The 25mm is light enough, problem is, the planes don't hold enough rounds without sacrificing performance.
This is not just a problem in NATO aircraft. The Mig-29/Mig-35 has very few rounds on it as well.
I wonder how well taking the actual round of the 25mm and making it caseless would do. That's always been a big hindrance to gun systems since the original Vulcan. The case is frequently stored instead of ejected after firing which means less room for ammo and more weight than necessary.
But I heard so far the big problem with caseless ammo is its reliability of firing is poor.
edited 3rd May '10 12:11:20 PM by MajorTom
Why'd the US get rid of triple A? It doesn't seem like missiles have made it obsolete yet. After all, everyone else use triple A.
Triple A is a losing battle against speed and armor.
Modern day fighters have firing windows against them measured in at most a couple seconds per pass.
Modern helicopters are resistant to most small bore cannon and heavy machine guns.
A missile eliminates both drawbacks of triple A. The Stinger Block II for example can call the bluff of a flare and keep going to its target. Likewise it can hit aerial targets of all kinds at over twice the distance of many triple A systems.
Dreams of Revenge
^That, and modern AAA can only be used at medium to low altitudes. If you want to reach for the high flying aircraft, then you need SAMs.
We didn't put guns on our planes once. That was F-4. They quickly began slapping gun pods on. Since every fighter plane we have made except the A-10 (30mm) and the latest Variant Harrier (25mm) has had 20mm Gun. Yep. Apparently the higher-ups thought that missiles would render the cannon obsolescent. As I said in another thread, quite a lot of dogfighting during that era took place at close range, a problem only exacerbated by the poor reliability of early A-A missiles. Once they saw that MiGs were kicking F-4's asses because of this, they quietly added the gun pods. The Phantom II had its cannon integrated into the design.
edited 3rd May '10 12:30:51 PM by Flanker66
Locking you up on radar since '09
I see the Awesomeness.
A quick comment, only the F-35 A (the airforce variant) has an integrated cannon. The other two variants have a gunpod.
Fight smart, not fair.
Night Clerk of the Apacalypse.
That I did not know thanks for the Info De Boss.
The big problem with caseless is the heat. Reliability is not an issue. The weapons build up heat very quickly but if it is on air plane that is probably not as big an issue. If you can eliminate the casing that would lighten the ammo and probably make it smaller. Meaning we could slap more ammo into the 25mm cannon magazines. No need to keep the casings means more room for the ammo as well. Gau 22/a Weapon in the F-35 is still a very hefty weapon even if it is using 4 barrels instead of the stand for the Gau-12. Reducing the weight by 10-20lbs helps a lot.
Who watches the watchmen?
I go to Queensland for a few days and I have a million things to respond to.
MIRVs have one critical weakness that is being exploited by newer anti-ballistic missile systems. It's flight path. Modern missiles like the S-300 and SM-3 can conceivably intercept an ICBM containing a MIRV payload in its ascent and transit phases before the warheads are separated in the terminal phase. Assuming missile technology totally stagnates and only interceptors get any development you may be right. Unfortunately, new missiles are being developed continually. You may remember a whole lot of hot air being blown around over the new Russian SLBM's? The thing was designed specifically to counteract newer developments in ABM systems.
Stealth bombers are stealthy to radar, but not the human eye. To stop a B-2 all it takes is a Mi G pilot with a good set of eyes and a good aim with his gun (since missile lock is unlikely). B-2s cannot outrun or outturn fighters. (at least anything built since 1947.) Well, we better go tell the US to stop developing Stealth aircraft then, since "good eyes" make them irrelevant. Unless you have Mi Gs constantly flying, covering every square mile of territory along their borders constantly scanning the horizon for Stealth bombers, your point is rather irrelevant.
Can't outrun a fighter? Not in the short term, but a B2 has an intercontinental range and can carry a freakishly huge number of munitions.
SEAD can stop low level defenses but it cannot suppress an air force. If you cannot establish air supremacy over the combat theatre, one way or another your bombers are held in check. The following is a post from user Sea Skimmer @ SD.net.
Nuclear bombers have a way easier time at life then conventional bombers really. The nuclear bomber can launch a wave of nuclear cruise missiles from far outside the defensive envelope of an air defense system. Those missiles fly out and blow gaping 200kt sized holes in the SAM batteries, the bomber then flies in and does its job with shorter range missiles and gravity bombs. It’s quite feasible to use a short range nuclear missile like the SRAM or even a dropped gravity bomb to ward off fighter attacks too. You don't need guidance, the bombers electronic countermeasures warn it of the attack and it just sends a nuke in that general direction. Conventional weapons are not nearly so effective at suppressing, let alone the widespread destruction of air defenses possible with nukes. The defense has to win every single time, the bomber just needs a good portion of its own weapons to work.
