‘Top Gun’ takes on Taliban upside down
Do a Hover - it avoids G
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Chichester West Sussex UK
Age: 91
Posts: 2,206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Desert Diner
Just some of the many reasons why guns are not at all a weapon of choice when it comes to CAS are:
They are hard to aim, not that accurate and need a period of (relatively) prolonged tracking of the target at a substantial dive angle which leaves you very exposed to even quite primitive weapons in the hands of the enemy. Throw in the fact that the forward air controller can play no part in designating the actual targets to bullets when they are en-route (unlike other stores) and I hope you are starting to see why people may not be bothering to answer your question.
Mind you if your target is unarmed women and children queuing for soup or large isolated hospitals then by all means use a gun - indeed you could even fire from the hover to improve your aim.
Seriously as one CAS pilot said in the mission debrief when he was asked why he dropped his bomb at 560kt instead of the optimum 480kt his answer was "Because the aircraft would not go any faster"
They are hard to aim, not that accurate and need a period of (relatively) prolonged tracking of the target at a substantial dive angle which leaves you very exposed to even quite primitive weapons in the hands of the enemy. Throw in the fact that the forward air controller can play no part in designating the actual targets to bullets when they are en-route (unlike other stores) and I hope you are starting to see why people may not be bothering to answer your question.
Mind you if your target is unarmed women and children queuing for soup or large isolated hospitals then by all means use a gun - indeed you could even fire from the hover to improve your aim.
Seriously as one CAS pilot said in the mission debrief when he was asked why he dropped his bomb at 560kt instead of the optimum 480kt his answer was "Because the aircraft would not go any faster"
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: England
Posts: 362
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
John Farley:
Come off it. Weapon of choice? Like you say CAS depends on what you're having a pop at, and to not have cannon limits your armoury.
I don't think the A10 was designed to take out soup kitchen queues. It does a very good job.
Hovering is for airshows, not Afghanistan.
Come off it. Weapon of choice? Like you say CAS depends on what you're having a pop at, and to not have cannon limits your armoury.
I don't think the A10 was designed to take out soup kitchen queues. It does a very good job.
Hovering is for airshows, not Afghanistan.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 1,771
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'77, you're playing with fire taking on the best Harrier pilot on the planet, JF !
However, not having tried it as you know John, I'd have thought there was a case for a gun ( I only saw the disastrous early trials of the 25mm, it's both heartening & sad to read it finally cut the mustard but was still binned ) - surely you can't take out a bad guy in a jeep or standing alone with a Maverick, maybe not even a Paveway - expensive OTT if witty solutions, and rockets require flying low into RPG range, + have to be less accurate ?
DZ
However, not having tried it as you know John, I'd have thought there was a case for a gun ( I only saw the disastrous early trials of the 25mm, it's both heartening & sad to read it finally cut the mustard but was still binned ) - surely you can't take out a bad guy in a jeep or standing alone with a Maverick, maybe not even a Paveway - expensive OTT if witty solutions, and rockets require flying low into RPG range, + have to be less accurate ?
DZ
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: England
Posts: 362
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I obviously defer to the mighty JF's credentials, but would argue that he is probably not, now the best Harrier pilot in the world.
The best ones are now actually flying it in combat.
Wishing they had a bloody great cannon.
No disrespect intended here to better, and more accomplished men than me.
The best ones are now actually flying it in combat.
Wishing they had a bloody great cannon.
No disrespect intended here to better, and more accomplished men than me.
Do a Hover - it avoids G
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Chichester West Sussex UK
Age: 91
Posts: 2,206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Monty77
Well you are right there Monty I am certainly a has been.
However my post was an attempt to respond to Desert Diner who said “If you think a gun is not required, then please provide a logical explaination” (sic).
I felt DD might appreciate some of the issues that make guns hard/dangerous to use – at least the sort of gun that was considered for the RAF Harriers and used by the USMC. The A-10 was conceived as a Gatling type carrier and that type of gun is a very different and specialist weapon compared to those used on the Harrier.
