Why are there autocannons on air superiority fighters?

in vietnam commie jets had cannons and we didnt and i think it fucked us up a few times.

Two stealth fighters engaging one another.

/thread

The longer an engagement takes place the closer two fighters will inevitably get, if they're both hell bent on making a kill. If it's merely scaring off a fighter he might turn tail and disengage but this all depends on the circumstances. For now, for a fighter to hold lock and ensure a missile hit he still has to be traveling with the enemy in a rough 40 degree view or so of the radar cone. Due to the laws of physics a fixed wing fighter will still be closing distance...

But even still this is probably a bait topic made by a v tard

they tried that in the vietmeme war

I actually now think we're all retarded because he said AUTOCANNON, not GUN.

And posted a pic of a Typhoon's gun versus a Raptor's gun.

We've played ourselves like a goddamn fiddle.

Because humans are awesome.
>only species in this galaxy who aim their own coaxially mounted kinetic weapons manually by aiming their entire vessel at the target's predicted position
Humans are absolutely based and will conquer the entire fucking Milky Way with coaxially mounted autocannon.

Attached: 1550860772616.jpg (300x440, 25K)

You people missed the point, what OP was asking is why does the virgin Eurofaggot use an autocannon, vs the chad Fuckupper-22 which has a rotary gun?

Attached: 1515009206823.png (908x908, 860K)

Well either way it's a dumb question, as it merely boils down to shell size and ammo weight. Euros and Russians have always preferred larger round, while the US sides with more ammo.

In the split second glimpse that a fighter passes through a pipper imo higher RoF is more important. The F-15C still flew with almost 1000 rounds of ammunition. Ironically Su27s and MIG29s, who were far more likely to use their guns since their radars and radar guided missiles were so underdeveloped only carried a fraction of the rounds.

To add to this, it's also because of the fact that Euro and Russo fighters always had to deal with the threat of bombers, while the US had a history of the being the one on the offensive, and their only targets being fighters, not large aircraft, hence the predisposition to smaller rounds. If the OP had a basic understanding of WW1 and 2 he could have came to this conclusion pretty easily.

oh i dont know

you will probably end up being jammed the shit out of your systems
and thus will rely only on visual confirmation?

Autocannons (all 4 different types) > rotary cannons.

Russia makes the gatlings with the highest ROF, yet they put autocannons in most of their planes including the Su 57. If Americans weren't as low IQ as they are, they'd put autocannons on their as they are CLEARLY superior for that application. For stuff like CIWS gatlings are perfectly fine though.

>they'd put autocannons on their
planes*

Gentle reminder that USN never added a gun to the F-4. Instead, they focused more on training pilots to fly and fight.

The result? USN got plenty of missile kills. USAF got a handful of gun kills, and suffered higher losses.

What would make an autocannon better for A2A? Who cares how much damage each round does when you can just hit it with many more rounds.
Doing damage to multiple areas > doing slightly more damage to a single area

Attached: Go away.jpg (594x831, 118K)

Cringe

Phantoms carried nothing but heatseaking missiles when those were brand spanking new. didn't work out so well, then they just gave them gun pods.

Because automatic radar-guismded gunlaying and proximity shells still makes them really effective against slow aircraft like transports, UAVs, helicopters

guided*

1/2

>Who cares how much damage each round does when you can just hit it with many more rounds.
>Doing damage to multiple areas > doing slightly more damage to a single area
See, it's posts like these which really show how you know nothing about the subject at hand.

It's not about any of that at all.

Autocannons have several advantages over gatlings, one being NO SPIN UP TIME! See, when an gatling cannon fires it takes a good half second from the moment you press the trigger to the first shot actually being fired. Because gatlings need to rotate at speed to work and need a little time for that, it's not instantaneous. On top of that, some gatlings aren't accurate for the first couple of shots. And all of this is under ideal testing conditions btw.

Which means that with a gatling even assuming your first shots are accurate, you lose a good solid half second of time between you pressing the trigger and shots actually being fired. In aerial combat, this is a big problem for obvious reasons.

Meanwhile autocannons have no such problems (technically speaking revolvers have spin up time as well but it's so incredibly small that it's essentially nil, while gast and linear cannons have none at all) which means you press the trigger and the shot goes off. Which also means that in the crucial moments just after the trigger having been pressed/starting to be pressed, all else being equal, an autocannon causes much more damage than a gatling.

