an ordinary weapon is used for a wide range of interests both for the special and military interests of every weapon useful and in the form of various materials there are mechanical as well as laser weapons that are now frequently used; the world of armaments is now so well developed in form, usability, work function and manual and automated although in practice weapons have organic and non organic weapons beyond this we only describe the function of weapons work specifically.
Metal Storm
Metal Storm Limited was a research and development company based in Brisbane, Australia that specialized in electronically initiated superposed load weapons technology and owned the proprietary rights to the electronic ballistics technology invented by J. Mike O'Dwyer. The Metal Storm name applied to both the company and technology.
Technology
Metal Storm used the concept of superposed load; multiple projectiles loaded nose to tail in a single gun barrel with propellant packed between them. The Roman candle, a traditional firework design, employs the same basic concept; however, the propellant continues to burn in the Roman candle's barrel, igniting the charge behind the subsequent projectile. The process is repeated by each charge in turn, ensuring that all projectiles in the barrel are discharged sequentially from the single ignition. Various methods of separately firing each propellant package behind stacked projectiles have been proposed which would allow a "shoot on demand" capability more suitable to firearms.[5]
J. Mike O'Dwyer, an Australian inventor, observed that these methods did not eliminate the problem of unintended propellant ignition caused by highly pressurized hot gases "leaking" past the remaining projectiles in the barrel (blow-by) and igniting their charges. J. Mike O'Dwyer's original Metal Storm patents demonstrated a method whereby projectiles placed in series along the length of a barrel could be fired sequentially and selectively without the danger associated with unintended propellant ignition.
In the original Metal Storm patents, the propellant immediately behind the projectile closest to the muzzle of the gun barrel was ignited by an electronically fired primer, the projectile was set in motion, and at the same time a reactive force acted on the remaining stacked projectiles in the barrel, pushing them backwards. By design, the remaining projectiles would distort under this load, expanding radially against the gun barrel wall. This created a seal (obturation), which prevented the hot propellant gases (expanding behind the lead projectile) from leaking past them and prematurely igniting the remaining propellant charges in the barrel. As each of these propellant charges was selectively (electronically) ignited, the force "unlocked" the projectile in front and propelled it down the gun barrel, and reinforced the radial expansion (and hence the seal) between the projectiles remaining in the barrel and the barrel wall.
Subsequent designs discarded the "distorting shell sealing against the barrel" concept in favor of containing the propellant in "skirts" that form the rear part of each projectile. These skirted projectiles differ from conventional shells and cartridge units in that the skirts are part of the projectile, and in that the skirts are open-ended (at the rear). The rearward seal to the skirt is provided by the nose of the following projectile in the barrel. As in the previous design, the firing of a projectile results in a rearward impulse on the remaining projectiles stacked in the barrel. This results in the skirts of the remaining shells in the barrel being compressed against the following shell heads, effectively creating a seal that prevents hot gases in the barrel triggering unintended propellant ignition ("blow-by") along the length of the barrel. Metal Storm also introduced inductive electronic ignition of the propellant, effectively from outside the barrel.
Products
A minigun with a belt of separate firing chambers also exists.
The Multi-shot Accessory Under-barrel Launcher (MAUL) is an electronically fired, 12-gauge shotgun for use as an accessory weapon to a range of weapons, such as the M4 or M16 rifle, or as a stand-alone 5 shot weapon, providing a range of lethal (buckshot and slug) and non-lethal (blunt impact, door breaching, and frangible) munitions, all preloaded in 5 round "stacked projectiles" munition tubes. Metal Storm reported[8]the first shoulder-firing of the MAUL during tests on 24 April 2009 at its test facilities in Chantilly, Virginia.
Metal Storm has created a 36-barreled stacked projectile volley gun, boasting the highest rate of fire in the world. The prototype array demonstrated a firing rate of just over 1 million rounds per minute for a 180-round burst of 0.01 seconds (~27,777 rpm / barrel). Firing within 0.1 seconds from up to 1600 barrels (at maximum configuration) the gun claimed a maximum rate of fire of 1.62 million RPM and creating a dense wall (0.1 m between follow-up projectiles) of 24,000 projectiles.[9][10][11]
The 3GL is a semi-automatic grenade launcher firing individually loaded grenades, with up to 3 rounds being able to be loaded and fired semi-automatically. It can be attached to weapons via RIS rails or to a stand-alone folding stock.
Bright Feed Back
Sometime in 1983, Mike O'Dwyer sold his trade business in order to work on Metal Storm.
In June 1997, the first 36-barrel prototype was unveiled.
In 2000, Chinese agents approached Michael O'Dwyer and offered him US$100M to go to China to develop the technology. O'Dwyer refused and informed the Australian government of the approach. Since then, a Chinese company have developed technology and calls their military development programme, 'Metal Storm'.
In June 2003 Metal Storm entered into an agreement to provide technology to Thunderstorm Firefighting Pty Ltd to help develop a civilian application of its technology to help with bush fire fighting activities. On 27 June 2003, Metal Storm received funding from the American military.
In 2005, O'Dwyer left the company with a $500,000 payout and an intention to sell half his stake—then valued at $43m—but he could not find a buyer.
On 19 November 2007, it was announced that the US Navy was buying Metal Storm grenade "barrels".
In August 2010, Metal Storm signed a contract with a value of US$3,365,000 with Papua New Guinea's Correctional Services Minister Tony Aimo to supply 500 MAULs and 10,000 less-lethal barrels for use by correctional services officers.
Metal Storm requested their shares be suspended from trading on 20 July 2012. As of 26 July 2012, the company has been placed in voluntary administration.
In late 2015 DefendTex, an Australian-based Defence R&D company acquired the intellectual property, trademarks and other assets of Metal Storm with a view to the continued development and commercialisation of the technology
XXX . XXX 4%zero null 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Close-in weapon system
A close-in weapon system (CIWS), often pronounced as SEE-wiz, is a point-defense weapon system for detecting and destroying short-range incoming missiles and enemy aircraft which have penetrated the outer defenses, typically mounted shipboard in a naval capacity. Nearly all classes of modern warships are equipped with some kind of CIWS device.
There are two types of CIWS systems. A gun-based CIWS usually consists of a combination of radars, computers, and multiple-barrel, rotary rapid-fire cannons placed on a rotating gun mount. Missile systems use infra-red, passive radar/ESM or semi-active radar terminal guidance to guide missiles to the targeted enemy aircraft or other threats. In some cases, CIWS are used on land to protect military bases. In this case, the CIWS can also protect the base from shell and rocket fire.
Gun systems
A gun-based CIWS usually consists of a combination of radars, computers and rotary or revolver cannon placed on a rotating, automatically-aimed gun mount. Examples of gun-based CIWS products in operation are:
- AK-630
- DARDO
- Denel 35mm Dual Purpose Gun
- Goalkeeper CIWS
- Kashtan CIWS
- Meroka CIWS
- Myriad CIWS
- Oerlikon Millennium 35 mm Naval Revolver Gun System
- Pantsir-S1
- Phalanx CIWS
- Sea Zenith
- Type 730 CIWS
Limitations of gun systems
- Short range: the maximum effective range of 20 mm (0.79 in) gun systems is about 4,500 metres (14,800 ft); systems with lighter projectiles have even shorter range. The expected real-world kill-distance of an incoming anti-ship missile is about 500 m (1,600 ft) or less,[4] still close enough to cause damage to the ship's sensor or communication arrays, or to wound or kill exposed personnel. Thus some CIWS (like Russian Kashtan or Pantsir systems) are augmented by installing the close range SAMs on the same mount for increased tactical flexibility.
- Limited kill probability: even if the missile is hit and damaged, this may not be enough to destroy it entirely or to alter its course enough to prevent the missile, or fragments from it, from hitting its intended target, particularly as the interception distance is short. This is especially true if the gun fires kinetic-energy-only projectiles.
Comparison table
 Type 730 CIWS[6] |  AK-630[7] |  Phalanx CIWS[8] |  Goalkeeper CIWS |  DARDO[9] |  Millennium[10] | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Weight | 9,800 kg (21,600 lb) | 9,114 kg (20,093 lb) | 6,200 kg (13,700 lb) | 9,902 kg (21,830 lb) | 5,500 kg (12,100 lb) | 3,300 kg (7,300 lb) |
| Armament | 30 mm (1.2 in) 7 barreled Gatling Gun | 30 mm (1.2 in) 6 barreled GSh-6-30 Gatling Gun | 20 mm (0.79 in) 6 barreled M61 Vulcan Gatling Gun | 30 mm (1.2 in) 7 barreled GAU-8 Gatling Gun | 40 mm (1.6 in) 2 barreled Bofors 40 mm | 35 mm (1.4 in) 1 barreled Oerlikon Millennium 35 mm Naval Revolver Gun System |
| Rate of Fire | 7,000 rounds per minute | 5,000 rounds per minute | 4,500 rounds per minute | 4,200 rounds per minute | 600/900 rounds per minute | 200/1000 rounds per minute |
| (effective/ flat-trajectory) Range | 3,000 m (9,800 ft) | 4,000 m (13,000 ft) | 2,000 m (6,600 ft) | 3,600 m (11,800 ft) | 4,000 m (13,000 ft) | 3,500 m (11,500 ft) |
| Ammunition storage | 2,560 rounds | 2,000 rounds | 1,550 rounds | 1,190 rounds | 736 rounds | 252 rounds |
| Muzzle velocity | 1,100 m (3,600 ft) per second | 900 m (3,000 ft) per second | 1,100 m (3,600 ft) per second | 1,109 m (3,638 ft) per second | 1,000 m (3,300 ft) per second | 1,050 m (3,440 ft) per second / 1,175 m (3,855 ft) per second |
| Elevation | -25 to +85 degrees | -12 to +88 degrees | -25 to +85 degrees | -25 to +85 degrees | -13 to +85 degrees | -15 to +85 degrees |
| Speed in Elevation | 100 degrees per second | 50 degrees per second | 115 degrees per second | 100 degrees per second | 60 degrees per second | 70 degrees per second |
| Traverse | 360 degrees | 360 degrees | 360 degrees | 360 degrees | 360 degrees | 360 degrees |
| Speed in Traverse | 100 degrees per second | 70 degrees per second | 115 degrees per second | 100 degrees per second | 90 degrees per second | 120 degrees per second |
| In service | 2007 | 1976 | 1980 | 1980 | ? | 2003 |
Land-based
CIWS are also used in a land-based anti-mortar and missile defense role to protect fixed and temporary bases and other facilities.[11] On a smaller scale, active protection systems are used in some tanks (to destroy rocket propelled grenades (RPGs), and several are in development. The Drozd system was deployed on Soviet Naval Infantry tanks in the early 1980s, but later replaced by explosive reactive armour. Other systems that are available or under development are the Russian (Arena), Israeli (Trophy), American (Quick Kill) and the South African-Swedish (LEDS-150).
