Re: Hawk 200 questions

[Kerry Ferrand]

In article >,
says...
> I'm looking for some general information about Hawk 200
>
> vulnerabilities: I've heard it is a fairly expensive for what it can
> provide
> (especially when used in a training role), can anyone confirm this?
>
> Operations and actual usage: Is it being deployed at this moment in a
> combat role somewhere
> or was it ever? Which conflict?
>
Can't imagine it being much use in the tradiional training role being a
single seater..maybe weapons training?

Malaysia and Indonesia seem to use them for light attack and COIN/CAS
with some backup point air defence role..replacing the aging A-4 and F-5.

[Greg Hennessy]

On 26 Jul 2003 22:33:57 -0700, (Tony
Williams) wrote:


>They were supposed to pack a pair of Aden 25 cannon internally, but
>this is not now offered since the gun was canned by the RAF, and you
>can only get them with the usual single 30mm gunpod (why they didn't
>fit the 27mm Mauser I don't know).
>

Taking the obvious solution would meant that BAe couldnt have wasted
millions on yet a.n.other make work scheme of dubious utility.

It was a silly NiH decision not to fit uk harriers with a GAU-12 in the 1st
place.

Never mind taking the sensible alternative & reusing the BK-27s which were
allegedly removed from RAF GR1s and replaced with ballast.


greg



--
$ReplyAddress =~ s#\@.*$##; # Delete everything after the '@'
Alley Gator. With those hypnotic big green eyes
Alley Gator. She'll make you 'fraid 'em
She'll chew you up, ain't no lie

[Tony Williams]

Greg Hennessy > wrote in message >...
>
> It was a silly NiH decision not to fit uk harriers with a GAU-12 in the 1st
> place.
>
> Never mind taking the sensible alternative & reusing the BK-27s which were
> allegedly removed from RAF GR1s and replaced with ballast.

IMO the really silly (and extremely expensive) decision was to develop
the 25mm Aden in the first place, in a calibre not used by the
British, when the effectively identical 27mm Mauser was already in
service in the Tornado. It would have been a waste of resources even
if the design had worked...

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/

[Greg Hennessy]

On 28 Jul 2003 00:04:44 -0700, (Tony
Williams) wrote:

>Greg Hennessy > wrote in message >...
>>
>> It was a silly NiH decision not to fit uk harriers with a GAU-12 in the 1st
>> place.
>>
>> Never mind taking the sensible alternative & reusing the BK-27s which were
>> allegedly removed from RAF GR1s and replaced with ballast.
>
>IMO the really silly (and extremely expensive) decision was to develop
>the 25mm Aden in the first place, in a calibre not used by the
>British, when the effectively identical 27mm Mauser was already in
>service in the Tornado. It would have been a waste of resources even
>if the design had worked...
>

One wonders what inducements were given to allow the design to proceed at
public expense in the 1st place. it never ever made any sort of commercial
sense.


Meanwhile harriers over sierra leone had to resort to making fake gun
passes when all out of other options.



greg

--
$ReplyAddress =~ s#\@.*$##; # Delete everything after the '@'
Alley Gator. With those hypnotic big green eyes
Alley Gator. She'll make you 'fraid 'em
She'll chew you up, ain't no lie

[phil hunt]

On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 14:59:01 +0100, Greg Hennessy > wrote:
>>
>>IMO the really silly (and extremely expensive) decision was to develop
>>the 25mm Aden in the first place, in a calibre not used by the
>>British, when the effectively identical 27mm Mauser was already in
>>service in the Tornado. It would have been a waste of resources even
>>if the design had worked...
>
>One wonders what inducements were given to allow the design to proceed at
>public expense in the 1st place. it never ever made any sort of commercial
>sense.

Indeed one does wonder.

--
A: top posting

Q: what's the most annoying thing about Usenet?

