If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
On 5 Dec 2003 07:42:43 -0800, (robert arndt) wrote:
Chad Irby wrote in message om... In article , (robert arndt) wrote: The M61 is a poor substitute for this bad baby: http://www.airforce-technology.com/c.../mauser21.html ...if you don't mind only firing 1,700 rounds per minute as opposed to about 6,000... ...when the M61 doesn't jam, that is. Carried an M61 in the F-105 and the F-4E for 250 combat missions. Carried the SUU-16 and SUU-23 on F-4Cs for four years. Carried the SUU-11 mini-gun on AT-38s and fired literally hundreds of thousands of rounds over 23 years of tactical experience. Never experienced a single M61 variant jamming. Never saw on jam in any flight that I was on. Never heard anyone talk about one jamming in any squadron I was in. Doesn't sound, based on a limited empirical sampling like a problem. I prefer Mauser's BK-27 jam-proof linkless and up-coming dual feed version. Should we note that the drum-fed internally carried M-61 is linkless? BTW, in close combat 6000 rpm bursts don't mean that much. You're correct. "Close combat" is stupid. It means you screwed up at several earlier decision points. But, if you reach that point, why don't 6K RPM bursts mean much? Would a 1K RPM burst be more meaningful? Or were you suggesting that more RPM would be desireable. If the burst will be on the target for .2 seconds, would it be better to have more rounds or fewer during that interval? A 1,700-1,800 rpm burst of 27mm fire from the single-barrel BK-27 will ruin your day, especially with frangible ammo. How about HEI instead of "frangible"? I'm not worried about frangibility, as I would be if discharging a .45 ACP at a burglar in a mid-town apartment. I'm worried about damaging the airframe and that means HEI or maybe HEI/API mix. Now if only the Germans could fit the amazing 30mm RMK inside the Typhoon... but I'm sure it will find its way onto the Tiger helo. Going from .50 cal to 20mm to 25mm to 30mm, etc, always incurs a weight penalty. There are trade-offs between weight, ballistics, accuracy, burst density, etc. Consider that one round of 155mm would surely result in a kill, do we than suggest mounting artillery in the nose of fighters? Clearly hyperbole for argument's sake. Consider further that a gun will be carried on every sorties for the life of the aircraft and for most aircraft will never be fired at another aircraft in anger. "Hoser" said, "There's no kill like a gun kill...." but, that may be because gun kills are so damn rare. Rob |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
Ed Rasimus wrote: On 5 Dec 2003 07:42:43 -0800, (robert arndt) wrote: ...when the M61 doesn't jam, that is. Never experienced a single M61 variant jamming. Never saw on jam in any flight that I was on. Never heard anyone talk about one jamming in any squadron I was in. Doesn't sound, based on a limited empirical sampling like a problem. Well, Ed, you have to remember you're talking to Arndt. As fas as he's concerned, everything important ever invented for aviation was invented in Germany, all German-made machinery is the best in the world at everything, and all American equipment is simply terrible and unreliable. Which is why he's touting a weapon with less than one-third the firing rate, and claiming that it's immune to mechanical problems... -- cirby at cfl.rr.com Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations. Slam on brakes accordingly. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
What I have read here is a lot of hot air coming from people who have
never fired either of these weapons, and probably have never fired on either an aerial or ground target with any weapon. Spool-up time on a M61? Have you ever heard one shoot? You sure as hell can't hear it spool up. I've fired them in the air and on the ground in the firing butts - all you hear on the ground is a very loud BRRRRR with the individual shots indistinguishable from the first one. Watching the gun itself you see it go from 'stop' to 'blur' instantly. The only difference I ever noted was that the SUU23 pod gun had a slight 'tail-off' as it fired itself dry when you released the trigger. Note that the 100 rps in the hydraulic driven M61 (25HP motor) in the F4/14/15/16/ give these aircraft a real high-deflection (actually, all-aspect) capability - and if a fraction of a second spin-up makes a difference between a hit or a miss all I can say is the shooter didn't see the opportunity in time. Even in the electric drive (15HP, 67 rps) gun in the 104A I've seen gun camera film which showed that if the M61 gun had been firing the other aircraft would have take two dozen rounds, from nose to tail, crossing at 70+ degrees with the shooter pulling max G attainable in the situation, just not enough to track him but enough to get a good shot in at close range - about 100 yards. How do you do this? You start shooting early and hose him as he sails past. BTW that 104A installation had a 3-mil dispersion - I've seen that proven in the firing-in butts, too. Walt BJ - |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
A few comments on recent posts:
The M61 is an extremely reliable and long-lasting gun. However, the little 20mm shells only weigh 102g compared with 180g for the 25mm GAU-12/U, 260g for the 27mm BK 27, 270g for the 30mm GIAT 30M791 and 390g for the Russian 30mm guns. This means that the M61 has to score many more hits than 30mm guns to have the same effect on the target (I have read an estimate of around 20 hits needed to bring down a modern fighter). This lack of hitting power was recognised by the USAF as early as the 1960s and led to the development of the 25mm GAU-7/A, which was intended to replace the M61 as the standard fighter gun, and was planned for installation in the F-15. This fired 200g projectiles for a considerable increase in effectiveness. However, the advanced, combustible-cased ammo ran into technical difficulties which could not be solved in time so the gun was scrapped and the M61 soldiered on. Its survival for so long can only be put down to the fact that fighter guns are much less important nowadays with the development of better missiles, so it hasn't been worth the cost of developing a new one. More recently, as has been pointed out, the 27mm Mauser was selected by both of the JSF contenders as providing the optimum balance of characteristics for an aircraft gun, despite being a foreign design produced by a country which is not even a member of the JSF consortium - that tells you how good it must be compared with the home-grown product. Incidentally, there is still some mystery about the current situation - I have it on good authority that GD (given the job of integrating the BK 27 to the F-35) have proposed using the GAU-12/U instead (allegedly for cost reasons), but every publication I have seen on the F-35 still mentions the BK 27. Can anyone point to a definitive reference? Tony Williams Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk Discussion forum at: http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/ |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
