Originally Posted by
melmothtw
STOVL carriers and F-35B changed to CATOBAR carriers and F-35C changed back to STOVL carriers and F-35B.
Eurofighter design requirement for a gun. No longer 'need' gun so decide to take gun out. Find the flight control computer needs the gun (or something of the same mass) so decide to replace with a block of concrete. Find it's easier just to leave the gun in place but not to use it so don't support with ammunition/training, etc. Find the gun has an operational value, so then support and use it.
This has nothing to do with requirements drift and everything to do with budgets and through-life programme costs.
I am told the original Typhoon spec included a gun, as you might expect. Then comes the call to tackle cost growth, for which your only options are reducing the spec, the numbers or the delivery profile (capability trading).
“How much to fit, maintain, sustain and train for the gun, Hoskins?”
”£80m over 10 years, my liege.”
“Excellent, we’ll use that. Delete the gun, it will save weight too.”
”Sire, the Great Satan tells us we need the weight of a gun in the place where a gun would have been.”
“Stick some concrete in there, it worked with the F2.”
”But concrete doesn’t weigh enough…”
”Well, let’s have a dummy gun instead”
”We have been quoted £9m for design and manufacture of your dummy gun, whereas the gun itself is only £2m.”
”Ah…”
(continue ad nauseam)