Best dogfight gun?

On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 03:22:08 GMT, Chad Irby wrote:

In article ,
Mary Shafer wrote:

On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 20:46:54 GMT, Chad Irby wrote:

Funny, I keep finding quite large ones. Like the Predator, the
Darkstar, the Global Hawk, or one of several Russian designs that are
basically reworked large cruise missiles or former target drones.

Darkstar wasn't that big. I used to see it out on the ramp all the
time. It was definitely is T-37 size class at the most. That's
pretty small.

http://www.fas.org/irp/program/collect/darkstar.htm

The Darkstar has a 69 foot wingspan, about twice that of the T-37, and
about 50 percent wider than the F-22. I consider that big. Certainly
big enough to hit with cannon fire.

You wouldn't be comparing it to the F-22 if you'd ever seen it.
DarkSpot was really short and thin. Gliders have wing spans bigger
than the F-22, too, but no one really compares them.

Actually, the DarkStar-glider comparison isn't a bad one, now that I
think about it. About the same volume and bulk. Same kind of
materials for the airframe, too.

Of course you can hit it with cannon fire. You can hit a cruise
missile with cannon fire, too. You just have to work at it.

I am reminded of the story about the time an ALCM escaped control at
EDW. It went into some sort of holding pattern and AFFTC whistled up
some armed F-4s from George. They came over and chased it around the
sky, as it flew a predictable path without any sort of evasive
maneuvering, for about a half an hour. They took a fair number of
shots against it and missed it every time. The ALCM finally ran out
of fuel and fell out of the sky.

This may or may not be true, and accuracy was probably sacrificed for
laughs by the third time someone told it, but it was widely accepted
at EDW as being a reasonable representation of the events.

Maybe you saw a sub-scale prototype?

Nope.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 17:02:23 GMT, Chad Irby wrote:

In article et,
"Thomas Schoene" wrote:

Chad Irby wrote:
In article ,
Mary Shafer wrote:

Darkstar wasn't that big. I used to see it out on the ramp all the
time. It was definitely is T-37 size class at the most. That's
pretty small.

http://www.fas.org/irp/program/collect/darkstar.htm

The Darkstar has a 69 foot wingspan, about twice that of the T-37, and
about 50 percent wider than the F-22. I consider that big.

Sure, the span is twice that of a T-37. But Darkstar was only 15 feet long,
which is quite short for a plane of its span, and about half the length of a
Tweet. Between those two dimensions, I could certainly understand
describing it as "T-37-class."

But that certainly does *not* make it too small to shoot down with
aerial guns, or everyone would be using T-37s as "gunproof planes."

First you have to find it, though. You can't get a guns kill on an
airplane you can't find in the sky. Guns kills are close-up kills.

The T-37 isn't a low-observables airplane and DarkSpot most certainly
was. Actually, it looked like a cross between the B-2 and the U-2;
the project team got tired of hearing it called the UB-2 fairly
quickly. The Tweet shows up on radar just fine; DarkSpot didn't.

You knew, didn't you, that DarkSpot flew out of Dryden? It was housed
in the building I worked in and it spent a fair amount of time out on
the ramp. I saw it fairly often.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

In article ,
(Chris Manteuffel) wrote:

Scott Ferrin wrote in message
. ..

Better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it.

Everything is a tradeoff. For a gun you bring along quite a bit of
weight (~100kg+ weight of ammo). What if that mass was fuel?

With weight of tankage, that's about 150 kilograms of fuel (gun, ammo,
et cetera versus tankage, pipes and fuel control stuff). An extra five
percent, maybe . Not a good tradeoff, overall.

What if it were extra decoys?

The dispensing system on the F-4 was small enough to be held in your
arms. There's not a lot of need for five times that much, and the gain
versus having an extra weapon isn't obvious.

What if it were more avionics?

The plane is pretty full of avionics right now, there's not a lot more
you could put in and still have something a pilot could use.

What if it were more engines?

It's got "more engine" than pretty much anything else, and you'd need a
lot more than a coupl of hundred kilos to do anything more with it.

What if that mass was completely dropped to get a more
manueverable fighter?

A more maneuverable fighter that doesn't need as much maneuverability,
since it's going to have to stay the hell away from actual dogfighting.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

In article ,
Mary Shafer wrote:

On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 03:22:08 GMT, Chad Irby wrote:

In article ,
Mary Shafer wrote:

On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 20:46:54 GMT, Chad Irby wrote:

Funny, I keep finding quite large ones. Like the Predator, the
Darkstar, the Global Hawk, or one of several Russian designs that are
basically reworked large cruise missiles or former target drones.

