Best dogfight gun?

On 16 Dec 2003 17:07:27 -0800, (Tony Williams) wrote:

Alan Minyard wrote in message . ..
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.

You're confusing 'decision' with 'contract'. The press release
announcing the switch to the GAU-12/U says that 'Lockheed Martin
originally selected the BK 27 cannon..' and 'Boeing also selected the
27mm cannon...'. Those were decisions, but like all contractual
arrangements could be changed until the contracts were formally
signed.

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

The contractor does not decide on the weapons fit.

Al Minyard

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 01:16:17 GMT, "Bjørnar Bolsøy" wrote:

Alan Minyard wrote in
:
On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 22:31:50 GMT, "Bjørnar Bolsøy"
wrote:
(Tony Williams) wrote in
. com:

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

The point was that the M61 was scrapped in favor of the BK27.


Regards...

The M-61 was not a contender for the JSF, the GAU-12 was selected
over the BK.

Al Minyard

On 16 Dec 2003 23:36:41 -0800, (Tony Williams) wrote:

"Brett" wrote in message ...
"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.

Which suggests that the initial 'order of merit' after assessing how
well the competitors met the stated requirement was: first, BK 27,
second GAU-12/U, third M61A2.

That raises the interesting question of why the F/A-18E/F and F/A-22
are equipped with the M61A2 instead of the GAU-12/U - I have wondered
about that before. Yes, the M61 is lighter and faster-firing, but the
extra range, reduced shell flight time and much superior hitting power
would have more than compensated, I would have thought. After all, the
USAF originally planned to move to a 25mm gun in the early 1970s (the
GAU-7/A), and would have done so if it wasn't for technical problems
with the combustible-case ammo.

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/

The F-35 is optimized for air to ground, while the F-18 and F-22 are
optimized for air to air. Different targets, different guns. The GAU-12
is also used in ground to air.

Al Minyard

"Alan Minyard" wrote:
On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 22:24:47 GMT, "Brett" wrote:

"Alan Minyard" wrote:
On 16 Dec 2003 01:11:08 -0800, (Tony
Williams) wrote:

...

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/

The gun is selected by the USAF, not the contractor. (IIRC)

Is the cannon going to be GFE?
USAF I believe would approve/disapprove whatever cannon is selected by
the
prime contractor based on the requirements outlined in the contract that
was
awarded.

I really do not know. On ships all of the guns are GFE, on aircraft I do
not know.
I do know that the selection of weapons is a Govt decision, not the
contractors.

Approval of whatever selection is made by the prime contractor would be, but
according to the GD fact sheet on the JSF program the contract to design
produce and integrate the weapon for the JSF was awarded to GD by LMT, not
the US Government.

http://www.gdatp.com/products/lethality/jsf/JSF.pdf

Alan Minyard wrote in message . ..
On 16 Dec 2003 23:36:41 -0800, (Tony Williams) wrote:

Which suggests that the initial 'order of merit' after assessing how
well the competitors met the stated requirement was: first, BK 27,
second GAU-12/U, third M61A2.

That raises the interesting question of why the F/A-18E/F and F/A-22
are equipped with the M61A2 instead of the GAU-12/U - I have wondered
about that before. Yes, the M61 is lighter and faster-firing, but the
extra range, reduced shell flight time and much superior hitting power
would have more than compensated, I would have thought. After all, the
USAF originally planned to move to a 25mm gun in the early 1970s (the
GAU-7/A), and would have done so if it wasn't for technical problems
with the combustible-case ammo.

The F-35 is optimized for air to ground, while the F-18 and F-22 are
optimized for air to air. Different targets, different guns. The GAU-12
is also used in ground to air.

Agreed. However, every other nation obviously believes that 27-30mm
guns are nowadays the optimum for fitting to air superiority fighters
as well as for air-to-ground. Even the USAF seemed to believe that a
more powerful weapon was needed for the F-15 fighter when the GAU-7/A
was specified (and although still only 25mm, that was much more potent
than the GAU-12/U).

When guns were still important in air-to-air, around 1970, the RAF
carried out an assessment of the effectiveness of the available
weapons and concluded that the best fighter gun on the market was the
30mm Oerlikon KCA (as fitted to the SAAB Viggen) which fires massive
cartridges as powerful as the A-10's GAU-8/A (in fact, the GAU-8/A's
cartridge was derived from the KCA's).

