The GAU-22/A thread

F-35 Armament, fuel tanks, internal and external hardpoints, loadouts, and other stores.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23328
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post18 Aug 2018, 17:52

:doh: Yep - with swinder drag (see above). :devil: See my previous post previous page this thread. :drool:
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

forbin

Banned

  • Posts: 16
  • Joined: 11 Aug 2018, 13:25

Unread post20 Aug 2018, 15:58

zerion wrote:
steve2267 wrote:
forbin wrote:The gun had a problem internal not or less in pod fired too on the side fixed now ?


Is English your native language? I don't ask this to be rude, but I do not understand this question at all.


He’s wondering if the drift problem caused by the door of the internal gun was fixed.

Yes :D and according i know about 0.5 sec for open the door so a no stealth fighter have a little advantage

steve2267 wrote:
forbin wrote:Many pics in this configuration with 2 AIM-9X can be considered stealth as it ?


If you are asking whether the F-35 retains its VLO characteristics when carrying two AIM-9X, I think the general consensus around here is that external AIM-9X carriage degrades VLO by some amount, but by how much, no one knows, and those that know aren't saying. Some have said the F-35 is "still stealthy", or "must still be stealthy or else XYX..." but no one knows for sure, and no numbers have been thrown around, let alone quoted.

forbin wrote:The gun had a problem internal not or less in pod fired too on the side fixed now ?


Is English your native language? I don't ask this to be rude, but I do not understand this question at all.

No problem and Ofc no and sorry sometimes limited :(

For this with number i consider a steath with RCS especialy frontal inferior to m2 above Typhoon, Rafale etc... are low observable better than 4th generation but remains much more detectable than stealth.

So without ext weapons F-35 have a frontal RCS 0,00143 m2 or - 30 dBsm i think rear -20 ?

And my question is with 2 small AIM-9X which have a wingspan of 28 - 30 cm vs 45 for AIM-120C/D in more stealth HP with
it F-35* especialy A is again stealth inferior to m2 ? i ask coz many pics where i see it and possible exist a reason.

Thanks :)

* Seems too for B/C with in more the gun in pod.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23328
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post24 Aug 2018, 21:21

A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

madrat

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2305
  • Joined: 03 Mar 2010, 03:12

Unread post25 Aug 2018, 02:30

Love the 'brrrrt' sound. Sounds eerily similar to GAU-8.
Offline

beepa

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 246
  • Joined: 05 Jan 2007, 22:36
  • Location: Aust.

Unread post25 Aug 2018, 02:41

Is it just the video or does that door stay open after the run??
Offline

mk82

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 848
  • Joined: 15 Oct 2009, 18:43
  • Location: Australia

Unread post25 Aug 2018, 05:50

Sacre bleu A10!!! The F35 “brrrrrrrts” pretty well too LOL! :devil:
Offline

charlielima223

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1054
  • Joined: 12 Jan 2014, 19:26

Unread post25 Aug 2018, 06:45

People are still bitching about the magazine capacity for the F-35A. Its really annoying. :bang:

maybe if they get their heads out of their 4th point of contact and understand that the gun on the F-35 wont be its primary means of engaging ground targets, then they wouldn't be so damn annoying. Hell... even the GAU-8 (as awesome as it is) isn't the primary means of engagement for the A-10 in most situations.
Of course I would always come across this uneducated comment
The A-10 used the its 30mm cannon to kill tanks in Iraq

No, the GAU-8 wasn't the primary or the most successful/effective means of destroying Iraqi tanks in the Gulf War, it was bombs and the AGM-65.
Also when compared to the magazine size of other aircraft (Western European and Russian), the F-35 still has a larger magazine capacity, but that doesn't matter because its not the GAU-8 :bang:
Offline

mk82

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 848
  • Joined: 15 Oct 2009, 18:43
  • Location: Australia

Unread post25 Aug 2018, 06:55

charlielima223 wrote:People are still bitching about the magazine capacity for the F-35A. Its really annoying. :bang:

maybe if they get their heads out of their 4th point of contact and understand that the gun on the F-35 wont be its primary means of engaging ground targets, then they wouldn't be so damn annoying. Hell... even the GAU-8 (as awesome as it is) isn't the primary means of engagement for the A-10 in most situations.
Of course I would always come across this uneducated comment
The A-10 used the its 30mm cannon to kill tanks in Iraq

