Best dogfight gun?

"Alan Minyard" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 20:39:51 +0000, Greg Hennessy wrote:

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


Well, if you signature is and indication, you are involved in the use
of serious drugs, not someone that I would assume could make
rational judgements. The fact that the US chose a different system pretty
much tells me that the Mauser was (and is) an inferior system.

Al, I'm as patriotic as any, but...

One of the illuminating moments in my engineering career was when I listened
to five companies worth of very imminent engineering teams bidding to the
same set of requirements, each proving catagorically that their wildly
different offerings were each the_only_solution to the customer's problem,
with utter sincerety and honesty. Then the customer elected to buld
internally rather than buy.

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?

On 11 Dec 2003 23:33:42 -0800, (Tony Williams) wrote:

Chad Irby wrote in message m...

The really nice thing about the Gatling is that we know it works, and we
know it costs less overall for the same general capabilities.

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.

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.

Al Minyard

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.

Al Minyard

The reason that A/A loaded F-4s got more kills is more subtle. It has
to do with the politics of "ace-building" between the USN and USAF and
the mis-guided over-classification of TEABALL. See Michel's Clashes or
Thompson's "To Hanoi and Back".
Escorts didn't even get many shots as they were often used to provide
blocking or herding of MiGs to direct them to a kill zone where the
555th was being vectored on a discrete frequency to do the shooting.

Hi Ed. Interesting comments. Was it just the Wolfpack who practiced
herding Migs? (ironic, given their name!). "Wolfpack" (by Jerry Scutts)
lists the 433rd as getting just about as many kills as the Triple Nickel.
Were they part of the elite ace-building group too? The Wolfpack group
doesn't go into much detail about any herding tactics (IIRC), so I'd love to
hear more about them. And with the performance of a few key squadrons in GW
I (e.g., 58th), it seems that such tactics might again be the case. Are
there tactical advantages that justify committing aircraft to "herding"
duty, or is it primarily PR-related in trying to make an ace? Thanks,

Tony

Don't know who wrote it originally:

Again, AWACS is situation-dependent, and there's that oft-quoted
statistic about 80% of surviving pilots wondering who shot them down
(tracking that statistic to a source is probably good for a PhD thesis -
anyone up for funding it? )

Would it be snobbish to point out the 80% of pilots who get shot down
have lost or never had situational awareness? Scott O'Grady stories,
anyone?

I don't think your PhD thesis will shed much light on improving combat
effectiveness.

On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 09:24:49 -0600, Alan Minyard
wrote:


greg


Well, if you signature is and indication, you are involved in the use
of serious drugs, not someone that I would assume could make
rational judgements.

ROFLMAO! Oh how priceless.


The fact that the US chose a different system pretty
much tells me that the Mauser was (and is) an inferior system.


It doesnt, it had more to do with the knights who say NiH.



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.

In article ,
"Paul F Austin" wrote:

And it's cheaper still to have a dedicated anti-UAV system, possibly
like a turboprop P-51. Using a $60M+ fighter to bust $100K UAVs is
stupid. It's also nearly impossible. A low signature, low altitide
target loitering along at 100kts is tough to manage in a fast mover.
You'll blow though a tank of ammunition killing very few UAVs.

They also have these things called "helicopters" that are usually all
over the modern batlefield, and could rip a low/low UAV out of the air
in short order... and they'd certainly use guns.

Gun kills for modern fighters versus high end UAVs would certainly be
cost-effective, though. Why blow off a missile on a Predator, when you
could use a couple of hundred bucks worth of bullets on a gadget that's
not going anywhere fast, and is worth blowing up?

With the increase in UAVs in the world, guns would seem to be at a
premium.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

In article ,
"Paul F Austin" wrote:

If there's enough of a requirement for gun support in CAS to justify guns
across the fighter fleet, there's an alternative requirement for a
dedicated gun/CAS platform that can live in opposed airspace.

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.

We're having enough trouble getting the USAF to keep Warthogs, and those
have been proven bloody useful every time they've come into play.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

"Paul F Austin" wrote in message
...

"Magnus Redin" wrote in message
...
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.

The gun system reuse all the expensive parts, radar, electronics for
aiming the aeroplane and the gun while the ammunition can be dumb
and is easy to mass produce.

