Typhoon gun question

[Kiting for Boys]

From the Leuchars thread..

My civilian version of the story is as follows. Please correct me.

Eurofighter design agreed
UK MOD decides they don't want a gun
UK Eurofighters to be fitted with concrete in space for gun
Concrete wrong density for Centre of Gravity

mmm

Need a metal type thingy with same characteristics as original gun

Realise that gun might be best gun-shaped metal type thingy

But in light of No Gun Policy Decision...

Buy gun, but make it unfireable and decide to buy no ammunition for gun-shaped metal thingy



I retell this story as true.

Please tell me that I haven't been lying
:D :D

[pr00ne]

Kiting for boys,

You have been fibbing I am afraid!

[Farmer 1]

But no pointy thingies that come out of front of gun-shaped metal thingy at a rate of knots.

Kiting for Boys, you haven't been lying.

But, whatever you do, don't tell any future enemy that our fighters don't have useable gun-shaped metal thingies.

[Gainesy]

... and its a lot cheaper to lob a missile at four scroats in the back of a Toyota pickup fitted with a .50cal, er ...sorry banging same drum.

[mike rondot]

This story was the basis for an episode of "Our brave boys" on Radio 4 last November. The story(comedy)line was as you report, only worse. Surely then, it must be true? Has anyone a recording of this or any other episodes of this very funny satire?

[engineer(retard)]

Concrete and ballast parts not true, the economy was to cut down on range costs and use bogus training modes but we did not buy the loaders. Different loading system to Tonka although same basic gun and ammo.

Regards

Retard

[SASless]

Why a fighter aircraft without an operable gun? Seems a huge step back particularly after it was proven beyond any doubt that such aircraft need a gun and cannot rely upon missles alone.

Can someone provide the rationale behind that decision.....surely saving money on ranges and ammunition could not be it. Even the Airships are not that thick!

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Even the Airships are not that thick!

No, but the politicians are....

[Pontius Navigator]

GBP30 per bullet says that money may be the answer.

[Out Of Trim]

It maybe GBP 30 per 27mm round but seeing as its the same as Tornado ammo, I can't see the problem??

[ZH875]

It maybe GBP 30 per 27mm round but seeing as its the same as Tornado ammo, I can't see the problem??

232 Typhoon @ £30 per fast pointy thing fired = £oodles

128 Tornado F3/GR4 @£30 per fast pointy thing fired = £nowhere near as much.

[Ian Corrigible]

Given the number of Unmanned Air Vehicles of all sizes projected to be encountered over the future battlefield, I hope the RAF is relearning the skill of 'tipping' UAVs. The economies of doing away with the gun begin rapidly dissapear once you start shooting Asraams at $100K UAVs...

I/C

[Captain Sand Dune]

Didn't the Yanks go down this path many years ago with the introduction of the F4?
Anyway, what self-respecting fighter pilot would want to fly an aircraft without a gun?!

[Rakshasa]

Yes and got their arses handed to them often enough in Dogfights that they set up Top Gun.... and put guns on all their a/c...

While I'd much rather BVR, I loathe the idea of not having a back up at the merge.

[BombayDuck]

If money - i.e., 30 GBP per "fast pointy thing fired" is the problem, I have a solution:

Outsource it to India :E

[BEagle]

So, £30 per round is costly, is it?

And just how much is Bliar's adventurism with Bush's Viet Nam in Iraq costing?

[tucumseh]

Surely the sensible solution is to have DPA's SA80 project team buy and support the gun?

[Gainesy]

Outsource it to India

IIRC the MoD bought a batch of small-arms ammo (or mortar rounds?) from India a few years back and it was well below spec.

Interesting thought, the Jag will be the last single-seat fighter in the RAF with a gun.:E

[Bob Viking]

How long before the first F3 geek decides to use the whole 'the Jaguar isn't a fighter!' argument?!
I give it till dusk!
BV:E

[soddim]

We have already in recent years in the RAF regretted not training AD pilots in strafe - first the AD Phantoms in Stanley were required to gain the ability and now the F3 needs to have the capability.

An aircraft with a gun is a very effective weapon and is more convincing against ground targets than either ASRAM or AMRAM.

It's about time the politicians took military advice for a change.

[Rakshasa]

Maybe they'll see sense and either give the Typhoon F.1 proper guns or a gun pod....

