the close in use of gun systems on the Typhoon were riddled with basic errors. There were no reliable models for assessing the effectiveness of various types of shells against jet aircraft structures. Most importantly, there was no appreciation of the huge impact that modern raiders and gunsights were having on the ability of gun systems to reliably hit a target. All these led to massively pessimistic estimates of air to air gun system effectiveness. (I'm talking 20, 50 or 100 times out here).

Things weren't helped when projects like the Aden 25mm cannon for the GR5 hit technical problems that were directly due to lack of investment in gun systems - our designers were not really up to scratch, and our biggest shortfalls were in gun/aircraft integration, especially in designing reliable ammunition feeds and link/cartridge disposal systems. And, to be honest, the Air Staff really weren't interested by that stage. The cancellation of the Aden 25 tossed away around £7m of spend when a targeted spend of £250K would have fixed the system. Fact was that the Air Staff were fixated on Brimstone, LGB and Storm Shadow by that stage.

The US have retained much better core knowledge and reliable effectiveness models. Plus, their Vietnam experience still impacts the USAF's approach. For the F-35, that is why the A model comes with an internal cannon, the B and C going for a pod. (Interestingly, the original choice for the cannon was the Mauser 27. This was overturned by very effective lobbying by the US gun firms, and a 25mm Gatling was adopted, which is heavier, bigger, and gets less bullets on target per firing pass - go figure). The external pod is a well designed and well engineered system, mainly due to the fact that GD have been doing it for years now.

The A-10's long cartridge 30mm gun system is simply huge and totally designed for air to ground use. To a large extent, the aircraft is designed around it. However, the Swedes and the French have shown what you can do to put a highly effective high rate of fire 30mm cannon into a strike aircraft.

Balancing all this for the RAF, however, was the basic (and correct) fact that for high end, hardened ground targets, guns don't deliver enough effect and present too much risk to the aircraft. In the end, scarce pounds (in my experience) tend to go to the highest end solutions that offer the most 'bang per buck' against the hardest target in the assessment models. (By the way, I never saw a model that used the cost balance between the missile and the target as a selecting parameter). That's why unguided rockets fell so far out of favour, although they offer very good 'bang per buck' in many situations. (Oh, and 'Their Generalities' did order TP variants for the CRV7 for the Apache - the RAF originally didn't).

My take on current issues is that the 'limited war' scenarios we now have are testing the 'high end' assumptions to their limits. A well designed high velocity cannon (or possibly a guided ticket solution like APKWS) could engage a wide variety of targets with very good effectiveness, at massively lower costs than we are now incurring. Plus we have increasingly effective DAS systems that can tackle the MANPAD threat (or at least greatly reduce the risk).

Hope this lot helps, sorry if I've gone on for too long

Best Regards

Engines

[Pontius Navigator]

Also, post 9/11 the USA appreciates the value of a gun compared with a missile for air policing.

Engines, interesting, it was my boss at Strike that told me about CRV7 and the lack of training stores for Apache. We often received full pods from the GR7/9.

[Courtney Mil]

I disagree in part, Engines. Yes, the 27mm Mauser is a compromise, but I would say 20mm with a much higher rate of fire is the air-to-air weapon of choice while the 30mm in all its guises is more effective against harder ground targets.

I always thought it was a mistake going with the hard driving band for the Mauser round, but apart from that it is very good at what it does.

Typhoon, yes, what you think is correct. In simple terms, anything you bolt on the outside of F-35 spoils the invisibility and further decreases range. But the brains believe (or convinced the bean counters) that's OK after day one of the war. The weapons bays aren't that big so to carry a decent mix of weapons in decent numbers, we'll have to make it look more like a loaded F-16.

[VinRouge]

I hope they have programmed in a line to prevent cannon fire with the gear down...

[Typhoon93]

So the reality is then, Courtney... that there has been a ridiculous amount of money invested in to a stealth aircraft that is not so stealthy due to the requirement of carrying additional ordnance and fuel for the mission?

I am beginning to think Pierre Sprey was right - they have done this to give Lockheed Martin something to do that's worth a few quid, at the expense of the taxpayer.

[NutLoose]

Well it is sporting six wing pylons in that picture too, so the stealth aspect is already compromised on that fit

[Pontius Navigator]

I would imagine the Marines mission is more up close and personal like the AV 8B. Different mission but common air frame.

[LowObservable]

Good points, Engines.

To which I would add that the switch from 27 mm Mauser to 25 mm Gatling came at a point where LM was blithely and quite inaccurately convinced that they had weight to burn. Plus, as mentioned, the LCC issues of bringing a new caliber into the system. However it turns out that the 25 needs a new round to deliver A-G and A-A effects without using depleted uranium. Oh well, it's only the taxpayer's money.

Also, as Engines notes, tests of integrated fire/flight control in the 1980s showed higher gun lethality. The Sovs were on this earlier and consequently both cut down the number of rounds and reverted to a non-revolver cannon on the Su family (GSh-301 and 150 rounds, 2800 ft/sec MV). However, it was not fully recognized when the F-22 design was set.

Sticking a Gatling in or on a stealth aircraft is about the most expensive way to go - but that's where we are.

[Engines]

Courtney,

Thanks for coming back. I'd respectfully disagree on calibre - I believe that 20mm is just too small for anything except attacking easy air to air targets or soft ground stuff. Most of the calibres around (including the M61 gun's) are also fairly slow.

27mm is actually a very good compromise and an aerodynamically good round - but when I witnessed Diehl's tests on the HE round I was not impressed with their choice of explosive vs. fragment weight. Bit geeky for some - sorry.

Choice of driving band was driven by breech pressures. The 27mm's very large cartridge generates pressures that (at the time) required the metal driving bands. Lower pressure 20mm cannon were able to use plastic bands earlier. We had the same issue with the Aden 25mm, where still bands had to be used. Tailoring of propellant can do a lot to mitigate the issue.

Sorry to see this thread turn into another 'I hate F-35' thread but there it goes. B and C chose a podded gun to preserve signature when the gun's not required, and to reduce impact on internal fuel and weight. The logic for the B and the C (others won't agree) is that they'll fit the gun as and when it's required and of use. On an aircraft that's got severe challenges on internal space, fuel and weight, it makes some sense to me, but that's just my opinion.

The F-35 customer wanted the ability to deliver a useful weapon load at the lowest practicable (careful choice of words there) signature, as well as the option to carry lots more external stuff when signature was less important. That's what the external pylons are about. Yes, stealth is compromised on that fit. And yes, i know that others argue over what a 'useful' load is. Again, the concept makes sense to me, probably not to others though.

Hope this helps a bit

Best Regards as ever to all those making the choices for real,

Engines

[Willard Whyte]

Shouldn't be too long before this sort of thing is a normal capability for a/a a/g cannon:

EXACTO Demonstrates First-Ever Guided .50-Caliber Bullets - YouTube

[ExRAFRadar]

Engines - you are the Gun God. Have a :ok:

EXACTO ?

Does anyone else think they are now making up the soundbite acronym and then figure out how to make it work.

"Extreme Accuracy Tasked Ordnance", I mean, come on.

Actually maybe there is a business opportunity here. Anyone fancy starting up a PR company specializing in tailored acronyms ?

Military and Public Services would net us a fortune for starters.

Big market in mad religious groups as well.

[Pontius Navigator]

CM was talking about different drive bands, I see the A10 30mm had two nylon bands. Incidentally, how come the US uses millimetres?

