text:
M61 Vulcan

The M61 Vulcan is a hydraulically, electrically, or pneumatically driven, six-barrel, air-cooled, electrically fired Gatling-style rotary cannon which fires 20 x 102 mm rounds at an extremely high rate (typically 6,000 rounds per minute). The M61 and its derivatives have been the principal cannon armament of United States military fixed-wing aircraft for over sixty years.

The M61 was originally produced by General Electric. After several mergers and acquisitions, it is produced by General Dynamics.

Development
At the end of World War II, the United States Army Air Forces began to consider new directions for future military aircraft guns. The higher speeds of jet-powered fighter aircraft meant that achieving an effective number of hits would be extremely difficult without a much higher volume of fire. While captured German designs (principally the Mauser MG 213C) showed the potential of the single-barrel revolver cannon, the practical rate of fire of such a design was still limited by ammunition feed and barrel wear concerns. The Army wanted something better, combining an extremely high rate of fire with exceptional reliability.

In 1947, the Air Force became a separate branch of the military. The new Air Force made a request for a new aircraft gun. A lesson of World War II air combat was that German, Italian, and Japanese fighters could attack American aircraft from long range with their cannon main armament. American fighters with .50 caliber (12.7 mm) main armament, such as the P-51 and P-47, had to be close to enemy aircraft in order to hit and damage them. The 20 mm Hispano cannon carried by the P-38 and P-61, while formidable against propeller-driven planes, had a relatively low rate of fire in the age of jets, while other cannons were notoriously unreliable.

In response to this requirement, the Armament Division of General Electric resurrected an old idea: the multi-barrel Gatling gun. The original Gatling gun had fallen out of favor because of the need for an external power source to rotate the barrel assembly, but the new generation of turbojet-powered fighters offered sufficient electric power to operate the gun, and electric operation was more reliable than gas-operated reloading.

With multiple barrels, the rate of fire per barrel could be lower than a single-barrel revolver cannon while providing a greater overall rate of fire. The idea of powering a Gatling gun from an external electric power source was not a novel idea at the end of World War II, as Richard Jordan Gatling himself had done just that with a patent he filed in 1893.

During World War I, a similar 12-barreled Fokker-Leimberger aircraft rotary machine gun, powered by either the aircraft engine or an electric motor, had been under development by the German Empire.

In 1946, the Army issued General Electric a contract for "Project Vulcan", a six-barrel weapon capable of firing 7,200 rounds per minute (rpm). Although European designers were moving towards heavier 30 mm weapons for better hitting power, the U.S. initially concentrated on a powerful 0.60 in cartridge designed for a pre-war anti-tank rifle, expecting that the cartridge's high muzzle velocity would be beneficial for improving hit ratios on high-speed targets. The first GE prototypes of the 0.60 in caliber T45 were ground-fired in 1949; it achieved 2,500 rpm, which was increased to 4,000 rpm by 1950. By the early 1950s, the USAF decided that high velocity alone might not be sufficient to ensure target destruction and tested 20 and 27 mm alternatives based on the 0.60 in caliber cartridge. These variants of the T45 were known as the T171 and T150 respectively and were first tested in 1952. Eventually, the standard 20×102 mm cartridge was determined to have the desired balance of projectile/explosive mass and muzzle velocity, resulting in an optimum balance of range, accuracy and kinetic energy on target.

The development of the Lockheed F-104 Starfighter revealed that the T171 Vulcan (later redesignated M61) suffered problems with its linked ammunition, being prone to misfeed and presenting a foreign object damage hazard with discarded links. A linkless ammunition feed system was developed for the upgraded M61A1, which subsequently became the standard cannon armament of U.S. fighters.

In 1993, General Electric sold its aerospace division, including GE Armament Systems along with the design and production tooling for the M61 and GE's other rotary cannon, to Martin Marietta. After Martin's merger with Lockheed, the rotary cannon became the responsibility of Lockheed Martin Armament Systems. Lockheed Martin Armament Systems was later acquired by General Dynamics, which produces the M61 and its variants.

Description

Each of the cannon's six barrels fires once in turn during each revolution of the barrel cluster. The multiple barrels provide both a very high rate of fire – around 100 rounds per second—and contribute to prolonged weapon life by minimizing barrel erosion and heat generation. The average time between jams or failures is in excess of 10,000 rounds, making it an extremely reliable weapon. The success of the Vulcan Project and its progeny, the very-high-speed Gatling gun, has led to guns of the same configuration being referred to as "Vulcan cannons", which can sometimes confuse nomenclature on the subject.

Most aircraft versions of the M61 are hydraulically driven and electrically primed. The gun rotor, barrel assembly and ammunition feed system are rotated by a hydraulic drive motor through a system of flexible drive shafts. The round is fired by an electric priming system where an electric current from a firing lead passes through the firing pin to the primer as each round is rotated into the firing position.

The self-powered version, the GAU-4 (called M130 in Army service), is gas-operated, tapping gun gas from three of the six barrels to operate the gun gas-driven mechanism. The self-powered Vulcan weighs about 10 lb more than its electric counterpart, but requires no external power source to operate, except for an electric inertia starter to initiate gun rotation, allowing the first rounds to be chambered and fired.

The initial M61 used linked ammunition, but the ejection of spent links created considerable (and ultimately insuperable) problems. The original weapon was soon replaced by the M61A1, with a linkless feed system. Depending on the application, the feed system can be either single-ended (ejecting spent cases and unfired rounds) or double-ended (returning casings back to the magazine). A disadvantage of the M61 is that the bulk of the weapon, its feed system, and ammunition drum make it difficult to fit it into a densely packed airframe.

The feed system must be custom-designed for each application, adding 300 to 400 lb to the complete weapon. Most aircraft installations are double-ended, because the ejection of empty cartridges can cause a foreign-object damage hazard for jet engines and because the retention of spent cases assists in maintaining the center of gravity of the aircraft. The first aircraft to carry the M61A1 was the C model of the F-104, starting in 1959.

A lighter version of the Vulcan developed for use on the F-22 Raptor, designated M61A2, is mechanically the same as the M61A1, but with thinner barrels to reduce overall weight to 202 lb. The rotor and housing have also been modified to remove any piece of metal not absolutely needed for operation and replaces some metal components with lighter-weight materials. The F/A-18E/F Super Hornet also uses this version.

