The future of aircraft mounted guns

[Dilandu]

IMHO, of course, but the retractable pod of small-size, short-range laser guided missiles may be a better solution than gun. Less recoil, more hitting power per projectile, better against maneuvering & small targets.

Considering that even large drones now could carry short-range AAM, the gun seems not a optimal weapon even against such "light" targets.

 

[marauder2048]

Defeating a large number of hardened aircraft shelters, aboveground munitions bunkers etc. at airfields
is going to require a large number of accurate penetrator munitions.

Getting high-loadout per sortie typically drives you towards smaller, rocket boosted penetrator designs.
But the rocket motor is still a large portion, mass-wise and potentially volume-wise of the design:
Lockheed described a 2700 lb rocket boosted penetrator where the rocket was 1000 lbs of that total.

But *if* you could get substantial boost from from a gun some relatively small penetrators can do
some real damage; Sandia described a 30 inch length, 95 pound, 4 inch diameter monolithic ballasted
penetrator that at an impact velocity of 3050 fps penetrated 12 feet of 5000 psi concrete.

Achieving the above is a huge, maybe impractical reach for airborne guns but one of those
things that's worth at least examining given the proliferation of hardened targets.

 

[Dilandu]

But *if* you could get substantial boost from from a gun some relatively small penetrators can do
some real damage; Sandia described a 30 inch length, 95 pound, 4 inch diameter monolithic ballasted
penetrator that at an impact velocity of 3050 fps penetrated 12 feet of 5000 psi concrete.

I REALLY doubt that you could achieve a required penetration from the gun of tactical aircraft size... Something like "Spectre" gunboat, armed with heavy cannon, might do the trick.

Must also point out, that aircraft shelters are usually heavily protected by SAM's & AA guns, so the idea of strafing them with tactical aircraft does not look good.

 

[marauder2048]

I REALLY doubt that you could achieve a required penetration from the gun of tactical aircraft size... Something like "Spectre" gunboat, armed with heavy cannon, might do the trick.

Must also point out, that aircraft shelters are usually heavily protected by SAM's & AA guns, so the idea of strafing them with tactical aircraft does not look good.

I'm not sure that it's strafing in the conventional sense but you're probably right in that it's not
going to be for something that's been considered tactical aircraft size.

There's some semi-recent AFRL work on airborne railguns in transport aircraft which seems to
stem from McNab et al's AFOSR sponsored work on airborne railgun launched small sats.

 

[Dilandu]

There's some semi-recent AFRL work on airborne railguns in transport aircraft which seems to
stem from McNab et al's AFOSR sponsored work on airborne railgun launched small sats.

It is possible, yes, but it would clearly took a lot of time to develop a working example. By now, only the Chinese naval railgun is seems to be anywhere close to actual weapon system. Dahlgren one is still on static prototype stage, not clear about Blitzer.

 

[lastdingo]

Defeating a large number of hardened aircraft shelters, aboveground munitions bunkers etc. at airfields
is going to require a large number of accurate penetrator munitions.

Getting high-loadout per sortie typically drives you towards smaller, rocket boosted penetrator designs.
But the rocket motor is still a large portion, mass-wise and potentially volume-wise of the design:
Lockheed described a 2700 lb rocket boosted penetrator where the rocket was 1000 lbs of that total.

But *if* you could get substantial boost from from a gun some relatively small penetrators can do
some real damage; Sandia described a 30 inch length, 95 pound, 4 inch diameter monolithic ballasted
penetrator that at an impact velocity of 3050 fps penetrated 12 feet of 5000 psi concrete.

It's been shown that SDB can defeat ordinary hardened aircraft shelters. A normal Central European airbase could have all its HVTs hit with effect by a 4-ship F-16 flight.
Even smaller bombs could do the trick if they were equipped with a structure-weakening precursor shaped charge.
Long ago (IIRC 90's or ealy 00's) I saw an article about a M0.7 Tomahawk penetrating metres of high quality reinforced concrete by employing shaped charge + follow-through warhead in a R&D test.
That's actually really, really old tech; Germans already applied a precursor shaped charge to a SD 250 bomb in WW2 (see "German Explosive Ordnance" on Scribd, I also blogged about it ages ago).

Rocket boosting for penetration (no need to elaborate on how Germans did it in WW2 already as well, right?) was used for Durandal IIRC, but right away I don#t remember any other prominent somewhat modern examples.

 

[jsport]

Precision guided bombs will simply be shot down. Must have standoff and speed or even your bombs and missiles are defeated by SAM and AAA belts.

https://www.nairaland.com/3220297/technical-discussions-international-military-equipments/5

"NORINCO is currently marketing a complete family of 35 mm ammunition including high-explosive incendiary (HEI), high-explosive incendiary-tracer (HEI-T), and semi-armour piercing HEI-T (SAPHEI-T) with all of these having a muzzle velocity of 1,175 m/s and fitted with a self-destruct fuze. In addition it can fire the recently developed Programmable Time Fuze Pre-fragmented (PTFP) round, which has a muzzle velocity of 1,050 m/s.

This contains more than 100 spin-stabilised tungsten sub-projectiles and is optimised to engage smaller targets such as unmanned aerial vehicles and is equivalent to the Rheinmetall Air Defence 35 mm Advanced Hit Efficient And Destruction (AHEAD) ammunition. This 35 mm ammunition can also be fired by the Chinese PG99 35 mm anti-aircraft gun (AAG), truck-mounted CS/SA1 twin 35 mm AAG, and the Rheinmetall Air Defence 35 mm KD series twin towed 35 mm AAG."

 

[Dilandu]

Precision guided bombs will simply be shot down.

IMHO, it would be simpler to just equip bombs with chaff & deployable lightweight decoys with similar radar cross-section.

 

[jsport]

Precision guided bombs will simply be shot down.

