Is the RAF "anti-cannon" ?
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.
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.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Cambridge, UK
Age: 45
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
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!
CM:
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 
20mm is for air-to-air not ground targets
Thread Starter
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.
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.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: UK
Age: 30
Posts: 259
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
Personal multi-scenario favourite, twin 27mm Mauser.
Best air to air, whatever gun is fitted in the better turning and burning airframe!
Best air to ground....depends. Best avoided really, apart from the range!
OAP
Best air to air, whatever gun is fitted in the better turning and burning airframe!
Best air to ground....depends. Best avoided really, apart from the range!
OAP
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: UK
Age: 30
Posts: 259
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
Link to large version https://imageshack.com/f/p5aMES7Yj
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Virginia
Posts: 192
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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!!!
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!!!
Last edited by MAINJAFAD; 24th Oct 2014 at 06:17.
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?
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?
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Europe
Posts: 414
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There was a thread last year on cannons for anyone who missed it
http://www.pprune.org/military-aviat...y-cannons.html
JAJ
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
http://www.pprune.org/military-aviat...y-cannons.html
JAJ
And yet the 27mm Mauser is often the weapon of choice in Afghanistan and has been for years.
, 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
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Manchester UK
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
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!
OAP
Multiple target strafe is difficult and can lead to target fixation!
OAP