The future of aircraft mounted guns

[jsport]

I was thinking more of DEAD/SEAD targets.

Once they are taken care of, bigger assets can bring in the big suff.

Hardened structures defeat when you really never defeat the IADS (likely the case) requires close big bombs or KE gun. Close big bombs means big craft shot down.

 

[SpudmanWP]

Name a radar dish that can withstand a hit from a 120mm mortar?

No radar means no missiles

No missiles means that the bomber can easily get within 40nmi to pound the snot out of any hardened target it wants to.

 

[jsport]

Name a radar dish that can withstand a hit from a 120mm mortar?

No radar means no missiles

No missiles means that the bomber can easily get within 40nmi to pound the snot out of any hardened target it wants to.

A huge landmass even w/ numbers of VLO UAS assures you never complete SEAD. A 120mm mortar equipped UAS will never get close enough to destroy anything protected by AAA belts (SAMs and radars) as they will be detected w/ advanced techniques and shot down w/ AAA and counter precision munitions technology (Chinese -(PLA has AHEAD guided gun rd tech) and Russian anti-precision munition tech). Even powered JSOWs will also be easily destroyed w/ anti-precision munition tech and precisely guided guns and rds.

Likewise, VLO UAS can not execute attrition of interceptor aircraft hardened structures as they are also surrounded by SAMs w/ AAA belts.

Need real KE @ standoff or watch an expensive fireworks show w/ no result.

 

[kaiserd]

So the argument appears to be that stand-off long range reach is critical against advance air defenses and that somehow (?) a gun is the best way of doing this.

I really don't get the 2nd part of that at all (how remotely realistically could a gun carried in a fighter sized aircraft out-range or even be competitive with bigger guns of the same type and advanced SAMs on the ground and medium & long range AAMs carried by defending fighters?).

As discussed the continuing development of advanced air to ground (and air to air) missiles (tailored or tailor-able to specific target sets & threat levels) would appear to continue to be the best way to go, while the discussed gun developments being potentially more useful for very specific jobs like CAS which are unlikely to be primary roles of expensive top of the range 6th generation fighters which would likely delegate these tasks to cheaper more disposable unmanned UCAVs which everyone would be more willing to risk and lose (and which it would be easier and more realistic to have numbers/ redundancy for).

And wouldn't gun rounds fired at long range with likely highly predictable ballistic trajectories be at least as vulnerable to air defenses as missiles (which can likely be stealthier and fly more complicated approach paths and be more capable of effective evasive measures)?

 

[jsport]

So the argument appears to be that stand-off long range reach is critical against advance air defenses and that somehow (?) a gun is the best way of doing this.

I really don't get the 2nd part of that at all (how remotely realistically could a gun carried in a fighter sized aircraft out-range or even be competitive with bigger guns of the same type and advanced SAMs on the ground and medium & long range AAMs carried by defending fighters?).

As discussed the continuing development of advanced air to ground (and air to air) missiles (tailored or tailor-able to specific target sets & threat levels) would appear to continue to be the best way to go, while the discussed gun developments being potentially more useful for very specific jobs like CAS which are unlikely to be primary roles of expensive top of the range 6th generation fighters which would likely delegate these tasks to cheaper more disposable unmanned UCAVs which everyone would be more willing to risk and lose (and which it would be easier and more realistic to have numbers/ redundancy for).

And wouldn't gun rounds fired at long range with likely highly predictable ballistic trajectories be at least as vulnerable to air defenses as missiles (which can likely be stealthier and fly more complicated approach paths and be more capable of effective evasive measures)?

Please see above posting mods.. FA-XX is not small aircraft a possible FB-XX is even bigger.

AAMs are not catered to threats--they evolve as the tech/contractor develops.(costly and really not advanced as claimed) Raytheon Quickill APS is advanced and its a 40mm interceptor. Helicopters may soon have anti-missile mini missiles so when will fighters. One needs to blow by any defense.

but to address the the ballistics. These are high velocity (difficult for missile to react to by the time the radar has it its over) but as stated Raytheon is developing a rd that can reverse into a oppose slope. Maneuver yes but artillery simple smashes thru a missiles attempted intercept completes trajectory to target. A bunch nails are stopping it.

What will be stopped is US missiles by Counter precision munitions various guided guns, guided rds etc etc.

 

[kaiserd]

So the argument appears to be that stand-off long range reach is critical against advance air defenses and that somehow (?) a gun is the best way of doing this.

I really don't get the 2nd part of that at all (how remotely realistically could a gun carried in a fighter sized aircraft out-range or even be competitive with bigger guns of the same type and advanced SAMs on the ground and medium & long range AAMs carried by defending fighters?).