In the light of all of this, I wonder if the GAU-12/U was even
considered for the F/A-22 and F/A-18E/F? If so, it would be
interesting to see the assessment.

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/

"Brett" wrote in message ...

Approval of whatever selection is made by the prime contractor would be, but
according to the GD fact sheet on the JSF program the contract to design
produce and integrate the weapon for the JSF was awarded to GD by LMT, not
the US Government.

http://www.gdatp.com/products/lethality/jsf/JSF.pdf

As a matter of interest, has a contract between L-M and GD for the
delivery of the GAU-12/U actually been signed yet? Or are they still
'engaged' rather than 'married' :-) There was no mention of such a
contract in the recent 'Flight International' special on the F-35,
which included a diary of formal contracts.

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/

"Tony Williams" wrote:
Alan Minyard wrote

...

The F-35 is optimized for air to ground, while the F-18 and F-22 are
optimized for air to air. Different targets, different guns. The GAU-12
is also used in ground to air.

Agreed. However, every other nation obviously believes that 27-30mm
guns are nowadays the optimum for fitting to air superiority fighters
as well as for air-to-ground.

Every other nation that has "signed up" for the JSF would appear to have has
also signed up for an internal or pod version of the 25mm GAU-12/U. That
includes the UK whose current views also include that the BK-27 carried by
their Typoons is only there as ballast :-)

"Brett" wrote in message ...
"Tony Williams" wrote:
Alan Minyard wrote

...

The F-35 is optimized for air to ground, while the F-18 and F-22 are
optimized for air to air. Different targets, different guns. The GAU-12
is also used in ground to air.

Agreed. However, every other nation obviously believes that 27-30mm
guns are nowadays the optimum for fitting to air superiority fighters
as well as for air-to-ground.

Every other nation that has "signed up" for the JSF would appear to have has
also signed up for an internal or pod version of the 25mm GAU-12/U. That
includes the UK whose current views also include that the BK-27 carried by
their Typoons is only there as ballast :-)

That's hardly surprising as the cost of developing a different gun
installation would be enormous. For the same reason, the 20mm M61 is
in widespread foreign use simply because US fighters come with it as
standard, not because anyone specifically chose that gun. The only
recent example I can think of, of any non-US maker willingly choosing
a 20mm gun, is the new Korean AT-50, which uses what is essentially a
three-barrel version of the M61A2; but that is a light trainer/attack
plane. Before that, there was the Italian version of the AMX light
strike plane, which fits the M61 presumably because Italy already had
it in service in the F-104; the Brazilian version of the AMX has 30mm
cannon.

Don't talk to me about the RAF's attitude :-( The kindest
interpretation I can put on it is that they offered up the Eurofighter
gun as a saving, knowing they could always add it back later...

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/

The gun is selected by the USAF, not the contractor. (IIRC)

Is the cannon going to be GFE?
USAF I believe would approve/disapprove whatever cannon is selected by
the
prime contractor based on the requirements outlined in the contract that
was
awarded.

I really do not know. On ships all of the guns are GFE, on aircraft I do
not know.
I do know that the selection of weapons is a Govt decision, not the
contractors.

Approval of whatever selection is made by the prime contractor would be, but
according to the GD fact sheet on the JSF program the contract to design
produce and integrate the weapon for the JSF was awarded to GD by LMT, not
the US Government.

http://www.gdatp.com/products/lethality/jsf/JSF.pdf


They can award a sub-contract, but the decision as to what weapon to use
is up to the Pentagon.

Al Minyard

Alan Minyard wrote in
:
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 01:16:17 GMT, "Bjørnar Bolsøy"
wrote:
Alan Minyard wrote in
m:
On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 22:31:50 GMT, "Bjørnar Bolsøy"
wrote:
(Tony Williams) wrote in
.com:

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

The point was that the M61 was scrapped in favor of the BK27.


Regards...

The M-61 was not a contender for the JSF,

I thought it was.


the GAU-12 was
selected over the BK.

That the BK was selected over the GAU12 initially hardly
points to an inferior weapon.


Regards...