Best dogfight gun?

Tony Williams wrote:
"Thomas Schoene" wrote in message
link.net...
Tony Williams wrote:

Now let's look at the opposition. The 'European standard' 27mm
Mauser
BK 27, selected over any US gun by the JSF contenders, weighs 100 kg
and uses much less space (only one barrel).

Of course, the BK27 was then abandoned by Lockheed Martin after the
JSF
source selection and replaced by a 25mm GAU-12/U Gatling gun.

I understand that was at the initiative of GD, who happened to be
given the contract for designing the JSF's BK 27 gun installation and
also just happen to make the GAU-12/U (shouldn't they have declared an
interest, or something?) .....their argument was on cost grounds,

And especially life-cycle costing. Adopting 27mm introduces the absurd
situation of having at least four different calibers of guns fielded in
tactical aircraft (20mm, 25mm, 30mm (GAU-8), and then 27mm), with the
corresponding inventory issues and overhead costs.

From the Marine Corps pespective, caliber diversity may have been a
particular concern. The Marines already use 20mm, and 25mm, and plan to
introduce 30mm in the EFV (nee AAAV). Adding yet another caliber may have
been an unwanted complication for a service that is pushing for maximum
streamlining of its logistics.

notquality (and I suspect they may have received a sympathetic hearing
in favour of a US gun rather than a German one, especially post-Iraq).

Im pretty certain the decision predates the Iraq situation, so this was not
a factor.

The BK 27 was originally selected purely on merit.

When you're talking about contracting, "merit" always includes an economic
dimension. Cost was indeed one of the main selection criteria for the
overall JSF program, so all the components were likely selected with an eye
toward their cost as well as operational effectiveness.

From what I read about the decision at the time, the cost of the BK 27 rose
sharply from the original projections after award, and that's what triggered
the change of gun. Whether that's just GD spin is of course unanswerable.

--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)

Alan Minyard wrote in message . ..

Your anti-US bias is noted. The best is the M-61.

I gave lots of reasons for my statements. You haven't. So who's biased?

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 contrast, the press release from GD just mentioned that they were
proposing the GAU-12/U instead because it was cheaper and the ammo was
already in US service (you mean, that hadn't been realised before?).

ISTR reading that there had been a significant change in life-cycle costs.
Why, I don't know.

If indeed the 27mm had become too expensive in the meantime, there is
only one likely explanation: the Americans spent too much time futzing
about with it to 'Americanise' it instead of simply adopting it.

There is one other possibnility -- the initial costs were understated for
competative reasons (IOW, they "bought in" and the "get well" proved too
expensive to bear.) There's simply no way to know without access to
information none of us have.

The one modification I know of was a fairly elaborate-looking muzzle brake
on the US version, but I think this may have also been seen in the Alphajet.

Personally, I think 27mm woudl have been a fine gun, but the logisitical
complications don't seem to justify adding yet another caliber when the
existing ones, especially 25mm, are nearly as good. If guns were still
primary weapons, I'd push hard for the ebst posible. But as a very
secondary weapon, having any gun at all is probably good enough.

--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)

In article ,
"Brett" wrote:

Your original claim was the advantage enjoyed by the gatling from the
much larger the number of projectiles sent in the direction of the
target when required, if it is actually sending less the advantage
should belong to the Mauser.

Only for very short bursts. Longer ones, it's even, and you can hold
sustained fire for longer overall.

So instead of trying to hit another plane with a half-second burst five
different times before the bullets run out (like the Mauser), or a full
one-second burst the same number of times (with the Gatling).

Or you could just empty the gun, and put four times as many bullets on
target in the same burst.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

In article ,
"Paul F Austin" wrote:

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?

Yes. For flexibility, and for having a system independnt of the missile
system.

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.

Funny, the fighter pilots keep telling us differently.

It's not just weapons fit either. The vibration from gun firing costs
significantly higher failure rates in electronics near the gun.

That's a nice theory, but not proven anywhere, and it certainly didn't
show up on the F-4Es I used to work on.

Having a major electronics failure is a mission kill these days.

So you want a non-electronic weapon. Like a gun, instead of a missile.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

In article .net,
"Thomas Schoene" wrote:

Tony Williams wrote:

The BK 27 was originally selected purely on merit.

When you're talking about contracting, "merit" always includes an economic
dimension.

From Defense Daily International:
http://stage.defensedaily.com/VIP/ddi/previous/ddi1122.htm#A3

"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."

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

"Chad Irby" wrote:
| In article ,
| "Brett" wrote:
|
| Your original claim was the advantage enjoyed by the gatling from
the
| much larger the number of projectiles sent in the direction of the
| target when required, if it is actually sending less the advantage
| should belong to the Mauser.
|
| Only for very short bursts. Longer ones, it's even, and you can hold
| sustained fire for longer overall.
|
| So instead of trying to hit another plane with a half-second burst
five
| different times before the bullets run out (like the Mauser), or a
full
| one-second burst the same number of times (with the Gatling).

I get the idea that if you are not flying in a C-130 that the number of
rounds available per gun for the GAU-12/U and BK27 would be close to the
same for any small single engined attack aircraft. If that is the case
the GAU-12/U with 1 second bursts runs out before the BK27 with its half
second bursts.

| Or you could just empty the gun, and put four times as many bullets on
| target in the same burst.

"four times as many"? When they both have 150 rounds to play with, how
many rounds do they get to put down in 3 second burst.

In article ,
"Brett" wrote:

I get the idea that if you are not flying in a C-130 that the number of
rounds available per gun for the GAU-12/U and BK27 would be close to the
same for any small single engined attack aircraft. If that is the case
the GAU-12/U with 1 second bursts runs out before the BK27 with its half
second bursts.

One thing you'll notice is that the Mauser installs tend to have very
few bullets (150 or so), while Gatlings tend to the "carry a lot of
bullets" category (Harriers carry less, but they don't have a lot of
room in them).

Of course, they might end up with a lot less in the F-35 (not determined
yet), but since the lethality of the bullets is in the same category, a
difference in number isn't that important (with the 25mm cartridges
weighing a bit less than the 27mm).

Overall, it's "shoot more somewhat lighter bullets" or "shoot fewer
somewhat heavier bullets." Overall, it's about the same amount of metal
going downrange, at about the same speed and distance.

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.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

"Paul F Austin" wrote in message
...

"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.

Brooks

snip

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/