F-22 M61A2 20mm Gatling Gun pics?

[Greg27]

does anyone have good pics of the "concealed" 20mm gun of the raptor?

i have found only this one with open "box".

Does the whole gun come out and re-enter its box after every single use?
(i know, stealth compromised if out of course..)

[ArmenianMournian]

I can't say for sure, but I am modelling the F-22's cousin at work - the F-35. On that aircraft, there is a slight 'hump' where the gun is and the cover for the gun port simply folds into the body when the gun is fired.

I am fairly certain the F-22 is the same way.


http://www.usminc.com/images/trainers/aircraft/air_29.jpg

[Greg27]

here is the actual vulcan, but i was interested to see it in "action" so to speak.

the hydraulics to lift this monster up in milliseconds must be amazing.

[jasonblaster]

I'm sure the whole gun doesn't deploy externally to shoot. Just an opening for the rounds, and the spent brass. Same as F/14 or 4/18, or A-10 for that matter, actually almost every fighter based gun. Those things are bad to the bone. "GE, we bring good things to life" 6000 RPM on high, and 4000 RPM on low.

[Abu_Elvis]

here is the actual vulcan, but i was interested to see it in "action" so to speak.

the hydraulics to lift this monster up in milliseconds must be amazing.
Those things are _EVIL_, they chill you to the bone when you hear them fired in anger, even if they are on your side. Our AA have them on their modifications of M113, but I have never expirienced fire from one of those. Closest I got was a Cobra's 3 barrel 20mm cannon, and that thing sounds like a power drill from hell. I would hate to be on the reciving side... For all those milliseconds I have left before I am ground meat... Cobra's cannon sound is a screeching blackboard expirience x10. Like being handcuffed in a dentist chair, and the dentist pulls out a heavy duty back&decker power drill.

I really don't like hearing them fired on my side. I would _HATE_ hearing them fired against me.

[GDS_Starfury]

you mean like this?

http://www.usminc.com/images/trainers/aircraft/air_29.jpg

[wicked_hind]

I still think they should up the firepower to at least 25 mike mike, since most aircraft guns out there in the world are 30 mike mike.

[Greg27]

you mean like this?

http://www.usminc.com/images/trainers/aircraft/air_29.jpg

hmmm. i see. so the front part opens up 90 degrees and the sole angle of the wing allows for the rounds to shoot out? and the spent brass comes out of the same panel into thin air as well?

do you have any more pictures?
the second panel is just for maintenance right?

[Greg27]

so the sheer angle of the wing allows just enough of a line of sight to shoot forward?

does anyone has a picture from the front?

[sferrin]

Don't jets keep the brass onboard?

[Greg27]

I'm sure the whole gun doesn't deploy externally to shoot. Just an opening for the rounds, and the spent brass. Same as F/14 or 4/18, or A-10 for that matter, actually almost every fighter based gun. Those things are bad to the bone. "GE, we bring good things to life" 6000 RPM on high, and 4000 RPM on low.

i thought the brass was staying on board too, but jason seemed to say it was ejected through that open flap.

[Lamer]

The little hatch thing (its very small) opens just for the rounds- MG does not move at all and I think the brass stays on board too.

[GDS_Starfury]

its a drum fed system that rotates the spent shell back into the drum.

[Michael RVR]

Like everyone has said, you don't drop brass. While not so much a problem for F-22, in can you imagine what would happen if 30mm shell casings started going through the intake of an A-10? Wouldn't do it any good at all. :)

[GrinchWSLG]

so the sheer angle of the wing allows just enough of a line of sight to shoot forward?

does anyone has a picture from the front?

Here's a screen cap from a video I have.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v235/GrinchWSLG/rapgun.jpg

[cazorp]

Here's the movie with the shooting Raptor - you can all thank me in your testimonials later guys ;)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QdXhDd25cU8&mode=related&search=


And oh, the gun is fixed of course, only thing moving is the hatch in front of the firing barrel

[cazorp]

Like everyone has said, you don't drop brass. While not so much a problem for F-22, in can you imagine what would happen if 30mm shell casings started going through the intake of an A-10? Wouldn't do it any good at all. :)

Actually most jets ejects brass, however A-10 doesn't. But the reason for this is no way 'fear of getting brass in the engines..' 30 mm brass is expensive, and when they designed the warthog (around the gun, basically) they had all the possibilities of producing a system that returns the brass back into the drum..

