Future military fighters and guns - yes or no ?

Hi,

I'm interested in canvassing opinions regarding the inclusion of a gun
on future military aircraft. If you listen to some of the blurb out
there (government, aircraft manufacturers, hollywood) it would appear
that its all going to be BVR (beyond visual range) type stuff with no
need for a gun. That seems a bit of a cold-war type idea. It would
appear that the way the world is going that CIC (close in combat) is
going to be a requirement in future combat, namely because:
- it is not going to be that easy to identify the enemy
- bvr assault is not as accurate as people would make you think
- there have been improvements in technology (firing control in
particular) which improves the accuracy of CIC
All of these points would appear to suggest that there are benefits to
including a gun in future aircraft.

However, I've read that one modern aircraft, the eurofighter typhonn,
will not have a gun. The RAF/MOD have apparently decided to drop it on
the grounds of operational costs stating it is unnecessary.

What is going on ?

I'm interested in canvassing opinions regarding the inclusion of a gun
on future military aircraft.

There seems to be a remarkable coincidence every time that pundits or experts
decide that something can never happen again it will. I would think that the
cost of an internal gun is small enough to be included in a future design based
on the possibility of it being needed at some time somewhere. The military
needs to be prepared for almost any eventuality. I know that the USAF has had
occasion to use guns ony strafing runs from F-15s in Afghanistan and would bet
that if someone had said there was a need for that ten years ago many people
would have laughed at the thought. I would think too that any nation in Europe
with its congested airspace ought to see that at some point it will probably
become necessary to establish visual range only (VRO) intercept and firing
parameters lest a lot of neutrals end up dead.

John Dupre'

JDupre5762 wrote:

I'm interested in canvassing opinions regarding the inclusion of a gun
on future military aircraft.

There seems to be a remarkable coincidence every time that pundits or experts
decide that something can never happen again it will. I would think that the
cost of an internal gun is small enough to be included in a future design based
on the possibility of it being needed at some time somewhere. The military
needs to be prepared for almost any eventuality. I know that the USAF has had
occasion to use guns ony strafing runs from F-15s in Afghanistan and would bet
that if someone had said there was a need for that ten years ago many people
would have laughed at the thought. I would think too that any nation in Europe
with its congested airspace ought to see that at some point it will probably
become necessary to establish visual range only (VRO) intercept and firing
parameters lest a lot of neutrals end up dead.

The thing is, modern dogfight missiles cued by HMS, radar or IRSTS are effective
down well inside classical gun ranges at much higher off-boresight angles, making
the gun far less likely to be used for A/A combat. There is an issue of
countermeasures susceptibility with missiles (as there is with gun fire control
systems), but the general conclusion of the analysts, this time backed up by combat
experience (unlike the case in the '50s) is that the gun really is excess weight
these days, at least for A/A combat use. It still may have a place in peacetime
for firing warning shots or the occasional troops in contact emergency, but the
general feeling seems to be that the first situation can be catered for with podded
guns, while in the second the weight/volume otherwise dedicated to an internal gun
installation can be better used for carrying more A/G (like the SSB or rockets) or
A/A weapons, fuel or avionics, or can just be left out and the a/c as a whole can
be smaller, lighter and cheaper.

Guy

"Guy Alcala" wrote in message
. ..
JDupre5762 wrote:

I'm interested in canvassing opinions regarding the inclusion of a gun
on future military aircraft.

There seems to be a remarkable coincidence every time that pundits or
experts
decide that something can never happen again it will. I would think
that the
cost of an internal gun is small enough to be included in a future
design based
on the possibility of it being needed at some time somewhere. The
military
needs to be prepared for almost any eventuality. I know that the USAF
has had
occasion to use guns ony strafing runs from F-15s in Afghanistan and
would bet
that if someone had said there was a need for that ten years ago many
people
would have laughed at the thought. I would think too that any nation in
Europe
with its congested airspace ought to see that at some point it will
probably
become necessary to establish visual range only (VRO) intercept and
firing
parameters lest a lot of neutrals end up dead.

