Why do modern jets use 20mm guns?
up vote
5
down vote
favorite
Why do modern jets use 20mm guns? Is the armor of a modern jet that thick? Does, for example, .50 ammunition lack velocity to be effective?
I'm just curious on why is that 20mm is so widely used in air-to-air guns.
military aircraft-performance aircraft-maintenance aviation-history
New contributor
add a comment |
up vote
5
down vote
favorite
Why do modern jets use 20mm guns? Is the armor of a modern jet that thick? Does, for example, .50 ammunition lack velocity to be effective?
I'm just curious on why is that 20mm is so widely used in air-to-air guns.
military aircraft-performance aircraft-maintenance aviation-history
New contributor
1
Welcome to SX! Please try to put a bit more effort into researching and formatting the questions. They are persistent, and should preferably be applicable to a broader audience. Keep the title simple and put your research into the post body. Unfortunately I couldn't understand your third question at all.
– Therac
7 hours ago
Remember that 20 mm canons were almost necessary even soon in the WWII. Only a minority of fighters kept .5 machine guns only and .3 machine guns only Spitfire I was too weak right from the beginning. To some extent that is due to armor that might not be used any longer, but just a bullet without an explosive charge simply does not do enough damage when hitting a plane.
– Vladimir F
10 mins ago
add a comment |
up vote
5
down vote
favorite
up vote
5
down vote
favorite
Why do modern jets use 20mm guns? Is the armor of a modern jet that thick? Does, for example, .50 ammunition lack velocity to be effective?
I'm just curious on why is that 20mm is so widely used in air-to-air guns.
military aircraft-performance aircraft-maintenance aviation-history
New contributor
Why do modern jets use 20mm guns? Is the armor of a modern jet that thick? Does, for example, .50 ammunition lack velocity to be effective?
I'm just curious on why is that 20mm is so widely used in air-to-air guns.
military aircraft-performance aircraft-maintenance aviation-history
military aircraft-performance aircraft-maintenance aviation-history
New contributor
New contributor
edited 4 hours ago
AEhere
906314
906314
New contributor
asked 8 hours ago
user36017
261
261
New contributor
New contributor
1
Welcome to SX! Please try to put a bit more effort into researching and formatting the questions. They are persistent, and should preferably be applicable to a broader audience. Keep the title simple and put your research into the post body. Unfortunately I couldn't understand your third question at all.
– Therac
7 hours ago
Remember that 20 mm canons were almost necessary even soon in the WWII. Only a minority of fighters kept .5 machine guns only and .3 machine guns only Spitfire I was too weak right from the beginning. To some extent that is due to armor that might not be used any longer, but just a bullet without an explosive charge simply does not do enough damage when hitting a plane.
– Vladimir F
10 mins ago
add a comment |
1
Welcome to SX! Please try to put a bit more effort into researching and formatting the questions. They are persistent, and should preferably be applicable to a broader audience. Keep the title simple and put your research into the post body. Unfortunately I couldn't understand your third question at all.
– Therac
7 hours ago
Remember that 20 mm canons were almost necessary even soon in the WWII. Only a minority of fighters kept .5 machine guns only and .3 machine guns only Spitfire I was too weak right from the beginning. To some extent that is due to armor that might not be used any longer, but just a bullet without an explosive charge simply does not do enough damage when hitting a plane.
– Vladimir F
10 mins ago
1
1
Welcome to SX! Please try to put a bit more effort into researching and formatting the questions. They are persistent, and should preferably be applicable to a broader audience. Keep the title simple and put your research into the post body. Unfortunately I couldn't understand your third question at all.
– Therac
7 hours ago
Welcome to SX! Please try to put a bit more effort into researching and formatting the questions. They are persistent, and should preferably be applicable to a broader audience. Keep the title simple and put your research into the post body. Unfortunately I couldn't understand your third question at all.
– Therac
7 hours ago
Remember that 20 mm canons were almost necessary even soon in the WWII. Only a minority of fighters kept .5 machine guns only and .3 machine guns only Spitfire I was too weak right from the beginning. To some extent that is due to armor that might not be used any longer, but just a bullet without an explosive charge simply does not do enough damage when hitting a plane.
– Vladimir F
10 mins ago
Remember that 20 mm canons were almost necessary even soon in the WWII. Only a minority of fighters kept .5 machine guns only and .3 machine guns only Spitfire I was too weak right from the beginning. To some extent that is due to armor that might not be used any longer, but just a bullet without an explosive charge simply does not do enough damage when hitting a plane.
– Vladimir F
10 mins ago
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
up vote
13
down vote
20mm is the smallest caliber that is practical to load with a bursting charge. Some fighter jets use 23mm, 27mm, or 30mm guns.
The reason 20mm has become one of the most common aircraft gun calibers is that it produces the lightest gun that meets the minimum requirements to be useful in air combat: enough rate of fire to hit a maneuvering jet, good enough ballistics for meaningful range, enough bursting charge capacity for meaningful damage.
The majority of modern combat jets do not carry armor, but they are built with considerable redundancy and internal subdivision. A bursting charge (explosive payload) is needed to do meaningful damage to a modern combat aircraft.
Smaller calibers can cause some damage that will require repairs, but not enough to rely on them to bring down a jet in combat. Larger calibers require either a heavier gun or a slower-firing one to keep the weight down. With missiles prioritized, most air forces want the lightest gun that's still effective.
The 20mm rounds used by combat aircraft have limited armor-piercing capability anyway (comparable to .50 BMG). Some armored exceptions include CAS aircraft such as the A10 and to a lesser extent the Su-25 and the Su-34. This armor is mostly designed to protect them against ground fire, not enemy fighters.
There is, in fact, armor on multiple modern jets; an easy example is the A-10. I assume you meant to narrow that statement to fighters, but I think the answer can be improved in that direction.
– AEhere
6 hours ago
3
You could also say that the 20mm Vulcan hits a sweet spot for a lot of areas at once; rate of fire and hence hit probability, ammo load and hence firing duration available, and so on, all maximized by using the smallest calibre with decent lethality. Contrast it with the 37mm single barrel gun used on Soviet aircraft, where the hit probability was so low due to the low rate of fire, it negated most of its benefits. Rate of fire is everything in air to air. The German 30mm Mk108 was so effective because it has an unusually high rate of fire (600rpm IIRC) for such a large single barrel gun.
– John K
6 hours ago
@AEhere True, I was addressing just the most stereotypical scenario of air combat. Edited to expand.
– Therac
6 hours ago
Therac: figured as much +1'd @JohnK wasn't the 37mm used in conjunction with 20mm, as was usual in WW2 and early jets? Nowadays the Su-27 uses 30mm ammo with at over 1500rpm, still slow compared to the 6000rpm of the Vulcan.
– AEhere
6 hours ago
When was did it became mainstream ?
– ThePassenger
1 hour ago
add a comment |
up vote
4
down vote
If you want to know why you put a caliber usually between 20 and 30mm on a fighter plane (if you do any at all) you have to consider a few things.
- Modern fighter planes can achieve speeds of more than 600 m/s. Even in maneuvering combat - which today is rather non existant - they still move at 200 m/s.
- Engagement distances are therefore (turning circles etc. included) at least 500m to 1000m or far far more.
- Weight on a plane is very much limited due to structural components, fuel and mission payload (which includes bombs and guided missiles).
With that in mind think about what a gun can achieve:
Typical weight for a gun system of calibres 30mm and higher is in the range of several tons. The GAU-8/A Avenger (the A-10 gun) has a (dry) weight of 1800kg. That is without ammunition, which also adds considerable weight. Thus it limits the payload for other ordinance available. Anything larger is fairly impractical due to weight considerations.
You are fighting at high velocities and at long ranges. You need a gun that has a high range of fire and a high projectile velocity. Thus anything below a .50 caliber gun has troubles considering the ranges involved (projectiles slow down considerably if fired at longer ranges and need to be fired in a higher arc).
Even with a high rate of fire (say 6000 rounds per minute) you end up with a space of 10 meters in between every round at the respective muzzle velocities (~ 1100 m/s). Your target is also moving at a considerable speed, thus even if you fire a long burst at a passing plane, it is unlikely to hit with more than a handful of rounds - if you hit at all.
Thus you want to maximize the effect you have, which means you need a projectile with a bursting charge. Otherwise it might just pass through the enemy plane without dealing real damage. Control surfaces, tanks etc. are all not so much a problem with just a small hole in it. This means that you need a bursting charge - which needs a larger projectile, thus anything below 20mm is almost impractical, because the charge would be too small.
This leaves us with guns in (usually) the 20mm - 30mm range.
Almost all fighter plane and fighter bomber guns are in that range. A few examples:
- M61A1 Vulcan (US) - 20mm rotary cannon@6000 rounds per minute (the high rate of fire ensures more hits)
- Mauser BK-27 (DE) - 27mm revolver cannon@1700 rounds per minute (larger projectile, thus greater bursting charge)
- GSh-30-1 (RU) - 30mm revolver cannon@1500-1800 rounds per minute (again larger projectile but less rounds)
- GIAT30 (FR) - 30mm revolver cannon@2500 rounds per minute
- GAU-8/A (US) - 30mm rotary cannon@3900 rounds per minute (really high weight for gun system and ammunition, but isn't meant for air to air combat anyways)
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
13
down vote
20mm is the smallest caliber that is practical to load with a bursting charge. Some fighter jets use 23mm, 27mm, or 30mm guns.
The reason 20mm has become one of the most common aircraft gun calibers is that it produces the lightest gun that meets the minimum requirements to be useful in air combat: enough rate of fire to hit a maneuvering jet, good enough ballistics for meaningful range, enough bursting charge capacity for meaningful damage.
The majority of modern combat jets do not carry armor, but they are built with considerable redundancy and internal subdivision. A bursting charge (explosive payload) is needed to do meaningful damage to a modern combat aircraft.
Smaller calibers can cause some damage that will require repairs, but not enough to rely on them to bring down a jet in combat. Larger calibers require either a heavier gun or a slower-firing one to keep the weight down. With missiles prioritized, most air forces want the lightest gun that's still effective.
The 20mm rounds used by combat aircraft have limited armor-piercing capability anyway (comparable to .50 BMG). Some armored exceptions include CAS aircraft such as the A10 and to a lesser extent the Su-25 and the Su-34. This armor is mostly designed to protect them against ground fire, not enemy fighters.
There is, in fact, armor on multiple modern jets; an easy example is the A-10. I assume you meant to narrow that statement to fighters, but I think the answer can be improved in that direction.
– AEhere
6 hours ago
3
You could also say that the 20mm Vulcan hits a sweet spot for a lot of areas at once; rate of fire and hence hit probability, ammo load and hence firing duration available, and so on, all maximized by using the smallest calibre with decent lethality. Contrast it with the 37mm single barrel gun used on Soviet aircraft, where the hit probability was so low due to the low rate of fire, it negated most of its benefits. Rate of fire is everything in air to air. The German 30mm Mk108 was so effective because it has an unusually high rate of fire (600rpm IIRC) for such a large single barrel gun.
– John K
6 hours ago
@AEhere True, I was addressing just the most stereotypical scenario of air combat. Edited to expand.
– Therac
6 hours ago
Therac: figured as much +1'd @JohnK wasn't the 37mm used in conjunction with 20mm, as was usual in WW2 and early jets? Nowadays the Su-27 uses 30mm ammo with at over 1500rpm, still slow compared to the 6000rpm of the Vulcan.
– AEhere
6 hours ago
When was did it became mainstream ?
– ThePassenger
1 hour ago
add a comment |
up vote
13
down vote
20mm is the smallest caliber that is practical to load with a bursting charge. Some fighter jets use 23mm, 27mm, or 30mm guns.
The reason 20mm has become one of the most common aircraft gun calibers is that it produces the lightest gun that meets the minimum requirements to be useful in air combat: enough rate of fire to hit a maneuvering jet, good enough ballistics for meaningful range, enough bursting charge capacity for meaningful damage.
