Typhoon gun question
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!
"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!
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 I dont subscribe to the 20 years out-of-date arguement at all!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.
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.
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
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
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?
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?
- 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?
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: earth
Posts: 1,397
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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:
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.
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.
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.
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!
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!
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.
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.)
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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'?
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'?
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 262
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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/...ting+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?
http://81.144.183.107/Articles/2005/...ting+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?
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.....
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.....
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 262
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!!!
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!!!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
When the Litening III/EP2 integration is completed, it will even make the Typhoon useful to a JFACC.
