Talk:GAU-12 Equalizer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Firearms; If you would like to join us, please visit the project page where you can find a list of open tasks. If you have any questions, please consult the FAQ.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- B-Class-1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- B-Class-2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- B-Class-3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- B-Class-4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- B-Class-5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no This article is not currently associated with a task force. To tag it for one or more task forces, please add the task force codes from the template instructions to the template call.

Contents 1 Cartridge storage 2 F35 gun 3 RoF vs Ammo load? 4 Picture 5 Ammo load 6 Rename to GAU-12/U

[edit] Cartridge storage

What is to be gained by having the system return the empty cartridges to be stored? --Hooperbloob 22:06, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

This prevents any danger of the ejected cartridge cases striking the airframe and causing damage.

[edit] F35 gun

My understanding was that the gun for the F35 was a variant of the Mauser 27mm which was being modified by Boeing. I had heard that the GUA-12 was being looked at but the 27mm was the favoured solution technically. Possible that a political decision on buy American has been made though since the last information I received. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.8.248.2 (talk • contribs)

Hogwash. As you can see, the GAU-12 and the M-51 are both based upon a Norwegian design. Let's not go painting an entire country a bunch of nationalist fascists. At least not without a source. ... aa:talk 01:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

"Hogwash. As you can see, the GAU-12 and the M-51 are both based upon a Norwegian design. Let's not go painting an entire country a bunch of nationalist fascists. At least not without a source. ... aa:talk 01:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)"

Wow, aggressive response indeed! I am sorry but this is wrong, the multi purpose ammo that is being used is based on a Norwegian design, not the guns. My comment was that politically Americans like to buy American products from American companies, nothing wrong with that and it is good business to keep skills and useful product lines inhouse so to speak, something the UK could do with emulating sometimes. Did you actually read my post properly or were you just goading for a fight aa:talk? If you come back to view this sometime and apology would be nice as I was doing anything but criticising the US. Boeing was the company heavily pushing a solution based on the Mauser 27mm and had an excellent engineered solution for both their aircraft and the F35 but with them losing looks like the 27mm round went down with them regardless of it's faster response time, longer range and greater kill power. Still, going 25mm is a big improvement of sticking with the old 20mm round.

There were main two drivers in the switch from the BK-27 to the GAU-12 (and ultimately to the GAU-22). The first is cost, the GAU-12 system was significantly less expensive than the BK-27 system. Second was the combination of reliability and maintainability. The reliability of the continuous-motion GAU-12 is roughly 5 times that of the intermittent-motion BK-27. The BK-27 also requires removal, cleaning and parts replacement much more often than does the GAU-12. The operation & support cost difference is significant. VTFirefly911 05:36, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RoF vs Ammo load?

Why the huge rate of fire and tiny, tiny ammo loadout? 180 bullets on a $20m fighter? Wtheck?

Well, let me guess: The huge rate of fire is necessary to keep the rounds in the target while the airplane is moving sometimes at an extreme high speed, sometimes even supersonic speed. The ammo load is limited due to space and weight constrictions on the airplanes. --134.155.99.42 (talk) 22:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The U-model gunship can hold 2,000 rounds so it's used more as an area supression weapon in that role. Following the FAS link you'll read it also has applications for ground anti-aircraft weapon systems which are less limimted to thee number of rounds it can carry. Additionally the high rate of fire allows you to use several types of ammunition in the aircraft simultaniously, so you can pack armor piercing, incendiary and high explosive rounds to suit all applications, rather than a 30mm cannon with a lower rate of fire. St Aidan 22:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Picture

How about a picture? I have no idea how this weapon looks like, and I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one. -- xompanthy 19:42, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello, I've added a picture. You can find a lot of information about various weapons systems by using the flag "-site:mil" and "-site:.gov" in Google. A cheat sheet for all the available operators is here. ... aa:talk 01:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

That picture isn't of a GAU-12/U. The GAU-12/U only has five barrels. That is a picture of an M61 cannon. See here http://www.gdatp.com/products/PDFs/GAU-12U.pdf I'm deleting this picture and correcting the article information on this matter. -- Thatguy96 04:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ammo load

The Harrier II carries the Equalizer system in a pair of pods mounted on the fuselage sides, with the cannon in the port pod and 300 rounds of ammunition

Is this correct? At the rate of fire of 3,600 rounds per minute, this is only enough for five seconds of fire? (moved from text by BillCJ) - BillCJ 17:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, rarely do aicraft fitted with "gatling" style weapons have more than 4-7 "seconds worth" of ammunition. The largest capacity I know of was on the F-105 Thunderchief, which had ammunition for over 10 seconds of sustained fire. -- Thatguy96 04:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

This is fairly typical for modern aircraft. The F-16 carries 511 rounds with a 6,000-spm rate of fire, the F/A-18E & F carry 412 rounds with a dual rate of fire selectable between 4,000 and 6,000 spm, the F-15E carries 500 rounds with the same selectable rates of fire, and the F-22A carries 480 rounds with a 6,000-spm rate of fire. All translate to 4-5 seconds of firing (all data from www.gdatp.com). VTFirefly911 05:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rename to GAU-12/U

The complete alpha-numeric portion of the designation for this weapon is GAU-12/U. The /U is not a seperate variant, it is the only variant. There is no six-barrel version of this weapon either, the Global Security entry which is unsourced is incorrect and does not match published print sources or the manufacturer's specifications. Furthermore, the GS entry notes this "six-barrel" version as being fitted to the AC-130. The AC-130U uses a five-barrel GAU-12/U. -- Thatguy96 04:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)