View Full Version : A new 25mm round for the F-35
Those Norwegians do more than just hunt elk :D
http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2014armaments/Wed15439Sande.pdf
sinlessorrow
07-26-14, 16:32
Am I seeing that right? A 25mm armor piercing explosive round?
I'm intrigued. The 30mm DU rounds A-10s use are built around trying to get a little "rod" of DU to the tank itself, and it's effectiveness is wildly over estimated. This design takes a smaller round to begin with and uses half the available space for a plastic explosive. I want more information on the "armor" they are shooting with it in the brochure.
This particular round was featured on an episode of "Future Weapons" or something similar. Armor penetration was impressive even on relatively thick steel plates (IIRC, it was an inch thick or so).
Averageman
07-27-14, 10:34
Put a turret on a Stryker and gun it with a 25mm and this ammo?
montanadave
07-27-14, 10:39
I eagerly await the 7.62 version.
justin_247
07-27-14, 10:46
The A-10 uses a GAU-8 autocannon and the F-35 uses the GAU-12 autocannon, so here's some numbers for you...
GAU-8 muzzle energy with API rounds - 207,000 joules
GAU-12 muzzle energy with API rounds - 107,500 joules
With this in mind, it is safe to say that the F-35's autocannon is armor piercing, but not necessarily anti-tank.
The DOD is looking to move away from guns when it comes to heavily armored targets, and instead transition to the SDB for that role.
EDIT: just for comparison, the 7.62x51 round is about 3,500 joules.
Saw a ton of F35's flying down at Eglin the other day. Had never seen one before. Cool looking airplane.
MountainRaven
07-27-14, 23:18
The A-10 uses a GAU-8 autocannon and the F-35 uses the GAU-12 autocannon, so here's some numbers for you...
GAU-8 muzzle energy with API rounds - 207,000 joules
GAU-12 muzzle energy with API rounds - 107,500 joules
With this in mind, it is safe to say that the F-35's autocannon is armor piercing, but not necessarily anti-tank.
The DOD is looking to move away from guns when it comes to heavily armored targets, and instead transition to the SDB for that role.
EDIT: just for comparison, the 7.62x51 round is about 3,500 joules.
Seems silly to move away from guns for AT to me. Course, DoD probably doesn't expect a big stand-up fight with another power anytime soon.
Also for comparison: The APEx projectile weighs something like 3600 grains.
justin_247
07-28-14, 08:10
Seems silly to move away from guns for AT to me. Course, DoD probably doesn't expect a big stand-up fight with another power anytime soon.
Also for comparison: The APEx projectile weighs something like 3600 grains.
IMHO, an aircraft equipped with SDBs, such as GBU-53s, is vastly more capable in the anti-tank role, and pretty much every other role, than aircraft equipped with guns. An F-35 can carry 24 GBU-53s, for example... being that they have <1 meter accuracy, a small formation of F-35s could easily lay waste to a slew of tanks.
The Brimstone missile is being evaluated by the Navy to a limited extent. It's been pretty well proven in Libya and (IIRC) Afghanistan, and has also been tested successfully against small, manuevering boats. Brimstone 2 has dual mode (laser and Millimeter wave) guidance and is available off-the-shelf if it meets US qualifications.
What is the barrel life with a sintered steel driving band on the projo??
Don't know, but the A-10's ammo uses plastic rotating bands that significantly extends barrel life.
MountainRaven
07-28-14, 13:12
IMHO, an aircraft equipped with SDBs, such as GBU-53s, is vastly more capable in the anti-tank role, and pretty much every other role, than aircraft equipped with guns. An F-35 can carry 24 GBU-53s, for example... being that they have <1 meter accuracy, a small formation of F-35s could easily lay waste to a slew of tanks.
Why can't we have both? I mean, with the A-10, we already have both. And an aircraft that's more likely to survive being shot at by a Tunguska.
Why can't we have both? I mean, with the A-10, we already have both. And an aircraft that's more likely to survive being shot at by a Tunguska.
The 30mm gun on the Tunguska , will destroy either. The advantage the A10 has is redundant engine
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Originally, the F-35 was supposed to be the A-10's replacement.
It also is/was intended to replace all AV-8B Harriers, F-16's, and most older F/A-18's.
