So would a modern conversion of a CN235, C295 or C-27J to an “AC” standard with only a couple of 20-30mm cannon on board plus a suitable sensor suite be capable of providing a persistant fire support weapon for mission were an AC130 is too much but some of its capabilities are prefered such as being able to engage targets close to friendly troops?
Originally the gunships were just transports with some machine-guns strapped on – they used flares for aiming. Now, most of the cost is in the highly sophisticated sensor suite, especially since the danger of ground fire means that they have to fly much higher (which is why first the MGs were dropped, then the 20mm guns, and now the 25mm guns). I really don’t see how you can economise much on that.
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum
Actually the Germans seriously intended to fit a 14 inch gun to a bomber and use that against warships. Another quote from FG:WW2
Largest of all the RCLs considered for firing from aircraft was a German weapon, the Rheinmetall G104, a 36,5 cm calibre gun designed to fire a 635 kg shell at 315 m/sec, the recoil being balanced by the expulsion of the equally heavy cartridge case to the rear. The intention was to hang the four tonne gun under a bomber and fire it in a steep dive, battleships probably being the main intended target. However, ground firing tests demonstrated that the muzzle and venturi blasts would be so severe that the aircraft would be unable to survive them, so the idea was abandoned.
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum
I have some information about the 75mm gun on the Mitchell but they could only fire four rounds at a time as the recoil would slow the aircraft down so much that it could stall.
Err, no…this is a quote from Flying Guns – World War 2: Development of Aircraft Guns, Ammunition and Installations 1933-45 by Emmanuel Gustin and myself:
This might be an appropriate moment to dispel one of the favoured myths of big-gun aircraft; that the recoil had a drastic effect on their speed. To take the example of the USAAF’s B-25 fitted with a 75 mm M4 gun; the aircraft weighed around 12,000 kg and attacked at perhaps 400 km/h, the gun fired a 6.8 kg projectile at around 2,200 km/h. A simple rule of thumb is to multiply the weight by the speed to achieve a rough “momentum index” (it is actually a bit more complicated than this, as the expanding propellant gasses contribute to the recoil). It will be apparent that the aircraft has at least 200 times the momentum of the projectile, and a single shot will therefore not greatly slow it. In fact, at the end of an attack run in which several shots were fired, the plane would typically be slowed by 10-15 mph.
Four rounds was about as many as could be fired in one attack run, as the gun was manually loaded.
The 75mm Pak 40 fitted to some Ju 88 and (as the BK 7,5) to some Hs 129, was a more powerful gun than the 75mm fitted to the B-25, and had a significantly longer cartridge case.
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum
I was wondering about the recoile and even the weight , if it would be possible. Thats the first I’ve heard of the 120mm mortar, but why not use the 120mm from the abrams ?
Weight and recoil again. In any case, the 120mm tank gun is specifically designed to fire armour-piercing projectiles at extremely high velocity to attack tank frontal armour. The 120mm mortar is a fraction of the size and weight, and generates a fraction of the recoil. And it can fire carrier shells for dispensing submunitions as well as guided rounds.
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum
Have read that the Soviets experimented with “articulated cannon” for the Mig-29.
And for the Su-27. See: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/Su27gun.htm
Regarding the Mig-29 I have read that during trials that information from the IRST and laser ranger is collated into a ballistic computer and that during aerial engagements against manouvering targets the “computer” automatically shut down the gun after 4-5 shots were fired. It went on to say the targets were being destroyed, so I suspect that some sort of computer ballistic assistance is given… presumably the trigger pressed and the gun firing when the target is likely to be hit.
Correct, that’s exactly how it works. In short-range gun-fighting mode, the pilot holds down the trigger but the gun fires only when the ballistic computer has calculated that the shells will hit the target.
Curiously, the Su-27 does not have this – its FCS just tells the pilot when he is on target, but he then has to decide to fire.
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum
There are various plans for changing the gun armament of the AC-130s.
The most immediate is to replace the existing 25 mm GAU-12/U and 40 mm Bofors guns with the 30 mm Bushmaster II Chain Gun. This has a greater range than the 25 mm (albeit a much lower rate of fire), and unlike the 40 mm has been adopted by other branches of the US military.
The 105 mm may also be replaced. However, it won’t be by the 155 mm – the recoil of that would be far too great for the plane to absorb – by possibly by the Army’s 120 mm mortar. Guided munitions are under development for the mortar, which will enable them to get wihtin 1 metre of the target.
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum
I don’t know about a new 23mm gun, although versions of the old one have appeared one some APCs, and even the little GSh-23 aircraft gun has seen some use, fitted to unarmoured vehicles to put down a high volume of fire (usually against ambushes in Chechnya etc).
At present the 57mm uses existing ammo, but they are working on more up-to-date types for this and for the new naval gun.
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum
See Big Joe’s comment…I agree!
TW
See Big Joe’s comment…I agree!
TW
WRONG!! this man was born in 1809 and died in 1891 LONG berfore WW1 and LONG LONG before WW2 he clearly talked about 2 WORLD WARS which happend so this IS the “EVIDENCE” that shows there IS a “NEW WORLD ORDER Conspirousy”
Rubbish! The reasons he allegedly gave for the wars happening were simply wrong, as I posted.
TW
WRONG!! this man was born in 1809 and died in 1891 LONG berfore WW1 and LONG LONG before WW2 he clearly talked about 2 WORLD WARS which happend so this IS the “EVIDENCE” that shows there IS a “NEW WORLD ORDER Conspirousy”
Rubbish! The reasons he allegedly gave for the wars happening were simply wrong, as I posted.
TW
That is why I said possible specifications rather than possible design. I’m no expert on Ekranoplans/WIGs, I’m just a enthusiast who can see the potential of the concept.
But you can’t evaluate the potential unless you understand the design limitations.
You might just as well draw up a specification for a new battle tank which says “gun must penetrate all existing tanks at up to 10 km, armour must be resistant to all tank guns at any range, must be able to cruise at 100 kmh over rough ground, be fully amphibious with a water speed of 40 knots, and must be transportable in a C-130” 😉
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum
The reasons for the start of both World Wars are well known and explained in detail in countless historical studies. They did not require any hidden external forces. And WW2 was not about the Jews (that was a side-issue for Hitler) it was about Germany revenging itself for WW1 plus going on a war of conquest in the East.
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum