Quick Foxhound Q

[sv51macross]

I have conflicting reports. Wiki says that capacity for the MiG-31's gun is 800 rounds, but Combat Aircraft's cutaway MiG-31 illustration says 260.which is the correct number?

[Waco]

260

[sv51macross]

Thanks Waco.

On another note, and this has always bugged me, why do/did Russian fighters (Fishbed, Fulcrum/Flanker, Foxhound) get such paltry internal cannon ammo capacities? Actually...the same case with the rest of European fighters.

So, I guess my question here is, why do American fighters have 400-800 rounds of cannon ammo, when most other fighters use so little?

[Alvis 3.1]

The quick red Foxhound jumped over the sleeping...ummmm...

Never mind..old typing lessons kicking in.

Alvis 3.1

[Waco]

Most of the Russian fighters use larger caliber, heavier rounds with a slower rate of fire (not the case for the Gsh-6-23, but otherwise true). For example the cannon in the MiG-29 and Su-27 is a 30mm system; obviously those rounds are heavier and take up more space.

Frankly, I was somewhat surprised to see the MiG-31 even had a cannon the first time I learned about it. Considering it's role as a heavy interceptor, and the timeframe in which it was built, it was not something I expected. For the Foxhound, however, I'd guess that after building in the fuel cells, heavy airframe, and the massive amount of plumbing and electric wiring for the FLASHDANCE radar, there simply wasn't much room left for an ammo storage and handling system.

[SebastianP]

Because US aircraft use 20 mm cannon with a huge rate of fire and a lot of wastage (fifteen rounds lost during spin-up, another fifteen during spin down, according to the sources I've been looking at); while nearly everyone else uses single- or twin-barrel guns with bigger rounds (23-30 mm) and no wastage. Also, European and Russian aircraft can theoretically carry more missiles than US ones, even if that doesn't happen very often in practice...

SP

[Waco]

Actually, the Gsh-6-23 has similiar spin up and spin down rounds processing "wastage" and a comparable if not higher (claimed higher) rate of fire.

[squezzer]

... Also, European and Russian aircraft can theoretically carry more missiles than US ones, even if that doesn't happen very often in practice...

SP

Are you sure, I would like to know which european aircraft is able to carry more missiles than an american one...

The reason why european aircrafts usually carry a ridiculous small amount of shells is that...We aim better!!

Edited May 17, 2009 by squezzer

[ChernayaAkula]

Another thing to consider is that the 23mm shell weighs 175 grams, while the 20mm shell weighs "only" 102 grams. So the Russian shell will make a bigger, er, impression on what it hits. ;)

What is this wastage? How are rounds "lost" during spin-up and -down?

Edited May 17, 2009 by ChernayaAkula

[Waco]

Moritz-

As a gatling gun style weapon spins up to speed and slows down after firing, several rounds are processed before and after the firing process. In other words, as the gun drive system is accelerating to it's firing rate and slowing backdown to stationary, the ammo handling system will continue to process rounds through the gun, but the firing impulse is not occuring. Additionally, since (with the M61) it is a closed system, the spent brass is retained. Thus, the rounds that are not fired are processed back into the ammo case/drum/storage.

The number of rounds not fired, however, is minimal (not 15 certainly). And the spin up/spin down time is also relatively short. However, you can't take something from 0 rpm to 6000 rpm instantaneously.

[ChernayaAkula]

Ah, I see! Thanks for the heads-up. Very interesting.

[SebastianP]

Squezzer: The "standard" loadout for US fighters for the last four decades or so has been eight missiles total, two to four of which have been short-ranged (Sidewinder). The only exceptions that I can recall are the F-16 (six missiles, but it wasn't meant to carry more than four to start with); and the Hornet (when using the twin AMRAAM racks that everyone seems to disagree about whether they're a valid option or not it can carry 12 missiles, otherwise just 8 like everything else).

The Raptor can carry sixteen missiles total *on paper*, but it'll never happen in real life since they have to drop any pretense of stealth to manage it. It's pretty common in games though, where targets are plentiful and stupid; and stealth is a non-issue.

As for European fighters, earlier generations aren't too heavy on the missiles, true (usually six or eight), but newer models like the Typhoon or Rafale are designed to carry twelve missiles each maximum (and the typhoon does this with three tanks fitted...). And the Russians... the Su-27 family started out with ten and I think they're up to fourteen now on the latest versions.

This is all theoretical maximums subject to missile availability and need, but the neither the Typhoon or the Flanker trades significant range (I *think*) or stealth for their missile capacity, unlike the Raptor.

(Don't ask which is the better aircraft, they're all too awesome for me to handle... The one thing I think really sucks about any of the named aircraft is that the Raptor only comes in a single-seat model, which means I'll never get to ride in one ever. At least there's a *possibility*, however remote, of getting a backseat ride in nearly anything else...)

Waco: I'd never claim to know (nearly) anything better than you, you do this for a living. I'm just reporting what I've read, and we all know about the accuracy of internet sources... :-) The few things I *would* know better, I'm not allowed to tell. Or, they're just irrelevant...

SP