Best dogfight gun?

"Brett" wrote in message ...
"Tony Williams" wrote:
|
| 1. The German Mauser BK 27 was selected by both Boeing and
| Lockheed-Martin over the GAU-12/U as the best and most cost-effective
| gun for the JSF (documented fact).

That isn't a documented fact. The documented fact is that the GAU-12/U
has just been selected as the best and most cost-effective gun for the
JSF in open competition with the BK 27 (the original selection of the BK
27 in 2000 was not an open competition) by LMT.

It's as well documented as the decision to use the GAU-12/U: the
source for both being official press statements, placed on the web.
You seem to be very selective in the press statements you're prepared
to credit.

What makes you say that the original decision in favour of the BK 27
wasn't 'in open competition'? It was clear that when Boeing decided in
favour of the BK 27 in 1999, the GAU-12/U WAS in the frame, because GD
withdrew it from the JSF competition in 2000, just before L-M selected
the BK 27 as well (which looks very much like a case of 'resign before
you're sacked').

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

"Tony Williams" wrote:
| "Brett" wrote in message
...
| "Tony Williams" wrote:
| |
| | 1. The German Mauser BK 27 was selected by both Boeing and
| | Lockheed-Martin over the GAU-12/U as the best and most
cost-effective
| | gun for the JSF (documented fact).
|
| That isn't a documented fact. The documented fact is that the
GAU-12/U
| has just been selected as the best and most cost-effective gun for
the
| JSF in open competition with the BK 27 (the original selection of
the BK
| 27 in 2000 was not an open competition) by LMT.
|
| It's as well documented as the decision to use the GAU-12/U: the
| source for both being official press statements, placed on the web.
| You seem to be very selective in the press statements you're prepared
| to credit.

I'm not selective, you however appear to have misread more than one in
recent days.

| What makes you say that the original decision in favour of the BK 27
| wasn't 'in open competition'?

How about only one system bid on being included on the other candidate
aircraft. It isn't "the best and most cost-effective" if it is the only
one presented to the customer.

| It was clear that when Boeing decided in
| favour of the BK 27 in 1999, the GAU-12/U WAS in the frame, because GD
| withdrew it from the JSF competition in 2000, just before L-M selected
| the BK 27 as well (which looks very much like a case of 'resign before
| you're sacked').

Or it could be that GD believed the "press" on how effective the BK 27
was. The evaluation by LMT after the JSF contract award would appear to
have determined that the BK 27 wasn't that great an advance and that the
GAU-12/U was just as effective.

"Brett" wrote in message ...
"Tony Williams" wrote:
| "Brett" wrote in message
...
| "Tony Williams" wrote:
| |
| | 1. The German Mauser BK 27 was selected by both Boeing and
| | Lockheed-Martin over the GAU-12/U as the best and most
cost-effective
| | gun for the JSF (documented fact).
|
| That isn't a documented fact. The documented fact is that the
GAU-12/U
| has just been selected as the best and most cost-effective gun for
the
| JSF in open competition with the BK 27 (the original selection of
the BK
| 27 in 2000 was not an open competition) by LMT.
|
| It's as well documented as the decision to use the GAU-12/U: the
| source for both being official press statements, placed on the web.
| You seem to be very selective in the press statements you're prepared
| to credit.

I'm not selective, you however appear to have misread more than one in
recent days.

| What makes you say that the original decision in favour of the BK 27
| wasn't 'in open competition'?

How about only one system bid on being included on the other candidate
aircraft. It isn't "the best and most cost-effective" if it is the only
one presented to the customer.

| It was clear that when Boeing decided in
| favour of the BK 27 in 1999, the GAU-12/U WAS in the frame, because GD
| withdrew it from the JSF competition in 2000, just before L-M selected
| the BK 27 as well (which looks very much like a case of 'resign before
| you're sacked').

Or it could be that GD believed the "press" on how effective the BK 27
was. The evaluation by LMT after the JSF contract award would appear to
have determined that the BK 27 wasn't that great an advance and that the
GAU-12/U was just as effective.