[Engines]

LO,

Thanks as ever for coming back.

The change of gun on the F-35 was nothing to do with weight - my view from within the programme at the time (informed by more knowledgable BAE types) was not that LM thought they had 'weight to burn' - it was that they had no mechanism for controlling overall aircraft weight (e.g. a Chief Designer).

In any case, the gun change was a straight 'Buy US, not nasty European stuff' effort by GD, aided and abetted by compliant engineers within LM who knew better than to upset the USAF, who just love their Gatlings.

To be fair, there was technical risk with getting the Mauser's linkless feed system designed and tested, but the four barrel 25mm was a new design as well. There were rounds available at the time that met the requirement without DP, the best overall (in my view) was the Raufoss MultiPurpose (MP) design. Others can differ.

LO also makes a quite excellent point about integrated fire/flight control (IFFC). Tested by the US, fielded by the Russians and (I believe) the Swedes. Takes gun system effectiveness to a new level, and quite disregarded by the RAF. The GsH-301 is a good contender for best aircraft cannon around just now, in my view. Compact, light, reliable, and rate of fire good enough. The Russians understand this gun stuff quite well.

Best regards to all those cleaning the barrels,

Engines

PS (Edit): My understanding is that all cannon have been metric from day one - I believe because their design started in Europe (Hispano, Oerlikon). Almost all military gun calibres switched to metric by the 1950s, but some still use the older imperial 'legacy' calibres. This calibre history stuff can get quite geeky, so I'll stop now before I make a mistake....

[Courtney Mil]

Engines, I think you've completely missed my point.

I said 20mm is for air-to-air not ground targets. Soft or not - although, yes, it could do soft targets. My point there is high rate of fire. Not sure what you mean by "easy" air-to-air targets. A few HE 20mm rounds close to the aim point remains an effective weapon.

I did say that I too think the 27mm round is a good compromise. But there were other possible solutions to breach pressure apart from the land-removing driving band leading to short barrel life. But I still think it's a good round.

As for F-35 hating, sorry, you've hit the wrong guy. I'm sure you've seen enough of my posts to know I am not anti-F-35. Just because I question things does not mean I don't want it to succeed. I see the faults in lots of things, doesn't mean I want them to fail.

Thank you.

Courtney

[Engines]

Courtney,

Thanks for taking the time to respond.

Firstly, my apologies for inadvertently inferring that you were an 'F-35 hater' - I did not mean that, I know you take a fair view on that programme. Sorry.

On calibre for air to air combat, I will respectfully differ, and I'll explain why.

The overall effectiveness of any gun system can be built up by multiplying probability of a hit (Ph) by probability of a kill (Pk). In some simulations, Ph is calculated for a burst, not a single round, similarly for Pk. In others, the single round values are used, and then Pk is 'added' (sort of) for a burst hit. In both, you could also add a ranging factor in to reflect how often the aircraft might be able to use the gun at all.

What I found in the 90s was that there were no standard models for calculating Pk, nor was there much reliable data around the Pk of various rounds. The best data available was from a series of live firing trials carried out in the 80s in Norway. Basically, they concluded that high velocity large fragments fired into the aircraft along the fuselage were the best 'killers'. (Interestingly, the Mauser's shell was optimised to blow large holes in wings when entering at right angles). What is (hopefully) indisputable is that a single larger shell has a better Pk than a single smaller shell. I know of no reliable quantitative models for assessing the Pk of a series of hits. I do know that the DERA/AWC models in the 90s were really badly wrong. (Mathematically wrong).

So you need to look at now the round or its calibre might affect Ph. Interestingly, gun rate of fire does not have a massive effect on this. The key factor is time of flight. Shorter time of flight (faster bullet), better Ph. (Bullet shapes were improved in all calibres in the late 90s, using data from Gerald Bull's superman studies). Another factor is the bullet density in the target's area of sky. Again, not directly linked to rate of fire, can be affected by dispersion. This is affected by many things, but at longer ranges, the faster the shell, the better.

Revolvers (and guns like the Gsh-301) reach their full rate from the first round. Gatlings take time to spin up. In a half second burst, most revolvers get more rounds away than a Gatling. (I understand that Gatling users sometimes compensate by using longer bursts, starting before the 'pipper' goes over the target - but this wastes shells).

So, in my view, and informed by the calculations being done in the 80s, 90s and afterwards, the larger (faster) calibres (25mm, 27mm, 30mm) are better air to air systems. I would point out that nearly all the newer systems appearing use these calibres. They also give the system a far better air to ground capability, with much longer range and better target effect. In short, this is why the F-35 went for a four barrel 25mm gun rather than the six barrel 20mm M-61.

I'd go further - looking at overall system weight, power demands, and volume, i believe that revolvers or reciprocating cannon (e.g. Oerlikon, GsH-301) are a better overall system for fighter aircraft use. I know that many will differ, but honestly, it's not all about rate of fire all the time.

That's my view, anyway., not that it matters much.

Hope some folks find this mildly interesting, if not sorry for boring you.

Engines

[Finnpog]

Genuinely wondering - With your research Engines, is the Pk linked to the pure kinetic impact of the round - i.e like a solid slug - or is it linked to the blast / fragmentation effects of rounds that go bang?

[Fat Magpie]

Has anyone ever put a gimble type tracking system on a gun so that as well as pointing the nose of the aircraft the gun can track independently.

[Just This Once...]

Nicked from elsewhere:

MauserWerke GmbH BK-27

At only 100kg this cannon offers a significant firing velocity combined with a relatively large shell, it compares extremely favourably with its counterparts. When compared to the U.S. M-61 with a rate of fire of 6000 shells per minute, the BK-27 seems outclassed with a low 1700 shells per minute. However looks can be deceptive, while the M-61 takes almost a second to reach its full firing rate the BK-27's is almost instantaneous. The Mauser will have fired over 4kg of projectiles in 0.5 seconds while the M-61 scores around 2kg. The M-61 will only exceed the BK-27 after a full second of firing.

[safetypee]

The UK guns saga should be seen against the backdrop of the roles envisaged for the aircraft.
The Hunter (aah Hawker) was DFGA, thus guns were considered as dual role. The Lightning (WIWOL) was an AWF – actually all-weather interceptor, where the bomber opposition had guns pointing back at you - thus greater range, and radar ranging and direction. Missiles were designed to overcome these difficulties, so too the problems of much higher airspeeds. Guns made more sense in Europe (F2A) to engage low level strike aircraft.

There was (is) a requirement for guns in ground attack aircraft, unfortunately some were called ‘fighters’ which confused those who should have known better; however with the advent of modern ground-defence systems the debate for guns is open.
The F4 gun was for soft air-air targets in VN; the UK eventually acknowledged the F4s dual role in UKADE and Europe.
The A10 fills a niche role against poorly defended ground targets or had sufficient ECM cover to make it viable.

The future balance might be with a low cost gun attack (depending on the capabilities of ECM suppression) vs high cost stand-off precision weapons.
Yet as we should remember we never fight the war for which we train for (or plan for). No plan survives contact with the enemy – i.e. current sand-wars where psyc ops might be a better weapon – or a gun.

An afterthought; the Lightning was reportedly very effective with guns air-to-ground in Saudi; the high wing loading provided a stable platform - smoothed the ride over hot air bumps and gusts and thus was relatively accurate – and it was 30mm.