As discussed the continuing development of advanced air to ground (and air to air) missiles (tailored or tailor-able to specific target sets & threat levels) would appear to continue to be the best way to go, while the discussed gun developments being potentially more useful for very specific jobs like CAS which are unlikely to be primary roles of expensive top of the range 6th generation fighters which would likely delegate these tasks to cheaper more disposable unmanned UCAVs which everyone would be more willing to risk and lose (and which it would be easier and more realistic to have numbers/ redundancy for).

And wouldn't gun rounds fired at long range with likely highly predictable ballistic trajectories be at least as vulnerable to air defenses as missiles (which can likely be stealthier and fly more complicated approach paths and be more capable of effective evasive measures)?

Please see above posting mods.. FA-XX is not small aircraft a possible FB-XX is even bigger.

AAMs are not catered to threats--they evolve as the tech/contractor develops.(costly and really not advanced as claimed) Raytheon Quickill APS is advanced and its a 40mm interceptor. Helicopters may soon have anti-missile mini missiles so when will fighters. One needs to blow by any defense.

but to address the the ballistics. These are high velocity (difficult for missile to react to by the time the radar has it its over) but as stated Raytheon is developing a rd that can reverse into a oppose slope. Maneuver yes but artillery simple smashes thru a missiles attempted intercept completes trajectory to target. A bunch nails are stopping it.

What will be stopped is US missiles by Counter precision munitions various guided guns, guided rds etc etc.

Sorry Jsport I’m not understanding your comments or how they materially address any of the points I (and other contributors) have raised.
If other contributors can provide more clarity it would be greatly appreciated.

Perhaps a separate topic on the future of aircraft mounted guns would help prevent the core topic (US 6th Gen fighters) being sidelined?

 

[jsport]

Non hypersonic Missiles and slow precision munitions are ever more subject to counter-precision munitions technology (you will have to do your own homework.) an advanced EMTC gun ordance would simply be too fast for any of these technologies to defeat and it would have the added bonus of destroying hardened structures (fighters shelters/SAMs/radar sites shelters) ie the Pacific problem-the real goal and it would have 1/5th the logistics ie more shots per sortie than missiles ever could.

 

[kaiserd]

Non hypersonic Missiles and slow precision munitions are ever more subject to counter-precision munitions technology (you will have to do your own homework.) an advanced EMTC gun ordance would simply be too fast for any of these technologies to defeat and it would have the added bonus of destroying hardened structures (fighters shelters/SAMs/radar sites shelters) ie the Pacific problem-the real goal and it would have 1/5th the logistics ie more shots per sortie than missiles ever could.

Are you referring to an aircraft mounted rail gun?
In a fighter sized aircraft? If you are is that even remotely realistic given size and power requirements?
And even if so is combining that with guided precision projectile also remotely realistic?
And if we’re not talking about a rail gun but a developed “conventional” gun then how do you combine a substantial precision projectile with the necessary velocity and range you are advocating within the size and weight constraints associated with a fighter sized aircraft?
And that’s before thinking about the associated new tailored targeting systems to allow accurate shooting of this weapon (be it a rail gun or developed “conventional” gun) and the combined weight and size of the gun and of the number of projectiles a fighter sized aircraft could realistically carry.

So all in all please clarify and explain because at the moment you appear to have identified a genuine problem (the growing lethality of advance air defense systems) but not a realistic solution.

 

[kaiserd]

Non hypersonic Missiles and slow precision munitions are ever more subject to counter-precision munitions technology (you will have to do your own homework.) an advanced EMTC gun ordance would simply be too fast for any of these technologies to defeat and it would have the added bonus of destroying hardened structures (fighters shelters/SAMs/radar sites shelters) ie the Pacific problem-the real goal and it would have 1/5th the logistics ie more shots per sortie than missiles ever could.

Are you referring to an aircraft mounted rail gun?
In a fighter sized aircraft? If you are is that even remotely realistic given size and power requirements?
And even if so is combining that with guided precision projectile also remotely realistic?
And if we’re not talking about a rail gun but a developed “conventional” gun then how do you combine a substantial precision projectile with the necessary velocity and range you are advocating within the size and weight constraints associated with a fighter sized aircraft?
And that’s before thinking about the associated new tailored targeting systems to allow accurate shooting of this weapon (be it a rail gun or developed “conventional” gun) and the combined weight and size of the gun and of the number of projectiles a fighter sized aircraft could realistically carry.

So all in all please clarify and explain because at the moment you appear to have identified a genuine problem (the growing lethality of advance air defense systems) but not a realistic solution.

As an addendum I would also flag the A-10s avenger cannons reported effective max. range (approx. 4,000 feet or 3/4’s of a mile) and absolute max range (approx 12,000 feet, 2 & 1/4 miles) as a benchmark for the order of magnitude change that would need to be seen in the size and range that a round could be thrown with precision in order for your proposed solution to be even very remotely realistic.