IMHO, it would be simpler to just equip bombs with chaff & deployable lightweight decoys with similar radar cross-section.

there is little decoying opportunity at the response distances we are discussing.

 

[_Del_]

Must have standoff and speed or even your bombs and missiles are defeated by SAM and AAA belts.

I guess I'm confused on how an auto-cannon, or even super-howitzer, mounted on a tactical aircraft will result in more standoff range or higher munition velocities in the target area.

Also, if the IADS is competent enough to knockout significant portions of your PGM loadout, the ability to put multiple munitions on target quickly and in a sustained manner becomes key. I'm not clear that an air-howitzer and associated advanced munitions are going to allow a higher or sustainable rate of fire than a comparable weight of other more conventional range of PGM's like bombs, missiles, rockets.

That scenario would seem to call for something like the old AGM-124 concept or rather larger missiles with submunitions targeting air-defense sites. Perhaps taking advantage of a MALD package delivery.

Bonus points for not having to drag along the air-howitzer on all the missions that don't require it.

 

[GTX]

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?

Never ceases to amuse me when people enviably bring up the spectre of the F-4 Phantom II and by default the Vietnam war in these sorts of debates. The Missile Technology used in Vietnam was 1950s/1960s technology. This was 50+ years ago!!! Anyone want to say that their TV or Music system from 50 years ago is better than that from today...honestly? This sort of argument is no different to those who before WWII were saying that aircraft had to be open cockpit biplanes so as to dogfight. It would also have us still fighting modern Wars with canvas covered mainplanes and rifle calibre guns (if that).

 

[jsport]

Must have standoff and speed or even your bombs and missiles are defeated by SAM and AAA belts.

I guess I'm confused on how an auto-cannon, or even super-howitzer, mounted on a tactical aircraft will result in more standoff range or higher munition velocities in the target area.

Also, if the IADS is competent enough to knockout significant portions of your PGM loadout, the ability to put multiple munitions on target quickly and in a sustained manner becomes key. I'm not clear that an air-howitzer and associated advanced munitions are going to allow a higher or sustainable rate of fire than a comparable weight of other more conventional range of PGM's like bombs, missiles, rockets.

That scenario would seem to call for something like the old AGM-124 concept or rather larger missiles with submunitions targeting air-defense sites. Perhaps taking advantage of a MALD package delivery.

Bonus points for not having to drag along the air-howitzer on all the missions that don't require it.

A 1 megajoule SAM vs a 10 megajoule projectile (light gas ETC EMRG etc (projectile 1/5th at the logistics also) the gun projectile keeps goin even if it ever tracked. IADS simply can not react fast enough and again small projectiles are their own stealth.
Modern material science would allow a barrel be built as part of the fuselage. It is recoiless so very breech mechanism weight. So dont see real weight w/ decent science.
Not sure how missile launch could ever compete w/ automatic fire.

These AAA belts are dense w/ ever increasing fire control overtime and would never likely be overcome by submuntions completely. Therefore the slower PGMs always being attrted at high rates.

 

[_Del_]

I can imagine few things I'd less like than making the barrel of a high-energy weapon exposed to brutal wear and tear and extremely short shelf-life an integral part of my fuselage.

You also have to lug gunpowder, gas storage/distribution mechanisms, and a power source along with the projectiles for your ELGGun. ETC isn't exactly mature; are we sure it scales down? How do you power your automatic, recoiless railgun without adding substantial weight gain? How do you charge capacitors quickly enough to produce your stream of "automatic fire"? Are our "smart" projectiles hardened to take the g-load of your hyper velocity super-cannon? Are you looking at smaller sizes yet? Or are you stuck on making a 120mm recoiless autocannon? Has some great revolution taken place that I'm unaware of?

 

[MihoshiK]

I can imagine few things I'd less like than making the barrel of a high-energy weapon exposed to brutal wear and tear and extremely short shelf-life an integral part of my fuselage.

You also have to lug gunpowder, gas storage/distribution mechanisms, and a power source along with the projectiles for your ELGGun. ETC isn't exactly mature; are we sure it scales down? How do you power your automatic, recoiless railgun without adding substantial weight gain? How do you charge capacitors quickly enough to produce your stream of "automatic fire"? Are our "smart" projectiles hardened to take the g-load of your hyper velocity super-cannon? Are you looking at smaller sizes yet? Or are you stuck on making a 120mm recoiless autocannon? Has some great revolution taken place that I'm unaware of?

I'm sure these are all just minor* details!


*Warning: Details might be more complicated than advertized.

 

[jsport]

I can imagine few things I'd less like than making the barrel of a high-energy weapon exposed to brutal wear and tear and extremely short shelf-life an integral part of my fuselage.

You also have to lug gunpowder, gas storage/distribution mechanisms, and a power source along with the projectiles for your ELGGun. ETC isn't exactly mature; are we sure it scales down? How do you power your automatic, recoiless railgun without adding substantial weight gain? How do you charge capacitors quickly enough to produce your stream of "automatic fire"? Are our "smart" projectiles hardened to take the g-load of your hyper velocity super-cannon? Are you looking at smaller sizes yet? Or are you stuck on making a 120mm recoiless autocannon? Has some great revolution taken place that I'm unaware of?

We are not aware of much on this forum we'll agree on that. I'll keep my opinion and you yours. Material science has went wild some time ago and much has even been discussed on this forum. Light gas and even coilguns have been being developed for decades. Not going argue it. AF is interested a railgun it just keeps goin.

 

[jsport]

I can imagine few things I'd less like than making the barrel of a high-energy weapon exposed to brutal wear and tear and extremely short shelf-life an integral part of my fuselage.

You also have to lug gunpowder, gas storage/distribution mechanisms, and a power source along with the projectiles for your ELGGun. ETC isn't exactly mature; are we sure it scales down? How do you power your automatic, recoiless railgun without adding substantial weight gain? How do you charge capacitors quickly enough to produce your stream of "automatic fire"? Are our "smart" projectiles hardened to take the g-load of your hyper velocity super-cannon? Are you looking at smaller sizes yet? Or are you stuck on making a 120mm recoiless autocannon? Has some great revolution taken place that I'm unaware of?