The problem with fighters is they lack range, so they can’t avoid defense concentrations and cross oceans like a bomber can. That also means it can’t hunt mobile targets for any length of time, an increasingly great concern as more people acquire ballistic and cruise missiles. A fighter also lacks a really major weapons payload, so even with nuclear weapons the aircraft unlikely to have more then one nuke, maybe two to four of its an F-15E or similar large dedicated fighter bomber design (kind of cheating already). That means the fighter can only strike one or two targets on a mission, and it has no real margin for nuclear weapons to suppress defenses or even to make up for a nuke that doesn’t work. It has to rely on other aircraft for back, or just try to sneak in undetected and hope its nuclear device works while attacking just one or two targets.
With conventional bombs this can mean a single fighter simply cannot destroy a target at all. Plenty of targets are just too big for a few precision guided bombs to be effective. Rail yards, army depots, supply dumps and even plain old trenches demand heavy payloads to knock out. But since the fighter isn't that heavily armed and can't fly that far fighter strike packages quickly balloon into formations with as many as 70 fighters and tankers just to get a dozen strikers into position to actually drop bombs. Those bombs in turn may total no more tonnage then a single heavy bomber could have unleashed, which is why even a very expensive stealth bomber is such an awesome weapon system. It literally could do the work of 70 fighters and tankers with one bomber and two tankers.
Rods of God will make nukes obsolete anyway, DARPA says they think they can make it happen by 2028, not terribly far away. AFAIK there is no active programme working on anything like that. They may simply have been extrapolating speculative technology. Additionally, they will not be making nukes obsolete, since they don't even rival tactical nuclear weaponry in terms of destructiveness. Unless you're speaking of some sort of far off hypothetical rods, which are thousands of tonnes in mass with super duper rocket boosters to give them double digit KT yields to compete, lifted into space via magic.
I meant politically. Much less political fallout from using kinetic rods that have the destructive radius of a small yield nuke than using actual nukes.
I see the Awesomeness.
I believe they were proposed for tactical ground strikes. And the fact that gravity doesn't not detonate. I did read something about a large scale penetrator designed to punch a hole through a mountain though.
Fight smart, not fair.
Heading for tomorrow
If you're in a MiG and all you have is your cannon and Mark I Eyeball, an F-22 outranges you 20 to 1 or thereabouts and the pilot can kill you dead long before you get anywhere near him. In the case of a B-2, the fighter escort will be all over you just as quickly.
A Eurofighter with CAPTOR would be a much more interesting opponent.
edited 5th May '10 8:19:32 PM by WoolieWool
Out of Context Theater: Mike K "'Bloody Pussies' cracked me up"
I see the Awesomeness.
I thought it was a greater range.
Fight smart, not fair.
Not that stupid “they tried missile-only craft in Vietnam and it didn't work then so it wouldn't now, hur hur hur” canard again. Try and remember that the targeting computers and sensors were incredibly primitive, with most deployed Vietnam-era military electronics hardware dating from the 1950s. The stuff back then wasn't even as sophisticated as your thermostat. Nowadays however, if you're in visual range, you're already dead.
Also, modern aircraft guarantee aerial supremacy over SAMs and MPADS? I'm sure the Afghanis would've gotten a hearty chuckle or two over the notion in the '80s.
Even today SAMs are not this insurmountable defense in visual range.
Just ask the countless helicopter pilots who have been fired upon by the likes of Iglas and other (usually older but not always) MANPADS in Iraq and Afghanistan.
A few did hit, a few missed. There are no absolutes either way.
edited 6th May '10 12:03:06 PM by MajorTom
Try almost always. There's mountains of ancient stuff like SA-7s and SA-14s floating around Iraq, most in awful condition, but only a handful of truly modern weapons have been confirmed or confiscated. In contrast, what the Afghanis got were thousands of brand new Stingers with training personnel.
Dreams of Revenge
Not that stupid “they tried missile-only craft in Vietnam and it didn't work then so it wouldn't now, hur hur hur” canard again. Try and remember that the targeting computers and sensors were incredibly primitive, with most deployed Vietnam-era military electronics hardware dating from the 1950s. The stuff back then wasn't even as sophisticated as your thermostat. Nowadays however, if you're in visual range, you're already dead.
Also, modern aircraft guarantee aerial supremacy over SAMs and MPADS? I'm sure the Afghanis would've gotten a hearty chuckle or two over the notion in the '80s.
I've already stated the inefficiencies and failings of the early missiles. They were a crapshoot in terms of effectiveness, so that's where ripple firing came from.
In case you don't realise, there is a very good reason why aircraft are still kicking about: their versatility. A missile can only be used once, and can't be re-used if it misses. As well, a SAM/MANPADS system usually can only be used against aircraft, whereas planes make excellent multi-taskers, able to engage many types of threats at the same time.
As well, the Afghans were fighting against aging MiGs and the hulking Hind. Of course they were going to do well because of their lower top speed.
