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

[MastanKhan]

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.

 

[Bossman]

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

 

[graphican]

In terms of weight, how heavy JF-17's machine gun be? Some 100-200 Kilos together with load of bullets?

 

[TankMan]

While I can see how useful an additional hardpoint can be, most modern airforces (Russia, China, even US) still believe in machineguns as backup weapons for fighters as missiles tend to be limited and have a minimum range.

Modern fighters can still be used (and often are) for strafing runs and close air support, especially when fighting insurgents.

Also keep in mind that the JF-17 is supposed to be a multirole fighter, not exclusively an air-to-air fighter,

In Vietnam, F-4s didn't have an MG, and this arrangement turned out to be inadequate, so F-4C onwards were equipped with gun pods

The US recognized the importance of CAS so much, they developed an entire platform for that purpose, the A-10.
And if i recall correctly, most of the new F-35s are equipped with GAU-12 guns.

Let's also not forget that the US has not fought an evenly matched airforce in the past 40 years either - they've always relied on their overwhelming strength to achieve air superiority, which is not a practical doctrine for the PAF to adopt.

In terms of weight, how heavy JF-17's machine gun be? Some 100-200 Kilos together with load of bullets?

This is the gun used in JF-17, according to wiki it's 50kg. Including bullets, i'd say your estimate of is about right.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gryazev-Shipunov_GSh-23

According to this website, one 23mm round, the type used by MiG-17s, weighs about 200g. So, the gun and 500 rounds would weigh 150kg total.
http://www.russianammo.org/Russian_Ammunition_Page_25mm.html

Will try to find a more reliable source on this.

 

[AZADPAKISTAN2009]

With the new drone swarms being inducted I think the Machine guns will have a purpose after all

 

[MastanKhan]

In terms of weight, how heavy JF-17's machine gun be? Some 100-200 Kilos together with load of bullets?

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

 

[TankMan]

but as the primary use of the aircraft would be air superiority or air defense---then all resources must be targeted in that direction---.

If we were talking about an air superiority fighter, i'd agree with you 100%. But the JF-17 is not meant to be an air superiority fighter, it is meant to be multirole. That includes CAS, which is vital for counter terror ops.

 

[NHUDA]

US Learned its lesson in Vietnam war ..


The idea that missiles will be all a fighter aircraft needs was prevalent in the late Fifties. The F-4 Phantom carried initially only missiles, but at the start of the Vietnam war this turned out to be inadequate. In a real conflict things turn out always different than anticipated.

Today, a gun gives the pilot a lot more options, and if the situation is unclear, close-up visual inspection before shooting is still vital to avoid a variety of complications.

Even STEALTH F-22, F-35 carry a gun with them !

 

[MastanKhan]

US Learned its lesson in Vietnam war ..


The idea that missiles will be all a fighter aircraft needs was prevalent in the late Fifties. The F-4 Phantom carried initially only missiles, but at the start of the Vietnam war this turned out to be inadequate. In a real conflict things turn out always different than anticipated.

Today, a gun gives the pilot a lot more options, and if the situation is unclear, close-up visual inspection before shooting is still vital to avoid a variety of complications.

Even STEALTH F-22, F-35 carry a gun with them !

Hi,

Thanks for your post----it is just like this---when your grand parents or great patrents---like mine have been in a famine---their eating habbits and the way they look at food is not the same---.

Just like me---I have gone thru this depression in the U S economy in 2008 and was hit hard---so my spending habbits are not the same---.

In a similar manner---the U S congress and senate is still ruled by vietnam era vets or those in the same age group---till they are alive---it won't change in the U S---but when they die---the new generation will look at things differently---.

The new gen had already made the decision that the machine gun was not needed in the F22 and the F35---they already saw the writing on the wall---but the old dogs in the conrgess / senate had not forgotten those moments of starvation.

The new gen knew that the machine gun was redundant---of no use in a 200 mil aircraft---.

They already knew---that if the moment came to use the machine gun for a 200 mil aircraft---then the money and technology used on it is a waste---. But they acted as good soldiers---and said " yessir "---" where do I sign ".

There is no reason for you to fly your 200 million dollars F22 a 100 yards behind the enemy aircraft---pull the trigger and then you are sh-itting in your pants about your aircraft safety---because now you have to fly thru that debris field.

It is not going to happen---.

The JF17 is a MODULAR design---the machine gun and its accessories can be easily be replaced---but only if there is a right item to put in its place---.

Even though the JF17 is a multirole aircraft---against the primary enemy---70 / 80% would be used for air defense or air superiority roles---and only 20 / 30 % used for ground strikes and out of those---maybe 1 / 2 for straffing purposes.

So---if viewed over a larger picture---200 kg of fuel and extra sensors maybe a better bet---or the loss of that extra weight can add a smart weapon to the arsenal.

There is no war going to be fought like the vietnam war anymore.

 

[That Guy]

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.

The Americans tried that, do you what happened? Their air craft started getting shot down in dog fights. BVR is important, but the Americans have rightly predicted that air control will inevitably end up with close range dog fights, where AAMs are limited in number, and a canon is a far better choice.

 

[JamD]

A vast majority of people tend to overestimate the effectiveness of AAM.

This is useful here on how long range kills work:

Also, JF-17 is meant to do other things beside A2A.

Furthermore, even in A2A combat when JF-17's, with equally matched opponents, after the first few salvos have been fired, gun combat is likely to ensue.

This is good description of salvo firing of missiles:

 

[gambit]

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

The warhead features a safe/arm device requiring five seconds at 20 g (~200 m/s²) acceleration before the fuze is armed, giving a minimum range of approximately 2.5 kilometers.

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.

 

[JamD]

I think it is also pertinent to mention that podded guns are quite inaccurate. They are no replacement for a well-integrated gun.

 

[imadul]

I will agree with MK, you have to look out of the box but will add the need to look overall holistically. In today's time where detection, ecm, and shoot from afar have become increasingly important, are speed and maneuverability still that important? What speed and high maneuverability can do against a very fast bvr missile once you are locked?
May be all effort should be on long range bvr missiles, stealth, endurance, and detection and do away with after burning gas guzzler engines and close to 1 twr requirements.

 

[Thorough Pro]

That gun is not only for A2A engagements, it is pretty useful in engaging ground targets, especially parked enemy aircraft on an airfield or a moving column of armour etc., and most importantly gun is the only jam proof weapon available to the pilot in high electronic jamming/counter measures environment

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.

Gun is about 200kg, 300 rounds of ammo would add another 80~100 kg

In terms of weight, how heavy JF-17's machine gun be? Some 100-200 Kilos together with load of bullets?