Why does the Raptor have a gun?

[guppy]

Seemingly dumb question, but why does the Raptor have a gun?

I know the history of the F-4s and Vietnam. Yet, I am not sure that it is as simple as not repeating history. The first few generations of air to air missiles were easily defeated and poor success rates. Not so for AMRAAMs and AIM-9X. Furthermore, consider the LO characteristics of the Raptor. Thus, why does the Raptor need a gun?

What do you think?

Guppy

 

[Aussie Digger]

Seemingly dumb question, but why does the Raptor have a gun?

I know the history of the F-4s and Vietnam. Yet, I am not sure that it is as simple as not repeating history. The first few generations of air to air missiles were easily defeated and poor success rates. Not so for AMRAAMs and AIM-9X. Furthermore, consider the LO characteristics of the Raptor. Thus, why does the Raptor need a gun?

What do you think?

Guppy

Self defence when (and if) missiles run out.

Strafing ground targets.

Firing "warning shots" in air policing environments. It's a bit hard to fire a warning shot with a guided missile, I expect...

 

[Alexrey]

I don't think that dogfighting will be over any time soon. Sure the AMRAAM can be fired from far out, but the distance between 2 fighters can close very rapidly and before you know it its time for guns. Plus you might wanna fire the Slammer within ranges that do not allow for the bandit to out-maneuver, so you'd have to get even closer.

 

[guppy]

Yes, yes, all very true. But then why is the Navy willing to forgo the gun on their versions of the F-35? Unless they intend to fire warning shots with missiles too.

I certainly expect that in the future, the US will attempt to influence ICAO to change intercept procedures esp for signalization of warning shots. Otherwise, naval and marine F-35s that intercept aircraft in high seas will not be able to warn off intruders with the exception of radio calls.

Will the F-22 plan to remain in contested airspace when they are out of missiles? Perhaps, together with LO charateristics and a gun for self defence, they may remain in the airspace as additional sensors to fill other sensor gaps even when they are out of missiles. Perhaps, their tactical doctrine may allow this in a high risk mission with another F-22 or other air sup assets in mutually supportable range. I mean normally for legacy teen series platforms, they would plan to egress once they are out of BVR weapons as a section.

What do you think?

Cheers

Guppy

 

[swerve]

...
Strafing ground targets.
...

This one I have some difficulty in believing. I just can't see the USAF being willing to take a chance on an F-22 being brought down by a lucky shot from a ZSU-23 or whatever.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Yes, yes, all very true. But then why is the Navy willing to forgo the gun on their versions of the F-35? Unless they intend to fire warning shots with missiles too.

They haven't, but they decided against an internally mounted gun and opted for a podded gun system instead, as did USMC...

I certainly expect that in the future, the US will attempt to influence ICAO to change intercept procedures esp for signalization of warning shots. Otherwise, naval and marine F-35s that intercept aircraft in high seas will not be able to warn off intruders with the exception of radio calls.

See above.

Will the F-22 plan to remain in contested airspace when they are out of missiles? Perhaps, together with LO charateristics and a gun for self defence, they may remain in the airspace as additional sensors to fill other sensor gaps even when they are out of missiles. Perhaps, their tactical doctrine may allow this in a high risk mission with another F-22 or other air sup assets in mutually supportable range. I mean normally for legacy teen series platforms, they would plan to egress once they are out of BVR weapons as a section.

What do you think?

Cheers

Guppy

I would think that in the unlikely event that an F-22 "runs out of missiles" it would leave the battlespace.

I expect the gun is there for little more than "emergency" situations eg: emergency guns in a turning fight, strafing in critical situation where it's the only available asset etc...

 

[Aussie Digger]

This one I have some difficulty in believing. I just can't see the USAF being willing to take a chance on an F-22 being brought down by a lucky shot from a ZSU-23 or whatever.

True, but it's a capability that could be employed if necessary. I don't see it being used routinely in that role, but under some circumstances, who knows?

I doubt F-15C's strafe many ground targets either, but the capability is there if necessary...

 

[guppy]

They haven't, but they decided against an internally mounted gun and opted for a podded gun system instead, as did USMC...

