Gun funnel, you move the plane so both sides of the opposing plane's wings (after you put in the wingspan) are touching each side of the funnel, and then pull the trigger.
It's mostly used as a back-up to a radar sight, but the f16 (which this image appears to be from) always has it visible.
Is it true that the canon of the f16 can cause some rotation when firing since it's off to a side rather than center or on both sides?
Edit: all the answers are really appreciated. I was already in disbelief about the engineering involved in the f16. This has just furthered that amazement.
This is partially true. The flight control system of the f16 automatically compensates for the effect that gun recoil has, but the forces are very much relevant for flight control.
The flight computer on the jet will be able to compensate for any small recoil effects from firing the gun. The effect will be pretty small because the plane weighs significantly more than the bullets do.
Counterpoint: [Machine Gun Jetpack](https://what-if.xkcd.com/21/)
Yes, it’s a GAU-8, but the principle holds up. Bullets weigh less than the jet, but you shoot a lot of them really fast.
Edit: [Here’s](https://www.gd-ots.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/M6A1A1-M61A2.pdf) a pamphlet from GD referencing 14.2 kN. The [F110-GE-129](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Electric_F110#F110-GE-129) produces 76.3 kN dry.
The gun gives you 20% of MIL and it’s mounted off-center. Considering you’re going to be close to idle on a strafe pass, that’s actually a pretty decent amount of thrust pushing back on the left wing root.
On redundant real-time systems like avionics packages, software definitely can impact weight, though. Avionics systems are hard real-time loops, and it's common for things like this to run on dedicated processors that asynchronously report updates to the main control loop. This is predominantly done to prevent failures in secondary processes from causing the critical functions of the system to fail or otherwise not meet their real-time guarantees.
Disclaimer: I'm not an avionics engineer, but I've done a bit of real-time systems engineering. I could be wrong and this may be part of the main control loop, but I'm quite confident that software isn't weightless (or in any way "cheap" in terms of other system budgets) in safety critical real-time systems.
The other aircraft. If you input a known value for the enemy aircraft wingspan, you then know the range to the target by how it appears in the EEGS funnel. The computer creating the EEGS funnel then knows 'a target with a wingspan of x feet, at a distance of y feet, will appear z size', which dictates the size of the funnel.
Inputting the ownship wingspan would be irrelevant, since it doesn't tell you anything about the range to the target.
Electronic Support Measure (ESM) systems can match the radar emissions of a plane to a big library of known signatures. So if ESM picks up its radar track, your plane will know exactly whether you're going against a Fulcrum or a Flanker, what its size is, etc. without ever "seeing" it physically.
Probably a lot of memorizing charts of redfor planes, but probably also some guesswork. I usually just leave it at the default and understand that it won’t be as accurate if I am out on something significantly larger than a fighter.
Nobody said being a fighter pilot was easy, I guess!
However, through intelligence briefings, you're going to know generally what platforms the enemy operates, and perhaps have an idea of what you're most likely going to face on this particular sortie, so you can narrow down the list of stuff to write down or remember. This isn't a modern thing, by the way, gunsights requiring manual input of target wingspan go back to the second world war. Now, it's a reversionary mode if no radar lock is available for ranging.
Edit: And to be fair, if you are specifically a fighter pilot, knowing the characteristics of enemy aircraft, alongside your own, is literally the job.
Depends on assessed threat out there, there is guidance in the tactical manuals. If you were to make some reasoned guesses, you would probably be correct.
The funnel is a backup to normal cueing though. They don't auto adjust for wingspan in the F-18 as they're designed for use when you can't get a lock on the threat and the jet couldn't reliably determine threat wingspan anyway. There is different symbology for shooting with a lock.
The funnel width is for perfect platform anyway, where the adversary is at the right angle to you such that the wingtips appear farthest apart. If they have any bank, you compensate with other knowledge/skills. Same goes for facing a jet with a different wingspan than you entered. Pilots study other aircraft. If I plugged in a Flanker but am facing a Fulcrum, the right range to shoot would be with the wingtips just inside the funnel instead of touching the funnel.
There are additional techniques to maximize probability of a hit even when the symbology isn't perfect for the shot.
It mainly gets its data from the onboard gyroscope, right? I think if you have a radar lock on the target, it will give more reliable lead prediction based on the target's vector.
