Best dogfight gun?

On 10 Dec 2003 12:56:12 -0800, (Tony Williams) wrote:

Alan Minyard wrote in message . ..
On 9 Dec 2003 13:40:45 -0800, (Tony Williams) wrote:

Alan Minyard wrote in message . ..
And who out there is going to use significant numbers of unreliable, heavy, slow
cannon to oppose a US Force? The rate of fire of the .50 was not enough to
make up for the somewhat smaller calibre, that is not the case with the M-61.

Possibly, possibly not. The bigger the target is, the more damage you
have to inflict to down it. A MiG-15 weighed under 3,800 kg empty, a
Su-27 around 18,000 kg - nearly five times as much. A 20mm shell
weighs only just over twice as much as a .50 bullet. You can double
its effectiveness in recognition of the HEI content, but even so you
are still left with a pretty even match between the .5/MiG-15 and
20mm/Su-27 in terms of destructive effect compared with target weight.

Are you familiar with the concept of guided missiles? If you get into gun range
you have already screwed the pooch. The gun is a last ditch, desperation
weapon in ACM, wasting airframe volume and weight on a honking great,
slow, unreliable gun is not a wise trade off.

Guided missiles? Now that you mention it, I have heard something about
them - but IIRC this thread is all about guns.

Your post seems to imply that you think that anything bigger than a
20mm is by definition bulky, heavy, slow-firing and unreliable. Well,
lets take the M61A1 as the standard, shall we? It weighs 114 kg, and
is very bulky because there are six barrels which all need room to
spin. Then, because it fires its little shells so fast (and you need
to hit with a lot of them to have the desired effect) it needs a big
ammunition capacity, with a big magazine - much more space and weight.
In fact, the magazine and ammo feed weigh about as much as the gun,
and the full load of ammo typically weighs the same again.

Now let's look at the opposition. The 'European standard' 27mm Mauser
BK 27, selected over any US gun by the JSF contenders

That has changed. The Mouser is out.

, weighs 100 kg
and uses much less space (only one barrel). The ammo is bigger, but
less of it is needed because it's much more effective.

And I suppose that you have verifiable combat records to support this??

For a bit more
weight (120 kg) you can get a GIAT 30M791 which is equally powerful
and can fire up to 2,500 rpm. Both of these guns hit their top speed
instantly, unlike the M61.

The spin up of the M-61 is so minor as to not be an issue, ask the
people who have used them.

Look to Russia and things get even more
interesting:

If you consider bankruptcy interesting.

the GSh-30 weighs 105 kg and fires powerful 30mm ammo at
up to 3,000 rpm (again, instantly). The little GSh-301 used in the
MiG-29 and Su-27 only fires at 1,500-1,800 rpm (instantly) but weighs
a trivial 45 kg and is tiny by comparison with the M61. If you really
want firepower, then there's the GSh-6-30 which fires the same,
powerful, 30mm ammo at around 5,000 rpm for just 160 kg. I admit that
is heavier than an M61, but it's hardly any bigger and has several
times the firepower.

There is no evidence that it works, much less its firepower, accuracy, etc.


There is a legitimate debate about whether fighter guns are needed
anymore, given the much improved performance of guided missiles. I am
willing to argue that on several grounds, and am supported by the fact
that despite all the high-tech gee-whizz weaponry used recently in
Afghanistan and Iraq, US fighters were still using their guns in
circumstances where nothing else was suitable. If you're going to
retain a gun, it might as well be the best you can get. The price,
space and weight costs are negligible as a fraction of a modern
fighter.

Tony Williams
Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk
Discussion forum at: http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/

Your anti-US bias is noted. The best is the M-61.

Al Minyard

On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 09:29:33 -0600, Alan Minyard
wrote:

On 10 Dec 2003 12:56:12 -0800, (Tony Williams) wrote:

Alan Minyard wrote in message . ..
On 9 Dec 2003 13:40:45 -0800, (Tony Williams) wrote:

Alan Minyard wrote in message . ..
And who out there is going to use significant numbers of unreliable, heavy, slow
cannon to oppose a US Force? The rate of fire of the .50 was not enough to
make up for the somewhat smaller calibre, that is not the case with the M-61.