I am sorry you did not perceive my third para for what it was – a weak attempt at humour and presenting the real risks associated with Harrier type guns - people shooting back as you struggle to keep the piper on the target in the bunting dive that is required as range reduces. I had hoped that by starting the next para with the word ‘Seriously’ before going on to talk about the defensive properties of speed in an overfly type of attack readers would get the point.
If you felt I was making a case for hovering in Afghanistan I can assure you I was not doing anything of the sort.
However my post was an attempt to respond to Desert Diner who said “If you think a gun is not required, then please provide a logical explaination” (sic).
I felt DD might appreciate some of the issues that make guns hard/dangerous to use – at least the sort of gun that was considered for the RAF Harriers and used by the USMC. The A-10 was conceived as a Gatling type carrier and that type of gun is a very different and specialist weapon compared to those used on the Harrier.
I am sorry you did not perceive my third para for what it was – a weak attempt at humour and presenting the real risks associated with Harrier type guns - people shooting back as you struggle to keep the piper on the target in the bunting dive that is required as range reduces. I had hoped that by starting the next para with the word ‘Seriously’ before going on to talk about the defensive properties of speed in an overfly type of attack readers would get the point.
If you felt I was making a case for hovering in Afghanistan I can assure you I was not doing anything of the sort.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Magic Kingdom
Posts: 655
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JF,
Your comments on using a gun were noted and appreciated.
What is not appreciated are sarcastic comments like "how many CAS missions have you flown" or "Come to Kandahar to brief us". That shows simple immaturity as far as I'm concerned.
I still maintain that having a gun for ground attack is critical. The A-10 was built around the gun. Your Harrier doesn't because the program was cancelled. Simple as that.
There may be scenarios where you will not use it, but that is not a reason not to include it. Not if your main CAS targets are soft skins.
I think its more to do that they agree with me. Would you as a pilot prefer not to have a gun on your Harrier if one was available? Simple as that.
Your comments on using a gun were noted and appreciated.
What is not appreciated are sarcastic comments like "how many CAS missions have you flown" or "Come to Kandahar to brief us". That shows simple immaturity as far as I'm concerned.
I still maintain that having a gun for ground attack is critical. The A-10 was built around the gun. Your Harrier doesn't because the program was cancelled. Simple as that.
There may be scenarios where you will not use it, but that is not a reason not to include it. Not if your main CAS targets are soft skins.
I hope you are starting to see why people may not be bothering to answer your question.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Magic Kingdom
Posts: 655
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am sorry you did not perceive my third para for what it was – a weak attempt at humour and presenting the real risks associated with Harrier type guns - people shooting back as you struggle to keep the piper on the target in the bunting dive that is required as range reduces.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why CRV-7 and not a Gun
DD,
You are totally correct that the Harrier GR7/9 does not have a gun because the gun upgrade programme was cancelled. I'm pretty convinced that had we actually got the thing fitted to the aircraft in the mid-90s, that we would be forced to use it today in Afghanistan. However, more through luck than judgement, the Harrier Force has ended up with CRV-7 as its low collateral direct fire weapon and, thankfully so.
Why do I think its better than a gun for Counter Insurgency Ops in 'the Stan'?
1. 2 x pods of CRV-7 are a hell of a lot lighter than a pod-mounted gun and all its ammunition. Hence, we have less of an issue regards all up weight when operating in a hot and high environment with a full warload (including the bombs). However, the 2 pods of rockets actually give you (in general) the same amount of pickle presses as a proper gun.
2. We are fighting a counter insurgency op, where its NOT all about killing people and breaking their stuff. Its about the delivery of effect that allows our forces to provide enough security on the ground to allow the other agencies, out with the military, to conduct reconstruction etc. CRV-7 is an excellent wpn for delivering effect - just firing a single rocket over the heads of an enemy delivers a supersonic crack that generally keeps their heads pinned down long enough to let our troops extract or fight through.
