Best dogfight gun?

On 11 Dec 2003 05:45:39 -0800, (Tony Williams) wrote:

"Thomas Schoene" wrote in message link.net...
Tony Williams wrote:

Now let's look at the opposition. The 'European standard' 27mm Mauser
BK 27, selected over any US gun by the JSF contenders, weighs 100 kg
and uses much less space (only one barrel).

Of course, the BK27 was then abandoned by Lockheed Martin after the JSF
source selection and replaced by a 25mm GAU-12/U Gatling gun.

I understand that was at the initiative of GD, who happened to be
given the contract for designing the JSF's BK 27 gun installation and
also just happen to make the GAU-12/U (shouldn't they have declared an
interest, or something?) .....their argument was on cost grounds, not
quality (and I suspect they may have received a sympathetic hearing in
favour of a US gun rather than a German one, especially post-Iraq).
The BK 27 was originally selected purely on merit.

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

You have no idea. The Mauser was an inferior weapon.

Al Minyard

On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 13:21:39 -0600, Alan Minyard
wrote:


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

You have no idea. The Mauser was an inferior weapon.

Al Minyard


ROFLMAO! How did you draw that stunning conclusion.


greg

--
Once you try my burger baby,you'll grow a new thyroid gland.
I said just eat my burger, baby,make you smart as Charlie Chan.
You say the hot sauce can't be beat. Sit back and open wide.

On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 20:39:51 +0000, Greg Hennessy wrote:

On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 13:21:39 -0600, Alan Minyard
wrote:


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

You have no idea. The Mauser was an inferior weapon.

Al Minyard


ROFLMAO! How did you draw that stunning conclusion.


greg


Well, if you signature is and indication, you are involved in the use
of serious drugs, not someone that I would assume could make
rational judgements. The fact that the US chose a different system pretty
much tells me that the Mauser was (and is) an inferior system.

Al Minyard

"Alan Minyard" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 20:39:51 +0000, Greg Hennessy wrote:

On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 13:21:39 -0600, Alan Minyard
wrote:


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

You have no idea. The Mauser was an inferior weapon.

Al Minyard


ROFLMAO! How did you draw that stunning conclusion.


greg


Well, if you signature is and indication, you are involved in the use
of serious drugs, not someone that I would assume could make
rational judgements. The fact that the US chose a different system pretty
much tells me that the Mauser was (and is) an inferior system.

Al, I'm as patriotic as any, but...

One of the illuminating moments in my engineering career was when I listened
to five companies worth of very imminent engineering teams bidding to the
same set of requirements, each proving catagorically that their wildly
different offerings were each the_only_solution to the customer's problem,
with utter sincerety and honesty. Then the customer elected to buld
internally rather than buy.

Most selections are_very_closely balanced and most of the offerings will do
the job. The difference between winner and also ran will turn on
features_other than_technical performance. In fact, it's the rare
procurement these days that offers any evaluation points at all for
performance above the "goal" level. Instead heaviest weighting is usually
given to Cost, delivery, cost and oh, yes cost. Did I mention cost?

On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 12:47:55 -0500, "Paul F Austin" wrote:


"Alan Minyard" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 20:39:51 +0000, Greg Hennessy wrote:

On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 13:21:39 -0600, Alan Minyard
wrote:


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

You have no idea. The Mauser was an inferior weapon.

Al Minyard


ROFLMAO! How did you draw that stunning conclusion.


greg


Well, if you signature is and indication, you are involved in the use
of serious drugs, not someone that I would assume could make
rational judgements. The fact that the US chose a different system pretty
much tells me that the Mauser was (and is) an inferior system.

Al, I'm as patriotic as any, but...

One of the illuminating moments in my engineering career was when I listened
to five companies worth of very imminent engineering teams bidding to the
same set of requirements, each proving catagorically that their wildly
different offerings were each the_only_solution to the customer's problem,
with utter sincerety and honesty. Then the customer elected to buld
internally rather than buy.

Most selections are_very_closely balanced and most of the offerings will do
the job. The difference between winner and also ran will turn on
features_other than_technical performance. In fact, it's the rare
procurement these days that offers any evaluation points at all for
performance above the "goal" level. Instead heaviest weighting is usually
given to Cost, delivery, cost and oh, yes cost. Did I mention cost?

I would certainly agree, however the Mauser offering was significantly
different from the M-61 derivative. Different design philosophy (revolver
vs "gatling" gun). The ammunition is also significantly different. If both
weapons were designed to a definitive solution (rate of fire, same
ammunition, etc) then your contention would be more accurate.

Al Minyard

"Alan Minyard" wrote
"Paul F Austin" wrote:


Most selections are_very_closely balanced and most of the offerings will
do
the job. The difference between winner and also ran will turn on
features_other than_technical performance. In fact, it's the rare
procurement these days that offers any evaluation points at all for
performance above the "goal" level. Instead heaviest weighting is usually
given to Cost, delivery, cost and oh, yes cost. Did I mention cost?

I would certainly agree, however the Mauser offering was significantly
different from the M-61 derivative. Different design philosophy (revolver
vs "gatling" gun). The ammunition is also significantly different. If both
weapons were designed to a definitive solution (rate of fire, same
ammunition, etc) then your contention would be more accurate.