The Vulcan's rate of fire is typically 6,000 rounds per minute, although some versions (such as that of the AMX and the F-106 Delta Dart) are limited to a lower rate, and others (A-7 Corsair, F-15 Eagle) have a selectable rate of fire of either 4,000 or 6,000 rounds per minute. The M61A2's lighter barrels allow a somewhat higher rate of fire, up to 6,600 rounds per minute.

Ammunition
Practically no powered rotary cannon is supplied with sufficient ammunition for a full minute of firing, due to its weight (at 6,000 rpm, the projectiles alone would represent a mass of about 600 kg for one minute of firing; and by including the brass shell, filling and primer the weight is slightly double that at 1225 kg). In order to avoid using the 600 to 1,000 rounds carried by aircraft all at once, a burst controller is generally used to limit the number of rounds fired at each trigger pull. Bursts of from two or three up to 40 or 50 can be selected. The size of the airframe and available internal space limits the size of the ammunition drum and thus limits the ammunition capacity. When vehicle-mounted, the only limiting factor is the vehicle's safe carry weight, so commensurately larger ammo storage is available.

Until the late 1980s, the M61 primarily used the M50 series of ammunition in various types, typically firing a 3.5 oz projectile at a muzzle velocity of about 3380 ft/s. A variety of armor-piercing incendiary (API), high-explosive incendiary (HEI), and training rounds are available.

A new PGU-28/B round was developed in the mid-1980s. It is a semi-armor-piercing high-explosive incendiary (SAPHEI) round, providing improvements in range, accuracy, and power over the preceding M56A3 HEI round. The PGU-28/B is a "low-drag" round designed to reduce in-flight drag and deceleration, and has a slightly increased muzzle velocity of 3450 ft/s. However, the PGU-28/B has not been without problems. A 2000 USAF safety report noted 24 premature detonation mishaps (causing serious damage in many cases) in 12 years with the SAPHEI round, compared to only two such mishaps in the entire recorded history of the M56 round. The report estimated that the PGU-28/B had a potential failure rate 80 times higher than USAF standards permit. Due to safety issues, it was limited to emergency wartime use in 2000.

The main types of combat rounds and their main characteristics are listed in the table:

Applications and first combat use

The Vulcan was first used in aerial combat on 4 April 1965, when four North Vietnamese Vietnam People's Air Force (VPAF) MiG-17s) attacked a force of 10 North American F-100 Super Sabres (two of which were assigned weather reconnaissance duties) escorting 48 Vulcan-armed and "bomb-laden" F-105 Thunderchiefs, shooting down two of the latter. The MiG leader and only survivor from the four MiGs, Captain Tran Hanh, reported that U.S. jets had pursued them and that F-105s had shot down three of his aircraft, killing lieutenants Pham Giay, Le Minh Huan and Tran Nguyen Nam. Captain Donald Kilgus, piloting an F-100, received an official probable kill with his four M39 20 mm cannons during the engagement; however no other US pilot reported destroying any MiGs during the battle, leaving open the possibility that at least two of the MiG-17s may have been downed by their own anti-aircraft fire.

The first confirmed Vulcan gun kill occurred on 29 June 1966 when Major Fred Tracy, flying his F-105 with the 421st TFS, fired 200 rounds of 20 mm into a MiG-17 that had just fired a 23 mm shell which entered one side of his cockpit and exited the other. When the VPAF MiG flew in front of him after making its pass, Tracy opened fire on it.

The gun was installed in the Air Force's A-7D version of the LTV A-7 Corsair II where it replaced the earlier United States Navy A-7's Colt Mk 12 cannon and was adopted by the Navy on the A-7C and A-7E. It was integrated into the newer F-4E Phantom II variants. The F-4 was originally designed without a cannon as it was believed that missiles had made guns obsolete. Combat experience in Vietnam showed that a gun could be more effective than guided missiles in many combat situations and that an externally carried gun pod was less effective than an internal gun; the first generation of gun pods such as the SUU-16 were not oriented with the sights of the fighter. The improved pods were self-powered and properly synchronized to the sights, while the USAF versions of the F-4 were hastily fitted with internal M61 cannons in a prominent fairing under the nose, well before the war ended (Navy Phantoms never received cannons, continuing to rely on air-to-air missiles alone). The next generation of fighters built post-Vietnam incorporated the M61 gun internally.

The Vulcan was later fitted into the weapons bay of some Convair F-106 Delta Dart and General Dynamics F-111 Aardvark models. It was also adopted as standard in the "teen"-series air superiority fighters, the Grumman F-14 Tomcat, the McDonnell Douglas F-15 Eagle, General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon and McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet. Other aircraft include the Italian/Brazilian AMX International AMX (on Italian aircraft only), and the F-22 Raptor. It was fitted in a side-firing installation on the Fairchild AC-119 and some marks of the Lockheed AC-130 gunships, and was used in the tail turrets of both the Convair B-58 Hustler and Boeing B-52H Stratofortress bombers. Japan's Mitsubishi F-1 carried one internally mounted JM61A1 Vulcan with 750 rounds.

Two gun pod versions, the SUU-16/A (also designated M12 by the US Army) and improved SUU-23/A (US Army M25), were developed in the 1960s, often used on gunless versions of the F-4. The SUU-16/A uses the electric M61A1 with a ram-air turbine to power the motor. This proved to cause serious aerodynamic drag at higher speeds, while speeds under 400 mph did not provide enough airflow for the maximum rate of fire.

The subsequent SUU-23/A uses the GAU-4/A self-powered Vulcan, with an electric inertia starter to bring it up to speed. Both pods ejected empty cases and unfired rounds rather than retaining them. Both pods contained 1,200 rounds of ammunition, with a loaded weight of 1615 and 1720 lb respectively. During service in the Vietnam War, the pods proved to be relatively inaccurate: the pylon mounting was not rigid enough to prevent deflection when firing, and repeated use would misalign the pod on its pylon, making matters worse.

A variant with much shorter barrels, designated the M195, was also developed for use on the M35 Armament Subsystem as used on the AH-1G Cobra helicopter. This variant fed from ammunition boxes fitted to the landing skid and was developed to provide the AH-1 helicopter with a longer-range suppressive fire system before the adoption of the M97 universal turret mounting the M197 cannon.

The M61 is also the basis of the US Navy Mk 15 Phalanx close-in weapon system and the M163 VADS Vulcan Air Defense System, using the M168 variant.