[Courtney Mil]

Engines, thank you for the recap of QWI course air-to-air gunnery phase day one. I concur. And that is my point. I lost my last attempted response thanks to an unfortunate Mr Apple Pk failure. So forgive me if I'm brief this time.

My original point was about round calibre and rate of fire. You now move on to the types of gun and, I hope most here will appreciate the differences, advantages and disadvantages of auto/revolver/Gatling. We haven't touched modern sighting systems/AI radar radars and the accuracy and relative ease of use.

Muzzle velocity is clearly a factor, but eventually that, in VERY SIMPLE TERMS becomes a sighting and range issue.

You have burst vs round correct. Ph and Pk for an individual round is a variable feast. Hit what, for example? The airframe, a vital system, a void? The comparison I made was between more, smaller calibre HE rounds and fewer, larger calibre HE rounds. The end result of which is potential for a spread of positive Ph rounds with a probability of damaging more vital organs (for example multiple routings of FBW lines) against fewer, larger rounds with a larger damage radius, but with the risk of leaving some redundancy functioning.

I like your maths, but practical experience doesn't always follow the models. My experience with air-to-air practice gunnery, live gunnery trials and test firing against test targets leads me to conclude the difference in requirements for AA and AG. That's all I'm saying.

[LowObservable]

Engines - The "weight to burn" thing was what I was told at the time, by someone who was probably unaware that the program had lost the plot.

Industrially, the Mauser was a bit of an orphan - the company that was supposed to build it for JSF had started as part of Hughes, then was Macs, then was Boeing, who finally sold their gun line to ATK. I suspect they made a lot more money from the Army than the AF and doubt that they put up much of a fight when GD (I think it was GD by then, having previously been GE) launched the offensive to throw them off JSF. For GD in Burlington it was pretty existential.

Gatlings were more competitive with multiple guns (the typical pre-missile setup) than with a single heavy cannon. As noted, only the US went all the way with the Gatling, but the time-to-rate issue mandates a lot of ammo in a heavy feed system.

[Engines]

LO,

That's a very informative bit on the '27mm Mauser for JSF' - many thanks. I do remember trying to get some details on how a linkless feed would work for a revolver (especially the starting and stopping bit) and there was a bit of a deafening silence.

And you are spot on about GD's 'need to win'.

You touch on a really important aspect, which is how to assess the efficiency of a gun system. My own take (and just my own) is that in a fighter/strike aircraft, performance has to be assessed against the impacts on weight and especially internal volume. Every system on the aircraft has to minimise these, and a well designed gun system does the same. The logic works for helicopters too, in my opinion.

Thanks for the post

Best Regards as ever

Engines

[Engines]

FM,

Thought I'd try to give you an answer, which is, i think, 'nearly'.

Post WW2, the USAF's requirement for a jet night fighter included a requirement for guns mounted in gimballed turrets that could be fired 'off axis'. (I wonder whether they were influenced by the Luftwaffe's upward firing 'Jazz Music' installations?)

The F89 Scorpion and F-94 Starfire both included nose mounted gun turrets in their designs, but these were binned early on and replaced with batteries of forward firing unguided missiles. These changes were driven by the realisation that effective gun engagements were going to be very difficult to achieve for early jets, and that longer range solutions had to be tried.

Incidentally, the Hughes team working on the radar assisted 'automatic fire control' systems for these aircraft published the very first papers on what came to called 'control theory' - I remember referencing it during my time at Cranfield.

The idea did surface again during the USAF's integrated fire and flight control (IFFC) programme of the late 70s. The trial aircraft (F-15, I think) had its M61 Gatling system modified to allow a very small amount (I think somewhere between 2 and 4 degrees) of gun deflection. This was linked to a high rate hydraulic actuation system, driven by the IFFC system. The idea was to allow the gun to make small but important high rate corrections to the aiming solution without moving the aircraft. I seem to remember that the system worked extremely well.

Hope this is vaguely interesting

Best Regards as ever

Engines

[just another jocky]

As for strafe against ground targets from a Tornada GR (Not the GR1A, though, the cannons gave way to the recce sensors and recording equipment), the profile for target acquisition, aiming and squirting, recovery and running away were better suited to the benign range enviroment. The exposure time and crew focus on shooting and recovering in a hostile scenario would have made the aeroplane quite vulnerable to small arms fire from the hundreds of annoyed troops below.

And you would need the right sort of bullets for the intended target, taking into consideration ricochet and effectiveness (armour/soft skinned); generally more misses than hits (on the range), limited amount of ammunition. Cost/benefit analysis - not really worth the risk and effort.



And yet the 27mm Mauser is often the weapon of choice in Afghanistan and has been for years. It's accurate, minimal collateral damage, cheap and with dive profiles up to 45 degrees available threat exposure is minimal. Ballistics are more accurate to a far greater range than was so on the GR1.

And it's more fun too. :ok:

[Just This Once...]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fbUbZ8cgEqA

JAJ - you are quite correct that the range and accuracy on the 27mm is often overlooked. Even on the GR1 we 'ceased' at a similar range as the Aden users 'opened'. The velocity at the target was similar to what the Aden achieved at the muzzle. It really was a step-change in capability and poorly understood by those who only knew the old 30mm Aden.

[Engines]

JTO,

You are absolutely right about the capability of the Mauser 27mm. It remains an excellent gun, the only issue being the very high cost of ownership due to its unique calibre.

I'd only suggest that as 'old' as the Aden 30 is, its ballistic characteristics are still in the same ballpark as those of the modern GsH-301 - low muzzle velocity, heavy shell. In the 90s, RO offered the RAF and RN an improved Aden 30 round using low drag and Multipurpose (MP) technology, which would have delivered a useful improvement in range and lower dispersion, but no takers.

The Aden 25 programme was an attempt to deliver a much better performance from an existing gun. The gun worked, but the programme was undone by poor attempts at gun/aircraft integration. (The US approach, where the gun designers also design gun mountings, gun pods and ammunition feeds, is, in my experience, much more sound).

The real step change in gun effectiveness, which has gone largely unremarked in the West, is the advent of radars that can deliver very accurate range and range rate at typical gun engagement ranges. This. in turn, leads to much better fire control solutions. Also, modern aircraft computing systems are delivering updates hundreds of times a second instead of twice a second. As the Sea Harrier FA2 showed, these deliver much, much better accuracy and high hit probability, even with lower rates of fire.

Best Regards to those bothering to read this - please tell me when you're bored.

Engines

[Not_a_boffin]

Guns. And now SHARs - how could this ever get boring!:O

[Courtney Mil]

JTO and Engines,

Absolutely. Moving away from my air-to-air happy place for a moment, the Mauser with a good sighting system (did I mention that bit before?) was, frankly, superb for strafe. The sight was a death dot. Pipper on that target, that's where the rounds went.

OK, so the Gatling. Yep, sprayed a lot of rounds around the aim point and lots through it. But a big difference between the explosive capacities between 30, 27 and 20 mm rounds. Bigger rounds still very good for targets that don't move and need bigger bang.

And the 30mm guy. Well I could hit a strafe panel with it. Lots of times. The guy in the semi-hard vehicle on the receiviing end probably wouldn't care what the muzzle velocity was. He just probably wanted to die.

Forgive me, slightly flippant, but you know what I mean.

