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!"

“comfortably gunning the trailer”

I thought the gun was taken off.

I thought it was left on, but couldn't carry any ammo due to M&B.

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).

Enjoy it while you can because once the Raptor arrives at Lakenheath in a few years revenge will be served!!!!

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.

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?

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.

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.

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!

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.

And you can't jam bullets.

MT

But bullets can jam!

.....and so can missiles ;-) Like the last seaslug I tried to fire - cough, splutter, squidge..... pause.... Boogar!

PM for you..

MT

..........and one oughtn't fire a warning burst with a Meteor!

emitex

tell me the aircraft type and I'll make some enquiries (single or dual pink bod should suffice).

Rgds

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

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.

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.

Navaleye,

Unless it was luck, then no! What a disappointing missile - but at least it was bolted to a.... oh, no, wait a minute....

MT

Hello. New here. I was reading about the new interception protocols used by the RAF Tornado F3 force in the wake of 9/11. If an airliner doesn't respond to instructions the next step is to fire cannon rounds 'across the bows' of the offending aircraft, missiles can only be used by 'executive order'.

Now the Typhoon will replace the Tornado F3 in this role and the protocol looks set to remain in palce for the foreseable future. So as I see it there is not only a desire by the RAF (if not the MoD) to retain the cannon armament but also there is a requirement for it if the above protocol is to be adhered to.

Thoughts anyone?

Regards.

Phil.

Frogbox

Some more detail - note the author!

The New Air Superiority Benchmark.
Thursday the 19th of February 2004 will mark the day when the undisputed king of air superiority had to surrender its thirty-year
crown to a newcomer.

It happened over the skies of Windermere, in the scenic English Lake District. Two Eurofighter Typhoon twin-seaters were on the first RAF formation training flight from Warton Aerodrome when they were bounced from the eight o'clock by a couple of F-15Es belonging to the USAFE's 48th TFW, probably the most formidable and experienced combat unit in the European theatre.

The Typhoon crew did not seem to be intimidated, and with two rapid counters ended up on the F-15 tail, comfortably gunning the trailing one, who was in full afterburner, wings rocking and wondering what had happened.

It is fair to expect that the most surprised by this first encounter result would be the F15 crew, used to dominate the skies since the mid-seventies and with an exchange ratio record of 101 wins to zero losses, and a bunch of die-hard Eurofighter critics without much knowledge of the new fighter air combat capabilities. It is understandable if the RAF rookies would also show their surprise at the outcome, as one does not expect to win an air engagement on the first training sortie with a brand new machine against one of the best combat units in the world, riding what up to now has been the best fighter in history.

But that is history now! Those definitely not surprised by what the events over the Lake District skies signify are the top echelon in the Air Combat Command, the Chief of Staff and the RAND Corp. analysts and boffins.
They have been saying for years that the F-15 is no match to the new generation of European fighters and even to the Su-35 Flanker. They know what they say: their operational analyses studies and other simulated evaluations-as indeed have ours, both at the industry and government level-have shown that the F-15 is unable to gain air superiority against Eurofighter Typhoon. Now they have the first real indication that their worries were not unjustified and that the F/A-22 was the right choice, if they want to maintain the air superiority also in the future.

Let me quote some of their concerns over the years:
The current USAF Chief of Staff, Gen. John P. Jumper, when was the head of Air Combat Command in 2001, said, "We 've had a chance to look at this latest generation of airplanes," and when US pilots flying real or simulated threat airplanes go against US pilots in current US fighters, "our guys flying their airplanes beat our guys flying our airplanes....And that airplane we 're flying is the F-15."
"I 've got 2,000 hours in the F-15," noted Brig. Gen. Daniel P. Leaf, the head of operational requirements. "It is a fabulous airplane. It is the undefeated heavy-weight champion of air superiority." Even so, he said, "it 's still a 1970s-designed airplane, updated to the max. [It is ] nonstealthy, non super-cruise. And you can only make it do so much....You have to build a new airplane. So we are."

Lt. Gen. Bruce A. Carlson, then director of operational requirements for the Air Force, said that "if we run the F-15 against the Rafale, or Typhoon, or Su-35, we would probably lose those fights."
"Typhoon will easily outstrip the capabilities of the Su-35 /-37, as well as the F-15, and in fact is considered second only to the F-22 in capability. Typhoon is more maneuverable and has better radar detection capability than the F-15 and is harder to detect on radar."
(All the citations are from the AIR FORCE Magazine, the USAF monthly publication).

The Air Forces of Germany, Italy, Spain and the United Kingdom have known for a long time through the operational analysis studies conducted in defining the project, in re-evaluating it after the Cold War defence re-orientation phase that Eurofighter
Typhoon is second only to the vastly more expensive F/A-22 and that it will assure overwhelming superiority over any current and future air threat.

Export customers in Austria, Greece and Norway have expressed
their confidence in Eurofighter Typhoon's capabilities by either
procuring, selecting or seriously considering it for their air power
needs in the 21st century. Many other leading edge Air Forces are looking with great interest at Eurofighter Typhoon as it enters service and demonstrates its unparalleled capabilities. We do not think that there is much of a debate about the need for air superiority, but there is a lack of appreciation for where air
superiority comes from. There is a general feeling that it just
happens or it belongs to us. Nothing could be further from the truth.
We have air superiority because we had four Air Forces that paid
attention to the lessons of history, specified and developed the
appropriate weapon systems and move them forward. They know that "if we lose the war in the air, we lose the war and we lose it quickly" and that whoever controls the air generally controls the surface.

Eurofighter Typhoon, designed as a multirole fighter with air
superiority as its key driver, is now ready to move forward and add significant new air-to-surface capabilities and further extend its air-to-air dominance.