Variants

 * M61A1
 * M61A2

title: M61 Vulcan


text:
Talk:M61 Vulcan

Weapon Safing Procedure?
Recent news stories detail that ground technicians on F-16 aircraft owned by the Belgian government were able to fire the M61 cannon on board by "mistake", as if there are no safety pins or control switches one must clear before the trigger on the joystick functions. Can we get some details as to actual safing features and procedure?65.96.53.130 (talk) 00:01, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Infobox Needed?
I think that the addition of an infobox would really make a world of difference in this article, but I've forgotten how and I'll be leaving soon, comments?205.209.70.189 14:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Most of these links are wrong. Need to check fighter aircraft.

Gatling gun contradicts this page by saying that the Vulcan cannon is not a Gatling gun. 149.167.217.130 12:25, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

 * The M-61A1 Technical Order (Ref class FOUO) does call the weapon a Gatling gun or at least it is a Gatling type gun. This ref. was written by the folks in Calafornia who make it. 65.80.178.227 17:00, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

M61 in F104A and F4D/E
My qualifications: 730 hours and weapons officer in 104A; 2020+ hours in F4D/E as an instructor pilot and one combat tour. First, we had very few 104A gun problems in flying 10 firing missions a day 5 days a week. The most frequent problem was a double feed due to failure to extract an empty case. This did stop the gun and require removal and repair but was less than one every several months. The 104A gun was very accurate, with 3 mils dispersion. I boresighted and test-fired the airplanes on a 1000 foot test range so know whereof I speak. The F4D of course used the SUU23/A. It had about 10 mils azimuth and 8 mils vertical dispersion. Reboresighting the gun was a simple swift and accurate technique using the boresight mark on the nosegear door and a borescope. I myself never had a gun problem on either the 104A, F4D or the E. The F4E dispersion was 3 mils, like the 104A. Both aircrafts' internal guns held their boresight well. Using care, these guns could be sighted in within 1/2 mil. That's 1 foot error at 2000 feet, where the bullet pattern is 6 feet in diameter. The spool-up 'problem' is a chimera; we normally tried to fire 50 round bursts and that helped us. I have fired 300 and 600 round bursts, both from a SUU-23/A pod gun. The first was on a scorable range, achieving 100 hits on a 20 foot square target beginning firing at 4000 feet out. The second was for a firepower demonstration, laying down fire on a 50 by 100 yard patch of ground by gently using the rudders. Lastly, the M61 Vulcan gun is a Gatling Gun; there were electrically driven Gatlings converted from hand-crank drive 'way back when'. WaltBJ 02:09, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

 * Thank you for these great insights! I will work on integrating them into this article and the F-4 Phantom II page. - Emt147 Burninate!  05:23, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * no 2001:1470:F8C2:CC:543C:5A70:9FCE:530A (talk) 07:45, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Bombers?
I did not know the B-58 had a tail turret, and the M-60 (not M-61) is the only tail gun I know the B-52 had. The B-52 no longer flies with tail guns, they stopped using them around 1997. 65.80.178.227 17:00, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

 * The original B-52A had 4 x Browning M3 0.50 caliber machine guns in a tail turret. On the B-52H these were replaced by a 20mm M61 cannon. All defensive guns have since been removed from operational B-52s as the threat of fighter interception is negligible.

 * Some B-52B models had twin 20mm cannons instead of the quad M3 0.50 caliber machine guns.
 * At least two, and possibly three MiG kills were credited to B-52 tail gunners in 1972 during the Operation Linebacker bombing campaign over North Vietnam.
 * The two main reasons for removal of the rear guns from the B-52s (the tail gunners were removed first from the crew in 1991) were 1) the radar aiming systems were based on vacuum tubes and were never updated, and became extremely expensive to repair, and 2) the missile technology to shoot down the B-52s had improved to beyond the range of the guns, further making them obsolete.  This range advantage was obviously not there in 1972 for the MiGs trying to shoot down the B-52s over North Vietnam.
 * Sources: "Here's How B-52 Tail Gunners Turned the Buff Into a MiG Killer", The Aviation Geek Club, Dec 18 2017. https://theaviationgeekclub.com/heres-b-52-tail-gunners-made-buff-mig-killer/
 * "The B-52 Gunners", Air Force Magazine, Jan. 1, 2012. https://www.airforcemag.com/article/0112gunners/
 * DarthRad (talk)

Having been a weapons mechanic on the B-58, I can tell you it did not have a 'turret' in the tail. It had an M61 Vulcan, true, and it could articulate to aim the weapon. But there was no rotating weapon platform. The weapon was not 'manned', but operated remotely by the DSO.

Also, as a B-52 weapons specialist I can also attest to the fact there was indeed a Vulcan M61 in the tail of the H model. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pops91710 (talk • contribs) 22:59, 5 March 2011 (UTC) e. The gattling gun fitted internally in the nose of the F-4E Phantom II was designated M61A1 indicating that it was turned upside down from it's normal configuration. The drum and belt ammunition feed system could hold 635 plus or minus 5 rounds of 20 millimeter bullets. - Dennis Doolittle USAF 1971 - 1975 (weapons maintenance)

Pop Culture
If anyone cares, in the game Metal Gear Solid, a villain named "Vulcan Raven" is personally armed with an M61 volcan. Colonel Marksman 00:13, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Also used in the films Terminator 2: Judgment Day and Superman Returns among others.

And I believe this is the heavy from TF2's gun.--Kamikaze14 (talk) 20:47, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Negative, you are thinking of the Minigun. L0b0t (talk) 22:16, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed these are usually fictional variations of the Minigun which is much smaller. Be Bold In Edits (talk) 13:04, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Why Have Them
I've always wondered why modern day fighters have guns especially when they only carry so few rounds its seems like a waste of space and weight. Milessp 00:15, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The military thought the same thing with the introduction of the F-4 Phantom; however they discovered missiles were ineffective in close aerial combat during the Vietnam war. Dlodge 21:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The theory goes that you can never spoof a properly aimed cannon round.

