Removal Of Autocannon GSH 23 / 30 From The JF 17:--

[graphican]

That gun is not only for A2A engagements, it is pretty useful in engaging ground targets, especially parked enemy aircraft on an airfield or a moving column of armour etc

Gun is about 200kg, 300 rounds of ammo would add another 80~100 kg

200-300 KG is quite significant. If gun is removed, empty weight 6,411 KG can come own to some 6150 KG.

 

[mrrehan]

Hi,

It is abut time that the Paf remove the machine gun from its newly built fighter aircraft---the JF17---use that position for a much needed hard point and possibly add a conformal fuel tank to hold some extra fuel where the bullets and the loading mechanism is taking up the space.

The USAF has not had a machine gun engagement in the last 40 years with an other air force---.

It does not want to have a machine gun engagement with an enemy aircraft at all---. Flying behind the enemy at 100 yards back with guns blazing in your 100---200 millions dollar aircraft and ready to fly thru the debris field of the target aircraft would not be a pleasant experience for the pilot or the aircraft.

Today's pilots would be more inclined on launching their missiles from bvr---or from wvr and then bugging off the arena to come back and fight another day.

There is no reason to pitch your 100 million dollars aircraft against a 30-50 million aircraft and allow it a 50 / 50 advantage---where as it did not have any prior to that---.

For those who are expecting this to happen---are just waging their bets without putting their lives at the stake---. If one was to wager his life on a machine gun combat between a superior aircraft and an inferior aircraft---there would be no naysayers anymore.

The machine gun pod can be used as a much need hard point for other accessories and sensors---and the amount of space taken by the belt and the bullets and the mountings can be much purposefully used with some extra electronics gadgets which could give exctra protection to the aircraft or increase its offensive capabilities---.

The machine gun maybe used as an option for ground strike missions---but for general use---just take it away---.

Learn to fly different---learn to fly without a machine gun---use the time to change the mindset of the air combat pilot and train him different.

Hi,

It is abut time that the Paf remove the machine gun from its newly built fighter aircraft---the JF17---use that position for a much needed hard point and possibly add a conformal fuel tank to hold some extra fuel where the bullets and the loading mechanism is taking up the space.

The USAF has not had a machine gun engagement in the last 40 years with an other air force---.

It does not want to have a machine gun engagement with an enemy aircraft at all---. Flying behind the enemy at 100 yards back with guns blazing in your 100---200 millions dollar aircraft and ready to fly thru the debris field of the target aircraft would not be a pleasant experience for the pilot or the aircraft.

Today's pilots would be more inclined on launching their missiles from bvr---or from wvr and then bugging off the arena to come back and fight another day.

There is no reason to pitch your 100 million dollars aircraft against a 30-50 million aircraft and allow it a 50 / 50 advantage---where as it did not have any prior to that---.

For those who are expecting this to happen---are just waging their bets without putting their lives at the stake---. If one was to wager his life on a machine gun combat between a superior aircraft and an inferior aircraft---there would be no naysayers anymore.

The machine gun pod can be used as a much need hard point for other accessories and sensors---and the amount of space taken by the belt and the bullets and the mountings can be much purposefully used with some extra electronics gadgets which could give exctra protection to the aircraft or increase its offensive capabilities---.

The machine gun maybe used as an option for ground strike missions---but for general use---just take it away---.

Learn to fly different---learn to fly without a machine gun---use the time to change the mindset of the air combat pilot and train him different.

Well this is an quite an old argument that results US to remove the Gun from F-4 Phantom in Vietnam war causing a big problem where gun was not part of the aircraft internally and after the pressure from pilots were in situations where there was not rocket or missile left for fight and still they can't leave fight or leaving fight means becoming sitting duck. Then the external gun have to be included in the missions in a pod alike assembly, even then the gun's performance was not good enough.

In modern dogfight as you know speed is too high and when speed is too high you got to close anyway. even F-22 have gun too. Considering the short distance between the vital points between India and Pakistan across border. Think you are in cockpit returning from a mission out of all the Air To Air weapons and rockets too, you separated with you mate or you loss them all, and you been spot by enemy CAP. In other instance what about you still have gun in your aircraft.

SO I would say guns is important. However special mission is an other issue.

 

[MastanKhan]

Hi,

You can have 20-25 % of the JF17's with guns as I stated---but the rest of them should be pure bvr and wvr shooters in our conflict zone in case of war---.

 

[shjliu]

A Laser gun will be ideal to replace that machine gun!!

