|
| If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|||||||
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
|
#1
May 3rd 04, 06:39 PM
|
|||
|
|||
RAF Typhoons confirmed gunless?
Has the RAF confirmed that their T.1 and F.1 Typhoons are to be
supplied without the mauser gun capabilities? According to Typhoon's entry on RAF's website there doesn't seem to have mention of a 27mm mauser on the fighter http://www.raf.mod.uk/equipment/typhoon.html Smart move for an aircraft that is supposed to do Air defence and close air support missions 
|
|
#3
May 6th 04, 03:07 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
(Prowlus) wrote in message . com...
Has the RAF confirmed that their T.1 and F.1 Typhoons are to be supplied without the mauser gun capabilities? According to Typhoon's entry on RAF's website there doesn't seem to have mention of a 27mm mauser on the fighter http://www.raf.mod.uk/equipment/typhoon.html Smart move for an aircraft that is supposed to do Air defence and close air support missions The UK Ministry of Defence officially released the RAF designations for the Typhoon on June 30 2003. Two-seat trainer variants will be designated Typhoon T.1 or Typhoon T.1A, depending on the production batch of the aircraft, whilst single-seat aircraft will be designated Typhoon F.2. The RAF website still has the single-seater as the F.1. It took the webmaster long enough to update the fact that the RAF Harriers are not fitted out for cannons. TJ
|
|
#4
May 8th 04, 06:00 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"TJ" wrote in message
om... (Prowlus) wrote in message . com... Has the RAF confirmed that their T.1 and F.1 Typhoons are to be supplied without the mauser gun capabilities? According to Typhoon's entry on RAF's website there doesn't seem to have mention of a 27mm mauser on the fighter http://www.raf.mod.uk/equipment/typhoon.html Smart move for an aircraft that is supposed to do Air defence and close air support missions The UK Ministry of Defence officially released the RAF designations for the Typhoon on June 30 2003. Two-seat trainer variants will be designated Typhoon T.1 or Typhoon T.1A, depending on the production batch of the aircraft, whilst single-seat aircraft will be designated Typhoon F.2. The RAF website still has the single-seater as the F.1. It took the webmaster long enough to update the fact that the RAF Harriers are not fitted out for cannons. TJ Surely they can't save that much weight or cost in mounting out a cannon or two. Can't hurt to have the gun option, for air to air or air to ground. DEP
|
|
#5
May 8th 04, 08:06 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"David E. Powell" wrote in message s.com... "TJ" wrote in message om... (Prowlus) wrote in message . com... Has the RAF confirmed that their T.1 and F.1 Typhoons are to be supplied without the mauser gun capabilities? According to Typhoon's entry on RAF's website there doesn't seem to have mention of a 27mm mauser on the fighter http://www.raf.mod.uk/equipment/typhoon.html Smart move for an aircraft that is supposed to do Air defence and close air support missions The UK Ministry of Defence officially released the RAF designations for the Typhoon on June 30 2003. Two-seat trainer variants will be designated Typhoon T.1 or Typhoon T.1A, depending on the production batch of the aircraft, whilst single-seat aircraft will be designated Typhoon F.2. The RAF website still has the single-seater as the F.1. It took the webmaster long enough to update the fact that the RAF Harriers are not fitted out for cannons. TJ Surely they can't save that much weight or cost in mounting out a cannon or two. Can't hurt to have the gun option, for air to air or air to ground. It wasn't really to do with weight or cost of cannon - was more to do with cost of qualifying the equipment for use when the gun was being fired. The vibration and exhaust gas analysis is apparently quite expensive (but since they share common equipments with the other countries, I don't quite understand this as they are getting the same guns??)
