MiG-29 cannon test (GSh-30-1)

[Force_Feedback]

 

Which one is more effective, this one or the Goalkeeper with only 1 gun (but a GAU-8). The Kashtan has some AI elements in it. Don't know if our secret squirrels made something like that for the Goalkeeper.

[Groove]

F-22 got the gun for strafing runs.

[D-Scythe]

Lockheed and Boeing are then wrong for installing a gun in Raptor? No matter how good new missiles are. New missiles are always followed by new missile jamming systems. At one time, missiles will be better, at another, jamming systems.

 

That logic is laughable. If the constant battle between missiles and their countermeasures was an even battle, then one would never expect the pK of a missile to ever be greater than 50%. Yet, if you look at successive generations of AAMs, pK has been steadily increasing. For example, the AMRAAM has a 0.6-0.7 pK, compared to the 0.3 pK of the AIM-7M a decade earlier, compared to the ~0.1 pK of the Vietnam-era AIM-7.

 

And no, putting the M61A2 into the F-22 isn't a mistake - but it's not like it's a principle feature of the Raptor either. The gun is just there on the F-22 as a last resort when everything else hits the $hitter. For all intents and purposes, if you're going guns with a Raptor, your either one cocky pilot or you've f*cked up big time.

 

Once a bullet departs from the gun, it can not be jammed. On your fighter airplane, you better make sure you have a gun you can count on.

 

Again, you're making an oak tree out of an acorn. Firstly, a gun on modern fighter planes is a last resort - a plan Z when plan A through Y fails - and secondly, most aircraft cannons are very reliable. It's not that hard to put "a gun that you can count on" into a fighter.

 

F-22 got the gun for strafing runs.

 

No.

[D-Scythe]

Additionnaly, you can also jam the tracking radar and prevent the enemy from getting a correct guns calculation ;)

 

The first ECM and chaffs where used for this purpose ;)

 

True, but most modern fighter jets have EGGS gunsights - the characteristic funnel-shaped symbology where the path of the bullets are displayed and to aim one simply has to visually align the funnel over the target's wings. No lock, or target tracking from the radar is required.

[Groove]

Lol D-Scythe.

 

Sure the gun is also for A-A.

 

Iraq and Afghanistan shows that today they need the guns for strafing and not A-A role.

[D-Scythe]

Lol D-Scythe.

 

Sure the gun is also for A-A.

 

Iraq and Afghanistan shows that today they need the guns for strafing and not A-A role.

 

For the legacy fighters, you're absolutely right. But nobody in their right minds is gonna risk an F-22 Raptor to MANPADs on a strafing run.

[3Sqn_Fudd]

Firstly, a gun on modern fighter planes is a last resort - a plan Z when plan A through Y fails - and secondly, most aircraft cannons are very reliable. It's not that hard to put "a gun that you can count on" into a fighter.

 

Plan A through Y? How bout Plan A - H, One letter for each missile. Plan J is indeed the gun, but I would love to have it after A though H have either killed their targets, missed, or ran out of energy.

[92nd-MajorBug]

True, but most modern fighter jets have EGGS gunsights - the characteristic funnel-shaped symbology where the path of the bullets are displayed and to aim one simply has to visually align the funnel over the target's wings. No lock, or target tracking from the radar is required.

Right, but it is more imprecise by far than a computed guns firing solution. It also relies on the fact that you know the target's wingspan, which is quite easy for a wide known aircraft such as Eagle or Flanker, but can be tricky if you don't know your opponent. For example, those Iranian fighters that look very much like an F-5 Tiger, but are said to be 30% bigger ;)

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

And no, putting the M61A2 into the F-22 isn't a mistake - but it's not like it's a principle feature of the Raptor either. The gun is just there on the F-22 as a last resort when everything else hits the $hitter.

I rest my case. Thanks.

[D-Scythe]

I rest my case. Thanks.

 

Funny how you take one quote and put it completely out of context to "rest" your "case." I'll just take that as a sign of a weak argument, considering what we were INITIALLY discussing was the usefulness of guns in modern air combat. You know, how you were saying that the gun is important because it's in the F-22 and I destroyed that point by stating that, just because it's there, the gun isn't actually meant to be used by the Raptor, ever?

 

My computer has a power button I can push whenever I want to forcibly turn it off (and risk frying my hard-drives in the process), but that doesn't mean I consider it a "feature" I'd use all the time. In fact, now that computers are less and less likely to freeze up on me, I'd actually say that this button is getting less and less important because I barely ever use it anymore.

 

But I don't expect you to get that metaphor - if anything, you'd just chop it up and take from it only the bits you want to hear.

 

Right, but it is more imprecise by far than a computed guns firing solution. It also relies on the fact that you know the target's wingspan, which is quite easy for a wide known aircraft such as Eagle or Flanker, but can be tricky if you don't know your opponent. For example, those Iranian fighters that look very much like an F-5 Tiger, but are said to be 30% bigger

 

True, to an extent. At typical gun employment ranges (a couple thousand feet), trigonometrically there really is no difference in wingspan between fighters of comparable size classes - for example, the 10 ft difference in wingspan between an F-15 and a F-16 is negligible from hundreds or thousands of feet away. Furthermore, cannons like the M61 Vulcan don't fire a pinpoint "line" of bullets, but rather disperses the bullets over a rather large/wide cone. Therefore, one can expect the EGGS gunsight to lose little effectiveness so long as the funnel can be adjusted even in a rudimentary fashion - e.g. a cone for small fighters (like the F-5/F-16), larger fighters (like the F/A-18 or Su-27) and another for bombers/transports.