You think that a company like GD would withdraw from a competition
because they're frightened of the opposition's press releases? That's
not my perception of US business attitudes.

Can you point me please to the source for the statement that "the BK
27 wasn't that great an advance and that the GAU-12/U was just as
effective".

I'm trying to sort out the facts of what happened here amongst the
usual forum smoke and mirrors. I mean, the arguments are fun but I do
prefer them to lead to some daylight.

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/

"Tony Williams" wrote:
| "Brett" wrote in message
...
| "Tony Williams" wrote:

...

| | It was clear that when Boeing decided in
| | favour of the BK 27 in 1999, the GAU-12/U WAS in the frame,
because GD
| | withdrew it from the JSF competition in 2000, just before L-M
selected
| | the BK 27 as well (which looks very much like a case of 'resign
before
| | you're sacked').
|
| Or it could be that GD believed the "press" on how effective the BK
27
| was. The evaluation by LMT after the JSF contract award would appear
to
| have determined that the BK 27 wasn't that great an advance and that
the
| GAU-12/U was just as effective.
|
| You think that a company like GD would withdraw from a competition
| because they're frightened of the opposition's press releases? That's
| not my perception of US business attitudes.

Well that would depend on what they believed the actual requirements
were for the weapon and the "press" (from Boeing) on how well the BK 27
met those requirements.

| Can you point me please to the source for the statement that "the BK
| 27 wasn't that great an advance and that the GAU-12/U was just as
| effective".

The term used by Burbage was "comparable in technical performance" and
was part of this section of a Defense Daily article.

__Burbage emphasized that both the BK 27 and GAU-12 were able to meet
JSF's lethality requirements, which include probability of kill and
accuracy. He said the GAU-12, which has a higher rate of fire than the
BK 27, was able to meet the requirement by putting more rounds on the
target.
"Performance and affordability are equally important in our selection
process," Burbage said. "If we have two candidates that are comparable
in technical performance, but have significant differences in terms of
affordability, we will pick the one that is more affordable."

Burbage also said there were more technical negatives against the BK 27
than the GAU-12. Cost in three areas, unit recurring fly-away cost,
ammunition, and operational support, tilted the decision in favor of the
GAU-12, he said.

"In all three areas, there was a benefit to the GAU-12," Burbage said.__

see: http://stage.defensedaily.com/VIP/dd...ddi1122.htm#A3

| I'm trying to sort out the facts of what happened here amongst the
| usual forum smoke and mirrors. I mean, the arguments are fun but I do
| prefer them to lead to some daylight.

Wasn't "ammunition, and operational support" behind of the RAF's
"government problems" with the Typhoon BK 27 installation.

"Brett" wrote in message ...
"Tony Williams" wrote:

| Can you point me please to the source for the statement that "the BK
| 27 wasn't that great an advance and that the GAU-12/U was just as
| effective".

The term used by Burbage was "comparable in technical performance" and
was part of this section of a Defense Daily article.

__Burbage emphasized that both the BK 27 and GAU-12 were able to meet
JSF's lethality requirements, which include probability of kill and
accuracy. He said the GAU-12, which has a higher rate of fire than the
BK 27, was able to meet the requirement by putting more rounds on the
target.
"Performance and affordability are equally important in our selection
process," Burbage said. "If we have two candidates that are comparable
in technical performance, but have significant differences in terms of
affordability, we will pick the one that is more affordable."

Burbage also said there were more technical negatives against the BK 27
than the GAU-12. Cost in three areas, unit recurring fly-away cost,
ammunition, and operational support, tilted the decision in favor of the
GAU-12, he said.

"In all three areas, there was a benefit to the GAU-12," Burbage said.__

see: http://stage.defensedaily.com/VIP/dd...ddi1122.htm#A3

Thanks, that's helpful.