 

[jsport]

Non hypersonic Missiles and slow precision munitions are ever more subject to counter-precision munitions technology (you will have to do your own homework.) an advanced EMTC gun ordance would simply be too fast for any of these technologies to defeat and it would have the added bonus of destroying hardened structures (fighters shelters/SAMs/radar sites shelters) ie the Pacific problem-the real goal and it would have 1/5th the logistics ie more shots per sortie than missiles ever could.

Are you referring to an aircraft mounted rail gun?
In a fighter sized aircraft? If you are is that even remotely realistic given size and power requirements?
And even if so is combining that with guided precision projectile also remotely realistic?
And if we’re not talking about a rail gun but a developed “conventional” gun then how do you combine a substantial precision projectile with the necessary velocity and range you are advocating within the size and weight constraints associated with a fighter sized aircraft?
And that’s before thinking about the associated new tailored targeting systems to allow accurate shooting of this weapon (be it a rail gun or developed “conventional” gun) and the combined weight and size of the gun and of the number of projectiles a fighter sized aircraft could realistically carry.

So all in all please clarify and explain because at the moment you appear to have identified a genuine problem (the growing lethality of advance air defense systems) but not a realistic solution.

As an addendum I would also flag the A-10s avenger cannons reported effective max. range (approx. 4,000 feet or 3/4’s of a mile) and absolute max range (approx 12,000 feet, 2 & 1/4 miles) as a benchmark for the order of magnitude change that would need to be seen in the size and range that a round could be thrown with precision in order for your proposed solution to be even very remotely realistic.

An EMTC not railgun w/ next generation energetics which are the size of conventional tank guns. The Future Combat System program perfected the gun. Little research is even needed. The Army is talking about the 1000mile non EMRG. This smaller gun would have rocket assisted high energtic rds w/ ~50 or more miles from altitude.

You simply will not defeat defended targets (the Pacific problem) in the future w/ any alternative. As far as knowing what is realistic. would have know your creds otherwise.. just .... Thinkin again this is going nowhere.

 

[kaiserd]

Non hypersonic Missiles and slow precision munitions are ever more subject to counter-precision munitions technology (you will have to do your own homework.) an advanced EMTC gun ordance would simply be too fast for any of these technologies to defeat and it would have the added bonus of destroying hardened structures (fighters shelters/SAMs/radar sites shelters) ie the Pacific problem-the real goal and it would have 1/5th the logistics ie more shots per sortie than missiles ever could.

Are you referring to an aircraft mounted rail gun?
In a fighter sized aircraft? If you are is that even remotely realistic given size and power requirements?
And even if so is combining that with guided precision projectile also remotely realistic?
And if we’re not talking about a rail gun but a developed “conventional” gun then how do you combine a substantial precision projectile with the necessary velocity and range you are advocating within the size and weight constraints associated with a fighter sized aircraft?
And that’s before thinking about the associated new tailored targeting systems to allow accurate shooting of this weapon (be it a rail gun or developed “conventional” gun) and the combined weight and size of the gun and of the number of projectiles a fighter sized aircraft could realistically carry.

So all in all please clarify and explain because at the moment you appear to have identified a genuine problem (the growing lethality of advance air defense systems) but not a realistic solution.

As an addendum I would also flag the A-10s avenger cannons reported effective max. range (approx. 4,000 feet or 3/4’s of a mile) and absolute max range (approx 12,000 feet, 2 & 1/4 miles) as a benchmark for the order of magnitude change that would need to be seen in the size and range that a round could be thrown with precision in order for your proposed solution to be even very remotely realistic.

An EMTC not railgun w/ next generation energetics which are the size of conventional tank guns. The Future Combat System program perfected the gun. Little research is even needed. The Army is talking about the 1000mile non EMRG. This smaller gun would have rocket assisted high energtic rds w/ ~50 or more miles from altitude.

You simply will not defeat defended targets (the Pacific problem) in the future w/ any alternative. As far as knowing what is realistic. would have know your creds otherwise.. just .... Thinkin again this is going nowhere.

I’ve googled much of what you’ve mentioned.
You appear to be referring to potential future developments of US Army 150mm howitizers that (1) are not at all all capable of the ranges you are ascribing to them and (2) will never realistically fit in a fighte-sized aircraft.
While the US Army appear to have an aspiration for a 1,000 mile range strategic gun I haven’t found any indication of its likely size and weight (presumably would have to be bigger and heavier than current 150mm howitizers so at least equally unrealistic to be expect it to fit in a fighter sized aircraft and there appears to be no aspiration for it to do so.)
So while related gun developments appear to offer the scope for increased range and accuracy versus current aircraft gun systems for very specific tasks (like CAS) the does not appear to be the described “magic bullet” (or magic gun) coming any time remotely soon.

