15 replies to this topic

[TWPC920]

Is there any end to the massive cool factor of these weapons??

[Eddy01741]

TBH, what is the point of this topic? Just a multi-barreled gun appreciation thread?

I guess some people might think Metal Storm is cooler, but I think that stuff is shit anyways.

[CommanderJB]

Well, yes, there is an end to the cool factor. When you recieve the bill for the ammunition.
Really though, while they're extremely good weapons for spraying and praying - and to a limited degree can actually be more accurate than single-barreled weapons in certain situations - they run through ammo so fast that their applications are very limited. On fighters they take time to spin up, probably denying you that millisecond-long window of opportunity in dogfighting, and in Vietnam probably contributed to the rather ridiculous ratio of rounds fired to lethal hits that stood at approximately 10,000:1 or so I've heard. Good for supressive fire and enhancing masculinity, not so good for logistics.

Edited by CommanderJB, 25 August 2008 - 03:44.

[Foxhound]

Useful for air combat because, given difference between spin-up and waiting for a single barrel to chamber the next round, you'd get a relatively even rate of fire- but the vulcan speeds up. Would you rather have 1 barrel with 1000rpm or 6 with 1000rpm?

[CommanderJB]

Note please that only one barrel at a time fires in a Gatling arrangement, so given the situation you just outlined, they're identical. While the high RoF makes it easier to hit targets when the gun is firing, pilots can only use their guns for a very few seconds at a time (and that's providing they don't jam, something which they have been somewhat prone to in the past) in order not to exhaust ammunition in the first minute of an engagement. I'd choose a single-barreled 30mm cannon with a RoF of 1000rpm over a six-barreled 20mm gun with a RoF of 6000 rpm any day, not least because of the greater precision and range gained.

[Whitey]

And then you lose 5/6ths of your hits if you're a good shot, which is not exactly a good thing. And if you want to rev up that ROF, you overheat, and you're SOL.

-Boidy

[Eddy01741]

Well, even if you miss the majority of your shots with your vulcan on an aircraft, at such high speeds a raipd fire gun ismore likely to hit (in comparison to time, not bullets used).

Nice sig boidy lol.

[TWPC920]

but isnt the point of vulcans precisely to spray? i mean at those high speeds, no matter how accurate your gun is, your guns are still prone to missing, i think the vulcan makes up for it with its massive wall of bullets meaning that even if you miss, at least a couple dozen of rounds still hit their mark.

[Eddy01741]

Sheesh, you misread my post, I was supporting the usefulness of vulcans on aircraft since they fire so fast (which is needed nowadays considering how fast the jet fighters are).

[T-34]

the whole point of the vulcan was to allow more rounds to be fired at the target in the very small window of oppertunity that fighter pilots had. a single barreled gun just isint going to get as much rounds down range and hit the target, 6 barrels=bigger chance to hit the target.

the russians have a gun called the GSH-30-2, which is 2 30mm cannons linked together, used in their jets, btw.

[CommanderJB]

I'm certainly not about to argue that rotary guns will produce much more high-velocity metal in a given time, what I'm arguing is that (a) all that extra metal is going to equate to an equal increase in the number of hits scored and (b) the very nature of the operation of the gun makes it more suited for aerial combat. While you will have a higher hit probability when the gun is firing, it won't be six times higher thanks to the spread of shot. But as the gun takes time to spin up, sometimes several seconds, in that split-second window of opportunity that I might have to use my gun in a dogfight, I'd prefer something that fires immediately even if six times slower than something which needs to warm up after I pull the trigger and possibly deny me any shot at all. Also, Vulcan guns introduce a powerful gyroscopic effect that makes them difficult to use on smaller aircraft, as well as have limited range and shell weight when compared with single-barreled weapons.
In conclusion, they'd be great for helicopters, ground-attack aircraft and to an extent interceptors whose primary role is not to dogfight, but to provide persistent, versatile and long-ranging aerial cover and may have to deal with non-fighter threats, where the massive increase in raw firepower will serve well. But not for dogfighting aircraft. Just use two heavier, more powerful, better-ranged and instantly-firing autocannons instead.

[The Wandering Jew]

There won't be an end in CIWS (close-in weapons systems). It was proven in the Falklands War between UK and Argentina once upon a time (no politicking intended, just a slice of history).

[CommanderJB]

I don't believe CIWS were actually around in the Falklands; indeed, it was the ineffectiveness of the Sea Dart missiles and 20mm Bofors deck guns that prompted a rapid re-arming of RN ships with additional close-in AAA positions, though to be honest it wasn't much of a solution. CIWS guns have IIRC never shot down a single missile fired in anger, though there've been plenty of practice tests. So while it's a valid application, once again, that's not really what I was arguing, rather their use in planes, which has never been proven either.

Edited by CommanderJB, 27 August 2008 - 05:16.

[The Wandering Jew]

No.

What I meant was "The Falklands War proved that missiles and rockets are not always that effective and efficient."

If CIWS were extensively used in the said war, pilots would think twice regarding an airstrike.

As quoted:

Quote

...After the ships were detected by an Argentine Navy P-2 Neptune patrol aircraft, two Dassault Super Étendards (serial no. 202 and 203) were launched from their base at Río Grande, each armed with a single Exocet AM.39 missile. Refuelled by an KC-130H Hercules after launch, they went in at low altitude, popped up for a radar check at 50 miles (80 km) and released the missiles from 20 to 30 miles (30 to 50 km) away.
Glasgow, Sheffield’s sister ship and the northernmost of the three-destroyer picket, detected the two Étendards on their first pop-up, and warned the fleet-wide anti-air warfare coordinator in Hermes. Hermes dismissed the report as one of the many false alarms already that morning. Glasgow continued to monitor that bearing and detected the second pop-up, and this time the tell-tale Exocet seeker radar via the ship's ESM equipment. Again Hermes ruled the detection as spurious, but Glasgow continued to broadcast handbrake, the codeword for Exocet radar detected.

The first missile missed HMS Yarmouth, due to the deployment of chaff in response to the warning, whilst Glasgow repeatedly tried, without success, to engage the other with Sea Dart missiles. Still Hermes ruled that this was a false alarm.

Sheffield was unable to detect directly the seeker radar as, in a case of bad timing, the SCOT satellite communications terminal was in use which deafened the onboard electronic warfare support measures (ESM) equipment and was incompatible with the radar fitted to the Type 42. It is not known why she did not respond to Glasgow's warnings, but no chaff was fired and a shipwide warning of attack went out only seconds before impact when a watchkeeper (Lieutenant Commander Peter Walpole) identified rocket trails visually.

Sheffield was struck amidships, with devastating effect. Whether the warhead actually exploded is debated, but raging fires started to spread, ultimately killing 20 crew members and severely injuring 24 others. The other missile (after missing HMS Yarmouth) splashed into the sea half a mile off her port beam.[46] Whilst alongside rendering assistance, Yarmouth repeatedly broke off to fire anti-submarine weaponry in response to Sonar reports of torpedoes in the water (later believed to have been a misdiagnosis of the outboard motor of the small inflatables helping with firefighting), as well as visual reports of torpedoes (actually the Sheffield was ridding herself of torpedoes to prevent explosion).

Sheffield was abandoned several hours later, gutted and deformed by the fires that continued to burn for six more days. She finally sank outside the Maritime Exclusion Zone on 10 May, whilst under tow from Yarmouth, becoming an official war grave. In one sense Sheffield served her purpose as a part of the missile picket line — she took the missile instead of the aircraft carriers.

The British Navy in that time was wholly confident in their missiles systems. They did not consider "back-up" weapons such as CIWS (unlike the Soviets in those "Bad Old Days") The price they paid was the HMS Sheffield.

Because of that scenario, almost all known militaries have a CIWS system on their armaments.

So CIWS shall be around for quite a long time.

Additional: If anyone will think about laser-based weaponry, no, they won't replace the good 'ol lead bullet. In that time, the so-called "laser shield generators" shall come into effect. Most of the time, the crude methods of warfare are always useful.

Edited by The Wandering Jew, 27 August 2008 - 09:04.

[CommanderJB]

Ah, I see your meaning. Apologies for the confusion.

[Eddy01741]

Ticonderogas are being rearmed with RAM CIWS (rolling airframe missile) to replace the Phalanxes.