The majority of modern combat jets do not carry armor, but they are built with considerable redundancy and internal subdivision. A bursting charge (explosive payload) is needed to do meaningful damage to a modern combat aircraft.
Smaller calibers can cause some damage that will require repairs, but not enough to rely on them to bring down a jet in combat. Larger calibers require either a heavier gun or a slower-firing one to keep the weight down. With missiles prioritized, most air forces want the lightest gun that's still effective.
The 20mm rounds used by combat aircraft have limited armor-piercing capability anyway (comparable to .50 BMG). Some armored exceptions include CAS aircraft such as the A10 and to a lesser extent the Su-25 and the Su-34. This armor is mostly designed to protect them against ground fire, not enemy fighters.
There is, in fact, armor on multiple modern jets; an easy example is the A-10. I assume you meant to narrow that statement to fighters, but I think the answer can be improved in that direction.
– AEhere
6 hours ago
3
You could also say that the 20mm Vulcan hits a sweet spot for a lot of areas at once; rate of fire and hence hit probability, ammo load and hence firing duration available, and so on, all maximized by using the smallest calibre with decent lethality. Contrast it with the 37mm single barrel gun used on Soviet aircraft, where the hit probability was so low due to the low rate of fire, it negated most of its benefits. Rate of fire is everything in air to air. The German 30mm Mk108 was so effective because it has an unusually high rate of fire (600rpm IIRC) for such a large single barrel gun.
– John K
6 hours ago
@AEhere True, I was addressing just the most stereotypical scenario of air combat. Edited to expand.
– Therac
6 hours ago
Therac: figured as much +1'd @JohnK wasn't the 37mm used in conjunction with 20mm, as was usual in WW2 and early jets? Nowadays the Su-27 uses 30mm ammo with at over 1500rpm, still slow compared to the 6000rpm of the Vulcan.
– AEhere
6 hours ago
When was did it became mainstream ?
– ThePassenger
1 hour ago
add a comment |
up vote
13
down vote
up vote
13
down vote
20mm is the smallest caliber that is practical to load with a bursting charge. Some fighter jets use 23mm, 27mm, or 30mm guns.
The reason 20mm has become one of the most common aircraft gun calibers is that it produces the lightest gun that meets the minimum requirements to be useful in air combat: enough rate of fire to hit a maneuvering jet, good enough ballistics for meaningful range, enough bursting charge capacity for meaningful damage.
The majority of modern combat jets do not carry armor, but they are built with considerable redundancy and internal subdivision. A bursting charge (explosive payload) is needed to do meaningful damage to a modern combat aircraft.
Smaller calibers can cause some damage that will require repairs, but not enough to rely on them to bring down a jet in combat. Larger calibers require either a heavier gun or a slower-firing one to keep the weight down. With missiles prioritized, most air forces want the lightest gun that's still effective.
The 20mm rounds used by combat aircraft have limited armor-piercing capability anyway (comparable to .50 BMG). Some armored exceptions include CAS aircraft such as the A10 and to a lesser extent the Su-25 and the Su-34. This armor is mostly designed to protect them against ground fire, not enemy fighters.
20mm is the smallest caliber that is practical to load with a bursting charge. Some fighter jets use 23mm, 27mm, or 30mm guns.
The reason 20mm has become one of the most common aircraft gun calibers is that it produces the lightest gun that meets the minimum requirements to be useful in air combat: enough rate of fire to hit a maneuvering jet, good enough ballistics for meaningful range, enough bursting charge capacity for meaningful damage.
The majority of modern combat jets do not carry armor, but they are built with considerable redundancy and internal subdivision. A bursting charge (explosive payload) is needed to do meaningful damage to a modern combat aircraft.
Smaller calibers can cause some damage that will require repairs, but not enough to rely on them to bring down a jet in combat. Larger calibers require either a heavier gun or a slower-firing one to keep the weight down. With missiles prioritized, most air forces want the lightest gun that's still effective.
