It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Mauser BK27 gun for F-35 JSF?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 10 2006 @ 01:32 PM
link   
I was just clicking through this site and i have noticed that a licenced copy of the Mauser BK27 will be installed in the F-35 JSF. It is also used in some european aircraft like the Panavia Tornado and the Eurofighter.

www.milavia.net...

Is this finally a replacement for the M-61 Vulcan?




posted on Mar, 10 2006 @ 02:06 PM
link   
Oh its a Boeing's 27mm Aircraft Cannon, based on the Mauser BK27. Where does it say its a licenced copy ? I missed that

The Mauser BK27 is a good design but its rate of fire cant touch the Vulcans 6,000 rpm it would take like 3 BK27s to do that since it was a rate of fire of about 1,700 rpm.

Interesting that they with a BK27 design seems to be a clear weight and space saver but you trade that off for Firepower. Guns may just be of less importance on the JSF



posted on Mar, 10 2006 @ 06:15 PM
link   
Do you imagine Boeing DON'T have a license? That would be incredibly illegal.

Whether it is a 'license copy' or 'based on' is just semantics, like the Lockheed US101 or the Boeing T-45, there is some local modification or sourcing but nothing so major that they didn't need the original to work from in the first place.



posted on Mar, 10 2006 @ 10:05 PM
link   
'license copy' or 'based on' is not just semantics "Based on" can cover a large spectrum and can clearly not be a licensed copy.

The Vulcan cannon itself is based on the Gatling gun and I assure you Richard J. Gatling didnt get no license deal

The M-60 machine gun was based on the German MG42 but it aint no licensed copy either.

It all depends on how much you change


This site says the The GAU-12 was named the winner over the BK27 anyway and that the information is inaccurate about the mauser BK27

www.aerospaceweb.org...



[edit on 10-3-2006 by ShadowXIX]



posted on Mar, 10 2006 @ 10:12 PM
link   
@Browno:
The widely successful BK27 was originally intended to be mounted on the JSF, but was dropped in favor of a domestic design. I can only speculate on the reasoning behind this. Caliber commonality with existing 25mm system would be a good reason; corporate politics, NIH trauma and "Buy American" attitude would be another



Originally posted by ShadowXIX
Oh its a Boeing's 27mm Aircraft Cannon, based on the Mauser BK27. Where does it say its a licenced copy ? I missed that

The Mauser BK27 is a good design but its rate of fire cant touch the Vulcans 6,000 rpm it would take like 3 BK27s to do that since it was a rate of fire of about 1,700 rpm.

Interesting that they with a BK27 design seems to be a clear weight and space saver but you trade that off for Firepower. Guns may just be of less importance on the JSF


Ok, first the Boeing BK 27 version is nearly identical to the Mauser design. The only notable differences are the concessions to "americanized" engineering (just like the Rheinmetall 120mm L44 gun -> M256 gun for the M1 tank).

Second, the M61 Vulcan may have a theoretical rate of fire of 6000 rounds per minute, but it suffers from the usual speed-up time of Gatling guns - which can be more than a second with guns of this size. The revolver BK 27 however has virtually no "speed-up time" since it doesnt have to get ~50kg of barrels moving to work properly. Comparative tests have shown that in this relevant first second the BK 27 spits out nearly 1kg more of "bullet weight" than the M-61 (ca.7kg < ca.6kg) - noteworthy is the caliber difference of 27mm vs. 20mm which kinda offsets the difference in ROF, and not to forget the EXTREMELY limited amount of ammo on a regular airplane.

Anyway it should be noted that the JSF does not use the M61 Vulcan, it uses a derivative of the GAU-12/U 25mm Gatling gun (itself a derivative of the M-61 Vulcan) which has a maximum ROF of 3300 rounds/min - again with the obvious speed-up time (interesting side info is that this, IIRC, is the first american supersonic airplane that partly adapts to the European and Russian dogma of favoring a larger "bullet" over volume of fire).

This Gun with its motor weighs more than twice as much as the BK 27. General Dynamics differentiates between "internal" and "external" system weights (191kg vs. 329kg) for a reason: at least the hydraulic drive certainly counts to the external system, whereas the fly-away weight of the BK 27 is 102,5kg. And still it will suffer from the speed-up time within the relevant first second which is a simple physical necessity.

As a last point, both aircraft will carry only roughly 200 rounds on the plane, and usually they are fired in computer-controlled bursts of not a second, but merely split seconds length (AFAIK for the Typhoon the standard length is 0.3sec=10 rounds). So unless there is a situation that really requires an unusually long burst, common logic may indicate that the BK 27 "wins" hands down in terms of relevant firepower, weight and system simplicity.


GAU-12
BK 27 with linkless feed system

[edit on 10/3/2006 by Lonestar24]



posted on Mar, 10 2006 @ 10:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lonestar24


Second, the M61 Vulcan may have a theoretical rate of fire of 6000 rounds per minute, but it suffers from the usual speed-up time of Gatling guns - which can be more than a second with guns of this size.


The gun takes about 0.3 seconds to wind up to the full rate of fire, and half a second to wind down again. Not even close to more then a second

www.f-16.net...

Not like the wind up rate even matters the BK 27 still cant come close to the rate of fire like I said




M61 fires 70 rounds in the first second (6,000 rounds/minute = 100/second. 30% of the first second is waisted on winding up, so that leaves 70 rounds fired in the first second). The BK27 fires at 1,700 rpm, or 28 rounds per second. In order to fire the same amount of rounds in the first second, you'd still need 3 BK27's in stead of one Vulcan


The GAU-12U also normally fires 3,600 rounds per minute, with a maximum of 4,200 rounds per minute.

