Gunning the Lightning

Unread postPosted: 09 Feb 2020, 20:42
by steve2267
For all youst real fighter pilots out there (maybe some simmer, not sure):

I understand that gun opportunities are fleeting... but when you take a gunshot... are you typically unloaded or lightly loaded? Or does it all just depend? Or is it just as likely that you are pulling max G (5g / 7g / 9g) at whatever part of the envelope in which you find yourself?

The reason I ask is... with CLmax for the F-35 occurring way up at 35º alpha... would that high nose attitude be an advantage, a hindrance, or "just depends" when trying to gun an opponent in a hard turn? If the gun solution requires such a nose high position that the bandit is below your canopy rail, even with the Sauron helmet... that would seem problematic?

Re: Gunning the Lightning

Unread postPosted: 09 Feb 2020, 21:05
by quicksilver
"just depends"

This.

Without writing a book... When the motion of the target is relatively stable and/or predictable, that makes a better target. The circumstances whereby that occurs are infinite.

Re: Gunning the Lightning

Unread postPosted: 09 Feb 2020, 21:12
by steve2267
Copy, thanks.

Since you'd have to pull lead on a turning target anyways, I had been a wunderin' (again) if the seemingly higher nose attitude of the Lighting to get CLmax for a hard turn, would work out better for plonkin' the bullets out front of the bandit.

Re: Gunning the Lightning

Unread postPosted: 09 Feb 2020, 21:16
by spazsinbad
One has to lead the target. The A-4 with a fixed sight (usually added a small depression) had to lead quite a bit. My one time use of a gyro gunsight (in a test) was eye-opening and it went well. Must have been all that fixed sight practice. :mrgreen:

Re: Gunning the Lightning

Unread postPosted: 09 Feb 2020, 21:29
by steve2267
I got the leading part.

I was just wondering, cuz I have no idea and haven't tried to sacrifice the brain cells to swag it, if in a hard turning fight, say 7g or 9g, if one managed to saddle up behind the bandit, if the high angle-of-attack (35º) of the Lightning just happened to correspond with about how much lead one would typically need at range X (1000'? 1500'?)

Re: Gunning the Lightning

Unread postPosted: 09 Feb 2020, 22:20
by quicksilver
steve2267 wrote:I got the leading part.

I was just wondering, cuz I have no idea and haven't tried to sacrifice the brain cells to swag it, if in a hard turning fight, say 7g or 9g, if one managed to saddle up behind the bandit, if the high angle-of-attack (35º) of the Lightning just happened to correspond with about how much lead one would typically need at range X (1000'? 1500'?)


It depends. However, generally speaking guns kills do not occur at high G. What a shooter is trying to do is to zero — or at least minimize — the apparent LOS (line of sight) rate of the target relative to the pipper, at target range. Sometimes ‘raking’ or slashing gun shots are the most effective because they allow the shooter to maintain energy a bit better and thereby reduce the likelihood of becoming a fat target himself.

Re: Gunning the Lightning

Unread postPosted: 09 Feb 2020, 22:33
by steve2267
I imagine that if one found oneself saddled up behind a bandit, in-plane, but at high-g, that your nose may be so high that the bandit disappears (bad!) under your nose? OK... re-thinking, I guess that is if you are trying to pull lead, the bandit might disappear under the nose (bad!)... so in that case you may pull lag, and wait for the bandit to unload or try something else, then go for the shot or rake when he is reversing?

I see how it "depends", it's a highly dynamic, fluid environment.

Re: Gunning the Lightning

Unread postPosted: 09 Feb 2020, 22:41
by spazsinbad
One does not want to lose sight of the bandit in front. IF he thinks you have lost sight because of Hi AoA - seeing this in his rear vision or backward look then (unknown to you) he might just do something unexpected that you are not aware - until you unload G a bit then wonder "WHERE DID HE GO"? (into your six dummy). :shock:

Re: Gunning the Lightning

Unread postPosted: 09 Feb 2020, 22:53
by outlaw162
Or you might literally hit him....put all your rounds into him while still in the gun/aircraft.

