Machine Guns and Cannons (Ground, Vehicle, and Aircraft Mounted Weapons)

[HOG]

Hoyhoy`l

For loads of info on german weapons look out for Riechdreams Dossier no.8. It has 1:72 scale drawings on guns bombs missiles etc and details on weight cyclic rate etc etc. I have a copy but have been told of the legal side on posting material

(_E=mc2_)

[sotoolslinger]

Here is further work I have done on my 90 mm Automatic revolving recoiless cannon to be used on the Avenger/Skyrocket bash.

I scalorama'ed this from a 1/35 Pak 40 75 mm so I figure it would be 90 mm in 1/48

This will be a dropdown instalation from the existing bomb bay (instead of a 2000 lb torpedo)

[sotoolslinger]

With paint

Well hung

[Jschmus]

I was looking through my stash the other day.  I have the Hasegawa 1/72 Weapons II set, which includes, among other things, a number of different cannon pods.  One of these is the GE GPU-5 30mm pod.  This is a 4-barrel weapon derived from the GAU-8.  It was originally envisioned as being fitted to F-16s, with an eye towards replacing the A-10 in the CAS/anti-armor role.  I read somewhere that the tests did not go as planned, that the mount was too flexible, or the weapon too heavy, such that the weapon was too difficult to aim.  The USAF retired the pod some years ago, and according to Wikipedia, only the Thai Air Force still fields the weapon, on their F-5Es.

I think the pod itself is nifty-looking, even though the weapon fizzled.  My question is this: could the pod have been recycled to fit a different, lighter cannon?  Maybe the GAU-12 25mm cannon, as fitted to the AC-130 and AV-8B, or a more modern 20mm?  Also, the kit includes these snazzy blue markings for the pods.  Wouldn't an operational pod be a little less decorative?

[Ed S]

I was looking through my stash the other day.  I have the Hasegawa 1/72 Weapons II set, which includes, among other things, a number of different cannon pods.  One of these is the GE GPU-5 30mm pod.  This is a 4-barrel weapon derived from the GAU-8.  It was originally envisioned as being fitted to F-16s, with an eye towards replacing the A-10 in the CAS/anti-armor role.  I read somewhere that the tests did not go as planned, that the mount was too flexible, or the weapon too heavy, such that the weapon was too difficult to aim.  The USAF retired the pod some years ago, and according to Wikipedia, only the Thai Air Force still fields the weapon, on their F-5Es.

I think the pod itself is nifty-looking, even though the weapon fizzled.  My question is this: could the pod have been recycled to fit a different, lighter cannon?  Maybe the GAU-12 25mm cannon, as fitted to the AC-130 and AV-8B, or a more modern 20mm?  Also, the kit includes these snazzy blue markings for the pods.  Wouldn't an operational pod be a little less decorative?

The problem with all gun pods is that they don't have the accuracy of an internal gun.  There are too many variables dealing with mounting it, getting it aligned and keeping it aligned. This is especially critical for A-A use of a gun pod.  The weight of the pod isn't a problem nor is it any harder to aim than an internal gun. Although with the 30mm the recoil forces are also a factor, which is why you see the pod only mounted on the F-16 center line station.  Also, I think that once they realized they were keeping the Warthogs, the AF decided that they didn't want to expose the F-16's to ground fire by having them down in the weeds strafing targets.  They'd rather keep them at 20K feet or higher dropping JDAM's.

The GAU-12 would probably work fine in a pod as well, but again, the AF doesn't want to expose their expensive fighters by having them in the weeds strafing targets.  And the 20mm SUU-23 still remains an effective pod in that caliber.

Ed

[sotoolslinger]

Or you could go with my solution which is..... if it looks cool on the model, put it on and say it works pefectly in the back story

[Jeffry Fontaine]

I was looking through my stash the other day.  I have the Hasegawa 1/72 Weapons II set, which includes, among other things, a number of different cannon pods.  One of these is the GE GPU-5 30mm pod.  This is a 4-barrel weapon derived from the GAU-8.  It was originally envisioned as being fitted to F-16s, with an eye towards replacing the A-10 in the CAS/anti-armor role.  I read somewhere that the tests did not go as planned, that the mount was too flexible, or the weapon too heavy, such that the weapon was too difficult to aim.  The USAF retired the pod some years ago, and according to Wikipedia, only the Thai Air Force still fields the weapon, on their F-5Es.

Pretty much what was already said regarding the pods and accuracy.  The only real benefit of a gun pod is against a very large target such as a barn, truck convoy, or a ship.  If you are shooting up anything smaller, the probability of a hit is going to be slim.  Great way to keep the oppositions heads down if you are looking for a way out of an ambush but that comes under the spray and pray clause. 

I think the pod itself is nifty-looking, even though the weapon fizzled.  My question is this: could the pod have been recycled to fit a different, lighter cannon?  Maybe the GAU-12 25mm cannon, as fitted to the AC-130 and AV-8B, or a more modern 20mm?  Also, the kit includes these snazzy blue markings for the pods.  Wouldn't an operational pod be a little less decorative?