The US choose a higher rate of fire and greater velocity over lower rate of fire and larger bullets. A tactic that has worked well for the US and these types of systems have also worked well and are battle proven.


[edit on 10-3-2006 by ShadowXIX]



posted on Mar, 11 2006 @ 12:19 AM
link   
Originally posted by Lonestar24,

>>
The widely successful BK27 was originally intended to be mounted on the JSF, but was dropped in favor of a domestic design. I can only speculate on the reasoning behind this. Caliber commonality with existing 25mm system would be a good reason; corporate politics, NIH trauma and "Buy American" attitude would be another

>>

Well,

1. I'm not entirely sure if the 25mm Bushmaster is the same round as the GAU-12 uses and it probably doesn't matter since the latest game in town appears to be the Mk.44 30X173. Retiring Harrier IIs _which will not_ pass their guns onto the equivalent F-35B does not support the notion of 'caliber commonality' if all your tanks (with the possible exception of the LAV-AD) are no longer using the 25mm common caliber (and the Brits and French never made the commitment to this under NATO rules).

2. Corporate Politics are probably not a factor as I believe the entire Boeing (Hughes, Mesa AZ) line has been sold off to Alliance Tech Systems (ATK anyway). Which likely includes all rights to existing and future gun programs. Whether the decision on snubbing the 27mm because it was 'Boeing' happened before or after the ATK selloff I supposed could bear upon the subject but it seems more likely a patent/licensing issue.

3. NIH/BA only applies if it's wise to have a gun on the jet at all. Given the 'CAS' variant in fact _will not_. And you would have to be an utter fool to put a 104 million dollar platform in the way of a man with an RPK...


CONCLUSION:
I suspect that the strafer is still a valid mission IF you can do so on a fixed slant ala the OV-10D NOGS for no more than 3-5 million per unit. If nothing else, the platform will be hundreds of times more available than an AC-130, able to duck under and back out of groundfire floors orders of magnitude more quickly to improve responsiveness and reduce vulnerability without a BHD scenario. And it will likely be able to employ weapons like Viper Strike/BUET off 2-4 pylons (4-8 shots) as a backup if gun passes are not possible (APKWS 70mm FFAR is another option with 8-14 shots).

Similarly, I have a real belief in the UNMANNED system as a fighter platform that combines a gun with 2 SRM and LO to beat down the BVR missile thicket before wreaking havoc using supermaneuverability and 12-15G maneuver freedom as 300-400 knots.

But in none of these areas would I put a system that costs as much as the JSF at risk. Because exercises like Cope India prove, not only that an enemy with decent BVR/vectoring and superb WVR /training/ can beat us. But that our enemies are scared pissless of the 60-100km AMRAAM shot and 'fade' option to the point of dictating ROE that maximize their chances of forcing a fight. There is _absolutely no excuse_ for continued closure to guns range on either air or ground targets when you have 8 rounds worth of 30-40 inch SDB+AMSTE precision strike. And only 2 AMRAAM to get their noses off.

Because where the MASSIVE MISTAKE of commiting to a visual fight is based on what people 'ass-u-me' about a first salvo that misses leaving no choice but to continue to wade on in. A missile that is guided by another friendly (potentially tens of miles offset or astern) and makes endgame with both opponents are _still_ at least 10-15nm apart, instantly generates a 'free fighter/engaged fighter' scenario which switches commitment to the (detached support) illuminator once the closer, better pole out kinematics, shooter weapon leaves the bay.

This is the difference between an IR 'fire and forget' weapon and a modern BVR system. You WANT the tether dependency to continue the midcourse updating to an optimum engagement point given random target maneuver.

You just don't want it on the launch aircraft.

Similarly, any jet which uses a gun or I/SRM must take into account this new metric of AAW in that he has to penetrate beyond, not just a fixed-closure pole game. But get up in the face of the illuminator which is tracking from even further back (and to whom, the shooter is pulling a chainsaw retrograde).

The only way to make the latter instance viable is if you can either soak enemy shots, on the cheap. Or if you are so invisible that BVR dies on an arrow-not-indian basis anyway.


KPl.


LINK-
JSF and the 27mm, it was not just a daydream or typo
www.dtic.mil...



posted on Mar, 11 2006 @ 07:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX

Originally posted by Lonestar24
Second, the M61 Vulcan may have a theoretical rate of fire of 6000 rounds per minute, but it suffers from the usual speed-up time of Gatling guns - which can be more than a second with guns of this size.


The gun takes about 0.3 seconds to wind up to the full rate of fire, and half a second to wind down again. Not even close to more then a second

www.f-16.net...

Not like the wind up rate even matters the BK 27 still cant come close to the rate of fire like I said


I did not doubt that the M-61 has a higher ROF. But you concluded that the lower ROF of the BK 27 results in a tradeoff of firepower, a statement that ignores the speed-up time in that relevant time window of engagement and the difference in ordnance and explosives weight (something that is clearly critizised in your article and in some of the comments below).

I also said that that it can take up to a second to wind it up, it doesnt have to. Basically there are different drives for it available, and obviously a stronger drive results in a lower speed-up time. With only 500 rounds on board of a F-16 the gun will have to be used VERY controlled anyway.

Nevertheless, the Vulcan is not of interest anyway because we are speaking of the JSF and it´s 25mm cannon.




M61 fires 70 rounds in the first second (6,000 rounds/minute = 100/second. 30% of the first second is waisted on winding up, so that leaves 70 rounds fired in the first second). The BK27 fires at 1,700 rpm, or 28 rounds per second. In order to fire the same amount of rounds in the first second, you'd still need 3 BK27's in stead of one Vulcan


The GAU-12U also normally fires 3,600 rounds per minute, with a maximum of 4,200 rounds per minute.

The US choose a higher rate of fire and greater velocity over lower rate of fire and larger bullets. A tactic that has worked well for the US and these types of systems have also worked well and are battle proven.


I gave a link to a General Dynamics .pdf that stated that the GAU-12U Derivative used ON THE JSF has a max ROF of 3300. Your numbers are for the plain gun.

Well I wont speculate which dogma is better, volume of fire or bullet weight ("shotgun approach" vs. precision). I just wanted to point it this interesting schism from the 20mm caliber that the US has favored for more than 60 years now. The velocity of the cannons in question however is roughly equal, 1000-1100 m/s (also depending on the round used) for the Vulcan, the GAU-12U and the BK 27.

[edit on 11/3/2006 by Lonestar24]



posted on Mar, 11 2006 @ 08:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
'license copy' or 'based on' is not just semantics "Based on" can cover a large spectrum and can clearly not be a licensed copy.



I wasn't speaking in general terms but in relation to this specific instance that we are discussing where it is very much a case of semantics because, whether it is badged Boeing or Mauser, it is the same gun, for this a license is very definitely required.

Pardon me if I am mistaken but you seem to be coming from a viewpoint of being unwilling to accept that the JSF (would have) used a foreign gun. Why would this be? The Mauser has been an excellent weapon on the Tornado for many years.

I hadn't read that the gun had been dropped from the JSF. Is that all versions or just the US ones?



posted on Mar, 11 2006 @ 10:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
...

I hadn't read that the gun had been dropped from the JSF. Is that all versions or just the US ones?


I cant remember when exactly it was dropped, but it´s been a while. The .pdf ch1466 gave shows that it would have been modified, but basically it stays the same gun (and even kept the same name either, "BK" stands for "Bordkanone" - onboard cannon).

Given the vast difference of weight and space requirements, along with a potentially very different form of ammunition storage I doubt that swapping the cannon would be feasible. To keep the trim a BK 27 fitted JSF would need considerable amounts of balancing weights which could render the weight advantage of the cannon pretty useless, and not to forget the targetting software would have to be modified accordingly.



posted on Mar, 11 2006 @ 11:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by waynos


Pardon me if I am mistaken but you seem to be coming from a viewpoint of being unwilling to accept that the JSF (would have) used a foreign gun. Why would this be? The Mauser has been an excellent weapon on the Tornado for many years.



I personally dont care where the design comes from because it would be created in the US. Whatever is best though the M1A1 uses a German design for its main gun and its a great gun.

I personally think rate of fire > over larger bullets. More bullets down range increase the chance of a hit. The same basic reason why my shotgun for home defense has 000 buck rather then a slug ammo.

Its not like there was even a huge difference between the 25mm and 27mm rounds in question. You get hit by a few 25mm HEI-T your going down all the same as if 27mm rounds hit you. If the GAU-12/2 used .50cals that would be different

There is also no huge weight difference for either system (123 kg) for the JSF GAU-12/2 Compared to (105 kg) for the BK27.



posted on Mar, 11 2006 @ 12:11 PM
link   
How out of date is this link? It says that the powerplant is one Pratt and Witney F-119, but that engine has been upgraded to a Pratt and Witney F-135 a long time ago.

Shattered OUT...



posted on Mar, 11 2006 @ 01:46 PM
link   
ShadowXIX,

>>>
Pardon me if I am mistaken but you seem to be coming from a viewpoint of being unwilling to accept that the JSF (would have) used a foreign gun. Why would this be? The Mauser has been an excellent weapon on the Tornado for many years.
>>>

Indeed, among the Boeing press releases on the weapon was cofirmation that it could be used from upwards of a mile and a half slant ranges (against ground targets) and that the gun used IFFC software linking the targeting FLIR to the autopilot to provide very short burst expenditures via flight control correction per kill.

But such is about the airframe integration more than the weapon. And it further treats all targets as point objects rather than area matrixes. Which is foolish because the best employment of the gun remains antipersonnel on dispersed infantry.

>>
I personally dont care where the design comes from because it would be created in the US. Whatever is best though the M1A1 uses a German design for its main gun and its a great gun.
>>

The question is actually WHY the gun is there to begin with. SRMs have been used down to 300m in the Bekaa campaign. The JSF has no SRM. SRM are nearly unseduceable by EXCM and there is no DIRCM on the JSF. The JSF only has TWO internal AMRAAM.

40km->.......................................1.5km. Is a helluva long ways to go to pursue a mistake.

>>
I personally think rate of fire > over larger bullets. More bullets down range increase the chance of a hit. The same basic reason why my shotgun for home defense has 000 buck rather then a slug ammo.
>>

And only an idiot /goes to bed knowing he's going to be attacked/ with a gun in the nightstand or under the mattress. Because if he's damn lucky, he will here the threat coming through his bedroom door and then it's about sleepy reflexes.

Do you get the gun up? Do you get a shot off before he does? Does your shot kill him before his dying reflex does for you? Does _his friend_ kill you while you are cha-chucking?

That is effectively what the gun is on the JSF you know. A dare to a poor dumb moron to shoot you with a golden BB or MANPADS whose value ranges from .0025 percent to maybe 1% of your airframe. And if not him then the guy 100yds or 5 miles downrange from him.

If you want a better 'shotgun' analogy, go with the 70mm APKWS/LCPK. With an M261 (9 M73 MPSM) or Multidart (up to 36AMV 9mm flechettes) and a variable time fuze, WITH ONE POD (7 rounds LAU-131) you can saturate an area the size of a football field. Even as CRV-7 (4,400fps) equivalent motors, provide upwards of _8,000 meters_ slant range (Jags did it from 6 in DS without guidance).