 

[MastanKhan]

Well this is an quite an old argument that results US to remove the Gun from F-4 Phantom in Vietnam war causing a big problem where gun was not part of the aircraft internally and after the pressure from pilots were in situations where there was not rocket or missile left for fight and still they can't leave fight or leaving fight means becoming sitting duck. Then the external gun have to be included in the missions in a pod alike assembly, even then the gun's performance was not good enough.

In modern dogfight as you know speed is too high and when speed is too high you got to close anyway. even F-22 have gun too. Considering the short distance between the vital points between India and Pakistan across border. Think you are in cockpit returning from a mission out of all the Air To Air weapons and rockets too, you separated with you mate or you loss them all, and you been spot by enemy CAP. In other instance what about you still have gun in your aircraft.

SO I would say guns is important. However special mission is an other issue.

Hi,

The question arises---how close you have to be from the enemy aircraft to use your guns---what is it @gambit----a 100 yards or 150 yards behind him.

Now if the enemy CAP spots you---then you are done---the enemy does not need to get close to you---it will launch its missile and be done with---. You cannot turn and fight because you will be low on fuel as well.

When the machine gun was installed back on the Phantom---Crank Handle was still an option on some cars to start the engine in case of a dead battery---.

No F35 or F22 will put itself in the hands of fate for a close up shots with a machine gun in combat---.

The USAF will shoot first from a distance and ask questions and give reasoning later---. They will not put their Tier 1+++ aircraft's safety in jeopardy.

 

[Goenitz]

@MastanKhan @Thorough Pro @JamD
can we use exploding bullets with Al powder for head on incoming missile as Chaff?

 

[gambit]

In theory and in test, the Vulcan cannon round in the F-16 is lethal out to 1 km range. However, in practice, close-in maneuvers would take combatants inside that 1 km radius and even as close as WW II type dogfights.

The only time any pilot would have to get within visual range is when a situation was created from an environment where missile use is restricted.

- Air Dominance. The ability of an air force to compel other air forces into subordinate postures.

- Air Superiority. The ability of an air force to achieve control of contested airspace and repeat if necessary, and if there are losses, those losses would not pose a statistical deterrence to that ability.

- Air Supremacy. He flies, he dies.

Air dominance is when/where even the mere presence of a powerful air force is enough to compel other air forces, allies and enemies, to at least prepare plans for rearrangements of where each is in relation to this powerful air force. This situation is usually before or after all the shooting are done, and the odds of having the need for within visual range identification before combat engagement -- just in case -- is high. An unidentified flyer maybe a noncombatant.

For air superiority and air supremacy, this is where contests and enforcement of control are absolute. Anyone in this situation must be able to identify himself in complete clarity because the contestants/enforcers are free to engage from as far away as possible. The need for within visual range identification are not discarded, just very low odds of that happening.

 

[Fieldmarshal]

Hi,

It is abut time that the Paf remove the machine gun from its newly built fighter aircraft---the JF17---use that position for a much needed hard point and possibly add a conformal fuel tank to hold some extra fuel where the bullets and the loading mechanism is taking up the space.

The USAF has not had a machine gun engagement in the last 40 years with an other air force---.

It does not want to have a machine gun engagement with an enemy aircraft at all---. Flying behind the enemy at 100 yards back with guns blazing in your 100---200 millions dollar aircraft and ready to fly thru the debris field of the target aircraft would not be a pleasant experience for the pilot or the aircraft.

Today's pilots would be more inclined on launching their missiles from bvr---or from wvr and then bugging off the arena to come back and fight another day.

There is no reason to pitch your 100 million dollars aircraft against a 30-50 million aircraft and allow it a 50 / 50 advantage---where as it did not have any prior to that---.

For those who are expecting this to happen---are just waging their bets without putting their lives at the stake---. If one was to wager his life on a machine gun combat between a superior aircraft and an inferior aircraft---there would be no naysayers anymore.

The machine gun pod can be used as a much need hard point for other accessories and sensors---and the amount of space taken by the belt and the bullets and the mountings can be much purposefully used with some extra electronics gadgets which could give exctra protection to the aircraft or increase its offensive capabilities---.

The machine gun maybe used as an option for ground strike missions---but for general use---just take it away---.

Learn to fly different---learn to fly without a machine gun---use the time to change the mindset of the air combat pilot and train him different.