 

[MihoshiK]

Not to mention there will allways be a huge difference in range between a conventional cannon and a recoilless rifle of the same caliber. Unless one makes the round for the rifle unfeasibly large, but at that moment you might as well take a slower burning drive charge, put drive charge in the projectile and... call it a missile. You'll even have the good fortune of no longer needing a barrel, so that's parasitic weight lost.

I still utterly fail to see what a discussion based on a decades old study, two photoshopped pictures and a posters fever dreams is doing in a topic concerning an actual program. We have ZERO indications that a large caliber cannon is going to be adopted for the USAs coming 6th generation fighter, and thus this whole discussion shouldn't be part of this topic.
This belongs in Theoretical and speculative projects.

 

[Foo Fighter]

Agreed, the practical application would appear not to exist. Perhaps the thought of one is what drives this thread but, wherever it is, it is a pointless discussion.

 

[kaiserd]

Not to mention there will allways be a huge difference in range between a conventional cannon and a recoilless rifle of the same caliber. Unless one makes the round for the rifle unfeasibly large, but at that moment you might as well take a slower burning drive charge, put drive charge in the projectile and... call it a missile. You'll even have the good fortune of no longer needing a barrel, so that's parasitic weight lost.

I still utterly fail to see what a discussion based on a decades old study, two photoshopped pictures and a posters fever dreams is doing in a topic concerning an actual program. We have ZERO indications that a large caliber cannon is going to be adopted for the USAs coming 6th generation fighter, and thus this whole discussion shouldn't be part of this topic.
This belongs in Theoretical and speculative projects.

I agree with both MihoshiK & Foo Fighter, no need to take this topic discussion any further down this particular tangential rabbit-hole.

 

[jsport]

There is no informed opinon here whatsoever. A bunch of google bunnies. No historic knowledge of the history of companies like UTron or ETC.

 

[MihoshiK]

There is no informed opinon here whatsoever. A bunch of google bunnies. No historic knowledge of the history of companies like UTron or ETC.

Have you looked in a mirror lately mate?

 

[lastdingo]

This has to be mentioned in context of OP:

 

[jsport]

There is no informed opinon here whatsoever. A bunch of google bunnies. No historic knowledge of the history of companies like UTron or ETC.

Have you looked in a mirror lately mate?

30yrs experience, was in the intell community for 10yrs, had a desk in the Pentagon.
fathered a JCTD.
LO (authority mentioned in the title page of this forum) ended this argument some time ago for those paying attention.
Some disgruntled, uninformed, blogger w/ a grudge ..very pedestrian.
no prob w/ mirror mate.

 

[kaiserd]

There is no informed opinon here whatsoever. A bunch of google bunnies. No historic knowledge of the history of companies like UTron or ETC.

Have you looked in a mirror lately mate?

Hi jsport, in the context of your latest comments I would suggest you think about the intent/purpose of your earlier contributions.
If other contributors have to have pre-existing historic knowledge of companies like UTron or ETC to understand and be convinced by your case then you have no audience and your comments were only for yourself and getting frustrated with us is utterly futile and predictable.
If you were trying to inform and “educate” other contributors/ readers then your incoherence (I had to repeatedly ask for clarification) and clear hostility got in the way and you ultimately frustrated yourself.
We all at times explain something poorly or use wording we would in retrospect regret and would re-think if we could; you are not alone in this and I hope no offense is taken.

Back to topic it is possible you have extremely specialist knowledge and you are right and the rest of us are wrong on the basis of our lack of this specialist knowledge. I would not pretend to be an expert - I’d be at most (very charitably) considered a knowledgeable enthusiast.
However you have failed to provide a coherent convincing case for this and to the rest of us it sounds like you are bending the facts to suit your case rather than the other way around.

 

[jsport]

Politics are the only thing that matters and the missile mob rules now. Technology or even threats, apparently does not.

As stated LO, ended this sometime ago.. not wasting more effort or time on uninformed bloggers w/ a grudge. Nice try

 

[Rickshaw]

First aircraft is, I believe, a Ju288, not a Do217.
The second aircraft is, I believe a Do17, not a Do217, used in a mockup.

What I find interesting about this discussion is that the issue of range and velocity have largely been ignored. A missile has considerably greater quantities of both, whereas the a gun has less. A gun is a good close range, relatively low velocity (unless some exotic means of increasing velocity is used, such as a sabot, liquid propellant, etc.). However, unless the gun's rounds are guided, with some means of post firing impulse to allow increased turns, it will be possible at longer range to out maneuver the rounds. If it has a guidance system and post-launch impulse systems all you are doing is arguing about the means of launching what is essentially a guided missile. It then comes down to which is easier to design into an aircraft? A missile or a gun? I think you'll find the gun loses out because in order to absorb the recoil a heavy structure is required (unless we are discussing a recoil-less weapon?) and if we are talking about guided gun shells, the supposed savings must be questionable...