The thing is, modern dogfight missiles cued by HMS, radar or IRSTS are
effective
down well inside classical gun ranges at much higher off-boresight angles,
making
the gun far less likely to be used for A/A combat. There is an issue of
countermeasures susceptibility with missiles (as there is with gun fire
control
systems), but the general conclusion of the analysts, this time backed up
by combat
experience (unlike the case in the '50s) is that the gun really is excess
weight
these days, at least for A/A combat use. It still may have a place in
peacetime
for firing warning shots or the occasional troops in contact emergency,
but the
general feeling seems to be that the first situation can be catered for
with podded
guns, while in the second the weight/volume otherwise dedicated to an
internal gun
installation can be better used for carrying more A/G (like the SSB or
rockets) or
A/A weapons, fuel or avionics, or can just be left out and the a/c as a
whole can
be smaller, lighter and cheaper.

If that is the "general feeling", then why will the Typhoon, Rafael, Su-30
and derivitives, F-22, and F-35 all still have internal guns?

Brooks

Guy

Kevin Brooks wrote:

"Guy Alcala" wrote in message
. ..
JDupre5762 wrote:

I'm interested in canvassing opinions regarding the inclusion of a gun
on future military aircraft.

There seems to be a remarkable coincidence every time that pundits or
experts
decide that something can never happen again it will. I would think
that the
cost of an internal gun is small enough to be included in a future
design based
on the possibility of it being needed at some time somewhere. The
military
needs to be prepared for almost any eventuality. I know that the USAF
has had
occasion to use guns ony strafing runs from F-15s in Afghanistan and
would bet
that if someone had said there was a need for that ten years ago many
people
would have laughed at the thought. I would think too that any nation in
Europe
with its congested airspace ought to see that at some point it will
probably
become necessary to establish visual range only (VRO) intercept and
firing
parameters lest a lot of neutrals end up dead.

The thing is, modern dogfight missiles cued by HMS, radar or IRSTS are
effective
down well inside classical gun ranges at much higher off-boresight angles,
making
the gun far less likely to be used for A/A combat. There is an issue of
countermeasures susceptibility with missiles (as there is with gun fire
control
systems), but the general conclusion of the analysts, this time backed up
by combat
experience (unlike the case in the '50s) is that the gun really is excess
weight
these days, at least for A/A combat use. It still may have a place in
peacetime
for firing warning shots or the occasional troops in contact emergency,
but the
general feeling seems to be that the first situation can be catered for
with podded
guns, while in the second the weight/volume otherwise dedicated to an
internal gun
installation can be better used for carrying more A/G (like the SSB or
rockets) or
A/A weapons, fuel or avionics, or can just be left out and the a/c as a
whole can
be smaller, lighter and cheaper.

If that is the "general feeling", then why will the Typhoon, Rafael, Su-30
and derivitives, F-22, and F-35 all still have internal guns?

Because most of them entered development long ago, and many of them will
probably wind up deleting the guns somewhere down the road (as is the case with
the 2nd and 3rd tranche RAF Typhoons now), especially if something else comes
along that provides greater utility for the space and weight (whether a laser
weapon, DECM, fuel, avionics or what have you). Last I heard, the STOVL version
of the F-35 definitely wasn't going to have an internal gun, although that seems
to change almost weekly. We'' see what happens to the CTOL and carrier versions
down the line. Of course, should a war come along where the gun demonstrates
its utility on a regular (as opposed to occasional) basis, the pendulum may
swing back the other way again.

Guy

"Guy Alcala" wrote in message
. ..
Kevin Brooks wrote:

"Guy Alcala" wrote in message
. ..
JDupre5762 wrote:

I'm interested in canvassing opinions regarding the inclusion of a
gun
on future military aircraft.

There seems to be a remarkable coincidence every time that pundits
or
experts
decide that something can never happen again it will. I would think
that the
cost of an internal gun is small enough to be included in a future
design based
on the possibility of it being needed at some time somewhere. The
military
needs to be prepared for almost any eventuality. I know that the
USAF
has had
occasion to use guns ony strafing runs from F-15s in Afghanistan and
would bet
that if someone had said there was a need for that ten years ago
many
people
would have laughed at the thought. I would think too that any
nation in
Europe
with its congested airspace ought to see that at some point it will
probably
become necessary to establish visual range only (VRO) intercept and
firing
parameters lest a lot of neutrals end up dead.

