Casper
Where did you get that gen from? If the cannon is not going to be used but just kept serviceable, why not leave it out until it is required? The time needed to train pilots and armourers to use it will far exceed the time taken to stick the guns back in. And just think of the fuel you would save in the meantime.

Haven't we been there and laughed at that? Taking the cannon out means ballast has to go in, making it more expensive than taking the cannon out, taking the ammunition out means putting in ballast, costing more than leaving the ammunition in, or is that not the case?

My point was not that the RAF may not get tranche 3 aircraft, but that tranche 3 may never happen at all . I think all four governments are snurgling around trying to get out of tranche 3 but that no-one wants to be first to say "We don't want it/won't pay for it" I fully expect a group announcement at some point.

dmanton

The problem with your analysis is that the Germans (having got rid of everything else) will need a fair chunk of their Tranche 3 order, while the Italians may also be pretty firm on theirs.

At Farnborough 'Ice' Rauen expressed his confidence that the Luftwaffe would need every single one of its T3 aircraft, and might even need to exercise some of its options. A Luftwaffe Colonel from JG73 said the same thing, and at Singapore the box-headed MinDef also expressed his support for a full buy.

They could be lying through their teeth, but as long as they maintain this attitude, anyone else who wants to cut back on Tranche 3 will find themselves paying penalties that amount to more than the marginal production cost of the aircraft.

I suspect that the RAF no longer needs 232 Typhoons (to support the 137 aircraft required to man the 7 squadrons, OCU and OEU across the planned lifespan of the aircraft), since I suspect that we will reduce to six, or even five squadrons.

Unless T3 Typhoon becomes part of the solution for FOAS.

Re the gun or lack of, I must have missed the previous debate so humour me please. Surely there should be no need for ballast vice the gun as the fly-by-wire should take care of any additional instability, as it does with the existing instability, assuming that the aircraft is unstable - as it should be to take best advantage of the FBW. If you see what I mean.

But you need a 'balanced' starting point, for the fbw to work from. You cannot fit everything aft of c of g and expect it to work properly.

zoom - i think the basic idea is that with too much weight at one end the flying controls simply wont have enough travel or be able to provide enough force to manoeuvre the aircraft.

Who said it can drop everything the RAF has TODAY (So can the current RAF TODAY I thought).

Pity that doesn't include tomorrows weapons. Who said todays RAF bombs, fuses, tails, suspension equipment, mace lugs and hard backs were any good in the first place.

.