Ty-fun
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Back in Blighty...
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ty-fun
The comments below from Archie Neill (One of the BAE pilots who instructs the Case White RAF pilots)... Anyone who hears what the F-15 pilots thought, do tell!
"PS Shot the sh*t out of a couple of F15s yesterday. Our first
formation teach sortie (2 ship). Battle formation, 1nm Northwest of Windermere, bounced from the 8 o'clock. Two rapid counters and we were saddled up in their 6, comfortably gunning the trailer, who was in full burner in wing-rock wondering what happened.
I love this aircraft. Look out world Typhoon is coming!"
"PS Shot the sh*t out of a couple of F15s yesterday. Our first
formation teach sortie (2 ship). Battle formation, 1nm Northwest of Windermere, bounced from the 8 o'clock. Two rapid counters and we were saddled up in their 6, comfortably gunning the trailer, who was in full burner in wing-rock wondering what happened.
I love this aircraft. Look out world Typhoon is coming!"
AIUI, the Tranche 1 aircraft were meant to have the gun installed, but it wouldn't be supported (i.e. the aircraft would, in effect, be sans gun)
However, after a bit of behind-the-scenes work, it was then reported that the gun was reinstated as a capability, although this never seems to have been officially confirmed. Most sources seemed confident that this was the case.
However (again), it appears that Adam Ingram is of the opinion that the gun hasn't been restored (as a fully-working item) to the Typhoon, given one of his recent answers to parliament.
It would be interesting to learn whether or not the gun has been restored on the quiet simply as ballast; whether it has been restored on the quiet as a fully-working option; or whether it is, in fact, still the case that no gun will be installed on Tranche 2 and Tranche 3 aircraft (assuming that the latter are built).
However, after a bit of behind-the-scenes work, it was then reported that the gun was reinstated as a capability, although this never seems to have been officially confirmed. Most sources seemed confident that this was the case.
However (again), it appears that Adam Ingram is of the opinion that the gun hasn't been restored (as a fully-working item) to the Typhoon, given one of his recent answers to parliament.
It would be interesting to learn whether or not the gun has been restored on the quiet simply as ballast; whether it has been restored on the quiet as a fully-working option; or whether it is, in fact, still the case that no gun will be installed on Tranche 2 and Tranche 3 aircraft (assuming that the latter are built).
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would be severely worried if Bureaufighter couldn't out-turn an F-15! And guns is all you can play with if your radar doesn't work.
PS Oh OK, heaters as well, but we're probably going to lose that capability in the Options-for-a-Pants-Air-Force defence cuts.
PS Oh OK, heaters as well, but we're probably going to lose that capability in the Options-for-a-Pants-Air-Force defence cuts.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Geriatrica, UK
Posts: 1,003
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is likely that, for many years to come, this aircraft (and others) may have to be used to counter the threat of terrorism. Any such actions will be subsonic.
Might not a gun be useful in such circumstances?
Might not a gun be useful in such circumstances?
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: earth
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
was just about to post a reply stating how much of a waste of space a gun is in this era of warfare. Gone are the days of dog fights over the channel or even imaginary dog fights against MIG 23s over East Germany. However FOBOTSCO has a point, guns may useful to shoot down renegade airliners, ....but not in a combat arena.
If you want to show off about a new aircraft you should be boasting about how it shot down another aircraft from 40 or 50 miles (or more!!) having seen it on a radar without it seeing you, and therefore not one high 'g' manoeuvre involved. Alternatively boast about its ability to drop bombs whilst denying SURFACE to air missiles the ability to engage (how many aircraft have been lost in the last 10 years in air to air battles vice surface to air??).
No longer should we be impressed by one aircrafts ability to out turn another at low level, come out of the cold war and get real.
If you want to show off about a new aircraft you should be boasting about how it shot down another aircraft from 40 or 50 miles (or more!!) having seen it on a radar without it seeing you, and therefore not one high 'g' manoeuvre involved. Alternatively boast about its ability to drop bombs whilst denying SURFACE to air missiles the ability to engage (how many aircraft have been lost in the last 10 years in air to air battles vice surface to air??).
No longer should we be impressed by one aircrafts ability to out turn another at low level, come out of the cold war and get real.
Unmissable
I'm not aircrew so my logic may be flawed, but with regard to an air-to-air scenario, surely the more weapons options a pilot has available to him, the better? IF he has expended his BVR missiles and is threatened again, he has to employ Heaters at close range. I would have thought that in that case our pilot would like to have an aircraft that can mix it with the best of them, because if he misses or has missile failure, whatever, within seconds he's going to be in a dogfight, right? So as a fall back option he'd need a gun, otherwise he's at a disadvantage. Finally he needs an aircraft with the performance to enable him to disengage and run away when he wants to, not when he's forced to.
Seems to the uninitiated (i.e me) that aircraft ability and a gun are still relevant even in 2004. If not, will that be the end of ACT for our pilots then, with a resulting lengthening of useful airframe life due to a lower fatigue consumption?!!
I just don't want our aircrew being hindered in a future conflict in the same way that US crews were flying F4's in Vietnam, by equipment and ROE.
Seems to the uninitiated (i.e me) that aircraft ability and a gun are still relevant even in 2004. If not, will that be the end of ACT for our pilots then, with a resulting lengthening of useful airframe life due to a lower fatigue consumption?!!
I just don't want our aircrew being hindered in a future conflict in the same way that US crews were flying F4's in Vietnam, by equipment and ROE.
See your point, Unmissable, but if the ROE lands our intrepid Typhoon pilot within minimum range parameters of AMRAAM/Meteor & ASRAAM, the 'umble 27mm could be handy!
JG's point is apposite. The USN & USAF had effectively decided that the era of the dogfight was over at the time of Vietnam, and then found it wasn't.
Also (and as I'm not a pilot I could well be wrong on this) I thought that having the ability to manoeuvre at highish-g had another use other than air-air combat, namely getting out of the way of a SAM & doing so sharpish!
JG's point is apposite. The USN & USAF had effectively decided that the era of the dogfight was over at the time of Vietnam, and then found it wasn't.
Also (and as I'm not a pilot I could well be wrong on this) I thought that having the ability to manoeuvre at highish-g had another use other than air-air combat, namely getting out of the way of a SAM & doing so sharpish!
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: UK, when I'm not taking people on their holidays
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do believe a gun is quite useful for strafing and was most definitely used in the most recent Gulf conflict. Oh and I'd rather have a 9g highly agile capability against any SAM than that of present UK aircraft.
Suspicion breeds confidence
Guns
Guns and missiles are entirely complimentary. I seem to recall pilots in the Falklands war crying out for tracer because it scared the sh*t out of people it didn't hit. For a mud mover its a mandatory item. What went wrong with GR7s 25mm? Now we have to use expensive missiles costing thousands to trash trucks rather then nice cheap cannon shells
Guest
Posts: n/a
Shooters, rockets or a b!00dy peashooter!!! - I'd be very carefull to get a good BVR shot off early, knowing I've got opposition that I can't out-turn or run away from. I can think of a few examples when the enemy has been litterally flown into the floor by an aggresive type glued to their 6-o-clock.
Suspicion breeds confidence
Mobius,
Do you think Seaslug ever had a chance of hitting anything that wasn't flying straight and level at 15,000 ft? We didn't get a chnace to see in the FW.
Do you think Seaslug ever had a chance of hitting anything that wasn't flying straight and level at 15,000 ft? We didn't get a chnace to see in the FW.