Which means that, even with the guidance interval, you are not going to penetrate the trashfire floor.

>>
Its not like there was even a huge difference between the 25mm and 27mm rounds in question. You get hit by a few 25mm HEI-T your going down all the same as if 27mm rounds hit you. If the GAU-12/2 used .50cals that would be different
>>

Sigh. And a 7.62mm RPK round can end everything. Does that make it 'better' than either cannon? It's certainly cheaper. How about a MANPADS? If I shoot one and blow your wing off, does that mean my 500 dollar SA-7 or 30,000 dollar SA-18 are 'better' than your million dollar gun? How about your 104 million dollar JSF?

Even as late as OIF, F-16's were buzzing the tops of our troops heads so that their drivers could deliver 20mm fire on 'obstacles' (defiladed infantry).

REALITY CHECK PEOPLE. We have NO GUNSHIPS which are capable of delivering Vietnam style (helicopter or skyraider) direct support. Because every platform we own is so multimission screwed up /by cost/ (21 million dollar AH-1W) as to be supremely unwise to employ in that mission.

Which is why Iraqi insurgents are able to play mortar-in-back-alley games and we can do nothing to keep them from blowing up their own people and making us look /incredibly/ incompetent.

>>
There is also no huge weight difference for either system (123 kg) for the JSF GAU-12/2 Compared to (105 kg) for the BK27.
>>

It's not the weight, it's the number of engagements. With 225 rounds internally a rotary gun hasn't got but 3-4 good bursts in it, regardless. With 180 external, it's not got but 1-2.

Compare this with even a /four round/ (ala the developmental pods trialed on the RAH-66 program or the SUU-20 training pod) container for 70mm rockets and you are ALWAYS going to come up short by a factor of 2:1. Take the round count up to a 7 round LAU-68 or 131 and now you are 4:1. Go 'all the way' to a 19 round pod and you are looking at almost a 10:1 difference in effective engagements.

Just for two pods and 500lbs (i.e. you can go to four pods on paired TER or VER or on separate parent stations).

And each of those pods can be configured with a cocktail of 10lb HE, 17lb HE, WP or submunition warheads. Even fixed unidart penetrators for use in truly 'crowded' environments or against armor.

Presumably you all know the old saying: "You bought the knife, I brung the gun, come on boy we're gonna have a little fun...."??

There is NO EXCUSE for bringing a /gun/ to a missile fight. Because however much 'fun' you have, the lack of post-muzzle correction and propulsion makes your weapon inadequate as a tool for long slant attacks (The GAU-8 is 'officially' a 15,000ft slant weapon but at these distances it's API hits within a 30m CEP and it's HEI falls off completely).

It sprays down huge areas, creates /enormous/ secondary hazards (DU and fragmentation splinter effects in an urban center, oh how CNN would slobber) and it DOES NOT PROTECT THE SHOOTER ADEQUATELY.


CONCLUSION:
Whether A2A or A2G, guns have a place only on sacrificial platforms that can afford to use simple, preloaded, pepper box (Metalstorm) equivalents which avoid the principle weight penalty of a fixed magazine/powered feed system as well as the operative stress of a 'spinning' receiver group (revolver or rotary).

Even so, their principle justification is always going to be that, by letting some mud monkey shoot at them with infantry toys, they force a scenario by which human life is rendered even cheaper by the notion of killing a robot only to die as a firing signature to it's serial-numbered-not-brothers-attention.

In ANY other condition, for the value of the platform vs. the value of the men it is 'saving' by NOT commiting to ground ops, you are better off _standing off_ (outside a radar defense WEZ) completely with glide or post-launch boosted, guided, weapons.


KPl.



posted on Mar, 11 2006 @ 02:27 PM
link   
For petes sake use the quote button ch1466 your post look like a mess without them. Its really not that hard to do.


Originally posted by ch1466
And only an idiot /goes to bed knowing he's going to be attacked/ with a gun in the nightstand or under the mattress. Because if he's damn lucky, he will here the threat coming through his bedroom door and then it's about sleepy reflexes.

Do you get the gun up? Do you get a shot off before he does? Does your shot kill him before his dying reflex does for you? Does _his friend_ kill you while you are cha-chucking?


Watch out thats getting pretty close to a personal attack on ATS

Here you go with these fantasy scenarios again. You really love those dont you. Perhaps I would be safer from someone trying to break into my house with the intent to kill me with no weapon at all. Thats a brillant idea man you win the Darwin award for that.

I have a darn good alarm system and am a light sleeper. Ill take my chances with a shotgun in a house I know like the back of my hand in the dark over a half the inept criminals out there.



Originally posted by ch1466
Sigh. And a 7.62mm RPK round can end everything. Does that make it 'better' than either cannon?


If you think the differences between the 25mm and 27mm have any place being compared to the 7.63x39 round your not worth my time.

Originally posted by ch1466

REALITY CHECK PEOPLE. We have NO GUNSHIPS which are capable of delivering Vietnam style (helicopter or skyraider) direct support. Because every platform we own is so multimission screwed up /by cost/ (21 million dollar AH-1W) as to be supremely unwise to employ in that mission.



with rants like this you only make yourself look bad

Heres a visual aide again ch1466




NO GUNSHIPS ?? Hmmmm


www.globalaircraft.org...



posted on Mar, 11 2006 @ 06:30 PM
link   
ShadowXIX,

>>
For petes sake use the quote button ch1466 your post look like a mess without them. Its really not that hard to do.
>>

And since you can't take a quote in context, why should I think you know better?