I'm sure these are all just minor* details!


*Warning: Details might be more complicated than advertized.

When folks actually start contributing rather than being a hater w/ no innovation one might pay attention.

 

[kcran567]

I've asked this question before that might relate to this discussion, but never got a good answer...

In the 80's/90's there was an F-15 with a computer controlled gun aiming/Laying system where the F-15 was able to shoot targets with its cannon bursts very accurately beyond visual ranges. The computer taking control from the pilot to fire short bursts. The system worked very well but was too expansive and/or "pilots didn't like it," which seems stupid to me because why wouldn't pilots want to able to shoot air to air and other targets with their cannon beyond visual range even if it was something at the time only a computer would do?
Apparently the Mig-29 (operationally) had such an automatic cannon laying system as well? I can no longer find the thread on this forum or anywhere else on this topic.
Why would a system like this not find its way on a future fighter, and would it be useful when future more advanced gun systems are developed for beyond visual range uses?

And anybody who knows about the F-15/Mig-29 systems please share.

 

[_Del_]

I'm sure things will keep on going.

Light gas guns and rail/coil guns continue to be demonstrated, it's true. But an ELGG isn't a quickly reusable "automatic firing" system in an incarnation. I don't think anyone is even looking at that. GA actually has a railgun it thinks is near ready. It (Blitzer) takes two giant generators connected to the massive railgun. The 3MJ system takes three tractor trailers. It certainly isn't recoilless. I suppose given enough time and money, one might get that down to a size useful for tactical fighter aircraft, but it won't be anytime soon. We're probably much closer to a useful DEW than that.
Why not go for a laser or particle (proton) beam if you have that sort of space and power?

Why would a system like this not find its way on a future fighter, and would it be useful when future more advanced gun systems are developed for beyond visual range uses?

I've only sort of skimmed the topic, but I imagine something like this especially with slightly larger, perhaps even "smart", shells is/could be viable near-future. Even 40-60mm with a high-enough rate of fire could be a menace if you're just lofting shells ballistically into a pattern the target is likely to have to fly through at (in terms of a gun engagement) long-range. To evade, they have to first be aware and then maneuver -- which puts you back in the driver's seat to either continue to close or to disengage. Being able to do that against ground targets seems even easier to do and just as useful. This is basically what I had in mind with my first post.

I just don't see the viability for a giant howitzer anytime soon.

 

[LowObservable]

Kcran - that was Integrated Fire and Flight Control or IFFC. If I recall correctly, you put the target in a HUD reticle, pulled the trigger, and the radar and FCS put the airplane in the right position and fired the gun. It was expensive to test because it invariably zorched the target into fairy dust.

I've seen a reference that suggests that something similar was implemented on the JA 37, with its big nasty 30 mm. Painful. But not for long.

 

[jsport]

I'm sure things will keep on going.

Light gas guns and rail/coil guns continue to be demonstrated, it's true. But an ELGG isn't a quickly reusable "automatic firing" system in an incarnation. I don't think anyone is even looking at that. GA actually has a railgun it thinks is near ready. It (Blitzer) takes two giant generators connected to the massive railgun. The 3MJ system takes three tractor trailers. It certainly isn't recoilless. I suppose given enough time and money, one might get that down to a size useful for tactical fighter aircraft, but it won't be anytime soon. We're probably much closer to a useful DEW than that.
Why not go for a laser or particle (proton) beam if you have that sort of space and power?

Why would a system like this not find its way on a future fighter, and would it be useful when future more advanced gun systems are developed for beyond visual range uses?

I've only sort of skimmed the topic, but I imagine something like this especially with slightly larger, perhaps even "smart", shells is/could be viable near-future. Even 40-60mm with a high-enough rate of fire could be a menace if you're just lofting shells ballistically into a pattern the target is likely to have to fly through at (in terms of a gun engagement) long-range. To evade, they have to first be aware and then maneuver -- which puts you back in the driver's seat to either continue to close or to disengage. Being able to do that against ground targets seems even easier to do and just as useful. This is basically what I had in mind with my first post.

I just don't see the viability for a giant howitzer anytime soon.

A 60mm ETC already developed and tested could add w/ rocket assisted rds (always the assumption) would be an over the horizon AAA/ SAM suppressor. Yes EMTC 30mms have been studied heavy. Pg 174 of the FA-XX thread..

The aircraft would be a gun/missile launcher essentially anyway. Missiles evolution should be toward being fired by guns. Just like UAS and munitions are melding into one so should missiles/gun projectiles.

A Naval gun or the Army's 1000mile gun will be contenders and should be. Service rivalry does feed the options. However, these other guns WOULD be reacted to by air defense due to their distance. An aircraft would be too fast to react to and thus be able to degrade IADS enough for the Naval and Army gun to then take over. Therefore, If you don start developing a aircraft gun.... Not a fan of EMRG anyway, and not sure how you know an ELGG is not an automatic. May not be fast but automatic may well already have been perfected. We dont know if it is being looked at and again politics over tech. Could easily be worked on and slow automatic easily made. An simple ETC w/ next gen energetics (both in the firing and in the rocket) as stated earlier does need to be a ELGG and may well match its extreme performance.

Likewise electronics taking G-load aint a thing.

A deep magazine PBW is an alternative, but current DEWs dont have the range and can be countered thus survive AAA/SAM belts. Yes PBW argues for a large craft, a FB-XX at least.

 

[DrRansom]

From what LowObservable said, the Cannon Fighter is a niche solution to a niche problem - lots of tanks in the narrow space of WW3 Germany. That isn't really the case in either Europe or Pacific - hostile force concentrations are going to be much lower than 1980s central front.