No, the GAU-8 wasn't the primary or the most successful/effective means of destroying Iraqi tanks in the Gulf War, it was bombs and the AGM-65.
Also when compared to the magazine size of other aircraft (Western European and Russian), the F-35 still has a larger magazine capacity, but that doesn't matter because its not the GAU-8 :bang:


Donccha know.......in the land of the basement dwellers.....the GAU 8 slays all! And saves the rainforest too LOL!
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2172
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post25 Aug 2018, 15:16

mk82 wrote:Donccha know.......in the land of the basement dwellers.....the GAU 8 slays all! And saves the rainforest too LOL!


And stops global climate/warming changes too :mrgreen:

Guess what? The reason for all these global climate changes is because the USAF wants to retire the A-10s and the GAU-8s by association :wink:
A 4th/4.5th gen fighter aircraft stands about as much chance against a F-35 as a guns-only Sabre has against a Viper.
Online
User avatar

steve2267

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2177
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2016, 17:36

Unread post25 Aug 2018, 16:44

The video above is quite remarkable. At about the 0:02 or 0:03 mark the brrrrrt is quite short, so short in fact, that I suspect we immediately hear an echo of the brrrrrt. Could this be an example of a short, programmed burst of 20 or 30 rounds? I do not think any other American aircraft armed with a gatling gun can fire so short a burst. If true, this means the Panther can piss off upwards of 6-9 brrrrrrts per sortie. In his book, Viper Pilot, Hampton was winchester after only three strafe passes. The Vulcan squirts the shells out right quick. So from a number of strafe runs per sorties, the F-35 does not appear to be any worse, practically, from the F-16 (511 rds), F/A-18 (578 rds), or F/A-18E/F Super Duper (412 rds).

One metric used to discuss / analyze / design gun systems for tactical aircraft is throw weight. In one second, an M61 Vulcan set at the 6000rpm rate, will fire 100 shells each weighing approx. 102g, or 10.2 kg in a second. Contrast that with the GAU-22/A spitting out fifty 25x137mm Nammo PGU-47/U Apex 223g(*) projectiles a second for a total one second throw weight of 11.1 kg /sec. So a full rate burst from the GAU-22/A has a better throw weight compared to the teen series aircraft. (Only the Harrier and the Hawg, of US aircraft, will have higher per second throw weights.)

Comparing the F-35A to the F-16 for total throw weights, the F-35A will have about 40.6 kg of shells, where the F-16 has 52.1kg total shell throw weight.

In addition, as has been mentioned before, the GA-22/A, like the GAU-12/A has a backward clearing system -- when the gun has completed firing a burst, any unfired shells are returned to the ammunition feeding system, so no live shells are "wasted."

With a greater kinetic effect per shell, a high per second throw weight, and the efficient use of ammunition (e.g. short, precise bursts), I would say the trades performed in creating the F-35 gun system have resulted in an extremely effective weapons system.

Lastly, it would be nice if the journo wannabees had the wherewithall to ask questions such as:
  1. The F-35 has been described as a flying supercomputer. With all that computing power, has George been designed to fly or otherwise fine tune the flight path such that, with a commit switch (or authorize to release) depressed, George will position the aircraft and automatically fire the gun to deposit 25mm shells on the target indicated by the pilot's helmet gunsight?
  2. Could such a feature apply both to Air to Ground strafing missions as well as to Air to Air combat? After all, the fourth gen aircraft have had CCRP / CCIP forever now... why not let George greatly increase the Pk of a gun engagement?
  3. Can the APG-81 track the outbound cannon shells and be used to either create a closed system gun solution (ala the Phalanx), or update in real time the helmet display gun pipper?

