5 Likes
The old lady learned some new moves
7 Likes
Just a couple of days ago I have put that channel on my ignore list because of the fake thumbnails 
2 Likes
I was there. It absolutely Rips
2 Likes
Holy bat-turns batman! look at all that AoA! Amazeballs! and you get to haul 12(?) AMRAAMS in that baby! I gotta get me some of those 
3 Likes
They get your attention, right 
The quality of his videos is superb. I can remember how air show home videos looked like 20 years ago. Low res, out of focus and badly shaking…
It’s awesome what the videos look like nowadays…
2 Likes
That’s awesome 
2 Likes
Absolute wow!
1 Like
The ‘Hun’.
Timestamp is when taking the active.
5 Likes
I’d love to have that in DCS…
4 Likes
I was today years old when I found out my childhood dream was real!
I always thought that putting accurate radar controlled gun turrets on fighters would have been much better than fixed forward guns and they would offset the need for agility…
8 Likes
And yet, for some reason it never caught on… i wonder why
1 Like
No, yeah- I get it.
Well this is really a pub+beer discussion, but I’m fairly sure the limited technology of the time is the main culprit here. Then missiles got involved and … well, the rest is history.
THAT SAID- I imagine a big plane like the F-15 with a ball turret on its back with a focused high-powered laser would be even cooler! 
3 Likes
I think this is a case of man over machine. A human maneuvering as if his life depended on it, because of course it does, will be too erratic for the system to lead. Meanwhile, the attacking human also needs to maneuver even if just to give the targeting system a likely shot. The interplay of unpredictable systems: one, human, the other, automatic must make the attacker’s job infinitely difficult unless his prey is stable, like a bomber formation.
2 Likes
Like, in any case I think it’s never going to be done, so my soul rest at peace.
THAT said given all the stabilization technology available I really think it would be not just feasible but in the specific case of Hypothetical conflict and “We have it, they don’t”- the first engagements would be absolutely a one-sided slaughter.
1 Like
Maybe some pilots would be… I’ve seen too many insanely accurate shots on vid from CIWS, goalkeeper, Phalanx, C/RAM. My money’s on the robots.
I’d guess, the required combination of warhead, muzzle velocity, fire rate that a Vulcan provides is hard to combine with large gimbal movement. WW2 plane and gun tech with modern day guidance would have been epic.
2 Likes
In time frame that’s from (the 1950’s) I think it would be workable. Taken from Grumman F9F-3 Panther (joebaugher.com)
In the summer of 1950, a re-engined F9F-3 (BuNo 122562) was fitted with an experimental electro-hydraulically driven Emerson Aero X17A roll-traverse turret housing four 0.50-inch machine guns. The guns could be directed at any angle from directly forward to 20 degrees aft, and the gun mount could be rolled the full 360 degrees in either direction. The turret could roll at a rate of 100 degrees per second, and the guns could be traversed at up to 200 degrees per second. Although the tests with the turret went fairly well, delays in the development of the associated radar and fire control system led to the project being cancelled in early 1954.
With roll and traverse rates that high, the main limiting factor would be the gimble in the radar being able to keep up and stay locked on target. Modern electronically scanned radars remove this problem. Also with modern computing, it’s possible to calculate the available movements of the target as physics dictates what they can do at any given energy state, reducing the technical demands on the T&E mechanism.
Barrel length and what it would do to the aerodynamics of the firing aircraft for forward firing I think is the issue. Putting it in a tail turret of a very large aircraft, like a B-52 handles most of these issues.
B-52H Stratofortress: M61A1 Vulcan & AN/ASG-21 Fire Control System (youtube.com)
2 Likes
Ooof, someone pulled a Wilson.
1 Like