rail gun

Has it occurred to anyone that the technology to launch an anti missile projectile, even many projectiles, orthogonal to an aircraft already exists?

This exotic technology is referred to as the machine gun or automatic cannon.

Aside from radar and IR feeding computerized gun sights, there exists fly by wife systems that enable the computer to fine tune a pilot's aim of a fixed gun to score a hit.

Manauvering cannon projectiles are now an existing technology as well. Intergrating with a rear facing sensor to permit cammand guidance from the aircraft is no problem, enabling small, simple, cheap antimissile projectiles. Given a command detonated explosive to fragment the projectile, perfect accuracy is not needed against an AtA or SAM that is equipped with a sensor system that is inherently. Extra browny points are awarded if the gun system can rupture the solid fuel rocket motor to produce a very impressive explosion, but damage to the sensor will
achieve a mission kill.

J6P can probably correct any misconception that I might have, but I expect that almost all AtA or SAMs will make their final approach either from near directly ahead or from near directly aft. This enables one forward facing and one rear facing anti missile cannon to intercept virtually all incoming missiles. A highly maneuverable aircraft with proper tactics could probably bring any incoming missile into one of these two intercept aspects. If not, a reintroduction of the gun turrented might be warrented.

Relax wrote:

Tenshinai wrote:It´s funny though how you seem to not know about the primary problem with trying to fire missiles in any direction.

Concerning applicability of counter objects to an aircraft.

This quoted is your argument along with it was "tried" way back when? Simply listing the Vympel R-77 missile as an argument ? Here I am assuming you are worried about its closing speed? When you know where the missile will be?(impacting your aircraft)

Ok there. You wedded yourself into a very small box.

Lets look at the practicality and the very basic Aerodynamics.

Intercepting these missiles at 100km is pretty stupid. So, lets ignore this scenario. One is not trying to intercept these missiles at 10km either. While J6P never stated the distance he would intercept them, Wastedfly stated 100m with no more than 1000km in previous post. Think I would go with 200m myself.

There is realistically only two directions one needs to fire counters in. Rearward and orthogonal to the longitudinal axis. Via maneuver forward can be eliminated, though it is the easiest of the bunch to implement. Rearward is also straightforward and easy. Sideways has to exit the slipstream. This would require a tube launch system for initial dV velocity faster than the aircraft. I can see a basic need for a change in tactics compared to modern fighter missile dodging as well. Suppose we could get into dodging tactics and changed needed, but honestly why bother at the moment. Have to be able to hit a missile from a non maneuvering airframe to start with.

So, rearward/forward, a true counter missile would be doable. But not in the longitudinal orthogonal directions. This would require a tube launched dV. Upthread RPG was stated by J6P. This would be required for the longitudinal orthogonal directions.

Tactics for fighter dodge, or no dodge in this case for optimum result would force the fighter in question to partially align its internal tube launched counter measures with the incoming missile. A go no go light or chime would be applicable here to the pilot.

Now, the practical. Where to place the tubes in question? Would have to go above the turbines pointed, down/up on a slant. As nothing goes below the turbines(maintenance). Forward/aft is easy enough as it aligns with the turbine direction. So, its possible with a change in fuel placement and a larger aircraft body(drag-weight)

No, you are not going to carry these buggers under a wing on a pylon. If one did, the only orientation you could have would be rearward for close in interception. If shot it forward and then maneuver to the side, would require essentially same weight as a full up missile due to its longer burn time while giving a ton of Aerodynamic drag under normal cruising conditions. A very limited solution. Internal tube launch with pop covers.

How many are you going to carry? No reload mech as there is not space for it. Besides are not carrying many. So group of single launch tubes. How many offensive missiles do you carry? A decent ratio of CM to offensive is going to be what? Fewer CM than offensive. Can still dodge, hide, etc.

How much do lasers weigh? Way too much currently and they do not missile kill even from the largest current installations. Rather try to burn. Then again, fighters are pretty much sitting ducks in the sky right now as well.

No free lunch.

Plenty of popcorn to go around.

Snacks!

Carry ON!

namelessfly wrote:Aside from radar and IR feeding computerized gun sights, there exists fly by wife systems that enable the computer to fine tune a pilot's aim of a fixed gun to score a hit.

So...does the pilot pack along a back-seat driver, or does she nag him from the ground?
----------------
When you turn the lights off at night, what does the cat think?

namelessfly wrote:I expect that almost all AtA or SAMs will make their final approach either from near directly ahead or from near directly aft.

