Best dogfight gun?

(robert arndt) wrote:

Chad Irby wrote:
(robert arndt) wrote:

The M61 is a poor substitute for this bad baby:

http://www.airforce-technology.com/c...r2/mauser21.ht
ml

...if you don't mind only firing 1,700 rounds per minute as opposed to
about 6,000...

...when the M61 doesn't jam, that is.

....which is pretty much all of the time. If the Gatling guns were prone
to jamming, someone would have mentioned it sometime in the last forty
or so years.

I prefer Mauser's BK-27
jam-proof linkless and up-coming dual feed version.

Here's a tip: No such thing as a "jam-proof" weapon that relies on ammo
feed of any sort. You're been reading the Mauser PR releases too much.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

On 5 Dec 2003 07:42:43 -0800, (robert arndt) wrote:

Chad Irby wrote in message om...
In article ,
(robert arndt) wrote:

The M61 is a poor substitute for this bad baby:

http://www.airforce-technology.com/c.../mauser21.html

...if you don't mind only firing 1,700 rounds per minute as opposed to
about 6,000...

...when the M61 doesn't jam, that is.

Carried an M61 in the F-105 and the F-4E for 250 combat missions.
Carried the SUU-16 and SUU-23 on F-4Cs for four years. Carried the
SUU-11 mini-gun on AT-38s and fired literally hundreds of thousands of
rounds over 23 years of tactical experience. Never experienced a
single M61 variant jamming. Never saw on jam in any flight that I was
on. Never heard anyone talk about one jamming in any squadron I was
in. Doesn't sound, based on a limited empirical sampling like a
problem.

I prefer Mauser's BK-27
jam-proof linkless and up-coming dual feed version.

Should we note that the drum-fed internally carried M-61 is linkless?

BTW, in close combat 6000 rpm bursts don't mean that much.

You're correct. "Close combat" is stupid. It means you screwed up at
several earlier decision points. But, if you reach that point, why
don't 6K RPM bursts mean much? Would a 1K RPM burst be more
meaningful? Or were you suggesting that more RPM would be desireable.

If the burst will be on the target for .2 seconds, would it be better
to have more rounds or fewer during that interval?

A
1,700-1,800 rpm burst of 27mm fire from the single-barrel BK-27 will
ruin your day, especially with frangible ammo.

How about HEI instead of "frangible"? I'm not worried about
frangibility, as I would be if discharging a .45 ACP at a burglar in a
mid-town apartment. I'm worried about damaging the airframe and that
means HEI or maybe HEI/API mix.

Now if only the Germans could fit the amazing 30mm RMK inside the
Typhoon... but I'm sure it will find its way onto the Tiger helo.

Going from .50 cal to 20mm to 25mm to 30mm, etc, always incurs a
weight penalty. There are trade-offs between weight, ballistics,
accuracy, burst density, etc. Consider that one round of 155mm would
surely result in a kill, do we than suggest mounting artillery in the
nose of fighters? Clearly hyperbole for argument's sake.

Consider further that a gun will be carried on every sorties for the
life of the aircraft and for most aircraft will never be fired at
another aircraft in anger.

"Hoser" said, "There's no kill like a gun kill...." but, that may be
because gun kills are so damn rare.



Rob

In article ,
Ed Rasimus wrote:

On 5 Dec 2003 07:42:43 -0800, (robert arndt) wrote:

...when the M61 doesn't jam, that is.

Never experienced a single M61 variant jamming. Never saw on jam in
any flight that I was on. Never heard anyone talk about one jamming
in any squadron I was in. Doesn't sound, based on a limited empirical
sampling like a problem.

Well, Ed, you have to remember you're talking to Arndt. As fas as he's
concerned, everything important ever invented for aviation was invented
in Germany, all German-made machinery is the best in the world at
everything, and all American equipment is simply terrible and unreliable.

Which is why he's touting a weapon with less than one-third the firing
rate, and claiming that it's immune to mechanical problems...

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

What I have read here is a lot of hot air coming from people who have
never fired either of these weapons, and probably have never fired on
either an aerial or ground target with any weapon. Spool-up time on a
M61? Have you ever heard one shoot? You sure as hell can't hear it
spool up. I've fired them in the air and on the ground in the firing
butts - all you hear on the ground is a very loud BRRRRR with the
individual shots indistinguishable from the first one. Watching the
gun itself you see it go from 'stop' to 'blur' instantly. The only
difference I ever noted was that the SUU23 pod gun had a slight
'tail-off' as it fired itself dry when you released the trigger. Note
that the 100 rps in the hydraulic driven M61 (25HP motor) in the
F4/14/15/16/ give these aircraft a real high-deflection (actually,
all-aspect) capability - and if a fraction of a second spin-up makes a
difference between a hit or a miss all I can say is the shooter
didn't see the opportunity in time. Even in the electric drive (15HP,
67 rps) gun in the 104A I've seen gun camera film which showed that if
the M61 gun had been firing the other aircraft would have take two
dozen rounds, from nose to tail, crossing at 70+ degrees with the
shooter pulling max G attainable in the situation, just not enough to
track him but enough to get a good shot in at close range - about 100
yards. How do you do this? You start shooting early and hose him as he
sails past. BTW that 104A installation had a 3-mil dispersion - I've
seen that proven in the firing-in butts, too.
Walt BJ -

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

"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/

20 20mm hits to bring down a modern fighter? Where are they located?
I'd say it would take some pretty selective hit location to place 20
hits on any fighter (well, maybe a Frogfoot) and still have the target
perform at any level close to its pristine capability. Since the M61's
shells are coming in trail about 50 feet apart they will be clustered
- meaning the hit damage will accumulate pretty much in the same area.
Bye-bye wing surface, and now control that airplane! Of course, if the
shot comes in from the six o-clock, the length of the fuselage is
subject to damage. Nowadays a gun shot is so rare that the shooter
will most likely hold the trigger down to see what happens, instead of
the half-second burst most good shooters use in a smooth tracking pass
when firing on the dart target. In that case, the armor may survive
but nothing else will after say 50-150 hits.
Walt BJ

(Tony Williams) wrote in message m...
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).


I suspect it may be possible to fit proximity fuses to 27mm/30mm class
amunition to improve Pk and open up engagement envelope. Los Alamos
Labs developed single chip radars sever years ago and combined with
new explosives and fragmentation methods migh make such munitions
usefull.

Here is a swedish 'radar on a chip' program:
http://www.ek.isy.liu.se/2003/radaronchip/

Also laser beam riding guidence similar to the guided darts on the BAE
starstreak MANPADS missile could be integrated into 27mm/30mm class
munitions.

There have been a number of guided cannon shell projects. The Italian
OTO Malera companies efforts on is 76.2mm cannon (laser beam rider I
think) and then efforts by the USAF for the 105mm howitzers on the
AC130 gunships (laser spot homming to open up range) and USN work on
its 5 inch rocket boosted shells and US Army work on its 155mm
howizers. (GPS and/or laser homming)

Actuators relying on piezioelectric forces working on nose twisting
simplify such shells.

Such development smigh extend the effective range of cannon by a large
amount (out to 3-4 km I suspect) and favour big 30mm cannon such as
the Oerlikon KCA used on the Viggen.

On the other hand a turreted or tail sting 30mm cannon of ADEN sized
recoil firing guided munitions might make possible some interesting
defensive/offensive concepts.