"Tony Williams" wrote:
| A few comments on recent posts: | | The M61 is an extremely reliable and long-lasting gun. However, the | little 20mm shells only weigh 102g compared with 180g for the 25mm | GAU-12/U, 260g for the 27mm BK 27, 270g for the 30mm GIAT 30M791 and | 390g for the Russian 30mm guns. This means that the M61 has to score | many more hits than 30mm guns to have the same effect on the target (I | have read an estimate of around 20 hits needed to bring down a modern | fighter). | | This lack of hitting power was recognised by the USAF as early as the | 1960s and led to the development of the 25mm GAU-7/A, which was | intended to replace the M61 as the standard fighter gun, and was | planned for installation in the F-15. This fired 200g projectiles for | a considerable increase in effectiveness. However, the advanced, | combustible-cased ammo ran into technical difficulties which could not | be solved in time so the gun was scrapped and the M61 soldiered on. | Its survival for so long can only be put down to the fact that fighter | guns are much less important nowadays with the development of better | missiles, so it hasn't been worth the cost of developing a new one. | | More recently, as has been pointed out, the 27mm Mauser was selected | by both of the JSF contenders as providing the optimum balance of | characteristics for an aircraft gun, despite being a foreign design | produced by a country which is not even a member of the JSF consortium | - that tells you how good it must be compared with the home-grown | product. | | Incidentally, there is still some mystery about the current situation | - I have it on good authority that GD (given the job of integrating | the BK 27 to the F-35) have proposed using the GAU-12/U instead | (allegedly for cost reasons), but every publication I have seen on the | F-35 still mentions the BK 27. Can anyone point to a definitive | reference? GD's web site? "The 25mm GAU-12/U system produced by General Dynamics Armament and Technical Products (GDATP) was recently selected for the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)..." http://www.gdatp.com/products/lethal...12u/gau-12.htm |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
"Brett" wrote in message ...
"Tony Williams" wrote: | | Incidentally, there is still some mystery about the current situation | - I have it on good authority that GD (given the job of integrating | the BK 27 to the F-35) have proposed using the GAU-12/U instead | (allegedly for cost reasons), but every publication I have seen on the | F-35 still mentions the BK 27. Can anyone point to a definitive | reference? GD's web site? "The 25mm GAU-12/U system produced by General Dynamics Armament and Technical Products (GDATP) was recently selected for the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)..." http://www.gdatp.com/products/lethal...12u/gau-12.htm Many thanks - that wasn't there last time I looked! Tony Williams Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk Discussion forum at: http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/ |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
20 20mm hits to bring down a modern fighter? Where are they located?
I'd say it would take some pretty selective hit location to place 20 hits on any fighter (well, maybe a Frogfoot) and still have the target perform at any level close to its pristine capability. Since the M61's shells are coming in trail about 50 feet apart they will be clustered - meaning the hit damage will accumulate pretty much in the same area. Bye-bye wing surface, and now control that airplane! Of course, if the shot comes in from the six o-clock, the length of the fuselage is subject to damage. Nowadays a gun shot is so rare that the shooter will most likely hold the trigger down to see what happens, instead of the half-second burst most good shooters use in a smooth tracking pass when firing on the dart target. In that case, the armor may survive but nothing else will after say 50-150 hits. Walt BJ |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
(Tony Williams) wrote in message m...
A few comments on recent posts: The M61 is an extremely reliable and long-lasting gun. However, the little 20mm shells only weigh 102g compared with 180g for the 25mm GAU-12/U, 260g for the 27mm BK 27, 270g for the 30mm GIAT 30M791 and 390g for the Russian 30mm guns. This means that the M61 has to score many more hits than 30mm guns to have the same effect on the target (I have read an estimate of around 20 hits needed to bring down a modern fighter). I suspect it may be possible to fit proximity fuses to 27mm/30mm class amunition to improve Pk and open up engagement envelope. Los Alamos Labs developed single chip radars sever years ago and combined with new explosives and fragmentation methods migh make such munitions usefull. Here is a swedish 'radar on a chip' program: http://www.ek.isy.liu.se/2003/radaronchip/ Also laser beam riding guidence similar to the guided darts on the BAE starstreak MANPADS missile could be integrated into 27mm/30mm class munitions. There have been a number of guided cannon shell projects. The Italian OTO Malera companies efforts on is 76.2mm cannon (laser beam rider I think) and then efforts by the USAF for the 105mm howitzers on the AC130 gunships (laser spot homming to open up range) and USN work on its 5 inch rocket boosted shells and US Army work on its 155mm howizers. (GPS and/or laser homming) Actuators relying on piezioelectric forces working on nose twisting simplify such shells. Such development smigh extend the effective range of cannon by a large amount (out to 3-4 km I suspect) and favour big 30mm cannon such as the Oerlikon KCA used on the Viggen. On the other hand a turreted or tail sting 30mm cannon of ADEN sized recoil firing guided munitions might make possible some interesting defensive/offensive concepts. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
AIM-54 Phoenix missile | Sujay Vijayendra | Military Aviation | 89 | November 3rd 03 09:47 PM |
P-39's, zeros, etc. | old hoodoo | Military Aviation | 12 | July 23rd 03 05:48 AM |