The 20mm rounds used by combat aircraft have limited armor-piercing capability anyway (comparable to .50 BMG). Some armored exceptions include CAS aircraft such as the A10 and to a lesser extent the Su-25 and the Su-34. This armor is mostly designed to protect them against ground fire, not enemy fighters.
edited 5 hours ago
answered 7 hours ago
Therac
5,1801325
5,1801325
There is, in fact, armor on multiple modern jets; an easy example is the A-10. I assume you meant to narrow that statement to fighters, but I think the answer can be improved in that direction.
– AEhere
6 hours ago
3
You could also say that the 20mm Vulcan hits a sweet spot for a lot of areas at once; rate of fire and hence hit probability, ammo load and hence firing duration available, and so on, all maximized by using the smallest calibre with decent lethality. Contrast it with the 37mm single barrel gun used on Soviet aircraft, where the hit probability was so low due to the low rate of fire, it negated most of its benefits. Rate of fire is everything in air to air. The German 30mm Mk108 was so effective because it has an unusually high rate of fire (600rpm IIRC) for such a large single barrel gun.
– John K
6 hours ago
@AEhere True, I was addressing just the most stereotypical scenario of air combat. Edited to expand.
– Therac
6 hours ago
Therac: figured as much +1'd @JohnK wasn't the 37mm used in conjunction with 20mm, as was usual in WW2 and early jets? Nowadays the Su-27 uses 30mm ammo with at over 1500rpm, still slow compared to the 6000rpm of the Vulcan.
– AEhere
6 hours ago
When was did it became mainstream ?
– ThePassenger
1 hour ago
add a comment |
There is, in fact, armor on multiple modern jets; an easy example is the A-10. I assume you meant to narrow that statement to fighters, but I think the answer can be improved in that direction.
– AEhere
6 hours ago
3
You could also say that the 20mm Vulcan hits a sweet spot for a lot of areas at once; rate of fire and hence hit probability, ammo load and hence firing duration available, and so on, all maximized by using the smallest calibre with decent lethality. Contrast it with the 37mm single barrel gun used on Soviet aircraft, where the hit probability was so low due to the low rate of fire, it negated most of its benefits. Rate of fire is everything in air to air. The German 30mm Mk108 was so effective because it has an unusually high rate of fire (600rpm IIRC) for such a large single barrel gun.
– John K
6 hours ago
@AEhere True, I was addressing just the most stereotypical scenario of air combat. Edited to expand.
– Therac
6 hours ago
Therac: figured as much +1'd @JohnK wasn't the 37mm used in conjunction with 20mm, as was usual in WW2 and early jets? Nowadays the Su-27 uses 30mm ammo with at over 1500rpm, still slow compared to the 6000rpm of the Vulcan.
– AEhere
6 hours ago
When was did it became mainstream ?
– ThePassenger
1 hour ago
There is, in fact, armor on multiple modern jets; an easy example is the A-10. I assume you meant to narrow that statement to fighters, but I think the answer can be improved in that direction.
– AEhere
6 hours ago
There is, in fact, armor on multiple modern jets; an easy example is the A-10. I assume you meant to narrow that statement to fighters, but I think the answer can be improved in that direction.
– AEhere
6 hours ago
3
3
You could also say that the 20mm Vulcan hits a sweet spot for a lot of areas at once; rate of fire and hence hit probability, ammo load and hence firing duration available, and so on, all maximized by using the smallest calibre with decent lethality. Contrast it with the 37mm single barrel gun used on Soviet aircraft, where the hit probability was so low due to the low rate of fire, it negated most of its benefits. Rate of fire is everything in air to air. The German 30mm Mk108 was so effective because it has an unusually high rate of fire (600rpm IIRC) for such a large single barrel gun.
– John K
6 hours ago
You could also say that the 20mm Vulcan hits a sweet spot for a lot of areas at once; rate of fire and hence hit probability, ammo load and hence firing duration available, and so on, all maximized by using the smallest calibre with decent lethality. Contrast it with the 37mm single barrel gun used on Soviet aircraft, where the hit probability was so low due to the low rate of fire, it negated most of its benefits. Rate of fire is everything in air to air. The German 30mm Mk108 was so effective because it has an unusually high rate of fire (600rpm IIRC) for such a large single barrel gun.