Possibly, possibly not. The bigger the target is, the more damage you
have to inflict to down it. A MiG-15 weighed under 3,800 kg empty, a
Su-27 around 18,000 kg - nearly five times as much. A 20mm shell
weighs only just over twice as much as a .50 bullet. You can double
its effectiveness in recognition of the HEI content, but even so you
are still left with a pretty even match between the .5/MiG-15 and
20mm/Su-27 in terms of destructive effect compared with target weight.

Are you familiar with the concept of guided missiles? If you get into gun range
you have already screwed the pooch. The gun is a last ditch, desperation
weapon in ACM, wasting airframe volume and weight on a honking great,
slow, unreliable gun is not a wise trade off.

Guided missiles? Now that you mention it, I have heard something about
them - but IIRC this thread is all about guns.

Your post seems to imply that you think that anything bigger than a
20mm is by definition bulky, heavy, slow-firing and unreliable. Well,
lets take the M61A1 as the standard, shall we? It weighs 114 kg, and
is very bulky because there are six barrels which all need room to
spin. Then, because it fires its little shells so fast (and you need
to hit with a lot of them to have the desired effect) it needs a big
ammunition capacity, with a big magazine - much more space and weight.
In fact, the magazine and ammo feed weigh about as much as the gun,
and the full load of ammo typically weighs the same again.

Now let's look at the opposition. The 'European standard' 27mm Mauser
BK 27, selected over any US gun by the JSF contenders

That has changed. The Mouser is out.

, weighs 100 kg
and uses much less space (only one barrel). The ammo is bigger, but
less of it is needed because it's much more effective.

And I suppose that you have verifiable combat records to support this??

For a bit more
weight (120 kg) you can get a GIAT 30M791 which is equally powerful
and can fire up to 2,500 rpm. Both of these guns hit their top speed
instantly, unlike the M61.

The spin up of the M-61 is so minor as to not be an issue, ask the
people who have used them.

Look to Russia and things get even more
interesting:

If you consider bankruptcy interesting.

the GSh-30 weighs 105 kg and fires powerful 30mm ammo at
up to 3,000 rpm (again, instantly). The little GSh-301 used in the
MiG-29 and Su-27 only fires at 1,500-1,800 rpm (instantly) but weighs
a trivial 45 kg and is tiny by comparison with the M61. If you really
want firepower, then there's the GSh-6-30 which fires the same,
powerful, 30mm ammo at around 5,000 rpm for just 160 kg. I admit that
is heavier than an M61, but it's hardly any bigger and has several
times the firepower.

There is no evidence that it works, much less its firepower, accuracy, etc.


There is a legitimate debate about whether fighter guns are needed
anymore, given the much improved performance of guided missiles. I am
willing to argue that on several grounds, and am supported by the fact
that despite all the high-tech gee-whizz weaponry used recently in
Afghanistan and Iraq, US fighters were still using their guns in
circumstances where nothing else was suitable. If you're going to
retain a gun, it might as well be the best you can get. The price,
space and weight costs are negligible as a fraction of a modern
fighter.

Tony Williams
Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk
Discussion forum at: http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/

Your anti-US bias is noted. The best is the M-61.

Al Minyard

Ummmmm. I think you are being very critical without much actual
logical rhetoric about the points put forward considering the person
you are criticising.

Tony writes reference works on automatic canons and firearms and has
spent ages collecting and documenting just about everything you may
want to know, especially with regards to aerial cannon and ammunition.
If you are going to make declerative statements about his points, at
least elaborate so we can have a proper discussion.

While Tony does often put forward raw stats in comments, these do work
for many comparrisons. A lighter cannon that throws heavier ammunition
at faster speeds and with similar or better reliability does tend to
'win' arguments. Of course a m61 will still do damage but what if the
engagement is fleeting and you can only get 2 or 3 rounds on target. I
would prefer them to be 30mm rather than 20mm based simply on HE
content expectations. If it happens to come from a lighter gun then
thats all the better.

In article ,
(Paul Krenske) wrote:

While Tony does often put forward raw stats in comments, these do work
for many comparrisons. A lighter cannon that throws heavier ammunition
at faster speeds and with similar or better reliability does tend to
'win' arguments. Of course a m61 will still do damage but what if the
engagement is fleeting and you can only get 2 or 3 rounds on target.

That's the point, though. If the M61 could only get two or three rounds
on target, the slower-firing 30mm Mauser could only expect to get one.
If the Mauser gets two or three, the Gatling gets six to ten.

