Best dogfight gun?

In article ,
(Tony Williams) wrote:

The linkless feed was developed years ago and is used in the
Eurofighter Typhoon installation, so is just about to enter service.

So what have we determined?

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).

You misspelled "cheaper." The Mauser was "good enough," for the
original price, which they didn't stick with.

2. The cost of the gun rose well over budget (documented fact)
probably because Mauser's US partners spent far too much on adapting
it to US use (reasonable assumption).

Unreasonable assumption.

More reasonable? They low-balled the bid, and didn't get the price
increase they wanted. Integrating the gun into the airframe? If they
had to spend *that* much doing it, they screwed something up in the
original design.

3. GD, in their position of gun armament integrator, took advantage of
the situation to slip in a lower bid for the GAU-12/U, which was
accepted by L-M (clear conclusion from press statement).

....or they came back in after the Mauser folks didn't get the price
increase they wanted - the actual comment *in* the press statement.

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.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

Chad Irby wrote:
In article ,
Mary Shafer wrote:

Darkstar wasn't that big. I used to see it out on the ramp all the
time. It was definitely is T-37 size class at the most. That's
pretty small.

http://www.fas.org/irp/program/collect/darkstar.htm

The Darkstar has a 69 foot wingspan, about twice that of the T-37, and
about 50 percent wider than the F-22. I consider that big.

Sure, the span is twice that of a T-37. But Darkstar was only 15 feet long,
which is quite short for a plane of its span, and about half the length of a
Tweet. Between those two dimensions, I could certainly understand
describing it as "T-37-class."

--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)

Alan Minyard wrote:
On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 19:34:41 +0000, Greg Hennessy
wrote:

On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 11:50:40 -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/

Of course the fact that the Mauser is produced by an enemy country,
which is totally unreliable as a source of spares, is also a
consideration.


Oh christ, you really are that thick. I suggest you figure out where
and who were going to be producing the BK27 variant for the JSF.


greg

The "improved" BK-27 was to be produced at the Alliant Techsystems
plant in Mesa Arizona. This plant was previously owned by Boing.

One interesting point is that Lockheed Martin selected a Boeing-made gun
even while it was competing against Boeing for the overall JSF contract.

This
gun, originally designed about 30 years ago was to be significantly
modified and the new design was unproven.

The linkess feed system was being done by Western Design (another US firm),
which has extensive experience in the field. You';d have had to design a new
system for any gun, given the differnet installation systems planned for
JSF.

In addition, the cased
ammunition requires internal spent case stowage.

This would be true of any gun firing cased ammo, including the GAU-12/U that
was ultimately selected and the M-61 used in all current US fighters.

--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)

"Chad Irby" wrote
"Paul F Austin" wrote:

"Chad Irby" wrote

Funny, I keep finding quite large ones. Like the Predator, the
Darkstar, the Global Hawk, or one of several Russian designs that are
basically reworked large cruise missiles or former target drones.

You keep finding_types_of large ones.

Which, incidentally, are the ones they're actually using. And since
they're also expensive, they're worth shooting down. Just about
everyone who's making UAVs are making large ones.

Take a look at the number of G-Hawks produced and planned. The
payloads (never mind the airframe) are so expensive that the Air
Force treats it as a "high demand-low availability" resource like
Rivet Joint or JSTARS. For cost reasons, it's unlikely to change. The
same seems to be true of Predator. The UAVs that look to be procured
in large numbers are the Pioneer-class machines.

Which means, on cost terms, shooting down a big drone with a gun is
*very* cost-effective (a million-dollar airframe for a couple of hundred
bucks worth of ammo).

Which makes using UAVs as justification for a gun, daft. By that argument,
let's ditch all the expensive AAMs. UAVs are no more a justification for
designing in a gun than is a handwave of "you never know..." which is a good
description of the gun justifications seen here. Mind there's a big
difference between not putting a gun on the next fighter and saying "rip all
the guns out of the current fleet". One is a proper system trade. The other
is a strawman.

"Tony Williams" wrote:
| Alan Minyard wrote in message
. ..
| On 12 Dec 2003 12:51:59 -0800,
(Tony Williams) wrote:
|
| Chad Irby wrote in message
. com...
| In article ,
| (Tony Williams) wrote:
|
| We know the Mauser works, too - it's been in service in large
numbers
| for two decades. The initial assessments by the JSF team
concluded
| that the Mauser was the most cost-effective choice, and they
knew all
| about the GAU-12/U then.
|
| Part of that "cost effectiveness" appeared to be a lowball
pricing
| structure that fell through on closer examination.
|
| Do you have a source to support that? You may be right, but I like
to
| work on hard info rather than forum gossip.
|
| Tony Williams
| Military gun and ammunition website:
http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk
| Discussion forum at:
http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/
|
| The Mouser was to be a completely new system, using linkless
ammunition.
| It has never been demonstrated, much less placed in service.
|
| The linkless feed was developed years ago and is used in the
| Eurofighter Typhoon installation, so is just about to enter service.
|
| So what have we determined?
|
| 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.