3. CRV-7 can be fired from much further away than a gun however, remains every bit, if not more, as accurate. Therefore, we get to stay out of the threat envelope for longer, which is nice. Moreover, it has more of a punch than your average gun (not counting DU rounds but then UK would never sign up for that!).
4. Because of this extra punch, CRV-7 has a broader utility. It can be used against any light skin tgt (including people) however, it is also very effective against more robust targets. This broad utility means we don't just have a one-trick-pony strapped to our wings therefore, making us a more employable asset in the current theatre (and whatever theatre comes next).
5. I have debriefed with many A10 and F15E pilots in Afghanistan and every single one of them envies our rockets. The USMC are extremely keen to get them refitted to their jets.
6. I have witnessed a hell of a lot more enemy survive gun attacks than CRV-7 attacks.
7. From a pure attack pilot's point of view, its a bloody great weapon to employ; it requires quite a bit of skill from the pilot to be accurate and when employed properly, you actually feel like you have earned some of your flying pay.
That's it. My own opinion of course but I've shot loads of them and love it. MoD was due to get rid of CRV-7 just prior to TELIC but since then we have proved its worth and it is now part and parcel of the new GR9s arsenal.
Cheers
CMaS
You are totally correct that the Harrier GR7/9 does not have a gun because the gun upgrade programme was cancelled. I'm pretty convinced that had we actually got the thing fitted to the aircraft in the mid-90s, that we would be forced to use it today in Afghanistan. However, more through luck than judgement, the Harrier Force has ended up with CRV-7 as its low collateral direct fire weapon and, thankfully so.
Why do I think its better than a gun for Counter Insurgency Ops in 'the Stan'?
1. 2 x pods of CRV-7 are a hell of a lot lighter than a pod-mounted gun and all its ammunition. Hence, we have less of an issue regards all up weight when operating in a hot and high environment with a full warload (including the bombs). However, the 2 pods of rockets actually give you (in general) the same amount of pickle presses as a proper gun.
2. We are fighting a counter insurgency op, where its NOT all about killing people and breaking their stuff. Its about the delivery of effect that allows our forces to provide enough security on the ground to allow the other agencies, out with the military, to conduct reconstruction etc. CRV-7 is an excellent wpn for delivering effect - just firing a single rocket over the heads of an enemy delivers a supersonic crack that generally keeps their heads pinned down long enough to let our troops extract or fight through.
3. CRV-7 can be fired from much further away than a gun however, remains every bit, if not more, as accurate. Therefore, we get to stay out of the threat envelope for longer, which is nice. Moreover, it has more of a punch than your average gun (not counting DU rounds but then UK would never sign up for that!).
4. Because of this extra punch, CRV-7 has a broader utility. It can be used against any light skin tgt (including people) however, it is also very effective against more robust targets. This broad utility means we don't just have a one-trick-pony strapped to our wings therefore, making us a more employable asset in the current theatre (and whatever theatre comes next).
5. I have debriefed with many A10 and F15E pilots in Afghanistan and every single one of them envies our rockets. The USMC are extremely keen to get them refitted to their jets.
6. I have witnessed a hell of a lot more enemy survive gun attacks than CRV-7 attacks.
7. From a pure attack pilot's point of view, its a bloody great weapon to employ; it requires quite a bit of skill from the pilot to be accurate and when employed properly, you actually feel like you have earned some of your flying pay.
That's it. My own opinion of course but I've shot loads of them and love it. MoD was due to get rid of CRV-7 just prior to TELIC but since then we have proved its worth and it is now part and parcel of the new GR9s arsenal.
Cheers
CMaS
Sorry if I offended you Desert Diner - you do come across as a bit of a whining gun-salesman who knows absolutely nothing about current military aviation ops though.