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >, Tony
Williams > writes
>Greg Hennessy > wrote in message
>...
>> It was a silly NiH decision not to fit uk harriers with a GAU-12 in the 1st
>> place.
>>
>> Never mind taking the sensible alternative & reusing the BK-27s which were
>> allegedly removed from RAF GR1s and replaced with ballast.
>
>IMO the really silly (and extremely expensive) decision was to develop
>the 25mm Aden in the first place, in a calibre not used by the
>British, when the effectively identical 27mm Mauser was already in
>service in the Tornado. It would have been a waste of resources even
>if the design had worked...

Not seen any particularly convincing rationale myself, other than "How
do we keep the ADEN works busy?"

What I find curious is why, when the ADEN 25 fell over, the Harriers
couldn't just shrug, reprogram the gunsight and put the old pods back
on. Failing to maintain a common interface seems _really_ silly, and I'm
really curious as to why an iteration of a revolver cannon is allowed to
be so incompatible with its predecessor. (After all, if ADEN 25 is so
good, why not go for a common interface and hang it off Sea Harrier and
Hawk too?)

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

Paul J. Adam

[Greg Hennessy]

On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 21:32:48 +0100, "Paul J. Adam"
> wrote:


>
>Not seen any particularly convincing rationale myself, other than "How
>do we keep the ADEN works busy?"
>
>What I find curious is why, when the ADEN 25 fell over, the Harriers
>couldn't just shrug, reprogram the gunsight and put the old pods back
>on. Failing to maintain a common interface seems _really_ silly,

If the french could manage it with the DEFA 554 one wonders why.

> and I'm
>really curious as to why an iteration of a revolver cannon is allowed to
>be so incompatible with its predecessor. (After all, if ADEN 25 is so
>good, why not go for a common interface and hang it off Sea Harrier and
>Hawk too?)

There was something exceedingly fishy about that whole process. What spin
was feed to the RAF to forgo factory fitting Harriers with equalisers ?


greg


--
$ReplyAddress =~ s#\@.*$##; # Delete everything after the '@'
Alley Gator. With those hypnotic big green eyes
Alley Gator. She'll make you 'fraid 'em
She'll chew you up, ain't no lie

[Tony Williams]

"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message >...
>
> What I find curious is why, when the ADEN 25 fell over, the Harriers
> couldn't just shrug, reprogram the gunsight and put the old pods back
> on. Failing to maintain a common interface seems _really_ silly, and I'm
> really curious as to why an iteration of a revolver cannon is allowed to
> be so incompatible with its predecessor. (After all, if ADEN 25 is so
> good, why not go for a common interface and hang it off Sea Harrier and
> Hawk too?)

The Aden 25 was designed to be compatible with the earlier Adens, so
it could just slot in as a replacement, which was the Grand Plan.
Unfortunately it was unable to meet the RAF's requirements, which
translated means that it was too unreliable and wore out too quickly.
And this was after ten years of massive effort to make it work - the
first guns were being tested at the end of the 1980s and production
contracts were being awarded from around 1990 to as late as 1997, but
it wasn't finally canned until 1999 when about 100 guns had been made.

Revolver cannon are very tricky to get working properly, with precise
ignition timing being essential. The 25x137 ammo is of course
percussion-primed, whereas the ammo for all other revolvers has used
the more precise electric priming, which does make me wonder if they
were tackling an impossible job.

There is a body of opinion which dislikes aircraft guns. The vibration
upsets the instrumentation, the muzzle gasses can be corrosive, and if
all goes well missiles will do the job....sadly, this viewpoint
ignores the fact that no military action has ever followed the script,
because the enemy has his own scriptwriters.

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/

[Greg Hennessy]

On 29 Jul 2003 00:18:21 -0700, (Tony
Williams) wrote:


>Revolver cannon are very tricky to get working properly, with precise
>ignition timing being essential. The 25x137 ammo is of course
>percussion-primed, whereas the ammo for all other revolvers has used
>the more precise electric priming, which does make me wonder if they
>were tackling an impossible job.