Speaking of fixed sights, I always enjoyed the gun camera film from the F-105 (the last gunfighter) pulling off the target with the sight still in the A/G mode when the poor MiG-17 driver just happens to fly right in front of him filling the windscreen. Hard to miss when your that close.

Re: Gunning the Lightning

Unread postPosted: 10 Feb 2020, 00:32
by charlielima223
quicksilver wrote:
It depends. However, generally speaking guns kills do not occur at high G. What a shooter is trying to do is to zero — or at least minimize — the apparent LOS (line of sight) rate of the target relative to the pipper, at target range. Sometimes ‘raking’ or slashing gun shots are the most effective because they allow the shooter to maintain energy a bit better and thereby reduce the likelihood of becoming a fat target himself.


I think of that infamous F-22 vs Typhoon match in 2012 in Alaska during a Red Flag exercise. You know, the one that stirred up some controversy when German pilots said they had "Raptor salad". I think of a comment in the article from flightglobal.
https://www.flightglobal.com/in-focus-g ... 18.article
While Grune does not directly say that the Eurofighters emerged as the overall victors, he strongly implies it.

"I put out some whiskey. If they come back with some good performances, and if you know what the goal is from a BFM setup, and you achieve that, then I will pay you whiskey," he says. "And I paid quite a lot of whiskey."

That account, however, is strongly disputed by USAF sources flying the F-22. "It sounds as though we have very different recollections as to the outcomes of the BFM engagements that were fought," one Raptor pilot says.

USAF sources say that the Typhoon has good energy and a pretty good first turn, but that they were able to outmanoeuvre the Germans due to the Raptor's thrust vectoring. Additionally, the Typhoon was not able to match the high angle of attack capability of the F-22. "We ended up with numerous gunshots," another USAF pilot says.

Re: Gunning the Lightning

Unread postPosted: 10 Feb 2020, 01:15
by spazsinbad
outlaw162 wrote:Or you might literally hit him....put all your rounds into him while still in the gun/aircraft....

EXACTEMENTE - OH DEAR. Let us not forget depending upon situation the F-35 guy can rely on the 10+Nm sphere all around where the bogies/friendlies are identified in the HMDS. We speak about a DUMB F-35 pilot BTW so who knows. 8)

Re: Gunning the Lightning

Unread postPosted: 10 Feb 2020, 01:45
by quicksilver
My other offering is that with diminished flight time, Fleet training sorties prioritize those skills most relevant for the most likely conflicts. While I don’t know it for a fact, my expectation would be that A-A gunnery is a low priority on the considerable list of proficiencies that a modern strike fighter pilot has to maintain.

Re: Gunning the Lightning

Unread postPosted: 10 Feb 2020, 15:51
by quicksilver
outlaw162 wrote:Or you might literally hit him....put all your rounds into him while still in the gun/aircraft.

Speaking of fixed sights, I always enjoyed the gun camera film from the F-105 (the last gunfighter) pulling off the target with the sight still in the A/G mode when the poor MiG-17 driver just happens to fly right in front of him filling the windscreen. Hard to miss when your that close.


Speaking to a Thud driver way-back-when at the old Nellis Club... ‘Guns D?...push it up (above 750).’

Re: Gunning the Lightning

Unread postPosted: 10 Feb 2020, 17:00
by outlaw162
The F-105 was a tired, old nostalgic piece of history when I flew it in 79-80. Not quite the 750-800 knot beast it had been.

Fastest I ever saw was 1.2 at 10,000 which is around 680 KCAS....this was with CL tank on it. Shook and wobbled like crazy. :shock:

We had a bunch of '100 over the north' Thud drivers back from the war as instructors at Del Rio when I was a 2/Lt T-37 instructor in the mid 60s. As far as I was concerned, these guys could walk on water. :salute:

One of ours (near the end):

Re: Gunning the Lightning

Unread postPosted: 10 Feb 2020, 18:54
by quicksilver
“As far as I was concerned, these guys could walk on water.”

x2

Re: Gunning the Lightning

Unread postPosted: 10 Feb 2020, 20:13
by sprstdlyscottsmn
forgive a young punk, '100 over the north?' 100 missions over North Vietnam?

