Всё
← Back to Squawk list
Dutch F-16 flies into its own bullets, scores self-inflicted hits
The Netherlands’ Defense Safety Inspection Agency (Inspectie Veiligheid Defensie) is investigating an incident during a January military exercise in which a Dutch Air Force F-16 was damaged by live fire from a 20-millimeter cannon—its own 20-millimeter cannon. At least one round fired from the aircraft’s M61A1 Vulcan Gatling gun struck the aircraft as it fired at targets on the Dutch military’s Vliehors range on the island of Vlieland, according to a report from the Netherlands’ NOS news… (arstechnica.com) Ещё...Sort type: [Top] [Newest]
"Faster than a speeding bullet"
And I thought I would be the first.
That is possible in most any fighter. We were warned or told about it with the F-4.
That was the guy that shot himself down?
Most any >supersonic< fighter, maybe. To do that in a sub-sonic jet you would have to fire at a very high angle and try to fly to where the projectiles will be coming back down in time. It is straightforward ballistics. To the best of my knowledge, all the aircraft that have actually impacted projectiles they themselves fired have done so in the transonic domain, literally "outrunning their bullets".
I'm not familiar with any fighter aircraft currently in the inventory of modern air forces that -isn't- supersonic.
Young whippersnapper. Gunslinging dogfights happen in the subsonic domain, target acquisition and tracking at supersonic speeds makes missiles far more effective in that domain. Moreover, air to mud (ground support) demands performance at slow speeds. Specific examples? USAF A-10 Warthog is still in service, Russia has the YAK-130. There are even prop driven turbine powered P-51 derivatives being sold to smaller airforces around the world. I met an A-10 jockey who had volunteered to transition from F-16s to Warthogs. He was adamant that with comparable target acquisition and tracking avionics, he would be happy to take on any version of F-35 with his A-10.
Perhaps we were talking about two different things. I read your post to mean that this phenomenon was limited to supersonic-capable fighter aircraft. To which I responded that *all* fighter aircraft in the stables of modern air forces are supersonic-capable. And I agree with your statements about air-to-air in the subsonic regime. But small air forces fielding turboprop fighters are not modern air forces, to be sure. Further, A-10's, YAK-130's, SU-25's, etc., while not supersonic-capable, are not fighter aircraft either, they are attack aircraft--a very important distinction to this Naval Attack Jet Aviator ;-)
Sorry, clumsy English is ambiguous. I was >thinking< I was adding the word "supersonic" to Mark Ryalls assertion "any fighter" could outrun its bullets... And yes I brought up attack aircraft to lead into the assertion by my USAF acquaintance that he would happily enter a furball with the latest generation fighters IF he could limit the fight to guns and have the ability to "see" commensurate to theirs [level the playing field]. I took his remark to be confidence in the maneuverability of the A-10 and its gun. I also firmly believe the performance envelope superior for an aerial gunfight is remarkably similar to that superior for close air support.
I have the utmost respect for Naval Aviators.
I have the utmost respect for Naval Aviators.