Missile technology has greatly improved since the 60's. No air-to-air gun kill of a fixed wing airplane has happened in decades. It is an outdated technology for the air-to-air role that causes a significant maintenance and financial burden on the operators. The systems however cannot be removed as it would have a detrimental effect on the weight and balance of the airframes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Fyoutoo

 * That claim is not true. Israel has and countless ground targets have been destroyed by gun fire of a fighter aircraft. The weapon is inexpensive to fire, has much lower collateral damage than a missile and allows fighters to be multirole aircraft. One should realize that the aircraft designers around the world have better thought this out than one or two editors on wikipedia. 208.54.40.188 (talk) 03:17, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

 * Guns can be, and have been on many occasions, replaced by ballast and/or equipment, so removing the gun is not a big issue. - BilCat (talk) 03:59, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Air Applications chart
I do not know enough wikicode to make a chart, but it might be useful (either in supplement to or replacement of much of the applications section) to include a chart of air installations, giving model (M61, A1, A2), power (hydraulic, electric, gas, ram air), feed (single or double ended), rounds carried and rate of fire. This is incomplete, but based upon what I could pull from vol. 5 of Chinn's 'Machine Guns' other wiki articles and other sources:

F104  M61                single ended  725rds,   4000spm F105B M61                single ended  1028rds,  6000spm (used an innovative feed, alternating each round between two seperate linked feed lines, allowing 4000spm to be surpassed) F105D M61A1,  hydraulic, double ended, 1029rds   6000spm F4E   M61A1,  hydraulic, double ended  639rds,   6000spm (The actual capacity was 635 +/- 5) A7D   M61A1,  hydraulic, double ended  1030rds,  6000spm/4000 optional F111  M61A1,  electric,  single ended, 2000 rds, 5000spm F106  M61A1,  hydraulic, double ended, 650rds,   4500spm F14   M61A1,  hydraulic, double ended, 676rds,   6000spm/4000 optional F15   M61A1,  hydraulic, double ended, 940rds,   6000spm/4000 optional F16   M61A1,  hydraulic, double ended, 512rds,   6000spm/4000 optional F18   M61A1,  hydraulic, double ended, 570rds,   6000spm/4000 optional AMX   M61A1,             double ended, 403rds,   4000spm F18E  M61A2,  hydraulic                400rds,   6600spm, F22   M61A2,  hydraulic                480rds    6600spm, Earthworm Makarov 19:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Chalky (talk) 02:32, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Photo on F-18 page
There is a very good photo on F-18 which shows the M61 with it's ? ammo drum. The photo is found at File:100_0307.jpg. Dlodge 21:19, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

spool-up problem?
In the article, it says:

"Another criticism is that despite its high rate of fire, the Gatling-type weapon is hampered by the time it takes for the weapon to spin up to its maximum rotation speed (about 0.5 seconds). As a result, a one-second burst only fires about 70-75 rounds..."

If that is the case, why don't they have the gun spin up to speed as soon as the pilot arms it, and remain spinning until the pilot puts it back on safe, instead of waiting for him to press the trigger before the barrels begin to turn? I am not an engineer, so maybe I don't understand, but if that's a problem, this seems to be an obvious solution.

Because it would be ejecting unfired "live" rounds as it turned, leaving the weapon empty.

 * To clarify, the ammunition feed system is directly linked to the cannon, in fact the same hydraulic or pneumatic source that powers the gun also powers the feed system. With a system that operates at that speed you cannot be engaging and disengaging the two systems on a whim, they need to stay perfectly indexed.

Additionally, the "argument" that spin-up time is a problem doesn't make sense. "Only 70-75 rounds"? A 20mm single barrel revolver-style cannon firing between 1,500 and 1,800 rounds per minute will fire only 25 to 30 rounds in one second. That's over double the rate of fire in a 1 second burst.

 * The argument is somewhat valid, the thinking going that most air to air cannon engagements are "snap shots" with very high crossing aspect angles and a very short window when the gun is on target. The revolver-style single barrel cannons have an advantage in the first quarter to half second. The flip side is that the Vulcan cannon armed pilot can simply squeeze the trigger a half-second early and sweep across the target at a much higher rate of fire than the single barrel cannon armed pilot.

 * This is valid since otherwise if you see "3000 rounds in 3 seconds (obvious overstatement for example)" many people may other wise deduce incorrectly that it could fire 1000 rounds in 1 second when it would likely be much closer to "only" 500. Thats where the only comes in. And as stated a half second can be surprisingly long time in air combat (consider how far two jets flying at each other at near subsonic speeds fly in half a second).

Be Bold In Edits (talk) 13:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

just to add in some info on the converse side. as it spools down, the electric current is cut of from the firing pin, and 5-12 (gun "mood" dependant) rounds are left unfired. these may not be refired unless reloaded on the groudn, as the feed system detects the first spent cartrigde that comes around (It's a loop) and disables the gun at that point. We could always see how many salvos a pilot had used when we got the bulkloaders in, by counting the groups of unspent rounds. (Corp RNoAF, munitions 331/332 sqdn) Raymond Holmoey (talk) 19:59, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

How could it possibly fire only 75 rounds in a 1-second burst if it takes .5 seconds to reach full speed? At 10,000 rpm it would fire 83 rounds in the half second it spends at full speed, and any it fires during spool-up only adds to that. 100.19.146.213 (talk) 19:28, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Tapping vs. Trapping
The correct usage is "tapping". A gas operated automatic cannon gets the gas used for its operation from a hole drilled into the barrel called a tap or gas port. The same usage as in "tapping a well". 69.92.250.98 18:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Numbers correct?
quote:

"The multiple barrels provide both a very high rate of fire--around 100 rounds per second--and contribute to long weapon life by minimizing barrel erosion and heat generation. Mean time between jams or failures is in excess of 10,000 rounds, making it an extremely reliable weapon."

100 rounds per second seems extremely fast, is this number correct?

MTBF of 10,000 rounds is ridiculously low, surely this must be wrong? Else there would be a jam or failure every 100 seconds of shooting on average. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.72.199.8 (talk) 23:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

 * It definetely needs to be clarified. Perhaps the 10,000-round figure is per barrel, which would make the total 60,000 rounds, tho still not a lot. It might also be 100,000. - BillCJ 23:21, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

 * If you think about it, no M61 installation carries anywhere close to 10,000 rounds. It is a reasonable figure, particularly in contrast to the MTBS/MTBF for most small arms.  And yes, a rate of 100 rps works out to 6,000 rpm, which is the commonly cited cyclic rate for this weapon. D.E. Watters 23:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

 * We don't usually talk in terms of MTBF, since time "T" doesn't really mean anything in this context (i.e. the gun system reliability is infinite in time if you never pull the trigger). Most of the M61-based aircraft gun systems using linkless ammunition handling systems have a reliability of about 30,000 mean rounds between failures (MRBF). The gun mechanism itself is good for about 5 times that, but the overall system reliability is lower because of the accumulated reliabilities of all the subassemblies that make up a system. And, yes, the firing rate of these systems is 100 rounds per second. VTFirefly911 04:30, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