[JonnyT1978]

I've always been baffled by the move away from gun armament on US and UK aircraft post-WW2, it always seemed to me to be a retrograde step. Did the Soviet aircraft design bureaus follow a similar philosophy? I know that in later years they had selectable speeds for the cannons on the likes of the Su-25 for A2A or A2G.

It certainly came back to bite the US on the posterior in Vietnam; I seem to recall Big-Gen Robin Olds saying that he could've shot down an additional 9 MiGs in his F-4 if it had had a gun (I think it was in an episode of that classic documentary series Reaching for the Skies). If nothing else, bullets (cannon shells) are far cheaper than missiles!

[Shackman]

CM: 20mm is for air-to-air not ground targets

And there was me thinking the 2 x 20mm Hispanos (300rds/gun) in the Shack were for ground/submarine/shipping targets - but extreme fun to fire, although they did fill the fuselage up with cordite smoke. Then when we joined Fighter Command (actually 11 Gp) they took them out :sad:

:p :p :p

[Fonsini]

The usual great wealth of experience in the responses. I'm relieved that no one said something along the lines of "why bother, the xyz laser is only a year from deployment and it will fit in an ADEN gun bay".

I'm a self-confessed fan of cannon in aircraft, the more we are told about the good reasons for not needing them, the more we seem to need them.

The sad part is the fact that guns like the ADEN are still in service, and they are basically a German WWII design - where is the product evolution.

A direct performance comparison between the ADEN, DEFA, NR-30, Oerlikon in similar calibers would be fascinating (at least for me). Until then the consensus appears to be that the 27mm Mauser is probably the best single barrel high caliber multi-purpose cannon out there today, which is fine by me.

[Courtney Mil]

Actually, Shackman, you raise THE most important point. The smell of cordite. There is nothing like it. Well, there is but not for this forum. :ok:

[Typhoon93]

Have the people who call the shots even flown a front line jet in a combat zone? I don't mean to sound cheeky, and I mean no disrespect to the personnel who call the shots, whoever they are - I don't know them.

One of the fundamental human rights is the right to self defence, so why should anybody deny pilots that right when they have no missiles left and the cannon is their last line of defence? Or would be their last line of defence.

It just seems to me that those who call the shots over equipment and how it should be designed do so from the safety of their nice, warm offices in Whitehall while men and women put their lives on the line using that equipment.

[Courtney Mil]

Arming an aircraft or any other military hardware has nothing whatsoever to do with "fundamental human rights". It's purely about building and operating an instrument of war. Those that choose the shape of the instrument and its armament may be be flawed, but that's who we serve. Or at least who decide how we serve. Complaints acceptable.

[Onceapilot]

Personal multi-scenario favourite, twin 27mm Mauser.;)
Best air to air, whatever gun is fitted in the better turning and burning airframe!:E
Best air to ground....depends. Best avoided really, apart from the range!:)

OAP

[Typhoon93]

Courtney, I understand that, however I think you missed my point.

My point was, and completely disregarding all of the politics and the need to remove the enemy, shouldn't the gun be there in the interests of the pilot's safety?

I'm not going to teach Granny to suck eggs, you served as a fighter pilot so you know this already, but I am adding this for my point to make sense: Aircraft can only carry a limited number of missiles, and depending on the mission (lets use the Typhoon FGR2's as an example), there may be even more limited space for missiles, due to the requirement of LGBs. So if the aircraft has no missiles left because they have used them all, then shouldn't the requirement of the gun be obvious to those calling the shots? Extra cost in adding and operating the gun seems like a tidy investment (speaking purely from the general public's perspective) compared to a destroyed aircraft which costs tens of millions, and possibly a deceased pilot who costs several million (correct me if I'm wrong on that) to train, not to mention the heartbreak his/her friends, family and colleagues will have to suffer.

Basically, my point is.... shouldn't the safety and welfare of the personnel be paramount? If so, then why is the rights and wrongs of cannons in aircraft discussed by those who are in charge?

[GreenKnight121]

Well, here was the nose turret experimented with on the Grumman F9F Panther - built by Emerson, it held 4 x .50mg.

Link to large version https://imageshack.com/f/p5aMES7Yj

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b336/Bager1968/Aircraft/jet%20fighters/GrummanF9FPantherEmersonTurretPage2_zps9f3bdb78.jpg (http://s22.photobucket.com/user/Bager1968/media/Aircraft/jet%20fighters/GrummanF9FPantherEmersonTurretPage2_zps9f3bdb78.jpg.html)

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b336/Bager1968/Aircraft/jet%20fighters/GrummanF9FPantherEmersonTurret2_zps1f1b8766.jpeg (http://s22.photobucket.com/user/Bager1968/media/Aircraft/jet%20fighters/GrummanF9FPantherEmersonTurret2_zps1f1b8766.jpeg.html)

[O-P]

Typhoon,

It really depends on the threat environment. The Typhoon can 'self escort' in a moderate threat scenario, the GR4 armed with only AIM 132s and guns can't.

If you increase the threat then you would deploy additional AD Typhoons as escort fighters...either to protect the GR4's, or bomber Typhoons.

Now back to the question, in an AD world we would 'try' to preserve enough of the primary armaments to fight our way home. The gun wasn't a primary armament, but a very useful one! It is not, and never will be a "Sovereign right of self defence" weapon. There is no such weapon...I guess the Taser might cross that boundary...Useless air to air though. (Someone will now produce film of A-A Taser trials)

If, in the land of airbourne reloads, the magic man came along and asked "What you want fella" my answer would be "A couple of those AIM 120 thingys and as many 132s as you can cram on the jet" Oh 'Please' would have followed.

Would I have rather had the gun over 2 extra AIM 132s???? No.

[MAINJAFAD]

RAF Anti-Cannon??? This is a bit of a novel, but my take on it.

Without actually reading the any of the Operational Requirements which are raised before any piece of equipment is procured or developed, there is no way that this statement can stand up. The first issue is what was the aircraft actually bought to do? In the case of the Phantom, Lightning F3 and other Gun-less fast jet air to air combat aircraft developed in the late 1950's, they were built to be all weather interceptors, not dog fighters. The main threat was the high altitude / high speed long range (possibly supersonic) bomber armed with a large yield free fall Thermonuclear weapon or rocket / jet powered stand off weapon, again armed with a megaton class H-Bomb. The interceptor's weapon had to be powerful enough to stop the bomber in its tracks, before its crew had chance to decide "we're a goner, let's release the weapon and take out as many of the enemy as we can with us" (that possibility is mentioned in Air Staff documents from the 1950's). Even if the bomb landed in open county or over the sea, the fallout from a ground burst high yield weapon would cause massive casualties over a very wide area (plue the weapon would trash most stuff within a 10 to 20 mile radius). The cannon didn't have the punch to do that, so the move to the 'Mighty Mouse' Folding-Fin Aerial Rocket (FFAR) by the USAF and then the Guided Missile (plus final option of the AIR-2 Nuclear unguided rocket). How did the USAF know this, well for starters they were the main victim of unguided air to air rocket attacks by the Germans against the B-17's and B-24's in WWII (Would they have not used it if they knew that it wasn't quite effective), plus they had flown B-47's over Russia in the early 1950's, some of which had been engaged by Mig-17's and had managed to get home with some holes in them (the B-47 gunner wasn't allowed to shoot back either).

