If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#261
|
|||
|
|||
"Tony Williams" wrote:
| "Brett" wrote in message ... | "Tony Williams" wrote: ... | | It was clear that when Boeing decided in | | favour of the BK 27 in 1999, the GAU-12/U WAS in the frame, because GD | | withdrew it from the JSF competition in 2000, just before L-M selected | | the BK 27 as well (which looks very much like a case of 'resign before | | you're sacked'). | | Or it could be that GD believed the "press" on how effective the BK 27 | was. The evaluation by LMT after the JSF contract award would appear to | have determined that the BK 27 wasn't that great an advance and that the | GAU-12/U was just as effective. | | You think that a company like GD would withdraw from a competition | because they're frightened of the opposition's press releases? That's | not my perception of US business attitudes. Well that would depend on what they believed the actual requirements were for the weapon and the "press" (from Boeing) on how well the BK 27 met those requirements. | Can you point me please to the source for the statement that "the BK | 27 wasn't that great an advance and that the GAU-12/U was just as | effective". The term used by Burbage was "comparable in technical performance" and was part of this section of a Defense Daily article. __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 | I'm trying to sort out the facts of what happened here amongst the | usual forum smoke and mirrors. I mean, the arguments are fun but I do | prefer them to lead to some daylight. Wasn't "ammunition, and operational support" behind of the RAF's "government problems" with the Typhoon BK 27 installation. |
#262
|
|||
|
|||
"Brett" wrote in message ...
"Tony Williams" wrote: | Can you point me please to the source for the statement that "the BK | 27 wasn't that great an advance and that the GAU-12/U was just as | effective". The term used by Burbage was "comparable in technical performance" and was part of this section of a Defense Daily article. __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 Thanks, that's helpful. Wasn't "ammunition, and operational support" behind of the RAF's "government problems" with the Typhoon BK 27 installation. I had the impression that the Eurofighter programme was taking a lot of flak for being over budget, so the gun was offered up as a kind of sacrificial lamb to appease the Treasury (the RAF probably figuring that they could fit it later if required). Of course, when it turned out that the first 55 or so were contractually committed anyway, and the gun has to be carried by the plane whether it's used or not, they looked rather silly. All they'll be saving will be the cost of ammo and the maintenance/training requirements, which is not likely to be huge as a percentage of the project. I'd lay a small bet that not long after the Typhoon enters service, the RAF will suddenly find an urgent operational need for activating the gun... Tony Williams Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk Discussion forum at: http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/ |
#263
|
|||
|
|||
On 15 Dec 2003 13:24:00 -0800, Tony Williams wrote:
I had the impression that the Eurofighter programme was taking a lot of flak for being over budget, so the gun was offered up as a kind of sacrificial lamb to appease the Treasury (the RAF probably figuring that they could fit it later if required). Of course, when it turned out that the first 55 or so were contractually committed anyway, and the gun has to be carried by the plane whether it's used or not, they looked rather silly. All they'll be saving will be the cost of ammo and the maintenance/training requirements, which is not likely to be huge as a percentage of the project. I'd lay a small bet that not long after the Typhoon enters service, the RAF will suddenly find an urgent operational need for activating the gun... Wouldn't surprise me :-) -- "It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia (Email: , but first subtract 275 and reverse the last two letters). |
#265
|
|||
|
|||
Chad Irby wrote in
: 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. I think it speaks well of the modesty of the M61 compared to both the GAU12 and BK27. Regards.. |
#266
|
|||
|
|||
(Tony Williams) wrote in
: Subject: Best dogfight gun? From: (Tony Williams) Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military 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 G-A role for the JSF probably influenced that, 27mm beging more effective on ground targets. Regards... |
#267
|
|||
|
|||
"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/ |
#268
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#269
|
|||
|
|||
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. Al Minyard |
#270
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 22:31:50 GMT, "Bjørnar Bolsøy" wrote:
(Tony Williams) wrote in m: Subject: Best dogfight gun? From: (Tony Williams) Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military 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 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 Al Minyard |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
AIM-54 Phoenix missile | Sujay Vijayendra | Military Aviation | 89 | November 3rd 03 09:47 PM |
P-39's, zeros, etc. | old hoodoo | Military Aviation | 12 | July 23rd 03 05:48 AM |