2/2

As for the ROF as such, on average gatlings have higher ROF's than autocannons PER MINUTE, but again not in the crucial timeframe immediately after having pressed the trigger as autocannons are already shooting while the gatling is still busy spinning up. Furthermore, gast autocannons have similar ROF's PER MINUTE as most gatlings with none of the inconvenients, as do some revolver autocannons and while gast autocannons are somewhat difficult to scale up in terms of ROF, revolvers are almost as easily scaled up as gatlings, with again none of the inconvenients.

By comparison gatlings have only 1 advantage over autocannons, but that advantage is completely irrelevant for a2a combat and kind of irrelevant for other applications given the new types of munitions which exist today which haven't existed in the past.

TL;DR gatlings are kind of retarded in this day and age which is why Russia (the country which makes the gatlings with the highest ROF) and everyone else but America chooses autocannons over them in a2a applications (and often elsewhere as well).

Not picking a side between you two, but there are more factors to it than you portray.

Most importantly is the fact that larger caliber cannons will maintain speed farther and be less effected by wind. The latter is pretty fucking important when you plan on firering while flying at high speeds which is pretty much what fighters do.

All in all that means longer range and a more predictable trajectory.

Why does the USA have such a fetish for the inferior gatling gun?

Note that the russian high RoF rotaries are gas operated, so presumably have less spin-up time but worse reliability (there are cocking charges, but they're limited and probably still worse than an electric one just ejecting a miss/hangfire)

I agree that stationary barrels are better in A2A anyway.

>150 rounds
>480 rounds

YIKES

Vietnam had more success with missiles though

retard

1/2

Appreciate your post user, goes to show that not everyone on Jow Forums is an idiot.

>Note that the russian high RoF rotaries are gas operated so presumably have less spin-up time but worse reliability (there are cocking charges, but they're limited and probably still worse than an electric one just ejecting a miss/hangfire)
It's hard to say wether gas operated gatlings truly have less spin up time than electric ones. When you compare a gas driven/4 barrels/7.62x54r youtube.com/watch?v=x6DknH7Z3Co and an electric driven/6 barrels/7.62x51 youtube.com/watch?v=uoQYv6Uit98 one, it seems about equivalent. Either way spin up is still clearly there.

On a related note, everyone knows Russian/Soviet military propaganda was bullshit but there's one area where they weren't full of shit, one area where they were and in some cases still are ahead of the west and that area is gatlings and (in a sense) autocannons.

The West had no equivalent to the ShKas (in mechanical terms, despite it being an amalgamation of 3 American and European concepts. In terms of performance the Nazis had 2-3 equivalents off the top of my head)
The West has no equivalent to the Gsh 30-1 (despite it being little more than a 40 year younger MG 151 on steroids which leads me to the question: why wasn't the MG 151 series developed further post WW2? Especially when it was copied by ZA and France and is used till today)
The West has no equivalent to the various Soviet Gast autocannons (despite gasts being a western invention in the first place)
American gatlings are pretty much a joke compared to the soviet ones by every metric (despite gatlings being an American invention in the first place)

I find this regretable as I know we can do better than this. Hell, since I read patents I know for a fact what amazing autocannons have been patented in the US and Europe but why aren't they being brought to market maturity, marketed and if there's interest serially built?

2/2

>I agree that stationary barrels are better in A2A anyway.
Yup. Everyone except for the US agrees.

Originally the F-35 was supposed to have the BK-27 revolver (used on Tornados, Typhoons, Gripens and elsewhere) which would have been an excellent choice given, among other things, the extremely high muzzle velocity and amazing ammo types available for 27x145 but unsurprisingly the "gatling mafia" had the last word.

Really curious to see what guns FCAS and Tempest will have. Tempest will very likely have a non British gun as DEFA and ADEN (both still being produced by Britain) are outdated, FCAS is more tricky as both BK-27 and GIAT 30 are excellent, each with their own pros and cons.

How is a fighter supposed to just disengage? I remember back to when I was playing with jets in GTAV. A few times some guy in another just would try to run away and I would simply blow him up with missiles. Presenting your rear end to the enemy just gets you killed.

For shooting down passenger liners without wasting a missile.

Bummer fudd lore. This guy's got it.

One of them actually did shit worth something.

Narrator: It wasn't the Navy.

The gun in the f35 is for ground attacks, genius. You also don't its true specs anywhere near enough to say it's worse than an autocanon.