>>
Watch out thats getting pretty close to a personal attack on ATS
>>

What personal attack? Are you someone who sleeps with a shotgun under his bed? Do you load it with 'triple ought' buck?

Snicker.

>>
Here you go with these fantasy scenarios again. You really love those dont you. Perhaps I would be safer from someone trying to break into my house with the intent to kill me with no weapon at all. Thats a brillant idea man you win the Darwin award for that.
>>

The _analogy_ was yours sir.

>>>
>>
I personally think rate of fire > over larger bullets. More bullets down range increase the chance of a hit. The same basic reason why my shotgun for home defense has 000 buck rather then a slug ammo.
>>>

Attempting to crossgrade it to a military scenario was what was foolish. Unfortunately you didn't take the time from being 'personally offended' to see that.

In combat operations, the preexistent condition of hostile intent by MORE THAN ONE is a given.

As such, the notion that you are going to fire BOTH AMRAAMs at a single opponent and then /continue to close/ for upwards of 20-30km to dance the dance with a gun is moronic. Because he doesn't have a stealth limit on his weapons carriage. Nor does his wingman. And you don't have 'no see'em' technology. You have _no see'em too good_ threshold limits upon detection. Continued closure will transit the point at which your are detectable and KILLABLE with heat missiles that themselves are 'imaging' sufficient to kill reliably from over 10km away.

A gun is a 1-1.5km weapon against aerial targets.

Stealth is an offensive tool. Provided you don't push it's limits, it gives you the power of dominant maneuver. Thus there is absolutely no point in believing a gun is transliterally a decent 'nightstand' weapon weapon because YOU are the thief.

And if you walk into a battlespace where you KNOW the enemy lurks, waiting. YOU ARE THE IDIOT.

Because "You brought the gun, I brought the missile, come on boy we're gonna cook you to a gristle."

GET IT? No I suppose not. Because after all, you're not a fighter pilot. You're thus not an idiot for thinking the weight of a gun is necessary on a 104 million dollar platform like the JSF.

>>
I have a darn good alarm system and am a light sleeper. Ill take my chances with a shotgun in a house I know like the back of my hand in the dark over a half the inept criminals out there.
>>

Now who's doing fantasy scenarios.

>>
If you think the differences between the 25mm and 27mm have any place being compared to the 7.63x39 round your not worth my time.
>>

Sigh. You go down into the briar patch where the mud monkey who has /never had a life worth saving/ doesn't _know_ enough to realize how badly the odds are stacked in losing it, and YOU ARE THE FOOL.

Because he can kill you even when he is dead. Even if your wingman or a ground force member kills him after you are dead. The operative function here is that YOU ARE DEAD.

Which doesn't really matter all that much at a Darwin Award 'moral level' because any jackass that volunteers to kill perfect strangers for a perfect stranger deserves what he gets. Nor is it all that important at the tactical level because the manning ratios are so low that really, losing a jet doesn't keep another 3 pilots from flying it so much as make the maintainers work harder (MMH:FH) to keep the remainder flyable on a 'twice as often' basis.

Where it MATTERS is strategically. Because you are paying for an ability which is _not_ an expansion to the mission set of an asset because it's presence depletes the number of similar assets that could be bought if you didn't waste money creating an insanely STUPID weapon integration justification for the word 'fighter'.

>>>
REALITY CHECK PEOPLE. We have NO GUNSHIPS which are capable of delivering Vietnam style (helicopter or skyraider) direct support. Because every platform we own is so multimission screwed up /by cost/ (21 million dollar AH-1W) as to be supremely unwise to employ in that mission.
>>>

>>
with rants like this you only make yourself look bad

Heres a visual aide again ch1466



NO GUNSHIPS ?? Hmmmm


www.globalaircraft.org...
>>

Truly, I wish you could learn to SPELL 'aid'. And 'Aide' is a person. An 'Aid' is an inanimate object or action that assists the person. Got it?

Now, if you will go back and READ WHAT I SAID:

>>>
We have NO GUNSHIPS which are capable of delivering Vietnam style (helicopter or skyraider) direct support. Because every platform we own is so multimission screwed up /by cost/ (21 million dollar AH-1W) as to be supremely unwise to employ in that mission.
>>>

Helicopters have been configured as defacto gunships long before the AC (actually FC at first, which shows what juvenile minds were in charge of the idea) came online.

And the reason they were so adopted to the armed recce and rocket artillery missions was because _they could afford to be lost_ in forward operating conditions with high operational utilization rates.

A 21 million (I have also seen 14.5 million and 10.8 million) dollar AH-1W whose value lies in it's 'nose to the ground fire' optics and TOW package /as an armor killer/ no longer meets those constraints.

Similarly a 190 million dollar AC-130U -never- met that condition, not simply because you cannot troll for fire. But because there are a total of 13 in the operational inventory and of those about half are down for maintenance at any one time thanks to a 30% rise in operational rates.

Indeed it costs upwards of /10,000 dollars per flight hour/ to fly them.

And they only come out at night.

Which means if you have twenty foot patrols in AfG and four cities in Iraq that need constant minding, the troops on the ground are not going to be getting _effective gunship support_.

Because the enemy will kill them with small ambush and leavebehind threats and then fade before any real CAS response can arrive to fix them for destruction. And thus you will take needless casualties because you failed to interdict the threat /before/ it arrived to firing conditions.

Helicopters are too easily shot down. AC-130s are not commited for fear /of/ being shot down as HDLD assets. Thus the first condition of battle: Presence. That you BE THERE to initiate and sustain the fight, on your terms, is less lost than non-existent.

