Is that really going to work? Very small drones could be deadly to a jet aircraft, they don’t need a lot of explosives, they just need to get sucked into a jet engine. Hitting such small targets with machine guns is not going to be easy.
No need to bother shooting at it. Give it a couple minutes and it will crash on its own!
Pretty much all fighter aircraft have a gun. Are you talking about something different?
A couple F-35 variants do not have a gun integrated into the airframe.
Right, but they are all capable of carrying a gun pod, and presumably neither the permanent gun (on the A only?) nor the pod are for “drone defense.”
Agreed, that comment about defending against swarms of drones is quite a ways out there… in the same way it can be said that the advanced helmet provided to F-35 drivers helps protect against beer bottles being thrown at the pilot. Sure, it does, but that’s not why it is there, and that isn’t actually a real threat to the airplane.
Thanks. Sorry I deprived you of the opportunity.
Heh. I take it you’re not impressed?
Assuming you’re talking from first hand experience:
How are the little backpack or trailer sized drones distributed between units?
When would they be used?
How well do they work?
-
I only know what I read, and I tried to hedge with the “highly debated” part about ground support. Unfortunately, at the moment I can’t remember or search for the source of that statement–I’m pretty sure it was a respectable enough source. But I’m still empty for a cite.
-
Tell me if I erred in calling it a minigun. My impression was if it’s in the airframe, it’s a Gatling gun, aka “cannon.” And externally mounted, it’s a minigun–an impression I only recently took in when schooled here, in another thread, about Terminator 2.
“Known as the GAU-22/A, the gun fires 25mm rounds integrates internally to the F-35A, unlike the US Marine Corps and Navy variants, where the gun is mounted on the outside as a pod.”
I grabbed this quote from airforce-technology.com, printed in July (http://www.airforce-technology.com/news/newsusafs-f-35a-gatling-testing-4630782). In August some different tests were run, and the released vids are all over the net, if you want to see them (I haven’t, so I don’t know which version is flying.)
Lots and lots of mixed up terminology being bandied about here. No wonder folks are talking past one another. Gatling gun <> cannon <> minigun. And internal vs external in and of itself says nothing about any of the three preceding terms.
A “Gatling gun”, strictly speaking was a Civil War-era pre-machine gun. Since that time the term has been colloquially applied to various other rotary multi-barreled guns. IMO that’s sloppy terminology. If you’re talking about a modern rotary multi-barreled gun, call it that.
Generally speaking cannons in modern parlance are weapons over 1/2" in diameter that fire explosive shells. “Machine guns” are weapons that fire smaller caliber rounds that are not explosive.
The “mini-gun” was a .30 caliber Viet Nam era 3 or 6-barrelled rotary machine gun. It was commonly deployed on light helicopters and light aircraft.
The US primary aerial cannon of the last 40-ish years has been the M-61 “Vulcan cannon”, a 6-barrelled rotary cannon firing explosive shells 20mm in diameter.
The GAU-22/A is one of a family of related 25mm cannons. This particular model is also a multi-barrel rotary cannon and is the designated replacement for the M-61. Other variants have fewer barrels, may be turreted, and are used on helos, ships, light armored vehicles, etc.
As Leo says, the F-35A will carry the GAU-22/A permanently mounted internally, much as the F-4E, F-14, F-15, -16, and -18 carry / carried the M-61.
The F-35B & C will be able to carry a podded variant of the same gun, much as the F-4s prior to the E model could carry podded versions of the M-61.
None of these F-35 GAU-22/A variants are going to be any use against toy- and model-sized rotary-winged or conventional UAVs. But against the light-plane sized targets or larger, manned or otherwise, the gun would be the weapon of choice.
At least that’s how I read the situation having followed the trade press since before the F-35 project was begun.
I see on Twitter that Turkey shot down a suspected Russian UAV near the Syrian border. The thing that surprises me is that it is fairly small - looks to be about a six foot wingspan.
Russia denies that it owns the aircraft, but there’s a report that a similar plane was also shot down in Ukraine.
The M-134 is still in widespread use. It’s just not made by GE anymore.
I saw this story about a ‘radio cannon’ that disrupts/jams the radio signal between the drone and controller causing it to go into safe mode and either land right away or navigate back to where it started.
Here’s a pic of the drone that Turkey shot down http://www.dunya.com/d/gallery/1796_3.jpg
Any details on what type of plane shot it down?
It seems relatively undamaged, I wonder if it was trying to evade and crashed or something.
One thing about it that hasn’t been brought up in this thread is that they probably had help. While fighters probably aren’t going to pick up a small drone 100 miles away then go shoot it down, ground radar, AWACS or other electronic intelligence planes/sensors might detect it and send in fighters. Shooting it down might still be hard, but detecting it -with help- should be quite possible.
Air forces keep taking them off new designs, then changing their mind and putting them back. They are heavy, require access for loading, prone to jamming, etc. Modern airforces would prefer to avoid a dogfight, and so convince themselves that that is no longer part of their mission…then they encounter an enemy who didn’t get that memo.
The wings look to have delaminated and peeled apart. Theat doesn’t seem like crash damage to me, based on model airplane experience.
The thing looks like it uses a lot of model airplane technology. That is how Israel fielded the first successful drones. The US hired an aerospace company to try to develop the Aquila, which never really worked out. The Israelis hired a model airplane guy.
If that’s true, it’s curious that modern fighter aircraft are more maneouverable than their predecessors.
Am I the only one who’s fighting (not very hard) an urge to post about the Sharks being destroyed by the Drones sometime in the late 70s, leading up to this Jets vs. Drones showdown thing?
Sorry…I’ll see myself out…