Best dogfight gun?

"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).

On 14 Dec 2003 23:44:51 -0800, Tony Williams wrote:
Alan Minyard wrote in message . ..
On 14 Dec 2003 12:48:02 -0800, (Tony Williams) wrote:

Chad Irby wrote in message . com...
In article ,
(Tony Williams) wrote:

So to sum up, the F-35 will be getting the second-best gun because
Mauser's US partners couldn't keep their costs down.

No, the F-35 will be getting a gun that's at least as good, because the
"cheap" gun wasn't nearly as cheap as we'd been led to believe.

This from the Boeing press release in 1999:

'Citing lower costs, greater lethality and improved supportability,
The Boeing Company has selected the Advanced 27mm Aircraft Cannon for
its next generation JSF combat aircraft.....The gun is also a
candidate for the Lockheed Martin version of the JSF...."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 its competitors".'

Note that cost is only one of the factors mentioned. Words like 'more
lethal', 'lightest', 'most accurate and reliable' are in there too.
That provides no evidence for claiming that the GAU-12/U is 'at least
as good'.

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

The only thing being evaluated at that time were Mauser's press releases.
When they started comparing real numbers the Mauser was toast.

If you believe that the US companies involved would have made such a
decision based on press releases, your opinion of them is far lower
than mine.

Incidentally, in contrast to the above, I recall that the recent
statement switching the choice to the GAU-12/U made no mention at all
of it being 'better'. Only cheaper.

Do we have figures for the cost of either gun?

--
"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).

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..

(Tony Williams) wrote in
:

Subject: Best dogfight gun?
From: (Tony Williams)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military

Alan Minyard wrote in message
. ..

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

Sources for that statement, please.

These quotes are from an official JSF press release:

'Citing lower costs, greater lethality and improved
supportability, The Boeing Company has selected the Advanced
27mm Aircraft Cannon for its next generation JSF combat
aircraft.....

The G-A role for the JSF probably influenced that, 27mm
beging more effective on ground targets.



Regards...

"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.

On 14 Dec 2003 23:44:51 -0800, (Tony Williams) wrote:

Alan Minyard wrote in message . ..
On 14 Dec 2003 12:48:02 -0800, (Tony Williams) wrote:

Chad Irby wrote in message . com...
In article ,
(Tony Williams) wrote:

So to sum up, the F-35 will be getting the second-best gun because
Mauser's US partners couldn't keep their costs down.

No, the F-35 will be getting a gun that's at least as good, because the
"cheap" gun wasn't nearly as cheap as we'd been led to believe.

This from the Boeing press release in 1999:

'Citing lower costs, greater lethality and improved supportability,
The Boeing Company has selected the Advanced 27mm Aircraft Cannon for
its next generation JSF combat aircraft.....The gun is also a
candidate for the Lockheed Martin version of the JSF...."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 its competitors".'

Note that cost is only one of the factors mentioned. Words like 'more
lethal', 'lightest', 'most accurate and reliable' are in there too.
That provides no evidence for claiming that the GAU-12/U is 'at least
as good'.

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

The only thing being evaluated at that time were Mauser's press releases.
When they started comparing real numbers the Mauser was toast.

If you believe that the US companies involved would have made such a
decision based on press releases, your opinion of them is far lower
than mine.

The point is that there WAS no decision. They were at the "concept" phase
of the project, and it was well understood by all concerned that nothing was
set in stone at that point.

Al Minyard

On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 22:31:50 GMT, "Bjørnar Bolsøy" wrote:

(Tony Williams) wrote in
m:

Subject: Best dogfight gun?
From: (Tony Williams)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military

Alan Minyard wrote in message
. ..

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

Sources for that statement, please.

These quotes are from an official JSF press release:

'Citing lower costs, greater lethality and improved
supportability, The Boeing Company has selected the Advanced
27mm Aircraft Cannon for its next generation JSF combat
aircraft.....

The G-A role for the JSF probably influenced that, 27mm
beging more effective on ground targets.



Regards...

Catch up, please. The BK was scrapped in favor of the GAU-12

Al Minyard