All because man thinks he has some innate gift as 'protector' for his species which is completely baseless in true competency. And /smells like/ union-desparation to maintain a job description that could better be fulfilled by UAV assets. If at all.

Certainly unmanned systems are the last remaining redoubt of 'inexpensive is as victory in battle what acceptable losses are in winning the war'. Where the inherent ballistic limitations of guns are still worth the risk of their platform to employ them, because the latter are dirt cheap. Allowing them to be purchased in numbers sufficient to be PRESENT OVERHEAD with sufficient _high-demand, high density, utilizable,_ fires as are worth the cost of the 60 dollar an hour maintainer needed to keep them there.

The military knows it. And they rely on rah-rah fanatics like you to maintain the status quo in the face of all common sense. If ATS is COINTELPRO, it is in the warped way their 'amateur posters' present casepoint questions based more on reinforcing a status quo than in questioning why the paradigm exists.


KPl.


LINKS-
Why The Vamps Fear Daylight
www.strategypage.com...

Air Force Reimbursable Rates
usmilitary.about.com...

Increases in Utilization 'at cost'
www.cbo.gov...

The Butcher's Bill Of Goods
www.worldpolicy.org...



posted on Mar, 11 2006 @ 09:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by ch1466
ShadowXIX,

And since you can't take a quote in context, why should I think you know better?


Come on now Ill walk you through using quotes on ATS. Consider this a public service for anyone that reads your post. There is a quote button in the top right corner of every persons post click that.

There is then another quote button right nest too the button used to add links or pictures. By clicking that you can add any sentance to a quote box.

Is that hard too do?


Originally posted by ch1466

The _analogy_ was yours sir.


The fantasy scenario was purely yours of criminals breaking into my house to kill me.




Originally posted by ch1466

As such, the notion that you are going to fire BOTH AMRAAMs at a single opponent and then /continue to close/ for upwards of 20-30km to dance the dance with a gun is moronic. Because he doesn't have a stealth limit on his weapons carriage. Nor does his wingman. And you don't have 'no see'em' technology. You have _no see'em too good_ threshold limits upon detection. Continued closure will transit the point at which your are detectable and KILLABLE with heat missiles that themselves are 'imaging' sufficient to kill reliably from over 10km away.

A gun is a 1-1.5km weapon against aerial targets.

Stealth is an offensive tool. Provided you don't push it's limits, it gives you the power of dominant maneuver. Thus there is absolutely no point in believing a gun is transliterally a decent 'nightstand' weapon weapon because YOU are the thief.

And if you walk into a battlespace where you KNOW the enemy lurks, waiting. YOU ARE THE IDIOT.

Because "You brought the gun, I brought the missile, come on boy we're gonna cook you to a gristle."

Oh so now your trying to turn this into a gun vs Missile debate
Well the people that built the F-22, JSF, Typhoon and just about every other modern plane disagree with you and have keep guns in the design.

Are the odds likely you will get in a dogfight with present tech. Perhaps not but it can indeed happen. And in a close dogfight a missile can be about as useful as a rifle would be while trying to fight a guy armed with a knife with you both trapped in a phone booth. 10-1 odds on the guy with the small knife in that fight.


Originally posted by ch1466

GET IT? No I suppose not. Because after all, you're not a fighter pilot. You're thus not an idiot for thinking the weight of a gun is necessary on a 104 million dollar platform like the JSF.

But see thats why you are not designing planes while the experts are putting guns in their designs.



Originally posted by ch1466
Now who's doing fantasy scenarios.

Not a scenario its a fact your post about criminal breaking into my house that would be a fantasy scenario. If you ever meet a great deal of criminals you would know a great deal of them are so inept its not even funny.


Originally posted by ch1466
We have NO GUNSHIPS which are capable of delivering Vietnam style (helicopter or skyraider) direct support. Because every platform we own is so multimission screwed up /by cost/ (21 million dollar AH-1W) as to be supremely unwise to employ in that mission.


Please the AC130 specter is designed for "direct support of ground troops" and "close air support" and clearly is a gunship like it really matters if it is used mainly at night. Tactics have changed since Vietnam and we fight alot more at night and use it as a advantage.

The AH-1 Cobra is still used in that role as well no matter how unwise a armchair general thinks it is. They even use them in the daylight and everything.

Even the AH-6 Little Bird can preform the role of close air support and direct attack for special operations forces

You talk about most troops not getting air support. IED's are now causing most injuries, deaths of US troops and gunships cant really help with that. Even these motar attacks are a few motars and then they hide out of fear or close US air support comming in they are not sitting their shooting hundreds of motars at a time because of no fear of gunships.

Its really funny how the US military, people that design fighter jets, SAS are doing everything wrong and the expert ch1466 knows better sitting in his cozy chair infront of his computer screen.

Remember everyone this is the same expert that knows more about weapons then the SAS

www.abovetopsecret.com...'

According to ch1466 all these SAS really wish to ALWAYS be using rifles and they are stupid for selecting MP-5s in any CQC


[edit on 11-3-2006 by ShadowXIX]



posted on Mar, 11 2006 @ 11:30 PM
link   
You two discuss without being moronic. Only I can be abusive and since I restrain from such activities, you two bozos will, too.


The grouss button is the 4th from the left. Tell'em mean ol' TC is talkin' hateful again!



posted on Mar, 12 2006 @ 01:05 AM
link   
And ch1466, please state what acronyms mean (atleast once) what because not all of us can understand all that, I know a fair bit of air combat lingo but that just tops it all, it's beginning to get annoying.

It's a habbit I started to get into so people know what I mean.

I always wondered why they picked the BK27 for the JSF's gun, the GAU-12U 25mm gun is an indigenous weapon that is already being used by the AV-8B Harrier Plus.