Laser systems
Laser based CIWS systems are being researched. In August 2014 an operational prototype was deployed to the Persian Gulf aboard USS Ponce.[12] The Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey (Turkish: Türkiye Bilimsel ve Teknolojik Araştırma Kurumu, TÜBİTAK) is the second organisation after the US to have developed and tested a High Power Laser CIWS prototype System which is intended to be used on the TF-2000 class frigate and on Turkish airborne systems.
Active protection system
An active protection system is a system (usually for a military application) designed to prevent line-of-sight guided anti-tank missiles/projectiles from acquiring and/or destroying a target.
Electronic countermeasures that alter the electromagnetic, acoustic or other signature(s) of a target thereby altering the tracking and sensing behavior of an incoming threat (e.g., guided missile) are designated soft-kill measures.
Measures that physically counterattack an incoming threat thereby destroying/altering its payload/warhead in such a way that the intended effect on the target is severely impeded are designated hard-kill measures.
Soft-kill measures
Soft-kill measures are applied when it is expected that a sensor-based weapon system can be successfully interfered with. The threat sensor can be either an artificial one, e.g., a solid-state infrared detector, or the human sensory system (eye and/or ear).
Soft-kill measures generally interfere with the signature of the target to be protected. In the following the term signature refers to the electromagnetic or acoustic signature of an object in either the ultraviolet (wavelength: 0.3–0.4 µm), visual (0.4–0.8 µm), or infrared (0.8 - 14 µm) spectral range as well as cm-radar range (frequency: 2–18 GHz), mmw-radar (35, 94, 144 GHz) and finally sonar range (either 50 Hz – 3 kHz and/or 3–15 kHz).
One or more of the following actions may be taken to provide soft-kill:
- Reduction of signature
- Augmentation of signature
Soft-kill countermeasures can be divided into on-board and expendable countermeasures. Whereas on-board measures are fixed on the platform to be protected, expendable measures are ejected from the platform.
Preemptive action of countermeasures is directed to generally prevent lock-on of a threat sensor to a certain target. It is based on altering the signature of the target by either concealing the platform signature or enhancing the signature of the background, thus minimizing the contrast between the two.
Reactive action of countermeasures is directed toward break-lock of a threat already homing in on a certain target. It is based on the tactics of signature imitation, augmentation, or reduction.
Aerial countermeasures
Generally one has to distinguish between infrared and radar countermeasures. The wavelength range between 0.8 and 5 µm is considered as Infrared (IR), the frequency range between 2 and 18 GHz is considered as Radar.
In the wake of shoulder-launched missile attacks against civilian passenger and cargo airliners in the early 2000s, various agencies investigated the feasibility of equipping countermeasures such as chaff and flares. Many commercial carriers found the estimated price of countermeasures to be too costly. However, the Israeli airline El-Al, having been the target of the failed 2002 airliner attack, in which shoulder-launched surface-to-air missiles were fired at an airliner while taking off, began equipping its fleet with radar-based, automated flare release countermeasures from June 2004.[1] This caused concerns in some European countries, regarding the possible fire hazard at civilian airports, resulting in banning such aircraft from landing at their airports.[2] In 2007, Saab announced a new infrared countermeasure system called CAMPS that does not use pyrotechnic flares, thereby directly addressing these concerns.
IR-decoy flares
.jpg)
IR-decoy flares serve to counter infrared-guided surface-to-air missiles (SAM) or air-to-air missiles (AAM) and can be expelled from a craft according to an anticipated threat in defined sequences.
Radar decoys
To counter radar-guided missiles, chaff is used. These are copper nickel-coated glass fibers or silver-coated nylon fibers having lengths equal to half of the anticipated radar wavelength.
New systems, such as the BriteCloud expendable active decoy, use DRFM technology to generate a false target, luring the RF threat system away from the aircraft.[3]
Land and sea-based forces can also use such countermeasures, as well as smoke-screens that can disrupt laser ranging, infrared detection, laser weapons, and visual observation.
Hard-kill measures
Except for countering intercontinental ballistic missiles, hard-kill measures generally refer to measures taken in the so-called "end-game" shortly before a warhead/missile hits its target. The hard-kill measure in general physically affects the incoming warhead/missile by means of either blast and/or fragment action. The action may lead to:
- disturbance of the stability of a kinetic energy penetrator which will decrease its penetration ability as the deflection angle increases.
- premature initiation of a shaped charge (e.g., too great stand-off), but most likely improper initiation, thereby impeding optimum jet development of the metallic lining, usually copper, in the shaped charge. The copper jet provides most of the anti armor capabilities of shaped charge weapons.
- destruction of the airframe of an inbound missile or shell.
There are many examples of active countermeasures. For example, the Russian-made Arena system utilizes a Doppler radar to detect incoming threats and fires a top attack rocket to eliminate the threat. The Israeli Trophy system fires a shotgun-like blast to destroy the threat. An American system known as Quick Kill detects incoming threats using an Active Electronically Scanned Array, which assesses the threat, and deploys a smaller rocket countermeasure. Another American system, known as Iron Curtain, utilizes two sensors to reduce false alarms and defeat threats inches from their target by firing a kinetic countermeasure designed to minimize collateral damage.
The Russian T-14 Armata tank features the Afghanit (Russian: Афганит) active protection system (APS),[4] which includes a millimeter-wavelength radar to detect, track, and intercept incoming anti-tank munitions, both kinetic energy penetrators and tandem-charges. Currently, the maximum speed of the interceptable target is 1,700 m/s (Mach 5.0), with projected future increases of up to 3,000 m/s (Mach 8.8). According to news sources, it protects the tank from all sides.
Reactive armor
An example of a hard-kill countermeasure is the reactive armor found on many modern armored vehicles.
Antiaircraft weapons
Another example of hard-kill countermeasures is the use of short-range missiles or rapid-fire guns to protect warships and fixed installations from cruise missile, bomb and artillery attacks.
Anti-ballistic missile
Countermeasures are a complicating factor in the development of anti-ballistic missile defense systems targeting ICBMs. Like aircraft, ICBMs theoretically could evade such systems by deploying decoys and chaff in the midcourse phase of flight. Novel proposed chaff mechanisms describe the creation of a "threat cloud" by deploying large aluminized PET film balloons which could conceal a warhead among a large number of inert objects having similar radar profiles.
Potential performance problems
Clutter
Mountains and neighboring vehicles reflect radio waves, thus creating radar clutter, which adversely affects radar-detection and radar-lock performance.
Top attack munitions
Top attack ATGMs like FGM-148 Javelin (USA) and Trigat (Germany) attack the tank turret's top, requiring the active protection system to attack nearly vertically, for which turret might have not been designed. The same is true for an RPG being fired in a steep downward angle from an elevated location at a target below
Infrared countermeasure
An infrared countermeasure (IRCM) is a device designed to protect aircraft from infrared homing ("heat seeking") missiles by confusing the missiles' infrared guidance system so that they will miss their target (Electronic countermeasure). The most commonly used method for that is deploying flares, as the heat produced will create hundreds of targets for the missile. These type of missiles have been increasingly dangerous, as they are responsible for around 80% of air losses in Operation Desert Storm. Conventional MANPAD-launched missiles include an infrared sensor that is sensitive to heat, for example the heat emitted from an aircraft engine. The missile is programmed to home in on the infrared heat signal using a steering system. Owing to its portable size, Man portable air defense systems (MANPAD) missiles have a limited range, and a burn time of a few seconds from launch to extinguishing. Owing to their extremely high cost, such countermeasure systems have enjoyed only limited use, primarily on military aircraft. The countermeasure systems are commonly integrated into the aircraft, for example, in the fuselage, wing, or nose of the aircraft, or fixed onto an outer portion of the aircraft. Depending on where the countermeasure systems are mounted to the aircraft, they can lead to an increase in drag, reducing flight performance and increasing operating costs. Also, servicing, maintenance, upgrading and testing of the systems are expensive and time consuming procedures. In addition, such procedures require grounding of each aircraft for a period of time.
Conventional Man portable air defense systems (MANPAD)-launched missiles include an infrared sensor that is sensitive to heat, for example the heat emitted from an aircraft engine. The missile is programmed to home in on the infrared heat signal using a steering system. Using a rotating reticle as a shutter for the sensor, the incoming heat signal is modulated, and, using the modulated signal, an on-board processor performs the calculations necessary to steer the missile to its target. Owing to its portable size, MANPAD missiles have a limited range, and a burn time of a few seconds from launch to extinguishing.
In recent years, missile guidance systems have become increasingly sophisticated, and, as a result, there are a number of different types of missiles in existence. In some, the missile is outfitted with multiple sensors that detect infrared radiation at multiple wavelengths, using reticles that are encoded at different patterns. In view of the threat, various countermeasure techniques have become popular. A missile warning system scans the region for rocket launch signals, such as the infrared or ultraviolet signature of a rocket tail. Upon the detection of a missile launch, various countermeasure systems are activated. In one example, hot flares or chaff are released from the aircraft to confuse the infrared or radar system of the launched missile.
Other approaches broadcast light energy in order to confuse the missile infrared sensors. In one example, light energy emitted by non-coherent flashlamps is directed toward the missile sensors, in order to confuse them and render them ineffective ("jamming"). IR missiles are vulnerable to high powered IR carrier signals which blind the IR detector of the incoming IR missile. In addition, IR missiles are vulnerable to lower powered IR carrier signals that are modulated using certain modulating signals that confuse its tracking system and cause the tracking system to track a false target. Conventional countermeasures to an IR missile threat include jamming systems which confuse or blind the IR missile using either IR lamps and/or IR lasers. These jamming systems transmit either a high powered IR carrier signal to blind the IR detector of the incoming IR missile or, otherwise, transmit a lower powered IR carrier signal modulated with a modulating signal to confuse the IR detector of the incoming missile.
As infrared missiles are increasingly cheap and simple, they have also been increasingly dangerous. By one estimate more than 500,000 shoulder-fired surface-to-air missiles exist and are available on the worldwide market. The lethality and proliferation of IR surface-to-air missiles (SAMS) was demonstrated during the Desert Storm conflict, as approximately 80% of U.S. fixed-wing aircraft losses in Desert Storm were from ground based Iraqi defensive systems using IR SAMS. Both IR SAMS and IR air-to-air missiles have seekers with improved Counter-Countermeasures (CCM) capabilities that seriously degrade the effectiveness of current expendable decoys. Man Portable Air Defense Systems (MANPADS) are the most serious threat to large, predictable, and slow flying air mobility aircraft. These systems are lethal, affordable, easy to use, and difficult to track and counter. According to a 1997 CIA Report, MANPADS have proliferated worldwide, accounting for over 400 casualties in 27 incidents involving civil aircraft over the previous 19 years. This proliferation has forced air mobility planners to frequently select less than optimal mission routes due to lack of defensive systems on airlift aircraft.
