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 |
#111
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
"Paul F Austin" wrote: Now, here's a question: for the 200Kg or so weight budget (I have no idea about volume) of an internal gun and ammo tank, would you rather have 1, 2 or 3 more AIM-9Xs/ASRAAMs? It's not a question of "just weight," or we'd just build C-5s with a big automated missile launcher in them. -- cirby at cfl.rr.com Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations. Slam on brakes accordingly. |
#112
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 20:39:49 GMT, "Kevin Brooks" wrote:
"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message ... In message , Chad Irby writes In article , Alan Minyard wrote: Are you familiar with the concept of guided missiles? If you get into gun range you have already screwed the pooch. The gun is a last ditch, desperation weapon in ACM, wasting airframe volume and weight on a honking great, slow, unreliable gun is not a wise trade off. Comments nearly identical to the one above were very popular in the early 1960s. And then we got into a real shooting war, and pilots suddenly needed guns again. It's an interesting area to actually analyse, particularly when comparing USAF and USN performance: in Linebacker the USAF shot down forty-eight MiGs for twenty-four air-to-air losses, while the USN lost four and scored 24 kills. More interesting yet, the Navy's fighters met MiGs twenty-six times, for a .92 probability of killing a MiG and a .15 chance of losing one of their own; the USAF had eighty-two engagements, for .58 kills per engagement but .29 losses.[1] Ugh! That all sounds dangerously like the "operations research", or systems analysis, kind of numeric mumbo-jumbo so characteristic of the McNamara era---PLEASSSE don't go there! It took us a generation to rid ourselves of the most of the "mantle of the number crunchers" (and we were only partially succesful--witness the continued use of the POM process in budgeting) as it was... Brooks snip OR has been in use since WWII, when it was used to determine such things as the parameters of an "ideal" depth charge attack. It was quite effective at the time, and still is. I certainly have no love of McN, he did an amazing amount of damage to the US Military (the term "McNamara's Nightmare" was applied to *numerous* systems). Al Minyard |
#114
|
|||
|
|||
"Alan Minyard" wrote in message ... On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 20:39:49 GMT, "Kevin Brooks" wrote: "Paul J. Adam" wrote in message ... In message , Chad Irby writes In article , Alan Minyard wrote: Are you familiar with the concept of guided missiles? If you get into gun range you have already screwed the pooch. The gun is a last ditch, desperation weapon in ACM, wasting airframe volume and weight on a honking great, slow, unreliable gun is not a wise trade off. Comments nearly identical to the one above were very popular in the early 1960s. And then we got into a real shooting war, and pilots suddenly needed guns again. It's an interesting area to actually analyse, particularly when comparing USAF and USN performance: in Linebacker the USAF shot down forty-eight MiGs for twenty-four air-to-air losses, while the USN lost four and scored 24 kills. More interesting yet, the Navy's fighters met MiGs twenty-six times, for a .92 probability of killing a MiG and a .15 chance of losing one of their own; the USAF had eighty-two engagements, for .58 kills per engagement but .29 losses.[1] Ugh! That all sounds dangerously like the "operations research", or systems analysis, kind of numeric mumbo-jumbo so characteristic of the McNamara era---PLEASSSE don't go there! It took us a generation to rid ourselves of the most of the "mantle of the number crunchers" (and we were only partially succesful--witness the continued use of the POM process in budgeting) as it was... Brooks snip OR has been in use since WWII, when it was used to determine such things as the parameters of an "ideal" depth charge attack. It was quite effective at the time, and still is. But it was taken waaay too far by the McNamara crowd, who felt that all things were quantifiable by numbers, and numbers were more important than actual results. I certainly have no love of McN, he did an amazing amount of damage to the US Military (the term "McNamara's Nightmare" was applied to *numerous* systems). Not to mention his micromanagement in Vietnam, and his later published fandango about his involvement in the decisionmaking that went into that conflict. Brooks Al Minyard |
#115
|
|||
|
|||
"Paul F Austin" wrote in message .. . "Chad Irby" wrote "Paul J. Adam" wrote: If "lack of guns" is the real problem, surely gun-armed fighters are a complete and satisfactory answer? It's not a simple question of "lack of guns." It's "relying on missiles 100% and not having guns when they're really bloody useful." We learned that lesson over 30 years ago, and a whole new generation of bean counters are trying to resurrect the kind of silliness that the McNamara school brought us in Vietnam... Now, here's a question: for the 200Kg or so weight budget (I have no idea about volume) of an internal gun and ammo tank, would you rather have 1, 2 or 3 more AIM-9Xs/ASRAAMs? Given that the lieklihood of us facing a credible air-to air threat is receding, and advanced fighters alreay have a rather decent basic loadout of AAM's, I'd think that you are better off with the gun and the additional versatility/flexibility it accords versus a few more AAM's that don't add anything to the aircraft's ability to react to unexpected circumstances. Brooks There's always a lip-curl reflex about "bean counters" but every time you make a choice, you've rejected an alternative. There's money, weight, volume and time budgets because all of those are fungible, exchangeable among the possible choices. Remove a gun and save money? Sure, but you spend that money, space, power and weight for something else, possibly more ordnance of a different kind. Or maybe not. Maybe more volume for better ESM or countermeasures or a lower crap-out rate for your RADAR. The guy who straps on the airplane (which I will never do) has to live with those choices and he may curse the "bean counters" who made them but every single characteristic (not just gun/no gun) within a weapons system competes with some other alternative. The payoff for some of these trades isn't always as obvious as a tank full of cannon rounds but it's there. |
#116
|
|||
|
|||
"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message et...