AtA incoming from all angles. M4>>M1

namelessfly wrote:Has it occurred to anyone that the technology to launch an anti missile projectile, even many projectiles, orthogonal to an aircraft already exists?

This exotic technology is referred to as the machine gun or automatic cannon.

Oh i know perfectly about it. That´s why i´m not very optimistic about actually making use of it.

First of all, issue of mounting. To be of any real use as a point defense weapon, it MUST have a fair amount of aiming movement.
Which means a fairly heavy mount.

The location where the mount is placed must be able to handle the rapid recoil forces.

And the whole thing must not disrupt aerodynamics too much.

At that point, the whole thing already falls to pieces, because even with just those basic requirements, you´re already looking at something that is far too big and heavy compared to how useful it is.

Beyond that there are still more issues, like just being able to actually hit. Even heavy shipbased systems does not have a very impressive hit probability.

namelessfly wrote:Aside from radar and IR feeding computerized gun sights, there exists fly by wife systems that enable the computer to fine tune a pilot's aim of a fixed gun to score a hit.

Does she sit in the pilots lap or something?

namelessfly wrote:Manauvering cannon projectiles are now an existing technology as well.

Yes, and just how many tons of extra equipment do you want to patch onto an aircraft? Even the best combination of sensors and weapons from a perfectly stable platform(which most aircraft are NOT), are poor at hitting highspeed missiles.

namelessfly wrote: Given a command detonated explosive to fragment the projectile, perfect accuracy is not needed

Ah, unfortunately that is incorrect. Realworld tests for example have revealed that the 20mm that the Phalanx uses, MUST get a direct hit on an incoming missile, or kill probability drops drastically. Glancing hits can make the incoming missile turn involuntarily in such a way that it is still eliminated, but this is not something you can rely upon.

This is why all other, and especially newer point defense gun systems use 27, 30 or 35mm cannons.

namelessfly wrote:but I expect that almost all AtA or SAMs will make their final approach either from near directly ahead or from near directly aft.

Only if the pilot is an idiot. Drawing the missile into turns where it is unable to follow the target plane is one of the most basic counter maneuvers. Which will often mean having the missile incoming more or less from the side.

namelessfly wrote:If not, a reintroduction of the gun turrented might be warrented.

Oh please say you´re joking...

Do you have any idea of how much weight and drag you add to a plane by adding turrets on it?

A mach 2 plane becomes a mach 1.5, or LESS.

Relax wrote:How much do lasers weigh? Way too much currently and they do not missile kill even from the largest current installations.

Actually, LASERs that are small/light enough to put in an airplane isn´t such a horrible problem. But try to add the powersource for it, and you´re in deep shit.

Relax wrote:Then again, fighters are pretty much sitting ducks in the sky right now as well.

You think so? I disagree. Most pro´s disagree to one extent or another.

Relax wrote:This quoted is your argument along with it was "tried" way back when? Simply listing the Vympel R-77 missile as an argument ?

I listed it as it was the most successful attempt. Last time was sometime 6 or 7 years ago IIRC.

Relax wrote:Here I am assuming you are worried about its closing speed? When you know where the missile will be?(impacting your aircraft)

Nope. The main problem is aerodynamics and weapon release.

In the forward arc, you need so much power to get an interception at a distance that doesn´t risk killing the plane anyway, that regular SR AAMs are what you need anyway, and this is something that can be done already, even if not very effectively.

However, trying to launch against incoming from side or rear has proven very problematic.

To include Fly´s idea of guns, well sure, they have a whole second or two of useful time during which it can hit an incoming missile, but it will most likely spend that time trying to adjust its aim for a hit, because the air behind an airplane move a LOT, and not in nice and even ways.

Going over to countermissiles, well, missiles by default have to be made to work aerodynamically. Which means they must have a front and a rear.

And trying to launch something with its rear "into the wind", well yeah, that doesn´t work very well at all. You get a missile that starts spinning on its longitudinal axis before it has even separated enough from the aircraft to allow it to ignite the engine.

Sideways is actually easier, but it still doesn´t really work.

The R-73(not R-77, that´s the big brother) "solved" this by being the first SR AAM with extreme agility, even the regular version CAN be launched against sideways targets by using the helmet sight.
And even the regular model can also in theory do a 180 degree turn instantly after engine ignition.

Wasn´t very good at it, but better than any other at least. So, a number of special models have been tested ever since the 80s, trying to give it a reliable ability to do that turnaround (or turn to the side) and be able to take out an incoming missile.