Infrared missile seeker technology
Infrared missile seekers of the first generation typically used a spinning reticle with a pattern on it that modulates infrared energy before it falls on a detector (A mode of operation called Spin scan). The patterns used differ from seeker to seeker, but the principle is the same. By modulating the signal, the steering logic can tell where the infrared source of energy is relative to the missile direction of flight. In more recent designs the missile optics will rotate and the rotating image is projected on a stationary reticle (a mode called Conical scan) or stationary set of detectors which generates a pulsed signal which is processed by the tracking logic. Most shoulder-launched (MANPADS) systems use this type of seeker, as do many air defense systems and air-to-air missiles (for example the AIM-9L).
Principles
Infrared seekers are designed to track a strong source of infrared radiation (usually a jet engine in modern military aircraft). IRCM systems are based on a source of infrared radiation with a higher intensity than the target. When this is received by a missile, it may overwhelm the original infrared signal from the aircraft and provide incorrect steering cues to the missile. The missile may then deviate from the target, breaking lock. Once an infrared seeker breaks lock (they typically have a field of view of 1 - 2 degrees), they rarely reacquire the target. By using flares, the target can cause the confused seeker to lock onto a new infrared source that is rapidly moving away from the true target.
The modulated radiation from the IRCM generates a false tracking command in the seeker tracking logic. The effectiveness of the IRCM is determined by the ratio of jamming intensity to the target (or signal) intensity. This ratio is usually called the J/S ratio. Another important factor is the modulation frequencies which should be close to the actual missile frequencies. For spin scan missiles the required J/S is quite low but for newer missiles the required J/S is quite high requiring a directional source of radiation (DIRCM).
Drawbacks
One of the drawbacks of standard IRCM systems is that they broadcast a bright source of infrared. If the modulation of the signal is not effective against a particular seeker system, the IRCM will enhance the ability of the missile to track the aircraft. The aircrews typically brief about potential threats and choose an IRCM modulation that will be effective against likely threats.
Directional IRCM
DIRCM, or Directional Infrared Countermeasures, avoid this potential drawback by mounting the energy source on a movable turret (much like a FLIR turret). They only operate when cued by a missile warning system of a missile launch, and use the missile plume to accurately aim at the missile seeker. The modulated signal can then be directed at the seeker, and the modulation scheme can be cycled to try to defeat a variety of seekers. Countermeasure success depends on a threat's tracking techniques and requires a proper analysis of the missile's capabilities.[2] Defeating advanced tracking systems requires a higher level of DIRCM power. Issues of Laser Safety are also taken into account.
Israel has announced a program to develop a system called Multi Spectral Infrared Countermeasure (MUSIC) that will similarly use active lasers instead of flares to protect civilian aircraft against MANPADs.[3] The US Army is deploying a similar system to protect its helicopters.[4]
The Department of the Navy Large Aircraft Countermeasures (DoN LAIRCM) by Northrop Grumman provides infrared threat protection for U.S. Marine Corps CH-53E, CH-46E and CH-53D platforms.[5]
BAE Systems' AN/ALQ-212 advanced threat infrared countermeasures (ATIRCM) - part of a directable infrared countermeasures suite - is fielded on U.S. Army CH-47 Chinook helicopters. The suite provides protection against an array of threats, including all infrared threat bands. The AN/ALQ-212 incorporates one or more infrared jam heads to counter multiple missile attacks.
At IDEX 2013, Finmeccanica Company, Selex ES launched its Miysis DIRCM, suitable for all airborne platforms, rotary and fixed wing, large and small.
CIRCM (Common Infrared Countermeasures)
CIRCM will be a laser based IR countermeasure against current and future IR threat systems for the US Army rotorcraft and fixed wing platforms and US Navy and US Air Force rotorcraft platforms. Systems by BAE Systems, ITT Defense and Information Solutions, Northrop Grumman and Raytheon were under consideration. In August 2015, Northrop Grumman won the contract.
Flares
Flares create infrared targets with a much stronger signature than the aircraft's engines. The flares provide false targets that cause the missile to make incorrect steering decisions. The missile will rapidly break off a target lock-on.
Fielded examples
Typical IRCM systems are the:
- AN/AAQ-24 by Northrop Grumman - DIRCM.
- AN/ALQ-132 by Sanders/BAE Systems. Used in the 1960s in Vietnam, and was a fuel fired flashlamp system.
- AN/ALQ-144 by BAE Systems, used for helicopter defense.
- AN/ALQ-157 by BAE Systems, used for larger helicopters and aircraft
- Flight Guard by Israel Aerospace Industries, used in military and civilian aircraft (gain the nickname of "Live Saver" due to history of success in saving air vehicles during battles at several countries), but banned at several European airports. According to defense sources in Israel, the European ban is "odd and based mostly on a misunderstanding
XXX . XXX 4% zero null 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Sentry gun
A sentry gun is a gun that is automatically aimed and fired at targets that are detected by sensors. The earliest functioning military sentry guns were the close-in weapon systems point-defense weapons for detecting and destroying short range incoming missiles and enemy aircraft first, used exclusively on naval assets, and now also as land-based defence .
Military use
Samsung SGR-A1
The Samsung SGR-A1 is a South Korean military robot sentry designed to replace human counterparts in the demilitarized zone at the South and North Korea border. It is a stationary system made by Samsung defense subsidiary Samsung Techwin.
Sentry Tech
In 2007, the Israeli military deployed the Sentry Tech system, dubbed as the Roeh-Yoreh (Sees-Fires) by the IDF along the Gaza border fence with pillboxes placed at intervals of some hundreds of meters. The 4-million USD (3.35 million Euro) system was completed in late spring of 2008[2]. The weapon system mounts a 12.7 mm automated M2 Browning machine gun and a SPIKE guided missile in each pillbox[3] covered by an opaque protective shield. The weapon is operated by an IDF soldier and fed information from cameras, long range electro-optical sensors, ground sensors, manned aircraft, and overhead drones, as well as radar. Connected via fiber optics to a remote operator station and a command-and-control center, each machine gun-mounted station serves as a type of robotic sniper, capable of enforcing a nearly 1,500-meter-deep no-go zone. The gun is based on the Samson Remote Controlled Weapon Station.[4][3] The weapon is capable of acquiring targets and maintaining a firing solution independently, but still requires human input to fire or release ordnance.
Dozens of alleged terrorists have been shot with the Sentry Tech system. The first reported killing of an individual appears to have taken place during Operation Cast Lead in December 2008. According to Israeli sources, the process to authorize a kill is "complex" but can still be carried out in under two minutes. The same sources report that the weapons are mainly used for "warning shots" if they are fired at all, since the mere opening of the protective dome is often enough to intimidate any potential contacts into retreat.
Super aEgis II
In December 2010, the South Korean firm DoDAAM unveiled the Super aEgis II, an automated turret-based weapon platform that uses thermal imaging to lock onto vehicles[ or humans up to 3 km away. It is able to function during nighttime and regardless of weather conditions. The system gives a verbal warning before firing, and though it is capable of firing automatically, the company reports that all of its customers have configured it to require human confirmation.
Remote weapon station
A remote weapon station, also known as a remote weapon system, (RWS) is a remotely operated weaponized system often equipped with fire-control system for light and medium caliber weapons which can be installed on ground combat vehicle or sea and air-based combat platforms. Such equipment is used on modern military vehicles, as it allows a gunner to remain in the relative protection of the vehicle. It may also be retrofitted onto existing vehicles, for example, the CROWS system is being fitted to American Humvees and the Thales SWARM for Bushmaster IMVs of the Royal Netherlands Army.
.jpg)
Gun turret
A gun turret is a location from which weapons can be fired that affords protection, visibility, and some cone of fire. A modern gun turret is generally a weapon mount that houses the crew or mechanism of a projectile-firing weapon and at the same time lets the weapon be aimed and fired in some degree of azimuth and elevation (cone of fire) .
Description
Rotating gun turrets have the protection, the weapon, and its crew rotate. When this meaning of the word "turret" started being used at the beginning of the 1860s, turrets were normally cylindrical. Barbettes were an alternative to turrets; with a barbette the protection was fixed, and the weapon and crew were on a rotating platform inside the barbette. In the 1890s, armoured hoods (also known as "gun houses") were added to barbettes; these rotated with the platform (hence the term "hooded barbette"). By the early 20th Century, these hoods were known as turrets. Modern warships have gun-mountings described as turrets, though the "protection" on them is limited to protection from the weather.
Rotating turrets can be mounted on a fortified building or structure such as a coastal blockhouse, be part of a land battery, be mounted on a combat vehicle, a naval ship, or a military aircraft, they may be armed with one or more machine guns, automatic cannons, large-calibre guns, or missile launchers. They may be manned or remotely controlled and are most often protected to some degree, if not actually armoured.
The protection provided by the turret may be against battle damage, the weather conditions, general environment in which the weapon or its crew will be operating. The name derives from the pre-existing noun turret meaning a self-contained protective position which is situated on top of a fortification or defensive wall as opposed to rising directly from the ground, in which case it constitutes a tower.
Cupolas
A small turret, or sub-turret set on top of a larger one, is called a cupola. The term cupola is also used for a rotating turret that carries a sighting device rather than weaponry, such as that used by a tank commander.
Warships
Before the development of large-calibre, long-range guns in the mid-19th century, the classic battleship design used rows of gunport-mounted guns on each side of the ship, often mounted in casemates. Firepower was provided by a large number of guns, each of which could traverse only in a limited arc. Due to stability issues, fewer large (and thus heavy) guns can be carried high on a ship, but as this set casemates low and thus near the waterline they were vulnerable to flooding, effectively restricted their use to calm seas. Additionally casemate mounts had to be recessed into the side of a vessel to afford a wide arc of fire, and such recesses presented shot traps, compromising the integrity of armour plating.
Rotating turrets were weapon mounts designed to protect the crew and mechanism of the artillery piece and with the capability of being aimed and fired over a broad arc, typically between a three-quarter circle up to and including a full 360 degrees. These presented the opportunity to concentrate firepower in fewer, better-sited positions by eliminating redundancy, in other words combining the firepower of those guns unable to engage an enemy because they sited on the wrong beam into a more powerful, and more versatile unified battery.
-In_the_Turret.jpg)
Designs for a rotating gun turret date back to the late 18th century.[1] In the mid 19th century, during the Crimean War, Captain Cowper Phipps Coles constructed a raft with guns protected by a 'cupola' and used the raft,[i] named the Lady Nancy, to shell the Russian town of Taganrog in the Black Sea. The Lady Nancy "proved a great success" and Coles patenting his rotating turret design after the war.
