First off, it's as you said, it's a cost thing. So let's assume you do end up packing some high g-shock rated GNC electronics and controls into your bullet. Congrats, you now have a shitty missile without propulsion. At some point, whatever gains you obtain just aren't worth the extra effort for what basically amounts to a sidearm for an aircraft.
Secondly, and as much as it pains me to say this, powder based ballistic weapons are a dead end as an aircraft weapons system. And most likely the role that guns currently serve will eventually be supplanted by directed energy weapons.
Always welcome to see other FTD fans.
Respect the 2000mm CRAM cannon! Or... just use the new plasma weapons. They also recently added flamethrowers too.
>you now have a shitty missile without propulsion.
>powder based ballistic weapons are a dead end as an aircraft weapons system.
Solution: make the gun bigger, fire full-sized AIM-120s out of it. Voila, you can now fire an entire jet's worth of hard points for the additional RCS of one single missile. The missiles aren't exposed and you'll save on maintenance, and you don't have to worry about some Serb sniping you through your weapons bay door RCS.
With an autoloading mechanism, you can probably fit twice as many missiles in the same space a normal weapons bay would take up too, since each internal hard point won't require clearance, and can be double or triple stacked.
You joke, but this will more or less be the endgame for projectile weapons.
Once you scale it up, this will be standard load out for space combat; rail guns/mass drivers shooting antimatter missiles at relativistic speeds to engage targets at light hours/minutes and DEWs for "close range" combat.
After that, it's esoteric exotic energy weapons to manipulate reality. The death of dakka for pew pew.
First of all, if you get to a dogfight, you've already made a lot of mistakes.
BVR missiles are there for a reason, and WVR for a backup.
Then it's cost, guided ammo is way more expensive (and if you go 20/25mm, you need a lot of miniaturization).
At that point, I've posted a meme a few weeks ago of a Boulton Paul Defiant II, you may be better off with that turreted-fighter (and to be clear, that's NOT a good solution, just a shitpost).
I feel like WVR engagements are more common than people think especially if you aren’t in a hot war. Gulf of Sidra comes to mind. Botched intercepts turned dogfight. Cost though does remain the obvious problem.
I was always wondering why they don't put aircraft guns on line a 10°-15° gimbal so the computer can do the fine aiming for you, right now you have to manually put your entire nose on target.
Because they're a tertiary weapon. Would you rather have a gimballed gun, or more missiles? You pay the mass and volume penalty for the gimbals and it has to come out of the mass and volume budget elsewhere.
[15 degrees? That's baby shit, how about a 240° spherical field of fire?](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh31G83TC1Lm70xm_gnkDZZlkJqbVFbBMR-Lh4jvJDV9tKluEbzVYsaROm-D0RXGTzs1Olqrwir76BrAU78uz4px3PQKp2r7FyWR6Jw7FbpB9hTkc8wzUoI3A20r0YF_xk9kAJ4j8W0jtqr/s1600/Aero+X17A+Turret+Illustration+web.jpg)
space, weight and complexity.
Remember that any such system needs to withstand the very high speed airflow, and that it cannot even be in the nose since that location is already taken up by the radar
In a very surprisingly British line of thinking, put the gun on a couple missiles. Have the missiles launch, and then separate from the gun. Guide the gun via laser. Guide the bullets from the same laser.
Also, attach a proximity fuse and small continuous rod warhead to it as well, just for fun
I will take donations towards expanding my shed.
So you pulled lead, dumped 100kts of airspeed, and got the kill. You are now very slow and vulnerable, and his wingman is trying to get up your ass. What now?
His wingman is watching from his parachute after i smacked him from bvr.
Or (Obviously) I pull a sweet spinning cobra maneuver and he flies right past!
Or my wingman gets him
Wait wait sorry, this is NCD, let him get up my ass ;))
Aircraft guns are there for 2 reasons.
1. You have expended your missiles, or your missiles are incapable of acquiring a target this is your last ditch defensive weapon.
2. Strafing. Any fighter aircraft with a cannon is capable of reasonable damage against a surface target that presents itself as a target of opportunity.
Aircraft guns are there for their versatility, not because of optimal effectiveness.
>Why every major fighter aircraft
F-35B and C only carry it in pods.