Problem is that it´s very hard to target highspeed missiles. So, even when the most suitable missile for the job has been custom tailormade altered for the job, it´s still not good at it.


Lots of designers over the world has tested various ways of "solving" the issues, and noone has come up with a reliable system that does not also cause problems.

For example, IIRC Dassault built something looking like an FFAR pod, that allowed rearfiring counter munitions to accelerate before leaving the aircraft, well yeah as long as the plane wasn´t going above mach 1 it sort of worked, to actually have any kind of reliability the plane neede to go much slower AND the pod had to be lengthened, AND extra fins had to be added to allow the munitions to reach enough negative airspeed that they didn´t end up "falling flat" upon leaving the launch pod.

And even just a single pod was large as a centerline fuel tank, causing at least as much drag as one, overall they just found it severely not worth it.

Relax wrote:Wastedfly stated 100m with no more than 1000km in previous post. Think I would go with 200m myself.

Not good enough. At 200m you have less than 1 second to react. Naval point defense guns in that situation have crap for ability at that stage, and they´re a MUCH heavier system than you can ever place in a fighterplane.

Relax wrote:Rearward is also straightforward and easy. Sideways has to exit the slipstream.

Ah, no. Rearward has LOTS of turbulence to play with.

Relax wrote:This would require a tube launch system for initial dV velocity faster than the aircraft.

MUCH faster. And this is a serious problem. You pretty much need a cannon charge to launch, as pure rocketry wont get you the acceleration needed most of the time.

If the plane is going 200m/s forward, and you´re firing at something 400m behind you, well, a 600m/s average velocity means it still takes a full second to reach target.

Way too much. Exit velocity for an M2 .50 is around 830m/s. Except of course that a .50 is too weak to reliably kill a missile.

Relax wrote:Upthread RPG was stated by J6P.

*giggle*

RPGs main flaw against TANKSs is low exist velocity. Trying to come even near an incoming missile with something that at best travels at less than 400m/s is pretty much just a pipedream.

And that´s the nice and friendly way of saying it.

What you effectively need to launch something as big as that is a rather too big cannon to mount in a fighter. Or more precisely, too big to mount and not use up too much weight on it.

Any kind of effective system, you´re going to be looking at at least 300kg, just launch system. And that´s on the extremely optimistic side. 2-3 times that is probably more likely. And this to ONLY get a rearward launcher with less than acceptable hitrates.

What kind of fighter is it, where you spend over a ton for a single, low frequency use, highly limited and mostly ineffective defensive system?

It´s a fighter that wont get built is what i would say.

Relax wrote:Tactics for fighter dodge, or no dodge in this case for optimum result would force the fighter in question to partially align its internal tube launched counter measures with the incoming missile. A go no go light or chime would be applicable here to the pilot.

Dodging is still much more effective as a counter. So not dodging is a BAD tactic.

Relax wrote:How many are you going to carry? No reload mech as there is not space for it. Besides are not carrying many. So group of single launch tubes. How many offensive missiles do you carry? A decent ratio of CM to offensive is going to be what? Fewer CM than offensive. Can still dodge, hide, etc.

Big problem is that the offensive missiles are going to have a noticeably higher hitrate than the defensive weapons.

And both Russia and China now seems firmly attached to the doctrine of always firing multiple missiles with differing seekers at any target. Meaning missiles that will approach differently, meaning the point defense weapons will never be able to even be used against all incoming missiles.


Overall, you´re better off dodging like damned while having your ECM turned to eleven.

J6P wrote:Well, Tenshai, all you did in your post was prove you do not have a clue how RADAR works.
Lovely, you achieved a 33% score on your test. You failed basic understanding of what a RADAR is.
You bring up the Grippen who can, woo hoo, see really well, dead ahead. Grippen is selling to the lowest cost bracket. BIG long range detection numbers look REALLY cool on paper. Of course no one reads the fine print that says, "Only useful agaisnt objects the size of a mountain."

lol – concur – I stopped posting bc I’m not convinced Tenshai is from “Sweden” – too into Russian crap – maybe a Russian spy trying to weasel out info from someone who knows. But anyway one obvious thing he certainly missed is (public info if you know anything on aircraft design) the F-22 doesn’t need a huge powerful radar. It has AWACS – the US controls its air power from a distance. The fighter radar is only for local on-hand tactical info that’s why it doesn’t need a RIO either.

Topic over.