It is of course possible to develop a fairly cheap and small low
performance AA-missile but it is hard to get it as cheap as a gun
system. This gun competitor might be developed if someone decides to
arm small UAV:s with AA-missiles for killing other UAV:s and
helicopters.

And it's cheaper still to have a dedicated anti-UAV system, possibly like
a
turboprop P-51.

I doubt that. Are you seriously contending that producing some single-role
anti-UAV aircraft, along with training the pilots, setting up the logistics
support system, etc., ad nauseum, is going to be cheaper than continuing to
install (multi-use) guns in modern (multirole) fighters?

Using a $60M+ fighter to bust $100K UAVs is stupid.

I suspect it would be less stupid than recreating the whel in the form of
producing and fielding an entirely new line of limited use aircraft.

It's
also nearly impossible. A low signature, low altitide target loitering
along
at 100kts is tough to manage in a fast mover. You'll blow though a tank of
ammunition killing very few UAVs.

Not all UAV's are low signature (at least not so low as to be indetectable
by a fighter). Nor do they all loiter at extremely low altitude (lest they
get plinked by the odd troopie with his rifle or the local SHORAD assets).

Brooks



And I realy like the idea of a backup weapon if the enemy has superior
countermeasures for your AA-missiles. But you can have that with a pod
filled with unguided rockets.

That's also why you have the next generation AAM. A major portion of the
AIM-9 development over the last 50 years (!) has been improvements to
seekers to get Pk up, including in the face of better countermeasures..

"Paul F Austin" wrote in message
...

"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
.. .

"Paul F Austin" wrote in message
...

"Kevin Brooks" wrote
"Paul F Austin" wrote

"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.

Minimum safe distance (to friendly troops) for surface targets using
the
20mm is 25 meters (according to a USAF chart included in the 1996
edition
of
CGSC ST 100-3). The same chart indicates minimum distance for bombs
under
500 pounds is 145 meters (for protected friendlies, ie., bunkers,
trenches,
fighting positions) or 500 meters (if friendlies are in the open).
Even
given a significant reduction in the latter figures for the smaller
SDB,
it
is going to be substantially more than 25 meters. So what do you use
to
engage bad guys located in the 25 meter to something-under-500 meter
gap
if
you have no gun? This is not a purely hypothetical--it happened
during
Anaconda.

That's a good point and one I can't answer. If it was me though, I'd
expect
that the answer would lie with more organic fires available at the
battalion
level rather than depending on CAS for "men in the wire".

There is not a soldier around who would disagree with your objective,
since
groundpounders generally prefer having "their own" support completely
in-pocket. But that does not change the fact that there will be
situations,
like during Anaconda, where the organic support assets are either not
available (i.e., no arty tubes were within range) or unable to handle
the
scope of the mission (i.e., the mortars that the Anaconda troops did
have
were over-tasked due to the unexpected number of concurrent targets, and
ammo resupply was problematic being fully dependent upon helos in what
had
already become a less-than-helo-friendly environment). That is where the
internal gun on the CAS aircraft becomes a means for the commander to
remain
flexible in how he responds to these "knife fight" situations.

If there's enough of a requirement for gun support in CAS to justify guns
across the fighter fleet,

If you had not noticed, CAS is flown by aircraft "across the fighter fleet",
so yes, that gun requirement would be universal.

there's an alternative requirement for a
dedicated gun/CAS platform that can live in opposed airspace.

You are having difficulty with the concept of preserving an admittedly less
likely to be used capability (nobody in their right mind is going to argue
that the gun strafe attack should be a primary role for fast mover type CAS
assets) in order to maintain maximum flexibility and maximize the ability to
support the ground force under all conditions as opposed to the "guns are
the primary asset" alternative. The latter is unwise, and I have not seen
anyone claim the gun should be the primary CAS weapon for fast movers.

We're also
splitting into the a cannon with a_very_large tank of ammo to address the
many, many soft hostiles application and the few, hard targets that
require
something like a 30x173. Remember that some of the gun/aircraft
combinations
discussed on this thread only carried 150 rounds or so. You won't make too
many passes with that.

A few passes when the ground guys' butts are in the crack is a heck of a lot
better than no passes at all. And the primary use of the gun in these kind
of strafe attacks is *suppression* of the opposing crunchies and their light
CSW's that are too close to engage with other more destructive weapons, so
the 20mm and 25mm are not going to be significantly worse performers than
your 30mm.

Brooks