Best dogfight gun?

A few comments on recent posts:

The M61 is an extremely reliable and long-lasting gun. However, the
little 20mm shells only weigh 102g compared with 180g for the 25mm
GAU-12/U, 260g for the 27mm BK 27, 270g for the 30mm GIAT 30M791 and
390g for the Russian 30mm guns. This means that the M61 has to score
many more hits than 30mm guns to have the same effect on the target (I
have read an estimate of around 20 hits needed to bring down a modern
fighter).

This lack of hitting power was recognised by the USAF as early as the
1960s and led to the development of the 25mm GAU-7/A, which was
intended to replace the M61 as the standard fighter gun, and was
planned for installation in the F-15. This fired 200g projectiles for
a considerable increase in effectiveness. However, the advanced,
combustible-cased ammo ran into technical difficulties which could not
be solved in time so the gun was scrapped and the M61 soldiered on.
Its survival for so long can only be put down to the fact that fighter
guns are much less important nowadays with the development of better
missiles, so it hasn't been worth the cost of developing a new one.

More recently, as has been pointed out, the 27mm Mauser was selected
by both of the JSF contenders as providing the optimum balance of
characteristics for an aircraft gun, despite being a foreign design
produced by a country which is not even a member of the JSF consortium
- that tells you how good it must be compared with the home-grown
product.

Incidentally, there is still some mystery about the current situation
- I have it on good authority that GD (given the job of integrating
the BK 27 to the F-35) have proposed using the GAU-12/U instead
(allegedly for cost reasons), but every publication I have seen on the
F-35 still mentions the BK 27. Can anyone point to a definitive
reference?

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

"Tony Williams" wrote:
| A few comments on recent posts:
|
| The M61 is an extremely reliable and long-lasting gun. However, the
| little 20mm shells only weigh 102g compared with 180g for the 25mm
| GAU-12/U, 260g for the 27mm BK 27, 270g for the 30mm GIAT 30M791 and
| 390g for the Russian 30mm guns. This means that the M61 has to score
| many more hits than 30mm guns to have the same effect on the target (I
| have read an estimate of around 20 hits needed to bring down a modern
| fighter).
|
| This lack of hitting power was recognised by the USAF as early as the
| 1960s and led to the development of the 25mm GAU-7/A, which was
| intended to replace the M61 as the standard fighter gun, and was
| planned for installation in the F-15. This fired 200g projectiles for
| a considerable increase in effectiveness. However, the advanced,
| combustible-cased ammo ran into technical difficulties which could not
| be solved in time so the gun was scrapped and the M61 soldiered on.
| Its survival for so long can only be put down to the fact that fighter
| guns are much less important nowadays with the development of better
| missiles, so it hasn't been worth the cost of developing a new one.
|
| More recently, as has been pointed out, the 27mm Mauser was selected
| by both of the JSF contenders as providing the optimum balance of
| characteristics for an aircraft gun, despite being a foreign design
| produced by a country which is not even a member of the JSF consortium
| - that tells you how good it must be compared with the home-grown
| product.
|
| Incidentally, there is still some mystery about the current situation
| - I have it on good authority that GD (given the job of integrating
| the BK 27 to the F-35) have proposed using the GAU-12/U instead
| (allegedly for cost reasons), but every publication I have seen on the
| F-35 still mentions the BK 27. Can anyone point to a definitive
| reference?

GD's web site? "The 25mm GAU-12/U system produced by General Dynamics
Armament and Technical Products (GDATP) was recently selected for the
Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)..."

http://www.gdatp.com/products/lethal...12u/gau-12.htm

In article ,
(Tony Williams) wrote:

The problem with a GAU-8/A as a fighter gun is that the weapon and its
ammunition tank are so enormous that the plane has to be designed
around them, and they would use up a substantial part of the internal
volume of a fighter aircraft. Better to go with the Oerlikon KCA,
which fires equally powerful ammo in a much more compact package.

Well, for a fighter-only gun, versus the GAU-8, yeah. But for a
ground-attack weapon, the GAU-8 is pretty cool for air-to-air.

(Three times the firing rate, and seven times as much ammo in the plane.)

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

In message , Chad Irby
writes
In article ,
"Hog Driver" wrote:
If you actually ever get into the dreaded knife-fight in a phone booth, the
other guy is going to have second thoughts about screwing with an A-10 when
the nose erupts in a huge cloud of smoke well beyond the range he can employ
his gun.

Didn't some Warthogs chew up some F-15s in an exercise that way, once?
Sit in the weeds, wait for the Eagles to get in "close," and gun kill
them from a couple of miles off...

Going slow and turning with an A-10 is about as smart as "turning with a
Zero" used to be in 1942.

Unfortunately, the A-10 doesn't have many ways to prevent an adversary
using energy tactics, and can't do more than dodge and pray in that
fight.

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

In article ,
"Paul J. Adam" wrote:

Going slow and turning with an A-10 is about as smart as "turning with a
Zero" used to be in 1942.

Unfortunately, the A-10 doesn't have many ways to prevent an adversary
using energy tactics, and can't do more than dodge and pray in that
fight.

Actually, the Hog does, if it knows what direction the other guy is
coming from.