UK: first designs
The British Admiralty ordered a prototype of Coles's patented design in 1859, which was installed in the floating battery vessel, HMS Trusty, for trials in 1861, becoming the first warship to be fitted with a revolving gun turret. Coles's aim was to create a ship with the greatest possible all round arc of fire, as low in the water as possible to minimise the target.[3]
.jpg)
The Admiralty accepted the principle of the turret gun as a useful innovation, and incorporated it into other new designs. Coles submitted a design for a ship having ten domed turrets each housing two large guns.
The design was rejected as impractical, although the Admiralty remained interested in turret ships and instructed its own designers to create better designs. Coles enlisted the support of Prince Albert, who wrote to the first Lord of the Admiralty, the Duke of Somerset, supporting the construction of a turret ship. In January 1862, the Admiralty agreed to construct a ship, the HMS Prince Albert which had four turrets and a low freeboard, intended only for coastal defence.
While Coles designed the turrets the ship was the responsibility of the chief Constructor Isaac Watts.[3] Another ship using Coles' turret designs, HMS Royal Sovereign, was completed in August 1864. Its existing broadside guns were replaced with four turrets on a flat deck and the ship was fitted with 5.5 inches (140 mm) of armour in a belt around the waterline.[3]
Early ships like the Royal Sovereign had little sea-keeping qualities being limited to coastal waters. Sir Edward James Reed, went on to design and build HMS Monarch, the first seagoing warship to carry her guns in turrets. Laid down in 1866 and completed in June 1869, it carried two turrets, although the inclusion of a forecastle and poop prevented the turret guns firing fore and aft.[4]
United States: USS Monitor
The gun turret was independently invented by the Swedish inventor John Ericsson in America, while technologically inferior to Coles's version.[5] Ericsson designed the USS Monitor in 1861, its most prominent feature being a large cylindrical gun turret mounted amidships above the low-freeboard upper hull, also called the "raft". This extended well past the sides of the lower, more traditionally shaped hull.
A small armoured pilot house was fitted on the upper deck towards the bow, however, its position prevented Monitor from firing her guns straight forward. Like Coles, one of Ericsson's goals in designing the ship was to present the smallest possible target to enemy gunfire.[7] The turret's rounded shape helped to deflect cannon shot. A pair of donkey engines rotated the turret through a set of gears; a full rotation was made in 22.5 seconds during testing on 9 February 1862[7] but fine control of the turret proved to be difficult as the engine would have to be placed in reverse if the turret overshot its mark or another full rotation could be made.
Including the guns, the turret weighed approximately 160 long tons (163 t); the entire weight rested on an iron spindle that had to be jacked up using a wedge before the turret was free to rotate.[7] The spindle was 9 inches (23 cm) in diameter which gave it ten times the strength needed in preventing the turret from sliding sideways.
When not in use, the turret rested on a brass ring on the deck that was intended to form a watertight seal but in service this proved to leak heavily, despite caulking by the crew.
The gap between the turret and the deck proved to be another kind of problem for several Passaic-class monitors, which used the same turret design, as debris and shell fragments entered the gap and jammed the turrets during the First Battle of Charleston Harbor in April 1863. Direct hits at the turret with heavy shot also had the potential to bend the spindle, which could also jam the turret.
Originally intended to mount a pair of 15-inch (380 mm) smoothbore Dahlgren guns, as they were not ready in time and 11-inch (280 mm) guns were substituted,[7] each gun weighing approximately 16,000 pounds (7,300 kg). Monitor's guns used the standard propellant charge of 15 pounds (6.8 kg) specified by the 1860 ordnance for targets "distant", "near", and "ordinary", established by the gun's designer Dahlgren himself. They could fire a 136-pound (61.7 kg) round shot or shell up to a range of 3,650 yards (3,340 m) at an elevation of +15°.
Later designs
HMS Thunderer (1872) represented the culmination of this pioneering work. An ironclad turret ship designed by Edward James Reed, it was equipped with revolving turrets that used pioneering hydraulic turret machinery to maneouvre the guns. It was also the world's first mastless battleship, built with a central superstructure layout, and became the prototype for all subsequent warships. With its sister HMS Devastation of 1871 it was another pivotal design, and led directly to the modern battleship.
The US Navy tried to save weight and allow the much faster firing 8-inch to shoot during the long reload time necessary for 12-inch guns by superposing secondary gun turrets directly on top of the primary turrets (as in the Kearsarge-class battleships and the Virginia-class battleships), but the idea proved to be practically unworkable and was soon abandoned.[iv]
With the advent of the South Carolina-class battleships in 1908, the main battery turrets were designed so as to superfire, to improve fire arcs on centerline mounted weapons. This was necessitated by a need to move all main battery turrets to the vessel's centerline for improved structural support. The 1906 HMS Dreadnought, while revolutionary in many other ways, had retained wing turrets due to concerns about muzzle blast affecting the sighting mechanisms of a turret below.
Another major advancement was in the Kongō-class battlecruisers and Queen Elizabeth-class battleships, which dispensed with the "Q" turret amidships in favour of heavier guns in fewer mountings.
Early dreadnoughts commonly had two guns in each turret; however some ships began to be fitted with triple-gun turrets, with the first to be built with such a design was the Italian Dante Alighieri, although the first to be actually commissioned was the Austro-Hungarian Viribus Unitis of the Tegetthoff-class. Ships by World War II were commonly using triple and, in some cases, quadruple turrets, which reduced the total number of mountings altogether and improved armour protection, though quad mount turrets proved to be extremely complex to arrange, making them unwieldy in practice.
The largest warship turrets were in World War II battleships where a heavily armoured enclosure protected the large gun crew during battle. The calibre of the main armament on large battleships was typically 300 to 460 mm (12 to 18 in). The turrets carrying three 460 mm guns of Yamato each weighed around 2,500 tonnes. The secondary armament of battleships (or the primary armament of cruisers) was typically between 127 and 152 mm (5.0 and 6.0 in). Smaller ships typically mounted guns from 76 mm (3.0 in) upwards, although these rarely required a turret mounting, except for large destroyers, like the American Fletcher and the German Narvik classes.
Layout
In naval terms, turret traditionally and specifically refers to a gun mounting where the entire mass rotates as one, and has a trunk that pierces the deck. The rotating part of a turret seen above deck is the gunhouse, which protects the mechanism and crew, and is where the guns are loaded. The gunhouse is supported on a bed of rotating rollers, and is not physically attached to the ship at the base of the rotating structure; were the ship to capsize, the turret would fall out.
Below the gunhouse there may be a working chamber, where ammunition is handled, and the main trunk, which accommodates the shell and propellant hoists that bring ammunition up from the magazines below. There may be a combined hoist (cf the animated British turret) or separate hoists (cf the US turret cutaway). The working chamber and trunk rotate with the gunhouse, and sit inside a protective armoured barbette. The barbette extends down to the main armoured deck (red in the animation). At the base of the turret sit handing rooms, where shell and propelling charges are passed from the shell room and magazine to the hoists.
The handling equipment and hoists are complex arrangements of machinery that transport the shells and charges from the magazine into the base of the turret. Bearing in mind that shells can weigh around a ton, the hoists have to be powerful and rapid; a 15-inch turret of the type in the animation was expected to perform a complete loading and firing cycle in a minute.[18]
The loading system is fitted with a series of mechanical interlocks that ensure that there is never an open path from the gunhouse to the magazine down which an explosive flash might pass. Flash-tight doors and scuttles open and close to allow the passage between areas of the turret. Generally, with large-calibre guns, powered or assisted ramming is required to force the heavy shell and charge into the breech.
As the hoist and breech must be aligned for ramming to occur, there is generally a restricted range of elevations at which the guns can be loaded; the guns return to the loading elevation, are loaded, then return to the target elevation. The animation illustrates a turret where the rammer is fixed to the cradle that carries the guns, allowing loading to occur across a wider range of elevations.
Earlier turrets differed significantly in their operating principles. It was not until the last of the "rotating drum" designs described in the previous section were phased out that the "hooded barbette" arrangement above became the defining turret.
Wing turrets
_profile_drawing.png)
A wing turret is a gun turret mounted along the side, or the wings, of a warship, off the centerline.
The positioning of a wing turret limits the gun's arc of fire, so that it generally can contribute to only the broadside weight of fire on one side of the ship. This is the major weakness of wing turrets as broadsides were the most prevalent type of gunnery duels. Depending on the configurations of ships, such as HMS Dreadnought but not SMS Blücher, the wing turrets could fire fore and aft, so this somewhat reduced the danger of crossing the T.
Attempts were made to mount turrets en echelon so that they could fire on either beam, such as the Invincible and SMS Von der Tannbattlecruisers, but this tended to cause great damage to the ships' deck from the muzzle blast.
Wing turrets were commonplace on capital ships and cruisers during the late 19th century up until the early 1910s. In pre-dreadnought battleships, the wing turret contributed to the secondary battery of sub-calibre weapons. In large armoured cruisers, wing turrets contributed to the main battery, although the casemate mounting was more common. At the time, large numbers of smaller calibre guns contributing to the broadside were thought to be of great value in demolishing a ship's upperworks and secondary armaments, as distances of battle were limited by fire control and weapon performance.
In the early 1900s, weapon performance, armour quality and vessel speeds generally increased along with the distances of engagement; the utility of large secondary batteries reducing as a consequence, and in addition at extreme range it was impossible to see the fall of lesser weapons and so correct the aim. Therefore, the early dreadnought battleships featured "all big gun" armaments of identical calibre, typically 11 or 12 inches, some of which were mounted in wing turrets. This arrangement was not satisfactory, however, as the wing turrets not only had a reduced fire arc for broadsides, but also because the weight of the guns put great strain on the hull and it was increasingly difficult to properly armour them.
Larger and later dreadnought battleships carried superimposed or superfiring turrets (i.e. one turret mounted higher than and firing over those in front of and below it). This allowed all turrets to train on either beam, and increased the weight of fire forward and aft. The superfiring or superimposed arrangement had not been proven until after South Carolina went to sea, and it was initially feared that the weakness of the previous Virginia-class ship's stacked turrets would repeat itself. Larger and later guns (such as the US Navy's ultimate big gun design, the 16"/50 Mark 7) also could not be shipped in wing turrets, as the strain on the hull would have been too great.
Modern turrets
Many modern surface warships have mountings for large calibre guns, although the calibres are now generally between 3 and 5 inches (76 and 127 mm). The gunhouses are often just weatherproof covers for the gun mounting equipment and are made of light un-armoured materials such as glass-reinforced plastic. Modern turrets are often automatic in their operation, with no humans working inside them and only a small team passing fixed ammunition into the feed system. Smaller calibre weapons often operate on the autocannon principle, and indeed may not even be turrets at all, they may just be bolted directly to the deck.
Turret identification
On board warships, each turret is given an identification. In the British Royal Navy, these would be letters: "A" and "B" were for the turrets from the front of the ship backwards in front of the bridge, and letters near the end of the alphabet (i.e., "X", "Y", etc.) were for turrets behind the bridge ship, "Y" being the rearmost. Mountings in the middle of the ship would be "P", "Q", "R", etc.[19] Confusingly, the Dido-class cruisers had a "Q" and the Nelson-class battleships had an "X" turret in what would logically be "C" position; the latter being mounted at the main deck level in front of the bridge and behind the "B" turret, thus having restricted training fore and aft.