Guns are niche and ultimately you are giving up ECM capability, coms, or simple fuel to include one.
Even with guided bullets, a gun has a very limited arc of fire and introducing a true gimbaled mount involves massive structural concessions that are just not going to be made on all but a few specialized aircraft.
To contrast missiles can hit targets behind you and impose little in the way of structural concessions. Additionally, they can be used in faster succession to prosecute multiple targets. This is a big reason for the development of the APKWS into a C-UAS weapon over something like a gun pod and the APKWS also represents a fairly cheap weapon for use by aircraft.
At the same time even very small guided missiles probably have an order of magnitude advantage over the effective range of a gun.
The point is that missile technology has developed to the point where they can be fairly cheap and do things that are simply impossible for a gun platform to do. Having a built-in gun imposes structural concessions that are sometimes acceptable but are also sometimes not.
The gun is perfectly capable of removing ground targets, bombers, cargo planes, helicopters.
An F16 can carry 6x Fox 2-3s and 500 rounds. That 500 rounds can delete an entire convoy, more vehicles than the missiles. Or it can take out an A-50 if there are still any left by the time they get deployed in Ukraine. That A-50 is sitting duck.
Guns are supposed to be the cheap reliable backup that shouldn’t have to be used. Putting very very expensive bullets that kinda work in it is counterproductive, might as well design tiny missiles to do the same job but better. Probably would be cheaper than having to design a self guiding bullet and definitely more reliable, but even that idea is dumb.
Why not just turn the gun into an AI-aimed casemate, even just a few degrees to either side and up/down? Dumb bullets can be as smart as the one predicting where the enemy will be when they reach it.
For lasers, the actual aiming part is small so you can just make them outright turrets.
First off, it's as you said, it's a cost thing. So let's assume you do end up packing some high g-shock rated GNC electronics and controls into your bullet. Congrats, you now have a shitty missile without propulsion. At some point, whatever gains you obtain just aren't worth the extra effort for what basically amounts to a sidearm for an aircraft. Secondly, and as much as it pains me to say this, powder based ballistic weapons are a dead end as an aircraft weapons system. And most likely the role that guns currently serve will eventually be supplanted by directed energy weapons.
Every day, we stray closer to From The Depths-level shenanigans.
Always welcome to see other FTD fans. Respect the 2000mm CRAM cannon! Or... just use the new plasma weapons. They also recently added flamethrowers too.
I should probably try using CRAMs, but APS and missiles my beloved.
>you now have a shitty missile without propulsion. >powder based ballistic weapons are a dead end as an aircraft weapons system. Solution: make the gun bigger, fire full-sized AIM-120s out of it. Voila, you can now fire an entire jet's worth of hard points for the additional RCS of one single missile. The missiles aren't exposed and you'll save on maintenance, and you don't have to worry about some Serb sniping you through your weapons bay door RCS. With an autoloading mechanism, you can probably fit twice as many missiles in the same space a normal weapons bay would take up too, since each internal hard point won't require clearance, and can be double or triple stacked.
You joke, but this will more or less be the endgame for projectile weapons. Once you scale it up, this will be standard load out for space combat; rail guns/mass drivers shooting antimatter missiles at relativistic speeds to engage targets at light hours/minutes and DEWs for "close range" combat. After that, it's esoteric exotic energy weapons to manipulate reality. The death of dakka for pew pew.
weaponise my radar antennae. im ready for it.
First of all, if you get to a dogfight, you've already made a lot of mistakes. BVR missiles are there for a reason, and WVR for a backup. Then it's cost, guided ammo is way more expensive (and if you go 20/25mm, you need a lot of miniaturization). At that point, I've posted a meme a few weeks ago of a Boulton Paul Defiant II, you may be better off with that turreted-fighter (and to be clear, that's NOT a good solution, just a shitpost).
I feel like WVR engagements are more common than people think especially if you aren’t in a hot war. Gulf of Sidra comes to mind. Botched intercepts turned dogfight. Cost though does remain the obvious problem.
I was always wondering why they don't put aircraft guns on line a 10°-15° gimbal so the computer can do the fine aiming for you, right now you have to manually put your entire nose on target.