Thank you but I am well aware of that. That also means that they cannot do an intercept when they are not configured with the gun pod, or alternatively, they would need to carry the gun pod all the time. What about other allied nations who decide to choose the naval or marine versions? Why would anyone want to restrict their operational flexibility?

I would think that in the unlikely event that an F-22 "runs out of missiles" it would leave the battlespace.

I am not too sure about that.

I expect the gun is there for little more than "emergency" situations eg: emergency guns in a turning fight, strafing in critical situation where it's the only available asset etc...

That might very well be the answer. But I was wondering if there was anything else.

cheers

guppy

 

[Grand Danois]

This one I have some difficulty in believing. I just can't see the USAF being willing to take a chance on an F-22 being brought down by a lucky shot from a ZSU-23 or whatever.

I agree with you re the Raptor. But it reminds me of the story of the Mauser on the RAF Typhoons. They decided to use it anyway, not for emergency A2A, but for Afghanistan strafing runs...

 

[Mikestro]

Doesn't the Thyphoon (Eurofighter) have the mauser but only as a weight/ balance issue.?

The aircraft was designed with the gun so removing the gun now would throw the weight and balanace off?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1825425/posts

 

[Aussie Digger]

Thank you but I am well aware of that. That also means that they cannot do an intercept when they are not configured with the gun pod, or alternatively, they would need to carry the gun pod all the time. What about other allied nations who decide to choose the naval or marine versions? Why would anyone want to restrict their operational flexibility?

Yes, but my response was to this statement of yours:

But then why is the Navy willing to forgo the gun on their versions of the F-35?

It is patently incorrect. They have not forgone the gun capability. They have simply chosen a different option to mounting it internally. I am certain that space in the aircraft is NOT "empty"...

Of course they can do an intercept. How many Russian Bears have been fired upon by a cannon? They simply cannot fire "warning shots" from a gun without a cannon system. They can obviously intercept an aircraft irregardless of whether they are equipped with a gun or not.

I am not too sure about that.

Why? Is it inconceivable that an F-22 may have to engage 8 targets itself? Unlikely I agree, but not impossible.

That might very well be the answer. But I was wondering if there was anything else.

cheers

guppy

Well it's an evolved version of the "classic" M61 20mm cannon. What other use have they EVER been employed for operationally besides air to air gunnery and ground strafing?

 

[swerve]

Doesn't the Thyphoon (Eurofighter) have the mauser but only as a weight/ balance issue.?

The aircraft was designed with the gun so removing the gun now would throw the weight and balanace off?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1825425/posts

Several years ago, a penny-pinching bean counter in the Ministry of Defence proposed that the RAFs Typhoon should not receive a gun, to save money. Things then went something like this:
1. After some calculation was done, the RAF & manufacturer determined that changing the FCS to allow for the missing gun, testing, & maintaining a separate, UK-only version of Typhoon without a gun would cost more than was saved.
2. The MoD suggested replacing the gun with ballast.
3. RAF: Still more expensive to develop, test & certificate than the savings. IIRC the guns had already been ordered & a cancellation fee would have to be paid.
4. MD: OK, fit the guns but don't use them.
5. RAF: Errr - we have the guns fitted, we have the ammunition (the same as used in the Tornado, & already in stock), we have the maintenance technicians, we're even practicing dummy firing. Isn't it bloody stupid not to load them?
6. MoD: Oh, all right then. If you insist.

The guns in the RAFs Typhoons have always been fitted. They are now fully operational. They are fired regularly, in training and in exercises. That article was part of the RAFs successful campaign against the MoDs attempt to cut them.

BTW, this only applies to the RAF. Germany, Italy & Spain have always intended to use their guns.

 

[jaffo4011]

I agree with you re the Raptor. But it reminds me of the story of the Mauser on the RAF Typhoons. They decided to use it anyway, not for emergency A2A, but for Afghanistan strafing runs...

its true.someone realised that its a lot cheaper to sometimes use a gun to keep heads down than dropping bombs........