Because how else are the Mariks going to justify all those Rifleman purchases

Not when you can outrun the missile. In modern air combat missiles aren't able to turn nearly as well as one might expect due to the way their propellant works. They rely on not chasing the enemy, but intercepting. They try to go for where they think the plane is going. So if you're in an extremely maneuverable plane like the F-22, you can probably just climb until it goes past you. If the missile turns around back towards you, you can speed up and by then you're home free.

Then you get locked on by another missile because the other plane is still there. How is this disengaging?

>gross weeb art
Back to your Jow Forumseneral.

Attached: 1546066753716.jpg (4160x2340, 1.67M)

>The gun in the f35 is for ground attacks, genius.
Not only.

>You also don't its true specs anywhere near enough to say it's worse than an autocanon.
What is known.

>Caliber
>Ammo types
>ROF
>Spin up time
>Weight
>Barrel length

One can make good deductions from this. Even more so when one knows the inherent problems of gatlings vs autocannons of whichever type.

>gattling
this is some horrible pseudointellectual posting my dude. neck yourself

If you're close enough to be using guns, but you can't anticipate your shots and spin the gun up just before getting onto target then you're doing something horribly wrong.
Do we really have to bring up the meme picture of R*ssian vs US aircraft A2A K/D?

Attached: catfish.jpg (526x604, 26K)

How do you feel knowing that Anime will always be allowed on this board?

Attached: 1549111426090m.jpg (715x1024, 78K)

Everything I wrote is factually true. Trying reading a book or something maybe.

The fact that Russian airframes, engines and just about everything else sucks has no relation to their mastery of gatlings and autocannons, which not even Western authors have ever denied.

Yeah, Soviets/Russians make fucking excellent gatlings and autocannons, one of the very few things their military industry is objectively really good at.

>Climbing to avoid a missile
Wat

Delivering relatively cheap ordnance with very little prep/reaction time, without the need for radar or IR.

Or if you meant autocannons vs. gatlings:

+More ordnance delivered in a small timeframe. For reference, a Mauser 27mm revolver can deliver more kg's of explosive than a GAU-8 for a few seconds after trigger pull.

+Less weight, just one barrel and feed system is integral to gun. Gas operation means no need for heavy and taxing electricals.

-Limited or no misfire solving in air.

-Gas operation means more shit to clean

-Not as cool

>source: Ex ammo guy

Attached: 1546268690594.jpg (640x946, 129K)

When is the last time an air superiority fighter used their guns rather than missiles to down another aircraft?

Like a week ago

Attached: Repostsrageagainstthemachine_4c4d6a_6474492.jpg (1200x899, 198K)

>Autocannons have several advantages over gatlings, one being NO SPIN UP TIME! See, when an gatling cannon fires it takes a good half second from the moment you press the trigger to the first shot actually being fired. Because gatlings need to rotate at speed to work and need a little time for that, it's not instantaneous. On top of that, some gatlings aren't accurate for the first couple of shots. And all of this is under ideal testing conditions btw.
this is some zoomer /v/ noguns retard shit
holy fuck

>this is some zoomer /v/ noguns retard shit
No, these are nothing more than facts.

Gatlings can't fire right away, they need to spin up first (unlike autocannons). Fact.
Gatlings aren't necessarily accurate on those first shots (unlike autocannons). Fact.

The poos didn't just use missles?

obviously they arn't superior if the US isn't equipping their jet with them you euro shit

(YOU SHOW ME THE WAY ANY DAY_)
I'm doing this all day and rutting. loopvideos.com/sMjgaa5j_LE?from=781&to=783 Gotta get all that Ian forgotten weapons blacked.com sperm out my ass BRAAAAAAP.

Attached: m16disconnector.png (392x252, 287K)

This poster is a smooth brain shithell from /wtg/. Fact

I was reading about Iran-Iraq war and when you have shot all your missile and the opposing side did too, no other fighter available, but they still have bombers closing by your installations, you go with the cannon.
Not an improbable scenario in case of a total war.

Mind providing kill ratio and missile failure rate?

this guy gets it

Because combat doesn’t follow a script.
And if you get into a missle fight and run out of missles, whoever has a gun left over might just get to go home that day.

It's not like you can install another missile in the nose, can ya?