A bigger gatling-type (the Russian one mentioned earlier in the thread)
would also be a good thing, but you're running into recoil and
ammunition mass issues at that point.

The recent move to 25mm for the Gatling is a compromise in the "more
damage per shot" trend, but still keeps the "more holes in the other
guy" philosophy.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

"Chad Irby" wrote:
| In article ,
| (Paul Krenske) wrote:
|
| While Tony does often put forward raw stats in comments, these do
work
| for many comparrisons. A lighter cannon that throws heavier
ammunition
| at faster speeds and with similar or better reliability does tend to
| 'win' arguments. Of course a m61 will still do damage but what if
the
| engagement is fleeting and you can only get 2 or 3 rounds on target.
|
| That's the point, though. If the M61 could only get two or three
rounds
| on target, the slower-firing 30mm Mauser could only expect to get one.
| If the Mauser gets two or three, the Gatling gets six to ten.

In the first second of operation the 27mm Mauser will discharge 28 260gm
projectiles. The 25mm GAU-12/U in the AV8B in the same time will only
discharge 35 180gm projectiles. In the first half second the 27mm Mauser
will discharge 13-14 projectiles, the GAU-12/U in the AV8B is still
"thinking" about firing its 14 projectile. The comment for the JSF is
that an improved derivative of GAU-12/U will be used but no figures are
quoted for what improvements, if any are expected.

In article ,
"Brett" wrote:

"Chad Irby" wrote:

| That's the point, though. If the M61 could only get two or three
| rounds on target, the slower-firing 30mm Mauser could only expect
| to get one. If the Mauser gets two or three, the Gatling gets six
| to ten.

In the first second of operation the 27mm Mauser will discharge 28 260gm
projectiles. The 25mm GAU-12/U in the AV8B in the same time will only
discharge 35 180gm projectiles.

....and after four or five one-second shots, the Mauser will be out,
while the GAU will have three or four left.

Or, using half-second bursts, the Mauser will have about one-*quarter*
the firing time...

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

"Chad Irby" wrote:
| In article ,
| "Brett" wrote:
|
| "Chad Irby" wrote:
|
| | That's the point, though. If the M61 could only get two or three
| | rounds on target, the slower-firing 30mm Mauser could only expect
| | to get one. If the Mauser gets two or three, the Gatling gets six
| | to ten.
|
| In the first second of operation the 27mm Mauser will discharge 28
260gm
| projectiles. The 25mm GAU-12/U in the AV8B in the same time will
only
| discharge 35 180gm projectiles.
|
| ...and after four or five one-second shots, the Mauser will be out,
| while the GAU will have three or four left.
|
| Or, using half-second bursts, the Mauser will have about one-*quarter*
| the firing time...

Your original claim was the advantage enjoyed by the gatling from the
much larger the number of projectiles sent in the direction of the
target when required, if it is actually sending less the advantage
should belong to the Mauser.

In article ,
"Brett" wrote:

Your original claim was the advantage enjoyed by the gatling from the
much larger the number of projectiles sent in the direction of the
target when required, if it is actually sending less the advantage
should belong to the Mauser.

Only for very short bursts. Longer ones, it's even, and you can hold
sustained fire for longer overall.

So instead of trying to hit another plane with a half-second burst five
different times before the bullets run out (like the Mauser), or a full
one-second burst the same number of times (with the Gatling).

Or you could just empty the gun, and put four times as many bullets on
target in the same burst.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

Chad Irby wrote in
:

The recent move to 25mm for the Gatling is a compromise in the
"more damage per shot" trend, but still keeps the "more holes in
the other guy" philosophy.

I think it speaks well of the modesty of the M61 compared
to both the GAU12 and BK27.


Regards..

On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 22:16:33 GMT, (Paul Krenske) wrote:

On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 09:29:33 -0600, Alan Minyard
wrote:

On 10 Dec 2003 12:56:12 -0800, (Tony Williams) wrote:

Alan Minyard wrote in message . ..
On 9 Dec 2003 13:40:45 -0800, (Tony Williams) wrote:

Alan Minyard wrote in message . ..
And who out there is going to use significant numbers of unreliable, heavy, slow
cannon to oppose a US Force? The rate of fire of the .50 was not enough to
make up for the somewhat smaller calibre, that is not the case with the M-61.

