Gun Control Strikes the Royal Air Force

Status
Not open for further replies.
benEzra, the Warthog is equipped with a cannon and is THE most useful close-air support machine flown, period.

It's not a fighter--can't go fast; but God help the tank crew in a Warthog's sights--and if a fighter gets too close, it's all over.

Check out A-10 on the military websites.
 
And as far as being a pure Air Superiority fighter, that's a pleasant wish, but air superiority against who? The UK can't afford such a luxury item. Have you seen the kind of duties being performed of late by the Bombcat and the "not a pound for air-to-ground" Eagle?

HA!! don't even talk to me about that! :) I was amazed with all the budget cuts that they would by a fighter, I mean all our missions for nearly the last 25 years have been ground attack, unless we're going to fight america anytime soon they're utterly usless, we should have bought some fancy new gound attack aircraft. I mean we also have F-22 orders in.....what for! Although I suppose that mistake was made in the Falklands, when we had harriers against Mirages (though because of superior pilots we didn't lose a single harrier to them....but it could have been costly, I mean many of those harriers still had their poly wrap on from the factorys :) thought I have to ask.....why didn't America help in the Falklands? That was never explained to me!?

How many fighter kills are made with cannons anyway....I would like a cannon but thats life, we need to replaced SA80s more urgently with some HKs than silly canons on a plane thats never going to be used properly anyway.
 
myopic,

we arent getting F22 - the RN is planning to buy some JSF for the new "super carriers" (theyll look real dinky next to the US ones), that is if the MoD doesnt cut the RN back further (even a sea harrier cant take off from a dinghy in gosport )
 
Tinfoil flight helmets ON
It depends on your intended target. It's a lot quicker/easier to down a hijacked airliner with a missle than it is to shoot it down with guns.
Just thought I'd toss that skunk into the room.

I hope they get usable guns. The descendants of the guys who stood toe to toe with the Nazi Luftwaffe and made THEM blink deserve every option and opportunity they can get.
 
agricola - when was that released. I knew we were getting new carriers (about time) but I thought we were putting F-22s on them rather than Typhoons. When did they cancel the F-22 order?
 
F-22 raptor, reduced radar signature, seriously over budget, still being build in america. It featured in the New Navy concept Art of the new carriers we're getting. I saw a progrm saying we're going to order them when they've been produced. The harrier-type versions of them.
 
I never cease to be amazed that the UK public puts up with this tomfoolery.
It wasn't always so. I recall that when RAF ace "Ginger" Lacey, a veteran of the Battle of Britain was later posted to the Burma area in WWII, he flew Spitfires (I think the Mk. VIII) and once hit a Jap Oscar with his first burst of 20mm. The Oscar blew up, and Lacey returned to base.

He was having a pint in the officers' club when his armorer came in and said, "Sir, are you sure that you got that Jap you mentioned? Your cannons fired only 8 rounds?!"

Lacey smirked, "Eight rounds? As many as that?"

Of course, it was luck as well as skill. Nice shooting, though, and the Oscar was a very agile opponent.

Stephen Coonts, author of, "Flight of the Intruder" and many other bestselling aviation warfare novels, was a Navy A6 pilot during the Vietnam war. He has said in print that he many times wished for a gun on his plane.
His bomber was supposed to always be protected by a Phantom escort, but "things happen", and he missed opportunities to strafe, too.

By the way, before the Gulf War, RAF pilots had to trade their Browning 9mm's for .32 PPK's. Makes danged little sense there, too.

Tamara-

Isn't that quote originally, "A meal without wine is like a day without sunshine"? I believe it is from Alec Waugh. Saw it in a wine book years ago.

Lone Star
 
IIRC, The U.S. did verbally support and provide limited help to England during The Falklands War. We sent some of our AWACS and tankers over to Europe, freeing up Brit planes from NATO duty, so they could be sent to the South Atlantic.

I recall at the time there was much grumbling in Latin America about the U.S. siding with England, so the U.S. had to tread lightly. England saw this, and also as a matter of national pride told us they planned to deal with the attack on their territory on their own - which they did, of course.
 
Thank tex, I always wondered why the Americans didn't send a carrier over for air cover. I take great pride that the birts had 16 planes against 200+ argie.

Though one question remains, why would the US need to appease S.America?
 
Actually, we provided the UK with real time satellite intellegence, not to mention everything else we were able to dig up. But you won't see that in history books.
 
myopicmouse
Member

Registered: Jun 2004
Location: N.Ireland
Posts: 42


quote:The reason the "missile only" philosophy doesn't always work is that IF you have to get in close to positively ID what you're going to shoot, you're too close for a standoff missile. Rules of engagement in Vietnam required positive visual ID of enemy planes before firing upon them (IIRC), so the Phantoms couldn't just blast them out of the sky from 15 miles away; they had to get close enough to see them, and once you're that close, there's not nearly as much difference between lining up for a Sidewinder kill and lining up for a gun kill. And the MiGs were more maneuverable and had guns, which is why the F-4E (with slatted wing and internal gun) was rushed into production.