If you have the 1/72nd scale gun pods, you could use a bit of scale-o-rama and scale them up to become a .50" caliber gun pod on a 1/48th scale model.  If these pods are available in 1/144th scale, there is a good chance of passing them off as .50" gun pods on a 1/72nd scale model.  I beleive it was Blackops that did that with some of these pods on a helicopter project a year or so ago. 

[Maverick]

The issue of accuracy of internal vs external guns makes one wonder about the much vaunted F-35 (yeah, I know - I have a problem with it).  The AF & CV versions are internal whilst the STOVL ship is podded.  Are they trying to say that the Marines (and others) don't need it?  I would have thought the Corps would have had much more of a need of an accurate weapon given that everyone seems to think internal guns are a thing of the past (again!).

Regards,

Mav

[dy031101]

I think it's once again an issue of how far technology has progressed (not for the guided weapons, but for the gun itself).

Besides, wasn't the hardpoint optimized for gunpod carriage?  It could very well be stronger than those used for fuel tanks or disposable ordnances for all we know.

[GTX]

Actually, I thought the F-35A was the only one with an internal (and barely at that - have a look at it, talk about an afterthought) gun.

Regards,

Greg

[Maverick]

Greg,

You might be right about the CV and you're definitely spot on with the 'afterthought' comment.

Dy,

Whilst I believe you're nearly correct about the external gun (I believe the pod itself and mount was the heavily designed part), I don't believe the hardpoint is, for it would limit its use. 

As for the advantages of modern tech, that I believe is debatable.  Most 'non-gun' people think that the gun is an anarchronism within the modern environment, seeming to discount it's usefulness for strafing or tertiary air combat/defence.  The simple reality is that once you have expended your disposable ordnance, you've just made the leap from hitech warfighter to hitech target.

Whether an 'air dominance' fighter (to use the latest venacular for the job of knocking down enemy aircraft) or some other roled aircraft, the lack of internal gun within either a 'pure' fighter or 'swing role' platform is, one day, going to spell the end of an 'unarmed' aircraft.

As I have mentioned in previous threads, the rules of engagement that restrict most modern air operations will inevitably see a situation where either a) an aircraft's BVR capability is negated, relying on SRAAMs (or a gun if fitted) or b) the same aircraft has exhausted it's weapons and without a gun can no longer attack or defend itself.

For all of it's 'anachronism', it's a simple fact that Randy 'Duke' Cunningham (Vietnam War USN ace and Top Gun instructor) once said that, had his F-4 being equipped with an internal gun, he would have had many more air-air kills that he ended with.

That's not the ramblings of just anyone, that's a validated comment from an air combat veteran.

Regards,

Mav

[dy031101]

The discussion in the A-10 thread made me think about the country that created what some aviation fans regard as the spiritual predecessor of A-10......

What if, for whatever reason (WWII lasting longer, Germany not an Axis power, etc.), Hs-129B-3 lasted long enough for its replacement to be sought?  Influenced by the A-10 thread, my eyes are on jets, and I couldn't get the Junkers "Un-named Project" off my mind.

And replace the Mk-103 with BK-7.5...... hum...... a Ju attack jet with a big cannon under its nose (or belly) and rockets and/or anti-tank guided missiles under its wings......

[Maverick]

The Junkers SFP or Schlactfliegerprojekt sat quite low on the ground so the -129B-3/Wa's 75mm wouldn't be a goer.  The wings could most likely get unguided Panzerblitz rockets, but I wouldn't consider guided weapons as most, if not all, WW2 guided ASMs were 'command guided' (ie: they had to be 'steered' onto the target by the aircraft's operator.  A single seat striker simply wouldn't be able to do that and survive over a battlefield environment.

Regards,

Mav

[dy031101]

That's why I said "for whatever reason" to allow the aircraft to last beyond WWII technologies...... 

As for the possibility for a 75mm gun...... I am under the impression that the belly "bulge" resulted from installing the BK-7.5 might not have been as large as the pod under Hs-129B-3/Wa as the Junkers SFP's original Mk-103 assembly is wholly contained within the fuselage...... but then it's just a guess.

[Maverick]

Dy,

Unfortunately, the timeframe where you get anything other than command guided ASMs, especially for AT use is quite beyond any reasonable WW2 scenario.  TOW (first introduced in the early 60s) is a fairly popular AT weapon for Helos but once again is operator guided, although it's a SACLOS (Semi Automatic Command Line of Sight) system.  It still requires an operator to have the target in a sighting system to steer the weapon.

The A-10's weapons of choice are AGM-65's (either laser or optically guided) and unguided cluster & 'dumb' bombs.  The Maverick still requires the pilot to target the vehicle with a system within his aircraft prior to launching the weapon, only then can he take evasive action.

Simply put, non-command guided anti-armour weapons aren't something that have been around for decades.  For the SFP to have carried them would require a backseater and given the type's design, I think guns & unguided weapons would be considered the better option.

Here's some artwork of the SFP with it's gear down, note that even the nose skid is offset to account for the cannon.  I can't see any clearance at all for something in the order of the BK 7.5.

Regards,

Mav