Just for the record, the 25mm rounds are the same as the Bushmaster on the Bradley IFV series.

25mm ammunitions

The only other 25mm round is used by the Objective (Advanced now) Crew Served Weapon (OCSW or ACSW).



posted on Mar, 15 2006 @ 05:17 PM
link   
SHADOWXIX,

>>
Is that hard too do?
>>

Yup. Your pedantic sarcasm not withstanding for the reasons already given.

>>
The fantasy scenario was purely yours of criminals breaking into my house to kill me.
>>

I didn't mention shotguns as -high rate of fire- 'volume saturative' weapons to be used as home defense weapons. You did. I merely caught you out in an incongruous usage which has no application to modern day AERIAL warfare.

>>
Oh so now your trying to turn this into a gun vs Missile debate
>>

YOU were the one who intro'd the idea of a shotgun 'for home defense' analogy as being appropriate to an _aircraft_ gun debate. I doubt you will ever face a guided missile fired by a 'criminal'. It is a standard threat for a military aircraft. It is typically serious enough to define a 'floor' of no-go entry.

I further specifically stated that you were wrong because a stealth pilot doesn't just 'suddenly wake up' and see a SAM or Machine Gun or AAM at his door.

He has to _foolishly_ go where it lives. To the point where the threat can SEE him. And it's weapon REACH him.

I say foolishly because a home intruder wants something from YOU. Rape or Goods or Thrill Kill. While a smart pilot desires nothing so personal and indeed would just as soon assassinate his target using a GBU-39 which glides from upwards of 30nm out.

The 'like analogy' there is that of the burglar planting a 50lb satchel charge by your bedroom window. What good your pistol or shotgun now?

What makes pilots all 'uncertain about their place in the order of things' without a gun onboard is the certainty that without the 'multriole' phallic symbolism of that gun, they are just a bus driver to a bomb pylon.

And dumb as Americans are, they are /beginning/ to see how little monkey-presses-button necessary it is for them to pay a pilot what a cruise missile with landing gear could do as well or better.

>>
Well the people that built the F-22, JSF, Typhoon and just about every other modern plane disagree with you and have keep guns in the design.
>>

The JSF will not have a standard-carriage gun on two of it's three variants. The third variant, while most-produced, will not have enough /rounds/ in it's gun to justify the presence of said ordnance. Because as an A2A weapon, it will never be employed. Because, as an A2G weapon, it's utility as an area-effect device is burst-lmiited beyond practical employment.

If it _has no useful role_ then don't stick a jet suffering from upwards of 4,000lbs weight penalty with it's costly presence.

The Typhoon will not have a functional gun on it's principal British variant.

Since the days of the F-14, coming into a gun fight with missiles still aboard has been considered a _tactical mistake_.

The difference between a JSF and a Tomcat or a Typhoon is that the first will likely cost between two and four times what the others do. And it's _sole_ justification for being so pricey is that, provided it skulks at the edges of the RF searchlight. It's not going to be 'forced' to do anything so stupid as commit to close combat.

Having said that, since none of the German, French or British Air Forces adopted the 25mm as a 'common NATO caliber', and since our SOLE airborne tactical platform using the 25mm is about to be retired in favor of it's JSF followon; for us to make this a truly transatlantic Alliance sales effort should have /require/ us to use the 27mm.

Given that they are ballistically near identical and THIS caliber is in both German and British service. While the gun which employs it weighs half what the GAU-12 does.

>>
Are the odds likely you will get in a dogfight with present tech. Perhaps not but it can indeed happen. And in a close dogfight a missile can be about as useful as a rifle would be while trying to fight a guy armed with a knife with you both trapped in a phone booth. 10-1 odds on the guy with the small knife in that fight.
>>

CAN YOU READ WHAT IS SAY?

If your opponent defeats, soaks or extends from under both AMRAAM shots your next chance to kill him comes with a gun that can ONLY be employed 40-60km later. This isn't a 'forced to defend oneself' issue. It's a deliberate walk into stupidity.

Because his /IRST/ will start to see you around 30-40km, even with Topcoat, and his imaging heat weapons (2-4-6) will start to kill you from 20km. And ALL that you can do is grit your teeth and keep closing.

You will run out of Expendables. Energy. Ideas. And Luck. LONG BEFORE he can gun your brains out. Because he _will_ have the numeric advantage. On sheer cost of inventory and home-town force structure basis. And the best dogfight gun in the world doesn't mean diddly dip if you're outnumbered by an enemy that turns as well as you do.

Understand that SRMs have been used from >
But see thats why you are not designing planes while the experts are putting guns in their designs.
>>

But see, that's why they are NOT putting a gun 'as standard' on the _CAS_ variant of the JSF, the F-35B. Because they cannot afford the weight of it in day to day use and it serves no functional secondary purpose as the LIDed version of the GAU-12/U does.

>>
Please the AC130 specter is designed for "direct support of ground troops" and "close air support" and clearly is a gunship like it really matters if it is used mainly at night. Tactics have changed since Vietnam and we fight alot more at night and use it as a advantage.
>>

No. The FC-47 was.

The AC-130 was a purpose built Trails and Roads Interdiction machine whose vulnerability to /conventional/ S2A gun threats saw it continually modified so that, even as a night attack platform, half it's guns were effectively worthless by the end of the war because you didn't want to go below 12-15K of the 40/105.

Now that we face EOCG, LCG, SALH and IR VSHORADs weapons, not even that is a guarantee. Which is why we _do not have_ a 'squadron per LID' worth of gunships. Even though Light Infantry Divisions are themselves /vastly/ more useful in the 70% of SSC/OOTW conditions for which 'ground troops' are required. Than anything the USAF contributes.