Well, if you don't even *have* a gun, that is not going to be a problem, is it? Of course, neither will the CCT (or its supported ground combat element) get the CAS effort they want either... As to the value of the guns, it is interesting to note that one of the comments that came out of the Anaconda participants was, "Every light division needs a supporting *squadron* of AC-130's." Pie in the sky statement that may be, it points out the value those ground folks placed upon aerial gunfire support. It points out the value that the ground troops placed on AC-130 support. Which is naturally much more effective than fighter strafing support, as the AC-130 has more, larger guns, on trainable mounts, with dedicated gunners, and a very long loiter capability. This is not the same as a fighter that can make two or three 20mm strafing passes before he's out of ammunition. OFCS, the separation range mentioned in a couple of the reports (one from a participating Viper pilot and one from a CCT guy on the ground) was *seventy-five meters*. Do you want any kind of bomb going off that close to *your* patrol if there is another method entailing less risk of fratricide available to be tried first? I wouldn't. There is a good point buried in here - namely that minimum friendly-target distance is an important figure-of-merit for CAS weaponry. It might also be true that the M61 is the best existing fighter-mounted weapon by that standard. Your mistake is to assume that this is always going to be the case. The Small Diameter Bomb and the Advanced Precision Kill Weapons System both address this issue, and address it very well. And if they don't do a good enough job, then it's always possible to develop something better. So if we have (God forbid) another Anaconda situation (and you know as well as I do that there *will* be someday another force inserted somewhere that will find the enemy in an unexpected place, in unexpected strength, and find itself fighting for survival), and our CAS stack is made up of Typhoons and STOVL F-35's sans guns, you think that is OK? Depends on what weapons they're carrying. If they have a pair of 2000 pound JDAMs each, probably not. If they've each got 12 SDBs and 38 laser-guided 70mm rockets, then that's a very different story. And in that case, having STOVL in the case of the JSF or another 15 minutes on station or another 4 SDBs in the case of the Eurofighter are both probably more valuable than the three or four strafing runs you get from a gun. -jake |
#117
|
|||
|
|||
On 11 Dec 2003 05:45:39 -0800, (Tony Williams) wrote:
"Thomas Schoene" wrote in message link.net... Tony Williams wrote: Now let's look at the opposition. The 'European standard' 27mm Mauser BK 27, selected over any US gun by the JSF contenders, weighs 100 kg and uses much less space (only one barrel). Of course, the BK27 was then abandoned by Lockheed Martin after the JSF source selection and replaced by a 25mm GAU-12/U Gatling gun. I understand that was at the initiative of GD, who happened to be given the contract for designing the JSF's BK 27 gun installation and also just happen to make the GAU-12/U (shouldn't they have declared an interest, or something?) .....their argument was on cost grounds, not quality (and I suspect they may have received a sympathetic hearing in favour of a US gun rather than a German one, especially post-Iraq). The BK 27 was originally selected purely on merit. 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/ You have no idea. The Mauser was an inferior weapon. Al Minyard |
#118
|
|||
|
|||
"Jake McGuire" wrote in message om... "Kevin Brooks" wrote in message et... Well, if you don't even *have* a gun, that is not going to be a problem, is it? Of course, neither will the CCT (or its supported ground combat element) get the CAS effort they want either... As to the value of the guns, it is interesting to note that one of the comments that came out of the Anaconda participants was, "Every light division needs a supporting *squadron* of AC-130's." Pie in the sky statement that may be, it points out the value those ground folks placed upon aerial gunfire support. It points out the value that the ground troops placed on AC-130 support. Which is naturally much more effective than fighter strafing support, as the AC-130 has more, larger guns, on trainable mounts, with dedicated gunners, and a very long loiter capability. This is not the same as a fighter that can make two or three 20mm strafing passes before he's out of ammunition. Well, you kind of snipped away the related bit about the scenario where you are well within danger-close and under a significant MANPADS threat during daytime, which sort of eliminates the AC-130 from the running. The point was that the groundpounders found the guns a better starting point for CAS during that operation than PGM's. Are you claiming that the 10th LID and 101st AASLT DIV folks did not like getting that 20mm strafe support they received from the F-15E's and F-16's that day? OFCS, the separation range mentioned in a couple of the reports (one from a participating Viper pilot and one from a CCT guy on the ground) was *seventy-five meters*. Do you want any kind of bomb going off that close to *your* patrol if there is another