- Thread starter
-
- #21
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Why did jet fighters into the early 1960s have quad 20 mm cannons? Modern fighters have a single 20 mm cannon. I suppose the 6,000 rpm M61 Vulcan Gatling gun isn't the same as the Cougar's 600–700 rpm Hispano-Suiza HS.404.The TF9Js that visited us from time to time had a single 20MM. Since their nuggets were mostly headed for fighters, which at that time meant Phantoms, gunnery was somewhat de-emphasized.
How about four Vulcans? Now that's a braking system.I might be an aeronautical nitwit but I would much prefer one Vulcan canon to 4 Hispano-Suiza HS.404. That thing be AWESOME!
Now we're talking.How about four Vulcans? Now that's a braking system.
Would two 20 mm cannons be considered adequate?The USMC operated a small number of the two-seat TF-9J(F9F-8T) in the FAC role during the early part of the Viet Nam war. The standard TF-9J retained the capabilities of the standard single-seat F-9J(F9F-8) in terms of external ordnance (bombs, rockets, AIM-9 Sidewinders, DTs, etc), but they only carried 2x 20mm cannon in the nose instead of 4. Electronics were similar, except maybe no APG-30 ranging radar? Fuel load was identical.
The USMC FAC variants sometimes used 2.75" FFAR smoke rounds for target marking. I do not know how they were equipped in terms of electronics.
Would two 20 mm cannons be considered adequate?
Until the Vulcan was perfected and working reliably (long process), the Hispano and the M39 were the only games in town, and neither was ideal for rate of fire or reliability reasons. The Vulcan fixed (overfixed?) the RoF issue, but had its share of teething problems, and I guess, could be a temperamental bastard in the climate of SE Asia. I used to see guns come back to the factory from the test range that had literally self-destructed due to a simple jam or link failure. With the breech and barrel assemblies rotating at 1,000 RPM and the ammo coming out of the drum and down the feedpath at 100 rounds a second, doesn't take much for a sprocket to punch a hole in a cartridge case and spill explosive propellant all over hot moving parts. Not under my cockpit floorboards, thank you!Why did jet fighters into the early 1960s have quad 20 mm cannons? Modern fighters have a single 20 mm cannon.
Ever noticed that those rotary guns are always mounted near aircraft centerline? Do you suppose there's a reason for that? Imagine you've got a Vulcan hanging on each of your outboard pylons, you're diving on a target centered in your gunsight, you squeeze the trigger, and only one gun fires. What happens to your carefully lined up shot, not to mention aircraft control? Get the picture?How about four Vulcans? Now that's a braking system.
Since the F14/15/16/18/22/35 have the gun mounted in a wing root, I wonder if the aircraft's flight control trimmed the rudder to compensate when the trigger was pressed.Until the Vulcan was perfected and working reliably (long process), the Hispano and the M39 were the only games in town, and neither was ideal for rate of fire or reliability reasons. The Vulcan fixed (overfixed?) the RoF issue, but had its share of teething problems, and I guess, could be a temperamental bastard in the climate of SE Asia. I used to see guns come back to the factory from the test range that had literally self-destructed due to a simple jam or link failure. With the breech and barrel assemblies rotating at 1,000 RPM and the ammo coming out of the drum and down the feedpath at 1,000 rounds a second, doesn't take much for a sprocket to punch a hole in a cartridge case and spill explosive propellant all over hot moving parts. Not under my cockpit floorboards, thank you!
Ever noticed that those rotary guns are always mounted near aircraft centerline? Do you suppose there's a reason for that? Imagine you've got a Vulcan hanging on each of your outboard pylons, you're diving on a target centered in your gunsight, you squeeze the trigger, and only one gun fires. What happens to your carefully lined up shot, not to mention aircraft control? Get the picture?
God no, total rubbish.
Yes, agreed, but that makes for a short discussion. For arguments sake, the A-4 is out.
RAN TA-4G N13-154911, formerly RNZAF A-4K NZ6255, formerly TA-4G N13-154911, on display at the Fleet Air Arm Museum, Nowra, NSW.
Well, you're at least 50% correct in that blanket statement about M61 mounts in contemporary fighters. F14, F16, and F18 have fuselage mounted Vulcans, Tomcat and Viper carrying them offset to the port side, but within 2-3 feet of centerline. Hornet has it mounted top dead center with the firing port between the cockpit and the radome, a bad idea in my book as it seems sure to subject the pilot to flash blindness.Since the F14/15/16/18/22/35 have the gun mounted in a wing root, I wonder if the aircraft's flight control trimmed the rudder to compensate when the trigger was pressed.
I guess that takes the shine off the Cougar. Not much improvement over the Banshee. I thought they were faster than that. Looks like the Demon is the only logical choice...unless... maybe, somehow, the mighty Buccaneer could be made to work.Some stats for comparison.
That would have been interesting. Harrier vs Harrier.
How about these!
View attachment 595290Bruntingthorpe 20
Aww, no fun [shuffling feet and staring at the ground...] The A-4 is really the only sensible answer tho, realistically speaking. The F9F might be a plauseable option in the early 60s but by the early 70s its showing its age. You're gonna wanna replace it soon-ish. In the mid 70s buy Harriers or A-7s. Both single-seat strikers with modern nav-attack systems, head-up displays and able to be upgraded. You could sling Winders on them with a little modification.
Argentine CANA (naval air arm) bought F9F-2 Panthers and F9F-8 Cougars for its carrier ARA Independencia in 1959, but could not operate them from the carrier owing to the catapult not being powerful enough, so stuck with aging F4Us as its carrier fighter throughout the 60s, until 1969 when ARA 25 de Mayo came on line. The navy also had Trackers aboard the carrier, but the F9Fs all remained land based. The Brits tried to sell the Argentines Harriers for its new carrier, but they bought A-4s instead, which replaced the F9Fs in 1969 after ten years of service, owing to spares shortages and low serviceability. CANA F9Fs saw combat during the various military coups undertaken by the navy against the government and one was shot down.
An F9F-2 on display at the Museo Naval, Tigre, with its replacement in CANA service, an A-4Q behind.
View attachment 595291F9F-2
As much as it pains me, there's zero chance HMCS Bonaventure will continue in RCN service into the mid 70s. We're looking for a replacement for the Banshee when it's retired in 1962 until Bonaventure retires in July 1970.The F9F might be a plauseable option in the early 60s but by the early 70s its showing its age. You're gonna wanna replace it soon-ish. In the mid 70s buy Harriers or A-7s.
True, and Bonaventure was conducting Skyhawk trials, though Canada cried poor. That's why I think a cheaper non-Skyhawk option needs to be considered.In terms of cost, utilisation and upgradeability, the A-4 is the best answer for smaller navies though.
Depends on the guns, The Cougar, for some reason (less redesign from the Panther?) , used M3 Hispanos that fired at 700-750rpm.Would two 20 mm cannons be considered adequate?
A radar-equipped night fighter version of the F9F-8T was proposed by Grumman in 1955. It was to have carried an AN/APQ-50 radar and was to have been equipped with an all-missile armament. However, the performance was considered insufficient to warrant production.
In 1961, Grumman proposed a modernized version of the F9F-8T with updated systems and a Pratt & Whitney J52 turbojet in place of the J48. However, the Navy selected the Douglas TA-4F instead, and the updated two-seat Cougar project was abandoned.