Re: Gunning the Lightning

Unread postPosted: 10 Feb 2020, 20:24
by sferrin
outlaw162 wrote:The F-105 was a tired, old nostalgic piece of history when I flew it in 79-80. Not quite the 750-800 knot beast it had been.

Fastest I ever saw was 1.2 at 10,000 which is around 680 KCAS....this was with CL tank on it. Shook and wobbled like crazy. :shock:

We had a bunch of '100 over the north' Thud drivers back from the war as instructors at Del Rio when I was a 2/Lt T-37 instructor in the mid 60s. As far as I was concerned, these guys could walk on water. :salute:

One of ours (near the end):


As a kid growing up near Hill AFB, they had F-4s and F-105s. F-105 was my favorite aircraft for years.

Re: Gunning the Lightning

Unread postPosted: 10 Feb 2020, 21:18
by outlaw162
forgive a young punk, '100 over the north?' 100 missions over North Vietnam?


Yep, I was always in awe of that patch. Had the honor of flying with a bunch of 'em in AFRes.

Re: Gunning the Lightning

Unread postPosted: 10 Feb 2020, 21:40
by sprstdlyscottsmn
:salute:

Re: Gunning the Lightning

Unread postPosted: 03 Jul 2020, 22:53
by commisar
spazsinbad wrote:One has to lead the target. The A-4 with a fixed sight (usually added a small depression) had to lead quite a bit. My one time use of a gyro gunsight (in a test) was eye-opening and it went well. Must have been all that fixed sight practice. :mrgreen:


The A-4 never had a gyro sign installed?

Re: Gunning the Lightning

Unread postPosted: 03 Jul 2020, 23:26
by spazsinbad
Skyhawk production models only had a fixed (but depressing :doh: ) gunsight. This has been explained in a few scattered places on this forum (I'll go look for one or two) however gyro gunsights along with sometimes air to air radar - amongst other worthwhile improvements were retrofitted - for example the A-4K KAHU was like an F-16 of the day avionics-wise.

Just quickly the A4G had a chance for THOMSON/Thompson-Ferranti gyro gunsight to be fitted but bean counters said no.
"...The RNZAF’s [KAHU upgraded] Skyhawks were equipped with the Ferranti model 4513 HUD which was unique in displaying both analogue and digital data..." http://www.raf.mod.uk/rafcms/mediafiles ... 2FD704.pdf [not there now]

Skyhawk A-4M NATOPS dated 1971: https://www.docdroid.com/1sXZ4xD/dougla ... manual-pdf (63Mb)

Re: Gunning the Lightning

Unread postPosted: 04 Jul 2020, 02:23
by spazsinbad
Using the search term: 'gunsight+skyhawk' one may find a few examples in the F-35 forum and perhaps in 'cold war era'?

Onesuch A-4 Skyhawk gunsight explanation: viewtopic.php?f=22&t=24483&p=406737&hilit=gunsight+skyhawk#p406737

Other forum parts: viewtopic.php?f=46&t=57025&p=440490&hilit=gunsight+skyhawk#p440490
&
viewtopic.php?f=46&t=53537&p=408732&hilit=gunsight+skyhawk#p408732
&
downscroll from here: viewtopic.php?f=46&t=53537&p=379139&hilit=gunsight+skyhawk#p379139

Re: Gunning the Lightning

Unread postPosted: 04 Jul 2020, 11:37
by spazsinbad
An UpDated A-4M HUD - I'll have to download this PDF to check out the details: [Of course it is NOT now at this URL]
http://rapidshare.com/files/122551631/S ... kyhawk.pdf
Try this one: https://www.scribd.com/document/2835794 ... kyhawk-pdf (41Mb)

After finally downloading the above PDF I see that the A-4M HUD reference photo below could not be found so I DUNNO.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Without finding on my own computer or downloading the above PDF I've found this alternate so a first graphic is from it.

https://www.scribd.com/doc/170140049/Sq ... k#download (PDF 13.5Mb)

Four page PDF from other sources from my LARGE 4.4Gb PDF online has better quality HUD photos & more info attached.

