Iran Air Force (IRIAF) | News and Discussions

Lol first "Death to America" that I see in this forum...

Yes, totally irrational of an Iranian to dislike the last super power that is using its military and economic and political might to overthrow Irans government (again) and steal their resources (again)... I mean being told what to think and who to elect is what everyone wants... you are from europe... you know what I mean... the EU is jumping to washingtons tune... they know the rules... don't think for yourself, you are not allowed your own interests... just do what America wants you to do... be a good little european poodle.

20mm would be the minimum calibre you would want in a modern aircraft for shooting at anything at all... even just aircraft made of unarmoured sheet metal can be bullet proof from rifle calibre machine gun rounds at distances of more than 800m from some angles.

The even with a clean hit a rifle calibre machine gun would just punch a tiny hole through an aircraft structure, so you would need literally thousands of hits to reliably get a kill... just after WWII US aircraft were still fitted with 50 cal HMGs which relied on multiple hits to bring down light targets... when it got to Korea however at jet speeds they were poor choices for armament and the US actually decided to go for 20mm cannon.

The Soviets had already realised, with rather more air combat experience, that cannon was the better solution and used 23mm cannon for use against enemy fighters and 37mm cannon for use against enemy bombers and other large aircraft.

Not a strict rule of course they could use either or both against any target they chose in combat and often did.

The point is that 20mm is probably the bare minimum calibre and a 23mm round would probably be rather better.

Ironically I would say the Russian twin barrel 23mm guns are better than the US six barrel gatling guns.

In combat long bursts of fire are not practical as it burns through ammo to quickly, and with short bursts the US gatlings are electrically powered and take half a second to wind up to full speed. With most bursts lasting less than half a second they don't really reach peak rate of fire.

Twin barrel guns fire at cyclic rate from the first round and are smaller and lighter but fire a heavier projectile that would have rather more effect on target than the lighter faster moving US rounds.

Tony Williams has a rather good book called Rapid Fire, in which he examines aircraft mounted automatic guns.

Very simply most countries started WWII with rifle calibre machine guns but heavier aircraft construction and higher air speeds meant these weapons became ineffectual fairly quickly... a bit like the 37mm anti tank guns at the start of the war.

20mm cannons were vastly superior to any rifle calibre machine gun weapon and were adopted widely... the Germans, the British, the Soviets... the main exception was the Americans and that was largely because their 20mm cannon were rubbish, so they kept putting 6-8 HMGs in their wings to the end of the war and beyond.

You can read about Sabre pilots in the Korean war hitting MiG-15s with long bursts... actually getting long burst hits and the MiGs not going down, while a short burst and only a few hits from the 23mm cannons of the MiGs would bring down a Sabre or US bomber... often a single hit from the 37mm gun would destroy the american aircraft.

Your numbers for guns are amusing... the Polikarpov I-16 at the start of the war armed with two Shkas 7.62mm MGs and two 20mm Shvak cannon was better armed than most US planes at the end of the war... Shkas fired at 1,800 rpm in the early model and about 2,700 rpm in the later M model.

The problem was, as I said before, a hit from a 12.7mm calibre round resulted in a small hole punched through the aircraft... you needed to be very lucky to get a kill with a few hits.

With a 20mm or larger calibre round hit the round explodes and spreads the damage and can ignite fuel etc.

And the GSh-23 fires at 3,000 rpm and weighs 51kgs... and it fires at that rate from the first round unlike a gatling gun, and also does not need a separate electric motor to power it... it is vastly superior to US gatling guns for aircraft... and more accurate too because the barrels don't move.

The muzzle velocity is low, but that is because it uses a very heavy projectile with a rather effective HE payload... if you swapped it for a light projectile like the US 20mm cannon shell its muzzle velocity would be even better... but shooting at small elusive targets is not made easier with high velocity shells that simply punch small holes in the target.

The 30mm gun of the MiG-29 is probably the most effective aircraft mounted cannon for air to air combat.