Secondary turrets were named "P" and "S" (port and starboard) and numbered from fore to aft, e.g. P1 being the forward port turret.
Exceptions were of course made; the battleship HMS Agincourt had the uniquely large number of seven turrets. These were numbered "1" to "7" but were unofficially nicknamed "Sunday", Monday", etc. through to "Saturday".
In German use, turrets were generally named "A", "B", "C", "D", "E", going from bow to stern. Usually the radio alphabet was used on naming the turrets (e.g. "Anton", "Bruno" or "Berta", "Caesar", "Dora") as on the German battleship Bismarck
Aircraft
During World War I, air gunners initially operated guns that were mounted on pedestals or swivel mounts known as pintles. The latter evolved into the Scarff ring, a rotating ring mount which allowed the gun to be turned to any direction with the gunner remaining directly behind it, the weapon held in an intermediate elevation by bungee cord, a simple and effective mounting for single weapons such as the Lewis Gun though less handy when twin mounted. as with the British Bristol F.2 Fighter and German "CL"-class two-seaters such as the Halberstadt and Hannover-designed series of compact two-seat combat aircraft. In a failed 1916 experiment, a variant of the SPAD S.A two-seat fighter was probably the first aircraft to be fitted with a remotely-controlled gun, which was located in a nose nacelle.
As aircraft flew higher and faster, the need for protection from the elements led to the enclosure or shielding of the gun positions, as in the "lobsterback" rear seat of the Hawker Demon biplane fighter.
The first British operational bomber to carry an enclosed, power-operated turret was the British Boulton & Paul Overstrand twin-engined biplane, which first flew in 1933. The Overstrand was similar to its First World War predecessors in that it had open cockpits and hand-operated defensive machine guns.[20] However, unlike its predecessors, the Sidestrand could fly at 140 mph (225 km/h) making operating the exposed gun positions difficult, particularly in the aircraft's nose. To overcome this problem, the Overstrand was fitted with an enclosed and powered nose turret, mounting a single Lewis gun. As such the Overstrand was the first British aircraft to have a power-operated turret. Rotation was handled by pneumatic motors while elevation and depression of the gun used hydraulic rams. The pilot's cockpit was also enclosed but the dorsal (upper) and ventral (belly) gun positions remained open, though shielded.[21]
The Martin B-10 all-metal monocoque monoplane bomber introduced turret-mounted defensive armament within the United States Army Air Corps, almost simultaneously with the RAF's Overstrand biplane bomber design. The Martin XB-10 prototype aircraft first featured the nose turret in June 1932 — roughly a year before the less advanced Overstrand airframe design — and was first produced as the YB-10 service test version by November 1933. The production B-10B version started service with the USAAC in July 1935.
In time the number of turrets carried and the number of guns mounted increased. RAF heavy bombers of World War II such as the Handley Page Halifax (until its Mk II Series I (Special) version omitted the nose turret), Short Stirling and Avro Lancaster typically had three powered turrets: rear, mid-upper and nose. (Early in the war, some British heavy bombers also featured retractable, remotely-operated ventral (or mid-under) turret. The rear turret mounted the heaviest armament: four 0.303 inch Browning machine guns or, late in the war, two AN/M2 light-barrel versions of the US Browning M2 machine gun as in the Rose-Rice turret. The tail gunner or "Tail End Charlie" position was generally accepted to be the most dangerous assignment.[citation needed]
During the World War II era, British turrets were largely self-contained units, manufactured by Boulton Paul Aircraft and Nash & Thomson. The same model of turret might be fitted to several different aircraft types. Some models included gun-laying radar that could lead the target and compensate for bullet drop.
As almost a 1930s "updated" adaptation of the earlier Bristol F.2's concept, the UK introduced the concept of the "turret fighter", with aeroplanes such as the Boulton Paul Defiant and Blackburn Roc where the armament (four 0.303 inch) machineguns was in a turret mounted behind the pilot, rather than in fixed positions in the wings. The Defiant and Roc possessed no fixed, forward-firing automatic ordnance; the World War I-era Bristol F.2 was designed with one synchronized Vickers machine gun firing forward on a fuselage mount.
The concept came at a time when the standard armament of a fighter was only two machine guns and in the face of heavily armed bombers operating in formation, it was thought that a group of turret fighters would be able to concentrate their fire flexibly on the bombers; making beam, stern and rising attacks practicable. Although the idea had some merits in attacking bombers it made the turret fighter a sitting duck when facing fighters: the weight and drag penalty of the turret (and gunner) so reduced the power to weight ratio they operated at a huge disadvantage, one the theoretical flexibility of the turret armament could not compensate for, and this was at a time when British fighters were flying with 8 machine guns, while German fighters carried fewer machine guns but were also armed with automatic cannons.
Attempts to put this heavier armament, such as multiple 20 mm cannon in low profile aerodynamic turrets were explored by the British but were not successful, this class of weapons and heavier armament (up to and including artillery pieces as in the 1,420 examples produced of the American B-25G and B-25H Mitchell medium bombers, and the experimental 'Testse' variant of the deHaviland Mosquito) being exclusively fuselage or underwing-mounted and thus aimed by pointing the aircraft as a whole.
Not all turret designs put the gunner in the turret along with the armament: US and German-designed aircraft both featured remote-controlled turrets.
In the US, the large, purpose-built Northrop P-61 Black Widow night fighter was produced with a remotely operated dorsal turret that had a wide range of fire though in practice it was generally fired directly forward under control of the pilot. For the last Douglas-built production blocks of the B-17F (the "B-17F-xx-DL" designated blocks), and for all versions of the B-17G Flying Fortress a twin-gun remotely operated "chin" turret, designed by Bendix and first used on the experimental YB-40 "gunship" version of the Fortress, was added to give more forward defence. Specifically designed to be compact and not obstruct the bombardier, this was operated by a swing-away diagonal column possessing a yoke[22] to traverse the turret, and aimed by a reflector sight mounted in the windscreen.
The intended replacement for the German Bf 110 heavy fighter, the Messerschmitt Me 210, possessed twin half-teardrop-shaped, remotely operated Ferngerichtete Drehringseitenlafette FDSL 131/1B turrets, one on each side "flank" of the rear fuselage to defend the rear of the aircraft, controlled from the rear area of the cockpit. By 1942, the German He 177A Greif heavy bomber would feature a Fernbedienbare Drehlafette FDL 131Z remotely operated forward dorsal turret, armed with twin 13mm MG 131 machine guns on the top of the fuselage, which was operated from a hemispherical, clear rotating "astrodome" just behind the cockpit glazing and offset to starboard atop the fuselage — a second, manned powered Hydraulische Drehlafette HDL 131 dorsal turret, further aft on the fuselage with a single MG 131 was also used on most examples.
The US B-29 Superfortress had four remote controlled turrets, comprising two dorsal and two ventral turrets. These were controlled from a trio of hemispherically glazed gunner-manned "astrodome" sighting stations operated from the pressurised sections in the nose and middle of the aircraft, each housing an altazimuth mounted pivoting gunsight to aim one or more of the unmanned remote turrets as needed, in addition to a B-17 style flexible manned tail gunner's station.
The defensive turret on bombers fell from favour with the realization that bombers could not attempt heavily defended targets without escort regardless of their defensive armament unless very high loss rates were acceptable, and the performance penalty from the weight and drag of turrets reduced speed, range and payload and increased the number of crew required. The already mentioned British de Havilland Mosquito light bomber was designed to operate without any defensive armament and used its speed to avoid engagement with fighters, much as the minimally armed German Schnellbomber aircraft concepts had been meant to do early in World War II.
A small number of aircraft continued to use turrets however—in particular maritime patrol aircraft such as the Avro Shackleton used one as an offensive weapon against small unarmoured surface targets. The Boeing B-52 jet bomber and many of its contemporaries (particularly Russian) featured a barbette (a British English term equivalent to the American usage of the term 'tail gun'), or a "remote turret" – an unmanned turret but often one with a more limited field of fire than an manned equivalent.
Layout
Aircraft carry their turrets in various locations:
- "dorsal" – on top of the fuselage, sometimes referred to as a mid-upper turret.
- "ventral" – underneath the fuselage, often on US heavy bombers, a Sperry-designed ball turret.
- "rear" or "tail" – at the very end of the fuselage.
- "nose" – at the front of the fuselage.
- "cheek" - on the flanks of the nose, as single-gun flexible defensive mounts for B-17 and B-24 heavy bombers
- "chin" – below the nose of the aircraft as on later versions of the Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress.
- "wing" – a handful of very large aircraft, such as the Messerschmitt Me 323 and the Blohm & Voss BV 222, had manned turrets in the wings
- "waist" or "beam" – mounted on the sides of the rear fuselage e.g. US twin- and four-engined bombers.
Gallery
Combat vehicles
The first armored vehicles to be equipped with a gun turret, were the Lanchester and Rolls-Royce Armoured Cars, both produced from 1914. The Royal Naval Air Service (RNAS) raised the first British armoured car squadron during the First World War.[23] In September 1914 all available Rolls Royce Silver Ghost chassis were requisitioned to form the basis for the new armoured car. The following month a special committee of the Admiralty Air Department, among whom was Flight Commander T.G. Hetherington, designed the superstructure which consisted of armoured bodywork and a single fully rotating turret holding a regular water cooled Vickers machine gun.
However, the first tracked combat vehicles were not equipped with turrets due to the problems with getting sufficient trench crossing while keeping the centre of gravity low, and it was not until late in World War I that the French Renault FT light tank introduced the single fully rotating turret carrying the vehicle's main armament that continues to be the standard of almost every modern main battle tank and many post-World War II self-propelled guns. The first turret designed for the FT was a circular, cast steel version almost identical to that of the prototype. It was designed to carry a Hotchkiss 8mm machine gun. Meanwhile, the Berliet Company produced a new design, a polygonal turret of riveted plate, which was simpler to produce than the early cast steel turret. It was given the name "omnibus", since it could easily be adapted to mount either the Hotchkiss machine gun or the Puteaux 37mm with its telescopic sight. This turret was fitted to production models in large numbers.
In the 1930s, several nations produced multi-turreted tanks—probably influenced by the experimental British Vickers A1E1 Independent of 1926. Those that saw combat during the early part of World War II performed poorly and the concept was soon dropped. Combat vehicles without turrets, with the main armament mounted in the hull, or more often in a completely enclosed, integral armored casemate as part of the main hull, saw extensive use by both the German (as Sturmgeschütz and Jagdpanzer vehicles) and Soviet (as Samokhodnaya Ustanovka vehicles) armored forces during World War II as tank destroyers and assault guns. However, post-war, the concept fell out of favour due to its limitations, with the Swedish Stridsvagn 103 'S-Tank' and the German Kanonenjagdpanzer being exceptions.
