Best dogfight gun?

On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 12:33:04 -0800, Lyle wrote:


Ed,

What is the difference between direct close airsupport, and close
airsupport, or is it just all lumped together and called close air
support.

Sounds like some sort of semantic argument. I never heard the term
"direct close air support" used in any official context. Close Air
Support is the employment of tac air assets in direct support of
ground units. It would, by its very nature be "direct".

With regard to fire support of ground units, there is the distinction
between direct and indirect fire. That's the difference between aimed
large-bore guns such as tank cannon and parabolic lobbed shells such
as artillery and mortar.

Maybe someone more current than I am in the latest nomenclature can
contribute to the discussion.

I don't think that's right. We know that two A-10s nailed helos in
'91, so the possibility of helo-A-10 combat has to be considered.
If an A-10 can get a helo kill with a gun designed for air-to-ground,
then a helo with such a gun can do the same thing to the A-10.

The A-10 is pretty tough and between that and the helicopter's gun's
low rate of fire and relative inaccuracy would make it pretty
difficult for a helicoper to get a *gun* kill on an aircraft. A
missile kill is a WHOLE 'nother ball game. Back in the 80's they did
some tests of helicopter gunships defending themselves from fighters
with Sidewinder missiles and they did pretty good.





Restricting armament to its advertised role is silly. Just ask the
Argentineans in that ship that the Royal Marines pasted with their
Carl Gustavs. Or the F-15 that nailed the helo with the 500-lb dumb
bomb. Having seen those happen, the idea of an A-10 going up against
an enemy aircraft doesn't seem so far-fetched.

I believe it was in the book "Warthog" in which a pilot discribes how
a Mig-29 was headed their was and him and his wingman were getting
ready with their Sidwinders and guns but some F-15s came in and took
care of them before there was an opportunity. I imagine if a pair of
Mig-29s got shot down by two A-10s we'd still be hearing the laughter
though.

On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 20:46:54 GMT, 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.

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.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

On Mon, 8 Dec 2003 13:06:31 -0500, "Hog Driver"
wrote:

Superior avionics do not make a superior pilot.

But crummy avionics can make things difficult enough to have an
effect. Look at the original F-16 LCOS, that often caused a PIO.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

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

"Chad Irby" wrote

The "little bitty" UAVs out there are in the "fly past really quick
and
turbulence does the job" category...

There really aren't "a lot" of large UAVs. They (and their payloads) are
quite expensive and the number look limited for the foreseeable future.

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. 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.

"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.

In article ,
Mary Shafer wrote:

On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 20:46:54 GMT, 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.

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. Certainly
big enough to hit with cannon fire.

Maybe you saw a sub-scale prototype?

--
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

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).

That "Pioneer-class" machine has a fifteen foot wingspan, which puts it
into the "light plane" size category, and certainly makes it big enough
to see and shoot down. If a jet can't do it, they can call in a
helicopter (every combat copter we have in the inventory could easily
catch one of the "little" drones).

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message
news
In message , Magnus Redin
writes
Hi!

"Paul F Austin" writes:
So you really do need to justify a gun's place on the airframe on more
than
"it might be useful and you never know"..

A gun is probably the cheapest way of killing low-performace targets
like UAV:s, cheap targets that an enemy can produce in large numbers
forcing you to deplete your stock of expensive AA-misiles.

UAVs are going to be really tough gun targets: just look at the size of
them. Aircraft guns aren't a good option, if only because you're going
to need so many rounds per target.

To judge by the one looking us over earlier this week, I'ld suggest
a 12 gauge with full choke. That and lots of practice.

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).

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).

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).

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.

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. The M16 rifle family is expected to
be replaced soon by the XM8, based on the (German) Heckler & Koch G36.
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. The USN has made
extensive use of the (Italian) 76mm OTO, and the US Coastguard has
selected the (Swedish) 57mm Bofors as the main gun for its new class
of ships. 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, and the USN uses the T-45 Goshawk
trainer, a version of the (British) BAe Hawk.

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/