 * Years later I have come across this article and exactly the same point bothered me. I assume one doesn't fire a cannon like this for 100 seconds non-stop but even still - I can't believe they jam on average after 100 seconds of firing. Perhaps small arms jam after this many rounds but surely that's apples and oranges? (1) they fire much slower and (2) they can be unjammed in action. IF the M61 jams I presume it's out of action for the flight, which is pretty inconvenient 2A02:8071:2786:F300:5031:B223:ACC5:1DCC (talk) 20:21, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

 * This needs clarification: What exactly means "failures" and "jams"?  A non-fired round is probably ejected, so the gun doesn´t fail or gets jammed by it.  A total malfunction every 10k rounds would make the gun extremely unreliable and probably entirely useless.  What is the weight of these guns, and how much ammunition is usually being carried?  If that´s only about 500 or 1200 rounds, what could be achieved with a gun that can be used for only about 10 seconds and is bound to fail? Lee-0 (talk) 17:13, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

The correct specs on the M61A1 or A2 Vulcan 20MM cannon
Ok 1st off the correct rate of fire for any BOTH the A1 and the A2 is 6000 RPM that makes it 100 rounds per second. It takes about .25 seconds to get to 3200 RPM to start firing. That is the rotation speed required to send rounds through the chamber to be fired. It is linkless so there is no drum used for it. It holds 578 rounds causing a fire time of 5.78 seconds, exactly .22 seconds before the weapon overheats causing the barrels to melt and damaging the gun. All this information comes from a person whose sole job is to work with the ammunition and explosives use on military aircraft. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.79.15.100 (talk)

As a former USAF weapons specialist, I can tell you that the hydraulically driven models were capable of firing rates up to 7,200 rounds per minute. The no drum claim is not quite accurate. Both the SUU-16 and the SUU-23 gun pods held 1200 rounds in a drum behind the weapon. The 20mm rounds were stacked vertically, nose-down, side by side, and moved along to the feeder by a rotating helix assembly. The GAU-4 was a gas powered model, and needed a "kick start" from a heavy flywheel and clutch assembly behind the gun. It took 40 seconds for the flywheel to reach maximum speed, so the pilot had to arm the gun 40 seconds before anticipated use. The gun will fire at anyItalic text speed. I once saw a man killed by a static gun while in Vietnam. He stood in front of it and the trigger was squeezed up stairs to "test" the gun's firing leads. Unfortunately, the lead was connect to the gun and not to the PSM-6 testing meter. Two rounds fired, tragically killing a great young man (a weapons specialist) I knew. He was in the front nose wheel well depressing the micro switch that closes the circuit to the gun's firing circuit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pops91710 (talk • contribs) 23:24, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

the munitions barrle of the vulcan on the F16 Block 15 used by RNoAF, and others hold 511 rounds, as mentioned the rounds will fire at any rotational speed, though 6000 rpm is the "rated" standard sped of the gun (after spool up) the Munition delivery sytem and the gun is tightly interlinked, and the rounds enter the "breach"  (one for each barrel) moves helically to the oppsite side of the barrel "drum" where it is fired, and the empty casing is moved backwards again to be fed back into the munitions feed system. as long as power is supplied to the firing pin, the gun will allways fire once a round passes through the top position of the breech drum, when the firing pin is moved forward. (I always forget the damn tildes) Raymond Holmoey (talk) 20:12, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Disadvantages

 * Moved from article per MOS recommendation for uncited text not kept in visible article space. Such claims need to be sourced before being included. - BillCJ (talk) 16:13, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Despite its reliability and tremendous rate of fire, the Vulcan has been criticized in recent years for its limited performance.

The ballistic characteristics of the 20 mm round are relatively poor, with the projectile losing energy quickly, and its destructive power and accuracy are lacking compared to the heavier 25-30 mm rounds favored by European and Russian air forces.

Another criticism is that despite its high rate of fire, the Gatling-type weapon is hampered by the time it takes for the weapon to spin up to its maximum rotation speed (about 0.5 seconds). As a result, a one-second burst only fires about 70-75 rounds, which some experts feel is not enough of an advantage over revolver cannons like the ADEN/DEFA 30 mm weapons to justify the additional weight and complexity. To overcome this shortfall, the M61A2, with its lower inertia, can be powered by a hydraulic motor running on 5,000 psi (34 MPa) of hydraulic pressure instead of the 3,000 psi (21 MPa) previously used on the F-15 Eagle and F-16 Fighting Falcon.

(Moved from article space) - BillCJ (talk) 16:13, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

It's "provess" is really a moot point. Even though it is still incorporated in modern designs, and trained by pilots. the use of the gun is really a last ditch measure, and a sure sign the pilot is in a bad place if he really has to use it. as a last dich measure it offers a large volume of fire in a compact space. Mind you, the gun starts firing once the pilot presses the trigger, the time to spool up is merely the time needed to reach max RPM. Raymond Holmoey (talk) 20:23, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Infobox item on wars
It seems certain Vulcan gun was used on US and NATO aircraft in
 * 1999 NATO bombing of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, US/Nato war against Serbia over Kosovo
 * Gulf War, 1991
 * Operation Enduring Freedom, 2001-
 * Operation Iraqi Freedom, 2003

But Wikipedia requires references, not just inferences, to add these to the infobox.

--AndersW (talk) 09:11, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

List of planes using and varitions
As much as some people hate lists I think this page would really benefit from a list major variations and vehicles utilizing the weapon. This would also have the benifit of making it easier to figure out which wars it was used in and how wide spread it is adopted. Does anybody object to this? Be Bold In Edits (talk) 13:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

 * This is what the current Applications section is for. Maybe a table or list there... -Fnlayson (talk) 14:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Fire Rate?
Say that the gun is capable of firing 9000 rounds per minute. How long in yards would the ammo belt have to be to fire that many bullets? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.3.9.125 (talk) 20:47, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Applications
The text states that "The gun was first used in aerial combat in the skies over North Vietnam when North Vietnamese Air Force MiG-17s dove through escorting F-100 Super Sabres and shot down 2 F-105 Thunderchiefs on 4 April 1965. One escorting Super Sabre engaged the MiGs with an air to air missile, while two other F-100s engaged with 20mm (M39) cannon". I don't see in that sentence where the M61 Vulcan was used, was it the MiG that had it installed? Chalky (talk) 02:02, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

 * Good catch. Those sentences were added in July 2009 by an IP user. I've reverted to the previous version of the text, as I doubt the competancy of the user who added the material. If someone has the sources, they can check to see what the text actually said, and if there's something about hte F-106 and M61, they can add that in. - BilCat (talk) 23:24, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Errors in the M61A1 description
The author states the SUU-16 was a RAT (ram-air-turbine) driven gun that made and electric motor turn to turn the M61. This is not correct. The RAT was a direct drive system. The RAT would flip out into the air stream. The steep pitch propeller in the turbine spun turning telescopic splined shafts connected directly to the gun. The obvious problem was that airspeed was critical to operate the gun at full firing rate.