The thing is, modern dogfight missiles cued by HMS, radar or IRSTS are
effective
down well inside classical gun ranges at much higher off-boresight
angles,
making
the gun far less likely to be used for A/A combat. There is an issue
of
countermeasures susceptibility with missiles (as there is with gun
fire
control
systems), but the general conclusion of the analysts, this time backed
up
by combat
experience (unlike the case in the '50s) is that the gun really is
excess
weight
these days, at least for A/A combat use. It still may have a place in
peacetime
for firing warning shots or the occasional troops in contact
emergency,
but the
general feeling seems to be that the first situation can be catered
for
with podded
guns, while in the second the weight/volume otherwise dedicated to an
internal gun
installation can be better used for carrying more A/G (like the SSB or
rockets) or
A/A weapons, fuel or avionics, or can just be left out and the a/c as
a
whole can
be smaller, lighter and cheaper.

If that is the "general feeling", then why will the Typhoon, Rafael,
Su-30
and derivitives, F-22, and F-35 all still have internal guns?

Because most of them entered development long ago,

Design freeze on the F-35 only happened what, a year or eighteen months
back?

and many of them will
probably wind up deleting the guns somewhere down the road (as is the case
with
the 2nd and 3rd tranche RAF Typhoons now),

Come on now--that was a purely economic decision, and a lot of the RAF folks
have screamed about this supposedly "generally accepted" removal of those
guns.

especially if something else comes
along that provides greater utility for the space and weight (whether a
laser
weapon, DECM, fuel, avionics or what have you).

"If" is a long way from having generally accepted that the gun should be
deleted.

Last I heard, the STOVL version
of the F-35 definitely wasn't going to have an internal gun, although that
seems
to change almost weekly. We'' see what happens to the CTOL and carrier
versions
down the line. Of course, should a war come along where the gun
demonstrates
its utility on a regular (as opposed to occasional) basis, the pendulum
may
swing back the other way again.

Well, AFAIK there has been no general consensus regarding deleting the gun
armament, and everyone continues to do so. If there was such a feeling, we
would expect customers to be deleting them left and right as a weight saving
and space creating measure (adding that big spine to the Block 60 F-16's
indicates that volume usage is growing critical with that design), but we
have not seen this happen.

Brooks


Guy

(championsleeper) wrote in message . com...
Hi,

I'm interested in canvassing opinions regarding the inclusion of a gun
on future military aircraft. If you listen to some of the blurb out
there (government, aircraft manufacturers, hollywood) it would appear
that its all going to be BVR (beyond visual range) type stuff with no
need for a gun. That seems a bit of a cold-war type idea. It would
appear that the way the world is going that CIC (close in combat) is
going to be a requirement in future combat, namely because:
- it is not going to be that easy to identify the enemy
- bvr assault is not as accurate as people would make you think
- there have been improvements in technology (firing control in
particular) which improves the accuracy of CIC
All of these points would appear to suggest that there are benefits to
including a gun in future aircraft.

However, I've read that one modern aircraft, the eurofighter typhonn,
will not have a gun. The RAF/MOD have apparently decided to drop it on
the grounds of operational costs stating it is unnecessary.

All Eurofighters, even the RAF's, will carry the Mauser BK 27 cannon,
but the RAF is not activating it (for the time being at least).

This has been posted before on this board, but it's relevant to your
question. It comes from 'Flying Guns: the Modern Era' by Emmanuel
Gustin and myself (due to be published by The Crowood Press next
month):

"Modern short-range missiles have minimum ranges as low as 300 m, well
within gun range, and are highly agile, with wide engagement
envelopes, which make them able to hit targets well off to one side of
the firing aircraft, especially when cued by a helmet-mounted sight:
in fact, the capabilities of most recent models are such that the
aircraft carrying them barely need to manoeuvre. This does not mean
that guns are useless for air-to-air work. They have a particular
value in modern 'policing' applications, as they enable warning shots
to be fired in front of suspect aircraft. They also provide an
economical way of engaging low-value targets such as unmanned
reconnaissance drones, transport and liaison aircraft, or
drug-smugglers. In a 'hot' war they still have certain advantages in
close-quarter fighting, for example in 'picking off' an enemy
attacking a wingman, who may be too close for a safe missile shot. The
ability of modern fighters to adopt extreme attitudes, pointing well
away from the line of flight, significantly assists gun aiming in
dogfights. Cannon projectiles have a shorter flight time than a
missile, a significant advantage in a dogfight.