– John K
6 hours ago
@AEhere True, I was addressing just the most stereotypical scenario of air combat. Edited to expand.
– Therac
6 hours ago
@AEhere True, I was addressing just the most stereotypical scenario of air combat. Edited to expand.
– Therac
6 hours ago
Therac: figured as much +1'd @JohnK wasn't the 37mm used in conjunction with 20mm, as was usual in WW2 and early jets? Nowadays the Su-27 uses 30mm ammo with at over 1500rpm, still slow compared to the 6000rpm of the Vulcan.
– AEhere
6 hours ago
Therac: figured as much +1'd @JohnK wasn't the 37mm used in conjunction with 20mm, as was usual in WW2 and early jets? Nowadays the Su-27 uses 30mm ammo with at over 1500rpm, still slow compared to the 6000rpm of the Vulcan.
– AEhere
6 hours ago
When was did it became mainstream ?
– ThePassenger
1 hour ago
When was did it became mainstream ?
– ThePassenger
1 hour ago
add a comment |
up vote
4
down vote
If you want to know why you put a caliber usually between 20 and 30mm on a fighter plane (if you do any at all) you have to consider a few things.
- Modern fighter planes can achieve speeds of more than 600 m/s. Even in maneuvering combat - which today is rather non existant - they still move at 200 m/s.
- Engagement distances are therefore (turning circles etc. included) at least 500m to 1000m or far far more.
- Weight on a plane is very much limited due to structural components, fuel and mission payload (which includes bombs and guided missiles).
With that in mind think about what a gun can achieve:
Typical weight for a gun system of calibres 30mm and higher is in the range of several tons. The GAU-8/A Avenger (the A-10 gun) has a (dry) weight of 1800kg. That is without ammunition, which also adds considerable weight. Thus it limits the payload for other ordinance available. Anything larger is fairly impractical due to weight considerations.
You are fighting at high velocities and at long ranges. You need a gun that has a high range of fire and a high projectile velocity. Thus anything below a .50 caliber gun has troubles considering the ranges involved (projectiles slow down considerably if fired at longer ranges and need to be fired in a higher arc).
Even with a high rate of fire (say 6000 rounds per minute) you end up with a space of 10 meters in between every round at the respective muzzle velocities (~ 1100 m/s). Your target is also moving at a considerable speed, thus even if you fire a long burst at a passing plane, it is unlikely to hit with more than a handful of rounds - if you hit at all.
Thus you want to maximize the effect you have, which means you need a projectile with a bursting charge. Otherwise it might just pass through the enemy plane without dealing real damage. Control surfaces, tanks etc. are all not so much a problem with just a small hole in it. This means that you need a bursting charge - which needs a larger projectile, thus anything below 20mm is almost impractical, because the charge would be too small.
This leaves us with guns in (usually) the 20mm - 30mm range.
Almost all fighter plane and fighter bomber guns are in that range. A few examples:
- M61A1 Vulcan (US) - 20mm rotary cannon@6000 rounds per minute (the high rate of fire ensures more hits)
- Mauser BK-27 (DE) - 27mm revolver cannon@1700 rounds per minute (larger projectile, thus greater bursting charge)
- GSh-30-1 (RU) - 30mm revolver cannon@1500-1800 rounds per minute (again larger projectile but less rounds)
- GIAT30 (FR) - 30mm revolver cannon@2500 rounds per minute
- GAU-8/A (US) - 30mm rotary cannon@3900 rounds per minute (really high weight for gun system and ammunition, but isn't meant for air to air combat anyways)
add a comment |
up vote
4
down vote
If you want to know why you put a caliber usually between 20 and 30mm on a fighter plane (if you do any at all) you have to consider a few things.
- Modern fighter planes can achieve speeds of more than 600 m/s. Even in maneuvering combat - which today is rather non existant - they still move at 200 m/s.
- Engagement distances are therefore (turning circles etc. included) at least 500m to 1000m or far far more.