Wasn't "ammunition, and operational support" behind of the RAF's
"government problems" with the Typhoon BK 27 installation.

I had the impression that the Eurofighter programme was taking a lot
of flak for being over budget, so the gun was offered up as a kind of
sacrificial lamb to appease the Treasury (the RAF probably figuring
that they could fit it later if required). Of course, when it turned
out that the first 55 or so were contractually committed anyway, and
the gun has to be carried by the plane whether it's used or not, they
looked rather silly. All they'll be saving will be the cost of ammo
and the maintenance/training requirements, which is not likely to be
huge as a percentage of the project. I'd lay a small bet that not long
after the Typhoon enters service, the RAF will suddenly find an urgent
operational need for activating the gun...

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

On 15 Dec 2003 13:24:00 -0800, Tony Williams wrote:

I had the impression that the Eurofighter programme was taking a lot
of flak for being over budget, so the gun was offered up as a kind of
sacrificial lamb to appease the Treasury (the RAF probably figuring
that they could fit it later if required). Of course, when it turned
out that the first 55 or so were contractually committed anyway, and
the gun has to be carried by the plane whether it's used or not, they
looked rather silly. All they'll be saving will be the cost of ammo
and the maintenance/training requirements, which is not likely to be
huge as a percentage of the project. I'd lay a small bet that not long
after the Typhoon enters service, the RAF will suddenly find an urgent
operational need for activating the gun...

Wouldn't surprise me :-)

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: , but first subtract 275 and reverse
the last two letters).

"Brett" wrote in message ...

__Burbage emphasized that both the BK 27 and GAU-12 were able to meet
JSF's lethality requirements, which include probability of kill and
accuracy. He said the GAU-12, which has a higher rate of fire than the
BK 27, was able to meet the requirement by putting more rounds on the
target.
"Performance and affordability are equally important in our selection
process," Burbage said. "If we have two candidates that are comparable
in technical performance, but have significant differences in terms of
affordability, we will pick the one that is more affordable."

Burbage also said there were more technical negatives against the BK 27
than the GAU-12. Cost in three areas, unit recurring fly-away cost,
ammunition, and operational support, tilted the decision in favor of the
GAU-12, he said.

"In all three areas, there was a benefit to the GAU-12," Burbage said.__

see: http://stage.defensedaily.com/VIP/dd...ddi1122.htm#A3

Having studied that article, a couple of interesting points emerge.
The first is that GD withdrew its proposal for the GAU-12/U in
February 2000 "in part due to a belief that the gun did not meet the
necessary requirements." The second is the comment from Burbage that
"We spent a lot of time balancing performance and cost, looking for
best value."

I find it hard to imagine that GD would make such a mistake in
understanding the requirements (in my experience of tendering, it's
more usual for firms to submit non-compliant tenders then argue why
they should be accepted despite that!). Reading between the lines, it
seems most likely that the GAU-12/U did not meet the original
requirements, but when the costs of the BK 27 became an issue, L-M
revisted the requirements and "balanced" them to allow the GAU-12/U to
compete. Or am I just too cynical about the way things work?

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/

"Tony Williams" wrote:
"Brett" wrote in message
...

__Burbage emphasized that both the BK 27 and GAU-12 were able to meet
JSF's lethality requirements, which include probability of kill and
accuracy. He said the GAU-12, which has a higher rate of fire than the
BK 27, was able to meet the requirement by putting more rounds on the
target.
"Performance and affordability are equally important in our selection
process," Burbage said. "If we have two candidates that are comparable
in technical performance, but have significant differences in terms of
affordability, we will pick the one that is more affordable."

Burbage also said there were more technical negatives against the BK 27
than the GAU-12. Cost in three areas, unit recurring fly-away cost,
ammunition, and operational support, tilted the decision in favor of the
GAU-12, he said.