The timing issue with percussion primers has been known for decades,
therefore it would suggest that the whole project was just a thinly
disguised handout.

Someone at the RAF had to have asked the same questions w.r.t feasability
of using percussion primed rounds in such an application.

If TPTB were actually serious about providing the harrier with cannon and
commonality of ammunition. A license built GSH-30 or 301 firing what the
Rarden fires would be rather hard to argue against.

But that would have a high NiH factor. No scope for subsidising the
domestic monopoly supplier there.



>There is a body of opinion which dislikes aircraft guns. The vibration
>upsets the instrumentation, the muzzle gasses can be corrosive, and if
>all goes well missiles will do the job....sadly, this viewpoint
>ignores the fact that no military action has ever followed the script,
>because the enemy has his own scriptwriters.
>

Quite. It was interesting to watch an interview with a Tornado pilot where
he detailed having do gun passes in close support of friendlies during the
recent Iraq conflict.





greg

--
$ReplyAddress =~ s#\@.*$##; # Delete everything after the '@'
Alley Gator. With those hypnotic big green eyes
Alley Gator. She'll make you 'fraid 'em
She'll chew you up, ain't no lie

[Nick Pedley]

"Greg Hennessy" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 21:32:48 +0100, "Paul J. Adam"
> > wrote:
>

> > and I'm
> >really curious as to why an iteration of a revolver cannon is allowed to
> >be so incompatible with its predecessor. (After all, if ADEN 25 is so
> >good, why not go for a common interface and hang it off Sea Harrier and
> >Hawk too?)
>
> There was something exceedingly fishy about that whole process. What spin
> was feed to the RAF to forgo factory fitting Harriers with equalisers ?
>
We couldn't afford to clone that many Edward Woodwards? :-)

Nick

[Tony Williams]

Greg Hennessy > wrote in message >...
>
> If TPTB were actually serious about providing the harrier with cannon and
> commonality of ammunition. A license built GSH-30 or 301 firing what the
> Rarden fires would be rather hard to argue against.

An interesting idea, although I expect there would be problems. Apart
from the fact that the 30x170 Rarden ammo is bigger than the 30x165
Russian, the Russian ammo is also very strongly made, with thick steel
cases and the projectiles heavily crimped in, because it gets a
violent battering in the fast-firing guns. The Rarden cartridge was
specifically modified (from the Oerlikon KCB original) for use on the
gentle, slow-firing, long-recoil gun, with soft brass cases...I think
that retaining the 27mm Mauser would have been the best bet. I mean,
they must have loads of them lying around doing nothing, now that the
Tornado GR.4 has lost one.

> Quite. It was interesting to watch an interview with a Tornado pilot where
> he detailed having do gun passes in close support of friendlies during the
> recent Iraq conflict.

Interesting - I hadn't heard about that. Do you have any details?

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/

[Greg Hennessy]

On 29 Jul 2003 08:24:23 -0700, (Tony
Williams) wrote:


>An interesting idea, although I expect there would be problems. Apart
>from the fact that the 30x170 Rarden ammo is bigger than the 30x165
>Russian,

True. From the pics on your site

http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/30-2.jpg

I wouldn't have thought there was much difference between the two in
overall size though. A licensed gsh suitably modified would be firing a
equivalently powered round.

> the Russian ammo is also very strongly made, with thick steel
>cases and the projectiles heavily crimped in, because it gets a
>violent battering in the fast-firing guns.

also makes it pretty soldier proof in its other applications.

> The Rarden cartridge was
>specifically modified (from the Oerlikon KCB original) for use on the
>gentle, slow-firing, long-recoil gun, with soft brass cases.

How does the case steel KCB case compare to the soviet round. IIRC the RN
uses the KCB for hand trained AAA.

On a side note did you ever find out what fired the 35x173 ?

>..I think
>that retaining the 27mm Mauser would have been the best bet. I mean,
>they must have loads of them lying around doing nothing, now that the
>Tornado GR.4 has lost one.