I can assure you that the current RAF/RN Harrier Force would much rather have CRV7 than a cannon for a few reasons that I will not go into here. One rather obvious one is the freeing up of two stations on the belly of the jet for kit that couldn't have been there had we flown with 1 gun and an ammo pod (like the USMC do). The USMC boys have to use an underwing station to fit the targeting pod, hence losing a bomb carrier.
In an ideal world we would have a gun as well, but it just isn't needed (or possible) with the current fit we use. You may well maintain that having a gun for AG ops is critical - but you'd be wrong
I can assure you that the current RAF/RN Harrier Force would much rather have CRV7 than a cannon for a few reasons that I will not go into here. One rather obvious one is the freeing up of two stations on the belly of the jet for kit that couldn't have been there had we flown with 1 gun and an ammo pod (like the USMC do). The USMC boys have to use an underwing station to fit the targeting pod, hence losing a bomb carrier.
In an ideal world we would have a gun as well, but it just isn't needed (or possible) with the current fit we use. You may well maintain that having a gun for AG ops is critical - but you'd be wrong
Last edited by LateArmLive; 4th Jun 2009 at 00:27.
And the exchange here between Phochs3 and FB11 would add further support to LAL's point -I make that a 100% return of 'no, we don't need a gun' from those who actually fly/have flown the aircraft on ops now...
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Firmly grounded, thankfully
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WTFO?
As my slightly loud, Australian, colleagues would say - "Shave a dog, mate!"
Looking back into the mists of time (the first post) I dimly recall that this was a nice piece of PR for a Joint Force Harrier pilot (happened to be Navy - in our 100th year of Aviation) doing a top job in Afghanistan (Simon, good job well done - slightly cheesy photo though) and not an opportunity for the slightly jealous rubber desk johnnies to drip about whether or not the pilots should go into combat with a gun. GR7/9 doesn't have one. The end.
Although obviously they do fly with a gun but I'm suspecting that the disco gun is not very effective from 10kft, especially with the 450kt wind - must make it hard to hold a bead on the little blighters.
Any chance we can return to the normal world now DD?
Looking back into the mists of time (the first post) I dimly recall that this was a nice piece of PR for a Joint Force Harrier pilot (happened to be Navy - in our 100th year of Aviation) doing a top job in Afghanistan (Simon, good job well done - slightly cheesy photo though) and not an opportunity for the slightly jealous rubber desk johnnies to drip about whether or not the pilots should go into combat with a gun. GR7/9 doesn't have one. The end.
Although obviously they do fly with a gun but I'm suspecting that the disco gun is not very effective from 10kft, especially with the 450kt wind - must make it hard to hold a bead on the little blighters.
Any chance we can return to the normal world now DD?
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 1,771
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JF despite his modesty will never be a has-been; there's a huge difference between currency and experience, having had the honour of flying with him in our comms' Dove - we literally didn't know we had landed - I'd go for experience !
I still find it very hard to believe ( having filmed Matra air to ground rockets ) that they are more accurate than guns; I understand you may not be able to explain here.
In Hawk trials we tried a bloody great rocket pod ( 4 in a long pod ) which when fired immediately snuffed the engine in a low dive ' attack ' - when the Test Pilot staggered back after a relight, a fairly heated phone call to the manufacturers ensued.
The answer was " Oh no other jets use them, it makes the engine go funny " - so much for Flight Test research...
I still find it very hard to believe ( having filmed Matra air to ground rockets ) that they are more accurate than guns; I understand you may not be able to explain here.
In Hawk trials we tried a bloody great rocket pod ( 4 in a long pod ) which when fired immediately snuffed the engine in a low dive ' attack ' - when the Test Pilot staggered back after a relight, a fairly heated phone call to the manufacturers ensued.
The answer was " Oh no other jets use them, it makes the engine go funny " - so much for Flight Test research...
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SS and others...
Have to declare an interest here - I was a previous MOD(PE) PM for not only the Aden 25 but also CRV7, so had both sides of the argument!
In truth, at the time the RAF were disinterested in both weapons - the prevailing view was that only precision weapons (Brimstone, 1000lb plus LGBs and cruise missiles) were worth bothering with - how times change!
