how come fighter planes never had spinning turrets like bombers did?
would the extra weight and aerodynamic loss really not have been worth it?
one would think that having to be flying directly towards what you are shooting at would be a pretty big hinderance
the british tried one
downsides:
>slow
>heavy
>expensive
>couldn't actually hit shit because leading a target that isn't moving towards or away from you is very hard
't actually hit shit because leading a target that isn't moving towards or away from you is very hard
I feel like ai targeting is the solution to that. It's probably going to be put on boats or planes first since the environment they operate in is much less complex in terms of what it's seeing. A ground gun needs to learn all the everyday objects while an air or sea one mostly just has sky, water, dirt, or the target.
As an aside, It's going to be neat to see how the Geneva convention applies to autonomous warfare. The manpower shortage isn't going away, so I'd expect the military is going to double and triple down on drone technology. It wouldn't surprise me if we start seeing wars where only one side is actually taking human casualties while the other is just churning out toasters in the near future. A scenario like that would raise some moral dilemmas since only one side would be fighting for survival while the other was just managing spreadsheets
you know what else is the solution to that? a small radar and some vacuum tubes.
do you really think autonomous tracking and lead calculation didn't exist prior to what, 2017? thank you nvidia for inventing proportional navigation with the 3090ti.
>thank you nvidia for inventing proportional navigation with the 3090ti.
Kekked
i mean the problem with cannons is that they have one singular impulse of acceleration which is limited by the characteristics of the barrel/chamber. in an environment with air drag, such as earth, you have to deal with range, cross velocity (i forget the exact name for this but basically the rate at which the object is going left/right and towards/away from you, range rate?), drag on the projectile, future movements, etc which puts a major limitation on the effective range your cannon can achieve.
the b-52 had a radar guided tail gun and it was basically useless post 1960 because all interceptors had missiles, there was no reason to put proximity fuzes on the cannon rounds to enable interception of said missiles, and any interceptor would just launch missiles beyond the range of the cannon.
>ai target
You're a 70 IQ retard who doesn't know about radar and basic ballistic computations.
There is no automagical solution to dumbfire aiming and its limitations.
>I feel like ai targeting is the solution to that.
You know the interesting thing about problems is that they don't really care what you feel like their solution is.
>I feel like ai targeting is the solution
So in that case you should ask the AI chatbot for a more sophisticated answer and have a deep discussion with it. You probably won't find validation of your thoughts here on the Mongolian underwater basket weaving forum.
BTW, the things you expect here as AI miracles. Those were already solved in the 50s in the within fire control computers (e.g. B-29) and targetting radars...
And even in period of 60's there were some even practical concepts of said turrets and moving guns on fighters/interceptors. And this technology is not used today anyway.
AI targeting, in WWII. I guess bongloids could have used some street shitters from ass end of the empire for shitty bots.
DI, dove intelligence, was available in world war 2
have a nice day retard
Average PrepHolehomosexual everyone
You should feel ashamed for this post. Return to whatever cave you emerged from.
This post is actually impressive in how bad it is. If this was meant to be bait, it's some of the best I've seen in awhile.
>Z**mers
The defiant?
And the Blackburn Roc
1. tail turrets are useless
2. torpedo bombers were the closets thing
they tried turret fighters
it didn't work
shits heavy and performance suffered
bolton paul defiant/blackburn roc
they did. the turret fighter was experimented with but didn't work as well as just using heavy fighters in the same role. this plane got converted into night fighters for bombing interception because they were not good in the day time against fighters
The turret tech wasn't very good back when gun duels were relevant, and now that the turret tech is good enough gun duels are irrelevant.
>how come fighter planes never had spinning turrets like bombers did?
They had. See Defiant and Blackburn Roc. Both performed abysimaly. In that regard, turret fighters are a version of twin engine heavy fighters that were a fad during the interbellum, or the "air cruisers" (armored bombers with extra turrets and no bombload to escort bombing missions): great idea on paper that sucked IRL. Twin engine fighters were kinda sorta ok but were outclassed by single engine ones (except Lightning) and were not worth the trouble, and "air cruisers" in practice could only effectively protect themselves and were much slower than bombers without the payload on the way back for all the extra armor. Fighters had to maneuver actively and engage in dogfights, and for that, turret was a liability.
>would the extra weight and aerodynamic loss really not have been worth it?
Yes.
some of the heavy fighters did
it's very heavy and not that effective
turrets barely did anything to help bombers
Problem fixed gun installation has much more firepower with the same weight and bulk and more dakka wins the day.
While most A2A kills were from the rear, there were plenty of cases where the planes were hit from above, the sides, or the front. The turret was also quite bulky and meant you needed a bigger plane without more effective firepower.
They did you idiot
>weight etc
Yes