For technological advances, I don't think that guided rounds will be a major advantage for aircraft; the GAU-8 has the benefit of low dispersion with no guidance and little warhead. Guided rounds seem to be more important for CRAM / C-UAV missions.


What I think will be more important is the ~10km stand-off munition with some form of point-defense defeat technology: perhaps cooperative swarm or cooperate ECM / decoys.

 

[jsport]

From what LowObservable said, the Cannon Fighter is a niche solution to a niche problem - lots of tanks in the narrow space of WW3 Germany. That isn't really the case in either Europe or Pacific - hostile force concentrations are going to be much lower than 1980s central front.

For technological advances, I don't think that guided rounds will be a major advantage for aircraft; the GAU-8 has the benefit of low dispersion with no guidance and little warhead. Guided rounds seem to be more important for CRAM / C-UAV missions.


What I think will be more important is the ~10km stand-off munition with some form of point-defense defeat technology: perhaps cooperative swarm or cooperate ECM / decoys.

One has to get the swarm (high volumn inside small fighter travel a long distance) there. Much like tanks in WW3 you dispersed armored targets in the form of hardened structures and nasty capable AAA guns. HAve you seen the PLA AAA belts. Highly dense. Swarming minis don't defeat armor or hardened structures. Wont even defeat any 35mm w/ AHEADs. AHEADs will knock down all day. In fact LO analogy fits well.

PS Fit better in anti-island invasion .

 

[marauder2048]

It's been shown that SDB can defeat ordinary hardened aircraft shelters. A normal Central European airbase could have all its HVTs hit with effect by a 4-ship F-16 flight.
Even smaller bombs could do the trick if they were equipped with a structure-weakening precursor shaped charge.
Long ago (IIRC 90's or ealy 00's) I saw an article about a M0.7 Tomahawk penetrating metres of high quality reinforced concrete by employing shaped charge + follow-through warhead in a R&D test.
That's actually really, really old tech; Germans already applied a precursor shaped charge to a SD 250 bomb in WW2 (see "German Explosive Ordnance" on Scribd, I also blogged about it ages ago).

Rocket boosting for penetration (no need to elaborate on how Germans did it in WW2 already as well, right?) was used for Durandal IIRC, but right away I don#t remember any other prominent somewhat modern examples.

The issue with all of these is that the the angle of obliquity requirements for the penetrator results in very predictable trajectories
which makes the sub-sonic weapons vulnerable to the terminal defenses jsport has mentioned; the boosted
weapons typically first align themselves with the target and then boost in the last few seconds (few thousand feet) of flight.

For the high-loadout, precursor shaped charge penetrators, JSOW unitary with BROACH can penetrate 4-5 feet of 2000 psi concrete.
and a 1000 lb penetrator (BLU-109 dimensions) with a shaped charge precursor is in the same penetration range for 5500 psi concrete.

But the ultra-high performance concrete that's available, with inherent anti-spalling and better resistance
to shaped charges is in the 16,000 psi - 35,000 psi range at ~ 5x the cost of standard concrete.

 

[Dilandu]

Not sure how missile launch could ever compete w/ automatic fire.

Actually, they could rather easily, because the missile launch required very little mechanical action & very little stress to the launching aircraft. Notice how fast helicopter-launched rockets - like classic Hydra - could be fired.

 

[kcran567]

Thanks Low Observable...

https://youtu.be/lUI0ffvZfPY

 

[MihoshiK]

Not sure how missile launch could ever compete w/ automatic fire.

Actually, they could rather easily, because the missile launch required very little mechanical action & very little stress to the launching aircraft. Notice how fast helicopter-launched rockets - like classic Hydra - could be fired.

And they make laser-guided add-on kits for those nowadays. Much more guaranteed to survive launch than from out of a cannon barrel.

 

[kaiserd]

Not sure how missile launch could ever compete w/ automatic fire.

Actually, they could rather easily, because the missile launch required very little mechanical action & very little stress to the launching aircraft. Notice how fast helicopter-launched rockets - like classic Hydra - could be fired.

And they make laser-guided add-on kits for those nowadays. Much more guaranteed to survive launch than from out of a cannon barrel.

So - as the one contributor contends - we are supposed to be talking about a system with a very high rate of fire (automatic), recoil-less, very high velocity & very long range (able to out-range and defeat with sheer velocity the most advance defences, including those using larger longer range ground based versions of the same gun technology), with large and extremely accurate and versatile precision rounds, and with an associated weapon system to allow extremely long range high velocity shooting day and night in all conditions, all with the size and weight and power demands that would allow it to fit inside a fighter sized 6th generation advanced high-tier fighter aircraft, with a magazine of rounds that would be superior than equivalent missiles in the same the same overall weight, dimensions, etc.
For the same (or less) development and procurement risks, costs, time and effort as expending all of this on equivalent missiles development and procurement.

And that’s supposed to be a clear, reasonable and credible proposition?

If such technology had any realistic likelihood of existing wouldn’t the larger more capable ground based versions chew-up any aircraft and gun rounds that it fires unless the aircraft uses a mixture of avoiding detection and out-ranging that weapon with different (missile) technology?

 

[MihoshiK]

Not sure how missile launch could ever compete w/ automatic fire.

Actually, they could rather easily, because the missile launch required very little mechanical action & very little stress to the launching aircraft. Notice how fast helicopter-launched rockets - like classic Hydra - could be fired.

And they make laser-guided add-on kits for those nowadays. Much more guaranteed to survive launch than from out of a cannon barrel.

