4 ms·

> Air support fighters need guns (see A10 warthog) and other ammunition. But will we really be using guns in the future of air to air combat? That transition h

> Air support fighters need guns (see A10 warthog) and other ammunition. But will we really be using guns in the future of air to air combat? That transition has already happened. In recent conflicts the US has favored precision guided munitions over gun runs, even when sending the A-10 in somewhere. The A-10 is an internet favorite, but the reality is that it's expensive and obsolete. It's honestly a travesty congress keeps throwing money at it.

throwaway0a5e 6y ago
Bullets are cheap. There's a reason pretty much every 3rd world air force slings gun ponds under its ground attack aircraft. No reason to spend a multi-thousand dollar bomb when 20mm will do.
- nradov 6y ago
  That no longer works when the adversary has any sort of credible air defense. Can't risk manned aircraft at low altitude any more.
  - tgsovlerkhgsel 6y ago
    OTOH, an plane with a very precised gun may "win" an encounter by circling above a well-defended area, having SAMs shot at it, shooting down the SAMs as they approach, while being cheaper to operate (and replace when it eventually does get hit) than the missiles shot at it. While at the same time occasionally dropping bombs at targets to make ignoring it not an option.
    - dodobirdlord 6y ago
      The defender in this scenario has a seriously disadvantage, in that the local SAM sites can send many missiles at the same time, and the anti-missile suite of the plane has to defeat every single one. A gun that would succeed in this scenario would be a massive technological leap. The US Navy uses gun-based anti-missile setups, but they are more of a last ditch sort of defense that can defeat a small number of incoming missiles by putting an absurd amount of bullets in their way.
      - likeclockwork 6y ago
        The plane is the attacker, unless someone invaded their home and put SAM sites everywhere while they were out.
      - tgsovlerkhgsel 6y ago
        > can send many missiles at the same time, and the anti-missile suite of the plane has to defeat every single one. That's what makes unmanned planes special: It doesn't. It just has to force enough missiles to be fired that the missiles are more expensive/valuable than the plane when it ultimately gets shot down. (Value can be different from financial cost, depending on e.g. supply shortages, influence on the rest of the war, etc.)
  - throwaway0a5e 6y ago
    Pretty much all ground attack aircraft that aren't just multi-role fighters with precision munitions hanging off of them are crap if you don't have air superiority.
  - burfog 6y ago
    We can and we will risk manned aircraft at low altitude against a credible air defense. The war just has to be meaningful enough. Nazi Germany had a credible air defense. We sent bombers anyway. At one point, the expected lifetime (survival) of a bomber crew was a month. It has been some time since we fought a war that was worth that risk.
    - lumost 6y ago
      There is an interesting angle on modern great power conflict. Even in a non-nuclear war, all modern combat systems, munitions, and manufacturing bases, would be destroyed or expended within the first weeks by precision munitions. Pro-longed non-nuclear conflict would likely require tradeoffs towards lower-tech components that could be manufactured in more locations at lower risk of bombardment. They're ultimately just aren't that many aircraft or cruise missiles in modern militaries relative to WW2, and they each cost 2-3 orders of magnitude more than their WW2 counterparts (although the cost increase matches the capability increase).
  - stjohnswarts 6y ago
    You can bet we will be risking manned aircraft and low altitude for a very long time to come. I don't think you understand military priorities in times of war.
    - nradov 6y ago
      Sure they will take the risk at low altitude when there's no other option. But the preferred technique now is to orbit at medium altitude and dispense precision munitions. Why expose the aircraft to ground fire when it's not necessary?

throwaway0a5e 6y ago

Bullets are cheap. There's a reason pretty much every 3rd world air force slings gun ponds under its ground attack aircraft. No reason to spend a multi-thousand dollar bomb when 20mm will do.

nradov 6y ago
That no longer works when the adversary has any sort of credible air defense. Can't risk manned aircraft at low altitude any more.
- tgsovlerkhgsel 6y ago
  OTOH, an plane with a very precised gun may "win" an encounter by circling above a well-defended area, having SAMs shot at it, shooting down the SAMs as they approach, while being cheaper to operate (and replace when it eventually does get hit) than the missiles shot at it. While at the same time occasionally dropping bombs at targets to make ignoring it not an option.
  - dodobirdlord 6y ago
    The defender in this scenario has a seriously disadvantage, in that the local SAM sites can send many missiles at the same time, and the anti-missile suite of the plane has to defeat every single one. A gun that would succeed in this scenario would be a massive technological leap. The US Navy uses gun-based anti-missile setups, but they are more of a last ditch sort of defense that can defeat a small number of incoming missiles by putting an absurd amount of bullets in their way.
    - likeclockwork 6y ago
      The plane is the attacker, unless someone invaded their home and put SAM sites everywhere while they were out.
    - tgsovlerkhgsel 6y ago
      > can send many missiles at the same time, and the anti-missile suite of the plane has to defeat every single one. That's what makes unmanned planes special: It doesn't. It just has to force enough missiles to be fired that the missiles are more expensive/valuable than the plane when it ultimately gets shot down. (Value can be different from financial cost, depending on e.g. supply shortages, influence on the rest of the war, etc.)
- throwaway0a5e 6y ago
  Pretty much all ground attack aircraft that aren't just multi-role fighters with precision munitions hanging off of them are crap if you don't have air superiority.
- burfog 6y ago
  We can and we will risk manned aircraft at low altitude against a credible air defense. The war just has to be meaningful enough. Nazi Germany had a credible air defense. We sent bombers anyway. At one point, the expected lifetime (survival) of a bomber crew was a month. It has been some time since we fought a war that was worth that risk.
  - lumost 6y ago
    There is an interesting angle on modern great power conflict. Even in a non-nuclear war, all modern combat systems, munitions, and manufacturing bases, would be destroyed or expended within the first weeks by precision munitions. Pro-longed non-nuclear conflict would likely require tradeoffs towards lower-tech components that could be manufactured in more locations at lower risk of bombardment. They're ultimately just aren't that many aircraft or cruise missiles in modern militaries relative to WW2, and they each cost 2-3 orders of magnitude more than their WW2 counterparts (although the cost increase matches the capability increase).
- stjohnswarts 6y ago
  You can bet we will be risking manned aircraft and low altitude for a very long time to come. I don't think you understand military priorities in times of war.
  - nradov 6y ago
    Sure they will take the risk at low altitude when there's no other option. But the preferred technique now is to orbit at medium altitude and dispense precision munitions. Why expose the aircraft to ground fire when it's not necessary?