J-20 5th Gen Fighter Thread IV (Closed to posting)
- Thread starter siegecrossbow
- Start date
- Status
Still fighting the last war, I see.
Every weapon that has been proven indispensable by countless past experience would, in spite of all times in the past when it may have been deemed obsolete incorrectly, in spite of shallow reading of countless past experiences, most certainly one day actually become deadweight
The side that first sees correctly that it has become deadweight gains a big advantage.
Last edited:
by78
General
Chuck, you must know something air forces the world over do not, since in their ignorance, they have all opted to equip their fighters with a gun. So please enlighten us, tell us what we've all missed.
P.S. The fail-proof weapon for an infantryman is a bayonet, and yes, we still use it; but we ought to stop, since a bayonet is 'deadweight'. When the ray guns run out of juice, the infantrymen can still win by staring down the enemy with their 'war face'.
Last edited:
TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
It is dynamically nearly impossible to avoid being shot down by an late model IR missile long before one enters gun range.
It is very difficult to shoot down another fighter with a gun even when that fighter is in gun range so long as the enemy pilot knows where you are and what you are trying to do.
The kinematic performance, seeker field of view, and anti-countermeasure capabilities of modern IR missiles so far surpasses those which convinced pilots 2 generations ago of the role of the gun that their experience might as well be those of a roman legionary.
Modern air-air fighters carry guns largely to placate vocal rhetorically driven opinions like those expressed on this forum.
It is rhetorically hard to argue against experience in front of people who seek assurance rather than insight, but that doesn't mean experience really has that much validity.
Even if the J-20 isn't going to be installed with a gun, it might be prudent to design it with space for a gun in mind, in case it ever becomes necessary. At the end of the day winning fights is about being prepared. A gun might not be important for every missions, but there might missions where it will be.
Might as well develop an external gunpod for it.
by78
General
And I bet you have a source to back all this up. Cite me an academic paper or a thinktanker from Rand or whatever that supports the elimination of the gun.
Until you do, it's just your opinion against that of every decision maker who is privy to classified technical data and has the grave responsibility of designing and equipping air combat platforms that must win wars and bring the pilots back in one piece.
Armchair futurizing is best left to the David Axes of the world.
Last edited:
by78
General
Why go through the trouble for a gun pod if the gun itself is simply deadweight?
Indeed, why have the designers of the F-35 gone through the trouble of designing a gun pod, with its draggy, steath-reducing unwieldiness, all just to enclose a piece of deadweight?
You should write to the air force leadership and Lockmart and tell those boneheads what they've been missing: why carry a gun when our missiles are NEVER EVER fooled by countermeasures and can NEVER EVER be evaded via kinetic maneuvers? All fighters therefore should shed the gun and be re-designed to carry an UNLIMITED number of missiles.
Last edited:
TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
looking over the Entire line of known Fighters produced by the PLAAF, None of them Feature gun pods. Every fighter interceptor features a internal cannon Normally 23mm. Chuck even there next latest fighters the J10 and J11 and J15 all carry internal cannons 23mm for J10 30mm For J11 and J15.
- Status