|
|
#6
May 8th 04, 01:02 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Sat, 8 May 2004 08:06:15 +0100, "Ian" wrote:
"David E. Powell" wrote in message ws.com... "TJ" wrote in message om... (Prowlus) wrote in message . com... Has the RAF confirmed that their T.1 and F.1 Typhoons are to be supplied without the mauser gun capabilities? According to Typhoon's entry on RAF's website there doesn't seem to have mention of a 27mm mauser on the fighter http://www.raf.mod.uk/equipment/typhoon.html Smart move for an aircraft that is supposed to do Air defence and close air support missions The UK Ministry of Defence officially released the RAF designations for the Typhoon on June 30 2003. Two-seat trainer variants will be designated Typhoon T.1 or Typhoon T.1A, depending on the production batch of the aircraft, whilst single-seat aircraft will be designated Typhoon F.2. The RAF website still has the single-seater as the F.1. It took the webmaster long enough to update the fact that the RAF Harriers are not fitted out for cannons. TJ Surely they can't save that much weight or cost in mounting out a cannon or two. Can't hurt to have the gun option, for air to air or air to ground. It wasn't really to do with weight or cost of cannon - was more to do with cost of qualifying the equipment for use when the gun was being fired. The vibration and exhaust gas analysis is apparently quite expensive (but since they share common equipments with the other countries, I don't quite understand this as they are getting the same guns??) One of the points sugested to me was the vibration of the gun was detrimental to the avionics/airframe, this in conjunction with the training/maintainence/logistics etc would save about £6M, not a small amout, but IMHO worth spending it, as it should be used in the RAF, its always better to have it and not use it, than need it and not have it. Cheers John Cook Any spelling mistakes/grammatic errors are there purely to annoy. All opinions are mine, not TAFE's however much they beg me for them. Email Address :- Spam trap - please remove (trousers) to email me Eurofighter Website :- http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk
|
|
#7
May 10th 04, 05:20 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article , John Cook
wrote: It wasn't really to do with weight or cost of cannon - was more to do with cost of qualifying the equipment for use when the gun was being fired. The vibration and exhaust gas analysis is apparently quite expensive (but since they share common equipments with the other countries, I don't quite understand this as they are getting the same guns??) One of the points sugested to me was the vibration of the gun was detrimental to the avionics/airframe, this in conjunction with the training/maintainence/logistics etc would save about £6M, not a small amout, but IMHO worth spending it, as it should be used in the RAF, its always better to have it and not use it, than need it and not have it. The acoustic noise levels associated with a gun firing are high, but not a driver in the life of the equipment since the duty factor is so low. That is to say, they don't actually fire the gun that much. Most of the equipments will have an acoustic noise spec anyway, just due to proximity to bays, inlets, etc. Gun gas composition is well known and is far less corrosive than the acidic salt spray that blows over the flight deck of a carrier. I doubt it's engineering factors that are driving the gun. More likely is (as you say) the training/maintainence/logistics and their contribution to life cycle costs. -- Harry Andreas Engineering raconteur
|
|
#8
May 8th 04, 08:03 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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? -- When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite. W S Churchill Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk
|
|
#9
May 9th 04, 08:14 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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
|
|
#10
May 10th 04, 12:16 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
In message , Dave Eadsforth
writes In article , Paul J. Adam writes 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? Funding is finite and the list of desirable items is larger than the money available. If cannon are 'the cost of doing business' for a fighter - a necessary contingency - then the money should be allocated. Is the cannon more or less important than the towed decoys for the DASS? Is the cannon more or less important than ASRAAM integration? Do you fund the cannon before or after fitting ALARM capability? ....and so it goes. 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. Add also that the politicians declare that "the UK will only face conflicts in these particular areas" and make cuts accordingly: usually followed by an out-of-area problem which of course HM Forces are expected to deal with anyway. 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. I can offer quite a few modern examples: the problem keeps coming down to funding. Better some capability than no capability: other shortfalls can hopefully be closed by UOR. Until "screwing up defence" becomes an election issue, it's not a problem for our lords and masters: and until then it's easy to keep squeezing defence in the sacred name of Schoolsandhospitals. 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. Not even that; we just have a political class accustomed to a "can do" attitude from the Forces, and too much experience of getting results despite repeated cuts. -- When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite. W S Churchill Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| "Bush's drills with the Alabama Guard confirmed" | Mike | Military Aviation | 17 | February 13th 04 04:23 PM |
Hybrid Mode