Finally, the gun provides a last-ditch capability if the missiles run
out, or are defeated by advanced countermeasures or simply by
circumstances. The 1991 Gulf War revealed the deficiencies of modern
IR-homing missiles when faced with trying to pick up a low-flying
target against a hot desert background (helicopters being in any case
difficult for IR seekers to lock on to from above). USAF A-10
aircraft achieved two helicopter kills with the GAU-8/A (using 275 and
550 rounds respectively) in one case when the IR missiles failed to
lock on. Furthermore, the performance of even the best missiles cannot
always be guaranteed, for various reasons. In Kosovo, a US fighter
engaging a Serbian plane needed to fire three AMRAAMs to bring it
down. In other engagements in the late 1990s, USAF and USN fighters
fired a total of seven Sparrows, AMRAAMs, and Phoenix missiles against
Iraqi MiG-25s without scoring a single hit (although the Phoenix shots
were taken at extreme range).
In part, the low success rates are due to tactical considerations, in
that missiles may deliberately be launched outside the normal
engagement envelope to distract or scare off the enemy, and sometimes
two missiles are launched at one target to increase the hit
probability. Whatever the reason, this results in missiles being used
up at a high rate, making it more likely that they will run out during
a sortie. A cannon will typically carry enough ammunition for several
engagements, usefully increasing combat persistence at a minimal cost
in weight and performance.

One curious aspect to the use of AAMs in combat is that of the
approximately 1,000 kills achieved between 1958 and 1991, only a
handful were scored beyond visual range, which does raise questions
about the significance of the very long ranges of which some missiles
are capable. It is sometimes argued that modern short-range missiles
are so good that any aircraft with the benefit of long-range sensors
and missiles should use them to try to stay outside the envelope of
the enemy's short-range AAMs. However, it is not always possible to
dictate the terms of an engagement. The Iranians made good use of the
long-range AIM-54 in the war with Iraq, but the F-14s which carried it
still found themselves engaged in gunfights from time to time.

There is a continual battle between missile sensor and countermeasure
technology. In the future, stealth technology applied to aircraft may
considerably shorten target acquisition and combat ranges, putting
into question the worth of modern BVR (beyond visual range) AAMs. The
possible future use of anti-radar missile guidance as a way of
overcoming stealth characteristics may force fighters to make minimal
use of their own radars, further reducing acquisition and combat
distances. It may also prove increasingly difficult for either IR or
radar-homing missiles to lock on to their stealthy targets,
additionally protected by extensive electronic jamming and IR
countermeasures.

Of course, modern guns are usually aimed by the plane's radar which
could also be jammed (although less easily than the much smaller and
less powerful missile seekers) but laser rangefinders could make an
acceptable alternative in providing fire control data. If planes
eventually become 'laser-proof' as well, the possibility presumably
exists of linking variable magnification optical sights to a computer
which would be able to analyse the image, identify the plane,
calculate its distance, speed and heading and provide gunsight aiming
information accordingly, all without emitting any signals.

The emphasis in the use of aircraft guns has now shifted more to
air-to-ground work, although even this is becoming increasingly
hazardous in a 'hot' war. With the proliferation of anti-aircraft gun
and missile systems, including MANPADS, even the specialist
ground-attack aircraft, fitted with powerful cannon, have found it to
be safer to rely on the long range of their air-to-ground guided
weapons rather than close to gun range, although as we have seen the
USAF's A-10s still made good use of their cannon against Iraqi targets
in 1991.

This trend is aided by the continued development of air-to-surface
missiles, with the latest ones having autonomous homing systems to
provide "fire and forget" capability over long ranges. Another current
development is the GD Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System, which
aims to achieve low-cost accuracy by fitted a laser homer to the
little 2.75 inch (70 mm) rocket. The target is to achieve a CEP of 1 –
2 m at ranges of up to 5 – 6 km at a price of US$ 8 – 10,000;
one-sixth the cost of a Hellfire anti-tank missile.

However, not all conflicts involve front-line opposition; in fact,
armed forces are now commonly engaged on police work, frequently
dealing with guerrilla forces. In these circumstances, rockets and
missiles may represent an inappropriate degree of destruction, with a
high risk of collateral damage. The RAF was embarrassed during
operations against insurgents in Sierra Leone in 2000 to find that
they had no suitable weapon for their gunless Harrier GR.7 aircraft to
attack small groups of rebels operating close to innocent civilians.