Layout
In modern tanks, the turret is armoured for crew protection and rotates a full 360 degrees carrying a single large-calibre tank gun, typically in the range of 105 mm to 125 mm calibre. Machine guns may be mounted inside the turret, which on modern tanks is often on a "coaxial" mount, parallel with the larger main gun.
Early designs often featured multiple weapons mounts, and this concept was carried forwards into the early interwar years in Britain, Germany and the Soviet Union, arguably reaching its most absurd expression in the British 'Vickers A1E1 Independent tank, though this attempt was soon abandoned while the Soviet Union's similar effort produced a 'land battleship' which was actually produced and fought in defence of the Soviet Union.
In modern tanks, the turret houses all the crew except the driver (who is located in the hull). The crew located in the turret typically consist of tank commander, gunner, and often a gun loader (except in tanks that have an automated loading mechanism), while the driver sits in a separate compartment with a dedicated entry and exit, though often one that allows the driver to exit via the turret basket (fighting compartment).
For other combat vehicles, the turrets are equipped with other weapons dependent on role. An infantry fighting vehicle may carry a smaller calibre gun or an autocannon, or an anti-tank missile launcher, or a combination of weapons. A modern self-propelled gun mounts a large artillery gun but less armour. Lighter vehicles may carry a one-man turret with a single machine gun, occasionally the same model being shared with other classes of vehicle, such as the Cadillac Gage T50 turret/weapons station.
The size of the turret is a factor in combat vehicle design. One dimension mentioned in terms of turret design is "turret ring diameter" which is the size of the aperture in the top of the chassis into which the turret is seated.
Land fortifications
In 1859, the Royal Commission on the Defence of the United Kingdom were in the process of recommending a huge programme of fortifications to protect Britain's naval bases. They interviewed Captain Coles, who had bombarded Russian fortifications during the Crimean War, however Coles repeatedly lost his temper during the discussion and the commissioners failed to ask him about the gun turret that he had patented earlier in that year, with the result that none of the Palmerston Forts mounted turrets.[24] Eventually, the Admiralty Pier Turret at Dover was commissioned in 1877 and completed in 1882.
In continental Europe, the invention of high explosive shells in 1885 threatened to make all existing fortifications obsolete; a partial solution was the protection of fortress guns in armoured turrets. Pioneering designs were produced by Commandant Henri-Louis-Philippe Mougin in France and Captain Maximilian Schumann in Germany. Mougin's designs were incorporated in a new generation of polygonal forts constructed by Raymond Adolphe Séré de Rivières in France and Henri Alexis Brialmont in Belgium. Developed versions of Schumann's turrets were employed after his death in the fortifications of Metz. In 1914, the Brialmont forts in the Battle of Liège proved unequal to the German "Big Bertha" 42 cm siege howitzers, which were able to penetrate the turret armour and smash turret mountings.
Elsewhere, armoured turrets, sometimes described a cupolas, were incorporated into coastal artillery defences. An extreme example was Fort Drum, the "concrete battleship", near Corregidor, Philippines; this mounted four huge 14-inch guns in two naval pattern turrets and was the only permanent turreted fort ever constructed by the United States.[27] Between the wars, improved turrets formed the offensive armament of the Maginot Line forts in France. During the Second World War, some of the artillery pieces in the Atlantic Wall fortifications, such as the Cross-Channel guns, were large naval guns housed in turrets.
Some nations, from Albania to Switzerland and Austria, have embedded the turrets of obsolete tanks in concrete bunkers, while others have constructed or updated fortifications with modern artillery systems, such as the 1970s era Swedish coastal artillery battery on Landsort Island.
Gallery
COUNTER GUN AIRCRAFT
A three-person JASDF fireteam fires a missile from a Type 91 KaiMANPAD during an exercise at Eielson Air Force Base, Alaska as part of Red Flag - Alaska Anti-UAV defences[
An Anti-UAV Defence System (AUDS) is a system for defence against military unmanned aerial vehicles. A variety of designs have been developed, using lasers, net-guns and air-to-air netting, signal jamming, and hi-jacking by means of in-flight hacking.Anti-UAV defence systems have been deployed against ISIL drones during the Battle of Mosul (2016–17).
Alternative approaches for dealing with UAVs have included using a shotgun at close range, and for smaller drones, training eagles to snatch them from the air.
Future developments
Guns are being increasingly pushed into specialist roles, such as the Dutch Goalkeeper CIWS, which uses the GAU-8 Avenger 30 mm seven-barrel Gatling gun for last ditch anti-missile and anti-aircraft defence. Even this formerly front-line weapon is currently being replaced by new missile systems, such as the RIM-116 Rolling Airframe Missile, which is smaller, faster, and allows for mid-flight course correction (guidance) to ensure a hit. To bridge the gap between guns and missiles, Russia in particular produces the Kashtan CIWS, which uses both guns and missiles for final defence. Two six-barrelled 30 mm Gsh-6-30 Gatling guns and 9M311 surface-to-air missiles provide for its defensive capabilities.
Upsetting this development to all-missile systems is the current move to stealth aircraft. Long range missiles depend on long-range detection to provide significant lead. Stealth designs cut detection ranges so much that the aircraft is often never even seen, and when it is, it is often too late for an intercept. Systems for detection and tracking of stealthy aircraft are a major problem for anti-aircraft development.
However, as stealth technology grows, so does anti-stealth technology. Multiple transmitter radars such as those from bistatic radars and low-frequency radars are said to have the capabilities to detect stealth aircraft. Advanced forms of thermographic cameras such as those that incorporate QWIPs would be able to optically see a Stealth aircraft regardless of the aircraft's RCS. In addition, Side looking radars, High-powered optical satellites, and sky-scanning, high-aperture, high sensitivity radars such as radio telescopes, would all be able to narrow down the location of a stealth aircraft under certain parameters.[53] The newest SAM's have a claimed ability to be able to detect and engage stealth targets, with the most notable being the S-400, which is claimed to be able to detect a target with a 0.05-metre squared RCS from 90 km away.[54]
Another potential weapon system for anti-aircraft use is the laser. Although air planners have imagined lasers in combat since the late 1960s, only the most modern laser systems are currently reaching what could be considered "experimental usefulness". In particular the Tactical High Energy Laser can be used in the anti-aircraft and anti-missile role.
The future of projectile based weapons may be found in the railgun. Currently tests are underway on developing systems that could create as much damage as a Tomahawk (missile), but at a fraction of the cost. In February 2008 the US Navy tested a rail gun; it fired a shell at 5,600 miles (9,000 km) per hour using 10 mega joules of energy. Its expected performance is over 13,000 miles (21,000 km) per hour muzzle velocity, accurate enough to hit a 5-metre target from 200 nautical miles (370 km) away while shooting at 10 shots per minute. It is expected to be ready in 2020 to 2025.These systems, while currently designed for static targets, would only need the ability to be retargeted to become the next generation of AA system.
Force structures
Most Western and Commonwealth militaries integrate air defence purely with the traditional services, of the military (i.e. army, navy and air force), as a separate arm or as part of artillery. In the British Army for instance, air defence is part of the artillery arm, while in the Pakistan Army, it was split off from Artillery to form a separate arm of its own in 1990. This is in contrast to some (largely communist or ex-communist) countries where not only are there provisions for air defence in the army, navy and air force but there are specific branches that deal only with the air defence of territory, for example, the Soviet PVO Strany. The USSR also had a separate strategic rocket force in charge of nuclear intercontinental ballistic missiles.
Smaller boats and ships typically have machine-guns or fast cannons, which can often be deadly to low-flying aircraft if linked to a radar-directed fire-control system radar-controlled cannon for point defence. Some vessels like Aegis cruisers are as much a threat to aircraft as any land-based air defence system. In general, naval vessels should be treated with respect by aircraft, however the reverse is equally true. Carrier battle groups are especially well defended, as not only do they typically consist of many vessels with heavy air defence armament but they are also able to launch fighter jets for combat air patrol overhead to intercept incoming airborne threats.
Nations such as Japan use their SAM-equipped vessels to create an outer air defence perimeter and radar picket in the defence of its Home islands, and the United States also uses its Aegis-equipped ships as part of its Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System in the defence of the Continental United States.
Some modern submarines, such as the Type 212 submarines of the German Navy, are equipped with surface-to-air missile systems, since helicopters and anti-submarine warfare aircraft are significant threats. The subsurface launched anti-air missile was first purposed by US Navy Rear Admiral Charles B. Momsen, in a 1953 article.
Layered air defence
Air defence in naval tactics, especially within a carrier group, is often built around a system of concentric layers with the aircraft carrier at the centre. The outer layer will usually be provided by the carrier's aircraft, specifically its AEW&C aircraft combined with the CAP. If an attacker is able to penetrate this layer, then the next layers would come from the surface-to-air missiles carried by the carrier's escorts; the area-defence missiles, such as the RIM-67 Standard, with a range of up to 100 nmi, and the point-defence missiles, like the RIM-162 ESSM, with a range of up to 30 nmi. Finally, virtually every modern warship will be fitted with small-calibre guns, including a CIWS, which is usually a radar-controlled Gatling gun of between 20mm and 30mm calibre capable of firing several thousand rounds per minute.
Army
Armies typically have air defence in depth, from integral MANPADS such as the RBS 70, Stinger and Igla at smaller force levels up to army-level missile defence systems such as Angara and Patriot. Often, the high-altitude long-range missile systems force aircraft to fly at low level, where anti-aircraft guns can bring them down. As well as the small and large systems, for effective air defence there must be intermediate systems. These may be deployed at regiment-level and consist of platoons of self-propelled anti-aircraft platforms, whether they are self-propelled anti-aircraft guns (SPAAGs), integrated air-defence systems like Tunguska or all-in-one surface-to-air missile platforms like Roland or SA-8 Gecko.
On a national level the United States Army was atypical in that it was primarily responsible for the missile air defences of the Continental United States with systems such as Project Nike.
Air force
.jpg)
Air defence by air forces is typically provided by fighter jets carrying air-to-air missiles. However, most air forces choose to augment airbase defence with surface-to-air missile systems as they are such valuable targets and subject to attack by enemy aircraft. In addition, some countries choose to put all air defence responsibilities under the air force.
Area air defence
Area air defence, the air defence of a specific area or location, (as opposed to point defence), have historically been operated by both armies (Anti-Aircraft Command in the British Army, for instance) and Air Forces (the United States Air Force's CIM-10 Bomarc). Area defence systems have medium to long range and can be made up of various other systems and networked into an area defence system (in which case it may be made up of several short range systems combined to effectively cover an area). An example of area defence is the defence of Saudi Arabia and Israel by MIM-104 Patriot missile batteries during the first Gulf War, where the objective was to cover populated areas.
