do they even bother to load ammo into the guns of fighter

>>32362705
Today a gun is not even optional - having one is a construction error by the design team, it's a lot of weight which can be used for more useful tools and if you as a pilot are in a position where you have to use the gun you've already failed, hit the after burner and get lost.

>>32362716
Nah you can still be used for unplanned CAS.

>>32362705
OFC they do. For the same reason people CC. It's better to have it and not need it than the other way around.

Let's load every fucking airplane with depleted uranium and shoot the sands of the East enough times that there's patches of radioactive lead in the dunes.

>>32362723
Against AK wielding illiterate goat hearders you can use your sonic boom for unplanned CAS.

>>32362731
That would also harm the friendlies, you idiot. The S in CAS, stands for "Support", incase you didn't know.

>>32362782
Inverse square law is your friend - fly close enough to the enemies but far enough away from the friendlies.

File: F15-cockpit-view-tanker-067.jpg (1MB, 1993x3000px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1993x3000px

can somebody caption this? it's just askin for it

>>32362705
Depends on the operation.

If the mission calls for shredding, then yes. If not, then probably not to save fuel and weight.

>>32362789
There is no such thing as an "inverse square law".

Because dogfight is cool fampai.

File: 420px-Inverse_square_law.svg.png (39KB, 420x280px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 420x280px

>>32362819
This one, it's valid for sound too.

File: tumblr_inline_nbr9hqkc0w1rfnlv2.gif (17KB, 130x129px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 130x129px

>>32362716
>Apple designs a plane

File: FSA_get_rekt.webm (1MB, 854x480px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 854x480px

>>32362705

>>32362906
wouldve did literally nothing

>>32362917
>30mm HE wouldve did literally nothing
yeah, you are right

>>32362906
What jet is that?

>>32362945
Syrian Mig-29

>>32362716
guess you never heard of the F4 phantom

>>32362962
bait incoming, I can smell it

>>32362716
>what is ECM
Cannon is still useful.

>>32362962
Hello 1960s fanboy.

>>32362880
we already know what chinese planes look like

>>32362967
>>32363007
His point is somewhat valid. Just like infancy of missile guidance made missiles less reliable in past, ECM threatens to make missiles less reliable today.
In addition to that, many factors influence aerial combat, it's not as simple as you people believe.
Guns are no longer the main weapon but they are a useful backup in case things don't go the way military analysts working at Bhutanese livestock trading forum imagined.

>>32363030
Except the problem with the Phantom wasn't the lack of gun, it was the lack of pilot training.
Both the USAF and USN F-4 squadrons started the war in VN with a KDR of roughly 2:1. In response the USAF put a gun on theirs, and the USN started the Fighter weapons school, AKA TOPGUN. By the end of the war, the USAF KDR was still roughly 2:1, while the Navy's had climbed to 13:1.
Note that also the Israelis had pretty impressive achievements with shitty A2A missiles, by training their pilots to get in close to the enemy's tailpipe before firing.
>TLDR: Pilot training was, and is, far more important than a gun.

>>32362705
No ammo is procure on site only

File: 1481831330905.gif (1019KB, 500x208px) Image search: [Google]

1019KB, 500x208px

>>32363062
>Pilot training was, and is, far more important than a gun
What about pilot training with guns? I find it hard to believe that honing both would be counterintuitive.

I don't know shit about this subject though.

>>32363082
>What about pilot training with guns?
Such time would be better spent training for missiles, which are the real engagement method; however, much of the training for guns is relevant for older (rear-aspect-only) heatseekers- get on the tail, get close, blast. And basic fighter maneuvers are always good, as well as the basics of turn fighting and energy fighting.

>>32362716

>You don't need guns

SHALL

>>32363114

shut the fuck up

>>32364025
NOT

>>32364056
NIGGER FAGGOT

>>32362705
Yes, you can use the gun against ground targets too there anon.

>>32364144
BE

>>32364214
INFRINGED

>>32362840
That's an inverse square dependence. It's not a fundamental law of nature, only a specific case.

Why am I so semantic about this? It's mostly spouted by uneducated morons who try really hard to sound smart
It shows a lack of deeper understanding of a problem.

"Fighters" are really multi-mission attack aircraft and need to be capable of strafing though that isn't the most desirable or safe method of taking out ground targets. Missilefags/trolls emotionally resent cannon but I never met a fighter pilot who wished he didn't have one.

Cannon 20mm and up make mincemeat of enemy tracked vehicles. I worked hot refuel at KKMC during Desert Storm and chatted with da pilots while pumping JP-4. After expending other ordnance to suppress enemy fire they had large fun lighting up tanks, tracks and ragheads. Likewise Warthog drivers used Mavericks, CBUs and dumb bombs then strafed what was left.

>>32362705
Integrated guns in fighters are like CCW for people.

You might never use them in your whole life, but if you do you'll thank the gods to carry one.

>>32362729
>depleted uranium
>Lead

>>32362792

what would you want to caption it?

>>32362705

you do downrange for the same reason you have a 2x2 missile loadout. and while i haven't done it for a few months, we strafe regularly between all the other things we're tasked to do. we practice strafing without ammo as well.

>>32364280
>Desert Storm
Dat sexy choco chip pattern

File: obus-30-mm-rafale.jpg (69KB, 694x382px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 694x382px

>>32362705
No they don't.
I mean guns ? On fighters ? Ahah who needs that ?

