Typhoon gun question
 

From the Leuchars thread..

My civilian version of the story is as follows. Please correct me.

Eurofighter design agreed
UK MOD decides they don't want a gun
UK Eurofighters to be fitted with concrete in space for gun
Concrete wrong density for Centre of Gravity

mmm

Need a metal type thingy with same characteristics as original gun

Realise that gun might be best gun-shaped metal type thingy

But in light of No Gun Policy Decision...

Buy gun, but make it unfireable and decide to buy no ammunition for gun-shaped metal thingy



I retell this story as true.

Please tell me that I haven't been lying
:D :D

Kiting for boys,

You have been fibbing I am afraid!

But no pointy thingies that come out of front of gun-shaped metal thingy at a rate of knots.

Kiting for Boys, you haven't been lying.

But, whatever you do, don't tell any future enemy that our fighters don't have useable gun-shaped metal thingies.

... and its a lot cheaper to lob a missile at four scroats in the back of a Toyota pickup fitted with a .50cal, er ...sorry banging same drum.

Typhoon gun question
 

This story was the basis for an episode of "Our brave boys" on Radio 4 last November. The story(comedy)line was as you report, only worse. Surely then, it must be true? Has anyone a recording of this or any other episodes of this very funny satire?

Concrete and ballast parts not true, the economy was to cut down on range costs and use bogus training modes but we did not buy the loaders. Different loading system to Tonka although same basic gun and ammo.

Regards

Retard

Why a fighter aircraft without an operable gun? Seems a huge step back particularly after it was proven beyond any doubt that such aircraft need a gun and cannot rely upon missles alone.

Can someone provide the rationale behind that decision.....surely saving money on ranges and ammunition could not be it. Even the Airships are not that thick!

Even the Airships are not that thick!

No, but the politicians are....

GBP30 per bullet says that money may be the answer.

It maybe GBP 30 per 27mm round but seeing as its the same as Tornado ammo, I can't see the problem??

232 Typhoon @ £30 per fast pointy thing fired = £oodles

128 Tornado F3/GR4 @£30 per fast pointy thing fired = £nowhere near as much.

Given the number of Unmanned Air Vehicles of all sizes projected to be encountered over the future battlefield, I hope the RAF is relearning the skill of 'tipping' UAVs. The economies of doing away with the gun begin rapidly dissapear once you start shooting Asraams at $100K UAVs...

I/C

Didn't the Yanks go down this path many years ago with the introduction of the F4?
Anyway, what self-respecting fighter pilot would want to fly an aircraft without a gun?!

Yes and got their arses handed to them often enough in Dogfights that they set up Top Gun.... and put guns on all their a/c...

While I'd much rather BVR, I loathe the idea of not having a back up at the merge.

If money - i.e., 30 GBP per "fast pointy thing fired" is the problem, I have a solution:

Outsource it to India :E

So, £30 per round is costly, is it?

And just how much is Bliar's adventurism with Bush's Viet Nam in Iraq costing?

Surely the sensible solution is to have DPA's SA80 project team buy and support the gun?

IIRC the MoD bought a batch of small-arms ammo (or mortar rounds?) from India a few years back and it was well below spec.

Interesting thought, the Jag will be the last single-seat fighter in the RAF with a gun.:E

Jaguar FIGHTER
 

How long before the first F3 geek decides to use the whole 'the Jaguar isn't a fighter!' argument?!
I give it till dusk!
BV:E

We have already in recent years in the RAF regretted not training AD pilots in strafe - first the AD Phantoms in Stanley were required to gain the ability and now the F3 needs to have the capability.

An aircraft with a gun is a very effective weapon and is more convincing against ground targets than either ASRAM or AMRAM.

It's about time the politicians took military advice for a change.