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

[Sage]

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.

But you do understand that JF-17 will be used for defensive role only ...means they would be inside the airspace or probably near the AFB from where they can get the refuelling ...also JF-17 will be available in greater number since it is indigenous ...and it might not face a scenario more like F-7 ...

 

[araz]

For a small AC carrying 4 bvrs plus 2 wvrs which will be spent in the first 10 minutes of the battle , would this not leave the fighter vulnerable without any defences. If you have spent 20 minutes in war arena the last thing that you want is to land back with 2bvr/ wvrs hanging on the pylons. You would want to be as light as possible so I think the cannon remains useful for the above reason.
I do not know if we remove the cannon how much fuel we might be able to carry and what utility it would have if we have spent the missiles. We would want to return to base in any case.
A

 

[gambit]

http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArchive/Documents/2007/July 2007/0707strafing.pdf

In Operation Anaconda in Afghanistan, for instance, USAF combat controller SSgt. Gabriel Brown, under fire, called out to approaching F-15E pilots, “We have enemy troops 75 meters away. ... I need guns only!” (See “The Airpower of Anaconda,” September 2002, p. 60.)

Strafing is a unique skill that falls under the general aerial gunnery training. What make strafing different is that your gunnery parameters are severely limited. Namely -- the ground. You do not have the necessary recovery airspace for when things go wrong.

In the article above...

The official accident report blamed the accident on Gilbert’s “channelized attention,” which was “manifested by his desire to maintain a constant visual positive identification of targeted enemy vehicles, and subsequent target fixation on these vehicles.” These circumstances, the report went on, caused the F-16 pilot “to begin and then press his attack below a recoverable altitude.” On Gilbert’s second strafing pass, he came in at an extremely low altitude and simply could not recover. He flew the airplane into the ground.

Channelized attention on the target was not the problem. The absence of recovery altitude was.

No airman like to leave his fellow countrymen ground troops unsupported, especially when those ground troops are under imminent enemy threat. The gun provides both physical and psychological effects on both friendly troops and enemy targets. Suppression fire to produce a few seconds of respite maybe all that friendly troops need to recover and get to safety and/or reposition themselves into superior postures.

 

[MastanKhan]

@gambit

If the Afghan Muj had SA shoulder launched missiles---there would be no straffing runs---.

The scenario that I have brought up is Indo-pak battleground----a broader border narrowing into the battle zone---backed up with short---medium---long range SA missiles from indian side---and short range and medium range SA missiles from pak side.

Also---a higher number of more potent air superiority aircraft---. With the numbers and weapon superiority---the IAF will never play into the enemy's zone of so called strength---a gun fight---.

In a full conflict---the Paf will have to make or break in the first 48-72 hours---. Extra fuel that is carried in the body of the aircraft--- would be more functional than a cannon---or even 2 extra missile under the belly in the air superiority mode---.

For ground missions---they have enugh Mirages and F7's---.

And even if they make a 70/30----60/40 split no cannons / cannons---it won't make any difference on the ground strike capabilities of the JF17's.

This war is going to be extremely brutal and extremely swift in the first 48 to 72 hours---.

Please share---once you have made an engagement at BVR then WVR---locked and launched your missiles----survived---from where would have the fuel left to carry on a gun fight?

 

[Michael Corleone]

the suggestion of this topic is as dumb as suggesting a 10 yo to be put in the cockpit for flight...
missiles are never the only solution in aerial combat...
ps. USAF hasn't had a read fight against a worthy opponent since world war 2.

 

[MastanKhan]

the suggestion of this topic is as dumb as suggesting a 10 yo to be put in the cockpit for flight...
missiles are never the only solution in aerial combat...
ps. USAF hasn't had a read fight against a worthy opponent since world war 2.

Hi,

You can only fight with the enemy that you have---.

I will repeat my question---you have avoided the BVR's missiles---you jettisoned your tanks when you saw the incoming warning---then you avoided the WVR engagement---you are burning fuel like crazy---.

You survive and now you have extremely low amount of fuel---.

Please tell me---how and where you will engage in a dog fight---get 150 yards behind a more powerful aircraft to launch your cannon shells at the enemy---where would you get the fuel to get into a fight---.

 

[Michael Corleone]

Hi,

You can only fight with the enemy that you have---.

I will repeat my question---you have avoided the BVR's missiles---you jettisoned your tanks when you saw the incoming warning---then you avoided the WVR engagement---you are burning fuel like crazy---.

You survive and now you have extremely low amount of fuel---.