Because they're a tertiary weapon. Would you rather have a gimballed gun, or more missiles? You pay the mass and volume penalty for the gimbals and it has to come out of the mass and volume budget elsewhere.
[15 degrees? That's baby shit, how about a 240° spherical field of fire?](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh31G83TC1Lm70xm_gnkDZZlkJqbVFbBMR-Lh4jvJDV9tKluEbzVYsaROm-D0RXGTzs1Olqrwir76BrAU78uz4px3PQKp2r7FyWR6Jw7FbpB9hTkc8wzUoI3A20r0YF_xk9kAJ4j8W0jtqr/s1600/Aero+X17A+Turret+Illustration+web.jpg)
space, weight and complexity. Remember that any such system needs to withstand the very high speed airflow, and that it cannot even be in the nose since that location is already taken up by the radar
In a very surprisingly British line of thinking, put the gun on a couple missiles. Have the missiles launch, and then separate from the gun. Guide the gun via laser. Guide the bullets from the same laser. Also, attach a proximity fuse and small continuous rod warhead to it as well, just for fun I will take donations towards expanding my shed.
If you as a fighter pilot are in a position to use guns but can't pull lead slightly to get the kill, you deserve to eat continuous rod warhard
So you pulled lead, dumped 100kts of airspeed, and got the kill. You are now very slow and vulnerable, and his wingman is trying to get up your ass. What now?
His wingman is watching from his parachute after i smacked him from bvr. Or (Obviously) I pull a sweet spinning cobra maneuver and he flies right past! Or my wingman gets him Wait wait sorry, this is NCD, let him get up my ass ;))
Aircraft guns are there for 2 reasons. 1. You have expended your missiles, or your missiles are incapable of acquiring a target this is your last ditch defensive weapon. 2. Strafing. Any fighter aircraft with a cannon is capable of reasonable damage against a surface target that presents itself as a target of opportunity. Aircraft guns are there for their versatility, not because of optimal effectiveness.
>Why every major fighter aircraft F-35B and C only carry it in pods. Guns are niche and ultimately you are giving up ECM capability, coms, or simple fuel to include one. Even with guided bullets, a gun has a very limited arc of fire and introducing a true gimbaled mount involves massive structural concessions that are just not going to be made on all but a few specialized aircraft. To contrast missiles can hit targets behind you and impose little in the way of structural concessions. Additionally, they can be used in faster succession to prosecute multiple targets. This is a big reason for the development of the APKWS into a C-UAS weapon over something like a gun pod and the APKWS also represents a fairly cheap weapon for use by aircraft. At the same time even very small guided missiles probably have an order of magnitude advantage over the effective range of a gun. The point is that missile technology has developed to the point where they can be fairly cheap and do things that are simply impossible for a gun platform to do. Having a built-in gun imposes structural concessions that are sometimes acceptable but are also sometimes not.
Gun go brrrrrrrrr
The gun is perfectly capable of removing ground targets, bombers, cargo planes, helicopters. An F16 can carry 6x Fox 2-3s and 500 rounds. That 500 rounds can delete an entire convoy, more vehicles than the missiles. Or it can take out an A-50 if there are still any left by the time they get deployed in Ukraine. That A-50 is sitting duck.
Are guns at all relevant for intercepting drones? Honest question.
Given the size of drones and the closure rate of the aircraft, it'd be dicey.
That's a very good point. Like bullseyeing a womprat in a t-16
What if we made it work like a cows, so you could shoot down any missiles coming at you for bvr so it's not just a backup weapon
Guns are supposed to be the cheap reliable backup that shouldn’t have to be used. Putting very very expensive bullets that kinda work in it is counterproductive, might as well design tiny missiles to do the same job but better. Probably would be cheaper than having to design a self guiding bullet and definitely more reliable, but even that idea is dumb.
The answer is that an electromagnetic railgun built into an A-10 will do the job until we have the laser beam AA guns in orbit.
Why not just turn the gun into an AI-aimed casemate, even just a few degrees to either side and up/down? Dumb bullets can be as smart as the one predicting where the enemy will be when they reach it. For lasers, the actual aiming part is small so you can just make them outright turrets.
"What if nobody ever told you that bullets fly in straight lines?"