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

[The SC]

In a real conflict things turn out always different than anticipated. As Clausewittz said, the plan is the first casualty of war The main fact is that bullets cannot be diverted or fooled, unlike missiles, for which there are flares, chaff and different electronic countermeasures and early warning systems. For the F-16 Blk 50, provisions have been made to fire the new 'hotter, faster, farther' PGU-28 round. It reputedly travels three times as far as the standard M53 round, effectively closing the gap between the Sidewinder minimum engagement range and the gun's maximum engagement range.


Traumatized F-4s in Vietnam

 

[mrrehan]

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

Agreed

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---.

Missiles are not quite a lighter things, even if you remove the gun how many missiles jf-17 can carry just not all the hard point with the missiles. Operations carried out in enemy territory(Indian). Then you have an objective to level off some radar or air base you need ammunition for that as well.

Once can say why we need aircraft for we have tactical nuclear tip curse missile we can get out objectives by sending them through land or sea. Before enemy can wake up all their air bases and other vital points will be to ground.

 

[mdcp]

Agree, targeting pod should be placed instead of gun. We need to put more bvr to make jf17 capable aircraft

 

[Kabaddi]

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.

Before commenting to above crap only titles gives me shiver when a senior in fact elite call cannon a machine gun.

JF-17 is best suited for ground attacks so JF-17 must be armed with a twin barrel cannon.

 

[volatile]

I have an alternate ,Since JF17 has limited hardpoints and argument is to use gun point as targeting pod / Hardpoint

Pros
Left hardpoint for weapon/pod

Cons
A2G role/A2A dog fighting /provide covering support

Facts
1. Our key strengths have been dog fighting skills as well as in Indopak conflict WVR/ Gunnery battle will take place .
2. A2G role guns can play role

Propose
Plug n play gunnery arrangement (Will not be in favour to remove completely)
High explosive rounds / Uranium depleted shells customized to ground role

 

[shah1398]

JF-17 being a Modular design gives the leverage that Gun can be dismounted and an additional hard point can be used for some other purpose depending upon the mission. But I would not totally disregard the Gun mounting as it should still be available when requirement comes. Having said that now imagine that a formation of Thunder is flying where few are equipped with missiles and guns while there is one dedicated aircraft which is carrying additional sensors in place of a gun and supporting the whole formation and aircraft near by through TDL.
@MastanKhan Sir.

 

[Darth Vader]

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 Pakistan cant do that
Why because Most war will be WVR not BVR
Pakistan is Not US is it , all these engagement were against who mind wanna check that
in WVR which weapon you gone use BVR or a Canon

Problem is most of theories you post they dont work reality

I m pretty sure in few years you gone complain why paf isnt making star fighter , and there is conspiracy theory behind or the corruption of Paf staff

Hi,

Maybe more with the total package---the bullets---the belt feeding the motor and the gun itself---or maybe the same---.

The GSH 23 is around 50 KG by itself---so you maybe right on the money----around 200 KG---for the whole package.

It is totally senseless to have a machine gun for a fighter aircraft when the decision and the training made to shoot and scoot.

200 Kg can equip some very nice electronics for the aircraft in the air combat role.

When you have shortcomings---then you have to think out of the box to find ways bring strength to your weaker position.

As I stated that you can still use the mounts for ground strike operations---but as the primary use of the aircraft would be air superiority or air defense---then all resources must be targeted in that direction---.

It is a total guarantee---that the enemy pilot is not an idiot and neither is he a total nincompoop to allow you within a 100 yards on its tail to allow you to shoot down his superior aircraft.

@Khafee @Indus Falcon

I have a better solution
Why is Pakistan even making thunder and buying f 16 they should stop making it since pakistan and india had no proper war for 30 40 years
Pakistan should also destroy its nukes ,
Give its ships and subs to Other countries as a gift how about that ?

 

[Jugger]

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.

BVR is king now, but technology is not always fool proof. The most advanced bvr missiles can be jammed, there are other counter measures as well to defeat missiles.
Whereas the bullet once fired can never be jammed, it cannot be forced to deviate from its trajectory, it is still very relevant in modern warfare because it's cheap.
THE GUN IS HERE TO STAY!!!

