J-20 5th Gen Fighter Thread V

[Air Force Brat]

Yes, we have 0 evidence for a gun port -- but we also have 0 evidence against a gun port.

My point being that even when there is a gun port on eventual production aircraft we probably wouldn't be able to see it if the photos we get are the same quality as we have at present.

In other words, debating over whether current J-20 prototypes has a gun based off current photo evidence may be pointless and illogical, because photos may not useful for determining the existence of a gun on the aircraft regardless of whether it is a prototype or a production aircraft.
I repeat, if J-20 does have a gun, we probably would not know about it and we would be unable to ID it, given the quality of our current photos and also how unobtrusive a gun port can be on a stealth fighter.

So saying "we can't see a gun therefore the prototypes do not have a gun" is illogical.

yes Mr. Spock!

 

[Broccoli]

I have to disagree with the claim that internal gun is a good insurance policy since most fighters carry less than 200 rounds of ammo for the gun. Logical solution would be to use gunpods instead of internal cannon.

Modern missiles are very reliable.

1965-1969
Gun Kills 65%
Missile Kills 33%
Other 2%

1970-1979
Gun Kills 40%
Missle Kills 56%
Other 4%

1980-1989
Gun Kills 7%
Missile Kills 89%
Other 4%

1990-2002
Gun Kills 3%
Missile Kills 93%
Other 4%

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[plawolf]

Those statistics hide the fact that after the Vietnam war, there hasn't really been a real air war between peers or near-peer countries.

The fact of the matter is that gun kills only happen in a dogfight, and dogfights are inherently more dangerous and risky than BVR. So are avoided whenever possible.

When fighting against hopelessly outmatched foes, of course pilots are happy to stay outside of enemy weapons range and take pot shots with missiles all day long.

If one were to break those figures down by conflict, and also provide number of missiles fired per kill, we could get our teeth into it and take a stab at making a real assessment of just how dead the gun is.

But with the way the data has been presented, it is impossible to make any real conclusion.

 

[kriss]

A gun covers the range below minimal range of heat seeker missiles. Removing it will leave the area around your aircraft not covered by any weapon. Of course this doesn't matter in BVR but in dogfight I think the gun is what keeps any pilot from having some smart idea like "I will get that close to enemy aircraft that none of his missile can hurt me" and if the guy on your six lacks a gun and you two are close enough, something like pugchev's cobra may become a miracle maker instead of making you a juicy target.

ps: I'm not a fighter pilot so I don't know if a dogfight will unfold like that. Just pointing out that the gun might not be there for kill but its potential capability to kill will force your enemy stay out of its range and be far enough for your missiles to work.

 

[plawolf]

I was in a bit of a rush with my last comment, there have been a few air wars between peers, most notably the Iran-Iraq war, and several of the Arab-Israeli conflicts as well as some of the India-Pakistan clashes.

If we had detailed break downs of the kills by weapons as well as weapons employed per kill for those conflicts, it should provide a wealth of information to study.

Alas that data is very hard to come by.

The problem of looking at everything in one big lump is that the various American led wars will massively distort the figures to the extend of rendering them meaningless.

 

[Air Force Brat]

I have to disagree with the claim that internal gun is a good insurance policy since most fighters carry less than 200 rounds of ammo for the gun. Logical solution would be to use gunpods instead of internal cannon.

Modern missiles are very reliable.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

If an internal gun were extraneous, it would be gone TOMMOROW on the A, while you may not see the need, the USAF does, and their bird is the most capable A2A package of A, B, Cs. The F-22, PAK-FA, and F-35A have internal guns, my money is on the J-20 having an internal gun as well??? I have 20 bucks US, that says that is how it plays out, for you Broccoli

That 200 rounds will do a lot, that cannon is devastating, trust me.

 

[Broccoli]

I guess we agree to disagree, but i'd bet that next air-to-air kill is going to be achieved with missile.

 

[Air Force Brat]

I guess we agree to disagree, but i'd bet that next air-to-air kill is going to be achieved with missile.

Heh! Heh! Heh!, well Han Solo said it best, "give me a blaster in my hand any day KID!" I like my "side-arm", and I just love my 4 barreled GAU-12, helps me sleep at night. as our Mr. Head says, we'll have to wait and see??

 

[plawolf]

I guess we agree to disagree, but i'd bet that next air-to-air kill is going to be achieved with missile.

You may well be correct, as no one has claimed the gun is going to be more important than the missile.

The point is and always have been that the gun is still relevant enough to warrant having.

In the context of 5th gen fighters, the importance of the gun is surely to increase, rather than decrease.

5th gen fighters, by their design and nature, makes the primary weapon of modern fighters - the BVRAAM, far less effective. Both in terms of engagement range and kill probability.

Add to that the fact that 5th gens typically have reduced weapons loads when in stealth configuration, and typically carry only a pair of WVRAAMs.

And finally factoring that most primary air dominance 5th gens are supposed to get supercruise, and you have an interesting mix.

When 5th gens come head to head against each other, stealth and ECM would make it very likely that opposing 5th gens will only be able to get a firing solution at significantly reduced ranges for BVR. With both sides closing on supercruise, the already reduced BVR engagement time is going to get eaten up extremely quickly.

Considering that X band fire control radars are what 5th gens are specifically designed to counter, and throw in active and passive countermeasures, it is entirely reasonable to assume that the bulk of the 5th gen combatants are going to make it into WVR.

Once there, those 5th gens will only have a pair of heatseekers to use before they are sitting ducks without a gun.

I content that in a 5th gen v 5th gen mass air browl, if one side had guns and the other didn't, the side with the guns will have a massive, if not decisive advantage.

 

[Deino]

If I'm not mistaken, then there are rumours since this morning about the next J-20 being ready !

But I want images ... NOW !!!!

Deino

By the way ... it fit's nicely since I'm again "off my PC" until Sunday.