Furthermore, we CAN'T build such a number because each one would cost 60 million more than an F-22. And without that numbered count of overhead protectors, ground forces are not safe.

And thus gunships, as you defined them, are not effective.

>>
The AH-1 Cobra is still used in that role as well no matter how unwise a armchair general thinks it is. They even use them in the daylight and everything.
>>

Really, and how much do you know about daylight helicopter operations in Iraq? How about AfG where high adds to hot? How many AH-64 Apaches were lost in the first 30 minutes of Operation Anaconda sir?

How many helicopters have been downed in Iraq? How many missiles vs. guns vs. CFIT have been responsible for those losses?

I would 'hazard a guess' that I have /forgotten/ more about what is being hushed up over there than you ever knew.

>>
Even the AH-6 Little Bird can perform the role of close air support and direct attack for special operations forces.
>>

Oh please. BHD is not an emphasis on what is right about the 160th. It is an indictment about what is completely wrong with our military approach to OOTW.

>>
You talk about most troops not getting air support. IED's are now causing most injuries, deaths of US troops and gunships cant really help with that. Even these motar attacks are a few motars and then they hide out of fear or close US air support comming in they are not sitting their shooting hundreds of motars at a time because of no fear of gunships.
>>

IED's can be stopped if the /predictable/ (for them as well as U.S.) traffic routes are covered 24:7:365 to catch the threat during emplacement activities. Something air platforms do quite well.

Air presence can also effectively contribute to the IED prevention effort by being present overhead when the types of cellphones used, the local router spoofing lockout and civillian auto traffic requires that the trigger man be within 300m of the detonation.

What an AC-130 specifically _Cannot Do_ is be overhead when it happens. Not at 10 grande per flying hour. Not with 13 U's and 8 H's. Not over all of Iraq.

The Gunships went back in because, even with lockdown of all ground transport, the Iraqi government couldn't keep their own slathering barbarian savages from slaughtering each other with indirect fire. If you cannot prevent that as a function of guaranteeing civil order (the basic duty of all governments), then the 'next step' is general insurrection.

The threat of killing Iraqi citizens like something out of 'The Green Berets' being the only deterrent they understand. And the only /role/ (attacking the defenseless mobbing the streets like LA or Watts) for which the AC-130 is natively still adept. As a mass casualty threat.

>>
Its really funny how the US military, people that design fighter jets, SAS are doing everything wrong and the expert ch1466 knows better sitting in his cozy chair infront of his computer screen.
>>

No. It's really sad that we have men and women like you utterly willing to suspend their disbelief, to effectively /stop thinking/ rationally and critically, so that those who effectively charge them 'protection money' vastly beyond the damage done on 9/11 can continue to have a Mafia-as-Union job in which they are doing nothing but sponsor more hate. And more frustration. With their bloody minded presence where they are not wanted and /not allowed/ to enforce peace.

The U.S. 'military' along with those who nominally hold their leashes, is indirectly responsible for 9/11. They are DIRECTLY responsible for not sticking to their promise of 'there shall be nowhere UBL and Crew can hide'.

And still, they seek to suck another quarter BILLION dollars from those they cannot, do not, WILL NOT protect to the best of their abilities. Because their abilities are sadly mirror imaged to a notion of warrior-mythos-as-ethos. When man has little or no place on the battlefield any longer.

In this, the GAU-12 vs. BK.27 JSF debate is but a symptom of bad spending for a dated mission role that engineers design replacements for, not because they are so terribly good at it (after 60 years and 30 with CATIA like assist, it's not that hard a task). Nor even because it is truly necessary. But simply because they want to get paid and the customer is a bunch of white scarf yahoo morons that care not a whit about protecting their nation so much as ensureing their preeminence in dominating it's defense in preference to superior alternatives.


KPl.

[edit on 15-3-2006 by ch1466]



posted on Mar, 15 2006 @ 11:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by ch1466
Really, and how much do you know about daylight helicopter operations in Iraq? How about AfG where high adds to hot? How many AH-64 Apaches were lost in the first 30 minutes of Operation Anaconda sir?

How many helicopters have been downed in Iraq? How many missiles vs. guns vs. CFIT have been responsible for those losses?

I would 'hazard a guess' that I have /forgotten/ more about what is being hushed up over there than you ever knew.



58 helicopters and 12 fixed-wing aircraft from both the American military and Coalition about 20 crashes have been attributed to hostile fire since 2003

Crashes seem to be a bigger threat then enemy fire.

[url=http://www.answers.com/topic/list-of-coalition-aircraft-crashes-in-iraq]http://www.answers.com/topic/list-of-coalition-aircraft-crashes-in-iraq[/ url]

But please tell us what is being "hushed up" over there. This ATS after all the perfect place to share this hushed up information.




And dumb as Americans are, they are /beginning/ to see how little monkey-presses-button necessary it is for them to pay a pilot what a cruise missile with landing gear could do as well or better.


Yeah at only about 500k for a single target for a cruise missile which doesn't even have the brain power of your average insect.
What a great idea who needs a airforce cruise missiles can do everything.

Cruise missiles have a role but to think they alone can do the job of pilots is absurb. You might have made a more intelligent case if you were talking about UCAVs. Even then non-Remotely piloted ones pale when compared to human pilots at present.

To create a capable UCAV to fill any role close to what manned pilots fill your going to easily run into the multi-million beast that manned fighters are today and you get all the brain power of a lobotimized cockroach without a human pilot in the loop,What a bargin.



BTW for one that on about my spelling


CAN YOU READ WHAT IS SAY?





new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join