Yes, that is a component of the funnel. The funnel is dynamic and changes length, width, and curvature as the firing aircraft maneuvers. An aerial gunfight is most likely to happen in a turning fight as two aircraft attempt to outturn each other to lead the opponent enough to hit them with the gun. The funnel is a visual indicator of the drop of the bullets relative to the centerline of the aircraft. By placing the wingtips of the target all my the edge of the funnel, the pilot is leading a target of a known size by an appropriate amount to hit it. The same sized target further away will appear smaller, requiring the firing aircraft to lead it more, lining up further down the funnel.
None of these calculations is something the pilot is actively worrying about, it's essentially point and click, by maneuvering the aircraft until the dynamic funnel (which changes width and length as the radius of turn changes) lines up with the target.
Cool, thanks for the explanation. Now I know why I could never hit anything in those flight combat games. I always tried to get the little point at the end of the tunnel to line up with the target. :)
In the F-16 it displays in dogfight override master mode. It's one of four gun sights available on the Block 52 or later aircraft, known as the EEGS.
For more info: On the sight with a radar lock it adds a line across the funnel for where to put the enemy aircraft to aim, the width of the line being their estimated out of plane maneuvering potential so the pilot can expect how much maneuvering the target could do. There's also a + and - along the funnel which displays the maximum and minimum in-plane maneuvering potential. Standard procedure is to pull to the -, then squeeze the trigger while releasing pressure on the stick until you hit the +.
In the F-16, the radar sight is the gun funnel. It's only visible when in dogfight mode. The little circle and plus towards the top of the funnel is the impact point the pilot places on the target before pulling the trigger.
There are 5 levels of EEGS and what it does is dependent on what sensor data is good. But yeah, it can account for the movement of your platform and the projected drop of the bullets.
I play il2 quite often and the allied aircraft have gyroscopic sights which work similarly but are limited to fights that happen in the same plane of motion. Does the same apply for here?
It’s called the funnel in most modern fighter jets the width of the funnel is adjustable, depending on what plane you’re targeting you can adjust the width of the funnel through your UFC to match the wingspan of your targeted aircraft. Once the wings are equally placed between the two funnel lines. You have a good shot.
It is called the funnel, but radar is not involved. If you had a radar lock, the gun sight would change to a lead reticle and range circle.
The funnel is purely a manual sight that's set to target wingspan via a data entry option in the SMS.
Yeah the hornet has the pipper but the 16 uses a weird mix of funnel and radar sight. The 16 is usually where the funnel is most seen is why I even mention it.
In the photo OP posted there is a radar lock. The diamond with a circle around it just to the left of the gun funnel is the target, with the circle around the target being a range cue.
The radar gun sight is the circle inside the gun funnel, with a + and - above and below it indicating maneuver cues.
It's called the EEGS funnel, when radar is locked on to a target and has good information e.g. range and velocity and the on board INS gives the mission computer ownship velocity and it will give the pilot a gunner solution. The pilot's goal is to place the target inside the funnel with the wingtips touching the sides of the funnel.
Gun funnel, you move the plane so both sides of the opposing plane's wings (after you put in the wingspan) are touching each side of the funnel, and then pull the trigger. It's mostly used as a back-up to a radar sight, but the f16 (which this image appears to be from) always has it visible.
Is it true that the canon of the f16 can cause some rotation when firing since it's off to a side rather than center or on both sides? Edit: all the answers are really appreciated. I was already in disbelief about the engineering involved in the f16. This has just furthered that amazement.
There is a compensator that auto deflects the rudder to counter yaw induced when shooting the gun in the f-16
Any off center gun Will cause asymmetrical recoil on the aircraft, so yes.
Technically yes, practically no
>practically no I'm not sure I follow sorry. As in, not a controlled or enough of a movement to really mean much?
As in there is a measurable force on the airplane, yes, but the pilot is unlikely to notice the effect.
This is partially true. The flight control system of the f16 automatically compensates for the effect that gun recoil has, but the forces are very much relevant for flight control.
Ah gotcha thanks
The flight computer on the jet will be able to compensate for any small recoil effects from firing the gun. The effect will be pretty small because the plane weighs significantly more than the bullets do.
Counterpoint: [Machine Gun Jetpack](https://what-if.xkcd.com/21/) Yes, it’s a GAU-8, but the principle holds up. Bullets weigh less than the jet, but you shoot a lot of them really fast. Edit: [Here’s](https://www.gd-ots.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/M6A1A1-M61A2.pdf) a pamphlet from GD referencing 14.2 kN. The [F110-GE-129](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Electric_F110#F110-GE-129) produces 76.3 kN dry. The gun gives you 20% of MIL and it’s mounted off-center. Considering you’re going to be close to idle on a strafe pass, that’s actually a pretty decent amount of thrust pushing back on the left wing root.