Turn into the oncoming fighter, and open fire from a mile or so further
out...

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

In message , Chad Irby
writes
In article ,
"Paul J. Adam" wrote:
Going slow and turning with an A-10 is about as smart as "turning with a
Zero" used to be in 1942.

Unfortunately, the A-10 doesn't have many ways to prevent an adversary
using energy tactics, and can't do more than dodge and pray in that
fight.

Actually, the Hog does, if it knows what direction the other guy is
coming from.

That's an extremely large "if", given the extensive air-to-air sensor
suite fitted to the A-10...

Turn into the oncoming fighter, and open fire from a mile or so further
out...

Are you keeping your ordnance for this turn? How long does it take to
get the nose pointed at the target while still having time to get that
shot off? (driving your required detection range). How much airspeed do
you have left at the end of it, which has a serious effect on your
ability to escape the wingman? And what happens when you discover the
attacking aircraft was firing a missile, rather than making a gun pass?

If this analysis was accurate, the F-15 and F-22 would be screaming for
27mm or 30mm guns...

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

Actually, the Hog does, if it knows what direction the other guy is
coming from.

Turn into the oncoming fighter, and open fire from a mile or so further
out...

I have been setting up some scenaries with the LO-MAC "Lock On- Modern Air
Combat" Sim/Game,
involving A-10s vs Su27/33, and it often is not too pretty for the Su's in a
head on merge..The A-10s gun does a good job of reaching out and touching
someone But if the Su survives that, then the A-10 is at a bad
disadvantage.

Yes I know it is a sim/gam..But it is sure fun to set up and watch.


Ron
Pilot/Wildland Firefighter

In article ,
"Paul J. Adam" wrote:

In message , Chad Irby
writes
In article ,
"Paul J. Adam" wrote:
Going slow and turning with an A-10 is about as smart as "turning with a
Zero" used to be in 1942.

Unfortunately, the A-10 doesn't have many ways to prevent an adversary
using energy tactics, and can't do more than dodge and pray in that
fight.

Actually, the Hog does, if it knows what direction the other guy is
coming from.

First, you're addressing a more "average" scenario than the one I was
talking about (no missiles for the F-15, A-10 ready for the incoming
threat).

That's an extremely large "if", given the extensive air-to-air sensor
suite fitted to the A-10...

It's called a "radar warning receiver," and it tells you which direction
you're being radiated from. If the other guy isn't using radar, they're
proabably not going to see you in the weeds at all from any rational
distance.

Turn into the oncoming fighter, and open fire from a mile or so further
out...

Are you keeping your ordnance for this turn? How long does it take to
get the nose pointed at the target while still having time to get that
shot off? (driving your required detection range).

Lots of time, in the case I was originally talking about (F-15s on the
way back from an air-to-air sortie going after an opportune A-10
target). If you allow missiles for the F-15s and no cover for the A-10,
it's a turkey shoot. But we were talking about gun tactics...

How much airspeed do you have left at the end of it, which has a
serious effect on your ability to escape the wingman?

Not as such, since the only reason you need a lot of energy going into
this sort of fight is to match someone else with a similar weapon. If
you're up against someone who can blow you out of the sky from a mile or
so further out than your weapon can reach, and who can fly below treetop
level for a good part of the engagement, it's a whole different ballgame.

And what happens when you discover the
attacking aircraft was firing a missile, rather than making a gun pass?

Not in this scenario. Sorry you came in late.

If this analysis was accurate, the F-15 and F-22 would be screaming for
27mm or 30mm guns...

....or more bullets. It's a very narrow scenario, and in this case, the
A-10 isn't the helpless target you seem to want it to be.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

"Brett" wrote in message ...
"Tony Williams" wrote:
|
| Incidentally, there is still some mystery about the current situation
| - I have it on good authority that GD (given the job of integrating
| the BK 27 to the F-35) have proposed using the GAU-12/U instead
| (allegedly for cost reasons), but every publication I have seen on the
| F-35 still mentions the BK 27. Can anyone point to a definitive
| reference?

GD's web site? "The 25mm GAU-12/U system produced by General Dynamics
Armament and Technical Products (GDATP) was recently selected for the
Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)..."

http://www.gdatp.com/products/lethal...12u/gau-12.htm

Many thanks - that wasn't there last time I looked!

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

I have been setting up some scenaries with the LO-MAC "Lock On- Modern Air
Combat" Sim/Game,
involving A-10s vs Su27/33, and it often is not too pretty for the Su's in
a
head on merge..The A-10s gun does a good job of reaching out and touching
someone But if the Su survives that, then the A-10 is at a bad
disadvantage.

I have to get that game myself, but it brings up an important point.
What are the avionics behind the gun? I'd imagine that an A-10 would lack
an accurate a-a mode for aiming its gun. The same thing applies to the
other guns mentioned in the debate. A gun's merits are important, but they
don't mean squat if it's impossible to hit anything with it! The
laser-rangefinders on the latest Russian jets (e.g., Su-27 series, Mig-29
too I believe) stand out as an excellent example of using superior avionics
to make a gun more effective. Anything similar on the Rafale, Grippen,
Raptor?

Tony