Miniguns, Vulcans, Multi-barreled cannons
#1
Posted 24 August 2008 - 23:52
#2
Posted 25 August 2008 - 00:41
I guess some people might think Metal Storm is cooler, but I think that stuff is shit anyways.
#3
Posted 25 August 2008 - 00:51
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.
Quote
#5
Posted 25 August 2008 - 03:44
Quote
#6
Posted 25 August 2008 - 04:11
-Boidy
#7
Posted 25 August 2008 - 12:12
Nice sig boidy lol.
#8
Posted 25 August 2008 - 22:30
#9
Posted 25 August 2008 - 22:55
#10
Posted 26 August 2008 - 00:18
the russians have a gun called the GSH-30-2, which is 2 30mm cannons linked together, used in their jets, btw.
#11
Posted 26 August 2008 - 02:04
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.
Quote
#12
Posted 27 August 2008 - 04:44
"Once upon a time in 1700's, Imperial Britain had its share of terrorists...And they were called Americans."
#13
Posted 27 August 2008 - 05:15
Edited by CommanderJB, 27 August 2008 - 05:16.
Quote
#14
Posted 27 August 2008 - 09:02
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
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.
"Once upon a time in 1700's, Imperial Britain had its share of terrorists...And they were called Americans."
#15
Posted 27 August 2008 - 10:24
Quote
#16
Posted 28 August 2008 - 00:54
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users