So - as the one contributor contends - we are supposed to be talking about a system with a very high rate of fire (automatic), recoil-less, very high velocity & very long range (able to out-range and defeat with sheer velocity the most advance defences, including those using larger longer range ground based versions of the same gun technology), with large and extremely accurate and versatile precision rounds, and with an associated weapon system to allow extremely long range high velocity shooting day and night in all conditions, all with the size and weight and power demands that would allow it to fit inside a fighter sized 6th generation advanced high-tier fighter aircraft, with a magazine of rounds that would be superior than equivalent missiles in the same the same overall weight, dimensions, etc.
For the same (or less) development and procurement risks, costs, time and effort as expending all of this on equivalent missiles development and procurement.

And that’s supposed to be a clear, reasonable and credible proposition?

If such technology had any realistic likelihood of existing wouldn’t the larger more capable ground based versions chew-up any aircraft and gun rounds that it fires unless the aircraft uses a mixture of avoiding detection and out-ranging that weapon with different (missile) technology?

Well, to be honest, a similar argument can be made for missiles and missile based defenses. But yes, a paradigm shift in cannon capabilities would go both ways. So OP is basically totally proposing a completely new class of wunderwaffe with unheard of performance for little actual gain. And he wanted to put it in currently in-development 6th generation fighters.

Because forty years ago a smart man proposed something that was looked at and then discarded by equally smart people. I mean, wargaming simulations and such aren't actually done by total morons...

 

[jsport]

Not sure how missile launch could ever compete w/ automatic fire.

Actually, they could rather easily, because the missile launch required very little mechanical action & very little stress to the launching aircraft. Notice how fast helicopter-launched rockets - like classic Hydra - could be fired.

And they make laser-guided add-on kits for those nowadays. Much more guaranteed to survive launch than from out of a cannon barrel.

So - as the one contributor contends - we are supposed to be talking about a system with a very high rate of fire (automatic), recoil-less, very high velocity & very long range (able to out-range and defeat with sheer velocity the most advance defences, including those using larger longer range ground based versions of the same gun technology), with large and extremely accurate and versatile precision rounds, and with an associated weapon system to allow extremely long range high velocity shooting day and night in all conditions, all with the size and weight and power demands that would allow it to fit inside a fighter sized 6th generation advanced high-tier fighter aircraft, with a magazine of rounds that would be superior than equivalent missiles in the same the same overall weight, dimensions, etc.
For the same (or less) development and procurement risks, costs, time and effort as expending all of this on equivalent missiles development and procurement.

And that’s supposed to be a clear, reasonable and credible proposition?

If such technology had any realistic likelihood of existing wouldn’t the larger more capable ground based versions chew-up any aircraft and gun rounds that it fires unless the aircraft uses a mixture of avoiding detection and out-ranging that weapon with different (missile) technology?

Well, to be honest, a similar argument can be made for missiles and missile based defenses. But yes, a paradigm shift in cannon capabilities would go both ways. So OP is basically totally proposing a completely new class of wunderwaffe with unheard of performance for little actual gain. And he wanted to put it in currently in-development 6th generation fighters.

Because forty years ago a smart man proposed something that was looked at and then discarded by equally smart people. I mean, wargaming simulations and such aren't actually done by total morons...

What wargaming are we even talking about the Cannon fighter was not forgotten because a Mod/Sim. The logisitics always won. Noone on this forum has the foggiest idea there wasnt a cannonfighter. Likely the missile mafia. Why is this being rehashed over and over.

The physics of gun firing a rocket assisted round will always beat a missile alone or a gun alone. The distances in the Pacific problem against the numerous dispersed targets render a conventional tactical aircraft configuration obsolete before it enters service. New material from super hardened materials which are extremely light weight guns and energtics which allow a rocket assisted rd to begin to solve the problem. Missiles alone will provide nothing but an expensive fireworks show. Those who dont really follow this problem should not bother wasting our time....

 

[Foo Fighter]

Have fun and rock on folks. Room for everybody.

 

[MihoshiK]

Not sure how missile launch could ever compete w/ automatic fire.

Actually, they could rather easily, because the missile launch required very little mechanical action & very little stress to the launching aircraft. Notice how fast helicopter-launched rockets - like classic Hydra - could be fired.

And they make laser-guided add-on kits for those nowadays. Much more guaranteed to survive launch than from out of a cannon barrel.

So - as the one contributor contends - we are supposed to be talking about a system with a very high rate of fire (automatic), recoil-less, very high velocity & very long range (able to out-range and defeat with sheer velocity the most advance defences, including those using larger longer range ground based versions of the same gun technology), with large and extremely accurate and versatile precision rounds, and with an associated weapon system to allow extremely long range high velocity shooting day and night in all conditions, all with the size and weight and power demands that would allow it to fit inside a fighter sized 6th generation advanced high-tier fighter aircraft, with a magazine of rounds that would be superior than equivalent missiles in the same the same overall weight, dimensions, etc.
For the same (or less) development and procurement risks, costs, time and effort as expending all of this on equivalent missiles development and procurement.

And that’s supposed to be a clear, reasonable and credible proposition?

If such technology had any realistic likelihood of existing wouldn’t the larger more capable ground based versions chew-up any aircraft and gun rounds that it fires unless the aircraft uses a mixture of avoiding detection and out-ranging that weapon with different (missile) technology?

Well, to be honest, a similar argument can be made for missiles and missile based defenses. But yes, a paradigm shift in cannon capabilities would go both ways. So OP is basically totally proposing a completely new class of wunderwaffe with unheard of performance for little actual gain. And he wanted to put it in currently in-development 6th generation fighters.

Because forty years ago a smart man proposed something that was looked at and then discarded by equally smart people. I mean, wargaming simulations and such aren't actually done by total morons...

What wargaming are we even talking about the Cannon fighter was not forgotten because a Mod/Sim. The logisitics always won. Noone on this forum has the foggiest idea there wasnt a cannonfighter. Likely the missile mafia. Why is this being rehashed over and over.

