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

[Sage]

Hi,

A lot of pressure was put on the F22 / F35 manufacturer to install the gun---and not the F4's---

The Phantom got it due to the poor performance of its missiles.

That's my point ....You did not answer the second part of my question ....?

 

[SecretMission]

Weight can be reduced by using more composite material which so far jf-17 is using very less compared to other modern aircraft's instead of removing canon.

 

[denel]

no no and no..... that would be folly to remove. Mig also did the same and to bring it back.

 

[Fawad alam]

Sorry for off the topic,
Can any body tell me the specifications of PL-13 , and the JF-17 newer versions are equipped with that?( I was curious because it indicates in Wikipedia)

 

[Irfan Baloch]

That what American did with the Phantom and then were forced to put gun pods on them.

that was decades ago well before many of us were even born. times have changed missiles were not that accurate and advanced. now you got WVR off bore sight capable missiles which no guns can match.

Rules Of Engagements (ROE).

A missile must fly away from the parent launch aircraft for some distance -- safety -- before it can become lethal.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIM-9_Sidewinder


You will never know when an ROE will force you to come within guns range of an unknown flyer before you make a decision on what he is. If the situation turns hostile, it will change so quick that only a gun can save your life.

and there is that. and hence people say that merge are inevitable in certain situation. lasers might replace guns in the 5th gen + fighters in coming years .

 

[gambit]

Another thing to reconsider the idea of removing the gun from fighters...

It cost more to create missiles. It is estimated that in an air war, most air forces have about 30 days reserve of air-air missiles and that is because most countries have to import their defense. Whereas, most countries have the technical capability to create the ammunition for the guns.

 

[MastanKhan]

That's my point ....You did not answer the second part of my question ....?

Hi,

You can add a supplementary fuel tank for one---and if that can add a 100-150 miles to your combat radius and as it is internal fuel---you have more fuel to fight the battle after you have jettisoned your main tanks---if it gives you a minute or 2 of extra time and that is a massive increase in utility in the air combat mode alone.

 

[BATMAN]

non other than dog fight would be the idea behind adding gun on F-35 and Eurofighter, sure not strafing (excluding when targets are premitives).

While as of yet, non has answered the question about chances of 4.5-5 generation a/c getting close enough to foe, where gun.....sorry cannon may be effective killing tool.

Suerly, SoP of modern fighter is to lock, shoot and scoot and in more darefull scenarios, keep doing it untill all of the missle are off loaded.
Clearly direction of air combat has been changed by technology and so is the fighter pilot training and excercises, thereoff.

With AWACS in theater, and smarter seekers, chances of two a/c coming close to 100 meter of each other (on paper) are close to non.
Now if CANON weighs 300kg altogether and in the end there's no dogfight.... more becuase your foe is flying trucks of BVR and WVR, though he has a gun too but SU can afford it, not thunder!
More than hardpoints,... Thunder need range and agility, while with every addition of hardpoint we are compromising both.
Don't forget, Its a small bird... no amount of hardpoints will bring it even to SU.
There has to be a smarter plan or else buy J-31.

Western nations, would like to trust their technology more than pilot's dog fight skill.
Why they still have guns? Answer is simply they have eough power available, so they are not taking any chances.

Good thing about JF-17 is that its gun can be removed.
So better choice would be to keep blk-3 gun free and leave it on at earlier blocks.

 

[MastanKhan]

non other than dog fight would be the idea behind adding gun on F-35 and Eurofighter, sure not strafing (excluding when targets are premitives).
Western nations, would like to trust their technology more than pilot's dog fight skill.
Why they still have guns? Answer is simply they have enough power available, so they are not taking any chances.

Batman,

I had to wait for 6 pages to get a response. Thank you.

What would be nice to know is that how much of inner space is available when the mountings and ammunition delft and drive mechanism are removed.

And if---when a conformal fuel tank is added---how much fuel can it hold---next how much drag is reduced by removing the cannon from outside---.

I very much doubt that JF17 would be used for straffing enemy ground troops just like Batman stated---even though it looks nice during the demo---.

 

[BATMAN]

I had to wait for 6 pages to get a response. Thank you.