Lately, many procurements have had requirements based on end-effects rather
than e.g. specifying ROF and ammunition natures. In fact the whole JSF
procurement has been specified on a end effect basis.

On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 21:19:04 -0500, "Paul F Austin" wrote:


"Alan Minyard" wrote
"Paul F Austin" wrote:


Most selections are_very_closely balanced and most of the offerings will
do
the job. The difference between winner and also ran will turn on
features_other than_technical performance. In fact, it's the rare
procurement these days that offers any evaluation points at all for
performance above the "goal" level. Instead heaviest weighting is usually
given to Cost, delivery, cost and oh, yes cost. Did I mention cost?

I would certainly agree, however the Mauser offering was significantly
different from the M-61 derivative. Different design philosophy (revolver
vs "gatling" gun). The ammunition is also significantly different. If both
weapons were designed to a definitive solution (rate of fire, same
ammunition, etc) then your contention would be more accurate.

Lately, many procurements have had requirements based on end-effects rather
than e.g. specifying ROF and ammunition natures. In fact the whole JSF
procurement has been specified on a end effect basis.

We tried that method with ships, ONCE. The LHA's were built on an "end
performance" contract. Unfortunately Ingals took this to mean "if it floats
its good enough". The PSAs for the LHAs were equivalent to major
overhauls, and the lawyers got rich.

I thought that we had learned from that experience, but perhaps not :-((

Al Minyard

On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 09:24:49 -0600, Alan Minyard
wrote:


greg


Well, if you signature is and indication, you are involved in the use
of serious drugs, not someone that I would assume could make
rational judgements.

ROFLMAO! Oh how priceless.


The fact that the US chose a different system pretty
much tells me that the Mauser was (and is) an inferior system.


It doesnt, it had more to do with the knights who say NiH.



greg



--
Once you try my burger baby,you'll grow a new thyroid gland.
I said just eat my burger, baby,make you smart as Charlie Chan.
You say the hot sauce can't be beat. Sit back and open wide.

On or about Thu, 11 Dec 2003 13:21:39 -0600, Alan Minyard
allegedly uttered:

On 11 Dec 2003 05:45:39 -0800, (Tony Williams) wrote:

"Thomas Schoene" wrote in message link.net...
Tony Williams wrote:

Now let's look at the opposition. The 'European standard' 27mm Mauser
BK 27, selected over any US gun by the JSF contenders, weighs 100 kg
and uses much less space (only one barrel).

Of course, the BK27 was then abandoned by Lockheed Martin after the JSF
source selection and replaced by a 25mm GAU-12/U Gatling gun.

I understand that was at the initiative of GD, who happened to be
given the contract for designing the JSF's BK 27 gun installation and
also just happen to make the GAU-12/U (shouldn't they have declared an
interest, or something?) .....their argument was on cost grounds, not
quality (and I suspect they may have received a sympathetic hearing in
favour of a US gun rather than a German one, especially post-Iraq).
The BK 27 was originally selected purely on merit.

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

You have no idea. The Mauser was an inferior weapon.

Really, why?

"Citing lower costs, greater lethality and improved supportability,
The Boeing Company this week targeted the Advanced 27mm Aircraft
Cannon for its next-generation Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) combat
aircraft"
"It's the lightest, most accurate and reliable gun based on our
initial studies," said Dennis Muilenburg, JSF weapon system director
for Boeing. "Our comparative assessment found the 27mm cannon to be
more affordable, more lethal and more supportable than any of the
competitors."

Both from
http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/...se_990428n.htm

Yes they are the losers, but they seemed convinced.

Or we could look at the specs

BK27
100kg
ROF 1770 rpm
Muzzle Velocity 1025m/s

GAU-12/U
123kg
ROF 4200rpm
Muzzle Velocity 1036m/s (API)
Muzzle Velocity 1085m/s (TP, HEI)

SO the major differences a

BK has more muzzle energy
BK is lighter
BK has ballistically matched ammunition so a consistent aimpoint
BK round is more destructive
BK round will hold it's energy for a further distance
GAU has a higher ROF.

So tell us again why the Mauser is an inferior weapon?

---
Peter Kemp

Life is short - Drink Faster

In article ,
Peter Kemp peter_n_kempathotmaildotcom@ wrote:

Or we could look at the specs

BK27
100kg
ROF 1770 rpm
Muzzle Velocity 1025m/s

GAU-12/U
123kg
ROF 4200rpm
Muzzle Velocity 1036m/s (API)
Muzzle Velocity 1085m/s (TP, HEI)

SO the major differences a

BK has more muzzle energy
BK is lighter
BK has ballistically matched ammunition so a consistent aimpoint
BK round is more destructive
BK round will hold it's energy for a further distance
GAU has a higher ROF.

So tell us again why the Mauser is an inferior weapon?

BK has higher specific recoil (28 versus 22 kN), so needs much more
reinforcement of airframe, negating weight difference

GAU has a *much* higher rate of fire, so much higher chance of actually
hitting the target

While a single BK round does slightly more damage, it doesn't do twice
as much damage, so firing rate is too slow

BK has about twice the barrel wear at full fire rate

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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