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 13 Dec 2003 22:16:54 -0800, (Tony Williams) wrote:

Alan Minyard wrote in message . ..
On 12 Dec 2003 12:51:59 -0800, (Tony Williams) wrote:

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

We know the Mauser works, too - it's been in service in large numbers
for two decades. The initial assessments by the JSF team concluded
that the Mauser was the most cost-effective choice, and they knew all
about the GAU-12/U then.

Part of that "cost effectiveness" appeared to be a lowball pricing
structure that fell through on closer examination.

Do you have a source to support that? You may be right, but I like to
work on hard info rather than forum gossip.

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

The Mouser was to be a completely new system, using linkless ammunition.
It has never been demonstrated, much less placed in service.

The linkless feed was developed years ago and is used in the
Eurofighter Typhoon installation, so is just about to enter service.

So what have we determined?

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).

No, it was dumped for NOT being cost effective.

2. The cost of the gun rose well over budget (documented fact)
probably because Mauser's US partners spent far too much on adapting
it to US use (reasonable assumption).

If it was "in service" why did it need such "adaption"


3. GD, in their position of gun armament integrator, took advantage of
the situation to slip in a lower bid for the GAU-12/U, which was
accepted by L-M (clear conclusion from press statement).

They (with approval from the Pentagon) selected the most
cost effective system

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.

The Mauser was clearly second-best.


Incidentally, you seem to equate preferring a non-US gun with an
'anti-American bias'. You should have words with the US armed forces.
The US Army's standard 5.56mm MG is the (Belgian) FN Minimi, its
standard 7.62mm GPMG is the (Belgian) FN MAG, and its standard 9mm
pistol is the (Italian) Beretta.

Adopted solely because NATO did not like the far more effective (and
more expensive) .45 Colt.

The M16 rifle family is expected to
be replaced soon by the XM8, based on the (German) Heckler & Koch G36.

"Expected" by whom ??

The advanced XM29 5.56+20mm weapon is also having its hardware
developed by HK. The M1A2 Abrams tank is armed with a (German) 120mm
gun, replacing the (British) 105mm in the M1A1.

No problem.

The USN has made
extensive use of the (Italian) 76mm OTO,

Only a few FFs are still in commission. That was the only y class
built with the OTO, and it was a maintenance hog.

and the US Coastguard has
selected the (Swedish) 57mm Bofors as the main gun for its new class
of ships.

Bofors is a US company. They are owned by United Defense.

The USMC has selected the (British) RO 155mm as its next
howitzer.

Of course, the USMC also operates the AV-8B aircraft, based
on the (British) BAe Harrier,

Now obsolete and being replaced with the F-35. It was, in its
time, a fine aircraft.

and the USN uses the T-45 Goshawk
trainer, a version of the (British) BAe Hawk.

The hawk was a political decision. It was not wanted by the USN, required
complete redesign, and took many years to get into service,

Evidently these services are riven with anti-American bias. Or perhaps
they're just sensible enough to buy the best weapons available from
the western world?

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

No, they are occasionally blind-sided by the politicians (Hawk, Beretta) and
occasionally make bad procurement decisions. But US corporations
own almost all of the companies that do significant business with the
Pentagon.

Al Minyard

In article et,
"Thomas Schoene" wrote:

Chad Irby wrote:
In article ,
Mary Shafer wrote:

Darkstar wasn't that big. I used to see it out on the ramp all the
time. It was definitely is T-37 size class at the most. That's
pretty small.

http://www.fas.org/irp/program/collect/darkstar.htm

The Darkstar has a 69 foot wingspan, about twice that of the T-37, and
about 50 percent wider than the F-22. I consider that big.

Sure, the span is twice that of a T-37. But Darkstar was only 15 feet long,
which is quite short for a plane of its span, and about half the length of a
Tweet. Between those two dimensions, I could certainly understand
describing it as "T-37-class."

But that certainly does *not* make it too small to shoot down with
aerial guns, or everyone would be using T-37s as "gunproof planes."

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

In article ,
"Paul F Austin" wrote:

"Chad Irby" wrote

Which means, on cost terms, shooting down a big drone with a gun is
*very* cost-effective (a million-dollar airframe for a couple of hundred
bucks worth of ammo).

Which makes using UAVs as justification for a gun, daft.

Not "as justification," just "one more type of target."

By that argument, let's ditch all the expensive AAMs. UAVs are no
more a justification for designing in a gun than is a handwave of
"you never know..." which is a good description of the gun
justifications seen here.

So far, we have several different reasons for having guns in planes,
versus "we only need missiles to shoot down other planes."

The argument for not having guns is, overall, pretty thin.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

Scott Ferrin wrote in message . ..

Better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it.

Everything is a tradeoff. For a gun you bring along quite a bit of
weight (~100kg+ weight of ammo). What if that mass was fuel? What if
it were extra decoys? What if it were more avionics? What if it were
more engines? What if that mass was completely dropped to get a more
manueverable fighter?

Which of those choices allow you to complete the mission most
effectively? When making engineering trade-offs, you have to remember
that you can have A and not need it, but what about B? If you need B
and instead you put all that mass into A and you don't end up needing
it, that's bad engineering.

Chris Manteuffel