(*) p. 8 from https://ndiastorage.blob.core.usgovclou ... 9Sande.pdf
Take an F-16, stir in A-7, dollop of F-117, gob of F-22, dash of F/A-18, sprinkle with AV-8B, stir well + bake. Whaddya get? F-35.
Offline

knowan

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 246
  • Joined: 24 Jul 2018, 10:39

Unread post25 Aug 2018, 19:26

steve2267 wrote:One metric used to discuss / analyze / design gun systems for tactical aircraft is throw weight. In one second, an M61 Vulcan set at the 6000rpm rate, will fire 100 shells each weighing approx. 102g, or 10.2 kg in a second. Contrast that with the GAU-22/A spitting out fifty 25x137mm Nammo PGU-47/U Apex 223g(*) projectiles a second for a total one second throw weight of 11.1 kg /sec. So a full rate burst from the GAU-22/A has a better throw weight compared to the teen series aircraft. (Only the Harrier and the Hawg, of US aircraft, will have higher per second throw weights.)

Comparing the F-35A to the F-16 for total throw weights, the F-35A will have about 40.6 kg of shells, where the F-16 has 52.1kg total shell throw weight.


Here's data for F-35 and some other planes.

F-35, 25mm GAU-22/A with 180 rounds.
3300 RPM / 55 RPS rate of fire, 223 gram projectile weight for 12.3 kg/s throw weight, 3.27 seconds firing time of ammunition and 40.1 kg of total projectile weight.

F-18E/F, 20mm M61A1 with 412 rounds.
6000 RPM / 100 RPS rate of fire, 102 gram projectile weight for 10.2 kg/s throw weight, 4.12 seconds firing time of ammunition and 42.0 kg total projectile weight.

Typhoon, 27mm BK 27 with 150 rounds.
1800 RPM / 30 RPS rate of fire, 260 gram projectile weight for 7.8 kg/s throw weight, 5.00 seconds firing time of ammunition and 39.0 kg total projectile weight.

Gripen, 27mm BK 27 with 120 rounds.
1800 RPM / 30 RPS rate of fire, 260 gram projectile weight for 7.8 kg/s throw weight, 4.00 seconds firing time of ammunition and 31.2 kg total projectile weight.

Rafale, 30mm GIAT 30 with 125 rounds.
2500 RPM / 42 RPS rate of fire, 275 gram projectile weight for 11.6 kg/s throw weight, 2.98 seconds firing time of ammunition and 34.4 kg total projectile weight.

Su-35, 30mm GSh-30-1 with 150 rounds.
1800 RPM / 30 RPS rate of fire, 390 gram projectile weight for 11.7 kg/s throw weight, 5.00 seconds firing time of ammunition and 58.5 kg total projectile weight.
Offline

kimjongnumbaun

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 298
  • Joined: 08 Dec 2016, 21:41

Unread post26 Aug 2018, 04:08

charlielima223 wrote:People are still bitching about the magazine capacity for the F-35A. Its really annoying. :bang:

maybe if they get their heads out of their 4th point of contact and understand that the gun on the F-35 wont be its primary means of engaging ground targets, then they wouldn't be so damn annoying. Hell... even the GAU-8 (as awesome as it is) isn't the primary means of engagement for the A-10 in most situations.
Of course I would always come across this uneducated comment
The A-10 used the its 30mm cannon to kill tanks in Iraq

No, the GAU-8 wasn't the primary or the most successful/effective means of destroying Iraqi tanks in the Gulf War, it was bombs and the AGM-65.
Also when compared to the magazine size of other aircraft (Western European and Russian), the F-35 still has a larger magazine capacity, but that doesn't matter because its not the GAU-8 :bang:


Indeed, the GAU-8 didn't even have the ability to penetrate most tanks from the front.

https://imgur.com/gallery/fd4sK
Offline

forbin

Banned

  • Posts: 16
  • Joined: 11 Aug 2018, 13:25

Unread post26 Aug 2018, 11:29

kimjongnumbaun wrote:
charlielima223 wrote:People are still bitching about the magazine capacity for the F-35A. Its really annoying. :bang:

maybe if they get their heads out of their 4th point of contact and understand that the gun on the F-35 wont be its primary means of engaging ground targets, then they wouldn't be so damn annoying. Hell... even the GAU-8 (as awesome as it is) isn't the primary means of engagement for the A-10 in most situations.
Of course I would always come across this uneducated comment
The A-10 used the its 30mm cannon to kill tanks in Iraq