 

But yes, you'd be absolutely correct in saying that the EGGS sight alone would not be as accurate as others that incorporate a tracking radar solution of the target. The EGGS has other limitations that also degrade it's accuracy, like target aspect, etc.

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

Funny how you take one quote and put it completely out of context to "rest" your "case." I'll just take that as a sign of a weak argument, considering what we were INITIALLY discussing was the usefulness of guns in modern air combat. You know, how you were saying that the gun is important because it's in the F-22 and I destroyed that point by stating that, just because it's there, the gun isn't actually meant to be used by the Raptor, ever?

 

My computer has a power button I can push whenever I want to forcibly turn it off (and risk frying my hard-drives in the process), but that doesn't mean I consider it a "feature" I'd use all the time. In fact, now that computers are less and less likely to freeze up on me, I'd actually say that this button is getting less and less important because I barely ever use it anymore.

 

But I don't expect you to get that metaphor - if anything, you'd just chop it up and take from it only the bits you want to hear.

 

 

 

True, to an extent. At typical gun employment ranges (a couple thousand feet), trigonometrically there really is no difference in wingspan between fighters of comparable size classes - for example, the 10 ft difference in wingspan between an F-15 and a F-16 is negligible from hundreds or thousands of feet away. Furthermore, cannons like the M61 Vulcan don't fire a pinpoint "line" of bullets, but rather disperses the bullets over a rather large/wide cone. Therefore, one can expect the EGGS gunsight to lose little effectiveness so long as the funnel can be adjusted even in a rudimentary fashion - e.g. a cone for small fighters (like the F-5/F-16), larger fighters (like the F/A-18 or Su-27) and another for bombers/transports.

 

But yes, you'd be absolutely correct in saying that the EGGS sight alone would not be as accurate as others that incorporate a tracking radar solution of the target. The EGGS has other limitations that also degrade it's accuracy, like target aspect, etc.

 

All right, you want your entire posts quoted every time. All right, your entire post is now quoted.

 

Raptor is supposed to use gun. That’s the reason why it has one.

 

And you did not destroy any of my points either. You did not show any evidence that bullets can be decoyed. And even the most modern jet fighters do have guns. Those were my points.

 

Rest my case again. This is hard work man ... :weight_lift_2:

[Vekkinho]

Guns in Raptor are installed for ballancing such airframe. :megalol:

 

BTW we're straying off the topic here!

[RvETito]

Yeah undeed. Who cares about Raptor's gun? When we see a video of the Raptor shooting it's cannon inside a hanger then we can talk about it.

 

Back on topic- is it shooting a single rounds? And why there are no fired cartridges? They are supposed to fall between the engine nacelles.

 

EDIT: After carefully watching it again I noticed the cartridges falling and also the metal noise they make when hitting the concrete is clear. But it doesn't seem to do it every time- looks like the cartridges are dumped periodically when reach given number.

[Force_Feedback]

You do hear something like falling bullet casings, but who knows with all this editing.

[Trident]

What have they got to better the GAU-8?

 

 

GSh-6-30? Higher rate of fire, faster spin-up but a slower muzzle-velocity and a lighter projectile. All in all, they should offer comparable firepower. Both guns are in a completely different class than the GSh-30-1 or the M61 however, being far to bulky to be used in fighters, and are thus of minimal relevance to the point he made.

[Guest PKM]

wrong cannons are becoming more important, example Eurofighter Typhoon they are installing cannons back on the airframe !!!

 

The only reason the RAF installed the cannon back into the EFA 2000 is because removing the weight of the cannon makes the airframe unstable, They have added the cannon but I read that the RAF have made the decision not to train with the cannon!, This means that the RAF are either very confident in their missiles or their just stupid, Either way I say there is always a place for a cannon in a fighter.

[Dudikoff]

The only reason the RAF installed the cannon back into the EFA 2000 is because removing the weight of the cannon makes the airframe unstable, They have added the cannon but I read that the RAF have made the decision not to train with the cannon!, This means that the RAF are either very confident in their missiles or their just stupid, Either way I say there is always a place for a cannon in a fighter.

 

Why do you think that it's RAF that removed the gun? Like they're determining their budget and all.

 

The gun was scrapped by the Ministry of Defense supposedly due to ground support costs. I suppose RAF got them back through a study that it would be more expensive to design and install some dead weight than to actually put the guns in the first place. I guess that the study was biased but that's the only way to fight the bureaucracy which makes these silly cuts (silly when compared to the costs of the whole project).

[S77th-GOYA]

GSh-6-30? Higher rate of fire, faster spin-up but a slower muzzle-velocity and a lighter projectile. All in all, they should offer comparable firepower. Both guns are in a completely different class than the GSh-30-1 or the M61 however, being far to bulky to be used in fighters, and are thus of minimal relevance to the point he made.

 

What thickness of armor can it pierce? The point he made was very broad.