CRIKEY!!!!!!!!!!!!! - ATAR POWERED PHANTOMS WAS AN OPTION FOR THE RAAF

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title Newest to Oldest

Pages: 1 2

DropBear RE:Is 2 guns better than 1? 2/4/2006 9:27:51 PM

So sensibly, if surface attack which may require a lot of strafing is your concern, then gatling rotary weapons are the more sensible gun choice. Or you could pop the canopy and get the F-111 Navigator to wave his arm around in the slipstream and madly fire off ("getting his gun off" is usually left till he is home with the wife/girlfriend)a few short sharp bursts of his Glock G17 JAP. link Heck, if Biggles could lob Cooper bombs from his Camel with one hand I say go the tonk G17/Pig style.

Quote Reply

DropBear RE:Is 2 guns better than 1? 2/4/2006 9:31:07 PM

Personally, I think the weapon would've been an ideal replacement for the two 20mm guns in A-4 Skyhawks, also, were it kept longer in USMC inventory. Scooters!!! link link

Quote Reply

AussieEngineer RE:Is 2 guns better than 1? 2/4/2006 10:22:18 PM

It's only an extra 100 kilos, why have one when you can have two. Considering that the Miracle has space and mountings for 2 guns already it makes sense to simply pop in 2 new and better guns.

Quote Reply

DropBear RE:Is 2 guns better than 1? 2/4/2006 11:53:28 PM

Would you want to get in a dog fight if you were flying a M1110? I'd stick with AAMs

Quote Reply

doggtag RE:Is 2 guns better than 1? 2/5/2006 12:04:56 AM

->"It's only an extra 100 kilos, why have one when you can have two. Considering that the Miracle has space and mountings for 2 guns already it makes sense to simply pop in 2 new and better guns. " ---- Beats me why all the fuss. I don't design the aircraft, I just marvel at them. On some aircraft, weight is at a premium, so even the loss of one gun's worth of kg might be necessary. Space can also be a deciding factor: perhaps the size of the Gripen dictated just one gun instead of two (yet the Tornado Air Defense Variants, which boasted a slightly longer fuselage than the ground attack models, opted for a single BK27 instead of the two in the IDS). The Israelis modded some of their Scooters with a pair of 1800rpm DEFA 554s (30x113mm) w/150rpg in place of the two original 20mm Mk12s (20x102mm) w/200rpg. However, had the 30mm guns used the much-longer 30x173mm as does the A-10, the shells probably wouldn't have fit (DEFA and ADEN guns used the same 30x113mm as does the Apache's M230 Chain Gun). So I am just guessing that the aircraft designers do have certain constraints that must be adhered to (space also being at a premium when centers of gravity must be maintained and avionics, fuel, and other systems have to fit also): or else why did the decision to go from 1950s cannon-armed Hunters and Vantours with 4 30mm cannons switch to just two BK27s in the Tornado IDS or two DEFA 553s in Mirages come the 1970s and 1980s? And moreso, why do only US-designed aircraft retain large-capacity magazines (500+ rounds...) as opposed to Euro designs only holding 150-200 rounds per gun: were the Europeans not expecting their aircraft to endure as long? link US experience has shown time and again that aerial gunnery (vs air or ground targets) has its advantages. Apparently European forces have decided otherwise, perhaps choosing to be overly-dependent on bombs, rockets, and missiles, and perfoming shorter-duration missions than US-designed platforms, thus negating the necessity/desire for larger gun capacities...? ...or maybe US pilots still have that macho attitude and need to boast of gun kills to satiate their manliness, so our aircraft designers satisfy that need with an excessive number of rounds.