Using optics and radar and a laser range finder, the fire control system of the aircraft controls the gun... the pilot just selects the air target and pulls the trigger to fire the gun and then manouvers his aircraft to place the aim point on the enemy aircraft... when the computer calculates it will get a hit it fires the gun and based on the target type it selects the number of shells fired in real time. A short burst for an enemy fighter and a longer burst for a small target like a drone or cruise missile.

It is famously known that during testing the computer was automatically only firing 4-7 rounds but the targets were still being destroyed... the project manager was reported to say if he had known the gun was going to be so accurate he would have halved the number of rounds carried... (originally something like 150 rounds and later 100 rounds).

Thanks for reply . I guess past experience is important and weapon designers and purchases must take into account past performance . In this respect , reliable data is needed from actual air combat kills using guns . By various modern jets . Problem is that apart from Korea and Vietnam , there is very little reliable data from jet on jet , dog fights and kills by guns . We should therefore carry out tests , by using different guns by real pilots against target drones . This , short of actual combat , would give most reliable answers .

Totally agree.

Aircraft gun design isn't just a case of making the guns lighter and faster firing and x level of accuracy at y range.

The Soviets in particular have a range of weapon options for different purposes for the role of bringing down enemy targets and shooting at targets on the ground.

Their current solution for most fighters is a single barrel 30mm cannon for air to air use... it is very compact and very light and with a good rate of fire and muzzle velocity but also with a good heavy HE projectile able to do serious damage to most types of aircraft.

The MiG-31, being a specialised aircraft has a specialised gun, a 23mm gatling gun with a ridiculous rate of fire (between 10 and 12 thousand rounds per minute).

A direct comparison between US 20mm gatlings and the MiGs 23mm gatling shows a serious superiority for the Soviet weapon.

The only real superiority of the US weapon was in its higher muzzle velocity but that is a conscious choice... if the Soviet round had a light weight penetrator projectile, its muzzle velocity would be comparable, but they prefer slower moving heavier projectiles with more HE punch, but at a very high rate of fire so bursts deliver a cluster of rapidly arriving impacts that lands like a shotgun blast rather than a stream of rounds.

The old model M61 Vulcan weighed 112kgs bare weight of just the gun, while the improved model weighs 92kgs without the feed system and electric motor that powers it.

The GSh-6-23 weighs 76kgs and does not need an electric motor to power it... it is gas powered by the ammo being fired... which also means it spools up to max fire rate much faster than the electric Vulcan.

The muzzle velocity of the Vulcan is 1km/s with a 100 gramme SAPHE projectile, while the GSh-6-23s round moves at just over 700m/s, but fires a much heavier 185 gramme HE projectile.

Note the Vulcan fires a 20x102mm cartridge, while the Soviet weapon is a 23x115mm round... so more case capacity and larger calibre.

Rates of fire are 6,000rpm for the Vulcan and 10-12,000 rpm for the Soviet gun... so up to 200 rounds per second...

It was one of the reasons I started taking an interest in Soviet equipment.... I had always believed the western myths of inferior but brutal equipment... this proved those theories wrong.

Just as importantly, while the US pretty much had the 20mm gatling as its standard aircraft gun, except for the A-10, the Soviets had a range of guns including 23mm single and twin and 6 barrel weapons, and also 30mm single and twin and 6 barrel models too.

Performance wise they are all excellent weapons each with different features regarding weight and size and rate of fire requirements...

Some of them, like the single barrel 23mm cannon on the Shilka, and several of the 6 barrel 30mm cannon used by the navy had a built in water cooling system... and not just a simple water cooling jacket... a sophisticated evaporation system...

On automated radar or IR guns , I must say that , this of course will improve performance . But in a hostile electronic environment , such as radar jamming or IR counter measures or EMP . Then pilot must be able to shoot in old fashion way . And must practice for it . I think you would agree , that modern pilots need to be able to use guns in dog fights . And must train for them . In case of all else failing . The modern materials for jet body must be known . And factored in , when installing guns . I think we pay more attention to armour on a personnel carrier , in designing our guns . But do we really think about aircraft body , when we install guns ? I heard that the F22 body , in part was made of paper / resin mix . In places . Now paper , used to be used as body armour , in the days of old !