The NATO War plan until 1968 was pretty much all out nuclear war from the start and killing Bombers was the primary objective of the Air Defence fighter forces. Most of the Tactical Fighters that would have been able to get into the fight would have been carrying small tactical nuclear weapons to attack targets on the edge of Soviet territory.

Lets actually look at what was built and deployed by a number of nations from say the mid 1950s onward.

USAF (I'll start with century series, there were FFAR only armed aircraft in the F-80 /90 series (F-86D Sabre for example, though all of the aircraft that were fitted with that armament were Interceptors / Night Fighters (you will see those words a lot)):-

F-100 - 20mm Cannon x 4 - Tactical Fighter.

F-101A - 20mm Cannon x 4 - Tactical Fighter.

F-101B - Falcon Missile / Nuclear Air to Air Rocket - Interceptor.

F-102 - Falcon Missile / Nuclear Air to Air missile / FFAR - Interceptor.

F-103 - Falcon Missile / Nuclear Air to Air missile / FFAR - Mach 3 Interceptor (not built).

F-104 - M61 Vulcan 20mm Cannon x 1, Sidewinder - Tactical Fighter.

F-105 - M61 Vulcan 20mm Cannon x 1 - Tactical Fighter.

F-106 - Falcon Missile / Nuclear Air to Air Rocket - Interceptor (M61 Vulcan 20mm Cannon x 1 replaced the AIR-2 in upgrade).

F-107 - 20mm Cannon x 2 - Tactical Fighter. (not procured).

F-108 - 20mm Cannon x 4 / Long range Conventional and Super Falcon Nuclear Air to Air missile x 3 - Interceptor (not built).

F-109 - 20mm Cannon x 4 - VTOL Fighter design (not built).

F-110 - Pre 1962 designation for USAF F-4 C/D. Missile only (because the USN primary use for it was as an Interceptor), Later got SSU 16 / SSU 23A pods as Interim fit, followed by 1xM61 in the E version's and beyond.

F-111 - USAF Tactical Bomber (M61 could be fitted in Weapons bay of USAF F-111D).

For the USN navy, only the Phantom and F-111B were gun less.

F7U Cutless - 4 x 20mm Cannon, Sparrow I AAM - Interceptor/Tactical fighter.

F-8 Crusader - 4 x 20mm Cannon, Sidewinder AAM - Day Interceptor/Tactical fighter.

F3H/F-6 Demon - 4 x 20mm Cannon, Sparrow III / Sidewinder AAM - Interceptor/Tactical fighter.

F-4 Phantom II - Sparrow III / Sidewinder AAM - all-weather fleet defense interceptor.

F3D/F-10 Skyknight - 4 x 20mm Cannon, Sparrow I AAM - all-weather (Night) fighter.

F4D/F-6 Skyray - 4 x 20mm Cannon, Sidewinder AAM - Day Interceptor / Tactical fighter.

F11F/F-11 Tiger - 4 x 20mm Cannon, Sidewinder AAM - Day Interceptor

F-111B - 6 x Phoenix AAM - Fleet Defence Fighter. Cancelled.

Have the Russians built and put into service a fighter without a gun??? Yes lots of them, again all primary interceptors.

Su-9 - Missile only - interceptor,

Su-11 - Missile only - interceptor.

SU-15 - Missile / 23mm Cannon Pod x 2 - interceptor.

Tu-128 - Missile only - interceptor.

Mig-25 - Missile only - interceptor.

Yak-25 - 23mm Cannon - interceptor.

Yak-28 - Missile Only - interceptor.

Yak-38 - Missile / Gun Pod - VTOL Fighter.

All the rest of the Migs and SU's have some form of 23/30/37mm Cannons.

As for the UK?? Only 3 aircraft not fitted with a cannon (Don't count TSR 2 and Buccaneer as they were strike aircraft, The USN A-5 and A-6 didn't have a gun either). One was 1!!!! version of the Lightning, the other was the Sea Vixen, while the third didn't have a gun fitted to it when the RAF bought it, and that only happened because the Navy got it first (i.e. Phantom) and the internal armed cannon version wasn't even on the drawing board yet. RAF made sure that their FGR-2 could carry the SSU-23 pod when it finally came on the scene in the late 1960s.

Hunter - 4 x 30mm Cannon - Day fighter / Interceptor / Ground Attack - RAF.

Swift - 2x 30mm Cannon (some marks had 4) - Interceptor - RAF.

Javelin FAW1 - FAW 5 - 4 x 30mm cannon - All Weather Fighter - RAF.

Javelin FAW6 - FAW9 - 2x 30mm cannon, 4 x SRAAM (Firestreak / Red Top) - All Weather Fighter - RAF.

Scimitar F1 - 4 x 30mm Cannon, Sidewinder - Day fighter / Attack / Strike - RN.

Sea Vixen FAW1/2 - FFAR / 4 x SRAAM - All Weather Fighter - RN.

Lightning F1/F2/F6/50 series 2 x 30mm Cannon , 2 x SRAAM. F3 - Missiles only (only 70 built, over 10% modified to F6) - Fighter - RAF.

Phantom FG 1 - Sparrow III / Sidewinder AAM / Rocket pod only - Fighter / Attack. RN/RAF.

Phantom FGR 2 - Sparrow III (Skyflash) / Sidewinder AAM / Gun Pod pod - Tactical Fighter, later air defence. RAF.

AFGV - 2x 30mm Cannon (not built). RAF

Tornado - 27mm Cannon x 2 (GR 1), X1 (F2/F3/GR4) Nil (GR1A/GR4A)
Interdiction / Strike - Interceptor - Reconnaissance- RAF.

Harrier GR 1/3, Sea Harrier FRS 1 / FA 2 - 30mm Cannon x 2 (in pods) - Ground Attack / Strike Fighter - RAF / RN.

Harrier GR 5 - 9 - 25 mm Cannon x 2 (Cancelled) - Ground Attack - RAF /RN.

Typhoon - 27mm Cannon x 1 - Multi Role Fighter - RAF. Gun issue in early 2000's is a bit complicated but was resolved.

RAF Anti - Cannon!!! Hardly, not backed up by the evidence. As for Engines comments about the Air Staff, They are not the experts, the people at Farnbrough and Boscome Down were paid to do the modelling tasks and stuff like that and provide that information. Farnbrough and A&AEE was RAE which was MOD at the time, not RAF. Of course if you really look at the list above, the majority of Non Gun armed UK built aircraft in UK service that were brought as such were FAA types (140 Sea Vixens v 70 Lightning F3's). Of course the Navy tried a large warship without a reasonable sized gun (Type 22), that concept was found to have flaws after they bought it. The Russian advances are more to do with an integrated IRST and Laser ranger system (much shorter wavelength than RF, thus much better angle and range information than any medium range radar can give), though modern computers do also help. I do however agree about the guided Hydra rocket being an excellent idea, though that weapon was originally the FFAR!!!

[Engines]

GN121,

Many thanks for those pictures - I've never seen those before. Absolutely fascinating.