Some time ago, there was talk of laser guided mini-missiles eventually replacing the gun in fighter aircraft. What ever happened to those?

 

[Airplane]

This would have been neat on a plane, but guns on planes for aerial combat are so 20 years ago.

 

[kcran567]

Are you referring to an aircraft mounted rail gun?
In a fighter sized aircraft? If you are is that even remotely realistic given size and power requirements?
And even if so is combining that with guided precision projectile also remotely realistic?
And if we’re not talking about a rail gun but a developed “conventional” gun then how do you combine a substantial precision projectile with the necessary velocity and range you are advocating within the size and weight constraints associated with a fighter sized aircraft?
And that’s before thinking about the associated new tailored targeting systems to allow accurate shooting of this weapon (be it a rail gun or developed “conventional” gun) and the combined weight and size of the gun and of the number of projectiles a fighter sized aircraft could realistically carry.

So all in all please clarify and explain because at the moment you appear to have identified a genuine problem (the growing lethality of advance air defense systems) but not a realistic solution.

As an addendum I would also flag the A-10s avenger cannons reported effective max. range (approx. 4,000 feet or 3/4’s of a mile) and absolute max range (approx 12,000 feet, 2 & 1/4 miles) as a benchmark for the order of magnitude change that would need to be seen in the size and range that a round could be thrown with precision in order for your proposed solution to be even very remotely realistic.
[/quote]
An EMTC not railgun w/ next generation energetics which are the size of conventional tank guns. The Future Combat System program perfected the gun. Little research is even needed. The Army is talking about the 1000mile non EMRG. This smaller gun would have rocket assisted high energtic rds w/ ~50 or more miles from altitude.

You simply will not defeat defended targets (the Pacific problem) in the future w/ any alternative. As far as knowing what is realistic. would have know your creds otherwise.. just .... Thinkin again this is going nowhere.
[/quote]

I’ve googled much of what you’ve mentioned.
You appear to be referring to potential future developments of US Army 150mm howitizers that (1) are not at all all capable of the ranges you are ascribing to them and (2) will never realistically fit in a fighte-sized aircraft.
While the US Army appear to have an aspiration for a 1,000 mile range strategic gun I haven’t found any indication of its likely size and weight (presumably would have to be bigger and heavier than current 150mm howitizers so at least equally unrealistic to be expect it to fit in a fighter sized aircraft and there appears to be no aspiration for it to do so.)
So while related gun developments appear to offer the scope for increased range and accuracy versus current aircraft gun systems for very specific tasks (like CAS) the does not appear to be the described “magic bullet” (or magic gun) coming any time remotely soon.
[/quote]

You mean like this?

 

[MihoshiK]

There is no informed opinon here whatsoever. A bunch of google bunnies. No historic knowledge of the history of companies like UTron or ETC.

Have you looked in a mirror lately mate?

30yrs experience, was in the intell community for 10yrs, had a desk in the Pentagon.
fathered a JCTD.
LO (authority mentioned in the title page of this forum) ended this argument some time ago for those paying attention.
Some disgruntled, uninformed, blogger w/ a grudge ..very pedestrian.
no prob w/ mirror mate.

And I'm a blue-eyed blonde male supermodel with godlike trombone playing skills who also has a degree in particle physics*. Unless you pony up those credentials or several people vouch for you it's just your word.

But lets assume you're for real. For someone with 30 years of experience, ten of which in Intel, with a desk in the pentagon, you sure sound like an obsessed person who has found the latest ghee-whiz gimmick which will REVOLUTIONIZE WARFARE!, if only people could see your brilliance. There's a reason people mentioned the combat reform website. It's because you sound just like Mike Sparks.

I mean, do you seriously believe that you happened upon something new here? Something utterly forgotten by the military-industrial complex at large for over thirty years?

People have been telling you why this won't work. High parasitic mass and volume, low range compared to missiles, less flexible than being able to pick and choose ordnance for a mission. If random Joes on the internet can point this out to you, do you honestly think industry professionals won't see the same problems? This is plain and simple physics. Back when that study was made, there might have been a point. But technology marches on, and missiles have had decades in both guidance and in propulsion tech to get better. Meanwhile guns are a very mature field. Barring some kind of supermaterials you're not going to get radically improved range performance out of conventional propellant driven guns.
Just look at the Navy's ERGM round. 127 mm, 60 mile range, guided, and with a rocket booster to get it up to that range. The thing never worked properly, and it isn't as if the Navy didn't pour money into it. And that was a round launched from a solid platform which could take the recoil (a recoilles rifle would need several times the propellant of a cannon to get anywhere near to the same performance!). Unfortunately the electronics and guidance section frequently couldn't take that recoil.
Meanwhile we have no problems making rockets and missiles with that kind of range. They're pretty reliable too.

