Would guns on aircraft be more useful if the fly-by-wire system could aim at targets for you?
That collection of words really doesn't mean much, but to answer a similar question: Yes, gimballed aircraft cannons would likely have some utility, but due to the proliferation of MANPADs and the dominance of missiles in air combat any investment in such systems would likely be a waste, especially considering the sacrifices that would probably have to be made.
Guns on a plane are a 3rd tier weapon, after radar missiles and ir missiles. It's not worth it.
>>64892788Yes, I think it would have utility as an anti-drone weapon, on transports and bombers.
>>64892834>>64892788A PGU-14/B costs around $137 dollars. HEAP can get up to 600 dollars a round. Fully loaded at 1,174 rounds, you are looking at 190K on the low end.You could drop modified precision mortars if you wanted to bomb cheaper than an SBDII, you could fire APKWS if you wanted to do gun things. If you wanted anti drone, an airborn laser would be the way to go.All of these are cheaper. The A-10 platform is end of life for a reason; it can't evolve past the threat modern MANPADs present, and any upgrade path costs more than a replacement solution.The A-10 is tired, it has no more to give, let it die.
>>64892788It wouldn't be any more useful than shapening a dagger in gun fight on flat plain.
>>64892788If you mean a gun gimbal then that would increase accuracy slightly but you ruin aerodynamics and radar cross section.If you mean hitting a "point the aircraft for a guns kill" button then not really because guns are so short range.If you mean point the aircraft to increase the guns engagement range against a non-manuvering drone then yes, that's the one situation it might be useful without massive drawbacks.That said developing the system, testing and fielding would cost more than just fielding more proximity fused 25mm which already exists.
>>64892813He say, when we desperately need a way to kill swarm of drones cheaper than any missiles we have.
>>64892788>not so subtle NO threadJust go to /k/ vidya thread or /simg/ if you want to walk about it
>>64892788I wish NO (and arcade flight/space games in general) would just copy the F-16 EEGS instead of using a garbage lead circle that just pops up suddenly when you're arbitrarily considered to be in range.
>>64892788The Tarantula does it better.
>>64893583J-37 Viggen got gun sight update in 90s. After target lock autopilot could maneuver aircraft to aim gun at a target. Not universally userfull but it was reported it massively improved long range gun shots.IIRC it is only aircraft with such capability.
>>64893676Why would planes have to worry about drones? They can just outfly them, it's not like quadcopters can go very high.
>>64894043I might shock you anon, airfighter are cool to fly and stuff, but there's a war to win.Someone got to shoot down those drone before they overwhelm the less-mobile defense and destroy all the stuff that let you fly cool airfighter.
>>64892805I'm pretty sure OP is talking about a system that autopilots the plane until the fixed guns can hit something or other.
>>64895483Yeah sounds like it. The Emmerson turret with radar tracking would be much more fun.
>>64894635Too fugly to fly
>>64893721I play NO too and I have to be honest I'm really glad it has a simple lead circle, because I have no fucking clue how to use the EEGS, it is too complex, every single game I've tried that had the EEGS I have never been able tous correctly, I remember playing Energy Airforce and that had the EEGS and I just couldn't hit a goddamn thing while trying to use it, not even slow moving cargo planes. I think it's simple too high IQ for me, having a "place the crosshair in this circle and shoot" system is much better for me.