 

[guppy]

Yes, but my response was to this statement of yours:



It is patently incorrect. They have not forgone the gun capability. They have simply chosen a different option to mounting it internally. I am certain that space in the aircraft is NOT "empty"...

What I meant was that they have chosen to forgo an internal gun system. It is certainly not "empty". They needed every inch of space and pound of weight and was willing to forgo the internal gun for that.

Of course they can do an intercept. How many Russian Bears have been fired upon by a cannon? They simply cannot fire "warning shots" from a gun without a cannon system. They can obviously intercept an aircraft irregardless of whether they are equipped with a gun or not.

Yes, I know you don't need a gun to do an air defence intercept. But it forces the maintenance to do a configuration change every time an air defence mission is desired. Unless, of course you are willing to accept an air defence aircraft without an armed gun. Would the external gun pod affect the LO as well? AFAIK, pod mounted gun systems also have their own quirks, usually involving additional maintenance actions to align the gun properly.

Why? Is it inconceivable that an F-22 may have to engage 8 targets itself? Unlikely I agree, but not impossible.

You have misunderstood my statement. I meant that I am not too sure that it is an unlikely situation that a F-22 will run out of missiles.

Well it's an evolved version of the "classic" M61 20mm cannon. What other use have they EVER been employed for operationally besides air to air gunnery and ground strafing?

The issue of the thread was and still is: Why does the Raptor still need a gun despite its LO and offensive capabilities? That is the context of the question. The operational use of a gun is well known but why was it so important for the USAF to have an internal gunon the F-22 and F-35A when the USN/USMC are willing to forgo it? Thus, it is not the capabilities that I am interested in, but the context and the reasoning behind the USAF's policy. For example, does the USAF anticipate a day where the gun may be the only viable weapon against certain threats?

cheers

guppy

 

[Grand Danois]

Tradition could be an explanation. To paraphrase: A cowboy wants a rifle strapped to his mount as he rides into the sunset. Or: The Phantom needed a gun, we wont let that happen again. It's a "lesson learned" so they don't let it happen again even though the lesson is obsolete.

It seems the RAF doesn't anticipate an A2A use of the Typhoons gun.

 

[winnyfield]

This one I have some difficulty in believing. I just can't see the USAF being willing to take a chance on an F-22 being brought down by a lucky shot from a ZSU-23 or whatever.

??? A few years ago the USAF F-22 lobbyist were trying to justify it's existence by labelling F/A

Tradition is probably the real answer. They tried to justify not having a gun in the '60s for similar reasons. Better to be safe than be sorry.

The USMC and USN gun pod? Is it an issue with the air refueling probe? Plumbing getting in the way. The gun pod is supposedly a stealthy or 'LO'. Some answers: http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-8835.html

 

[hump1909]

in today's and tomorrow's air-to-air engagements, especially if it involves the chinese or indians, the air will be full of all sorts of EA and EW making BVR weapons Pk extremely low....the last resort is of course getting WVR and taking an enemy to the merge and using any one of the many IR weapons available....however many weapons can be kept on the rails by proper IRCM, hence a gun will be the last resort....granted it is extremely difficult and fleeting to get a gun opportunity but a chance exists nonetheless..... you will need a gun period.

 

[flyer19999]

F-22 Gun

My question is not only why does the Raptor have a gun but what is its purpose anyway? The terrorist do not have any aircraft, so the only real reason must be to counter the Russian and Chinese air forces. Were're not about to attack any of those assets. Not only that but add the F-35 and its just over kill. Wasted money spent on aircraft that fly around and do nothing.

 

[windscorpion]

At the moment it may look like it doesn't have a role but you have to plan for decades hence. In any event the F-15 can't fly forever.

 

[F-15 Eagle]

At the moment it may look like it doesn't have a role but you have to plan for decades hence. In any event the F-15 can't fly forever.

Same with the F-16, F-18, Av-8 and A-10 they can't fly forever. Plus with other countries such as Russia, China and India and smaller nations with smaller defense budgets are building up their air forces with more deadly fighters such as the Su-30 and possibly the Su-35BM and SAM systems such as the S-400. The F-22 and F-35 is really needed.