And you're proposing to essentially mount ERGM as a recoilles rifle onto a plane. But why would we? We've already got missiles to do that job!



*Warning. Product might exhibit minor differences from description

 

[Jeb]

This would have been neat on a plane, but guns on planes for aerial combat are so 20 years ago.

I'm instantly reminded of the F-89D's wingtip rocket pods.

 

[Airplane]

This would have been neat on a plane, but guns on planes for aerial combat are so 20 years ago.

I'm instantly reminded of the F-89D's wingtip rocket pods.

Kind of.... but MetalStorm is unique and different.

How does 1,000,000 rounds per minute sound? That's right.... 1 Million dollars, muh ha ha ha ha... Errrr, I mean 1 million rounds per minute.

Just imagine this in 20, 23, or 30mm trim. Wow!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8hlj4EbdsE

Here is the mortar version....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zx_9_RgMPCE

 

[Jeb]

This would have been neat on a plane, but guns on planes for aerial combat are so 20 years ago.

I'm instantly reminded of the F-89D's wingtip rocket pods.

Kind of.... but MetalStorm is unique and different.

Yeah, I remember MetalStorm. Neat concept but as far as I can tell, it dead-ended. I think the two heavy guns on my War Robots video game brawler mech are supposed to be MS-type cannon, working like giant shotguns.

 

[cluttonfred]

The demise of the aircraft-mounted gun has been predicted, and even implemented, before. It didn't work out. See the history of the F-4 Phantom. It's hard to imagine a day when guided ordnance gets so cheap that there is no place for a plain old cannon or machine gun. Even if you want to use a drone for close support (more plausible every day) why would you give up the ability to take out one or two bad guys at low cost?

 

[MihoshiK]

The demise of the aircraft-mounted gun has been predicted, and even implemented, before. It didn't work out. See the history of the F-4 Phantom. It's hard to imagine a day when guided ordnance gets so cheap that there is no place for a plain old cannon or machine gun. Even if you want to use a drone for close support (more plausible every day) why would you give up the ability to take out one or two bad guys at low cost?

We're not talking about removing minor caliber cannons though, jsport wants to mount major caliber recoilles rifles in the 127 mm - 155 mm range into fighters as their principle weapon.

That's a whole different ball of wax.

 

[paralay]

The development of small-caliber guns came to a guided projectile. 57 mm is already a reality. Three projectiles provide a chance of hitting more than 0.9. High rate of fire is no longer needed

 

[jsport]

There is no informed opinon here whatsoever. A bunch of google bunnies. No historic knowledge of the history of companies like UTron or ETC.

Have you looked in a mirror lately mate?

30yrs experience, was in the intell community for 10yrs, had a desk in the Pentagon.
fathered a JCTD.
LO (authority mentioned in the title page of this forum) ended this argument some time ago for those paying attention.
Some disgruntled, uninformed, blogger w/ a grudge ..very pedestrian.
no prob w/ mirror mate.

And I'm a blue-eyed blonde male supermodel with godlike trombone playing skills who also has a degree in particle physics*. Unless you pony up those credentials or several people vouch for you it's just your word.

But lets assume you're for real. For someone with 30 years of experience, ten of which in Intel, with a desk in the pentagon, you sure sound like an obsessed person who has found the latest ghee-whiz gimmick which will REVOLUTIONIZE WARFARE!, if only people could see your brilliance. There's a reason people mentioned the combat reform website. It's because you sound just like Mike Sparks.

I mean, do you seriously believe that you happened upon something new here? Something utterly forgotten by the military-industrial complex at large for over thirty years?

People have been telling you why this won't work. High parasitic mass and volume, low range compared to missiles, less flexible than being able to pick and choose ordnance for a mission. If random Joes on the internet can point this out to you, do you honestly think industry professionals won't see the same problems? This is plain and simple physics. Back when that study was made, there might have been a point. But technology marches on, and missiles have had decades in both guidance and in propulsion tech to get better. Meanwhile guns are a very mature field. Barring some kind of supermaterials you're not going to get radically improved range performance out of conventional propellant driven guns.
Just look at the Navy's ERGM round. 127 mm, 60 mile range, guided, and with a rocket booster to get it up to that range. The thing never worked properly, and it isn't as if the Navy didn't pour money into it. And that was a round launched from a solid platform which could take the recoil (a recoilles rifle would need several times the propellant of a cannon to get anywhere near to the same performance!). Unfortunately the electronics and guidance section frequently couldn't take that recoil.
Meanwhile we have no problems making rockets and missiles with that kind of range. They're pretty reliable too.

And you're proposing to essentially mount ERGM as a recoilles rifle onto a plane. But why would we? We've already got missiles to do that job!



*Warning. Product might exhibit minor differences from description

Again not a single relevant subject to respond to. No railguns, Electrothermal Chemcial (ETC/EMTC) plus next generation energitics. An ARL specialty.