The physics of gun firing a rocket assisted round will always beat a missile alone or a gun alone. The distances in the Pacific problem against the numerous dispersed targets render a conventional tactical aircraft configuration obsolete before it enters service. New material from super hardened materials which are extremely light weight guns and energtics which allow a rocket assisted rd to begin to solve the problem. Missiles alone will provide nothing but an expensive fireworks show. Those who dont really follow this problem should not bother wasting our time....

You mean like right now every fighter developing nation out there, from Russia, to China, to the good ole US of A? Or do you have PROOF (there is is again, that word. We see so little of the concept it embodies in this thread, especially from you) that someone, anyone out there is developing cannon fighters?

No, your rambling fever dreams and a fourty year old test are not proof.

Man, it must sure suck to be you, such a visionary, stuck on a message board with all these nincompoops.

 

[jsport]

Not sure how missile launch could ever compete w/ automatic fire.

Actually, they could rather easily, because the missile launch required very little mechanical action & very little stress to the launching aircraft. Notice how fast helicopter-launched rockets - like classic Hydra - could be fired.

And they make laser-guided add-on kits for those nowadays. Much more guaranteed to survive launch than from out of a cannon barrel.

So - as the one contributor contends - we are supposed to be talking about a system with a very high rate of fire (automatic), recoil-less, very high velocity & very long range (able to out-range and defeat with sheer velocity the most advance defences, including those using larger longer range ground based versions of the same gun technology), with large and extremely accurate and versatile precision rounds, and with an associated weapon system to allow extremely long range high velocity shooting day and night in all conditions, all with the size and weight and power demands that would allow it to fit inside a fighter sized 6th generation advanced high-tier fighter aircraft, with a magazine of rounds that would be superior than equivalent missiles in the same the same overall weight, dimensions, etc.
For the same (or less) development and procurement risks, costs, time and effort as expending all of this on equivalent missiles development and procurement.

And that’s supposed to be a clear, reasonable and credible proposition?

If such technology had any realistic likelihood of existing wouldn’t the larger more capable ground based versions chew-up any aircraft and gun rounds that it fires unless the aircraft uses a mixture of avoiding detection and out-ranging that weapon with different (missile) technology?

Well, to be honest, a similar argument can be made for missiles and missile based defenses. But yes, a paradigm shift in cannon capabilities would go both ways. So OP is basically totally proposing a completely new class of wunderwaffe with unheard of performance for little actual gain. And he wanted to put it in currently in-development 6th generation fighters.

Because forty years ago a smart man proposed something that was looked at and then discarded by equally smart people. I mean, wargaming simulations and such aren't actually done by total morons...

What wargaming are we even talking about the Cannon fighter was not forgotten because a Mod/Sim. The logisitics always won. Noone on this forum has the foggiest idea there wasnt a cannonfighter. Likely the missile mafia. Why is this being rehashed over and over.

The physics of gun firing a rocket assisted round will always beat a missile alone or a gun alone. The distances in the Pacific problem against the numerous dispersed targets render a conventional tactical aircraft configuration obsolete before it enters service. New material from super hardened materials which are extremely light weight guns and energtics which allow a rocket assisted rd to begin to solve the problem. Missiles alone will provide nothing but an expensive fireworks show. Those who dont really follow this problem should not bother wasting our time....

You mean like right now every fighter developing nation out there, from Russia, to China, to the good ole US of A? Or do you have PROOF (there is is again, that word. We see so little of the concept it embodies in this thread, especially from you) that someone, anyone out there is developing cannon fighters?

No, your rambling fever dreams and a fourty year old test are not proof.

Man, it must sure suck to be you, such a visionary, stuck on a message board with all these nincompoops.

truly mad ravings.

 

[Dilandu]

The physics of gun firing a rocket assisted round will always beat a missile alone or a gun alone.

I seriously doubt that. From the practical point of view, the projectile would be forced to fit into not one, but two complicated and pretty contradictory at times set of requirements. Just to fit inside the gun, the projectile diameter must be very limited, it must either have no fins or have retractable fins, it must be able to survive hard acceleration, ect.

The distances in the Pacific problem against the numerous dispersed targets render a conventional tactical aircraft configuration obsolete before it enters service.

Since the gun is a short-range weapon, I'm really confused here: how exactly guns would help solving the DISTANCE problems?

New material from super hardened materials which are extremely light weight guns and energtics which allow a rocket assisted rd to begin to solve the problem.

One problem - said (fantasy) materials would also allow to build rocket engines with much better characteristics, so the advantages for guns would still be very dubious.

 

[jsport]

The physics of gun firing a rocket assisted round will always beat a missile alone or a gun alone.

I seriously doubt that. From the practical point of view, the projectile would be forced to fit into not one, but two complicated and pretty contradictory at times set of requirements. Just to fit inside the gun, the projectile diameter must be very limited, it must either have no fins or have retractable fins, it must be able to survive hard acceleration, ect.

The distances in the Pacific problem against the numerous dispersed targets render a conventional tactical aircraft configuration obsolete before it enters service.

Since the gun is a short-range weapon, I'm really confused here: how exactly guns would help solving the DISTANCE problems?

New material from super hardened materials which are extremely light weight guns and energtics which allow a rocket assisted rd to begin to solve the problem.

One problem - said (fantasy) materials would also allow to build rocket engines with much better characteristics, so the advantages for guns would still be very dubious.

It was confirmed some way back the AF is after airborne railgun.. travel down the airborne gun development path has started. Actually started back during the AC- X program. No matter what rantings on this forum... Decisions are ultimately political as explained along time back for those reading.

As far carrying your rocket engine vs as explained physics there nothing to discuss. As far as ur knowing was is fantastic well again there is also nothing to discuss.

Please feel free to add something worth contemplating.

 

[kaiserd]

The physics of gun firing a rocket assisted round will always beat a missile alone or a gun alone.

I seriously doubt that. From the practical point of view, the projectile would be forced to fit into not one, but two complicated and pretty contradictory at times set of requirements. Just to fit inside the gun, the projectile diameter must be very limited, it must either have no fins or have retractable fins, it must be able to survive hard acceleration, ect.