"In all three areas, there was a benefit to the GAU-12," Burbage said.__

see: http://stage.defensedaily.com/VIP/dd...ddi1122.htm#A3

Having studied that article, a couple of interesting points emerge.
The first is that GD withdrew its proposal for the GAU-12/U in
February 2000 "in part due to a belief that the gun did not meet the
necessary requirements." The second is the comment from Burbage that
"We spent a lot of time balancing performance and cost, looking for
best value."

I find it hard to imagine that GD would make such a mistake in
understanding the requirements (in my experience of tendering, it's
more usual for firms to submit non-compliant tenders then argue why
they should be accepted despite that!). Reading between the lines, it
seems most likely that the GAU-12/U did not meet the original
requirements, but when the costs of the BK 27 became an issue, L-M
revisted the requirements and "balanced" them to allow the GAU-12/U to
compete. Or am I just too cynical about the way things work?

"Too cynical", the M61 20mm Vulcan was apparently also considered during the
evaluation and you appear to forget that all the results of the evaluation
would ultimately be judged by the Air Force JSF office.

"Brett" wrote in message ...
"Tony Williams" wrote:
"Brett" wrote in message
...

__Burbage emphasized that both the BK 27 and GAU-12 were able to meet
JSF's lethality requirements, which include probability of kill and
accuracy. He said the GAU-12, which has a higher rate of fire than the
BK 27, was able to meet the requirement by putting more rounds on the
target.
"Performance and affordability are equally important in our selection
process," Burbage said. "If we have two candidates that are comparable
in technical performance, but have significant differences in terms of
affordability, we will pick the one that is more affordable."

Burbage also said there were more technical negatives against the BK 27
than the GAU-12. Cost in three areas, unit recurring fly-away cost,
ammunition, and operational support, tilted the decision in favor of the
GAU-12, he said.

"In all three areas, there was a benefit to the GAU-12," Burbage said.__

see: http://stage.defensedaily.com/VIP/dd...ddi1122.htm#A3

Having studied that article, a couple of interesting points emerge.
The first is that GD withdrew its proposal for the GAU-12/U in
February 2000 "in part due to a belief that the gun did not meet the
necessary requirements." The second is the comment from Burbage that
"We spent a lot of time balancing performance and cost, looking for
best value."

I find it hard to imagine that GD would make such a mistake in
understanding the requirements (in my experience of tendering, it's
more usual for firms to submit non-compliant tenders then argue why
they should be accepted despite that!). Reading between the lines, it
seems most likely that the GAU-12/U did not meet the original
requirements, but when the costs of the BK 27 became an issue, L-M
revisted the requirements and "balanced" them to allow the GAU-12/U to
compete. Or am I just too cynical about the way things work?

"Too cynical", the M61 20mm Vulcan was apparently also considered during the
evaluation and you appear to forget that all the results of the evaluation
would ultimately be judged by the Air Force JSF office.

Which suggests that the initial 'order of merit' after assessing how
well the competitors met the stated requirement was: first, BK 27,
second GAU-12/U, third M61A2.

That raises the interesting question of why the F/A-18E/F and F/A-22
are equipped with the M61A2 instead of the GAU-12/U - I have wondered
about that before. Yes, the M61 is lighter and faster-firing, but the
extra range, reduced shell flight time and much superior hitting power
would have more than compensated, I would have thought. After all, the
USAF originally planned to move to a 25mm gun in the early 1970s (the
GAU-7/A), and would have done so if it wasn't for technical problems
with the combustible-case ammo.

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/

In article ,
(Tony Williams) wrote:

"Brett" wrote:

see: http://stage.defensedaily.com/VIP/dd...ddi1122.htm#A3

Reading between the lines, it
seems most likely that the GAU-12/U did not meet the original
requirements, but when the costs of the BK 27 became an issue, L-M
revisted the requirements and "balanced" them to allow the GAU-12/U to
compete. Or am I just too cynical about the way things work?

In other words, the GAU-12 cost a little bit more at the start (before
the Mauser cost inflations got out of hand), and when the Mauser started
getting really expensive, the GAU-12 could win.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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