 

[jsport]

Seriously, has everyone been overdoing the eggnog?

While Cannon Fighter depended on a somewhat back-of-the-envelope vehicle and weapon concept and fairly basic ops analysis, it was a serious effort by one of the industry's most innovative thinkers and skilled engineers (Barnes Wallis meets Burt Rutan?) to deal with the Fulda Gap problem (we ran out of anti-armor fires before they ran out of tanks) in the early evolution of the Air Land Battle concept.

The requirement was to put a whole lot of high-Pk fires into the target area without getting killed (the latter being the drawback of the 30-mm.).

It used technology that was futuristic, but real (such as IFFC and guided rounds, and remote-set fused frag rounds). I suspect AWACS is a surrogate for the early Pave Mover concept, which was sensitive at the time.

Now that guided rounds are a reality and migrating into smaller calibers, the gun could make a serious comeback.[/b]

Thank you Mr Sweetman for being a if not thee authority on this forum.


https://www.military.com/defensetech/2018/09/14/army-eyeing-strategic-cannon-tech-1000-mile-range.html

The Army gave EMRG back in the Future Combat Systems times, although that is when the EMTC tank gun was perfected. Next Gen Energetics continue to advanced energies hundreds of times.

"We are looking very hard and starting down the path of hypersonics and also looking at what we call the Strategic Long Range Cannon, which conceivably could have a range of up to 1,000 nautical miles," he said.

 

[MihoshiK]

30yrs experience, was in the intell community for 10yrs, had a desk in the Pentagon.
fathered a JCTD.
LO (authority mentioned in the title page of this forum) ended this argument some time ago for those paying attention.
Some disgruntled, uninformed, blogger w/ a grudge ..very pedestrian.
no prob w/ mirror mate.

And I'm a blue-eyed blonde male supermodel with godlike trombone playing skills who also has a degree in particle physics*. Unless you pony up those credentials or several people vouch for you it's just your word.

But lets assume you're for real. For someone with 30 years of experience, ten of which in Intel, with a desk in the pentagon, you sure sound like an obsessed person who has found the latest ghee-whiz gimmick which will REVOLUTIONIZE WARFARE!, if only people could see your brilliance. There's a reason people mentioned the combat reform website. It's because you sound just like Mike Sparks.

I mean, do you seriously believe that you happened upon something new here? Something utterly forgotten by the military-industrial complex at large for over thirty years?

People have been telling you why this won't work. High parasitic mass and volume, low range compared to missiles, less flexible than being able to pick and choose ordnance for a mission. If random Joes on the internet can point this out to you, do you honestly think industry professionals won't see the same problems? This is plain and simple physics. Back when that study was made, there might have been a point. But technology marches on, and missiles have had decades in both guidance and in propulsion tech to get better. Meanwhile guns are a very mature field. Barring some kind of supermaterials you're not going to get radically improved range performance out of conventional propellant driven guns.
Just look at the Navy's ERGM round. 127 mm, 60 mile range, guided, and with a rocket booster to get it up to that range. The thing never worked properly, and it isn't as if the Navy didn't pour money into it. And that was a round launched from a solid platform which could take the recoil (a recoilles rifle would need several times the propellant of a cannon to get anywhere near to the same performance!). Unfortunately the electronics and guidance section frequently couldn't take that recoil.
Meanwhile we have no problems making rockets and missiles with that kind of range. They're pretty reliable too.

And you're proposing to essentially mount ERGM as a recoilles rifle onto a plane. But why would we? We've already got missiles to do that job!



*Warning. Product might exhibit minor differences from description

Again not a single relevant subject to respond to. No railguns, Electrothermal Chemcial (ETC/EMTC) plus next generation energitics. An ARL specialty.

Again not a single rebuttal of any actual points I made.

Railguns are not recoilless, and not exactly small enough to mount on a plane either, not for what you want to do with it. We know what the Navy's 64 megajoule railgun looks like, you know. ETC, not recoilless, and if you have evidence someone is working on a ETC recoilless rifle, that would be one heck of a coup. Go for it mate, show us the evidence! And yes yes, ARL is working on next generation energetics. That's nice dear. Improved propellants also give a bonus to missiles. They on't fly on unicorn farts, you know?

But we all know by now you won't present a single piece of evidence anyone is actually looking at any of this.

Considering the last real investigation into this was done last century, and not in the nineties either, and your remarks in other topics (Low Observability is passe, nothing more than something for contractors to make money off? Really?), I think that I can safely say that your illustrious career in intelligence was mostly spend in the sanitation department. You certainly seem to have a lot of experience with bullshit.

Edit: Let's fit a large caliber long range railgun onto a jet fighter guys! It should fit right in!

 

[jsport]

Seriously, has everyone been overdoing the eggnog?