 

[Windjammer]

JF-17, just like other aircraft in it's category is a multi-mission aircraft. Not many air-forces can afford a one mission dedicated platform. In any case, the hard point under the intake is usually occupied by a targeting pod, for the same effort instead of removing the cannon, a hard point could be placed under the opposite intake.
The cannon is very important part for it's strafing role and is said to give pilots a physiological boast knowing that they also have a gun to back up their limited AAMs load.

 

[niaz]

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.

Regret to disagree. Unless we think that staff at the design bureaus of France, UK & Russia are duffers; there must be perfectly good reasons for the modern 4th & 5th fighter aircraft to be equipped with a lethal cannon. For example:

Rafael has 30 mm GIAT cannon, Su-30 Mk1 is also fitted with a 30 mm cannon. Eurofighter Typhoon has 27 mm Mauser cannon. Both the F-22 Raptor (20 mm Vulcan) and F-35 (25 mmm) cannons.

All missile fighter concept has been tried and rejected 40 years ago. In my opinion, in a very high level of radar jamming environment along with flares & chaff; reliability of even the most modern missiles is questionable. Therefore every fighter should also have cannon as a weapon of last resort. Somewhat similar to the reason that in a battle where machine guns & assault rifles are the main weapons, army officers are still issued with hand guns & pistols.

Another important reason is ‘Strafing’. Any fighter fitted with a gun can be used to attack infantry targets & for ground support in a secondary role.

 

[313baberali]

Yes remove it if you have stealthy baby

But the ones like jf17 off course not who for shure one day do a match eye to eye.

But i like the idea ,Not is all ! Jf17 whole inventory should be divided into 3 categories ,atleast few just for air to air bvrm
And air to surface only.

 

[punit]

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.

simply Epic !!

 

[JamD]

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

I must confess this is an idea I thought about a very long time ago. Unfortunately, it is impractical with today's level of technology. The weight and shape of a CIWS (what this really is) is too impractical to be put on an aircraft. In the future maybe a laser based CIWS maybe more practical. But these are things probably 20 years in the future at least.

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---.

Yes you are right the processing power is amazing compared to 40 years ago. The processing power of the missile isn't really the bottleneck here. It is the physics. There is no escaping the fact that once the rocket motor is burned out the missile has very limited maneuvering capability. I wonder if you have seen the videos I posted on the very first page of this thread. You are grossly overestimating the effectiveness of even today's AAM. The kind of AAM missiles you are thinking about have rocket motors that burn for the entire length of the missiles flight, and have seekers as effective as aircraft radars. This is simply not the case yet. Maybe in 10-20 years.

Furthermore, in the Pak-India theatre even closer range engagements will be expected. Both sides have some FOBs closer than the maximum ranges of BVR missiles. Also, I will suggest you watch the second video in the aforementioned post which details how missiles are used and will quickly run out. Bugging out and landing, in the Pak-India theatre won't be an option. Ranges close very quickly even in engagements that start off as BVR. When it is flights of a/c against each other (as opposed to one on one fights which rarely happen), salvos of missiles will be fired and rest assure not all a/c on both sides will be hit. The remaining flights of a/c will approach WVR combat.

 

[!eon]

Not much as 30 years ago, but machine guns are still relevant. PAF should start work on composites for weight reduction.
Keeping the same geometry they can workout to increase size.

 

[MastanKhan]

JF-17 being a Modular design gives the leverage that Gun can be dismounted and an additional hard point can be used for some other purpose depending upon the mission. But I would not totally disregard the Gun mounting as it should still be available when requirement comes. Having said that now imagine that a formation of Thunder is flying where few are equipped with missiles and guns while there is one dedicated aircraft which is carrying additional sensors in place of a gun and supporting the whole formation and aircraft near by through TDL.
@MastanKhan Sir.

Hi,

There is no total disregard of the gun in an aircraft---. What the consideration is that would the enemy place its superior aircraft in a vulnerable position of a close in dog fight with guns blazing---.

In this case---target fixation takes over---and situational awareness of the surrounding disappears.

As for straffing runs against the enemy---would that not make the aircraft vulnerable to ground fire----and shoulder launched SA missiles.

We had a discussion going on another thread that ground strike missions---like straffing may not be carried out due to enemy's shoulder launch missile abilities and damage from small arms fire.