Re: Gunning the Lightning

Unread postPosted: 24 Dec 2020, 18:30
by jessmo112
F-35B seen firing a gun WUT!

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/3 ... of-somalia

But I thought the GUN didn't work?!
Melt down incoming at best fighter for canada board.
$5 says it was doctored.

Re: Gunning the Lightning

Unread postPosted: 25 Dec 2020, 01:55
by charlielima223
jessmo112 wrote:F-35B seen firing a gun WUT!

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/3 ... of-somalia

But I thought the GUN didn't work?!
Melt down incoming at best fighter for canada board.
$5 says it was doctored.


Is "The Drive" even considered a serious or reputable source anymore?

Re: Gunning the Lightning

Unread postPosted: 25 Dec 2020, 02:44
by spazsinbad
No - but someone thinks it is - and so it goes. <sigh>

Re: Gunning the Lightning

Unread postPosted: 25 Dec 2020, 09:21
by jessmo112
charlielima223 wrote:
jessmo112 wrote:F-35B seen firing a gun WUT!

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/3 ... of-somalia

But I thought the GUN didn't work?!
Melt down incoming at best fighter for canada board.
$5 says it was doctored.


Is "The Drive" even considered a serious or reputable source anymore?


Probably not. But if the Fighter jet fired the gun, then ir fired the gun. Im not sure it matters if its on a site you like or it isnt. I suppose at some point news is news.

Re: Gunning the Lightning

Unread postPosted: 25 Dec 2020, 17:22
by wrightwing
charlielima223 wrote:
jessmo112 wrote:F-35B seen firing a gun WUT!

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/3 ... of-somalia

But I thought the GUN didn't work?!
Melt down incoming at best fighter for canada board.
$5 says it was doctored.


Is "The Drive" even considered a serious or reputable source anymore?

It's more reputable than The National Interest, Eurasian Times, etc...

Re: Gunning the Lightning

Unread postPosted: 25 Dec 2020, 17:23
by wrightwing
jessmo112 wrote:F-35B seen firing a gun WUT!

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/3 ... of-somalia

But I thought the GUN didn't work?!
Melt down incoming at best fighter for canada board.
$5 says it was doctored.

The issues were with the internal gun on the F-35A.

Re: Gunning the Lightning

Unread postPosted: 25 Dec 2020, 20:36
by steve2267
wrightwing wrote:
jessmo112 wrote:F-35B seen firing a gun WUT!

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/3 ... of-somalia

But I thought the GUN didn't work?!
Melt down incoming at best fighter for canada board.
$5 says it was doctored.

The issues were with the internal gun on the F-35A.


Far be it for the media to report that those issues have since been resolved.

Re: Gunning the Lightning

Unread postPosted: 25 Dec 2020, 22:00
by spazsinbad
I thought 'jessmo112' was kidding with this 2nd opening sentence: "...But I thought the GUN didn't work?!..." Lots of info on this forum about the problems with the F-35A internal gun NOT seen in the F-35B/C external gun pod but I guess 'jessmo112' does not read this forum but comes here to post crap from other forums/sites which gets tiresome indeed.

Re: Gunning the Lightning

Unread postPosted: 26 Dec 2020, 00:00
by jessmo112
spazsinbad wrote:I thought 'jessmo112' was kidding with this 2nd opening sentence: "...But I thought the GUN didn't work?!..." Lots of info on this forum about the problems with the F-35A internal gun NOT seen in the F-35B/C external gun pod but I guess 'jessmo112' does not read this forum but comes here to post crap from other forums/sites which gets tiresome indeed.


I know the gun works I was being sarcastic...
I suppose any news from a site thats not a favorite is trash. But I can see that we are grumpy today. Stand down nothing to see here. Back to your 1st brandy of the night, or 2nd third or..