While Cannon Fighter depended on a somewhat back-of-the-envelope vehicle and weapon concept and fairly basic ops analysis, it was a serious effort by one of the industry's most innovative thinkers and skilled engineers (Barnes Wallis meets Burt Rutan?) to deal with the Fulda Gap problem (we ran out of anti-armor fires before they ran out of tanks) in the early evolution of the Air Land Battle concept.

The requirement was to put a whole lot of high-Pk fires into the target area without getting killed (the latter being the drawback of the 30-mm.).

It used technology that was futuristic, but real (such as IFFC and guided rounds, and remote-set fused frag rounds). I suspect AWACS is a surrogate for the early Pave Mover concept, which was sensitive at the time.

Now that guided rounds are a reality and migrating into smaller calibers, the gun could make a serious comeback.[/b]

Thank you Mr Sweetman for being a if not thee authority on this forum.


https://www.military.com/defensetech/2018/09/14/army-eyeing-strategic-cannon-tech-1000-mile-range.html

The Army gave EMRG back in the Future Combat Systems times, although that is when the EMTC tank gun was perfected. Next Gen Energetics continue to advanced energies hundreds of times.

"We are looking very hard and starting down the path of hypersonics and also looking at what we call the Strategic Long Range Cannon, which conceivably could have a range of up to 1,000 nautical miles," he said.

 

[Colonial-Marine]

I've read on these same boards that EMTC tank guns didn't really work out well, the added complexity and weight not being worth the performance.

As for Army developments in artillery I'll wait until I actually see them fielded. I'd be pleased just to see an advanced "conventional" 155mm self-propelled gun to replace the M109A7/A8 or whatever its going to get up to.

 

[jsport]

I've read on these same boards that EMTC tank guns didn't really work out well, the added complexity and weight not being worth the performance.

As for Army developments in artillery I'll wait to I actually see them fielded. I'd be pleased just to see an advanced "conventional" 155mm self-propelled gun to replace the M109A7/A8 or whatever its going to get up to.

The US was not the only one to perfect and cost was an issue even in Europe as well again advanced teh easy to perfect. USN Automatic 60mm ETC was demonstrated and video posted on the this forum functioning as an automatic.

 

[Airplane]

The demise of the aircraft-mounted gun has been predicted, and even implemented, before. It didn't work out. See the history of the F-4 Phantom. It's hard to imagine a day when guided ordnance gets so cheap that there is no place for a plain old cannon or machine gun. Even if you want to use a drone for close support (more plausible every day) why would you give up the ability to take out one or two bad guys at low cost?

The phantom was a fleet interceptor and didn't need a gun for that mission. It was employed as a fighter. It didn't take a physicist to know missiles of the day sucked goose eggs and guns were still needed. It was stifling politics that led to that failure. I would take a gunless lo fighter with 2 aim9x any day and save the weight of the gun for fuel or better t/w. Guns are dead except for a2g. I remember the phantom, no need to look it up.

If you expend your aams the last thing you went to do as a aviator is close into a furball and throw away your stealth and situation awareness to throw bullets. Real life ain't like the finale of top gun.

Even a hornet can shoot a raptor. :

I don't know much about future aams but hopefully pca ngad will come equipped with 2 to 3 9x.

 

[GWrecks]

Do you folks have any hunch that guided shells might make aircraft-mounted guns relevant again?

I mean, I thought that up after reading this thread for fifteen seconds, so I'm probably not considering things closely.

 

[Airplane]

Do you folks have any hunch that guided shells might make aircraft-mounted guns relevant again?

I mean, I thought that up after reading this thread for fifteen seconds, so I'm probably not considering things closely.

Shells on airplanes? C130 gunship. Else, go back to ww2 and not to 6th gen machines. Missiles and the vague term directed energy are the future. We've all seen guided bullets on history or science channel.... Will never see it on a US fighter, especially for a2a. Missiles are better. Launch. Leave. Don't even turn towards your prey.

Maybe we should add navigators or flight engineers to 6th gen as well to lighten pilot load.

 

[_Del_]

Maybe we should add navigators or flight engineers to 6th gen as well to lighten pilot load.

We will.

I think there's a place for a gun in tactical fighters. A2G especially. There will almost certainly be times in A2A that you're unable to control engagement distance or to disengage despite any signature advantages. Maybe even 40mm or 60mm guided shells from an autocannon that you could lob a dozen at a time from a distance like an airborne mortar someday. There may be a niche there if you can tackle the details. The more range you want, the more rapidly the missile/rocket solution starts making lots more sense than the cannon though.


It isn't going to be a rail gun or giant recoilless with ridiculous range anytime in the next 25 years. I'm not convinced we're exceptionally close to a practical DEW that fits in tactical aircraft either. That seems like a better option for several reasons if it became available.