Another advantage of using cannon was demonstrated in the invasion of
Afghanistan in 2002. During an intense infantry battle at Takur Ghar
in late May, in which US forces were ambushed and in considerable
danger, air support was called for. The AC-130 was not permitted to
intervene in daylight due to its vulnerability, so USAF fighters were
sent to help. For a part of the battle the Afghan combatants were too
close to the Americans for rockets or bombs to be used, so the
fighters – F-16s and even F-15s – went in strafing with their 20 mm
cannon, as did the Navy's F-14s and F/A-18s on other occasions. Even
RAF Tornadoes were reported to have carried out gun strafing runs on
at least one occasion. It may logically be argued that it is foolish
to risk an extremely expensive aircraft, with its expensively trained
pilot, to being lost due to very low-tech ground fire, but sometimes
the risk needs to be taken to save friendly lives."

Tony Williams
Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk
Discussion forum at: http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/

snip
Another advantage of using cannon was demonstrated in the invasion of
Afghanistan in 2002. During an intense infantry battle at Takur Ghar
in late May, in which US forces were ambushed and in considerable
danger, air support was called for. The AC-130 was not permitted to
intervene in daylight due to its vulnerability, so USAF fighters were
sent to help. For a part of the battle the Afghan combatants were too
close to the Americans for rockets or bombs to be used, so the
fighters - F-16s and even F-15s - went in strafing with their 20 mm
cannon, as did the Navy's F-14s and F/A-18s on other occasions. Even
RAF Tornadoes were reported to have carried out gun strafing runs on
at least one occasion. It may logically be argued that it is foolish
to risk an extremely expensive aircraft, with its expensively trained
pilot, to being lost due to very low-tech ground fire, but sometimes
the risk needs to be taken to save friendly lives."

Are you saying that RAF Tornado aircraft were involved in the Afghanistan
fighting? Just surprised as I didn't think we'd sent the big boys over?

"Ian" wrote in message ...
snip
Another advantage of using cannon was demonstrated in the invasion of
Afghanistan in 2002. During an intense infantry battle at Takur Ghar
in late May, in which US forces were ambushed and in considerable
danger, air support was called for. The AC-130 was not permitted to
intervene in daylight due to its vulnerability, so USAF fighters were
sent to help. For a part of the battle the Afghan combatants were too
close to the Americans for rockets or bombs to be used, so the
fighters - F-16s and even F-15s - went in strafing with their 20 mm
cannon, as did the Navy's F-14s and F/A-18s on other occasions. Even
RAF Tornadoes were reported to have carried out gun strafing runs on
at least one occasion. It may logically be argued that it is foolish
to risk an extremely expensive aircraft, with its expensively trained
pilot, to being lost due to very low-tech ground fire, but sometimes
the risk needs to be taken to save friendly lives."

Are you saying that RAF Tornado aircraft were involved in the Afghanistan
fighting? Just surprised as I didn't think we'd sent the big boys over?

Sorry for the confusion, I believe that was Iraq.

Tony Williams
Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk
Discussion forum at: http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/

"Ian" wrote in message ...
snip
Another advantage of using cannon was demonstrated in the invasion of
Afghanistan in 2002. During an intense infantry battle at Takur Ghar
in late May, in which US forces were ambushed and in considerable
danger, air support was called for. The AC-130 was not permitted to
intervene in daylight due to its vulnerability, so USAF fighters were
sent to help. For a part of the battle the Afghan combatants were too
close to the Americans for rockets or bombs to be used, so the
fighters - F-16s and even F-15s - went in strafing with their 20 mm
cannon, as did the Navy's F-14s and F/A-18s on other occasions. Even
RAF Tornadoes were reported to have carried out gun strafing runs on
at least one occasion. It may logically be argued that it is foolish
to risk an extremely expensive aircraft, with its expensively trained
pilot, to being lost due to very low-tech ground fire, but sometimes
the risk needs to be taken to save friendly lives."

Are you saying that RAF Tornado aircraft were involved in the Afghanistan
fighting? Just surprised as I didn't think we'd sent the big boys over?

Correct. No Tornados were not used over Afghanistan (Op Veritas).