As to the SUU-23/GAU-4 being initially started by an electric motor is also incorrect. While there was indeed an electric motor, it did not drive the gun. Rather it drove a large diameter heavy flywheel that took a full 40 seconds to acheive usable firing speed. Of course, this required the pilot to arm the gun in advance. Once up and running, the pilot could squeeze the trigger. The flywheel clutch would engage the cannon's drive mechanism, and start the gun spinning. It would disengage the moment the gun reached sustainable firing speed, and then operate off of its own gasses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pops91710 (talk • contribs) 23:45, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Obsolete?
Has this gun ever been used to shoot down another plane since, say, Vietnam? Does a modern fighter-only plane need a gun anymore? Wouldn't it be better to have a couple extra missiles instead? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.147.112.228 (talk) 20:09, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Why ban my section but leave "why have them?" section intact? Or the other sections that are "nonsense"? And if you didn't like it so much why not just delete the section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.19.129.27 (talk) 23:25, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Stats
Does anyone have any shoot down statistics that can be added to the article? Very curious about the combat history... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.19.129.27 (talk) 23:27, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Munitions.
The TP and TP-T should really be incorporated in that list.. IT may seem mundane, but it's probably the most fired round, since it's cheap, and inert. one of the reasons our F16's got refitted with those in the period after 9/11 (inert steel was favourable over HEI/HEISAP on the ground after takedown of a civillian flight) Raymond Holmoey (talk) 20:28, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Sourced Information and Aircraft Downed in the Vietnam War by Vulcans
Hello Bilcap, I don't mean to edit war with you, but I've read some of your edits in the past, and highly respect your contributions. And I respectively want to point out to you that you do endorse properly sourced contributions to articles whether they are from registered Wiki editors or not, based upon your past dialogs. The Vietnam War was the only war in which the Vulcan was solely used to shoot down so many enemy jets. Not "just one war."

There are past readers (see talk page) that are interested in how many enemy aircraft fell to the Vulcan. This list indicates how many, when, what type, and who did it. And its not that long, only 39 (or so planes). For an encyclodia, it seems to be simply additional information for the Vulcan's combat record. I think many readers will agree, this extra information only adds to the Vulcan's history, and does not detract from it.

I do not believe the Vulcan has by itself never been used to shoot down any aircraft since the Vietnam War. If it has, that too would be interesting to know. But I think we may be assured that it would not be a long list, and probably not even a list at all; only 1 or 2 enemy aircraft...if that.

Again, of all the Wiki editors that I've noticed, in the area of aircraft, you seem to be one of the most respected; my hats off to you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.113.96.51 (talk) 23:16, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page
Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

 * http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/fa18/
 * Triggered by  on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.— cyberbot II NotifyOnline 11:31, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

✅ This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.— cyberbot II NotifyOnline 19:11, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on M61 Vulcan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140819195104/http://maic.jmu.edu:80/ordata/ to http://maic.jmu.edu/ordata

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 04:44, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Question: Can An M61 Vulcan be manned by a person?
I'm assuming someone here may be a gun expert. i have a question. I'm writing a military story, and anyways, my question - can an M61 Vulcan be manned by a person? I have a part in my story where a crew member is on this fictional type of plane that has two machine guns on either side. Do you know if a person could use some sort of trigger to fire the gun? If not, are there any aircraft guns that are still and use and could be mounted on a plane? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikey Matthew (talk • contribs) 01:58, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

 * Highly unlikely, too heavy plus the recoil. Sounds like some confusion with the much smaller 7.62 mm Minigun, which has been carried by soldiers in films. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:38, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on M61 Vulcan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080921095536/http://tri.army.mil/LC/CS/csa/aagatlin.htm to http://tri.army.mil/lc/cs/csa/aagatlin.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:03, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

the f4 and the gun
the phantom did not use a gun because it was originally an interceptor and no us jet interceptors of the time used guns when adopted for air force service it received a gun while those in navy service like the f4j and f4s continued to go without guns — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.48.207.63 (talk) 17:25, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:M61 Vulcan


text:
Captains Courageous

Captains Courageous: A Story of the Grand Banks is an 1897 novel by Rudyard Kipling that follows the adventures of fifteen-year-old Harvey Cheyne Jr., the spoiled son of a railroad tycoon, after he is saved from drowning by a Portuguese fisherman in the North Atlantic. The novel originally appeared as a serialisation in McClure's, beginning with the November 1896 edition with the last instalment appearing in May 1897. In that year, it was published in its entirety as a novel, first in the United States by Doubleday, and a month later in the United Kingdom by Macmillan. It is Kipling's only novel set entirely in North America. In 1900, Teddy Roosevelt extolled the book in his essay "What We Can Expect of the American Boy", praising Kipling for describing "in the liveliest way just what a boy should be and do".

The book's title comes from the ballad "Mary Ambree", which starts, "Then captains courageous, whom death could not daunt". Kipling had previously used the same title for an article on businessmen as the new adventurers, published in The Times on 23 November 1892.

Plot
Protagonist Harvey Cheyne Jr. is the spoiled son of a wealthy California railroad magnate. Washed overboard from a transatlantic steamship and rescued by the crew of the fishing schooner We're Here, off the Grand Banks of Newfoundland, Harvey can neither persuade them to take him quickly to port, nor convince them of his wealth. Harvey accuses the captain, Disko Troop, of taking his money (which is revealed to be on the deck from which Harvey fell). Troop bloodies his nose, but takes him in as a boy on the crew until they return to port. Harvey comes to accept his situation.