Tactics
Mobility
Most modern air defence systems are fairly mobile. Even the larger systems tend to be mounted on trailers and are designed to be fairly quickly broken down or set up. In the past, this was not always the case. Early missile systems were cumbersome and required much infrastructure; many could not be moved at all. With the diversification of air defence there has been much more emphasis on mobility. Most modern systems are usually either self-propelled (i.e. guns or missiles are mounted on a truck or tracked chassis) or easily towed. Even systems that consist of many components (transporter/erector/launchers, radars, command posts etc.) benefit from being mounted on a fleet of vehicles. In general, a fixed system can be identified, attacked and destroyed whereas a mobile system can show up in places where it is not expected. Soviet systems especially concentrate on mobility, after the lessons learnt in the Vietnam war between the USA and Vietnam. For more information on this part of the conflict, see SA-2 Guideline.
Air defence versus air defence suppression
Israel and the US Air Force, in conjunction with the members of NATO, have developed significant tactics for air defence suppression. Dedicated weapons such as anti-radiation missiles and advanced electronics intelligence and electronic countermeasures platforms seek to suppress or negate the effectiveness of an opposing air-defence system. It is an arms race; as better jamming, countermeasures and anti-radiation weapons are developed, so are better SAM systems with ECCM capabilities and the ability to shoot down anti-radiation missiles and other munitions aimed at them or the targets they are defending.
Insurgent tactics
Rocket-propelled grenades can be—and often are—used against hovering helicopters (e.g., by Somali militiamen during the Battle of Mogadishu (1993)). Firing an RPG at steep angles poses a danger to the user, because the backblast from firing reflects off the ground. In Somalia, militia members sometimes welded a steel plate in the exhaust end of an RPG's tube to deflect pressure away from the shooter when shooting up at US helicopters. RPGs are used in this role only when more effective weapons are not available.
For insurgents the most effective method of countering aircraft is to attempt to destroy them on the ground, either by trying to penetrate an airbase perimeter and destroy aircraft individually, e.g. the September 2012 Camp Bastion raid, or finding a position where aircraft can be engaged with indirect fire, such as mortars.
M61 Vulcan
The M61 Vulcan is a hydraulically or pneumatically driven, six-barrel, air-cooled, electrically fired Gatling-style rotary cannon which fires 20 mm rounds at an extremely high rate (typically 6,000 rounds per minute). The M61 and its derivatives have been the principal cannon armament of United States military fixed-wing aircraft for fifty years.
The M61 was originally produced by General Electric. After several mergers and acquisitions, it is currently produced by General Dynamics.
An unmounted M61 Vulcan.
At the end of World War II, the United States Army Air Forces began to consider new directions for future military aircraft guns. The higher speeds of jet-poweredfighter aircraft meant that achieving an effective number of hits would be extremely difficult without a much higher volume of fire. While captured German designs (principally the Mauser MG 213C) showed the potential of the single-barrel revolver cannon, the practical rate of fire of such a design was still limited by ammunition feed and barrel wear concerns. The Army wanted something better, combining extremely high rate of fire with exceptional reliability.[citation needed] In 1947, the Air Force became a separate branch of the military. The new Air Force made a request for a new aircraft gun. A lesson of World War II air combat was that German, Italian and Japanese fighters could attack American aircraft from long range with their cannon main armament. American fighters with .50 cal main armament, such as the P-51 and P-47, had to be close to the enemy in order to hit and damage enemy aircraft. The 20mm Hispano cannon carried by the P-38 and P-61, while formidable against propeller driven planes, had a relatively low rate of fire in the age of jets, while other cannons were notoriously unreliable.
In response to this requirement, the Armament Division of General Electric resurrected an old idea: the multi-barrel Gatling gun. The original Gatling gun had fallen out of favor because of the need for an external power source to rotate the barrel assembly, but the new generation of turbojet-powered fighters offered sufficient electric power to operate the gun, and electric operation was more reliable than gas-operated reloading.[2] With multiple barrels, the rate of fire per barrel could be lower than a single-barrel revolver cannon while providing a greater overall rate of fire. The idea of powering a Gatling gun from an external electric power source was not a novel idea at the end of the World War II, as Richard Jordan Gatling himself had done just that with a patent he filed in 1893.
In 1946, the Army issued General Electric a contract for "Project Vulcan", a six-barrel weapon capable of firing 7,200 rounds per minute (rpm). Although European designers were moving towards heavier 30 mm weapons for better hitting power, the U.S. initially concentrated on a powerful 0.60-inch (15 mm) cartridge designed for a pre-war anti-tank rifle, expecting that the cartridge's high muzzle velocity would be beneficial for improving hit ratios on high speed targets.
The first GE prototypes of the 0.60-inch (15 mm) caliber T45 were ground-fired in 1949; it achieved 2,500 rpm, which was increased to 4,000 rpm by 1950. By the early 1950s, the USAF decided that high velocity alone might not be sufficient to ensure target destruction and tested 20 mm and 27 mm alternatives based on the 0.60-inch (15 mm) caliber cartridge. These variants of the T45 were known as the T171 and T150 respectively, and were first tested in 1952. Eventually, the 20×102 mm cartridge was determined to have the desired balance of projectile and explosive weight and muzzle velocity.
The development of the Lockheed F-104 Starfighter revealed that the T171 Vulcan (later redesignated M61) suffered problems with its linked ammunition, being prone to misfeed and presenting a foreign object damage (FOD) hazard with discarded links. A linkless ammunition feed system was developed for the upgraded M61A1, which subsequently became the standard cannon armament of U.S. fighters.[4]
In 1993, General Electric sold its aerospace division, including GE Armament Systems along with the design and production tooling for the M61 and GE's other rotary cannon, to Martin Marietta. After Martin's merger with Lockheed, the rotary cannon became the responsibility of Lockheed Martin Armament Systems. Lockheed Martin Armament Systems was later acquired by General Dynamics, who currently produce the M61 and its variants.[1]
Description
Each of the cannon's six barrels fires once in turn during each revolution of the barrel cluster. The multiple barrels provide both a very high rate of fire—around 100 rounds per second—and contribute to prolonged weapon life by minimizing barrel erosion and heat generation. Mean time between jams or failures is in excess of 10,000 rounds, making it an extremely reliable weaponThe success of the Vulcan Project and its subsequent progeny, the very-high-speed Gatling gun, has led to guns of the same configuration being referred to as "Vulcan cannon", which can sometimes confuse nomenclature on the subject.[citation needed]
Most aircraft versions of the M61 are hydraulically driven and electrically primed. The gun rotor, barrel assembly and ammunition feed system are rotated by a hydraulic drive motor through a system of flexible drive shafts. The round is fired by an electric priming system where an electric current from a firing lead passes through the firing pin to the primer as each round is rotated into the firing position.[5]
The self-powered version, the GAU-4 (called M130 in Army service), is gas-operated, tapping gun gas from three of the six barrels to operate the gun gas driven mechanism. The self-powered Vulcan weighs about 10 pounds (4.5 kg) more than its electric counterpart, but requires no external power source to operate, except for an electric, inertia starter to initiate gun rotation, allowing the first rounds to be chambered and fired.
The initial M61 used linked, belted ammunition, but the ejection of spent links created considerable (and ultimately insuperable) problems. The original weapon was soon replaced by the M61A1, with a linkless feed system. Depending on the application, the feed system can be either single-ended (ejecting spent cases and unfired rounds) or double-ended (returning casings back to the magazine). A disadvantage of the M61 is that the bulk of the weapon, its feed system, and ammunition drum makes it difficult to fit it into a densely packed airframe
The feed system must be custom-designed for each application, adding 300–400 lb (140–180 kg) to the complete weapon. Most aircraft installations are double-ended, because the ejection of empty cartridges can cause a foreign-object damage (FOD) hazard for jet engines and because the retention of spent cases assists in maintaining the center of gravity of the aircraft. The first aircraft to carry the M61A1 was the C model of the F-104, starting in 1959.
A lighter version of the Vulcan developed for use on the F-22 Raptor, the M61A2, is mechanically the same as the M61A1, but with thinner barrels to reduce overall weight to 202 pounds (92 kg). The rotor and housing have also been modified to remove any piece of metal not absolutely needed for operation and replaces some metal components with lighter weight materials. The F/A-18E/F Super Hornet also uses this version.[6]
The Vulcan's rate of fire is typically 6,000 rounds per minute, although some versions (such as that of the AMX and the F-106 Delta Dart) are limited to a lower rate, and others (A-7 Corsair) have a selectable rate of fire of either 4,000 or 6,000 rounds per minute. The M61A2's lighter barrels allow a somewhat higher rate of fire, up to 6,600 rounds per minute[7].
Ammunition
Practically no powered rotary cannon is supplied with sufficient ammunition for a full minute of firing, due to its weight. In order to avoid using the few hundred rounds carried all at once, a burst controller is generally used to limit the number of rounds fired at each trigger pull. Bursts of from two or three up to 40 or 50 can be selected.[citation needed] The size of the airframe and available internal space limits the size of the ammunition drum and thus limits the ammunition capacity.
Until the late 1980s, the M61 primarily used the M50 series of ammunition in various types, typically firing a 3.5 ounces (99 g) projectile at a muzzle velocity of about 3,380 feet per second (1,030 m/s). A variety of Armor-Piercing Incendiary (API), High Explosive Incendiary (HEI), and training rounds are available. The M246 HEI-T-SD (High-Explosive Incendiary, Tracer, Self-Destroying) is the primary round for use against aerial targets.[8]
The new PGU-28/B round was developed in the mid-1980s. It is a semi-armor-piercing high-explosive incendiary (SAPHEI) round, providing improvements in range, accuracy, and power over the preceding M56A3 HEI round.[9] PGU-28/B is a "low-drag" round designed to reduce in-flight drag and deceleration, and has a slightly increased muzzle velocity of 3,450 feet per second (1,050 m/s).[citation needed] However, the PGU-28/B has not been without problems. A 2000 USAF safety report noted 24 premature detonation mishaps (causing serious damage in many cases) in 12 years with the SAPHEI round, compared to only two such mishaps in the entire recorded history of the M56 round. The report estimated that the current PGU-28/B had a potential failure rate 80 times higher than USAF standards permit.[10] Due to safety issues, it was limited to emergency wartime use in 2000.[11]
The main types of combat rounds and their main characteristics are listed in the table below.
| Designation | Type | Projectile weight | Bursting charge [g] | Muzzle Velocity [m/s] | Description |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| M53 | API | ? | 4.2 g incendiary[12] | 1030 | 6.3 mm RHA penetration at 0 degree impact angle and 1000 m range.[12] |
| M56A3/A4 | HEI | 102 g (3.6 oz)[13] | 9 g HE (RDX/wax/Al) and 1.5 g incendiary | 1030 | Nose fuzed round, no tracer. 2 m effective radius to produce casualties to exposed personnel.[12] Fragmentation hazard out to 20 m.[13]12.5 mm RHA penetration at 0 degree obliquity at 100 m range.[12] |
| PGU-28A/B | SAPHEI | 102.4 g (3.61 oz)[14] | 10 g[13] | 1050 | Multi-purpose fuzeless round with an incendiary charge in the nose setting off the HE behind it with a slight delay to maximize lethality against aircraft. No tracer or self-destruct. A zirconium pellet at the bottom of the HE cavity provides additional incendiary effect. |
Applications and first combat use
The Vulcan first entered aerial combat on 4 April 1965 when four North Vietnamese Air Force MiG-17s (J-5s)[15] attacked a force of 10 escorting North American F-100 Super Sabres (2 of which were assigned weather reconnaissance duties) and 48 Vulcan-armed and "bomb-laden" F-105 Thunderchiefs, shooting down two of the latter. The MiG Leader, Capt. Tran Hanh, and the only survivor from the four MiGs reported that U.S. jets had pursued them and that F-105s had shot down three of his aircraft, killing Lieutenants Pham Giay, Le Minh Huan, and Tran Nguyen Nam. Capt. Donald Kilgus piloting an F-100 received an official probable kill with his four M39 20 mm cannons during the engagement; however no other US pilot reported destroying any MiGs during the battle, leaving open the plausibility that at least two of the MiG-17s may have been downed by their own anti-aircraft fire.