>gatlings can't fire right away
Correction: gatlings take about half a second to reach MAXIMUM rate of fire. They can spew bullets the whole time they do it, though.

Revolver cannons also need to spin up, but without having to move all that barrel mass, it happens fast enough you don't notice.

This pussy doesn’t want to watch his victims die. What a fag.

LOL

>Correction: gatlings take about half a second to reach MAXIMUM rate of fire.
>They can spew bullets the whole time they do it, though.
Watch videos of gatling guns firing. During spin up they do not fire.

This is a good video of the closest relative to the F-35's gatling: youtube.com/watch?v=OKbZj_BW_bA

As you can see and even hear, firing does not start during spin up and there's about 0.5 delay between the barrels spinning and shots being fired.

>Revolver cannons also need to spin up, but without having to move all that barrel mass, it happens fast enough you don't notice.
I already wrote all this above but yeah. Meanwhile linear cannons and gast cannons don't spin up at all.

>Trying reading a book
Interesting statement when you're posts are a mixture of wikipedia and self delusion.

>mixture of wikipedia and self delusion
Neither actually. My sources are two of the West's biggest authorities on the subject, Tony Williams and Emmanuel Gustin. Ever heard of them?

Wrong.
we have 360° capable missiles now gramps.

Funny enough both planes have about 0.08 seconds worth of fire with the given ammunition capacity.

Underrated and undergunned

Something else no one talks about with gatling guns:
When you stop shooting, and the gun stops spinning, you lose like 3-7 rounds of ammo. They just cycle through the gun so it can be totally fresh next time you shoot. So you don’t know exactly how much ammo you have left. I think the HUD ammo indicators in the F-16 guess it’s 5 rounds lost but still, it could say zero but you still have rounds left.

Lol at pic

I know that they are recklessly cited on the Wikipedia, am I supposed to be impressed :^)

Attached: 1391497887347.jpg (248x281, 39K)

The Eurof*ghter Tiffany's gun is honestly more of a fashion accessory it's basically as purse. It wasn't even going to be function until recently when people got mad that they left it is as nothing more than ballast.

Some air pilot was talking about how you can dodge a missile but can't doudge a bullet

>a minute

That's absolutely retarded. Bullets don't even try to follow you, and you can absolutely dodge them in a fighter.

Some air pilot was wrong because you can't dodge modern A2A missiles due to them being able to pull 9001 G turns.

As you can see in this video, there is a delay of miliseconds before the cannon starts firing.

youtu.be/N60WtGC4ejo

Straffing runs are still a thing, there are several videos of rafales doing CAS with their 30 mm guns.

I get putting them on a multirole jet. Just not on putting them on a jet that is designed to kill other aircraft.

>he needs more than one barrel
Pussy

More barrels = more shoota = more violence

Attached: maxviolence.jpg (536x619, 407K)

What would be an example of a modern non-multirole fighter?

For something like a F-22 or F-35, they have the ability to fire their load and disengage before they'd even be detected by enemy fighters thanks to their RCS stealth.

F-22, F15, F14

F-15 and F-22 operationally carry JDAMs and the f-22 can carry SDBs.

F-14 that are still in service are not "modern" in any sense if the word, and their replacement in the USN, the F-18, has extensive A2G capabilities.

In fact, when the cold war Soviet AshM craze ended, the F-14 was put into use through modernization that gave it some A2G capability.

The modern trend has been to create flexible weapons, especially for air assets, to get the most bang for your buck and to enable flexible doctrines because the future, including the types of war, is very uncertain.

Therefore, you see the trends of the more pure superiority fighters (such as the Eurofighter) having later iterations that expand A2G capabilty.

Attached: dude missiles suck lmao.png (689x512, 159K)

What do you think about a potential electrically primed caseless or tround autocannon for aircraft? Not counting development costs. I believe aircraft mounted autocannons are one place where exotic cartridge(or lack thereof) types that facilitate fast reloading with a minimum of linear moving parts might actually shine.

>There's a B-52 out there with jet fighter kills painted on it
The absolute mad man

So you don't need the weight of the gun when you are doing A2A missions

One of them is currently the gate guardian at the Air Force Academy out in Colorado.

Sometimes you want to humiliate your adversary.

>Maneuvering tactics
You made the other guy work so hard to dogfight you that he stalled and died?

Autocannons are just plain superior, even USA transited to it after seeing how they got rekt by axis fighters in WW2. Its all a proven concept.