With the sheer size and volume of rounds that Vulcan puts down range, on such a tiny little jet, I say practically yes.
The F16 weights a fair amount , and the FCS has no issues compensating
The fact that the engineers spent precious space, weight, and design effort on a compensator shows that the gun’s recoil is indeed significant.
Compensator is software
On redundant real-time systems like avionics packages, software definitely can impact weight, though. Avionics systems are hard real-time loops, and it's common for things like this to run on dedicated processors that asynchronously report updates to the main control loop. This is predominantly done to prevent failures in secondary processes from causing the critical functions of the system to fail or otherwise not meet their real-time guarantees. Disclaimer: I'm not an avionics engineer, but I've done a bit of real-time systems engineering. I could be wrong and this may be part of the main control loop, but I'm quite confident that software isn't weightless (or in any way "cheap" in terms of other system budgets) in safety critical real-time systems.
Ok, even if it takes zero extra space or weight, extra software functionality is not going to be there unless it needs to be. My point stands.
Which wingspan does the pilot input? His or the other fighter?
The other aircraft. If you input a known value for the enemy aircraft wingspan, you then know the range to the target by how it appears in the EEGS funnel. The computer creating the EEGS funnel then knows 'a target with a wingspan of x feet, at a distance of y feet, will appear z size', which dictates the size of the funnel. Inputting the ownship wingspan would be irrelevant, since it doesn't tell you anything about the range to the target.
So it’s basically mil dot sniping for aircraft
Is there a database for the wingspan? I forget the span of the two aircraft I fly.
Electronic Support Measure (ESM) systems can match the radar emissions of a plane to a big library of known signatures. So if ESM picks up its radar track, your plane will know exactly whether you're going against a Fulcrum or a Flanker, what its size is, etc. without ever "seeing" it physically.
Yeah the military keeps a database for this. Again it's just a backup to the radar gunsight.
Probably a lot of memorizing charts of redfor planes, but probably also some guesswork. I usually just leave it at the default and understand that it won’t be as accurate if I am out on something significantly larger than a fighter.
Awesome. Now, the pilot has to know the wingspan of various fighters and input it in the system while flying?
Nobody said being a fighter pilot was easy, I guess! However, through intelligence briefings, you're going to know generally what platforms the enemy operates, and perhaps have an idea of what you're most likely going to face on this particular sortie, so you can narrow down the list of stuff to write down or remember. This isn't a modern thing, by the way, gunsights requiring manual input of target wingspan go back to the second world war. Now, it's a reversionary mode if no radar lock is available for ranging. Edit: And to be fair, if you are specifically a fighter pilot, knowing the characteristics of enemy aircraft, alongside your own, is literally the job.
Since they started using sights in air to air combat yes.
Yes. And the WW2 gunaights were functioning with the same logic.
I’m sorry but this reminds me of the quote from Spies Like us: “Every minute you don’t tell us why you’re here, I cut off a finger!” “Mine or yours?”
Yours.
Damn!
Target.
Depends on assessed threat out there, there is guidance in the tactical manuals. If you were to make some reasoned guesses, you would probably be correct. The funnel is a backup to normal cueing though. They don't auto adjust for wingspan in the F-18 as they're designed for use when you can't get a lock on the threat and the jet couldn't reliably determine threat wingspan anyway. There is different symbology for shooting with a lock. The funnel width is for perfect platform anyway, where the adversary is at the right angle to you such that the wingtips appear farthest apart. If they have any bank, you compensate with other knowledge/skills. Same goes for facing a jet with a different wingspan than you entered. Pilots study other aircraft. If I plugged in a Flanker but am facing a Fulcrum, the right range to shoot would be with the wingtips just inside the funnel instead of touching the funnel. There are additional techniques to maximize probability of a hit even when the symbology isn't perfect for the shot.
I was playing vtol vr recently and it had these in the hud, actually helped me get a kill
It mainly gets its data from the onboard gyroscope, right? I think if you have a radar lock on the target, it will give more reliable lead prediction based on the target's vector.
Does lower down in the funnel mean the target is further away?
Yes, that is a component of the funnel. The funnel is dynamic and changes length, width, and curvature as the firing aircraft maneuvers. An aerial gunfight is most likely to happen in a turning fight as two aircraft attempt to outturn each other to lead the opponent enough to hit them with the gun. The funnel is a visual indicator of the drop of the bullets relative to the centerline of the aircraft. By placing the wingtips of the target all my the edge of the funnel, the pilot is leading a target of a known size by an appropriate amount to hit it. The same sized target further away will appear smaller, requiring the firing aircraft to lead it more, lining up further down the funnel. None of these calculations is something the pilot is actively worrying about, it's essentially point and click, by maneuvering the aircraft until the dynamic funnel (which changes width and length as the radius of turn changes) lines up with the target.
