Best dogfight gun?

In article ,
"Paul J. Adam" wrote:

In message , Chad Irby
writes
"Paul J. Adam" wrote:
Trouble is, all the guns you like won't stop #4 of one of the escort
sections getting an unseen Atoll up the tailpipe

And all the missiles won't help much in this case, either.

Why not? An aircraft diving away in afterburner is an excellent missile
target.

Not that the "unseen Atoll up the tailpipe" is the *other* guy, and
won't help you defensively. You followed up your comment with:

Try that same attack against modern aircraft, and you'll still avoid the
guns shot: but you'll get a late-model Sidewinder for your pains, or an
AIM-120 as you extend.

Not if it's an "unseen Atoll up the tailpipe." Tis scneario means
"you're dead." What you just described is a "*seen* Atoll up the
tailpipe."

There seems to be this romantical view that fighter pilots, out of
ordnance and committed to their mission, will drop everything for a
fangs-out pursuit of a fleeing foe.

No, they're soldiers, and they'll use what they have available, like
they have for the last century.

Do you have the fuel for the prolonged tailchase required to get into
guns range, manoeuvre for the kill, then get home? Remember, the enemy
aircraft is ahead of you, out of range, with a substantial speed
advantage.

Really? How do you know? Maybe they ran out of missiles, have *no*
speed advantage at the monent, and are in a decent spot to get nailed.

It's funny how you took a fairly standard scenario, and suddenly started
changing it...

What happens when some of his friends join the party, you being down to
guns only?

Then you run. You see, in *my* scenario, pilots can think, and in
yours, they're overamped morons who are only in it for the blood.

So produce some numbers. Relative SAM losses per sortie, for instance?
I'm open to data, I just get wary about assertion and anecdote.

If you want to find that out, find it yourself. *You're* the one who
wants that data. Let us know how it goes. Until you do, that other
comparison is still pretty useless.

In other words, "don't confuse me with facts, my mind is made up".

Funny, that's what I just said about *you*. *You* are the guy who's
going against the last half-century of experience in jet fighter combat.
You're the one who has to prove sommething, and you're not doing it very
well so far.

When was the last air-to-air combat fratricide (by which I mean a shot
taken at an enemy aircraft diverted and destroyed a friendly)?

When's the last time we had a major air combat situation? All we've had
were "shoot down the one or two idiots dumb enough to get into the air"
since about 1991... although I read something recently about a Japanese
fighter lost to a Sidewinder in an exercise a year or so back.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

In article ,
"Paul J. Adam" wrote:

In message , Chad Irby
writes
In article ,
"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."

In other words, guns solve the problem?

They don't "solve the problem," they give you another tool to solve any
of a number of problems. Like shooting down enemy planes, shooting down
enemy UAVs without firing off missiles that you might need later, or
shooting at things on the ground.

Not according to the facts they
don't: in fact they're pretty damn marginal (and not cheap either).

Still a contention not proven. Your "facts" so far have been "guns are
useless, so there."

We learned that lesson over 30 years ago,

And of course, nothing has changed since then. (Well, the M61 hasn't...)

And neither has the Mauser, or any of the other major guns. Or the
problems they can be used to solve.

Once the missiles have demonstrated ~80% lethality in actual combat
against real enemies doing their best to survive, then perhaps there's
more evidence to support the analysis. Oh, I forget - they did that
twenty-one years ago.

What major war did we fight in 1982?

Maybe you're thinking *31* years ago, in which case you yourself noted
that the Sidewinder only manage a bit less than 50%, and the
radar-guided missiles didn't manage near that much.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 19:34:41 +0000, Greg Hennessy wrote:

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

The "improved" BK-27 was to be produced at the Alliant Techsystems
plant in Mesa Arizona. This plant was previously owned by Boing. This gun,
originally designed about 30 years ago was to be significantly modified
and the new design was unproven. In addition, the cased ammunition
requires internal spent case stowage.

Al Minyard

On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 19:34:41 +0000, Greg Hennessy wrote:

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

The BK-27 was an inferior weapon, nominally "produced" by a US
corporation. Your choice of language belies any claim to veracity
on your part.

Al Minyard

On 12 Dec 2003 19:49:49 GMT, 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.


Ron
Pilot/Wildland Firefighter

And the F-35.

Al Minyard

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.

Al Minyard

"Bertil Jonell" wrote
Paul J. Adam wrote:
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.

Against so small targets a proximity fuzed shell, or a timed-fuzed
cannister round would be much more effective. The size means that you
don't need direct impacts of 20mm+ to bring it down, and the increased
probability of getting a hit with preformed fragments/subprojectiles
might[1] compensate for the small size.

[1] Well, I think so at least But you'd need to run tests on it to

Cannister will likely never be fired from an aircraft for the same reason
that A-10s fire AP rather than APDS ammunition: the sabot or cannister
casing are an unacceptable FOD hazard to the firing aircraft. Something like
AHEAD or proximity fuzed ammunition might play a role.

"Chad Irby" wrote
"Paul J. Adam" wrote:

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.

There are a lot of "plane sized" UAVs, and if you think anaircraft the
size of a Predator is a hard gun target, well, you need to compare it to
how hard it is to hit with a cheap missile (low IR signature, low radar
signature).

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. The
Little Bitty UAVs on the other hand look to be ubiquitous. Turbulence might
do the job or maybe not. These aren't ultralights with nil control
authority. If they're flying low enough to prevent recovery, then the
fighter doing the buzz pass is in fair danger of CFIT, especially in combat.

On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 17:06:33 GMT, Ed Rasimus wrote:


Dale Brown will probably install swiveling M-61s in the swing-wing for
his next fictional foray. "Flight of the Young Pup."


ROFLMAO!!!!!


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 Sat, 13 Dec 2003 12:27:26 -0500, "Paul F Austin"
wrote:



Cannister will likely never be fired from an aircraft for the same reason
that A-10s fire AP rather than APDS ammunition: the sabot or cannister
casing are an unacceptable FOD hazard to the firing aircraft. Something like
AHEAD or proximity fuzed ammunition might play a role.


Range gated fuzing like the bofors 3P has would be interesting.


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.