Which makes the whole saga not just baffling but stinks to high heavens.
Surely its not beyond the whit of some smart type @ to provide harrier
compatible podded carriage for the BK-27. Like how hard is it to borrow
some alpha jet pods from the Luftwaffe and get some ideas.

>
>> Quite. It was interesting to watch an interview with a Tornado pilot where
>> he detailed having do gun passes in close support of friendlies during the
>> recent Iraq conflict.
>
>Interesting - I hadn't heard about that. Do you have any details?

Interview with 'tornado pilot' on IIRC sky news. Wasnt taking much notice
until he said had to do strafing runs in support of troops somewhere round
Basra.

One wonders was he carpeted afterwards for politically inconvenient use of
his cannon. I could have sworn the brass claiming that sort of thing didn't
happen any more.


greg


--
$ReplyAddress =~ s#\@.*$##; # Delete everything after the '@'
Alley Gator. With those hypnotic big green eyes
Alley Gator. She'll make you 'fraid 'em
She'll chew you up, ain't no lie

[Tony Williams]

Greg Hennessy > wrote in message >...
> On 29 Jul 2003 08:24:23 -0700, (Tony
> Williams) wrote:
>
> > The Rarden cartridge was
> >specifically modified (from the Oerlikon KCB original) for use on the
> >gentle, slow-firing, long-recoil gun, with soft brass cases.
>
> How does the case steel KCB case compare to the soviet round. IIRC the RN
> uses the KCB for hand trained AAA.

Yes, the RN still uses the KCB. The case is stronger than the brass
one but the projectile isn't as well crimped-in as the Russian job.

> On a side note did you ever find out what fired the 35x173 ?

Sadly, not. I like that cartridge and it could be an interesting offer
in a suitably modified KCA. However, you have prompted me to send an
enquiry to a gentleman in the USA who who has a 35mm and under
research collection which I can only dream of...

> >> Quite. It was interesting to watch an interview with a Tornado pilot where
> >> he detailed having do gun passes in close support of friendlies during the
> >> recent Iraq conflict.
> >
> >Interesting - I hadn't heard about that. Do you have any details?
>
> Interview with 'tornado pilot' on IIRC sky news. Wasnt taking much notice
> until he said had to do strafing runs in support of troops somewhere round
> Basra.
>
> One wonders was he carpeted afterwards for politically inconvenient use of
> his cannon. I could have sworn the brass claiming that sort of thing didn't
> happen any more.

Well, I know the US planes did some strafing but I hadn't heard that
Tornados had. Interesting...

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

[John S. Shinal]

(Tony Williams) wrote:
>Revolver cannon are very tricky to get working properly, with precise
>ignition timing being essential. The 25x137 ammo is of course
>percussion-primed, whereas the ammo for all other revolvers has used
>the more precise electric priming, which does make me wonder if they
>were tackling an impossible job.

Are revolver cannon systems not compatible with electrical
primer ignition ? It seems like a lot of trouble just for a specific
round...



----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Jake McGuire]

(Peter Stickney) wrote in message >...
> Just the opposite, really. So far, teh only way anybody has been able
> to get a high rate of fire revolver to work has been electrical
> priming. Percussion primers are rather slower, and not as precise wrt
> the timing between whacking it and having the round go off. A 1500
> rd/minute revolver has to feed the round, fire it, and
> clear the breech in 0.0006 seconds, with no interruptions.

I think your math is a little off here. A single chamber firing 1500
rounds per *second* would have a cycle time of 0.0006 seconds. A
single chamber firing at 1500 rounds per minute has a cycle time of
0.04 seconds, and with a five chamber revolver each chamber needs to
feed/fire/clear once every 0.2 seconds.

Even so, I'd imagine that the problem with revolver cannon is having
the round go off when the chamber is more-or-less exactly lined up
with the barrel; if the maximum misalignment is 1 degree then the
primer whack-to-bang delay has to be repeatable to within 0.0001
seconds.

-jake