Re: Gunning the Lightning

Unread postPosted: 26 Dec 2020, 00:24
by spazsinbad
Not even funny nor sarcastic: "...I suppose any news from a site that's not a favorite is trash...." NOT a matter of 'favourite' but QUALITY. Trash is TRASH and the sites you often reference are filled with it as others have noted also. QUALITY makes its own favourites. As you may have seen a <sarc on> or similar along with a smilie maybe denotes the 'unserious tone' of the post/comment. We have talked about the difficulty of identifying SARCASM via web text only.

I have not had drink for nigh on 36 years [half my lifetime] however I do get low blood sugar before breakfast dunnunder.

Re: Gunning the Lightning

Unread postPosted: 26 Dec 2020, 00:41
by jessmo112
So lets try some solutions minded thinking here.

1. Would you like to post a list of sites that are up to your approval and that are not? The American news sites, cnn. Fox, news are not good enough? Warzone is not good enough. Aviation week isnt good enough? Please good sir
Tell us as the pseudo moderator what sites are to your liking.

2. With no solution and constant complaints you could be mistaken as inebriated. You come across as Xenophobic, old and cantankerous. Heaven forbid I should misread you. So please tell me how I can elevate my posts above whats clearly part of the news and discussion designed around the above mentioned subject!

3. If you don't care for me or others not being here Then please just say so. And we can ignore each other.
But dont try and make it seem like whats odviously news is a bad post, when your just weary of outsiders.
Me posting the just the facts does not in anyway bring the quality down, Picking fights brings the quality down.
So please one more time. Lets make a list of sites that you approve of and make a decision here and now to get along, or not.

Re: Gunning the Lightning

Unread postPosted: 26 Dec 2020, 00:58
by spazsinbad
Again not even funny. I and others here are asking you to lift your game - read/quote/post from quality websites. That is up to you. IF you have the knowledge then you SHOULD be able to identify a quality article from what will be obvious TRASH. I don't have any favourites as such but hope to post info that I judge is quality with perhaps some errors, which I'll attempt to point out. Why waste our time with obvious trash info from trash websites unless <sarc on> <sarc off>?

You perhaps are not old enough to remember that in the dim past F-16.net F-35 sub-forum had a distinctly bad rep. Whether that was justified or not my hope is that we all make a QUALITY sub-forum about the F-35 and I think with some exceptions (including me sometimes with some unrecognised humourous posts) we all go about making it THE SITE for info about the F-35, with many internal links to previous info posted to help others, including me, keep up to date with it all.

Re: Gunning the Lightning

Unread postPosted: 26 Dec 2020, 01:32
by jessmo112
spazsinbad wrote:Again not even funny. I and others here are asking you to lift your game - read/quote/post from quality websites. That is up to you. IF you have the knowledge then you SHOULD be able to identify a quality article from what will be obvious TRASH. I don't have any favourites as such but hope to post info that I judge is quality with perhaps some errors, which I'll attempt to point out. Why waste our time with obvious trash info from trash websites unless <sarc on> <sarc off>?

You perhaps are not old enough to remember that in the dim past F-16.net F-35 sub-forum had a distinctly bad rep. Whether that was justified or not my hope is that we all make a QUALITY sub-forum about the F-35 and I think with some exceptions (including me sometimes with some unrecognised humourous posts) we all go about making it THE SITE for info about the F-35, with many internal links to previous info posted to help others, including me, keep up to date with it all.


Once again you have me wrong.. Im not young.
Im actually middle aged, 2nd career, going on 2nd marriage, ive been around. Me posting an article about how the F-35B fired its weapon, in a thread about " you guessed it" the F-35 firing its weapon does not in anyway shape or form, bring down the quality of this forum.
In your zeal to be the F-16.net version of the Saudi religious police, (F-16.net hai'a) You single handedly are bringing down the quality of forum.
And to be honest. Im a *****ing grown man, and im starting to tire of you complaining about what news sites are approved insulting people for not wading through
Tons of material to find an answer ect.. ect.
You have a thread here called Uk has muddled over F-35C
That has moved away from the topic years ago, but if someone else digs up an old thread, or asks a relevant question you all over them.
I like you spaz, I really do. But you come at guys hard, and this blog could use fresh life. If you haven't noticed significant time goes by before a fresh post.
Please be discerning enough to encourage outsiders, but still old and mean enough to throw our real trash.
My post was not a **** post neither is the site.
Excuse my manners, please enjoy your Christmas.