Chances of any or all three hapening: 0.00%

It's about time the politicians took military advice for a change.

Oh they do it's just that military advice these days runs along the lines of;

"Don\'t Worry, Prime Minister. We'll have that defence Budget cut implemeted right away!

BTW, did the Queen say when she would make her desisions for this years honours yet?"

[Matrix Marauder]

It makes it nice and simple for the enemy though!
Typhoon without missiles on rails:
German colours - run away you might get shot.
RAF colours - who cares, it can't hurt you!

[passpartout]

Maybe they'll see sense and either give the Typhoon F.1 proper guns or a gun pod....

What is a Typhoon F1 when it's at home?

Typhoon has a proper gun. It was good enough for the GR1/4 and F3.

The gun is maintained.

There just aren't any bullets.

A little knowledge etc

[ZH875]

Maybe they'll see sense and either give the Typhoon F.1 proper guns or a gun pod.... Hate to be pedantic, but isnt it the Typhoon F2 with the T1 being the twin sticker.

[Rakshasa]

A Typo I couldn't be arsed to change.

And I would've assumed it would be fairly easy to understand "Proper guns" meant ones with an available ammunition supply... :ok:

[Kluseau]

Didn't the Yanks go down this path many years ago with the introduction of the F4?

Didn't we with the Lightning? How often does a lesson have to be learned before it sticks?

[GeeRam]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Didn't we with the Lightning?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yup, and the Sea Vixen:(

[Soiled Glove]

The only winners in this debacle are EF GmBH - when the UK dropped the requirement for a gun, no doubt it was seen as a contract change and invoked financial penalties to the MOD. When it is eventually realised that a mistake was made and the UK want the gun again, industry will declare another contract change and demand another huge wad of dosh to re-implement the gun. Of course all they will have to do is slap a bit of WD40 around the assembly as the gun is already there as ballast, the flight test and clearances will probably already have been done for the other nations - kerrching, thank you very much Mr British Taxpayer for boosting the European partnership profits!

Ironic that when the decision to drop the gun from Typhoon was made by the 'airships', the Sea Harrier was strafing in Sierra Leone!

SG

[Pontius Navigator]

Gainsy, see PMs

[Tarnished]

Soiled G

Maybe I'm being over sensitive but, I feel that you think it is wrong of GmBH to charge for contract changes. They (and any company/contractor/business) are not a charity. They exist to make a profit for the shareholders pure and simple.

Customer says how much will it cost to build this to this specification, company says this much, customer says OK, company starts work, customer changes specification, there has got to be additional cost. Some leeway exists and some horse trading goes on. There are equally large costs if the company fails to achieve any of the specifications (including delivery schedules).

Those of us ex-mil folk working in the process do actually try our best to ensure that you guys get what you need as opposed to what the current spec (lagging reality) asks for. Honest broker between evil contracts department and the warfighters.

Tarnished

PS Have you seen the price of WD40 these days?!?!?

[Soiled Glove]

Tarnished,

I didn't mean to hit a raw nerve about this subject - well I did because these boards are more fun when they get outspoken and controversial!

I fully understand that contracts etc have to be honoured or penalised where the contract breaks down and that there is a financial aspect to all of this. As I said, the parent company will benefit from this due to the gross mis-management of the situation by the MOD.

If the RAF wanted to save money all they had to do was disconnect the gun lead and not go off on jollies to Akrotiri every summer. Instead they hyped the whole thing stating publicly that Typhoon didn't need a gun in RAF service and what a money saving decision they were making. Unfortunately my experience is that the whole procurement business is centred around individuals (military) who are posted to a job, have no formal training on what they are doing, haven't a clue when faced with company lawyers over contract negotiations and then once they have made a name for themselves, they get posted off again while the project is half completed and are probably promoted as they got their name in lights for making a radical decision.

The main problem is not with Industry - they just benefit (rightly or wrongly) from working with amateurs. Perhaps we should go down the US route of an Aquisition branch, whilst maybe not a popular posting it would at least provide continuity of Service people in the procurement world. I believe that the General in charge of JSF has actually been in the programme since he was a Lt Col - correct me if I am wrong - but that is continuity and is a far superior method of procurement to posting aviators and engineers for 2 year tours to Wyton and Abbey Wood.