The first 55 Typhoon will be fitted with the cannon. The plan was for
it to be deleted in the follow on tranches. In Parliament the
following disclosure was made:

http://www.parliament.the-stationery.../528/52804.htm

"The Eurofighter Cannon


23. Although perhaps the most important of Eurofighter's armaments,
the BVRAAM missile is just one of a range of weapons with which the
aircraft will be equipped to tackle targets at different ranges. One
of Admiral Blackham's roles is to assess the appropriate weapons mix
to provide the capabilities needed for Eurofighter—

We need to provide ourselves with a reasonable mix of weapons.
Sometimes, for example, we shall demand that our pilots visually
identify contacts before they engage them and in those circumstances
we would want a short-range missile. In other circumstances we may be
prepared to have different sorts of rules of engagement and that would
allow us to use a longer range missile such as a BVRAAM ... The actual
balance of numbers of weapons will obviously depend on the relative
likelihood of the threats ... identified.[84]
24. As a result of such deliberations, the MoD has now decided not to
fit the Mauser cannon on the RAF's Eurofighters in the second and
subsequent batches of the aircraft, and those to be fitted to the 55
aircraft of the first batch would not be used. The Parliamentary
Under-Secretary told the House—

The Mauser 27mm cannon will be installed in tranche-1 Eurofighter
aircraft for the Royal Air Force. However, we are not planning to
procure stocks of spares or ammunition following our decision not to
use the gun, or to fit it to subsequent tranches of aircraft ... We
have assessed that the minimal operational utility of the Mauser
cannon on Eurofighter in any role is outweighed by its support,
fatigue and training cost implications, particularly given the
capability of the advanced short-range air-to-air missiles with which
the aircraft will be armed ... The advantages in deleting the Mauser
cannon from our Eurofighter aircraft derive from avoiding the support,
fatigue and cost implications which we would otherwise have to
bear.[85]

25. Admiral Blackham told us that this decision was one of the
earliest made by his newly established Equipment Capability
organisation.[86] Although most comparable aircraft had a cannon
(including the F-22, most variants of the Joint Strike Fighter,[87]
the Rafale, the Gripen and, notably, the Eurofighters of the other
three partners'airforces), he believed that the decision would have no
operational impact for Eurofighter,[88] as the cannon would give the
MoD no capability that it did not already have.[89] In engaging likely
air threats—generally high performance aircraft built in the West or
in the former Soviet Union—it was very unlikely that the RAF would not
want to use a missile.[90] Even for very short range air-to-air combat
the MoD were acquiring ASRAAM missiles.[91] In its written evidence,
the MoD stated that—

Since the introduction of air-to-air missiles, the gun has been used
for very close range engagements where the target was inside a
short-range air-to-air missile's minimum range. The improved minimum
range capability and agility of the ASRAAM missiles with which the
aircraft will be armed greatly decrease the likelihood of such
engagements. ASRAAM, including a Helmet Mounted Sight targetting
system, offers the pilot a shot with a very high probability of
success in almost every conceivable situation. And were these missiles
to be exhausted, it is unlikely that a cannon would be of use as the
risk would remain that aircraft could be engaged by missiles from well
outside the gun's range. Furthermore, in order to use the gun the
pilot would have to point the aircraft directly at the target, thereby
making less effective the aircraft's integrated Defensive Aids
Sub-System (whose towed decoys operate best when the aircraft is not
head on to the threat) for the small probability of a successful gun
shot.[92]

26. The MoD does not envisage Eurofighter having a ground attack
role.[93] The cannon on other current RAF aircraft have never been
used in anger, even for strafing—the most likely possible
scenario.[94] The MoD told us that, in such an air-to-ground role, it
found it difficult to anticipate circumstances which would justify the
relatively indiscriminate nature of gun firing in an age of
precision-guided munitions.[95] Admiral Blackham told us that the MoD
had concluded that "in the circumstances that we face today, the
cannon does not represent a very sensible use of our money and does
not provide a capability we really want".[96] The MoD has however
already sunk £90 million into the cannon which has now been wasted.
The savings from not using the gun would only be £2.5 million a
year.[97] Admiral Blackham believed that that was no reason to go on
sinking more money unnecessarily.[98] We are less convinced of the
economic sense of this decision at this late stage of the aircraft's
development, and we look to the MoD in its response to this report to
provide further explanation of its rationale for not using the cannon,
and how a very close range engagement capability could otherwise be
provided."

Other links of interest discussing the subject:

http://www.parliament.the-stationery...28/0052303.htm


http://www.parliament.the-stationery...t/01026-32.htm

TJ