Possibly, possibly not. The bigger the target is, the more damage you
have to inflict to down it. A MiG-15 weighed under 3,800 kg empty, a
Su-27 around 18,000 kg - nearly five times as much. A 20mm shell
weighs only just over twice as much as a .50 bullet. You can double
its effectiveness in recognition of the HEI content, but even so you
are still left with a pretty even match between the .5/MiG-15 and
20mm/Su-27 in terms of destructive effect compared with target weight.

Are you familiar with the concept of guided missiles? If you get into gun range
you have already screwed the pooch. The gun is a last ditch, desperation
weapon in ACM, wasting airframe volume and weight on a honking great,
slow, unreliable gun is not a wise trade off.

Guided missiles? Now that you mention it, I have heard something about
them - but IIRC this thread is all about guns.

Your post seems to imply that you think that anything bigger than a
20mm is by definition bulky, heavy, slow-firing and unreliable. Well,
lets take the M61A1 as the standard, shall we? It weighs 114 kg, and
is very bulky because there are six barrels which all need room to
spin. Then, because it fires its little shells so fast (and you need
to hit with a lot of them to have the desired effect) it needs a big
ammunition capacity, with a big magazine - much more space and weight.
In fact, the magazine and ammo feed weigh about as much as the gun,
and the full load of ammo typically weighs the same again.

Now let's look at the opposition. The 'European standard' 27mm Mauser
BK 27, selected over any US gun by the JSF contenders

That has changed. The Mouser is out.

, weighs 100 kg
and uses much less space (only one barrel). The ammo is bigger, but
less of it is needed because it's much more effective.

And I suppose that you have verifiable combat records to support this??

For a bit more
weight (120 kg) you can get a GIAT 30M791 which is equally powerful
and can fire up to 2,500 rpm. Both of these guns hit their top speed
instantly, unlike the M61.

The spin up of the M-61 is so minor as to not be an issue, ask the
people who have used them.

Look to Russia and things get even more
interesting:

If you consider bankruptcy interesting.

the GSh-30 weighs 105 kg and fires powerful 30mm ammo at
up to 3,000 rpm (again, instantly). The little GSh-301 used in the
MiG-29 and Su-27 only fires at 1,500-1,800 rpm (instantly) but weighs
a trivial 45 kg and is tiny by comparison with the M61. If you really
want firepower, then there's the GSh-6-30 which fires the same,
powerful, 30mm ammo at around 5,000 rpm for just 160 kg. I admit that
is heavier than an M61, but it's hardly any bigger and has several
times the firepower.

There is no evidence that it works, much less its firepower, accuracy, etc.


There is a legitimate debate about whether fighter guns are needed
anymore, given the much improved performance of guided missiles. I am
willing to argue that on several grounds, and am supported by the fact
that despite all the high-tech gee-whizz weaponry used recently in
Afghanistan and Iraq, US fighters were still using their guns in
circumstances where nothing else was suitable. If you're going to
retain a gun, it might as well be the best you can get. The price,
space and weight costs are negligible as a fraction of a modern
fighter.

Tony Williams
Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk
Discussion forum at: http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/

Your anti-US bias is noted. The best is the M-61.

Al Minyard

Ummmmm. I think you are being very critical without much actual
logical rhetoric about the points put forward considering the person
you are criticising.

Tony writes reference works on automatic canons and firearms and has
spent ages collecting and documenting just about everything you may
want to know, especially with regards to aerial cannon and ammunition.
If you are going to make declerative statements about his points, at
least elaborate so we can have a proper discussion.

While Tony does often put forward raw stats in comments, these do work
for many comparrisons. A lighter cannon that throws heavier ammunition
at faster speeds and with similar or better reliability does tend to
'win' arguments. Of course a m61 will still do damage but what if the
engagement is fleeting and you can only get 2 or 3 rounds on target. I
would prefer them to be 30mm rather than 20mm based simply on HE
content expectations. If it happens to come from a lighter gun then
thats all the better.

Learn to use the English language, it will make your posts "seem" much
more reasonable. Tony is one of those people who will search within
the "numbers" until they can be made to "support" his pre-defined
conclusions. His idea of being "objective" is "the US sucks".

Al Minyard

Alan Minyard wrote in message . ..

Your anti-US bias is noted. The best is the M-61.

I gave lots of reasons for my statements. You haven't. So who's biased?

Tony Williams
Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk
Discussion forum at: http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/