Big drum, not suitable for supersonic fighters who never uses their guns anyway
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/72/GAU-8_avenger.jpg

[Greg27]

Here's the movie with the shooting Raptor - you can all thank me in your testimonials later guys ;)

Ok. well deserved thank you cazorp. that's exactly what we needed to see. very impressive engineering indeed.

let me know if you need a referal letter for your next gig.

:)

[Simboy]

The F-16 is keeping it´s brass onboard, it`s feed back to the drummagazine, and it will be ofloaded back on base.

The gun is fed through long linked belts of ammo, and although the gun appeared from early on in the development to be extremely reliable, the unprecedented rate of fire caused severe problems with these belts. The links connection the rounds often bent, broke or stretched, causing the gun to jam. Furthermore, provisions had to be made to dispose of the links. As a result, development of a new linkless feed system quickly started. Inside the drum, the rounds (tips to the middle) are placed in a giant Archimedean screw which moves them into the conveyor belt feeding the gun. In the F-16 and some other installations (M61A1 installations are tailor-made to each aircraft type), the empty case is transported back to the drum via a second conveyor belt. Both conveyor belts are housed in strong flexible ducts, and are powered by the gun, as well as the screw inside the drum which is driven via a high-power flexible coupling.

For more go to www.F-16.net

[kamarian]

I still think they should up the firepower to at least 25 mike mike, since most aircraft guns out there in the world are 30 mike mike.

What's the point when you are firing rounds at 4000 to 6000rpm? A short burst will get a lot of rounds on target. The reason for 25mm to 30mm and larger rounds have been that the weapons firing theses rounds fired at a lower rate of fire so a larger round was needed to create more damage.

[akruse]

Actually most jets ejects brass, however A-10 doesn't. But the reason for this is no way 'fear of getting brass in the engines..' 30 mm brass is expensive, and when they designed the warthog (around the gun, basically) they had all the possibilities of producing a system that returns the brass back into the drum..

Big drum, not suitable for supersonic fighters who never uses their guns anyway
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/72/GAU-8_avenger.jpg

actually name a fighter that ejects its brass. I cant think of any in the USAF

[B25Hmitchell]

actually name a fighter that ejects its brass. I cant think of any in the USAF

The F-100 Super Sabre

[Simboy]

The F-104 Starfighter

[Vandervahn]

What's the point when you are firing rounds at 4000 to 6000rpm? A short burst will get a lot of rounds on target. The reason for 25mm to 30mm and larger rounds have been that the weapons firing theses rounds fired at a lower rate of fire so a larger round was needed to create more damage.

Wrong, it works the other way around. The belief in many air forces is that a higher caliber warrants a slower firing speed - thus, a smaller and lighter (single barrel) cannon can be used. The Russians alternatively used even faster multi-barreled weapons despite the higher caliber (23mm in the Gsh-6-23). On new aircraft they also employ larger calibers with lower firing speeds (30mm@~1500 RPM).

The reason why the larger calibers were chosen was because they had a higher "killing power" per round than an equal mass of bullets in a lower caliber... for example the german MK108 in 30mm was found to disable an allied bomber with as little as 4 well-placed rounds, while it usually needed more than two dozen 20mm rounds to accomplish the same. This is because payload effectivity greatly increases even with little changes in actual shell measures.

Not to forget, the revolver cannons in many european aircraft tend to bring a more ordnance into target than the gatling guns within the effective timeframe to shoot, because they almost instantaneously reach their regular speed, while the heavy barrel array of gatling style guns needs to be sped up first to achieve these insane cyclic rates.

[B25Hmitchell]

You have failed to mention accuracy and effective range anywhere in your post.

[kamarian]

What i meant to say was that because a lot of larger calibre weapons have a slow rate of fire, thats why the M61 fires at a higher rate of fire, lighter shells, less explosive than larger caliber, so fire faster and get more rounds on target. Not saying that larger cal weapons fire have to fire more slowly. but i don't see the need for a 25mm or larger gatling style gun needed for aircraft, as you will get less ammo to carry, more weight of the gun, more recoil. Having a 20mm at 4000rpm should be good enough for most pilots.

[akruse]

The F-100 Super Sabre

sorry, guess i should have stated "name a current USAF jet that doesnt keep the ammo in the drum"

[Ratamacue]

What i meant to say was that because a lot of larger calibre weapons have a slow rate of fire, thats why the M61 fires at a higher rate of fire, lighter shells, less explosive than larger caliber, so fire faster and get more rounds on target. Not saying that larger cal weapons fire have to fire more slowly. but i don't see the need for a 25mm or larger gatling style gun needed for aircraft, as you will get less ammo to carry, more weight of the gun, more recoil. Having a 20mm at 4000rpm should be good enough for most pilots.The 20mm round used by the M61 Vulcan has significantly worse ballistics (both velocity and accuracy) than 25mm and 30mm rounds. For example, the 25mm GAU-12 Equalizer, which is used by both the AV-8B and F-35, has a slightly slower rate of fire, but fires at a similar muzzle velocity and with much greater hitting power. Furthermore, because the round is heavier, it is more accurate and doesn't lose velocity as quickly.