Best Regards

Engines

[typerated]

I found the comments on strafe range interesting. On the range in the 80s I don't remember much difference between Tornados, A-10s or Jag and Harrier GR3s (with ADEN or SNEBS for that matter) in terms of firing range for the shallow pops from low level. Certainly everything overflew the panel before turning away. I do remember the first burst of an A-10 trying "two target strafe" was at long range - but they usually missed on one of the shots (or at least got a low score)! any other types tried two target strafe?
I was never convinced that strafe would be used on anything other than targets of opportunity and imagined crews would be going too fast and too low to get a shot off in real life against the Warsaw Pact, even if they saw something worthwhile.
I also remember reading Pierre Closterman writing about staffing a German airfield in Tempests. He described one attack where , if I remember correctly , only he and his wingman survived from 14 aircraft that pitched in - as he said "it wasn't worth the candle!"
What I found interesting was that they dived down from 5000ft or so and were doing 500mph at just a few feet as they came across the airfield. Lower but not much slower than would have been done in the 80s - and they got hammered by 20mm AAA - Just made me wonder what the loss rate of Jags, Harriers and Tornados would have been against the Warsaw Pact?

[Engines]

Finn,

A delayed reply to your question, due entirely to my inability to read the thread properly - my sincere apologies.

The Pk of a cannon round is a combination of the characteristics of the round and the target, and how the round arrives (how fast, and from what direction). (I'm not talking about solid bullets here). The earliest shells designed to shoot down aircraft relied on straight blast, as they were dealing with fairly fragile structures. The main challenge was to get the round to explode as it passed through light structures - you had to get a hit on a hard object (engine, metal systems) for them to go off.

As a result, shell designers developed very sensitive, fast acting fuses with good 'grazing initiation' performance, and they also designed the cases to produce a large number of small fragments to maximise the chance of causing damage. Finally, they loaded the shells with materials that produced sparks and flame, with the aim of setting off fires or igniting fuel.

The Germans applied the most science to this rather arcane art, and after experiments on crashed Allied bombers, changed their cannon designs to take a new larger 30mm round designed specifically to knock down B-17s and B-24s by exploding near the wing roots. That very specifically designed round was taken on as the Aden 30. The Mauser 27mm shell, developed by Diehl, still uses a similar design philosophy of a high level of blast pressure plus a large number (over 400) of fragments to blow structure apart.

Pk of cannon shells against fighter aircraft, or more modern aircraft, was an area of research that was relatively neglected for some years. However, in the 70s and the 80s, the Norwegians did a series of trials on old F-86s, which led to a new concept for shell design. They went for a shell that produced a smaller number (about 35) of bigger fragments, and these fragments are blasted forward down a 30 degree cone, rather than a nearly spherical fragment cloud.

The aim of all this was to give a bigger chance of damaging critical components such as the engine and other 'hard' systems, with the shells arriving from behind the aircraft. They also realised that a very fast acting fuse might not be as effective as one that allowed the bullet to get deeper into the aircraft before going off, so they developed a clever system of variable fuse timing. This process resulted in the Raufoss 'MultiPurpose' (MP) family of rounds. They produced an MP 27mm round, but I don't think it was taken up.

These are really specialised areas of study, and there are major arguments over the 'science' behind it all. As I hope this shows, what sounds like a simple issue can be slightly more complicated.

Hope it helps

Best Regards

Engines

[Ivan Rogov]

There was a thread last year on cannons for anyone who missed it

http://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/511345-rotary-cannons.html

JAJ
And yet the 27mm Mauser is often the weapon of choice in Afghanistan and has been for years.

I would suggest that 'often weapon' of choice is a poor phrase or even deliberately misleading :=, more like 'The 27mm Mauser was used occasionally, as was CVR-7 with similar effect'

The weapon of choice is Reaper, whether we like it or not :sad:

[bigsmelly]

Talking about cannons and rate of fire - what about a Metal Storm style system?

Metal storm is a now defunct company that made prototype weapons where the rounds were stacked in the barrel and then fired electrically - there was no traditonal feed mechansim, and once the ammunition was expended I think you just replaced the whole barrel.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AEu9LLQpOF8

[Typhoon93]

Thanks O-D.

[Onceapilot]

typerated, different types of aircraft and cannon have different attack profiles, max range, min range and recovery. You were misled by the impression of the recovery manoevre. Generally, the self damage risk is minimised by a hard pull to establish a certain climb gradient. The "turning away" on the range is part of the range pattern.:)
Multiple target strafe is difficult and can lead to target fixation!:eek:


OAP

[Onceapilot]

Thanks for your comments Engines! You may be aware that the high filling ratio shell was most widely used in the German MK108 30mm single barrel cannon against Allied bombers. Worth saying that the MG213 revolver cannon was under development at the end of WW11 and it was this weapon which held such potential that it was developed into the ADEN, DEFA etc..
Cheers:ok:

OAP

[Engines]

OAP:

Thanks for coming back.

I actually worked with a guy who was part of the Enfield team who converted the MG213 into the Aden, and got to see the original drawings for the Aden. Most of them were simply MG213 drawings with the metric dimensions converted to imperial. The Aden 30's mounting design, which led to quite a bit of weight, was originally designed for the Hunter belly pack. The Aden 30 shell was slightly changed version of the German design, and its antiquated Torpex filling was causing severe problems by the 90s. Essentially, the Aden 30 had been severely neglected for some years.

The shame was that the UK never seriously tried to design another aircraft cannon after the Aden 30. The Aden 25 was a modified version, but very limited in scope. Much more could have been done (at not a lot of cost) to get a lot of weight out of the gun and its feed systems.

The 213, and its design team, spawned a whole generation of derivatives in many other countries, including the DEFA 30 (France), M39 (US) and Oerlikon (Sweden) revolvers.

The main problem immediately after WW2 and into the 50s was that early jet fighters struggled to be able to carry out an effective 'pursuit' gun attack on a large, fast, jet bomber. One attempt at a solution was a very large gun with a long range, and I understand that the Javelin was originally designed to carry a retractable ten shot 4.5 inch recoilless weapon. Gawd.

Eventually, it was realised that a 'collision course' attack was required, and that led in turn to unguided multiple FFAR rocket systems, intended to fill the sky with enough HE to get enough hits on the oncoming target. These rocket packs appeared on most 1950s fighter in various guises. The Hughes development of 'control theory' that I mentioned a few posts ago was done to provide intercepting fighters with an automatic guidance system that would put them where the FFAR systems could be used - an early form of IFFC. Once guided missile emerged as practical proposition, the techniques being developed by Hughes were moved on to supporting the F-102 and other programs that were using automated missile interception systems.

Hope this lot's not boring anyone yet,

Best Regards

Engines

[LowObservable]

I think we should hide the nose turret pix before some joker decides to revive the idea and slave it to the HMD.

[Onceapilot]

Cheers Engines. I wonder if anyone could prove that the ADEN (Mauser) was the only UK air to air weapon with any pk at all in the jet age, until the Sidewinder and Sparrow were aquired? I believe Firestreak and Red-Top had "limitations"? :oh:

OAP

[Finningley Boy]

Arming an aircraft or any other military hardware has nothing whatsoever to do with "fundamental human rights". It's purely about building and operating an instrument of war.

And air displays!:ok:

FB:)

[Bevo]

My experience with air-to-air gunnery is that it is more difficult than the movies would have you believe and that bullet dispersion can actually help with Ph. Even trying to hit a non-maneuvering towed target is not that easy. I, along with several of my squadron mates, have fired at both towed “darts” and towed “banner” targets that our Ph was not very good. Gun training sorties didn’t happen very often and this contributed to our lack of proficiency. I would be curious how often fighter pilots get gun air-to-air training sorties these days. In some live fire meets, where the pilots send more training time preparing, there was still a desire to “spread out” the bullet to the point that some pilots actually yawed the aircraft while firing.