- Weight on a plane is very much limited due to structural components, fuel and mission payload (which includes bombs and guided missiles).
With that in mind think about what a gun can achieve:
Typical weight for a gun system of calibres 30mm and higher is in the range of several tons. The GAU-8/A Avenger (the A-10 gun) has a (dry) weight of 1800kg. That is without ammunition, which also adds considerable weight. Thus it limits the payload for other ordinance available. Anything larger is fairly impractical due to weight considerations.
You are fighting at high velocities and at long ranges. You need a gun that has a high range of fire and a high projectile velocity. Thus anything below a .50 caliber gun has troubles considering the ranges involved (projectiles slow down considerably if fired at longer ranges and need to be fired in a higher arc).
Even with a high rate of fire (say 6000 rounds per minute) you end up with a space of 10 meters in between every round at the respective muzzle velocities (~ 1100 m/s). Your target is also moving at a considerable speed, thus even if you fire a long burst at a passing plane, it is unlikely to hit with more than a handful of rounds - if you hit at all.
Thus you want to maximize the effect you have, which means you need a projectile with a bursting charge. Otherwise it might just pass through the enemy plane without dealing real damage. Control surfaces, tanks etc. are all not so much a problem with just a small hole in it. This means that you need a bursting charge - which needs a larger projectile, thus anything below 20mm is almost impractical, because the charge would be too small.
This leaves us with guns in (usually) the 20mm - 30mm range.
Almost all fighter plane and fighter bomber guns are in that range. A few examples:
- M61A1 Vulcan (US) - 20mm rotary cannon@6000 rounds per minute (the high rate of fire ensures more hits)
- Mauser BK-27 (DE) - 27mm revolver cannon@1700 rounds per minute (larger projectile, thus greater bursting charge)
- GSh-30-1 (RU) - 30mm revolver cannon@1500-1800 rounds per minute (again larger projectile but less rounds)
- GIAT30 (FR) - 30mm revolver cannon@2500 rounds per minute
- GAU-8/A (US) - 30mm rotary cannon@3900 rounds per minute (really high weight for gun system and ammunition, but isn't meant for air to air combat anyways)
add a comment |
up vote
4
down vote
up vote
4
down vote
If you want to know why you put a caliber usually between 20 and 30mm on a fighter plane (if you do any at all) you have to consider a few things.
- Modern fighter planes can achieve speeds of more than 600 m/s. Even in maneuvering combat - which today is rather non existant - they still move at 200 m/s.
- Engagement distances are therefore (turning circles etc. included) at least 500m to 1000m or far far more.
- Weight on a plane is very much limited due to structural components, fuel and mission payload (which includes bombs and guided missiles).
With that in mind think about what a gun can achieve:
Typical weight for a gun system of calibres 30mm and higher is in the range of several tons. The GAU-8/A Avenger (the A-10 gun) has a (dry) weight of 1800kg. That is without ammunition, which also adds considerable weight. Thus it limits the payload for other ordinance available. Anything larger is fairly impractical due to weight considerations.
You are fighting at high velocities and at long ranges. You need a gun that has a high range of fire and a high projectile velocity. Thus anything below a .50 caliber gun has troubles considering the ranges involved (projectiles slow down considerably if fired at longer ranges and need to be fired in a higher arc).
Even with a high rate of fire (say 6000 rounds per minute) you end up with a space of 10 meters in between every round at the respective muzzle velocities (~ 1100 m/s). Your target is also moving at a considerable speed, thus even if you fire a long burst at a passing plane, it is unlikely to hit with more than a handful of rounds - if you hit at all.
Thus you want to maximize the effect you have, which means you need a projectile with a bursting charge. Otherwise it might just pass through the enemy plane without dealing real damage. Control surfaces, tanks etc. are all not so much a problem with just a small hole in it. This means that you need a bursting charge - which needs a larger projectile, thus anything below 20mm is almost impractical, because the charge would be too small.
This leaves us with guns in (usually) the 20mm - 30mm range.