Darkstar wasn't that big. I used to see it out on the ramp all the
time. It was definitely is T-37 size class at the most. That's
pretty small.

http://www.fas.org/irp/program/collect/darkstar.htm

The Darkstar has a 69 foot wingspan, about twice that of the T-37, and
about 50 percent wider than the F-22. I consider that big. Certainly
big enough to hit with cannon fire.

You wouldn't be comparing it to the F-22 if you'd ever seen it.

Actually, I have, and it's still really obviously big enough to shoot
down with a gun.

Of course you can hit it with cannon fire. You can hit a cruise
missile with cannon fire, too. You just have to work at it.

In visual size, the DarkStar (and most of the other "big" UAVs) are
several times the size of a cruise missile, not to mention one-quarter
the speed.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

In article ,
Mary Shafer wrote:

On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 17:02:23 GMT, Chad Irby wrote:

But that certainly does *not* make it too small to shoot down with
aerial guns, or everyone would be using T-37s as "gunproof planes."

First you have to find it, though. You can't get a guns kill on an
airplane you can't find in the sky. Guns kills are close-up kills.

Since the whole point of this thread was on missiles versus guns, how in
the heck does that help the "missiles only" camp?

If you can't find the thing with radar or with your eyes, how are you
going to shoot it with a missile?

If it's findable with either, then shooting it with a cannon is just
gunnery practice... and with that nice big wingspan and slow airspeed,
it's going to be easy as hell to shoot.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 19:06:28 GMT, Chad Irby wrote:

In article ,
Mary Shafer wrote:

First you have to find it, though. You can't get a guns kill on an
airplane you can't find in the sky. Guns kills are close-up kills.

Since the whole point of this thread was on missiles versus guns, how in
the heck does that help the "missiles only" camp?

If you can't find the thing with radar or with your eyes, how are you
going to shoot it with a missile?

That's the point I was making. Little, LO aircraft are maybe not the
best example to use in such a comparison.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

Ed Rasimus wrote in message . ..
On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 12:33:04 -0800, Lyle wrote:


Ed,

What is the difference between direct close airsupport, and close
airsupport, or is it just all lumped together and called close air
support.

Sounds like some sort of semantic argument. I never heard the term
"direct close air support" used in any official context. Close Air
Support is the employment of tac air assets in direct support of
ground units. It would, by its very nature be "direct".

The only distinctions I am aware of are between CAS (i.e. hitting the
enemy's front line) and BAI (Battlefield Air Interdiction) which is
hitting the enemy's assets slightly behind their front line to get
supplies, units moving up etc.

Of course, since some elements of 'CAS' are now delivered from bombers
cruising at altitude, perhaps they've added to the nomenclature!

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

"Brett" wrote in message ...
"Tony Williams" wrote:
|
| 1. The German Mauser BK 27 was selected by both Boeing and
| Lockheed-Martin over the GAU-12/U as the best and most cost-effective
| gun for the JSF (documented fact).

That isn't a documented fact. The documented fact is that the GAU-12/U
has just been selected as the best and most cost-effective gun for the
JSF in open competition with the BK 27 (the original selection of the BK
27 in 2000 was not an open competition) by LMT.

It's as well documented as the decision to use the GAU-12/U: the
source for both being official press statements, placed on the web.
You seem to be very selective in the press statements you're prepared
to credit.

What makes you say that the original decision in favour of the BK 27
wasn't 'in open competition'? 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').

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

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/

"Tony Williams" wrote in message
...
Ed Rasimus wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 12:33:04 -0800, Lyle wrote:


Ed,

What is the difference between direct close airsupport, and close
airsupport, or is it just all lumped together and called close air
support.

Sounds like some sort of semantic argument. I never heard the term
"direct close air support" used in any official context. Close Air
Support is the employment of tac air assets in direct support of
ground units. It would, by its very nature be "direct".

The only distinctions I am aware of are between CAS (i.e. hitting the
enemy's front line) and BAI (Battlefield Air Interdiction) which is
hitting the enemy's assets slightly behind their front line to get
supplies, units moving up etc.

There are two types of CAS--immediate and preplanned. Preplanned icludes CAS
sorties integrated into the ground maneuver plan and submitted IAW the ATO.
Immediate CAS is not included in the ATO (at least not specifically; CAS
sorties can be included in the ATO without specifications, from what I
gather, sort of a "CAS reserve") and addresses those situations not foreseen
in the planning process. According to CGSC ST 100-3 (1996 edition),
immediate CAS provides the commander with flexibility, and can be used to
exploit success, reinforce or retain momentum, deal with enemy
counterattacks, and provide security.

Either Buffdriver or the resident Strike eagle Driver might be able to shed
light on any doctrinal changes in the CAS arena that have occurred since the
publication of that text.

Brooks


Of course, since some elements of 'CAS' are now delivered from bombers
cruising at altitude, perhaps they've added to the nomenclature!

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