Best dogfight gun?

In article ,
(Tony Williams) wrote:

"Brett" wrote:

see: http://stage.defensedaily.com/VIP/dd...ddi1122.htm#A3

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?

In other words, the GAU-12 cost a little bit more at the start (before
the Mauser cost inflations got out of hand), and when the Mauser started
getting really expensive, the GAU-12 could win.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

On 16 Dec 2003 01:11:08 -0800, (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?

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/

The gun is selected by the USAF, not the contractor. (IIRC)

Al Minyard

"Alan Minyard" wrote:
On 16 Dec 2003 01:11:08 -0800, (Tony
Williams) wrote:

...

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/

The gun is selected by the USAF, not the contractor. (IIRC)

Is the cannon going to be GFE?
USAF I believe would approve/disapprove whatever cannon is selected by the
prime contractor based on the requirements outlined in the contract that was
awarded.

Alan Minyard wrote in message . ..
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.

You're confusing 'decision' with 'contract'. The press release
announcing the switch to the GAU-12/U says that 'Lockheed Martin
originally selected the BK 27 cannon..' and 'Boeing also selected the
27mm cannon...'. Those were decisions, but like all contractual
arrangements could be changed until the contracts were formally
signed.

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
:
On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 22:31:50 GMT, "Bjørnar Bolsøy"
wrote:
(Tony Williams) wrote in
om:

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

The point was that the M61 was scrapped in favor of the BK27.


Regards...

"Emmanuel Gustin" wrote:
"Tony Williams" wrote in message
m...
"Brett" wrote in message
...

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?

Maybe the requirements were changed? IIRC the BK 27 will now
be fixed internal armament only in the CTOL version of the F-35,
which would reduce the importance of the biggest disadvantage of
the GAU-12/U, its weight (and that of its ammunition). For the
STOVL versions weight is more critical, and the BK 27 would
have been the better choice.

Neither of the STOVL JSF proposals had an internal cannon so that probably
means the change occurred before even selected the BK 27 for the USAF
version.

"Emmanuel Gustin" wrote:
"Tony Williams" wrote in message
m...
"Brett" wrote in message
...

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?

Maybe the requirements were changed? IIRC the BK 27 will now
be fixed internal armament only in the CTOL version of the F-35,
which would reduce the importance of the biggest disadvantage of
the GAU-12/U, its weight (and that of its ammunition). For the
STOVL versions weight is more critical, and the BK 27 would
have been the better choice.

Neither of the STOVL JSF proposals had an internal cannon so that probably
means the change occurred before Boeing even selected the BK 27 for the USAF
version.

"Brett" wrote in message ...
"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.

Which suggests that the initial 'order of merit' after assessing how
well the competitors met the stated requirement was: first, BK 27,
second GAU-12/U, third M61A2.

That raises the interesting question of why the F/A-18E/F and F/A-22
are equipped with the M61A2 instead of the GAU-12/U - I have wondered
about that before. Yes, the M61 is lighter and faster-firing, but the
extra range, reduced shell flight time and much superior hitting power
would have more than compensated, I would have thought. After all, the
USAF originally planned to move to a 25mm gun in the early 1970s (the
GAU-7/A), and would have done so if it wasn't for technical problems
with the combustible-case ammo.

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
...

...

"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.

Which suggests that the initial 'order of merit' after assessing how
well the competitors met the stated requirement was: first, BK 27,
second GAU-12/U, third M61A2.

No, it suggests that the group that actually had a "choice" in cannon
selection (Boeing) may have missed it as badly as they did with the rest of
their JSF proposal.

On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 22:24:47 GMT, "Brett" wrote:

"Alan Minyard" wrote:
On 16 Dec 2003 01:11:08 -0800, (Tony
Williams) wrote:

...

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/

The gun is selected by the USAF, not the contractor. (IIRC)

Is the cannon going to be GFE?
USAF I believe would approve/disapprove whatever cannon is selected by the
prime contractor based on the requirements outlined in the contract that was
awarded.

I really do not know. On ships all of the guns are GFE, on aircraft I do not know.
I do know that the selection of weapons is a Govt decision, not the
contractors.

Al Minyard