Now trying to keep the gun sight on a fast jet that is maneuvering for a long enough period of time to get hits is VERY difficult. So from my perspective I would want a fast bullet, but I would put my priority on a gun that has a high rate of fire for air-to-air gunnery.

[safetypee]

Onceapilot, it’s not easy to compare weapons, or different aircraft with the same gun; time, threat, role …
Firestreak / Redtop were more likely to achieve a kill than the early AIM7 / Sidewinders on the F4; but then things moved on.
The Lightning missiles also had greater kill probability than the ADEN against most targets, but in a close-range turning encounter then the gun offered more opportunity, but due to the longer distance harmonised firing range in the Lightning when compared with a Hunter (speed, Aero D, etc) it resulted in a lower pk.

Pilots were trained for smoothness and expertise in gunnery range and tracking accuracy, but in the ‘heat of war’ my advice was to take any shot, at least you might frightening the opposition into doing something silly; and with a better opportunity, all of the theory goes out of the window.

[Courtney Mil]

Typhoon93,

I could not disagree more. Re your post #50. As you will have realised by now, not all aircraft have integral guns. Regarding your comments, the fit we fly with is dictated by the requirements of the mission, not the wishes of the aircrew. Incidentally, you may find that the aircrew, understanding the mission, would chose the prescribed load - often the load they chose in the planning phase.

You appear to have a slightly rose-tinted idea about being an operational pilot. It comes with risks and we don't stand in the ops room fretting about how the aircraft configuration matches any imagined expectations of our human rights.

Are you sure this is the profession you wish to pursue?

[Pontius Navigator]

I recall a brief by CFE on engaging bombers with gun armed day fighters. As the Badger and Bear had radar controlled guns their plan was to attack from behind and below and climb under the target ahead of the gun defensive arc.

They also showed gun tracking against a manoeuvring Valiant at low level. The pipper stayed steady on the back of the cockpit.

4x30, great weapon with a good on by DAY.

[Typhoon93]

Thanks for your reply, Courtney. I stand corrected. :)

Yes, I am sure. :)

[Finningley Boy]

Tiffy 93,

I trust you've seen the Armstrong and Miller sketch with the two R.A.F. Officers, the content of their delivery is intented as an ironic satirical send up of a particular culture and generation.

I think!?!?!?:confused:

FB:)

[Pontius Navigator]

FB, really?









:O

[Finningley Boy]

PN,

Indeed,

I'm just a tad concerned that Tiff 93, with the greatest respect, may have taken the content for a warts an' all wartime drama series?!?:p

FB:)

[orca]

If I may be so bold, we have approximately two generations of legacy thinking being explained here by some very well informed people.

In modern BFM, which 'legacy mindset 2' thought would never happen due to all missile load outs it is a completely valid tactic to remain within the enemy Rmin and possible if you have the g, alpha and power available. Both players will also be ensuring that, in a defensive situation they present the hardest 'Range/Angle/Closure' problem possible - which will probably differ significantly to WW2 era bombers or those of the V force, as experienced by those of 'legacy mindset 1'.

This leads you to what will one day be known as 'legacy mindset 3'. You aren't realistically in contemporary BFM going to track the opponent, but you need to have the gun site up at all times for anytime you can't shoot due to Rmin or acquisition problems. If you have a radar that gives you a decent aiming solution so much the better. Close scissors at base, slashing opportunities are all great times to use a gun, and don't forget - every 180 by zip is a guns opportunity, as is every time he flashes through the HUD, it's just that we aren't allowed them in peacetime!

Last point, it was very interesting how the RAF entered WW2 without a clear understanding of the damage mechanisms for A-A gunnery which led to small calibre armament. Don't forget though, in 'soon to be legacy mindset 3' the aircraft have a lot less space, are made of materials that aren't necessarily easy to repair and have a lot of vulnerabilities past pilot, controls, engine. Look at the damage a pebble can achieve in a gas turbine, a single shell could be all it takes.

Just trivia but with the M61A1 you could choose your rate of fire.

[Bevo]

orca - good summary!! :ok:

[Pontius Navigator]

orca, that crucial word is legacy.

I think those of my generation and earlier were not advocating missiles over guns but explaining why that had happened. Remember L2 decision makers formed their assumptions decades ago before GW 1. The Typhoon of today should have been service 15 years ago.

[Onceapilot]

Thanks Safetepee, my comment was perhaps a little harsh bearing in mind the UK missiles age. Yes, guns tracking is hard but, as many veterans say, you need to get close!
orca, Mauser 27mm in Tornado GR1, selectable one or both guns and, selectable 1000 or 1700 rpm instantaneous rate of fire. :ok:

OAP

[Pontius Navigator]

Today's Torygraph has a snippet about Typhoon and Brimstone:

"The unexpected campaign against Islamic militants" sort of says it all.

Decisions made decades earlier are no more than a blind guess. Maybe, like a true MRCA, like Nimrod, all bells and whistles should be designed in but not necessarily procured or fitted.

That Typoon was procured with a gun bay and guns were cheaper than ballast was fortuitous.

Back to guns, during Confrontation, it could have fallen to the Javelins, Sea Biden's and Sabres to warn off intruding Indonesia aircraft. Using a missile would have been problematical and not achieve the political aim.

[Engines]

I think PN makes a very good and important point about the decisions that have to be made in the MoD, and which attract a lot of criticism in this and other forums.

He's absolutely right that the staffs have to make decisions a long time before the systems that arise from those decisions enter service. They have no better crystal balls than anyone else, but have always been forced to justify their decisions using a range of assumptions about how the systems will be used, the expected costs, and how efficient they will be. A good many of those assumptions will not be correct, but the reasons for that can vary.

In some cases, the 'errors' the staffs make are simply due to unforeseen changes in circumstances - again, it's easy (with hindsight) to say that the changes should have been foreseen, harder to get it right.

However, in some cases the assumptions made by the staffs are wrong because they simply don't know enough about the systems that they are developing requirements for. This is an area that I've worked with for a long time, and I have to say that requirements development is far and away the weakest area of the air staffs (all three services) that i've worked with.

Too often, requirements are driven by personal operational experience, or worse, the last sexy gadget they saw at an air show. Sorry if that sounds flip, but it's just too common. It's been especially true for UORs.

Turning to the subject of this thread, I don't think that the RAF have been 'anti-cannon' - but I do think that successive air staffs have been unable to develop a proper set of requirements for cannon (or gun) systems, mainly due to an almost total lack of the required R&D and analysis within industry or MoD to determine how requirements should be set and how far they should try to reach. Take a basic one - what is the required lethality of projectiles? Has anyone used the standard STANAG target set?

The best one I was involved with was the Lynx cabin mounted .50 calibre gun, which was precisely defined in terms of 'we want a gun that does this (classified) to this target (classified) at this range (classified)'. Surprisingly, it was an SF requirement.

The worst example I came across was for the attack helicopter, which merely specified that the gun system should 'be capable of engaging a target'. That was the entire (verbatim) SRD entry for a large, costly and complex system, which has become the most frequently used weapon system on the Apache. In a similar vein, Typhoon's requirements set specified a Mauser 27mm cannon with existing shells, again with no serious requirements for effect or lethality.