Sometimes... everything is already said and done before you catchup.
I just had to jumpin to remind people, that no SU will be available for dog fight. SU is not a dog fighter and they (Indians) learnd about it even more in US red flag. Still they continue to brand gun, which is useless but JFT should be a smart fighter.

What would be nice to know is that how much of inner space is available when the mountings and ammunition delft and drive mechanism are removed.

Weightwise, i think your estimate of 250-300kg. is not too far from reality.

And if---when a conformal fuel tank is added---how much fuel can it hold---next how much drag is reduced by removing the cannon from outside---.

Adding CFT will bring back drag but will add potency and performance.
In Indo-pak theater, I would like to see addition of 2x100kg. BVR, instead of fuel tank.

I very much doubt that JF17 would be used for straffing enemy ground troops just like Batman stated---even though it looks nice during the demo---.

and i also believe... using JF-17 for strafing terrorists is an over kill. Unless its done for show
We can hang a gun with super mushaq and that would do the job.
While, best dog fighter in PAF inventory is F7PG.

 

[MastanKhan]

Sometimes... everything is already said and done before you catchup.
I just had to jumpin to remind people, that no SU will be available for dog fight. SU is not a dog fighter and they (Indians) learnd about it even more in US red flag. Still they continue to brand gun, which is useless but JFT should be a smart fighter.


Weightwise, i think your estimate of 250-300kg. is not too far from reality.


Adding CFT will bring back drag but will add potency and performance.
In Indo-pak theater, I would like to see addition of 2x100kg. BVR, instead of fuel tank.


and i also believe... using JF-17 for strafing terrorists is an over kill. Unless its done for show
We can hang a gun with super mushaq and that would do the job.
While, best dog fighter in PAF inventory is F7PG.

Hi,

The fuel tank I am talking about is the empty space inside of the aircraft---where the ammunition---belt feed and mounting brackets are located---once they are taken out---there will be a hollow space inside---.

 

[FuturePAF]

Hi,

The fuel tank I am talking about is the empty space inside of the aircraft---where the ammunition---belt feed and mounting brackets are located---once they are taken out---there will be a hollow space inside---.

The gun may become necessary in unforeseen situations
how about moving the guns position and using a rotary cannon with twice the rate of fire (at the same weight); if you carry few bullets (20 mm instead of 30mm) you can save weight with limited lose in capability and still save some weight

http://www.f-16.net/g3/var/resizes/F-16-net-Site-graphics9/album120/album56/aam.gif?m=1371926666

 

[airmarshal]

Machine guns are not just used for dogfight they are also used for strafing. High Explosive incendiary shells take care of most of soft skin mobile targets on ground. They are also used for attacking installations.

If a plane is not carrying a gun, it will have to bomb areas where a couple of shells could have done the job.

Comparison to USAF is unjust. USAF has layers of technology that its aircraft dont need to engage enemy in close quarters. It never comes to a dogfight as USAF electronic countermeasures are very advanced. Even before that, USAF or USN can fire cruise missiles to destroy and deny enemy its air bases. So no flying, no engagement.

Still, its active duty US Marines F-18s and Harriers do carry a gun. So machine gun isnt that obsolete as an airborne weapon.

 

[Sage]

Hi,

You can add a supplementary fuel tank for one---and if that can add a 100-150 miles to your combat radius and as it is internal fuel---you have more fuel to fight the battle after you have jettisoned your main tanks---if it gives you a minute or 2 of extra time and that is a massive increase in utility in the air combat mode alone.

Do I have to assume that all your arguments and the whole thread is about adding a fuel tank instead of a gun when the block-3 is already fitted with a refueling probe?

 

[MastanKhan]

Do I have to assume that all your arguments and the whole thread is about adding a fuel tank instead of a gun when the block-3 is already fitted with a refueling probe?

Hi,

No---it is one of the utilities---. Our arena is very small----refuellers will be taken out within a day or two---.

Secondly---the extra fuel in the aircraft body is more important than the fuel in the external tanks during an engagement---.

Thirdly---after the pilot has evaded BVR missiles and then wvr missiles---he has spent so much of his energy---that possibly he may not be physically able to engage in a further fight---.

The bottom line would be---how much fuel could be carried in that given space for a modular fuel tank.