SG

PS - shouldn't you be 'hunkering down' for the weekend?

[XR219]

the Sea Harrier was strafing in Sierra Leone!
Come to think of it, that's something else you can't do in a GR.7/9, isn't it?

[Tarnished]

SG

Couldn't agree with you more, its the system that needs changing.

However, I'm not convinced the US approach is less costly in the long run.

It is the long lifecycles that are the killer in my opinion. It takes too long to go from recognising there is a requirement, drafting the thing, staffing it, issuing an RFI/RFP, bidding, statement of work, contract funding, save a few pennies, re-spec the job, do the work, have the work evaluated at mock-up, DT and then OT levels with iterations at each level, safety case, then a stupidly restrictive clearance is issued to make sure that backsides are covered, meanwhile the world has moved on and new requirements have emerged.

Frustrating.

I could go on, but its an off-day here and your right SG I need to go out and secure all loose items around the property before Rita arrives. Looks like we are OK on this side of DFW.

Tarnished

[ExGrunt]

For your amusement here is the official line fed to the Select Committee on Public Accounts :rolleyes:




Minutes of Evidence

APPENDIX 2

Supplementary memorandum submitted by the Defence Procurement Agency 00-01/62

QUESTIONS 264 AND 306. BACKGROUND TO THE DECISION NOT TO EQUIP EUROFIGHTER WITH A GUN

7. Since the introduction of air-to-air missiles, a gun has been used in an air-to-air role for very close range engagements where the target was inside a short-range air-to-air missile's minimum range. Notably during the early years of the Vietnam war, the probability of kill in short-range engagements of the air-to-air missiles then available proved so low that the very modest capability of gun systems added significantly to overall effectiveness. The probability of success with guns has advanced little over the years[12]. By contrast, the performance of air-to-air missiles has improved dramatically. Indeed, in short-range engagements, the minimum range capability and agility of the missiles that Eurofighter will carry, together with its planned helmet-mounted sight targeting system, offers the pilot a shot with a very high probability of success in almost every conceivable situation. A gun could be seen as a defence of last resort when all the aircraft's missiles had been fired. However, even then the gun's usefulness would be severely limited because of the possibility of engagement by missile armed aircraft from well outside the gun's range.

8. Firing "warning shots across the bow" with a gun is not an effective means of coercion in modern operations. The cockpit environment of modern aircraft is such that the pilot is extremely unlikely to hear such warning shots and would only see them if they were tracer rounds. The value of such a display against a civilian aircraft is dubious and against a military aircraft it may well be misconstrued.

9. Against some threats, missiles may be susceptible to counter-measures employed by the opposing aircraft. However, ASRAAM has already proven itself against typical current countermeasure doctrines and is designed to overcome extreme levels of countermeasures. Even should an advanced hostile aircraft have decoyed Eurofighter's air-to-air missiles successfully, there is again little benefit in adding a gun to Eurofighter's armament. If the UK pilot were then to close on that hostile target to within the range of the gun, he would be placing the aircraft—and himself—at unnecessarily high risk of being shot down by the hostile aircraft's own missiles. Moreover, gun systems are not completely invulnerable to countermeasures, not least because most depend on accurate radar range

10. As for air-to-ground combat, it is worth noting that the original European Staff Requirement, signed by the Chiefs of Air Staffs from the partner nations in December 1985, specifies the gun only in an air-to-air role. So, even then, experienced airmen in the partner nations did not regard the gun as a valuable weapon for ground attack. It remains the view of experts that it is difficult to justify using the gun in Eurofighter's offensive support role, owing to:

the risk of collateral damage resulting from the relative inefficiency of gun firing from a fixed-wing aircraft, especially in this age of precision-guided munitions, with which Eurofighter will be armed; and
the increased vulnerability of the aircraft because the gun's short range would leave the aircraft very exposed to surface-to-air missiles and anti-aircraft gunfire.

11. Overall, therefore, it is clear that the utility of a gun on an aircraft such as Eurofighter in modern operations is questionable. To perform its roles effectively, Eurofighter's armament should emphasise not the very short-range capability that a gun would offer, but the long-range capability to be offered initially by the Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile (AMRAAM). and later by the Meteor beyond visual range air-to-air missile.