Certainly a pilot needs to learn to navigate by compass, but in a real combat situation it makes sense to take advantage of everything that still works like satellite navigation.

The fire control computer on the MiG-29 can use range input from the radar or a laser rangefinder built in to the IRST to track the target and give range and angle information for the fire solution continuously calculated in real time. There is also a line in the HUD that assists the pilot to show them where they need to place the nose of their aircraft to hit the target so as they manouver around eventually things will line up correctly and the gun will automatically fire a burst when it is aligned and should hit. (the pilot holding the fire trigger while manouvering to confirm he wants the gun to fire).

The British have just announced that drone swarms will be used to suppress enemy air defences . They will most probably mimic bigger aircraft in RCS and signals , and put out ECM . So a pilot has to go up and shoot each one . Cheaply . So in this case small calibre high volume fire is needed . Saving SAM for bigger fish later . Alternatively a drone could be used for close air to air . Using data link . But that may be a few years in the future .

To be honest if the enemy put up drone swarms, the best weapon to use is not actually a machine gun... it is a shot gun... so rather than putting a gun pod with a rifle calibre machine gun on your latest fighters (incidently the Soviets had a gun pod for their Hind attack helos that had a single four barrel 12.7mm calibre HMG gatling gun the same as the weapon in the nose of the D model Hinds, as well as two 7.62mm calibre four barrel gatlings... the HMG with 500 rounds and the two rifle calibre weapons with 1,500 rounds each for hosing down soft targets like infantry in the open.) the problem would be you could fire a lot of rounds for each kill and those rounds could be going in all directions around the base you are defending... rounds that miss the target or go right through don't just suddenly disappear... they can do all sorts of damage to friendly forces.

I think the best solution to a UAV swarm is EM type weapons, plus a UCAV armed with something like a 40mm grenade launcher... the large calibre would allow a lot of fragments in each round with a base fuse set for 30-40m or so. It doesn't have to be an expensive and complex variable time fuse... just set them for a specific range and fly the UCAV around and fire at the enemy UAVs from a distance where the 40mm round explodes 3-7m short of the target so when it explodes and sends forward a blast of fragments it will be like a super shotgun round that is fired at close range to the target.

A shotgun is the ideal weapon for an air target... but it has a very limited effective range. Using a 40mm grenade with the front of the round fragmented to blow forward like a Claymore mine means it is an air delivered shotgun blast that is not that expensive, but should be very effective against light airborne targets.

A flight distance of 30-40m means the target will have little time to avoid the round exploding before detonation.

Laser range finders on the UCAV can ensure optimum distance for firing... a turret mounted gun could make multiple shots at targets all around the UCAV without having to do a lot of manouvering.

Fragments are not usually very aerodynamic so while they start off moving at enormous speeds, they rapidly slow down and become rather less dangerous... at more than 50m from the detonation location of the grenade the fragments would probably be starting to become harmless depending upon their weight.

Very light fragments are still lethal if they are moving fast but light fragments slow down faster and become less lethal faster.

Light fast fragments means a dense pattern of fragments so small UAVs are less likely to get by unscathed, but too light and they might just bounce off.

Of course there is not reason why only one round needs to get kills... for some targets a burst of a couple of rounds could be fired to ensure a kill.

Note this is not new, the standard 30mm aircraft cannon in the Soviet Union had what they called a cargo round that had a fixed fuse that detonated the round at a distance of about 1.8km from the muzzle and it contained fragments in the nose of the round that were blown forward like a shotgun blast. It was to be used against soft targets like aircraft parked on the ground or exposed infantry, and unarmed vehicles.

I agree with what you are saying and my suggestion of 40mm grenades is related to cost... with the case of swarm attacks we are talking about large numbers of targets, so using missiles and guns and EMP weapons do make sense but it would be too expensive to take them all out with missiles all the time, and with simple guns like rifle calibre machine guns you will be expending a lot of ammo for each kill because unless the target is 50m away a small suit case sized target that is moving is hard to hit even with a 50 round burst from a machine gun at 1km or so.