The distances in the Pacific problem against the numerous dispersed targets render a conventional tactical aircraft configuration obsolete before it enters service.

Since the gun is a short-range weapon, I'm really confused here: how exactly guns would help solving the DISTANCE problems?

New material from super hardened materials which are extremely light weight guns and energtics which allow a rocket assisted rd to begin to solve the problem.

One problem - said (fantasy) materials would also allow to build rocket engines with much better characteristics, so the advantages for guns would still be very dubious.

It was confirmed some way back the AF is after airborne railgun.. travel down the airborne gun development path has started. Actually started back during the AC- X program. No matter what rantings on this forum... Decisions are ultimately political as explained along time back for those reading.

As far carrying your rocket engine vs as explained physics there nothing to discuss. As far as ur knowing was is fantastic well again there is also nothing to discuss.

Please feel free to add something worth contemplating.

Are you contending that 6th generation fighter aircraft will have rail guns?
From previous comments you made it was my understanding was that you said no it wouldn’t be rail guns but advanced zero-recoil “conventional” guns; now you appear to be saying yes it will be rail guns.
If you are now saying yes re: rail guns in 6th generation fighter aircraft how do designers and builders overcome the immense power generation, weight, size and material issues?
Your arguments appear to lack any real consistency apart from continual exaggeration of what is even remotely possible, continually mixing in irrelevant details, and a somewhat worrying inability to recognize and/or acknowledge any of this, instead being insistent that you alone see the “truth”.
Hence this becomes less and less like a debate and more and more like an intervention or a psychiatric consultation. Good luck with that jsport.

 

[jsport]

The physics of gun firing a rocket assisted round will always beat a missile alone or a gun alone.

I seriously doubt that. From the practical point of view, the projectile would be forced to fit into not one, but two complicated and pretty contradictory at times set of requirements. Just to fit inside the gun, the projectile diameter must be very limited, it must either have no fins or have retractable fins, it must be able to survive hard acceleration, ect.

The distances in the Pacific problem against the numerous dispersed targets render a conventional tactical aircraft configuration obsolete before it enters service.

Since the gun is a short-range weapon, I'm really confused here: how exactly guns would help solving the DISTANCE problems?

New material from super hardened materials which are extremely light weight guns and energtics which allow a rocket assisted rd to begin to solve the problem.

One problem - said (fantasy) materials would also allow to build rocket engines with much better characteristics, so the advantages for guns would still be very dubious.

It was confirmed some way back the AF is after airborne railgun.. travel down the airborne gun development path has started. Actually started back during the AC- X program. No matter what rantings on this forum... Decisions are ultimately political as explained along time back for those reading.

As far carrying your rocket engine vs as explained physics there nothing to discuss. As far as ur knowing was is fantastic well again there is also nothing to discuss.

Please feel free to add something worth contemplating.

Are you contending that 6th generation fighter aircraft will have rail guns?
From previous comments you made it was my understanding was that you said no it wouldn’t be rail guns but advanced zero-recoil “conventional” guns; now you appear to be saying yes it will be rail guns.
If you are now saying yes re: rail guns in 6th generation fighter aircraft how do designers and builders overcome the immense power generation, weight, size and material issues?
Your arguments appear to lack any real consistency apart from continual exaggeration of what is even remotely possible, continually mixing in irrelevant details, and a somewhat worrying inability to recognize and/or acknowledge any of this, instead being insistent that you alone see the “truth”.
Hence this becomes less and less like a debate and more and more like an intervention or a psychiatric consultation. Good luck with that jsport.

emrgs vs chemical based guns is something that someone who has a long term understanding Pentagon politics between the services and who has followed this tech for decades would understand. There are very few folks on this forum w/ that background and understanding. As explained it seems many days ago this will ultimately is a political decision what will arm a 6th G, but the threat is real unanswered. I have not seen a single solution posed by the BS bashers( intervention or a psychiatric consultation maybe for them and you). Not one alternative suggestion just vindictiveness. Missiles and bombs get shot down duh duh. The uninformed and non contributing continue to avoid the basic premise of the need.
The truly ignorant have nothing but provocation left. Fine that will keep it in the Front pages have at it.
:

 

[kaiserd]

The physics of gun firing a rocket assisted round will always beat a missile alone or a gun alone.

I seriously doubt that. From the practical point of view, the projectile would be forced to fit into not one, but two complicated and pretty contradictory at times set of requirements. Just to fit inside the gun, the projectile diameter must be very limited, it must either have no fins or have retractable fins, it must be able to survive hard acceleration, ect.

The distances in the Pacific problem against the numerous dispersed targets render a conventional tactical aircraft configuration obsolete before it enters service.

Since the gun is a short-range weapon, I'm really confused here: how exactly guns would help solving the DISTANCE problems?

New material from super hardened materials which are extremely light weight guns and energtics which allow a rocket assisted rd to begin to solve the problem.

One problem - said (fantasy) materials would also allow to build rocket engines with much better characteristics, so the advantages for guns would still be very dubious.

It was confirmed some way back the AF is after airborne railgun.. travel down the airborne gun development path has started. Actually started back during the AC- X program. No matter what rantings on this forum... Decisions are ultimately political as explained along time back for those reading.

As far carrying your rocket engine vs as explained physics there nothing to discuss. As far as ur knowing was is fantastic well again there is also nothing to discuss.

Please feel free to add something worth contemplating.