Through a series of trials and adventures, Harvey, with the help of the captain's son, Dan Troop, becomes acclimated to the fishing lifestyle, and even skillful, such as becoming responsible for the ship's accounts of its catch. Great stories of the cod fishery with references to New England whaling and 19th-century steam and sailing are intertwined with the We're Here's adventures during a season at sea. Eventually, the We're Here returns to port and Harvey wires his parents, who immediately hasten to Boston, Massachusetts, and thence to the fishing town of Gloucester to recover him. The Cheynes are amazed by their son's newfound maturity, and reward the seaman Manuel, who initially rescued Harvey. Harvey's father hires Dan to work on his prestigious tea clipper fleet, and Harvey goes to Stanford to prepare for taking over his father's shipping lines.

Film, TV, theatrical, or other adaptations
Captains Courageous has been adapted for film three times: Musical theatre:
 * In 1937 as Captains Courageous, produced by Louis D. Lighton, directed by Victor Fleming and starring Spencer Tracy, Freddie Bartholomew, Lionel Barrymore, Melvyn Douglas, Mickey Rooney and John Carradine. Tracy won the Academy Award for Best Actor for his work in this film.
 * In 1977 for television, directed by Harvey Hart and starring Karl Malden, Jonathan Kahn, Ricardo Montalbán, Fritz Weaver, Fred Gwynne and Neville Brand.
 * In 1996 for television, directed by Michael Anderson and starring Robert Urich, Kenny Vadas, Kaj-Erik Eriksen, Sandra Nelson and Colin Cunningham.
 * Captains Courageous, The Musical was a 1999 Off Broadway production at the Manhattan Theatre Club.
 * Episode 89 of The Triplets is based on Captains Courageous and follows the plot very closely.

Other adaptations:
 * The Billion Dollar Boy by Charles Sheffield is a retelling of Captains Courageous in a futuristic science fiction setting.
 * Cabin Boy, a movie starring Chris Elliott, is a loose adaptation.

In popular culture

 * Commentator David Lloyd frequently referred to Kevin Pietersen as "Captain Courageous" during his period as captain of the England cricket team.
 * In the movie Captain Ron (1992), Martin Short's character derisively refers to the leader as "Captains Courageous".
 * "Captains Outrageous" is the title of a 1974 Junior Woodchucks comic book written by Carl Barks, a 1979 episode of the American television series M*A*S*H, and a 2001 crime/suspense novel by Joe R. Lansdale.
 * "Captains Courageous" is a track on the Levellers album Mouth to Mouth.

title: Captains Courageous


text:
User:Riatsala

Welcome to WikiPedia!!! I hope you stay around helping us with music (and maybe other themes). --AstroNomer

Yup. I'm a harpsichordist, so I thought I'd start there and branch out to other stuff. This is a fabulous medium, and I lurked for too long!

title: User:Riatsala


text:
User:BATMAN~enwiki

Not to be confused with the superhero. Or to a man who works with, or likes bats.

When written in all caps, referring to Darren Semotiuk of Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. Self-proclaimed nickname due to incessant obsessive nature of automating things (on the computer), with scripts, DOS BAT files, etc.

[Even received a "Batman" T-Shirt from a friend because of the nickname. Yeah, I'm a propellerhead. But I won't include my email or a URL because you never know what kind of response that might bring.]

=
====

[December 2001]

I love Jesus! And He loves all of us. I summed up my personal testimony pretty well in an online discussion (which is no longer available "live") - so I have it saved locally here:

[March 2004] NEVER MIND - my site is under renovations... check out the temporary page http://squisher.shorturl.com/ [/March 2004]

Visit my website ( http://squisher.shorturl.com/ ) and see how the Lord can bless faithfulness in His loving grace. Then contact me and I'll do my best to answer any of your questions, or point you in the right direction if I know of a good resource...

title: User:BATMAN~enwiki


text:
John Byron

Vice-Admiral John Byron (8 November 1723 – 1 April 1786) was a British Royal Navy officer and explorer. He earned the nickname "Foul-Weather Jack" in the press because of his frequent encounters with bad weather at sea. As a midshipman, he sailed in the squadron under George Anson on his voyage around the world, though Byron's ship, HMS Wager, made it only to southern Chile, where it was wrecked. He returned to England with the captain of the ship. He was governor of Newfoundland following Hugh Palliser, who left in 1768. He circumnavigated the world as a commodore with his own squadron in 1764–1766. He fought in battles in the Seven Years' War and the American Revolution. He rose to Vice Admiral of the White before his death in 1786.

His grandsons include the poet Lord Byron and George Anson Byron, admiral and explorer, who were the 6th and 7th Baron Byron, respectively.

Early career
Byron was the second son of William Byron, 4th Baron Byron and Frances Berkeley, the daughter of William, 4th Baron Berkeley. After studying at Westminster School he joined the Royal Navy at the age of 14, making his first voyage aboard HMS Romney in 1738–40.

Anson's voyage around the world
In 1740, he accompanied George Anson on his voyage around the world as a midshipman aboard one of the several ships in the squadron.

On 14 May 1741, HMS Wager under Captain Cheap (as Captain Dandy Kidd had died), was shipwrecked on the coast of Chile on what is now called Wager Island and Byron was one of the survivors. The survivors decided to split in two teams, one to make its way by boat to Rio de Janeiro on the Atlantic coast; the other, including John Byron and the Captain, to sail north along the Spanish colonial coast.

Captain Cheap at Wager Island had a party of 19 men after the deserters rejoined the camp. This included the surgeon Elliot and Lieutenant Hamilton who had been cast adrift with him plus midshipmen John Byron and Alexander Campbell who had been in the barge. They rowed up the coast but were punished by continuous rain, headwinds and waves that threatened the boats. One night while the men slept on shore, one of the boats was capsized while at anchor and was swept out to sea with its two boatkeepers. One of the men got ashore but the other drowned. As it was now impossible for them all to fit in the remaining boat, four marines were left ashore with muskets to fend for themselves. The winds prevented them from getting around the headland so they returned to pick up the marines only to find them gone. They returned to Wager Island in early February 1742. With one death on the journey, there were now 13 in the group.

Martín Olleta, a Chono chieftain, guided the men up the coast to the Spanish settlements of Chiloé Island so they set out again. Two men died; after burying the bodies, the six seamen rowed off in the boat never to be seen again while Cheap, Hamilton, Byron, Campbell and the dying Elliot were on shore looking for food. Olleta then agreed to take the remaining four on by canoe for their only remaining possession, a musket. It is likely the party travelled across Presidente Ríos Lake in inland Taitao Peninsula, a lake Chile regarded as officially discovered in 1945. Eventually they made it to be taken prisoner by the Spanish. The Spaniards treated them well and they were eventually taken to the inland capital of Santiago where they were released on parole. The Spaniards heard that Anson had been generous in the treatment of the prisoners he had taken and this kindness was returned.