The first confirmed Vulcan gun kill occurred on 29 June 1966 when Major Fred Tracy, flying his F-105 Thunderchief with the 421st TFS, fired 200 rounds of 20mm into a MiG-17 that had just fired a 23mm shell through one side of his cockpit and which exited out the other side. When the NVAF MiG flew in front of him after making his pass, Maj. Tracy opened fire on him.
The gun was installed in the Air Force's A-7D version of the LTV A-7 Corsair II where it replaced the earlier United States Navy A-7's Colt Mk 12 cannon and was adopted by the Navy on the A-7C and A-7E.[21] It was integrated into the newer F-4E Phantom II variants. The F-4 was originally designed without a cannon as it was believed that missiles had made guns obsolete. Combat experience in Vietnam showed that a gun could be more effective than guided missiles in many combat situations, and that an externally carried gun pod was less effective than an internal gun; the first generation of gun pods such as the SUU-16 were not oriented with the sights of the fighter. The improved pods were self-powered and properly synchronized to the sights. The next generation of fighters built post-Vietnam incorporated the M61 gun internally.
| Date/Year | Firing aircraft | M61 Vulcan variant | Aircraft downed | USAF Unit/comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 29 June 1966 | F-105D Thunderchief | M61A1 | MiG-17 | 421st Tactical Fighter Squadron[23] |
| 18 August 1966 | F-105D | M61A1 | MiG-17 | 34th TFS |
| 21 September 1966 | F-105D | M61A1 | MiG-17 | 333rd TFS |
| 21 September 1966 | F-105D | M61A1 | MiG-17 | 431st TFS |
| 4 December 1966 | F-105D | M61A1 | MiG-17 | 469th TFS |
| 1967 | F-105D/F-105F | M61A1 | (5) MiG-17s | 333rd TFS |
| 1967 | F-105D | M61A1 | (8) MiG-17s | 354th TFS |
| 1967 | F-105D/F-105F | M61A1 | (4) MiG-17s | 357th TFS |
| 1967 | F-4C Phantom II | SUU-16 gunpod | (2) MiG-17s | 480th TFS |
| 13 May 1967 | F-105D | M61A1 | MiG-17 | 44th TFS |
| 3 June 1967 | F-105D | M61A1 | MiG-17 | 13th TFS: Captain Ralph Kuster |
| 23 August 1967 | F-105D | M61A1 | MiG-17 | 34th TFS |
| 24 October 1967 | F-4D | SUU-23 gunpod | MiG-21 | 433rd TFS |
| 1967 | F-4D | SUU-23 | (3) MiG-17s | 435th TFS |
| 3 January 1968 | F-4D | SUU-23 | MiG-17 | 433rd TFS; Pilot, Major B J Bogoslofski, WSO, Captain Richard L Huskey |
| 14 February 1968 | F-4D | SUU-23 | MiG-17 | 555th TFS |
| 1972 | F-4E | M61A1 | (3) MiG-21s | 35th TFS; The F4E was the first Phantom II to enter the war with an internal Vulcan gun. |
| 2 June 1972 | F-4E | M61A1 | MiG-19 | 58th TFS; First kill at supersonic speed (Mach 1.2); Major Phil Handley/WSO 1LT J. J. Smallwood |
| 9 September 1972 | F-4E | M61A1 | MiG-21 | 555th TFS |
| 15 October 1972 | F-4E | M61A1 | MiG-21 | 307th TFS |
| Total MiG-17s: | 32 | |||
| Total MiG-19s: | 1 | |||
| Total MiG-21s: | 6 | |||
| Total: | 39 | |||
The Vulcan was later fitted into the weapons bay of some Convair F-106 Delta Dart and General Dynamics F-111 Aardvark models. It was also adopted as standard in the "teen"-series air superiority fighters, the Grumman F-14 Tomcat, the McDonnell Douglas F-15 Eagle, General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon and McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet. Other aircraft include the Italian/Brazilian AMX International AMX (on Italian aircraft only), and the F-22 Raptor. It was fitted in a side-firing installation on the Fairchild AC-119, some marks of the Lockheed AC-130 gunships, and was used in the tail turrets of both the Convair B-58 Hustler and Boeing B-52H Stratofortress bombers. Japan's Mitsubishi F-1 carried one internally mounted JM61A1 Vulcan with 750 rounds.
Two gun pod versions, the SUU-16/A (also designated M12 by the US Army) and improved SUU-23/A (US Army M25), were developed in the 1960s, often used on gunless versions of the F-4. The SUU-16/A uses the electric M61A1 with a ram-air turbine to power the motor. This proved to cause serious aerodynamic drag at higher speeds, while speeds under 400 miles per hour (640 km/h) did not provide enough airflow for the maximum rate of fire.
The subsequent SUU-23/A uses the GAU-4/A self-powered Vulcan, with an electric inertia starter to bring it up to speed. Both pods ejected empty cases and unfired rounds rather than retaining them. Both pods contained 1,200 rounds of ammunition, with a loaded weight of 1,615 and 1,720 pounds (733 and 780 kg) respectively. During service in the Vietnam War, the pods proved to be relatively inaccurate: the pylon mounting was not rigid enough to prevent deflection when firing, and repeated use would misalign the pod on its pylon, making matters worse.
A variant with much shorter barrels, designated the M195, was also developed for use on the M35 Armament Subsystem for use on the AH-1G Cobra helicopter. This variant fed from ammunition boxes fitted to the landing skid and was developed to provide the AH-1 helicopter with a longer-range suppressive fire system before the adoption of the M97 Universal Turret mounting the M197 cannon.
The M61 is also the basis of the US Navy Mk 15 Phalanx Close-in weapon system and the M163 VADS Vulcan Air Defense System, using the M168 variant.
The Future Of Electronic Gun sights
Electronic gunsights, such as those developed by TrackingPoint, will become an increasingly important aspect of military and civilian small arms development in the coming years. Such optics have already given dramatic improvement to accuracy and hit probability in larger military systems, for example tanks and other armored fighting vehicles. While TrackingPoint’s system is clearly geared towards the precision shooter, it hints at other capabilities that could be applied through electronic gun sights in other areas where small arms are used. In this article, I aim to speculate as to what some of those capabilities might be.
The cone of fire created by the natural dispersion of an automatic weapon is an important consideration in its design and application. The possibility for passively stabilized weapon sights that could allow for a controlled “pattern” of fire, which further could be adjusted according to the circumstances, could improve machine gun versatility and effectiveness.
2. IFF for Law Enforcement, Special Applications
Against a sophisticated opponent, the sort of transmissions needed to integrate an identify friend or foe (IFF) feature into an electronic weapon sight could pose a significant disadvantage, but for law enforcement or special applications missions against terrorists or guerrillas, especially in a hostage or combined forces situation, the disadvantages would be minimized while the advantages maximized. The ability to provide support through a weapon that “knows” friend from foe is something that I could see becoming very useful in the near future.
3. Control of A Fully Automatic Burst
It seems relatively simple to imagine that these sorts of weapon sights incorporating automatic fire control could be used to eliminate the “anti-aircraft” tendency of a rifle firing on fully automatic to waste its ammunition due to muzzle rise. A shooter firing a fully automatic weapon is often absorbed in controlling that weapon; if electronic gunsights could compensate for this by limiting the burst only to those rounds fired when the muzzle hasn’t yet begun to rise, then much more ammunition might be saved in the application of full auto fire, without impacting its use with skilled shooters who can adequately control their weapon. Of course, there is a human interface concern here; one immediately remembers the awful reputation of the M16A2’s and M4’s burst limiter – essentially a mechanical device intended to do the same. Still, the prospect of an automatic rifle that automatically saves ammunition is an attractive one.
4. Squad/Platoon Level Target Marking
It is true that in many cases riflemen are directed to fire against targets they cannot see or locate. A system capable of directing attention to targets through a HUD or rifle sight could potentially dramatically improve the number of rounds on target, and if this were further integrated with a passively-stabilized system that ensures each round gets as close to its target as possible, the effectiveness of the squad or platoon as a whole against point targets could be dramatically improved.
5. Aiming Compensation On Infantry Rifles
In many ways retrograde features from the full Tracking Point passively stabilized fire control suite are more attractive to the infantry rifleman. While not unheard of, the opportunities to make clear, precise shots such as those passively stabilized electronic gun sights assist with do not occur with great frequency. Much more useful, then, would be a sight that compensates for common human aiming errors actively. Lead, wind, and range calculation are all things that could potentially be incorporated in the future into the already common red dot gun sight as technology improves in size, weight, and ruggedness. Whether passive stabilization is incorporated alongside these features or not, the common soldier would be much advantaged through a sight that does the hard work of finding dope for him, and adjusts his aiming point accordingly.
6. We’ll Have To Create Another 3-Gun Category
I don’t think it would be that hard to create an electronic scope that recognized the center of a standard qualification silhouette and passively stabilized the rifle so that all shots went into the A-zone. I feel if such a sight were developed, it might affect practical shooting competition somewhat.
How far off each of these capabilities is, or whether they will be realized at all is not something I can say. However, I think electronic gun sights are here to stay, and as challenges in cost, shock proofing, and weatherproofing the internal electronics are met, they will be progressively integrated more and more into increasingly front-line weapons. As capabilities are added, tactics and even equipment may have to change, but how and to what degree is beyond my ability to predict.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
THE MODERN RENEINSTEIN GUN WEAPON
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