Do not underestimate military aviation. Notice how quite often that in most modern conflicts if the aircraft is on SEAD duty, then it's more or less a curb-stomp battle. As well, quite a lot of modern aeroplanes are getting more clever about defeating air defence systems. Quite often all you need is a high G maneuver and staying low to defeat a missile. As soon as it bleeds off too much energy then it's all over.
Finally, missiles have failings too, which I will describe later.
edited 6th May '10 4:20:52 PM by Flanker66
Locking you up on radar since '09
Heading for tomorrow
Don't most older MiGs (MiG-21 to 29, at least), have higher top speeds than most modern fighters? Granted, they can't maintain them for as long as a supercruise fighter, but still.
edited 6th May '10 5:51:38 PM by WoolieWool
Out of Context Theater: Mike K "'Bloody Pussies' cracked me up"
The Mig-25 is one of the fastest fighters (by top speed) to have ever made operational status. Pity going that fast burns most of its fuel and engine life away quickly.
The F-15 by contrast can meet most of the same speed as the Mig-25 only it is able to bank and turn much tighter and go further. (Most Mig variants since the Mig-15 have been notoriously short ranged compared to their NATO counterparts.)
In Desert Storm the superiority of NATO fighters became manifest when F-15s shot down 2 of Saddam's Mig-25s and not suffering any losses owing to the F-15's overall superiority in combat. The remaining Mig losses suffered by Iraq were the Mig-21 and others. Among those losses were 5 Mig-29s shot down by F-15Cs.
edited 6th May '10 6:40:10 PM by MajorTom
Not to mention our show of how superior the Abrams was in Desert Storm..
^ What was that one where like 24 Abrams took on like 1000 Iraqi T-55s and T-72s and won without losses?
No loss of life, I think like two or three Abrams were mobility killed (Tracks got damaged).
I know at least one of them got its tracks taken out and just continued to fire on the enemy tanks from a stationary position like a turret.
Definitely a CMOA
Night Clerk of the Apacalypse.
There was another incident where an Abrahams foundered after coming over the top of a sand dune into a sand pit. They couldn't get loose and were attacked by two Iraqis tanks.
The Iraqi tanks fired on the Abrams it took the hits and blew on of the Iraqi tanks away. The second tank tried to hide behind a sand dune. The Abrams had IR site and spotted their exhaust fumes coming over the dune. They fired "THROUGH" the dune and killed the tank.
The Abrams is truly a beast of a battle tank. even when hit with a Soviet 105mm AT Rocket they only managed a mobility kill and slightly wounded the crew. Their shortfall is in city combat that nice long barrel used to gain the velocity for the DU penetrator round is clumsy in a Urban Environment.
Who watches the watchmen?
Abrams were never meant to act like Shermans in an urban environment. They were meant to engage hordes of cheaper, weaker tanks (and the occasional one that might stand a chance) and emerge victorious on the open battlefield.
Especially since at the time the Abrams was first built, the US Military was vastly outnumbered by Russian land and air forces and thus needed stuff that could go sometimes being severely outnumbered and win.
Flanker 66: the Afghans were fighting against aging MiGs and the hulking Hind. Of course they were going to do well because of their lower top speed.Do not underestimate military aviation. Notice how quite often that in most modern conflicts if the aircraft is on SEAD duty, then it's more or less a curb-stomp battle.Major Tom: In Desert Storm the superiority of NATO fighters became manifest when F-15s shot down 2 of Saddam's Mig-25s and not suffering any losses owing to the F-15's overall superiority in combat. The remaining Mig losses suffered by Iraq were the Mig-21 and others. Among those losses were 5 Mig-29s shot down by F-15Cs.Barkey: Not to mention our show of how superior the Abrams was in Desert Storm..edited 6th May '10 8:44:32 PM by EricDVH
Night Clerk of the Apacalypse.
See that is the problem with the Abrams tanks. They specialize in Mass Tank battles like Kursk despite the number of Urban engagements we have had with Armored Vehicles and infantry from WWII onward.
It is a nice tank on tank vehicle and good for pounding the hell out of enemy positions on the move but for it to really work well it needs the open spaces. A shortened barrel version loaded with higher ratio of HE and Anti-Personnel loads would work great for urban environments.
Make it a barrel swap kit so you can keep the majority of the parts similarities maybe add something that makes it easier to push through urban obstacle more easily like a modified mine plow.
Or we can reserve the Abrams for heavy combat duties and use the new Mobile Gun System for the urban combat.
edited 6th May '10 9:06:03 PM by TuefelHundenIV
Who watches the watchmen?
Very True Major Tom. 20mm is ok for the air. The 25mm and 30mm are nice for ground targets :D. We need to figure out how to make 25mm light enough for fighters and make ammo smaller.
For our viewing Pleasure A-10 Gun Run
edited 3rd May '10 12:00:18 PM by TuefelHundenIV
Who watches the watchmen?