Guns! Guns! Guns!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Stoke
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guns! Guns! Guns!
In this age of missiles with Helmet-slaved IR seeker heads for massive off boresite targetting, has the gun become obsolete? Is it better to have one despite the weight and space it consumes within the aircraft?
If so, then what's the right gun for the job these days? Rotary guns are heavy and bulky but fast firing and all those americans can't be wrong, can they?. Revolvers look like a reasonable compromise (ADEN, BK27 etc) yet the latest Russian aircraft carry the GSh-30-1, which is a linear action gun with a truly remarkable RoF.
If so, then what's the right gun for the job these days? Rotary guns are heavy and bulky but fast firing and all those americans can't be wrong, can they?. Revolvers look like a reasonable compromise (ADEN, BK27 etc) yet the latest Russian aircraft carry the GSh-30-1, which is a linear action gun with a truly remarkable RoF.
Last edited by Pureteenlard; 18th Nov 2004 at 19:45.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: earth
Posts: 1,397
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Has the gun become obsolete? - well, you can't jam a bullet and you can't fire a warning shot with a heat-seeking missile, so I guess the answer is No.
What gun should you carry? - the most lethal one that fits - but don't just carry it as ballast as the Typhoon does.
What gun should you carry? - the most lethal one that fits - but don't just carry it as ballast as the Typhoon does.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They tried doing away with guns in the EE Lightning, didn't they?
Technology has improved but I'll bet some of the points made for having guns in the light of that experience would still be valid - anyone still around who can remember the arguements?
Technology has improved but I'll bet some of the points made for having guns in the light of that experience would still be valid - anyone still around who can remember the arguements?
anyone still around who can remember the arguements?
2. They're bloody good for strafing runs! And if you carry a couple of hundred rounds, you can potentially have a few more goes than if you are only carrying missiles / rockets. Additionally, if said strafing runs are complicated by nearby collateral damage considerations, unless you want to be front page news on every left-wing-tabloid-rag this side of the Atlantic, then a gun or canon would certainly help you to minimise the amount of damage you do outside the target area. After all, guns are a simple things - you point them, you fire them and the rounds go pretty much where you aim. Unlike LGBs - go long / short / designators getting confused by cloud etc, GPS bombs - potentially subject to jamming or simple dings and dents on the bomb case that could alter its ballistic characteristics and put it neatly into the baby milk factory or Chinese Embassy.
3. There will simply be times when a KFF would be total overkill. Unless you're American in which case, ditch the gun and rack em up!
4. They are cheaper than bombs and don't get hung up so often.
Erm nuff said as its late and Mrs M is looking rather fetching in the bedroom. Right there's your starters - I'm sure you can come up with a few more.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Right here (right now)
Posts: 235
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They're bloody good for strafing runs!
We also tried to go sans guns on our aircraft in the 60's, turned out to be a mistake...
Cheers! M2
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: somewhere quite near Brize Norton
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And of course . . .
whats more fun at Donna/Holbeach/Wainfleet ?
. . . the guys in the tower have got to have some sort of entertainment to pass the time . . . ratter tat tat . .
Wainfleet - more cream cakes anyone?
whats more fun at Donna/Holbeach/Wainfleet ?
. . . the guys in the tower have got to have some sort of entertainment to pass the time . . . ratter tat tat . .
Wainfleet - more cream cakes anyone?
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Mind you the Yanks have the gun but can't afford the bullets in training. Watching an F15 make a dry strafe is less interesting than paint drying.
Elderforest is that an exercise? See your PM.
Elderforest is that an exercise? See your PM.
Cunning Artificer
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: The spiritual home of DeHavilland
Age: 76
Posts: 3,127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And if you carry a couple of hundred rounds, you can potentially have a few more goes than if you are only carrying missiles / rockets.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Overlooking the beach, NZ
Posts: 239
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The BIG reason for guns (AD wise) is it is the only way you can engage a helo that has landed. The F3 got the AG gun mode during Bosnia for just that reason. An EFA on a policing mission could only use bad language against a landed helo (unless he got permission to drop an LGB or something....)
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 194
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bakseetblatherer
Why do you think they issued u need 2 know? Large bundles popped out of the cockpit just like in the old days of window will:
a) Hopefully do some damage
b) Make them pi$$ themselves laughing so much that they can't concentrate on their mission
Why do you think they issued u need 2 know? Large bundles popped out of the cockpit just like in the old days of window will:
a) Hopefully do some damage
b) Make them pi$$ themselves laughing so much that they can't concentrate on their mission
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Stoke
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So . . . a qualified "Yes" to the usefulness of an internal gun then?
Are modern IR missiles really that lethal, Melchett, that a gun is now truly a waste of time for air combat? I know they thought that guns were obsolete in the 60's (and found that to be a mistake) but I thought that it was now considered disirable if not essential to have one.
Are modern IR missiles really that lethal, Melchett, that a gun is now truly a waste of time for air combat? I know they thought that guns were obsolete in the 60's (and found that to be a mistake) but I thought that it was now considered disirable if not essential to have one.
Are modern IR missiles really that lethal, Melchett, that a gun is now truly a waste of time for air combat?
As for the Russian / Chinese missiles that us brave western warriors / liberators / invaders would be more likely to come up against... perhaps not; especially the earlier versions like the AA-2/6/ etc. However, put me up against a Flanker with long-burn AA-10D/E going out to 30-50nm (in absoutely ideal conditions - weather, servicaeability, avionics, pilot trg etc) and sorry me old mucka but you'd really want something more than a gun. As I said, in ideal conditions - which you'll rarely achieve, but either way (1) they've both got longer legs than any gun I know of fitted to an ac (2) do you really want to take the chance on getting inside the enemy's firing parameters to find out just how good his missiles are????
I don't. So unless proven to me otherwise that my gun is going to kill the enemy before his IR missiles kill me, then I'm not playing - unless I absolutely I have to. And even then I'll be trying to remember whether I paid my life insurance premiums that month.
But all that said, I still want my gun. It gives me a warm and fuzzy feeling and stops me having to stuff one of the groundcrew inside the fuselage as ballast.
PS before the feds come round hurrumphing - all figures quoted from open source on the net.