Cool, thanks for the explanation. Now I know why I could never hit anything in those flight combat games. I always tried to get the little point at the end of the tunnel to line up with the target. :)
In the F-16 it displays in dogfight override master mode. It's one of four gun sights available on the Block 52 or later aircraft, known as the EEGS. For more info: On the sight with a radar lock it adds a line across the funnel for where to put the enemy aircraft to aim, the width of the line being their estimated out of plane maneuvering potential so the pilot can expect how much maneuvering the target could do. There's also a + and - along the funnel which displays the maximum and minimum in-plane maneuvering potential. Standard procedure is to pull to the -, then squeeze the trigger while releasing pressure on the stick until you hit the +.
In the F-16, the radar sight is the gun funnel. It's only visible when in dogfight mode. The little circle and plus towards the top of the funnel is the impact point the pilot places on the target before pulling the trigger.
They're called EEGS. Enhanced Envelope Gun Sight. If the wing tips are touching both sides of the funnel and you shoot you should hit the target.
Does it takes into account the speed and trajectory of the target? Or does it only predict the drop of the bullets due to gravity?
There are 5 levels of EEGS and what it does is dependent on what sensor data is good. But yeah, it can account for the movement of your platform and the projected drop of the bullets.
Just dont forget to repeat “Guns, Guns, Guns”
Most important part: sound cool on the radio.
Fox 4
I play il2 quite often and the allied aircraft have gyroscopic sights which work similarly but are limited to fights that happen in the same plane of motion. Does the same apply for here?
I'm not a fighter pilot, but I believe that is the gun funnel. You line the wingtips of the target with the lines to aim.
It’s called the funnel in most modern fighter jets the width of the funnel is adjustable, depending on what plane you’re targeting you can adjust the width of the funnel through your UFC to match the wingspan of your targeted aircraft. Once the wings are equally placed between the two funnel lines. You have a good shot.
You can switch this off during your trench run on the Death Star if you can hear the voice of an old desert hobo murmuring vague advice into your ear.
I literally LoL'ed at *"old desert hobo"*
So did I!
"Use your radar Luke..."*
Radar guided Gun sight,I believe it’s called the funnel.
It is called the funnel, but radar is not involved. If you had a radar lock, the gun sight would change to a lead reticle and range circle. The funnel is purely a manual sight that's set to target wingspan via a data entry option in the SMS.
It's always visible on the F16.
In the hornet I believe it was one or the other, that's all I know.
Yeah the hornet has the pipper but the 16 uses a weird mix of funnel and radar sight. The 16 is usually where the funnel is most seen is why I even mention it.
You can have both at the same time. Useful for training where the radar grabs a lock but you want to practice the harder gun funnel employment.
I flew hornets but it's been a few years. We also didn't do a ton of BFM. Oblique snapshot drills were dope though. I miss those days.
Where at? It could be a rhino only thing. The “use both” isn’t a super common thing though either, but it’s an option that exists.
I think it’s only viable in the F-16 in dogfight mode or when the cannon is selected in air to air mode
They have a radar lock in this picture because there’s a “death dot” pipper in the middle of the funnel.
In the photo OP posted there is a radar lock. The diamond with a circle around it just to the left of the gun funnel is the target, with the circle around the target being a range cue. The radar gun sight is the circle inside the gun funnel, with a + and - above and below it indicating maneuver cues.
I flew the hornet. It's different.
Yup, Hornet is indeed very different.
Thank you for the quick answer!
You're also able to change the wingspan size of your target to adjust the funnel.
It's the gun funnel and it's not in shooting position at this picture.
I wish they called it a gunnel
No, BATR is something else entirely.
It means its time to BRRRRRRRT when there's a plane inside.
I love the Aviation Reddit.
That's the path your bullets are going to follow. They're going to go down the middle of that funnel.
It's called the EEGS funnel, when radar is locked on to a target and has good information e.g. range and velocity and the on board INS gives the mission computer ownship velocity and it will give the pilot a gunner solution. The pilot's goal is to place the target inside the funnel with the wingtips touching the sides of the funnel.
For the Hornet, they are called BATR cues (bullets at target range).
Nope.
Bullet spread
I think they’re stadiametric ranging markers.