12. The minimal combat value that the gun does provide is more than outweighed by the support, fatigue and training cost penalties of retaining it. Specific disadvantages of the gun include:

the damaging effects of the shock of its recoil on the electronics (approximately 4 tons recoil shock 30 times a second);
the corrosive effects of its exhaust gas;
the strain which it puts on the airframe, reducing the aircraft's useful life. (Even the weight of 80kg of ammunition can add well over half a tonne load at the wing roots of the aircraft when it is subject to high gravitational pull in manoeuvre. Each aircraft has a finite design fatigue life. Using up this life much more rapidly would require us to purchase a greater number of aircraft or to undertake a life extension programme, the cost and operational penalties of which cannot be justified by the minimal operational benefits of the gun.); and
a range of training costs, including the provision of new targets, the increased demands on the Hawk aircraft towing the targets (which must shortly be replaced by new aircraft), and the cost of removing training rounds from the environment.

13. We understand that our partner nations currently intend to retain the gun on Eurofighter. The American F-14, F-15, F/A-18 all have internal guns, though the F-117 does not; and the F-22 is planned to have one. The Russian MiG-29 and the Su-27/31 also have guns as do Gripen and Rafale. Some of these aircraft types entered service many years ago when missile technology was far less advanced. However, it is not currently planned to fit an internal gun to the Short Take-Off and Vertical Landing variant of Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), although it will be able to carry an externally mounted gun which can be put on and removed from the aircraft for particular missions.

14. Our assessment remains that, in the future operational roles for which we require Eurofighter, the minimal value of a gun is more than outweighed by its considerable associated costs and disadvantages.



Well that's all right then!

EG

[Safeware]

S-G,If the RAF wanted to save money all they had to do was disconnect the gun lead and not go off on jollies to Akrotiri every summerIt isn't that simple, the issue being more focussed on the support contracts - having a gun installed and not using it is easy, but when you have a support contract with the requirements for supply of ammo, maintenance facilities, spares etc etc, and then you turn round and say 'we don't need a gun' the effects reach further then just not firing it.

So, when the decision was made not to have a gun, the implications were 1) not fitting the gun and dropping the contract for supply and support of the gun, finding a replacement part that had the shape/CofG of a gun or 2) keep then gun but change the supporting contracts to cut costs. Now, if you want to change that set of contracts again, a) there is the commercial aspects of yet another contract change and b) the lead time aspects and costs of putting the support arrangements back in place.

Constantly changing requirements, that is what p!sses industry off, and I can understand why folks like Tarnished get miffed.

sw

[Postman Plod]

So exciuse my civilianised brain and clearly incorrect thinking and judgement - I mean I'm only an uneducated civvy, but if we dont need to / want to fight in a close range environment, why have we spent so much money on an agile fighter aircraft, when all we needed to do was build a platform to carry 20 AMRAAM / Meteor?

Surely shoving AMRAAM and ASRAAM on an F3 would have fulfilled the requirement they seem to be stating with the "no gun" arguement, and been a damn sight more cost effective?

They try to argue that other aircraft that have a gun are older - errr F22, Sukhois, Rafale, etc?? What??? And the F35 not having a gun - whos requirement was that??

[Rakshasa]

Now now, PP. You're working from the basis of logic. The MoD doesn't.

[soddim]

Postman Plod, you are in danger of seeing right through the inconsistencies of argument so commonly used by our MOD staffs in pursuing the wrong course of action!

For an uneducated civvie you have a good grasp of reality!

[Tarnished]

Oh FFS!

Agile ac + HMD + ASRAAM = all the capability you need close in iaw the Parliamentary answers provided by ex-Grunt

High spec supersonic performance + AMRAAM (Meteor) + Sensors + Data Link + Sensor Fusion + (Supporting ROE) = all the capability you need BVR iaw the Parliamentary answers provided by ex-Grunt

1985 European Air Staff Requirement (20 years old! see my earlier post) did not call for air to ground gun. It you want a proper AG gun look to the A-10. You can only use short range guns A-G when the enemy have been pretty well eliminated.

There are no inconsistencies to be "seen through" SODDIM

Despite what you might think RAKSHASA there is plenty of logic in the MOD

POSTMAN PLOD just how long do you think the F-3 is going to stay flying for?