[kamarian]

The 20mm round used by the M61 Vulcan has significantly worse ballistics (both velocity and accuracy) than 25mm and 30mm rounds. For example, the 25mm GAU-12 Equalizer, which is used by both the AV-8B and F-35, has a slightly slower rate of fire, but fires at a similar muzzle velocity and with much greater hitting power. Furthermore, because the round is heavier, it is more accurate and doesn't lose velocity as quickly.

Didn't know that. Cheers

[Vandervahn]

What i meant to say was that because a lot of larger calibre weapons have a slow rate of fire, thats why the M61 fires at a higher rate of fire, lighter shells, less explosive than larger caliber, so fire faster and get more rounds on target. Not saying that larger cal weapons fire have to fire more slowly. but i don't see the need for a 25mm or larger gatling style gun needed for aircraft, as you will get less ammo to carry, more weight of the gun, more recoil. Having a 20mm at 4000rpm should be good enough for most pilots.

Again:
Yes, it might be more likely to HIT the target by saturating the targetted area with your 4.000-6.000 RPM multibarreled weapon. But NO, this is may not be an adequate substitution for the "effect on target" that the larger calibers provide.

The question is always this: do we favor hit probability or effect? Americans have chosen the first, many others the latter.

But BTW, both the BK27 (27mm; Typhoon, Tornado) or the russian Gsh-301 (30mm; MiG-29, Su-27) are lighter and smaller than the M61A2, and though the total amount of ammunition for these larger caliber weapons is of course smaller, the actual projectile mass carried on-board is not much less or even higher in the case of modern Russian fighters.

[kamarian]

Again:
Yes, it might be more likely to HIT the target by saturating the targetted area with your 4.000-6.000 RPM multibarreled weapon. But NO, this is may not be an adequate substitution for the "effect on target" that the larger calibers provide.

The question is always this: do we favor hit probability or effect? Americans have chosen the first, many others the latter.

But BTW, both the BK27 (27mm; Typhoon, Tornado) or the russian Gsh-301 (30mm; MiG-29, Su-27) are lighter and smaller than the M61A2, and though the total amount of ammunition for these larger caliber weapons is of course smaller, the actual projectile mass carried on-board is not much less or even higher in the case of modern Russian fighters.

Wicked-Hinds post was upping the M61 to 25mm, ot replacing it with a 25mm or 30mm cannon. So would a 25mm gatling be heavier with more recoil? I think so. Not too worried about other types of a/c cannon as i do know they are smaller. But its a bit of a trade off. 20mm at 400rpm, or 25/30mm at a slower rate of fire? Guess it depends on how accurate the pilot is.

[Simboy]

The F-16 has an effective range with the M56 HEI is appox 4000 Feet, with the PGU-28/B SAP-HE the range is appox 8000 Feet, that is both A/A, A/G.
RDAF is using The M56, so the targets is very large when you pulls the trigger.

[Vandervahn]

Wicked-Hinds post was upping the M61 to 25mm, ot replacing it with a 25mm or 30mm cannon. So would a 25mm gatling be heavier with more recoil? I think so. Not too worried about other types of a/c cannon as i do know they are smaller. But its a bit of a trade off. 20mm at 400rpm, or 25/30mm at a slower rate of fire? Guess it depends on how accurate the pilot is.

Hinds post? Do you mean Ramatacue, as he was the one speaking of the 25mm? Well, the recoil is not a number itself, its a function of recoil per single shot x ROF; so one can´t generally say that higher caliber = higher recoil - apart from that being of questionable relevance to a 15-25 ton aircraft using very short bursts.

Whether or not a lower ROF is a tradeoff is however subject to the different philosophies I have outlined earlier - hit probability or effect on target?

One thing to think about is that the F-35 is the first real departure from the M61 system - the A10 as a dedicated ground attack system can´t really be figured into the same schemes like most other regular USAF and Navy aircraft. That the F-35, marketed as strike aircraft with sufficient A2A capabilities, now has a 25mm cannon and even was considered to be fitted with the BK27 tells something about the higher versatility of these higher calibers.