MountainRaven
07-28-14, 13:27
Originally, the F-35 was supposed to be the A-10's replacement.
Originally, the F-16 was supposed to be the A-10's replacement.
;)
justin_247
07-28-14, 13:44
Why can't we have both? I mean, with the A-10, we already have both. And an aircraft that's more likely to survive being shot at by a Tunguska.
Space is at a premium on the A-10, and there simply isn't enough room on it to install the extra LRUs and avionics components needed to use it. Outdated avionics are a big problem for the A-10.
And being that a GBU-53 can glide 40-50 miles, I see no reason why an F-15/16/18/22/35/B-1/AC/KC-130 would need to be low enough to come into a Tunguska's range.
EDIT: it appears that the A-10 will be equipped with SDBs, but it may be able to use the weapon in all its modes.
Originally, the F-16 was supposed to be the A-10's replacement.
;)
Actually, the Lawndart (aka F-16) was designed to be an inexpensive, disposable, day-fighter that could be easily mass produced to send up against the hordes of Warsaw Pact fighters we expected to cross over into the west. The original F-16 had no radar, no ability to use anything other than Sidewinders (short range AAM's) and the 20mm gun.
Unfortunately, the good idea fairy struck hard and they started adding all-weather capability, targeting radar, other black boxes, and it turned into just another multi-million dollar fighter that does everything in a mediocre manner, and nothing exceptionally well other than dog-fighting. It still was unable to carry the Sparrow medium range AAM and until the AMRAAM (AIM-120) was fielded with its own radar, the Lawndart had no ability to fight aircraft outside 20 miles. The Lawndart carries a small payload, flies too fast to be anymore than a token Close Air Support (CAS) or Rescue Escort (RESCORT, aka Sandy) platform, and has short legs.
As an example, when the shooting started in late 2001, the USAF provided strategic air (B-1s, B-2s, B-52s), and all the tactical air came off the 3 or 4 carriers to the south. The "Viper mafia" as they like to be called (Fighting Falcon just wasn't a cool enough name for them), was dying to get into the fight. We (CSAR) and the SOF and OGA forces on the ground were BEGGING for A-10's. They are perfect for CAS and Sandy (RESCORT) missions. They carry a metric shit-ton of ordnance, have "the gun", and can stay on station for a couple hours, at an airspeed that allows them to positively ID good guys and bad guys. They are also much less fragile than the Lawndart. But the Viper Mafia had the inside track since Gen Chuck Wald was the Combined Forces Air Component Commander (CFACC) and he was a fellow Lawndart driver. So we had the F-16's in Kuwait for the no-fly zones in southern Iraq, and they were suddenly forced upon us into the fray of OEF. They flew from Kuwait to Afghanistan... 3 in-flight refuelings to get there... to each drop TWO bombs... be on station for 5 or 10 minutes... then 3 refuelings to get back. They contributed nothing that the Marine/Navy birds off the boats weren't already doing. All they did was send the Tanker LNO's into a tizzy when they realized the Tanker Flows (aviation gas seriously affects ops) were FUBAR'd so the F-16 guys in Kuwait could say they were there.
Nitpick: The F-16ADF (Air Defense Fighter) variant fielded by the Guard/Reserve in the 1980's had AIM-7 capability.
Nitpick: The F-16ADF (Air Defense Fighter) variant fielded by the Guard/Reserve in the 1980's had AIM-7 capability.
Interesting. I knew they experimented with a version that carried the AIM-7's on the landing gear doors. Didn't realize it was ever made operational. They also had a version with the canards on the mouth of the intake that allowed for some crazy maneuvers (i.e. flying straight while moving the nose off axis). My favorite version (when I was in high school and didn't yet realize what a waste of resources it is) was the F-16XL. If I recall it lost to the F-15E for the interdiction role.
The ADF didn't last all that long in service - the end of the Cold War kind of short-circuited it's career. BTW, the ADF competition was the F-20 Tigershark's last gasp. Losing that contract put the final nail in it's coffin.
http://i571.photobucket.com/albums/ss158/5757_photos/F-16ADF_zpsd2582a5a.jpg (http://s571.photobucket.com/user/5757_photos/media/F-16ADF_zpsd2582a5a.jpg.html)
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.