method entailing less risk of fratricide available to be tried first? I wouldn't. There is a good point buried in here - namely that minimum friendly-target distance is an important figure-of-merit for CAS weaponry. It might also be true that the M61 is the best existing fighter-mounted weapon by that standard. It is hardly buried, if you bothered to read the previous messages in the thread--it (being within danger-close range) has been a key point. Your mistake is to assume that this is always going to be the case. The Small Diameter Bomb and the Advanced Precision Kill Weapons System both address this issue, and address it very well. And if they don't do a good enough job, then it's always possible to develop something better. Your mistake is drawing the wrong conclusions based upon different platform requirements, for starters. APKWS is a Hydra-based (or Hellfire based) solution (neither is scheduled for USAF use), and just like the option of using a gun pod, requires specific load out. In other words if your existing CAS support package does not have it onboard when they show up, or are routed in based upon urgent need, and the separation between forces precludes use of larger PGM's, the ground guys are out of luck. OTOH, if they have their trusty internal cannon the ground guys will get at least some form of support. SDB is admittedly going to have a smaller danger close margin than the current minimum 500 pounders, but even a 200-250 pound bomb is going to have a danger close margin that exceeds 75 meters. So if we have (God forbid) another Anaconda situation (and you know as well as I do that there *will* be someday another force inserted somewhere that will find the enemy in an unexpected place, in unexpected strength, and find itself fighting for survival), and our CAS stack is made up of Typhoons and STOVL F-35's sans guns, you think that is OK? Depends on what weapons they're carrying. If they have a pair of 2000 pound JDAMs each, probably not. If they've each got 12 SDBs and 38 laser-guided 70mm rockets, then that's a very different story. And in that case, having STOVL in the case of the JSF or another 15 minutes on station or another 4 SDBs in the case of the Eurofighter are both probably more valuable than the three or four strafing runs you get from a gun. Hydra is a rotary delivered weapon, and unless they change their plans to make it a fixed wing package it is a non-player in the conventional CAS arena (we are not talking helos here). SDB is still going to have a danger close margin. So you are back to the question of whether or not you want to remain flexible enough to provide gunfire support when the situation precludes use of the bigger stuff. Since the gun also serves as a secondary air-to-air weapon, IMO retaining it for the foreseeable future is a wise move. Brooks -jake |
#119
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 13:21:39 -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/ You have no idea. The Mauser was an inferior weapon. Al Minyard ROFLMAO! How did you draw that stunning conclusion. 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. |
#120
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 06:30:14 -0500, "Paul F Austin"
wrote: "Chad Irby" wrote "Paul J. Adam" wrote: If "lack of guns" is the real problem, surely gun-armed fighters are a complete and satisfactory answer? It's not a simple question of "lack of guns." It's "relying on missiles 100% and not having guns when they're really bloody useful." We learned that lesson over 30 years ago, and a whole new generation of bean counters are trying to resurrect the kind of silliness that the McNamara school brought us in Vietnam... Now, here's a question: for the 200Kg or so weight budget (I have no idea about volume) of an internal gun and ammo tank, would you rather have 1, 2 or 3 more AIM-9Xs/ASRAAMs? There's always a lip-curl reflex about "bean counters" but every time you make a choice, you've rejected an alternative. There's money, weight, volume and time budgets because all of those are fungible, exchangeable among the possible choices. Remove a gun and save money? Sure, but you spend that money, space, power and weight for something else, possibly more ordnance of a different kind. Or maybe not. Maybe more volume for better ESM or countermeasures or a lower crap-out rate for your RADAR. The guy who straps on the airplane (which I will never do) has to live with those choices and he may curse the "bean counters" who made them but every single characteristic (not just gun/no gun) within a weapons system competes with some other alternative. The payoff for some of these trades isn't always as obvious as a tank full of cannon rounds but it's there. The thing is you can pretty much use the gun on anything. If you're the closest aircraft to the troops on the ground and they need someone taken off their back a strafe or two is always handy. If you've somehow gotten in too close for an IR shot you've still got the gun. If you want to warn an aircraft that you're serious you've got the gun (if there aren't any tracers I don't know how useful that would be though). It's just a nice thing to have around "just in case". |
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 |