The choice between rockets and guns is a tough one, and technology makes it harder, in my view. Rockets used to be horribly inaccurate, but the CRV7 family are much, much better and also fast - shorter time of flight is always a good thing. We only had CRV7s as a leftover from GW1, and my main job was helping buy them for Apache. Good job the fixed wing guys caught on...
Guns have not been very accurate, but that has been driven in part by sub-optimal weapons (Aden 30 - slow shell and poor ballistics with a worse warhead) and lack of effort on better aiming technology. The Aden 25 and Mauser 27 both fire good shells, but the UK has done little on precision air to ground aiming methods. With modern optronics and better projectiles, laser ranging and INS/GPS, and integrated fire and flight controls, 'snap' engagements of ground targets should, in my view, be possible with good results.
There's a 'new kid on the block' and that is a laser guidance system for 2.75 rockets. Called APKWS II, and despite a long development is, in my view, a potential winner. Put it on a CRV7, laser illuminate the target and you get a low-collateral damage precision weapon. My bet for a future UOR.
As ever, the choice depends on what you want to do to what from what range - and how much you can spend doing it.
best Regards to all
Engines
Have to declare an interest here - I was a previous MOD(PE) PM for not only the Aden 25 but also CRV7, so had both sides of the argument!
In truth, at the time the RAF were disinterested in both weapons - the prevailing view was that only precision weapons (Brimstone, 1000lb plus LGBs and cruise missiles) were worth bothering with - how times change!
The choice between rockets and guns is a tough one, and technology makes it harder, in my view. Rockets used to be horribly inaccurate, but the CRV7 family are much, much better and also fast - shorter time of flight is always a good thing. We only had CRV7s as a leftover from GW1, and my main job was helping buy them for Apache. Good job the fixed wing guys caught on...
Guns have not been very accurate, but that has been driven in part by sub-optimal weapons (Aden 30 - slow shell and poor ballistics with a worse warhead) and lack of effort on better aiming technology. The Aden 25 and Mauser 27 both fire good shells, but the UK has done little on precision air to ground aiming methods. With modern optronics and better projectiles, laser ranging and INS/GPS, and integrated fire and flight controls, 'snap' engagements of ground targets should, in my view, be possible with good results.
There's a 'new kid on the block' and that is a laser guidance system for 2.75 rockets. Called APKWS II, and despite a long development is, in my view, a potential winner. Put it on a CRV7, laser illuminate the target and you get a low-collateral damage precision weapon. My bet for a future UOR.
As ever, the choice depends on what you want to do to what from what range - and how much you can spend doing it.
best Regards to all
Engines
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 1,771
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, Flaps
I was a technical photographer for BAe before it became ' Systems ' - as I'm sure you know, the point I was making is that if a git like me can aim with a camera, another git with an RPG or Stinger etc can aim too.
I'd guess this puts the rockets / guns question out of the equasion !
I was a technical photographer for BAe before it became ' Systems ' - as I'm sure you know, the point I was making is that if a git like me can aim with a camera, another git with an RPG or Stinger etc can aim too.
I'd guess this puts the rockets / guns question out of the equasion !
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Sandhurst
Age: 50
Posts: 202
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ahh yes but flying upside down in a Maverick style'y confuses the Taliban into holding his Stinger or RPG back to front, thus blowing his oppo's head off.
Did this Naval Aviator flip Terry the bird whilst carrying out this manoeuver? If not then he should not be referred to as 'Top Gun'. He also needs to be able to ride a GPZ up a runway wearing just a pair of Ray bans whilst shouting Yahoo, (other clothing is optional).
Did this Naval Aviator flip Terry the bird whilst carrying out this manoeuver? If not then he should not be referred to as 'Top Gun'. He also needs to be able to ride a GPZ up a runway wearing just a pair of Ray bans whilst shouting Yahoo, (other clothing is optional).