Please tell me---how and where you will engage in a dog fight---get 150 yards behind a more powerful aircraft to launch your cannon shells at the enemy---where would you get the fuel to get into a fight---.

apparently US doesn't have many friends and they consider it interest than friends...
and what if you don't have the option for a more powerful aircraft, no refuel and no landing option either...
if you're worried about fuel before you even engage... you might as well cover up your fighters in sand like saddam...
war is unpredictable, have to meet to the changing demands at moments notice and it's always nice to have as much options as possible instead of only one particular type.

 

[MastanKhan]

apparently US doesn't have many friends and they consider it interest than friends...
and what if you don't have the option for a more powerful aircraft, no refuel and no landing option either...
if you're worried about fuel before you even engage... you might as well cover up your fighters in sand like saddam...
war is unpredictable, have to meet to the changing demands at moments notice and it's always nice to have as much options as possible instead of only one particular type.

Hi,

Stupid answers are dime a dozen---. If you do not understand how fuel is CONSUMED once engagement starts---then ask someone---.

 

[Michael Corleone]

Hi,

Stupid answers are dime a dozen---. If you do not understand how fuel is CONSUMED once engagement starts---then ask someone---.

your removal proposal of a machine gun won't add a large benefit either of storing fuel as you say... if your requirement is longer range.... which i believe pakistan is looking out for.... you need a heavier class of fighter.... like the sukhois or f-15 alikes...

jf-17 wasn't designed for covering certain radius... and if you drastically want to improve on that... you need to build a new jet.
and j-31 plans won't extend your range... it will still be the same.

 

[MastanKhan]

your removal proposal of a machine gun won't add a large benefit either of storing fuel as you say... if your requirement is longer range.... which i believe pakistan is looking out for.... you need a heavier class of fighter.... like the sukhois or f-15 alikes...

jf-17 wasn't designed for covering certain radius... and if you drastically want to improve on that... you need to build a new jet.
and j-31 plans won't extend your range... it will still be the same.

Hi,

You still don't understand---. When two opponent fighter start an engagement---what happens to the fuel tanks---and the fuel stored in the wings---you need to learn about that first---before posting comments.

 

[Michael Corleone]

Hi,

You still don't understand---. When two opponent fighter start an engagement---what happens to the fuel tanks---and the fuel stored in the wings---you need to learn about that first---before posting comments.

gets empty is your concern?
that will happen nonetheless, wether you have the gun on board or not.... you're flying it on highs and lows aren't you?

you need to learn that the machine gun isn't the only thing that's heavy and taking up space... before posting comments

 

[MastanKhan]

you need to learn that the machine gun isn't the only thing that's heavy and taking up space... before posting comments

Hi,

I see now what you are getting at---.

You can bring up your version of what can be taken out and what cannot be.

We have established an open discussion forum over here.

And as for the fuel---it is simply not consumed---it burns like hell fire---and if you are alive after surviving a second missile attack---you have barely enough to land back home---.

The talk of engaging in a gun fight is an illusion---unless you are engaging a very inferior enemy.

 

[araz]

Hi,

I see now what you are getting at---.

You can bring up your version of what can be taken out and what cannot be.

We have established an open discussion forum over here.

And as for the fuel---it is simply not consumed---it burns like hell fire---and if you are alive after surviving a second missile attack---you have barely enough to land back home---.

The talk of engaging in a gun fight is an illusion---unless you are engaging a very inferior enemy.

CFTs were/are still in consideration for the fighter. I still think this/ other gondola tanks may be the option if one wants more fuel rather than abandoning the cannon.
A

 

[Michael Corleone]

Hi,

I see now what you are getting at---.

You can bring up your version of what can be taken out and what cannot be.

We have established an open discussion forum over here.

And as for the fuel---it is simply not consumed---it burns like hell fire---and if you are alive after surviving a second missile attack---you have barely enough to land back home---.

The talk of engaging in a gun fight is an illusion---unless you are engaging a very inferior enemy.

well modern warfare hasnt been faught on equal terms, having said that...
surviving a second missile attack and with tank running on vapours... the only current option left is eject i guess... in which case... unless a forward leap in technology happens... maybe an unmanned high performance fighter with ramjet/turbofan propulsion... fuel efficiency can't be met...
and since the future fighters will most probably be unmanned... i wouldn't be surprised if such a propulsion system is used.

technology stalled in 21st century... a new scientific revolution is needed.
and like the major boom in science that happened... thanks to WW1 and WW2...
i just wonder, how fragile our world is atm.

 

[JustHappened]

I can't imagine a fighter without gun system.
First, for last line defence against raptors and second of course for sudden AG engagements.
US Marines carried out the first successful test of the F-35B's GAU-22 gun pod and
the F-22's close-range weapon is the M61A2 20mm cannon .