Yes, it was procured with a gun system, not just a bay. The gun system was taken out as a savings measure in the late 90s, at about the time the Aden 25 for the GR7 was cancelled. At that time, the Air Staffs were definitely assuming that no cannon would be required in the future. The ensuing saga of the Typhoon gun might be funny if the taxpayer hadn't had to pay so much to play 'Mauser hokey-cokey'.

So, that would be my plea - get the staffs informed and resourced to develop and write meaningful requirements for gun systems.

Best regards to those who do their best,

Engines

[Evalu8ter]

Engines,
Until we a) post good people into RM jobs for 3-5 years b) train them properly c) reward them properly then we will continue to deal with the 'bright ideas club' with the 18-24 month 2x OJAR cycle.

There is no crystal ball, but the cannon is a classic example of being selective with history and over-optimistic about the future.

"Say what you need, not what you want - state a requirement, don't point at a solution..."

[Engines]

Eval,

Amen to all your suggestions sir. I'd only add 'make sure you get engineers properly involved as early as possible'.

But then, I would.

Engines

[Croqueteer]

Our Hispano Suiza 20mm canon inthe nose turret were very effective against flame-floats and sharks untilthe end of the 60's!

[Courtney Mil]

I do understand what you meant there, Engines, but Air Staff do tend to get selected for their "personal operational experience". Not so much now as folk get matched up to a vacant post because they are due a posting. Maybe a few round pegs in square holes? And they could be even worse than people with "personal operational experience" of the systems in question.

I'm not sure if this is a doctrine I subscribe to, but there is also a line of argument that states that we sometimes over-define and over-question our requirements. And then do more thinking and change stuff. There are some good guns available out there and unless the UK decides to put a lot of money into developing new ones, This argument might suggest you just buy the one that suits your needs. The effectiveness of most of them is, after all, quite well known by now. It's debatable.

I'm a gun fan, for many of the reasons already discussed here. Shame we haven't done more with them. I guess it's a shrinking market for expensive R&D these days.

[Pontius Navigator]

CM, you are right, a fighter without a gun is an expensive one-trick pony. OK after was is declared but pretty useless for modern air policing.

Who was the top airship who was adamant the Typhoon didn't need s gun? Good the hear him stand up and say he was wrong.

[A and C]

Brimstone vs ISIS pick up truck cost £ 105,000.

Gun vs ISIS pick up truck I would guess £ 600.

Typhoon / Tornado using Brimstone near zero risk from truck mounted AAA.

Typhoon / Tornado using gun high risk from truck mounted AAA.

I wonder if those at the front end of the latest mission share the forums enthusiasm for guns ?

[Courtney Mil]

Ah, I see. So you have to get closer to the target to employ the gun? So perhaps it could be used inside mx Rmin. Amazed that hasn't been mentioned as a reason to be enthusiastic about it.

[engineer(retard)]

The gun system was taken out as a savings measure in the late 90s, at about the time the Aden 25 for the GR7 was cancelled. At that time, the Air Staffs were definitely assuming that no cannon would be required in the future. The ensuing saga of the Typhoon gun might be funny if the taxpayer hadn't had to pay so much to play 'Mauser hokey-cokey'.

Hi Engines

This is not quite true and a lot of mythology has grown up around the sequence of events. A slip of the pen turned a savings measure called "no gun training" (because bogus mode was available, the savings measure was intended as a means of reducing range costs) into "no gun". This savings measure was a long way down the pipe before the mistake was picked up. The cost of a modification/ballast etc was introduced as a means of shooting the savings measure down ( no pun intended), nobody ever championed getting rid of the gun. I know I drafted the counter measure (again no pun intended) and outside of staffing the various papers, no industrial costs were involved.

Regarding models, Pk was not used in specifications my time as it needed to much information about the target. Air to air gunnery was also described as trying to thread part cooked spaghetti through a keyhole. Thank you for the rest of the history,very informative.

regards

retard

[orca]

A and C,

What is your definition of high risk?

I only ask because I consider the lead computing task for a manually aimed 'truck mounted AAA' device to be quite tricky given the range a high angle strafe attack will 'open' at. Given the attack will be made at high speed (due to wanting to align the fuselage with the attack) the aircraft should have a sizeable energy package for jinking post 'close'.

Naturally you can ignore sun, atmospherics and fly a predictable path to the open which does play into enemy hands, and other weapon systems available to them (shoulder launched IR, radar laid AAA etc) will raise the risk.

I will also accept that modern views of risk and the under current of losses of both aircraft and aircrew being unacceptable/ unfathomable do lend weight to your argument. I'd still like to know what metric you were using in the probability versus impact grid to give you a 'high'.

[MAINJAFAD]

Anybody know why the guns were not fitted to the Lightning F3?

[Pontius Navigator]

CM, true if you have to fight inside Rmin but not for A-G which really needs deliberation.

orca, true for a single AAA target but, as you said, there are adjacent non-engaged systems to consider.

Even low risk becomes unacceptable if you risk losing 15% of your deployed assets or even 2-3% of your entire force. It is not as if you can churn out another 200 the following month.

Attrition-wise Typhoon is perhaps more expendable.:ooh:

[Davef68]

Anybody know why the guns were not fitted to the Lightning F3?

From memory, the additional bits needed to operate Red Top took up the space used for the cannons in the F1/F2

[Bushfiva]

How many seconds of bullets do the various Tornados carry? How many are required to get a 3 sigma hit on an A2G target? Aeons ago, someone who had substantial power over these decisions said he liked stores on the way out, keeping unjammable bullets on the way back. I suspect that was one reason ADV got to keep its remaining gun.

[Pontius Navigator]

Having watched a lot of strafe and seen the panels beaten I would say the training accuracy was quite good, combat may be less so. However consider CSAR, a gun is a wonderful way of deterring with several passes possible, but best delivered by a 4-ship :)

Brimstone, OTOH, could destroy anyone still in a vehicle. Horses for courses; in o other words a gun is an essential tool in low intensity conflict. What sort of gun is another matter.

[A and C]

The "high" risk designation was for the whole engagement risk, one on one I would put Fast jet vs Truck mounted AAA gun(s) as low risk to the jet and the upper end of the opposite scale for the truck.

The problems come with the remainder of the environment were there are likely to be other AAA assets and may be MANPADs, add to this the danger of any crew who escape from a damaged aircraft are likely to be staring on Utube alongside a well known knife owner from south London and this puts physical/ political risk is at the high end of the scale.

Politicians see the Brimstone in the same way as the Gatwick airport management see forcing me to don a hi-vis vest, it lets them say " I mitigated the risk" and so they can go about their daily business without fear of critics who might damage their carreer.............. Yes the last paragraph is a little tongue in cheek !

[orca]

A and C,

Thank you for the reply, I think we agree - somewhere in the 'very unlikely however catastrophic or unacceptable impact should it occur' frame. Of course, unacceptable depends on your frame of reference which in the current environment is understandable for the reasons you state....however in a Herrick re-run or even Falklands type scenarios where a bit of air to mud can break a dead lock - and British lives are at stake - as it appeared to at Goose Green - then maybe our aircrew would be viewed as a tiny bit more expendable and returning to Mum with bullets in the jet whilst Tom and Bootneck struggled on valiantly would be viewed dimly.

[Pontius Navigator]

orca, was it Nick Harrison in Bosnia?

The RAF of tomorrow simply has not got the numbers today.

[orca]

Richardson!

So, now too small to use anything other than guided weaponry from outside the MEZ? Best we buy some much longer sticks.