Comments by "Chef Chaudard" (@chefchaudard3580) on "Military Aviation History"
channel.
-
20
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@matchesburn I don't want to be mean, so here are some basic facts you should look into before you reply.
AP shots
AP rounds are called 'kinetic energy rounds' for a reason: kinetic energy is used to punch through the armor. The more energy, the better the penetration is.
Kinetec energy is based on speed and weight, energy is the product of weight multiplied by the square of the speed, divided by 2.
Here are kinetic energy based on the figures I gave above:
M791: 144,461j
BK-27: 157,300j
GAU-8: 150.800j
It appears that BK-27 kinetic energy is the highest, 5% more than the GAU-8. Furthermore, as it is a smaller caliber, 27mm instead of 30mm, speed degradation during the flight, due to air friction, is lower. The SCx, the 'wet surface', is smaller. In short: the BK-27 has more kinetic energy and looses less of it during the flight, giving it better potential penetration.
Now for DU
We are speaking here of the ammunition, not the gun. Such an ammunition can be designed for any gun, as long as they give proper kinetic energy, which is the case here.
To achieve penetration, the shot must be very hard. Otherwise, it would simply shatter when it hits the armor. It must keep its integrity when traveling through the armour plate.
This is achieved by using high hardness tungsten steel, for example. Or depleted uranium.
Metal density is important when talking of subcaliber ammunitions. The goal is to have the smallest possible round, in diameter, for better air penetration, for the same weight. It is not so important for 'small caliber' AP shots, like the ones we talk of here, as there are full caliber and steel is dense enough for the task.
Such DU rounds, or even AP rounds, are not available for some of the cannons listed here, not because of technical limitations, but because there are deemed unnecessary for the reasons many people state here in their posts.
Finally HE
HE rounds are filled with an explosive filler that is detonated when they hit the target. The more filler, the more destructive there are. The limitation here is that the walls of the round must be thick enough to withstand the high G forces when fired. The higher muzzle velocity is, the thicker are the walls, the smaller is the explosive content.
Speaking here of guns with similar characteristics (yes, yes, there are, see above), the ammunitions are comparable. As the round for the GAU-8 is about 10% heavier than the BK-27, it must have more 'bang' in the same proportions.
This is my last reply. If you intend to answer with the BS (assertions, no facts) you have presented so far, I'll assume you are a Troll and not worth my time.
3
-
2
-
@spartanx9293 to be honest, viewed from France, cooperation with Germany is difficult for the very same reasons given by Bismarck.
No clear strategy, divergent interests between political parties in power, fluctuant international policies, rampant pacifism, industrial selfishness...
In short, Germany is struggling to find a way between an European and transatlantic policy, a German military industry that is now, or can potentially be, a first class international exporter, and the traditional German cold war army using equipment supplied or designed under US supervision.
2
-
2
-
@mkettune Very few people can answer your question, and they are not allowed to comment it on the Net😀
My feeling, based on sources I've come across, is that the F-35 is not the silver bullet described by its fans in the air superiority role. No supercruise, limited agility. Stealth is overated: it is not invisible, has a very low RCS from the front only, has a huge IR signature, and will be detected as soon as it fires a missile.
I think, however, that it is at least decent in that role, and that stealth compensates for its shortcomings.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Just for reference:
Rafale M791 30 mm rounds weights 275g, 260g for the Mauser BK-27, 281g for the GAU-8/A
Muzzle velocity : 1025m/s for the M791, 1100 m/s for the BK-27, 1036m/s for the GAU-8
Rate of fire: 2500 rounds per minute for the M791, 1700 for the BK-27, up to 4200 for the GAU-8. It takes about 1s to speed up the GAU-8.
Apart from the rate fo fire, all 3 cannons are comparable. The GAU-8 is, of course, the most powerful, but the other ones are not far behind.
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@latjolajban81 If you meant that the title was a clickbait, I agree with you. Sorry if I misunderstood.
I would add I think that neither the Gripen or the Rafale were ever seriously considered.
I said why for the Gripen. For the Rafale:
- not B-61 compatible
- it will take as much time to make it B-61 compatible than the indigenous Eurofighter
- no ECR version
- it would cost as much to design an ECR version than for the EF
- it would be a slap in the face of Airbus and the Luftwaffe. Dassault left the project of what would become the Eurofighter partly because France wanted a multirole fighter, when the other countries were looking more for an air superiority fighter. Germany already had the Tornado in the air-to-ground role. Admitting now that it was a mistake would be to add some more shame on an already shameful situation.
The only positive thing is that France lacks this ECR capability. Designing an Eurofighter ECR would benefit both countries as they work together on the FCAS project, and it would leverage that technology.
At the moment, Germany is showing that it is not fully committed to the FCAS project. There is, as usual in Germany, some reluctance when budgets are voted, some whining about how the tasks are spead between the partners, threats of political changes...
Spending huge money on an EF ECR would undercut those unwilling to support the FCAS project and those against it, as Germany would have to complete it to justify spendings. And those forces fight against that.
Sorry for the long post, you did not probably ask for that.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Different times.
Development costs were much, much lower, and technologies were obsolete within few years.
Today, technology is more about software and onboard systems, which can usually be adapted to an existing platform
To summurize: It makes no sense to spend money to design a new airframe, when you can fit the new features into an existing design. It makes sense to design something new only if what exists becomes obsolete, at the end of its lifetime, or if new technology, like a new engine design, advanced capability, like a new way to make it stealthy, or simply strategy update, requires it.
Working on the replacement of the F-22 makes sense, this 15/20 years model lifespan, I have my doubts.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@lil__boi3027
> The Eurofighter and SH also have up to date avionics
> Cannot supercruise, unlike the EF
> Germany has no F-35
> Not yet B-61 ready, unlike the SH
> There is no ECR version of the F-15EX.
> There are no F-15 in Europe. New logistics would have to be set.
Germany has basically 2 options:
- Buy from the shelves, and the only option is the Super Hornet (or the F-35, which is not considered, as I understand)
- Upgrade their standard fighter, to fill Tornado missions, the Eurofighter.
Both options have pros and cons, but buying an aircraft at the end of its development cycle, that does not fit the bill, like the F-15EX, makes no sense. Better buy F-35s only.
1
-
@lil__boi3027 You don't understand. Why bother to customize a foreign aircraft, based on an old design, spend money, when you can do it with your standard, more modern, fighter? Or buy one from the shelves, ready to go?
We are talking here of Germany. The country is basically looking for an air-to-ground fighter, only ABLE to defend itself, not an interceptor. And an ECR version.
The F-22 is NOT and air to ground fighter.
The F-15EX would only be marginally better than a SH or an upgraded EF in that role. And this is even debatable, as we don't know what minimum requirements the Luftwaffe is looking for.
The communication link between the F-35 and the F-15 is irrelevant. Germany has NO F-35, no AH-64 either, and does not plan to buy some.
And they could, if they bought the F-35, integrate the same link on their Eurofighters.
In short: the F-15EX, from a technical perspective, is NOT an option for Germany. The country can upgrade their Eurofighters, if they go for a customization, without having to buy a foreign airframe for that. And even if the F-35 was considered, the F-15EX would not be required, as the missions would be fulfilled by both the F-35 and the Eurofighter.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1