Typhoon gun question
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Umm, where did I put the Garmin?
Posts: 346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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%
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?"
Chances of any or all three hapening: 0.00%
It's about time the politicians took military advice for a change.
"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?"
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: ici
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Maybe they'll see sense and either give the Typhoon F.1 proper guns or a gun pod....
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Umm, where did I put the Garmin?
Posts: 346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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...
And I would've assumed it would be fairly easy to understand "Proper guns" meant ones with an available ammunition supply...
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Livingston, Scotland
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Didn't the Yanks go down this path many years ago with the introduction of the F4?
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Didn't we with the Lightning?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yup, and the Sea Vixen
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Didn't we with the Lightning?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yup, and the Sea Vixen
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: 51N
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
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?!?!?
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?!?!?
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: 51N
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
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
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
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: England
Posts: 286
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For your amusement here is the official line fed to the Select Committee on Public Accounts 
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:
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:
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
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.
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.
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.
EG
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: On the outside looking in
Posts: 542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
S-G,
It 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
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
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
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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??
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??
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: earth
Posts: 1,397
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
For an uneducated civvie you have a good grasp of reality!
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
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
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Umm, where did I put the Garmin?
Posts: 346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.