A large target like an airfield defended by machine guns would need lots of positions because a 3km long airfield could not be protected from one position with a rifle calibre machine gun, or even a heavy machine gun... even if placed in the middle.

The advantage of these fixed fuse HE frag round with directional fragmentation warheads is that they are fixed, they don't need expensive timing systems that detonate at the precise time needed and there is no need for the complication and expense of a proximity fuse in the projectile and that means the rounds will be cheap. The UAV the gun is mounted on needs a laser range finder and some way of detecting enemy targets in the air... thermal sights and optical targeting systems and laser rangefinders would do, but these are not inside the missiles being launched and expended so pay for them once and keep using them makes them cheap in the long run.

Having a slightly larger UAV with a gun turret or turrets with grenade launchers means the UAV could autonomously fly orbits of the base being defended or fly to a place where the enemy threats are likely to fly past... like through a valley or pass in the mountains to evade radar detection and ground operators could monitor and pull the trigger for attacks on enemy drone targets... you could fit hundreds of rounds in a UAV and perhaps 3-5 rounds per target at most means hundreds of kills potentially.

Once it detects a swarm of enemy drones it can fly with them picking them off... cheaply and it can call in extra help if needed by alerting air defence units as it approaches them... with optical attack methods having IR lights all over your friendly UAV to identify it could save it from being shot down optically... coded flash rates to prevent an enemy mimic attacker...

Meanwhile they have drones that can detect where drone attacks are coming from so attacking the source is important too to stop future attacks from the same location...

For Russian military units I believe the 30mm cannon might get a new lease on life with air burst shells with timed fuses, but the small size of the 30mm rounds counts against them... 57mm rounds have potentially rather more HE power and more fragmentation potential and more room for smart fuses... 57mm shell exploding amongst a group of UAVs could damage or disable a few at a time... and if it is successful it offers a potential future where modern fuses are so small and effective 152mm artillery rounds could be used... as the tracking drone flys near a friendly artillery unit it could climb to a safe altitude and request a few air burst rounds at specific coordinates at specific times to detonate amongst the enemy drones... 40kgs of HE and fragments would be devastating out to quite a radius...

Even if they have the RCS of a marble there are very few marbles flying above 4,000m at 300km/h.... some sort of high speed UAV with that 40mm grenade launcher and ammo would still be the cheapest option for interception... apart from enormously powerful EMP pulse from the ground of course.

Actually rather than going low RCS I would go for a huge RCS.... cover the thing in corner reflectors... it would be seriously cheap and simple... most radar proximity fuses will set off warheads hundreds of metres away from your aircraft, and for most radars seeing an aircraft with the RCS of a battleship... how many planes are there?

Is it a fighter plane... is it a UAV...

No it wont be very low RCS...

You can't take an existing design and make it actually stealthy... otherwise why would anyone both designing an aircraft from scratch to be stealthy when they could just convert an existing type for the job.

You make a good point that support UAVs operating with the aircraft could be large RCS and these fighters could hide amongst their RCS technically inside the UAVs they are operating with.

A modern equivalent of LANTIRN could be built in to the aircraft relatively cheaply and offer most of the capabilities that radar can achieve, but I would add an L band wing mounted radar to detect low RCS targets too because you get a better view of your airspace from up in the air... target data can be passed to ground stations to build a good picture of the battlespace for your whole force.

Modern ARH missiles like AMRAAM and R-77 use an autopilot to fly to an intercept point close to the target where they start scanning for targets to intercept... if you are getting target data from L band radar on your wings (which they wont detect) and ground stations then you could put IIR seekers on your medium range missiles and launch them towards targets many tens of kms away and when they get to the area they can start searching for air targets with their IR sensors totally passively... if the target moves while they are on their way the launch aircraft or ground station can send intercept updates to change its flight path for a better position to scan and detect the stealthy target and then chase it down.

You could put the same seeker on HAWK missiles and other long range missiles too, so a large scale strike by Israel or the US could be hammered as it approaches Iranian territory before it releases any weapons...