Byron and the other three men stayed in Santiago till late 1744 and were offered passage on a French ship bound for Spain. Three accepted the passage. Campbell elected to take a mule across the Andes and joined the Spanish Admiral Pizarro in Montevideo on the Asia only to find Isaac Morris and the two seamen who had been abandoned in Freshwater Bay on the Atlantic coast. After time in prison in Spain, Campbell reached Britain in May 1746, followed by the other three two months later.

In England, the official court martial examined only the loss of the Wager in which Baynes, in nominal charge at the time, was acquitted of blame but reprimanded for omissions of duty. Disputes over what happened after the wreck were instead played out as Bulkeley and Cummins, Campbell, Morris, the cooper Young and later Byron published their own accounts, the last of which was the only one that in any way defended Cheap who had since died. Twenty-nine crew members plus seven marines made it back to England.

Byron's account of his adventures and the Wager Mutiny are recounted in The Narrative of the Honourable John Byron (1768). His book sold well enough to be printed in several editions.

Byron was appointed captain of HMS Siren (1745) in December 1746.

Seven Years' War
In 1760, during the Seven Years' War, Byron commanded a squadron sent to destroy the fortifications at Louisbourg, Cape Breton Island, Nova Scotia, which had been captured by the British two years before. They wanted to ensure it could not be used by the French in Canada. In July of that year he defeated the French flotilla sent to relieve New France at the Battle of Restigouche.

Commodore, governor, and vice admiral
In early 1764 the British Admiralty determined that it would require a permanent naval settlement off the South American coast, in order to resupply naval vessels seeking to enter the Pacific via Cape Horn. Captain Byron was selected to explore the South Atlantic for a suitable island upon which to establish such a settlement. The South American mainland was controlled by Spain, which was hostile to local expansion of British interests; to disguise Byron's mission it was announced that he had been appointed the new Navy Commander-in-Chief, East Indies. Byron set sail in June 1764, ostensibly to take up the East Indies post. For the voyage he was granted command of the 24-gun frigate HMS Dolphin (1751) and the 16-gun sloop HMS Tamar (1758).

Byron's two-vessel flotilla crossed the Atlantic over the winter of 1764 and made its way slowly down the South American coast. The Admiralty had ordered Byron to first seek Pepys Island, reputedly discovered off the Patagonian coast by the corsair Ambrose Cowley in 1683. Byron reached the co-ordinates given by Cowley in January 1765, but there was no sign of the island and the search was swiftly abandoned. On 5 February Byron reached the Patagonian settlement of Port Desire where he resupplied his vessels from the storeship HMS Florida.

Between June 1764 and May 1766, Byron completed his own circumnavigation of the globe as captain of HMS Dolphin. This was the first such circumnavigation that was accomplished in less than 2 years. His actions nearly caused a war between Great Britain and Spain, as both countries had armed fleets ready to contest the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands. Later Byron encountered islands and extant residents of the Tuamotus and Tokelau Islands, and Nikunau in the southern Gilbert Islands; he also visited Tinian in the Northern Marianas Islands. A notable member of Byron's crew was Master's Mate Erasmus Gower whom Byron chose to 'take a significant part' in the ceremony when he took possession of the Falkland Islands. Byron had examined Gower for his lieutenant's examination in 1762 and was so impressed that he chose him to accompany him on his own circumnavigation (1764–65) and ensured that he was appointed as lieutenant to Commander Philip Carteret immediately afterwards in the next circumnavigation (1766–69).

In 1769 he was appointed governor of Newfoundland off the mainland of Canada, an office he held for the next three years.

He was promoted to rear admiral on 31 March 1775. In 1779, he served as Commander-in-chief of the Leeward Islands Station during the American War of Independence. After being severely injured during a storm on his way to the West Indies, Byron unsuccessfully attacked a French fleet under the Comte d'Estaing at the Battle of Grenada in July 1779. He subsequently resigned his post and returned to England, where he suffered from poor health for the rest of his life.

Byron was briefly Commander-in-Chief, North American Station from 1 October 1779. He was made vice admiral of the white in September 1780.

Family
On 8 September 1748 he married his first cousin Sophia Trevanion, daughter of John Trevanion of Caerhays in Cornwall and Barbara Berkeley, the sister of his mother. They had two sons and seven daughters:

 * Frances Byron (1749–1823), later married Charles Leigh
 * Sophia Byron (died in infancy)
 * Isabella Byron (died in infancy)
 * Juliana Elizabeth Byron (1754–88), later married her cousin Hon. William Byron (d. 1776, son of William Byron, 5th Baron Byron)
 * Sophia Maria Byron (1755–1821), the 'maiden aunt' of the poet George Gordon Byron
 * John "Mad Jack" Byron (1757–91), who in turn fathered the poet George Gordon Byron, the future 6th Baron Byron
 * George Anson Byron (1758–93), noted navy officer and father of George Anson Byron junior, another admiral and explorer and later the 7th Baron Byron
 * Charlotte Byron (died in infancy)
 * Augusta Barbara Charlotte Byron (1762–1824), later married Admiral Christopher Parker

John was the brother of Hon. George Byron, married to Frances Levett, daughter of Elton Levett of Nottingham, a descendant of Ambrose Elton, Esq., High Sheriff of Herefordshire in 1618 and a surgeon in Nottingham.

Death and legacy
According to a note written by his wife Sophia to their financial agent, John Byron died on 1 April 1786 at home in Bolton Row, London (not 10 April, as subsequent biographies claim). On that date nine days later his remains were buried in the Berkeley family vault situated beneath the chancel of the Church of St Mary the Virgin, Twickenham.

John's life was a great inspiration for his grandson the poet George Gordon Byron, though they never met. The poet both drew from his grandfather's experiences in his writing, using his 'Narrative' for the shipwreck scene in Don Juan, and wrote of the kinship he felt in having such a turbulent, unlucky life: he wrote in an epistle to his half-sister Augusta Leigh that "he had no rest at sea, nor I on shore".

In fiction
John Byron's experiences in the Anson voyage form the basis of the novel The Unknown Shore by Patrick O'Brian. It closely follows Byron's account in The Narrative of the Honourable John Byron (1768).

In The Dark Design by Philip José Farmer, John Byron is a crewmember of the schooner The Razzle Dazzle.

title: John Byron