Best dogfight gun?

On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 12:51:27 -0500, "Tony Volk"
wrote:

The reason that A/A loaded F-4s got more kills is more subtle. It has
to do with the politics of "ace-building" between the USN and USAF and
the mis-guided over-classification of TEABALL. See Michel's Clashes or
Thompson's "To Hanoi and Back".
Escorts didn't even get many shots as they were often used to provide
blocking or herding of MiGs to direct them to a kill zone where the
555th was being vectored on a discrete frequency to do the shooting.

Hi Ed. Interesting comments. Was it just the Wolfpack who practiced
herding Migs? (ironic, given their name!). "Wolfpack" (by Jerry Scutts)
lists the 433rd as getting just about as many kills as the Triple Nickel.
Were they part of the elite ace-building group too? The Wolfpack group
doesn't go into much detail about any herding tactics (IIRC), so I'd love to
hear more about them. And with the performance of a few key squadrons in GW
I (e.g., 58th), it seems that such tactics might again be the case. Are
there tactical advantages that justify committing aircraft to "herding"
duty, or is it primarily PR-related in trying to make an ace? Thanks,

Tony

Two different campaigns involved. The "Wolf Pack" was the 8th Wg at
Ubon, with most of the MiG kills coming under the leadership of Robin
Olds from December of '66 through the cessation of Rolling Thunder in
August of '68.

The kills for the Triple Nickel come during LB in '72. At that time
they were the focus of MiGCAP and got the latest goodies for the job,
including Combat Tree, AIM-7E2, AIM-9J, "Agile Eagle" i.e. TCTO-566
with LES and TISEO (although they didn't get to do much with these).
More importantly, the Nickel got packed with Fighter Weapons School
guys who were trained in A/A and tightly integrated with GCI
controllers. Add in the discrete frequencies, the special BVR ROE, the
TEABALL data, etc. and you've got a pretty potent package.

It's all a chess game and the "animals" being herded are cognitive, so
whether it's tactically sound or not will be determined by the
outcome. Clearly sweeps and pincers are pretty effective if you've got
good sensor data.

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

--
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 Fri, 12 Dec 2003 11:50:41 -0600, Alan Minyard
wrote:

On 11 Dec 2003 23:50:31 -0800, (Tony Williams) wrote:


The case rests...

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/

Writing a book, and writing an accurate book, are two totally different propositions.
You have succeeded in the first instance, let us know when you intend to start
on the second.


Coming from a self documenting f8ckwit who couldnt figure out that the BK27
variant as fitted to the JSF was american made, your notion of accuracy is
ever so slightly suspect.


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.

But that's going opposite of the trend towards *less* types of
airframes. That's why we've only got two near-future fighters in the US
(long range fighter/attack and short-range fighter/attack), and why the
Europeans are trying to go with *one* plane to do all jobs.

The navy is going even further, to the point where it only plans on having
F-18E/Fs and SH-60s on board carriers.


Ron
Pilot/Wildland Firefighter

In article ,
362436 (Ron) wrote:


But that's going opposite of the trend towards *less* types of
airframes. That's why we've only got two near-future fighters in the US
(long range fighter/attack and short-range fighter/attack), and why the
Europeans are trying to go with *one* plane to do all jobs.

The navy is going even further, to the point where it only plans on having
F-18E/Fs and SH-60s on board carriers.

Well, until the F-35 gets into the inventory, and the Osprey is looking
better all of the time.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

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/

Alan Minyard wrote in message . ..
On 11 Dec 2003 17:47:30 -0800, (Tony Williams) wrote:

Alan Minyard wrote in message . ..

Your anti-US bias is noted. The best is the M-61.

I gave lots of reasons for my statements. You haven't. So who's biased?

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

You gave lots of unsubstantiated, dated, and incorrect "reasons". That
hardly improves your reliability. Any one can put up a web page
full of inaccuracies and innuendo.

Anyone can also post inaccurate innuendo on a forum like this.

Please specify which of my statements are unsubstantiated or incorrect
(I don't care about dated - age doesn't necessarily affect accuracy).
As an armament historian, I do my best to report facts, and have spent
countless hours in the Public Record Office and the Pattern Room
tracking down original documents. Any conclusions I draw are on the
best available evidence I can find. If you have better evidence,
please post it; if its valid, I'll be grateful. If you can't, kindly
stop wasting my time.

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

Alan Minyard wrote in message . ..
On 11 Dec 2003 17:44:42 -0800, (Tony Williams) wrote:

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 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".'

Inferior, yeah.

That release is ancient history, but the, you have never let the facts get
in they way of your "opinions".

I see. So any document which is, let's see, four years old, is
automatically wrong? Please note that the opinions expressed in this
release were not mine, but those of the JSF weapon system director for
Boeing - and that Lockheed had independently chosen the BK 27 even
earlier. So far, you have posted no facts, only opinions...

If indeed the 27mm had become too expensive in the meantime, there is
only one likely explanation: the Americans spent too much time futzing
about with it to 'Americanise' it instead of simply adopting it. It's
been a reliable and effective weapon in European service for about two
decades in the Tornado and Alpha Jet, is also in service in the Gripen
and is about to enter service in the Eurofighter Typhoon.

The aircraft that you mention are not in the same league with the F-22 or the F-35.
I know that it breaks your little heart, but we are talking real weapons, not the ones
that you and Mr Arndt fanaticize about.

My oh my. So now the Mauser BK 27 isn't even a 'real weapon', but is
only a fantasy? I'm not the one veering off into fantasy here, and I'm
clearly wasting my time trying to hold a rational discussion. If you
have any factual evidence to back your assertions (assuming you would
recognise it if you saw it), then call me. Otherwise, don't bother.

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:

Chad Irby wrote:

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.

This talks about the cost issue:

http://stage.defensedaily.com/VIP/ddi/previous/ddi0927.htm#A1

"We had a cost-growth problem that forced a recompetition," he said.
"Affordability is a prime concern of the program. Based on that we were
forced to recompete the gun system integration. We selected our
supplier on a best-value case."

A "cost-growth problem" for an established weapon like the Mauser means
"they tried to stick us for some more cash after they got the contract."

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

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

...

| USAF A-10
| aircraft achieved two helicopter kills with the GAU-8/A (using 275 and
| 550 rounds respectively) in one case when the IR missiles failed to
| lock on.

How many rounds of 25mm or 27mm are they proposing to fit inside of USAF
JSF?

I don't know - I've never seen a figure quoted.

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