viewtopic.php?f=58&t=15969

Re: Gunning the Lightning

Unread postPosted: 26 Dec 2020, 01:45
by socalhornetpilot
steve2267 wrote:For all youst real fighter pilots out there (maybe some simmer, not sure):

I understand that gun opportunities are fleeting... but when you take a gunshot... are you typically unloaded or lightly loaded? Or does it all just depend? Or is it just as likely that you are pulling max G (5g / 7g / 9g) at whatever part of the envelope in which you find yourself?

The reason I ask is... with CLmax for the F-35 occurring way up at 35º alpha... would that high nose attitude be an advantage, a hindrance, or "just depends" when trying to gun an opponent in a hard turn? If the gun solution requires such a nose high position that the bandit is below your canopy rail, even with the Sauron helmet... that would seem problematic?



Don't think your question was answered very well so I'll try and boil down why and how we train to employing the gun in BFM.

Generally speaking, all US fighter aircraft (F-15/-16/-18A-F/-22) all train to employ the AIM-120/-9X/Gun during BFM, whether that is perch BFM (offensive or defensive) or high aspect. The point of BFM is sight picture development and recognizing opportunities to employ a weapon to achieve a first shot, deny a first shot, or maintain or deny a positional advantage. I will stay somewhat vague here for reasons but generally speaking, BFM is not representative of how real life combat WVR air to air engagements will occur. Today, one can expect that if you survived to the merge, or had an unobserved entry to an advantageous merge because weapons effectiveness or ROE dictated you could not kill the adversary at range, then the the first valid employment post merge will likely result in the first kill, or even more like a mutual kill considering advancements in threat capabilities.

With this, BFM is still valuable because it will allow for you to take advantage of that fleeting first shot opportunity, but weapons do not have a 1.0Pk, so you have to be capable of continuing to maneuver your jet to gain and maintain the positional advantage. Assuming that fuel and overall threat environment allows, balancing that with your mission objective and a million other things, you could find yourself in a fully developed fight. This is where that sight picture development for where "launch acceptability regions" (LARs) that you develop in BFM comes to play.

The gun, in a fully developed fight is as useful and effective weapons as any other weapon if you know how and when to employ it. It can be used in a high aspect fight or if you have a positional advantage. However, employing the gun required the pilot to commit some form of a BFM error, which needs to be balanced with his overall position in the fight. Additionally, your question about heavily loaded or light loaded or high G over low G doesn't factor into if you will use the gun. It is all about angles and energy. GENERALLY speaking, most fights become low G fights after about the 2nd merge, missile defenses and max performance pulls for shots dictate as such.

For the F/A-18, the gun is canted at 2° up, which means in an "in-plane" or 2 circle fight, the amount of lead required to employ the gun is less than say an F-16s with is 0° gun can't. This however becomes detrimental when level with an adversary on the deck in weave or 1C fight where you now need to lower the nose considerably to employ it which means you now need to honor the deck. As with anything, there are trade-offs. The biggest thing to remember about the gun is if you are in the positional advantage, "snapshot" employments will present themselves frequently, you just have to ensure you recognize them early and plan them out so that you don't sacrifice your position for it.

Being able to "throw the nose around" is great, but it's more useful for gaining a high off-boresight shot rather than a gun employment. Believe it or not, nothing about the F-35s EM diagram or maneuvering capabilities are really that impressive to a Hornet pilot, I can do it all. Plus I have a gun that works that's not in a pod and I have -9x's that I don't have to worry about carrying because of RCS concerns. And believe me, that's important because I KNOW everyone sees me so I need every advantage I can get until we get to the merge. Then I'll eat you F-15s/-16s/-35s and yes even the occasional Raptor (that blows his load too soon at the first merge) alive.

Re: Gunning the Lightning

Unread postPosted: 26 Dec 2020, 02:12
by spazsinbad
Above is an excellent example of an 'on topic' post. Let us have more of them and I'll aim to keep 'on topic' myself. IIRC