O. Fabbro - Eurofighter GmbH - Market Analysis
Hallbergmoos, 23 February 2004

I got a reply from the 48th TFW. to the following

and the reply

John,

The only way you're likely to get info like that is 'dial-a-mate'. Nice try though: ok:

MT

Thats the thin end of the wedge, I also sent an email to

The UK's RAF foreigh liasion officer for clarification.
Eurofighter GmbH for confirmation.
And the Sun newspaper for a contradiction.


I'll let you know the results :D


Cheers

I thought the Case White boys were limited to not much more than boring holes in the sky.

Reading the above I presume all those restrictions are now lifted - does that mean the aircraft now has a proper MAR/RTS?

An update from Strategypage
 

An interesting post from another board.

>>Thursday the 19th of February 2004 will mark the day when the undisputed king of air superiority had to surrender its thirty-year crown to a newcomer. It happened over the skies of Windermere, in the scenic English Lake District. Two Eurofighter Typhoon twin-seaters were on the first RAF formation training flight from Warton Aerodrome when they were bounced from the eight o'clock by a couple of F-15s belonging to the USAFE's 48th TFW, probably the most formidable and experienced combat unit in the European theatre. The Typhoon crew did not seem to be intimidated and with two rapid counters ended up on the F-15 tail, comfortably gunning the trailing one, who was in full afterburner, wings rocking and wondering what had happened.

It is fair to expect that the most surprised by this first encounter result would be the F15 crew, used to dominate the skies since the mid-seventies and with an exchange ratio record of 101 wins to zero losses, and a bunch of die-hard Eurofighter critics without much knowledge of the new fighter air combat capabilities. It is understandable if the RAF rookies would also show their surprise at the outcome, as one does not expect to win an air engagement on the first training sortie with a brand new machine against one of the best combat units in the world, riding what up to now has been the best fighter in history.

But that is history now!

Those definitely not surprised by what the events over the Lake District skies signify are the top echelon in the Air Combat Command, the Chief of Staff and the RAND Corp. analysts and boffins. They have been saying for years that the F-15 is no match to the new generation of European fighters and even to the Su-35 Flanker. They know what they say: their operational analyses studies and other simulated evaluations-as indeed have ours, both at the industry and government level-have shown that the F-15 is unable to gain air superiority against Eurofighter Typhoon. Now they have the first real indication that their worries were not unjustified and that the F/A-22 was the right choice, if they want to maintain the air superiority also in the future.

Any more on this?

A gun would be nice if against helo or herc in the post viz-ident scenario (Kosovo/Bosnia). Much better to give a quick radar laid burst rather than waste a juicy little Meteor.

I've always thought the proliferation of UAVs was the biggest argument for retaining the Mauser. Little point in wasting Asraams or Meteors on a target that costs a fraction of the missile. Or is the new Typhoon going to continue the RAF tradition of 'wing tipping' UAVs...?!

I/C

Stop stop stop.

The whole Typhoon debate has been characterised by wild accusations, wild timeframes and now, it seems by wild reports of our brave boys. While I have no doubt that Typhoon is a very capable Air Combat airframe, a single unvalidated account from an RAF pilot is hardly conclusive proof of anything, except that pilots like to talk about themselves.

Make way for the NEW Air Combat King, it's called the F22, it's less late, more capable and doesn't come with the bitter taste of political interference and ineptitude. Typhoon had it all, and then we let monkeys build it!

BS

It's also unaffordable and, arguably in the foreseeable threat scenario, over-capable. Rolls Royce solutions neither needed nor necessary. Given changing roles/orbats and the forthcoming round of defence cuts, an unrealistic procurement option.

I feel inclined to egree with Britney (any chance I can 'ave yer phone number, luv?) I can't understand why so many people would jump up and down with excitement when a new aeroplane beats an old one-that's the whole point of building the new one, innit?

As for the specific engagement itself - the source is, of course, not objective. Perhaps the Geoffhoons had already been shot by the Eagles prior to reacting. Perhaps the F-15's wing rocking was the standard 'terminate engagement' signal, having already claimed their kills. Were the Foons' RWRs working? Perhaps they'd been shot ages before they visually detected the 15s. Who knows. Who cares. I've tapped these boys many times. Sometimes they turn hard, sometimes they turn a bit, sometimes they waggle you off (wing-rock) and sometimes they completely ignore you because they are busy with other training objectives at the time. Finally, the USAF have some incredibly stringent rules about maximum manoeuvering at low level- the aircraft's potential would be severely and artificially limited. So R E L A X guys, Typhoon will demonstrate its superior manouverability (along with its other strengths) in good time.

AAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWW Nozzles!!

Bit of a morale boost, lots of positive waves, and you have to go and pee all over it....

Are you a senior officer by any chance:}

Nozzles

Well said - wish I could still mix it with you young bloods (what am I saying - every day is now filled with nothing 'cept painting, up to the boozer to nag with kings 'n paupers, wine whenever, poping off to Bavaria occasionally for more wine etc etc).

But what of F22 dear chap?

Jobza,

If I was a senior officer I'd be far to busy colluding with industry and spending the defence budget producing shiny Investors In People folders to talk to you!!!

Smarty,

Not being a habitual Janes reader I would hesitate to make a comparison between the two rides. However, I have a feeling in me water that the boys and girls who get to operate the 'foon will be kings of a sort, and will undoubtedly have a lorra, lorra fun:)

And if they occasionally get shot down by a F-22....well you canny win 'em all.

Bavaria eh? Prefer a '97 St Emillion myself.............

Nozzles,

Good one sport:ok: :ok:

OK!

Everyone's wrong.

The gun's back in, but at the moment it's funded installation and clearance only. They'll have the gun. The gun will be cleared. But there'll be no funding for in service support.

PS: The boxheads started gun and IRIS-T firing trials at Deci last week....