That's wt the usaf though at the time of development of the f-4 phantom but subsequent events proved them wrong n they to attach a gun later. Their r numerous other examples like that.
U need to understand that every weapon that has ever been developed, has always had a counter weapon/tactics developed to negate it n that's how it's always going to be

 

[Taha Samad]

Hi,

You can have 20-25 % of the JF17's with guns as I stated---but the rest of them should be pure bvr and wvr shooters in our conflict zone in case of war---.

I think you are basing your arguments on just one of many scenarios in which Air to Air combat can take place.

In a war you can not guarantee or assume that you will always be able to fire at enemy at BVR ranges.

Few alternate scenarios:

i) In case of an enemy raid, it is possible that by the time JF-17s get in air, enemy aircrafts' are already close to the field. In such cases WVR combat is inevitable and may even turn into classical dog fight. In this scenario gun can be very useful.

ii) JF-17 as part of strike package; as escorts or attack aircraft. While ground based radar alerts them of presence of nearby enemy CAPs, but for sake of not-being detected they press-on. Eventually they will detected, once over target or once attack is executed. Now they have to fight their way out. Attack aircraft will have only 2 WVR missiles and will have to rely mostly on guns. Even escorts can be intercepted by scrambled enemy fighters from 'nearby' airfield.

These are just two of many scenarios in which gun will be useful. So at best what you are suggesting can be done to few aircraft, which are then used as special mission aircraft(EW/Recon). One has to remember that being MR, a routine JF-17 carry some of the special mission equipment on hard-points. So unless JF-17 hard-points can not accommodate all of the equipment required for such special missions & unless PAF feels that such aircrafts will be required very regularly it won't make sense to have special mission variants of JF-17. Even that will only happen only after JF-17s have replaced most of the fleet of old Mirages & F-7s.

Hence IMHO it makes sense for bulk of the fleet have the gun.

 

[imadul]

A Laser gun will be ideal to replace that machine gun!!

Yes, US has been testing LaWS in 50 yr old USS Ponce and may be able to install one in AC-130 ghostrider some time in 2020's. Once they are miniaturized, smaller fighters like f-16, f-15, f-18 could be equipped with it too.

 

[krash]

Hi,



There is no reason for you to fly your 200 million dollars F22 a 100 yards behind the enemy aircraft---pull the trigger and then you are sh-itting in your pants about your aircraft safety---because now you have to fly thru that debris field.

Actually given the turning nature of a 'dog fight' very rarely are both the aircraft flying in a straight line when one is shot. The debris would mostly be ejected out of the approaching aircraft's flight path, IMO.

 

[AZADPAKISTAN2009]

Also not to forget killing your enemy with the Plane's machine gun single bullet is always a greater achivement

 

[MastanKhan]

That's wt the usaf though at the time of development of the f-4 phantom but subsequent events proved them wrong n they to attach a gun later. Their r numerous other examples like that.
U need to understand that every weapon that has ever been developed, has always had a counter weapon/tactics developed to negate it n that's how it's always going to be

Hi,

Please talk technical---. You only heard what others said---I was old enough to read the actual news---.

You have no clue where the level of technology was at that time in comparison to now---.

When you talk like this---just remember that the 3 x 4 in smart device that you have in your hand has more processing power than the massive mainframe NSA computer they had in their basement in the early 60's.

As I mentioned in my first post---some 'intelligent people' will come out swinging and give example of what happened 50 years ago---.

When air forces are spending over a million dollars apiece over these smart missiles---you really think that the investment being made because these current day missiles are ' worthless '.

The scenario that I have brought in my first post is in relation to Paf and Iaf---.

 

[imadul]

That gun is not only for A2A engagements, it is pretty useful in engaging ground targets, especially parked enemy aircraft on an airfield or a moving column of armour etc., and most importantly gun is the only jam proof weapon available to the pilot in high electronic jamming/counter measures environment




Gun is about 200kg, 300 rounds of ammo would add another 80~100 kg

Cant talk intelligently about machine gun in a modern day fighter. But, could 300 rounds enough for some opportunistic CAS role? Compare that with AC-130 Ghostrider which can really pulverize infantry. Mil MI-35 will be a better CAS Option. MEDEVAC/troop space can be improvised for some other large caliber machine gun?

 

[MastanKhan]

The Americans tried that, do you what happened? Their air craft started getting shot down in dog fights. BVR is important, but the Americans have rightly predicted that air control will inevitably end up with close range dog fights, where AAMs are limited in number, and a canon is a far better choice.

Hi,

Yes I know what happened--- i was old enough to read that news and understand the significance of that action happening at that time---.

Most of you guys just quote that without understanding and comprehending the changes that the weapons technology has gone thru.