Are you contending that 6th generation fighter aircraft will have rail guns?
From previous comments you made it was my understanding was that you said no it wouldn’t be rail guns but advanced zero-recoil “conventional” guns; now you appear to be saying yes it will be rail guns.
If you are now saying yes re: rail guns in 6th generation fighter aircraft how do designers and builders overcome the immense power generation, weight, size and material issues?
Your arguments appear to lack any real consistency apart from continual exaggeration of what is even remotely possible, continually mixing in irrelevant details, and a somewhat worrying inability to recognize and/or acknowledge any of this, instead being insistent that you alone see the “truth”.
Hence this becomes less and less like a debate and more and more like an intervention or a psychiatric consultation. Good luck with that jsport.

emrgs vs chemical based guns is something that someone who has a long term understanding Pentagon politics between the services and who has followed this tech for decades would understand. There are very few folks on this forum w/ that background and understanding. As explained it seems many days ago this will ultimately is a political decision what will arm a 6th G, but the threat is real unanswered. I have not seen a single solution posed by the BS bashers( intervention or a psychiatric consultation maybe for them and you). Not one alternative suggestion just vindictiveness. Missiles and bombs get shot down duh duh. The uninformed and non contributing continue to avoid the basic premise of the need.
The truly ignorant have nothing but provocation left. Fine that will keep it in the Front pages have at it.
:

Jsport - I believe you have a real interest in, knowledge of and enthusiasm for gun technology.
However your other claims of insight into Pentagon politics and the many of the technical aspects repeatedly raised with you are not credible given your responses in this discussion.
You have again totally failed to engage or deal with points put to you; no one is saying there aren’t increasing evolving threats but you have again failed to provide a credible realistic solution.
I think your line “the truly ignorant have nothing but provocation left” is very much a self portrait hence I very much wish you well.

 

[jsport]

The physics of gun firing a rocket assisted round will always beat a missile alone or a gun alone.

I seriously doubt that. From the practical point of view, the projectile would be forced to fit into not one, but two complicated and pretty contradictory at times set of requirements. Just to fit inside the gun, the projectile diameter must be very limited, it must either have no fins or have retractable fins, it must be able to survive hard acceleration, ect.

The distances in the Pacific problem against the numerous dispersed targets render a conventional tactical aircraft configuration obsolete before it enters service.

Since the gun is a short-range weapon, I'm really confused here: how exactly guns would help solving the DISTANCE problems?

New material from super hardened materials which are extremely light weight guns and energtics which allow a rocket assisted rd to begin to solve the problem.

One problem - said (fantasy) materials would also allow to build rocket engines with much better characteristics, so the advantages for guns would still be very dubious.

It was confirmed some way back the AF is after airborne railgun.. travel down the airborne gun development path has started. Actually started back during the AC- X program. No matter what rantings on this forum... Decisions are ultimately political as explained along time back for those reading.

As far carrying your rocket engine vs as explained physics there nothing to discuss. As far as ur knowing was is fantastic well again there is also nothing to discuss.

Please feel free to add something worth contemplating.

Are you contending that 6th generation fighter aircraft will have rail guns?
From previous comments you made it was my understanding was that you said no it wouldn’t be rail guns but advanced zero-recoil “conventional” guns; now you appear to be saying yes it will be rail guns.
If you are now saying yes re: rail guns in 6th generation fighter aircraft how do designers and builders overcome the immense power generation, weight, size and material issues?
Your arguments appear to lack any real consistency apart from continual exaggeration of what is even remotely possible, continually mixing in irrelevant details, and a somewhat worrying inability to recognize and/or acknowledge any of this, instead being insistent that you alone see the “truth”.
Hence this becomes less and less like a debate and more and more like an intervention or a psychiatric consultation. Good luck with that jsport.

emrgs vs chemical based guns is something that someone who has a long term understanding Pentagon politics between the services and who has followed this tech for decades would understand. There are very few folks on this forum w/ that background and understanding. As explained it seems many days ago this will ultimately is a political decision what will arm a 6th G, but the threat is real unanswered. I have not seen a single solution posed by the BS bashers( intervention or a psychiatric consultation maybe for them and you). Not one alternative suggestion just vindictiveness. Missiles and bombs get shot down duh duh. The uninformed and non contributing continue to avoid the basic premise of the need.
The truly ignorant have nothing but provocation left. Fine that will keep it in the Front pages have at it.
:

Jsport - I believe you have a real interest in, knowledge of and enthusiasm for gun technology.
However your other claims of insight into Pentagon politics and the many of the technical aspects repeatedly raised with you are not credible given your responses in this discussion.
You have again totally failed to engage or deal with points put to you; no one is saying there aren’t increasing evolving threats but you have again failed to provide a credible realistic solution.
I think your line “the truly ignorant have nothing but provocation left” is very much a self portrait hence I very much wish you well.

Dont see myself at all provoking.
No one on this forum has challenged my assumptions any credible way so why would waste my time. They have not seen understanding of the art/science of currently possible let alone the motivations in the real development world. The AF is going w/ real money.. What argument has there been for nearly a week?
If there were data it would classified or proprietary or both. This is spin cycle of the grudge, go ahead keep going.

 

[GWrecks]

I guess I should mention something my college professor said.

In Vietnam many of the missiles failed because the igniter was designed for sea level temperatures. However, at the altitudes the missiles were launched it was much colder, and the igniters shrunk and thus failed often. Once the igniters were fixed to account for this problem, the reliability rate for missiles vastly increased.

I haven't asked him what this means for guns yet. However, I guess it's worth noting that he said guns suffered from the same problems at the time, except that the problem was that heating would cause the bolt or cams to expand and again malfunction. Even the M134 Minigun and M61 Vulcan were vulnerable to this - although it would not jam the gun, it would also not fire the bullet/shell. So I guess that implies that guns aren't necessarily more reliable than missiles either.

 

[CJGibson]

In Vietnam many of the missiles failed because the igniter was designed for sea level temperatures. However, at the altitudes the missiles were launched it was much colder, and the igniters shrunk and thus failed often. Once the igniters were fixed to account for this problem, the reliability rate for missiles vastly increased.

I find that hard to believe, but stranger things have happened.

Chris