Almost all fighter plane and fighter bomber guns are in that range. A few examples:
- M61A1 Vulcan (US) - 20mm rotary cannon@6000 rounds per minute (the high rate of fire ensures more hits)
- Mauser BK-27 (DE) - 27mm revolver cannon@1700 rounds per minute (larger projectile, thus greater bursting charge)
- GSh-30-1 (RU) - 30mm revolver cannon@1500-1800 rounds per minute (again larger projectile but less rounds)
- GIAT30 (FR) - 30mm revolver cannon@2500 rounds per minute
- GAU-8/A (US) - 30mm rotary cannon@3900 rounds per minute (really high weight for gun system and ammunition, but isn't meant for air to air combat anyways)
If you want to know why you put a caliber usually between 20 and 30mm on a fighter plane (if you do any at all) you have to consider a few things.
- Modern fighter planes can achieve speeds of more than 600 m/s. Even in maneuvering combat - which today is rather non existant - they still move at 200 m/s.
- Engagement distances are therefore (turning circles etc. included) at least 500m to 1000m or far far more.
- Weight on a plane is very much limited due to structural components, fuel and mission payload (which includes bombs and guided missiles).
With that in mind think about what a gun can achieve:
Typical weight for a gun system of calibres 30mm and higher is in the range of several tons. The GAU-8/A Avenger (the A-10 gun) has a (dry) weight of 1800kg. That is without ammunition, which also adds considerable weight. Thus it limits the payload for other ordinance available. Anything larger is fairly impractical due to weight considerations.
You are fighting at high velocities and at long ranges. You need a gun that has a high range of fire and a high projectile velocity. Thus anything below a .50 caliber gun has troubles considering the ranges involved (projectiles slow down considerably if fired at longer ranges and need to be fired in a higher arc).
Even with a high rate of fire (say 6000 rounds per minute) you end up with a space of 10 meters in between every round at the respective muzzle velocities (~ 1100 m/s). Your target is also moving at a considerable speed, thus even if you fire a long burst at a passing plane, it is unlikely to hit with more than a handful of rounds - if you hit at all.
Thus you want to maximize the effect you have, which means you need a projectile with a bursting charge. Otherwise it might just pass through the enemy plane without dealing real damage. Control surfaces, tanks etc. are all not so much a problem with just a small hole in it. This means that you need a bursting charge - which needs a larger projectile, thus anything below 20mm is almost impractical, because the charge would be too small.
This leaves us with guns in (usually) the 20mm - 30mm range.
Almost all fighter plane and fighter bomber guns are in that range. A few examples:
- M61A1 Vulcan (US) - 20mm rotary cannon@6000 rounds per minute (the high rate of fire ensures more hits)
- Mauser BK-27 (DE) - 27mm revolver cannon@1700 rounds per minute (larger projectile, thus greater bursting charge)
- GSh-30-1 (RU) - 30mm revolver cannon@1500-1800 rounds per minute (again larger projectile but less rounds)
- GIAT30 (FR) - 30mm revolver cannon@2500 rounds per minute
- GAU-8/A (US) - 30mm rotary cannon@3900 rounds per minute (really high weight for gun system and ammunition, but isn't meant for air to air combat anyways)
edited 4 hours ago
answered 5 hours ago
Adwaenyth
1836
1836
add a comment |
add a comment |
user36017 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
user36017 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
user36017 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
user36017 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Thanks for contributing an answer to Aviation Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2faviation.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f57984%2fwhy-do-modern-jets-use-20mm-guns%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
1
Welcome to SX! Please try to put a bit more effort into researching and formatting the questions. They are persistent, and should preferably be applicable to a broader audience. Keep the title simple and put your research into the post body. Unfortunately I couldn't understand your third question at all.
– Therac
7 hours ago
Remember that 20 mm canons were almost necessary even soon in the WWII. Only a minority of fighters kept .5 machine guns only and .3 machine guns only Spitfire I was too weak right from the beginning. To some extent that is due to armor that might not be used any longer, but just a bullet without an explosive charge simply does not do enough damage when hitting a plane.
– Vladimir F
10 mins ago