>>32362716
>>32362705
Yes they do, its a fucking fighter, its mission is to eliminate enemy aircraft. Better to be safe than sorry like what>>32362726 said. Look what happened in 'Nam,
>HUR DUR MISSLES R FUTUREEEE NO GUNZ REEE
I acknowledge that missiles will be the primary method of dispatching enemy aircraft in the future of aerial warfare, but you need a gun because think about it, what do you do if you have two bogeys in front of you stove pipe facing and you only have one AIM-9?
>its dead weight
people argue that landing gear is dead weight, that the pilot is dead weight, its a retarded backass argument.

>>32362962
>>32366422
>yfw the navy didn't use guns on their F-4s but had a better K:D because of Fighter Weapons School and similar programs
TOP GUN

>>32366422

>its mission is to eliminate enemy aircraft

And you can do that with missiles far, far more effectively than you can with a gun.

>Look what happened in 'Nam,

Missiles have come a long way since then. You might as well be arguing that jutland proved that warships need heavy armor.

>people argue that landing gear is dead weight

You used the landing gear literally every single time you land or take-off. It can't be deadweight if you use it all the time.

>>32362705
Yes because Hellfires are expensive as fuck. Like $100k. Its like firing off a full ride scholarship to an Ivy League school to kill some camel fucker and his Toyota pickup. That shit gets hard to justify even for a military as wasteful as ours.

Our birds went out with 4 hellfires, 2 rocket pods, and full gun ammo. They always came back with no rockets, no gun ammo, and 4 Hellfires.

TLDR - yes guns are very much still useful

>>32366495

>Helicopters are equivalent to fighter jets

>>32366476
>And you can do that with missiles far, far more effectively than you can with a gun.
I know that no shit. It's a last resort like I stated
>Missiles have come a long way since then. You might as well be arguing that jutland proved that warships need heavy armor.
I know that missile tech has improved significantly, but the gun is a crucial part.
>You used the landing gear literally every single time you land or take-off. It can't be deadweight if you use it all the time.
I know that no shit. Landing gear is what makes a Aircraft a aircraft not a throw away spacecraft.

>>32366517
Both can fulfill the role of close air support.

>>32366517
After you achieve air superiority, they take on the exact same missions. Fly around and shoot shit on the ground. Its like 99% of what fighters do. Sorry to burst your fantasy where fighters dog fight every time they go up and then you suck Mavericks dick when he gets home.

>>32366559

>Sorry to burst your fantasy where fighters dog fight every time they go up

Where did I imply that? Dogfighting hasn't been a thing for decades.

>>32366558

Not in the same way.

File: 40mm_AA_gun__magazine.jpg (104KB, 590x765px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 590x765px

>>32362705

The cannon they put in it should be more useful, pic related.

Either 30mm or 40mm

The reason a gatling was put in aircraft was arms race with jet maneuverability based on old style dogfighting, shooting at other jets upwards of 1 or 2 miles away you needed shotgun effect.

But that shit expired back in vietnam, even the Apache has Aim-9s.

The A-10 Warthog has a good feature with its 30mm cannon since it can score so many hits against the same target, but it doesnt take a gatling to do the same damage especially if (DU rounds) and you're hitting lighter vehicles or buildings.

Yes even the F-22 Raptor could be flying in for strafing runs shooting cheap as shit bullets (compared to missiles) to destroy targets.

> the 40mm bofors range sucked
> the 37mm german range sucked

the 30mm the A-10 uses doesnt suck, just scale it up or use it in a slower firing cannon

take all that ammo reserved for air guns and relocate it to the CIWS stocks

now your aircraft all use the same ammo

>>32363006
ha, I played AC4 in a single session yesterday, can confirm

File: china145.gif (111KB, 423x321px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 423x321px

>>32366495
>>32366517
>>32366542
>>32366558
>>32366559
>>32366819
>>32366805

You know I take it back. 14.5mm has better range than a 20mm does even and they could carry more rounds. Pic related. And its still a bastard on light vehicles which are getting more resilient against 50s.

> also when did jets and helicopters start getting armored against 50s anyway, its a mystery to me why they'd need to move up to 20s

Either that or a rapid fire 40mm, because even just one of those things is going to fuck over a helicopter or enemy fighter.

> hmm what can an explosive or DU tipped 40mm do to things on the ground...

>what is close-range aerial maneuver

>>32366805
Personally I think the Europeans tend to have the right idea with their aircraft cannon.

27-30mm revolver cannon give you large rounds with plenty of bang with good velocity at a perfectly acceptable rate of fire. Obviously there are upsides and downsides (usually concerning spin up time and rate of fire and weight to each weapon) but for what most aircraft use their guns for these days, I'd rather the larger caliber weapon.

For example, a BK-27 Mauser is a 27mm 100kg weapon firing 27x145mm rounds with a max RoF of 1700rpm. It is mechanical/gas operated in action.

The latest version of the M61A1 Vulcan is a 20mm 92kg weapon stripped down to the bare minimum (the version they're using on the F-22) firing 20x102mm with a max RoF being 6600rpm. (Apparently the M61A1 can attain a slightly higher RoF with it's lightened barrels than a 'standard' version) It is electrically driven, apparently requiring 25kW at max RoF.

With the revolver cannon you get a gun which is slightly heavier than the latest version of the Vulcan firing much larger projectiles without spin up delay which allows a heavier weight of shot in a shorter period of time. If your time on target allows, you're going to get more rounds out with the Vulcan, but each projectile isn't as heavy.

I love BRRRRT, but as far as Fighter/multirole aircraft are concerned i'd probably roll with a Revolver Cannon if I had the choice.

>>32362819
did you even graduate fucking highschool?