No, the GAU-8 wasn't the primary or the most successful/effective means of destroying Iraqi tanks in the Gulf War, it was bombs and the AGM-65.
Also when compared to the magazine size of other aircraft (Western European and Russian), the F-35 still has a larger magazine capacity, but that doesn't matter because its not the GAU-8 :bang:


Indeed, the GAU-8 didn't even have the ability to penetrate most tanks from the front.

https://imgur.com/gallery/fd4sK


Normal it is a 30 mm gun for comparison HS-129 a flying tank ! had same caliber and attacked always on the side or rear last variants had a 75 mm !
Offline

hythelday

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 551
  • Joined: 25 Jul 2016, 12:43
  • Location: Estonia

Unread post26 Aug 2018, 12:19

kimjongnumbaun wrote:
charlielima223 wrote:People are still bitching about the magazine capacity for the F-35A. Its really annoying. :bang:

maybe if they get their heads out of their 4th point of contact and understand that the gun on the F-35 wont be its primary means of engaging ground targets, then they wouldn't be so damn annoying. Hell... even the GAU-8 (as awesome as it is) isn't the primary means of engagement for the A-10 in most situations.
Of course I would always come across this uneducated comment
The A-10 used the its 30mm cannon to kill tanks in Iraq

No, the GAU-8 wasn't the primary or the most successful/effective means of destroying Iraqi tanks in the Gulf War, it was bombs and the AGM-65.
Also when compared to the magazine size of other aircraft (Western European and Russian), the F-35 still has a larger magazine capacity, but that doesn't matter because its not the GAU-8 :bang:


Indeed, the GAU-8 didn't even have the ability to penetrate most tanks from the front.

https://imgur.com/gallery/fd4sK


This argument is usually brought up to counter "muh GAU-8 brrrrt!" crowd, but it is not that solid, IMO:

1) An MBT with shredded barrel, tracks, roadwheels, sights and ERA is still an operational loss for the enemy. E.g. T-72's engine bay is virtually unarmored from the top. (a couple of Serbian M-84s strafed by A-10: http://www.srpskioklop.paluba.info/grob ... L-GT16.HTM and http://www.srpskioklop.paluba.info/grob ... -gt17.html)

2) BMP-1 & -2s wouldn't have stood a chance

It's just that A-10 as a platform for GAU-8 is not as survivable as was anticipated. A-10As flew over Iraqi divisions only after their AD were worked on by DEAD aircraft, and still suffered 250% more losses (to IR and visually guided Shilkas) per sortie than F-16s; not hard to imagine what would have happened against WarPac and their a tad more advanced (Iraq didn't have Tunguska, Tor or Buk in any quantity) and better trained AD assets in a conflict that wouldn't have the luxury of preliminary "softening up".
Offline

charlielima223

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1054
  • Joined: 12 Jan 2014, 19:26

Unread post27 Aug 2018, 05:10

hythelday wrote:
This argument is usually brought up to counter "muh GAU-8 brrrrt!" crowd, but it is not that solid, IMO:

1) An MBT with shredded barrel, tracks, roadwheels, sights and ERA is still an operational loss for the enemy. E.g. T-72's engine bay is virtually unarmored from the top. (a couple of Serbian M-84s strafed by A-10: http://www.srpskioklop.paluba.info/grob ... L-GT16.HTM and http://www.srpskioklop.paluba.info/grob ... -gt17.html)

2) BMP-1 & -2s wouldn't have stood a chance



True, I will give you that. However, majority of people talk about the GAU-8 they always talk about its "effectiveness" against heavily armored targets like tanks. From my understanding of this document, the effectiveness of the GAU-8 to effectively destroy an MBT is heavily dictated on where on the tank the A-10 is engaging from (L side, R side, Front, and back) and at what angle

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a522397.pdf

I will give it to the GAU-8 that against older model tanks, the GAU-8 can be considered effective. Yet against more modern designs, it is (IMO) highly questionable.
PreviousNext

Return to F-35 Armament, Stores and Tactics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests