Best dogfight gun?

On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 09:29:33 -0600, Alan Minyard
wrote:

On 10 Dec 2003 12:56:12 -0800, (Tony Williams) wrote:

Alan Minyard wrote in message . ..
On 9 Dec 2003 13:40:45 -0800, (Tony Williams) wrote:

Alan Minyard wrote in message . ..
And who out there is going to use significant numbers of unreliable, heavy, slow
cannon to oppose a US Force? The rate of fire of the .50 was not enough to
make up for the somewhat smaller calibre, that is not the case with the M-61.

Possibly, possibly not. The bigger the target is, the more damage you
have to inflict to down it. A MiG-15 weighed under 3,800 kg empty, a
Su-27 around 18,000 kg - nearly five times as much. A 20mm shell
weighs only just over twice as much as a .50 bullet. You can double
its effectiveness in recognition of the HEI content, but even so you
are still left with a pretty even match between the .5/MiG-15 and
20mm/Su-27 in terms of destructive effect compared with target weight.

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.

Guided missiles? Now that you mention it, I have heard something about
them - but IIRC this thread is all about guns.

Your post seems to imply that you think that anything bigger than a
20mm is by definition bulky, heavy, slow-firing and unreliable. Well,
lets take the M61A1 as the standard, shall we? It weighs 114 kg, and
is very bulky because there are six barrels which all need room to
spin. Then, because it fires its little shells so fast (and you need
to hit with a lot of them to have the desired effect) it needs a big
ammunition capacity, with a big magazine - much more space and weight.
In fact, the magazine and ammo feed weigh about as much as the gun,
and the full load of ammo typically weighs the same again.

Now let's look at the opposition. The 'European standard' 27mm Mauser
BK 27, selected over any US gun by the JSF contenders

That has changed. The Mouser is out.

, weighs 100 kg
and uses much less space (only one barrel). The ammo is bigger, but
less of it is needed because it's much more effective.

And I suppose that you have verifiable combat records to support this??

For a bit more
weight (120 kg) you can get a GIAT 30M791 which is equally powerful
and can fire up to 2,500 rpm. Both of these guns hit their top speed
instantly, unlike the M61.

The spin up of the M-61 is so minor as to not be an issue, ask the
people who have used them.

Look to Russia and things get even more
interesting:

If you consider bankruptcy interesting.

the GSh-30 weighs 105 kg and fires powerful 30mm ammo at
up to 3,000 rpm (again, instantly). The little GSh-301 used in the
MiG-29 and Su-27 only fires at 1,500-1,800 rpm (instantly) but weighs
a trivial 45 kg and is tiny by comparison with the M61. If you really
want firepower, then there's the GSh-6-30 which fires the same,
powerful, 30mm ammo at around 5,000 rpm for just 160 kg. I admit that
is heavier than an M61, but it's hardly any bigger and has several
times the firepower.

There is no evidence that it works, much less its firepower, accuracy, etc.


There is a legitimate debate about whether fighter guns are needed
anymore, given the much improved performance of guided missiles. I am
willing to argue that on several grounds, and am supported by the fact
that despite all the high-tech gee-whizz weaponry used recently in
Afghanistan and Iraq, US fighters were still using their guns in
circumstances where nothing else was suitable. If you're going to
retain a gun, it might as well be the best you can get. The price,
space and weight costs are negligible as a fraction of a modern
fighter.

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

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

Al Minyard

Ummmmm. I think you are being very critical without much actual
logical rhetoric about the points put forward considering the person
you are criticising.

Tony writes reference works on automatic canons and firearms and has
spent ages collecting and documenting just about everything you may
want to know, especially with regards to aerial cannon and ammunition.
If you are going to make declerative statements about his points, at
least elaborate so we can have a proper discussion.

While Tony does often put forward raw stats in comments, these do work
for many comparrisons. A lighter cannon that throws heavier ammunition
at faster speeds and with similar or better reliability does tend to
'win' arguments. Of course a m61 will still do damage but what if the
engagement is fleeting and you can only get 2 or 3 rounds on target. I
would prefer them to be 30mm rather than 20mm based simply on HE
content expectations. If it happens to come from a lighter gun then
thats all the better.

On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 15:35:37 GMT, "Kevin Brooks" wrote:


"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

Roger that!!

Al Minyard

On or about Thu, 11 Dec 2003 13:21:39 -0600, Alan Minyard
allegedly uttered:

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.

Really, why?

"Citing lower costs, greater lethality and improved supportability,
The Boeing Company this week targeted the Advanced 27mm Aircraft
Cannon for its next-generation Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) combat
aircraft"
"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 the
competitors."

Both from
http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/...se_990428n.htm

Yes they are the losers, but they seemed convinced.

Or we could look at the specs

BK27
100kg
ROF 1770 rpm
Muzzle Velocity 1025m/s

GAU-12/U
123kg
ROF 4200rpm
Muzzle Velocity 1036m/s (API)
Muzzle Velocity 1085m/s (TP, HEI)

SO the major differences a

BK has more muzzle energy
BK is lighter
BK has ballistically matched ammunition so a consistent aimpoint
BK round is more destructive
BK round will hold it's energy for a further distance
GAU has a higher ROF.

So tell us again why the Mauser is an inferior weapon?

---
Peter Kemp

Life is short - Drink Faster

In article ,
(Paul Krenske) wrote:

While Tony does often put forward raw stats in comments, these do work
for many comparrisons. A lighter cannon that throws heavier ammunition
at faster speeds and with similar or better reliability does tend to
'win' arguments. Of course a m61 will still do damage but what if the
engagement is fleeting and you can only get 2 or 3 rounds on target.

That's the point, though. If the M61 could only get two or three rounds
on target, the slower-firing 30mm Mauser could only expect to get one.
If the Mauser gets two or three, the Gatling gets six to ten.

A bigger gatling-type (the Russian one mentioned earlier in the thread)
would also be a good thing, but you're running into recoil and
ammunition mass issues at that point.

The recent move to 25mm for the Gatling is a compromise in the "more
damage per shot" trend, but still keeps the "more holes in the other
guy" philosophy.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

"Chad Irby" wrote:
| In article ,
| (Paul Krenske) wrote:
|
| While Tony does often put forward raw stats in comments, these do
work
| for many comparrisons. A lighter cannon that throws heavier
ammunition
| at faster speeds and with similar or better reliability does tend to
| 'win' arguments. Of course a m61 will still do damage but what if
the
| engagement is fleeting and you can only get 2 or 3 rounds on target.
|
| That's the point, though. If the M61 could only get two or three
rounds
| on target, the slower-firing 30mm Mauser could only expect to get one.
| If the Mauser gets two or three, the Gatling gets six to ten.

In the first second of operation the 27mm Mauser will discharge 28 260gm
projectiles. The 25mm GAU-12/U in the AV8B in the same time will only
discharge 35 180gm projectiles. In the first half second the 27mm Mauser
will discharge 13-14 projectiles, the GAU-12/U in the AV8B is still
"thinking" about firing its 14 projectile. The comment for the JSF is
that an improved derivative of GAU-12/U will be used but no figures are
quoted for what improvements, if any are expected.

In article ,
Peter Kemp peter_n_kempathotmaildotcom@ wrote:

Or we could look at the specs

BK27
100kg
ROF 1770 rpm
Muzzle Velocity 1025m/s

GAU-12/U
123kg
ROF 4200rpm
Muzzle Velocity 1036m/s (API)
Muzzle Velocity 1085m/s (TP, HEI)

SO the major differences a

BK has more muzzle energy
BK is lighter
BK has ballistically matched ammunition so a consistent aimpoint
BK round is more destructive
BK round will hold it's energy for a further distance
GAU has a higher ROF.

So tell us again why the Mauser is an inferior weapon?

BK has higher specific recoil (28 versus 22 kN), so needs much more
reinforcement of airframe, negating weight difference

GAU has a *much* higher rate of fire, so much higher chance of actually
hitting the target

While a single BK round does slightly more damage, it doesn't do twice
as much damage, so firing rate is too slow

BK has about twice the barrel wear at full fire rate

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

In article ,
"Brett" wrote:

"Chad Irby" wrote:

| That's the point, though. If the M61 could only get two or three
| rounds on target, the slower-firing 30mm Mauser could only expect
| to get one. If the Mauser gets two or three, the Gatling gets six
| to ten.

In the first second of operation the 27mm Mauser will discharge 28 260gm
projectiles. The 25mm GAU-12/U in the AV8B in the same time will only
discharge 35 180gm projectiles.

....and after four or five one-second shots, the Mauser will be out,
while the GAU will have three or four left.

Or, using half-second bursts, the Mauser will have about one-*quarter*
the firing time...

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

"Chad Irby" wrote:
| In article ,
| "Brett" wrote:
|
| "Chad Irby" wrote:
|
| | That's the point, though. If the M61 could only get two or three
| | rounds on target, the slower-firing 30mm Mauser could only expect
| | to get one. If the Mauser gets two or three, the Gatling gets six
| | to ten.
|
| In the first second of operation the 27mm Mauser will discharge 28
260gm
| projectiles. The 25mm GAU-12/U in the AV8B in the same time will
only
| discharge 35 180gm projectiles.
|
| ...and after four or five one-second shots, the Mauser will be out,
| while the GAU will have three or four left.
|
| Or, using half-second bursts, the Mauser will have about one-*quarter*
| the firing time...

Your original claim was the advantage enjoyed by the gatling from the
much larger the number of projectiles sent in the direction of the
target when required, if it is actually sending less the advantage
should belong to the Mauser.

"Chad Irby" wrote
"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.

Nope, I just used weight as an example of the "cost" paid for a gun. And my
question stands: At the initial design stage of an aircraft when you're
making choices, is a gun worth more than a couple of SRAAMs? Or some of the
other goods that you snipped. Those are real choices and a gun has to earn
its place on the airframe just like every other piece of gear. You (the
customer and systems designers) make choices that affect the aircraft
thoughout its life.

Yes, the "no-guns" fighter was 'way premature in 1955, the year the F4H
configuration was frozen. It's_really_not clear that's still the case now.
Minimum range engagement? ASRAAM claim 300m minimum range and with "looks
can kill" helmet sights, it's really not clear that a gun brings much to the
table.. Strafing? Having 6 SDBs tucked away seems more useful.

It's not just weapons fit either. The vibration from gun firing costs
significantly higher failure rates in electronics near the gun. Having a
major electronics failure is a mission kill these days.

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.

In contrast, the press release from GD just mentioned that they were
proposing the GAU-12/U instead because it was cheaper and the ammo was
already in US service (you mean, that hadn't been realised before?).

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.

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