Allied aircraft have an identification tracker that comes up on each others radar so they don't need to close to visual. Also at the speed these guys go...how hard is it to put distance for a missile kill.


What if there are other people in the warezome other than "Us" and "The enemy"? (E.g. civilians (ours or theirs), less advanced allies who don't have the ID tracker, neutrals we don't want to turn into enemies, etc).
 
Thank tex, I always wondered why the Americans didn't send a carrier over for air cover. I take great pride that the birts had 16 planes against 200+ argie.

It helped that the SAS destroyed a goodly number of Argentine aircraft on the ground.

Allied aircraft have an identification tracker that comes up on each others radar so they don't need to close to visual. Also at the speed these guys go...how hard is it to put distance for a missile kill.

The reason for the visual identification rules in Vietnam is the IFF/SIF was not 100% reliable. Equipment failures, not turned on, etc.

I recall at the time there was much grumbling in Latin America about the U.S. siding with England, so the U.S. had to tread lightly.

The United States did have to tread lightly to keep from alienating the South American countries sympathetic to Argentina. The Brits were appreciative of what help the United States could covertly give, as evidenced by the friendship between President Reagan and Prime Minister Thatcher.

I was a member of the air wing embarked on USS Ranger in the North Arabian Sea when HMS Invincible passed through the area. We received briefings from Invincible officers in our ready rooms and the message we received was that the Royal Navy was appreciative of what help we were able to give, they understood our political problems in remaining friendly with South American countries, and that they were extremely proud that they were able to go it alone.

Stephen Coonts, author of, "Flight of the Intruder" and many other bestselling aviation warfare novels, was a Navy A6 pilot during the Vietnam war. He has said in print that he many times wished for a gun on his plane.

Guns are fun. The A7E Corsair II had an M61 Vulcan cannon which in the Corsair II had a 1000 round capacity. That is a lot of shooting, even at 4000-6000 rounds per minute, depending if you selected Gun Low or Gun High rate of fire.

Pilgrim
 
myopicmouse,

F-22 raptor, reduced radar signature, seriously over budget, still being build in america. It featured in the New Navy concept Art of the new carriers we're getting. I saw a progrm saying we're going to order them when they've been produced. The harrier-type versions of them.

*sigh*

One last time.

You are confusing the F-22 (a non-naval acft) with the joint US/UK Joint Strike Fighter, which will fly on the new minicarriers y'all keep threatening to find the dough to build.

Have a nice day. :)
 
Tamara - Yes your quite correct, when you were talking about the "Joint Strike Fighter" I thought you were talking about the Typhoon. MY mistake F-35 it is!

------------
Pilgrim:
It helped that the SAS destroyed a goodly number of Argentine aircraft on the ground.
Only a handfull from what I remember. Most of their planes weren't stationed in th Falklands.

The reason for the visual identification rules in Vietnam is the IFF/SIF was not 100% reliable. Equipment failures, not turned on, etc.
Yes I know it's not 100% as an America AA shot down a Tornado when they couldn't see it's 'tag' - but how close is visual, I mean a missile can hit something at 200m?

Royal Navy was appreciative of what help we were able to give, they understood our political problems in remaining friendly with South American countries, and that they were extremely proud that they were able to go it alone.
Ok.

Guns are fun. The A7E Corsair II had an M61 Vulcan cannon which in the Corsair II had a 1000 round capacity. That is a lot of shooting, even at 4000-6000 rounds per minute, depending if you selected Gun Low or Gun High rate of fire.
Your talking about guns in the Nam era when phantom pilots etc wanted guns becasue less than 50% missiles wouldn't work, if their missiles worked as they do now, the migs wouldn't have gotten close enought to use their guns.
 
Your talking about guns in the Nam era when phantom pilots etc wanted guns becasue less than 50% missiles wouldn't work, if their missiles worked as they do now,

As the saying goes, there's a reason that they call them "missiles" and not "hitiles". ;)
 
1/they have mutible missiles.
2/If one planes using cannon, do you not think the enemy would use his missiles? - go to afterburner and get out of there.
 
Yeah...it's baffling why those silly pilots prefer cannon on their airplanes. I mean, hell- like they would know what they need. :rolleyes:

John
 
Aircraft guns

I think if you look it up you will see the US did help quite a lot with sigint and other things. Where else did you thing UK forces got Sidewinder model L I think from?The all aspect antiaircraft missile when the opposing forces were several models behind.I dont think a lot of what WAS provided has been released to general information
 
No country has a monopoly on stupid gear acquisitions for the military.
The reason the "missile only" philosophy doesn't always work is that IF you have to get in close to positively ID what you're going to shoot, you're too close for a standoff missile.
The F14's chin pod has a camera capable of such ID at very long ranges...Phoenix ranges.
2/If one planes using cannon, do you not think the enemy would use his missiles? - go to afterburner and get out of there.
If one plane is using cannons, the other is not usually in a position to use anything. Minimum range for the Sidewinder (Aim9) is typically 1km.

(edited to clarify the 1km minimum)
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top