In article , Paul J. Adam
writes
In message m, David
E. Powell writes
Surely they can't save that much weight or cost in mounting out a cannon or
two.

The cannon's not that expensive.

Now, flying enough sorties for the aircrew to become and remain
proficient in its use, *that* gets expensive (airframe hours, range
time, et cetera - adds up fast).

Can't hurt to have the gun option, for air to air or air to ground.

It costs money, which is in seriously short supply. What will you give
up instead?

Is it necessary to think of giving up something instead? If cannon are
'the cost of doing business' for a fighter - a necessary contingency -
then the money should be allocated.

Over the last few decades, British defence funding has been dogged by
the motto 'there isn't going to be another real war, old chap' but of
course wars have a habit of turning up - and then we are stuffed.
During the Falklands we had ships that were wired up with cable that
gave off toxic fumes when it burned, and the men had overalls of man-
made fibre that shrunk nicely onto the body when close to a fire. And
as for the prospect of ships being attacked by more than one aircraft at
a time - couldn't possibly happen. Close defence? Lord 'what's a
Vulcan cannon' Chalfont didn't have much to offer when questioned on the
subject.

All such defects can be guaranteed to have been foreseen - and the
warnings filtered out by a staffing system under pressure from the
Treasury. We have the competence to avoid these traps, we just lack a
coherent vision at the top.

Cheers,

Dave

--
Dave Eadsforth