SAFEWARE hit the nail on the head and he speaks with knowledge of the truth.

Folks, the days of unlimited defence budgets are long gone, the RAF today is (in manpower terms alone) exactly one third the size it was when I joined 25 years ago (and nearly 60% the size it was when I left 8 years ago). That is only 5 years before Typhoon's ESR was written.

So don't be surprised if a few things aren't perfect, but rest easy in the knowledge that since time began the frontline RAF has done wonderful things with the hand it was dealt. The Great British stiff upper lip and a spot of skill and cunning always seem to win the day.

In 1986 I did a NATO exchange with my Lightning Sqn and an NL based USAF F-15 sqn, The plaque on the photo we gave them said quite simply:

"With your kit and our ability....!"

In Typhoon we now have our own "Kit" to be proud of.

Tarnished

[Rakshasa]

I dont think anyone's calling into question the combat effectiveness of the Typhoon, Tarnished. It's a damn fine aircraft but past experience has shown that missiles are not fool proof. Even the latest generation. Has ASRAAM been fired in anger enough yet for us to be really sure of it ability?

Sure, the gun is relatively crap as a modern a/c weapon but better to have it and not need it, than need it and not have it.

[SVK]

I can just imagine the Public Enquiry, a few years from now:

"So you intercepted the uncommunicative airliner, then what?"

Typhoon Pilot, "Well Sir, we tried everything to no avail. Eventually the only option left was to fire a warning shot across her nose"

"And then what happened?"

Typhoon Pilot, "Everything worked perfectly. I selected my weapon, pulled the trigger and watched my ASRAAM plough nicely into her number two engine."

Now that's being warned!

[Postman Plod]

Tarnished - not knocking Typhoon - think its a fantastic aircraft, and a world beater. I dont subscribe to the 20 years out-of-date arguement at all!

It just strikes me as crazy that a weapon that was designed INTO the aircraft, and works, and at least provides some last line of defence / attack, or some form of attacking low value targets, is being used as purely as ballast. The arguments used to justify its status just seem nonsense to me! I accept what you are saying, but if we wanted a missile platform, why didn't we just buy one?

I'm asking this out of ignorance, but when was the air-ground requirement / swing role specified for Typhoon?

I wasn't serious with my Tornado suggestion, but effectively thats what they are saying we need with that argument - NOT an expensive agile fighter, but a missile platform.

[Tarnished]

OK then SVK, re-run your scenario with a gun-equipped Typhoon.

We fired a warning shot across her nose with the gun

What did she do then?

Nothing!

(Might have done something if we had tracer rounds)

OK, after she did nothing what did you do next?

Well, I wasn't going to take no reply for an answer so I fired a little bit closer to her nose and blow me, I hit it. She then rolled ever so gracefully onto her back and pulled through. Wish I'd fired an ASRAAM and taken an engine clean off leaving the pilot with a clear message and a single engine approach to do!!

There are some great pics around of an HS 125 somewhere in Africa that waas Fox 2'd by a Mig 21. Took the right engine clean off, a bit of schrapnel (sp?) to the right flap and a hydraulic leak but quite containable. Not saying ASRAAM would be so clean (its got a far better fuse and warhead). However, a single IR missile is unlikely to down an airliner.

Postman Plod, the crux of the story is money! When defence budgets are being stretched their Airships will do strange things to save a few quid "on paper". IMHO this is what actually happened here.

Treasury Neddy: Your Airship, looks like its either a gun in Typhoon or new carpets in your MQ.

Airship: What colour are the carpets going to be?

Sad but true, but rest assured the gun is still available given an UOR or some such catalyst.

Regards

Tarnished

[Load Toad]

A single IR missile is unlikely to bring down an airliner?


DHL in Baghdad recently......what was that then?

[PPRuNeUser0211]

AFAIK the DHL didn't get "brought down"? It made an emergency landing post the missile strike in a (semi?) controlled fashion with major hydraulic leak/failure? Just posting from memory early on a sunday.... but think thats right?

[Load Toad]

OK - just go with me on this one then...

- that was hit by a shoulder launched missile with a v small warhead....
- It looked like it didn't directly hit (someone will no dount tell us if the missile used had a proximity warhead)
- it was great flying and not a little luck that they got it down.


Perhaps we can design a nice rubber air to air missile that'll fly past the cockpit, exploding to reveal a big piece of canvas with *BANG!!!* written on it.

Come on - an unresponsive airliner and you are going to shoot at it to get attention? Just casually blow off one engine with a missile, (a missile specificaly designed to shoot aircraft down rather than give them a gentle nudge) allowing it to safely land? Not perhaps simply flying in view of the cockpit - that wouldn't work?

[soddim]

You say, Tarnished, that there are no inconsistencies to be seen through. That we have procured an agile aircraft in an age where smart sensors and agile missiles have largely solved the problem of inferior performance should be evidence enough but I was referring more specifically to the case for the gun in situations where no other suitable weapon could be brought to bear.

In the Falklands in 1985, after the Harriers had departed, only the AD Phantoms could be used in some circumstances against any incursion by ground or seaborne forces. For this reason it was considered important enough to train F4 AD pilots in strafe prior to Falklands tours and yet, according to the minutes posted by ExGrunt, it was in 1985 that:

10. As for air-to-ground combat, it is worth noting that the original European Staff Requirement, signed by the Chiefs of Air Staffs from the partner nations in December 1985, specifies the gun only in an air-to-air role.

I believe a similar quandry now presents itself in the context of the sort of conflict we find ourselves committed to in the ME. If the Army urgently need air power to help supress an insurgency and only an AD asset is immediately available, what use is ASRAAM or AMRAAM?

When promotion exams were necessary for advancement to Flt Lt rank I had to learn that "flexibility is the key to air power". I can only assume that today's air staff officers were all university entrants and became instant Flt Lts.

[BEagle]

Ah yes, we did indeed go back to doing air-to-mud after the South Atlantic experience.

The 'Vulcan cannon' was a lot easier to get a decent score with than the Hunter's Aden. But you didn't get the smell of cordite coming through into the cockpit!

I suspect the main reason apart for the flatter bullet trajectory was that the LCOSS was better than the old GGS when it came to shooting at muddy hessian.

But these days, I suspect that the expression 'lessons learned' is not an acceptable term with which to confront Their Airships. Not enough of a biz-speak w@nkword ring to it, for one thing....

If flexibility is the key to AirParrh, "...then indecision must be the key to flexibility!". As was once so rightfully commented by our USAF exchange officer!

[BossEyed]

There are some great pics around of an HS 125 somewhere in Africa that waas Fox 2'd by a Mig 21. Took the right engine clean off, a bit of schrapnel (sp?) to the right flap and a hydraulic leak but quite containable. Not saying ASRAAM would be so clean (its got a far better fuse and warhead). However, a single IR missile is unlikely to down an airliner.

http://www.acig.org/artman/uploads/botswana_bae.jpg

On 6 August 1988, the Botswana Air Wing British Aerospace 125-800, flown by Col. Albert Scheffers (CO Botswana Air Wing) and British Aerospace transport pilot Arthur J. Ricketts, carrying the president of Botswana, J. K. Quett Masire and eight other passengers, was underway at 35.000ft over Angola. All of a sudden, those on board heard a loud bang and there was an explosive decompression of the cabin. The aircraft yawed, rolled and dived almost at once and then a shower of fan blades from the starboard Garrett TFF.731-5 engine was observed as it separated away from the aircraft and went in forward direction. The aircraft was hit by one of two R-60/AA-8 Aphid missiles fired at it from an Angolan MiG-23ML interceptor. The first missile hit the starboard engine and ripped it together with the entire pod off the aircraft. The second missile then hit the same engine after it was already off the aircraft. Col. Scheffers regained control of the aircraft at 28.500ft, completed an emergency shutdown and thus preserved the other aircraft systems. 2.000lb of fuel in the right wing and one engine were lost, and there was extensive damage to the right wing and flaps. The aircraft spiraled down and then landed at Cuito Bie, in Angola. Subsequent inspection reveald that the hydraulic pump, starter/generator and alternator were still attached by hoses and cable looms. Angola apologized to Botswana for the missile firing, especially as usual air traffic control clearances had been received before the presidential trip. Nobody on board the aircraft suffered serious injuries, and the aircraft was subsequently repaired. (Photo via Tom N.)

[orca]

Of course, drivers of the new wonder toy could go down the GR7 route of awarding themselves a mythical cannon when it comes to affil.

Come to think of it, what state would you call to GCI, given that Plus, Minus or Zero don't really cover 'Well it's there but it's never been loaded and neither is it likely to be'?

[sprucemoose]

Sorry, just dipping into this thread for the first time so I might be missing the point, but surely it's much more useful that the Typhoon will be able to drop Enhanced Paveway IIs or even Paveway IVs in the not too-distant future:

http://81.144.183.107/Articles/2005/09/27/Navigation/190/201753/Ultra+in+deal+to+supply+Typhoon+targeting+pods.html

I know the cannon issue is very emotive, but surely that "warning shot across the bow" concept is wholly redundant post 9/11?

[Jackonicko]

Shoot your subs, Flight!

They are for the Typhoon F.Mk 2. There is no F1!

And isn't the deal for 24 Litening 3s?

If I were a suicide bomber and knew that UK AD aircraft had no gun equipped aircraft I\'d be looking hard at how best I could use gliders and balloons to attack targets in Central London.....

[sprucemoose]

Hi JN,

Hmm, would that be the danger of someone believing the equipment part of the RAF website, which states: "The initial batch of two-seat aircraft are Typhoon T1s, while the single-seater is the Typhoon F1." Well, you wouldn't expect the crabs to know anything about their own aircraft, would you?!

Ah, no-one's reading anyway!!!

[Ewan Whosearmy]

If the RAF is buying a pod that will enter service as late as 2008, why on earth doesn't it go for Sniper XR? Surely it cannot be on grounds of cost?

[Rakshasa]

*chuckle* I see I'm not the only messing the designation up! lol!

[Jackonicko]

For Typhoon's initial, 'austere' A-G capability it was decided that both weapon AND pod had to be already in widespread service with the partner nations. Hence EPW and Litening.

And I dimly recall it being Litening 2, not 3. Perhaps someone will confirm the original intent?

The full-up solution could easily choose a different pod.

[engineer(retard)]

The original intent was TIALD for the UK, not sure what the current position is.

Regards

retard

[Ewan Whosearmy]

Jacko

That philosophy makes sense, but if the IOC of the pod is in 2008, then Sniper XR *will* be in widespread use not only across US F-15E and F-16 Block 40/50 units, but with NATO member states, too.

If the philosophy was to buy a pod that is in widespread use *now*, then why the 3-year delay in IOC, and what's the logic in that? Also, Litening II is widely seen in the USAF as a temporary measure until the Sniper XR pod can be delivered in larger quantities. I would venture to suggest, therefore, that the Litening IIs in use by some AD F-15E and F-16 units today will probably have been superseded by the Sniper by 2008, and will accordingly be returned to the ANG units that ordered them originally.

[Jackonicko]

In widespread service with EF GmbH partner nation air forces.

The USAF thus doesn't count.

Also I'm not sure that we should be getting quite such a hard on over Sniper, when there's the new Litening and ATFLIR to consider.

While TIALD may have been in the frame years ago, when the decision was taken to drag forward an austere A-G capability into the last Tranche 1 jets (Block 5), it was Litening, and it was Litening 3.

"The \'austere\' air to ground capability being provided will consist of the integration of a Rafael Litening 3 laser designator pod (LDP), and the Enhanced Paveway II laser guided bomb. The Litening pod will be capable of being used for both self-designation and co-operative designation from \'Day One\', and the Enhanced Paveway II will be capable of being used in either its laser- or GPS-guided modes. A deliberate decision was taken that the equipment selected was to be available off-the-shelf, and in service with the partner nations, in order to reduce risk and to expedite integration."

"This is \'austere\' only in the sense that the LDP will provide only a sequential single targeting capability, with less \'slick\' moding, and will not initially use all of its available modes, and in that the capability will be austere by comparison with Typhoon\'s eventual air-to-ground potential."

And I believe the austere initial integration will put the LDP on the centreline, rather than on the final, definitive shoulder pylon.

[FB11]

Having flown the Litening II and used EP2 in anger (different aircraft for each), that combination upgraded to Litening III coupled with the bigger, better fidelity displays of Typhoon will make it pretty impressive in even the (so called) austere integration. A significant improvement over TIALD.

When the Litening III/EP2 integration is completed, it will even make the Typhoon useful to a JFACC.