You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Britain
RAF gets a new fighter with a gun it cannot fire
2004-09-16
Via a poster at David's Medienkritic. I'm trying to come up w/a snarky comment and I just can't. I've supposed to rely on them for help??????????????
Attempts by the Ministry of Defence to save money will leave all 232 of the RAF's new Eurofighter/Typhoon aircraft with a gun they cannot fire.
"But it does look ferocious!"
The MoD decided five years ago that it could save £90 million on the £105 billion project by not having a machine cannon in the British version of the Eurofighter... To make matters worse, each individual part of the makeweight's shape also had to weigh exactly the same as the real thing. In short, the cheapest option was to fit the cannon. So all 232 of the RAF's Eurofighter/Typhoon aircraft will be fitted with the gun at a cost of £90 million - but in order to save what is now a mere £2.5 million they will have no rounds to fire... The collapse of the Warsaw Pact led to the aircraft being described as an obsolete piece of Cold War equipment. The Germans immediately cut the number of aircraft they needed, largely because they inherited a lot of fighters from East Germany.
... which were obsolete pieces of Cold War equipment themselves...
The British response was to tie all four partners into a tightly controlled contract in which anyone who pulled out must pay the same amount of money in damages as they would if they took the aircraft. That has come back to haunt Britain, which alone among the four nations has no money to pay for the Eurofighters it ordered and is resisting calls to sign up for its second tranche of 89 aircraft.
Maybe instead of banning fox hunting, they should tax it?

<This keeps up, we're going to be lend-leasing again.>

I say, old chap, can you spare a quid for some bullets?

oh, that's how you get on pg. 1!
Posted by:Anonymous2U

#26  eh, seconds?
Posted by: Asedwich   2004-09-17 1:15:18 AM  

#25  Carl, In the case of the F-22, I think they hope it won't be much since it is supposed to be stealthier than the F-117 and it only has 500 rounds, enough for about 7 minutes of shooting at the slow speed on the M-61.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis   2004-09-16 9:38:36 PM  

#24  GawdIluvRantBurg.

Great source for a Compleat Education, thanks Lurks et al. And a special "heh" to Zenster and the AC-130 comment.

I guess it is too much to hope for that we have a lurking USAF vet or two to let us know what the current crop of pilots expect to do with their guns. I would love to get some anecdotes on current tactical usage.
Posted by: Carl in N.H.   2004-09-16 9:29:47 PM  

#23  In response to post #17
There were gun kills in air to air combat in Vietnam.
Per the book Mig Masters by Barrett Tillman there were 19 air to air kills attributed to the F-8 Crusader and they are broken down as follows:
14 kills using the Sidewinder, 2 using guns only,
1 using Sidewinder and guns, 1 using guns & Zuni rockets (unguided air to ground rockets used for close air support)and 1 no weapons were used (apparently flew him into the ground in a literal
sense)
Also per the book Air Aces by Christopher Shores the following kills were made by aircraft that were not equipped to fire missles:
2 by A1H Skyraiders
1 by A-4 Skyhawk
28+ by F105 Thunderchiefs
That of course doesn't count any gun kills made by the Vietnamese
Posted by: Lurks Often   2004-09-16 8:07:38 PM  

#22  The EFA was designed with a special emphasis on close range manoeuver, so to delete a gun in a dog fighter is a little beyond me. Remember it was designed with an excellent 27mm Mauser cannon for the bandits that get within 200-1000m during combat. Also it is just not about the number of kills scored with the guns, it is the mere presence of one that forces a revision of tactics by the opponent. Thats my two pence.
Posted by: Fawad   2004-09-16 8:05:12 PM  

#21  I don't even know how much strafing (other than a Warthog) goes on in modern combat.

While most definitely not a fighter, may I humbly suggest the AC-130 Spectre?

I'm sure there are more well-versed air phrame phreaks around here who can detail this better than I. Would someone please post the Mirage fighter jet's sordid history? I recall that Britain actually originated the baseline for this craft and then went on to burden it with so many logistical millstones (i.e., must take off using pontoons from choppy ocean surface in a driving hailstorm while under heavy fire and carrying full ordnance package with training pilot in second seat) that it was abandoned. Meanwhile their joint venture partner, France, went on to make it one of the most successfully marketed aircraft in military history. Anyone got the lowdown on this pathetic "project cancelled?"
Posted by: Zenster   2004-09-16 7:27:10 PM  

#20  F-14s have been modifed for ground attack roles, and the
F/A portion of F/A-18 designates it as Fighter/Attack
Posted by: Pappy   2004-09-16 7:05:38 PM  

#19  Carl.

Guns are not very useful until you lack them because then the opponent will rearrange its tactics to exploit your vulnerability. Just like the Zulu warriors exploited the vulnerability of the red coats in close combat at Isandlwhana (Bayonets don't measure against aseghai and shield).

Anyway during maneuvers the Bristish mercenaries of the Quatari air force who flew planes hopelessly outclassed at long range by the F14 (these things can shoot you from over 60 miles), flew in canyons until the Tomcats were near them then surged from the canpon and attacked at close range. If you don't have a gun then every bad guy will have on his cockpit a note telling: "keep the range close and you can slaughter them by the dozen" if you have them he will probably not even try to engage you at short range and it will be missile versus missile.
Posted by: JFM   2004-09-16 4:12:48 PM  

#18  After WWII and Korea U.S. Air Force said that dogfights were history and Vietnam would be a war of missiles and pushbuttons. This was not to be. Vietnam proved that John Boyd had been right about the ineffencies in the new Sparrow and Sidewinder missiles and the USAF still needed fighters with guns.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis   2004-09-16 4:09:27 PM  

#17  Clarification to my post #4:

We had the debate decades ago (I thought in Vietnam, but Google did not turn up a summary quickly and I had to go -- sorry) ...

and the pilots "won" it (i.e. guns were put back, as other posters have commented), but AFAIK, most or all air-air kills are via missiles.

In fact, I would be surprised if there were air-air kills in Vietnam with a gun (anybody have a link or even a story ?)

I don't even know how much strafing (other than a Warthog) goes on in modern combat. I cannot recall any mention in any recent conflict (back to Panama, at least).

So, guns are actually not very useful except in a dedicated ground support role (thinking of the Warthog only; I have never heard of F-14/15/16/18/117 ever being called in for ground support, but look forward to being educated to the contrary), but guns have a certain psychological appeal which is obviously important.

So, the Brit decision is not strange at all.
Posted by: Carl in N.H   2004-09-16 3:51:27 PM  

#16  Righto.
Posted by: Howard UK   2004-09-16 2:23:15 PM  

#15  Howard, every manjack in the RFC may bring their own fine fowling piece along with a bearer if they see fit. Over and unders are of course frowned upon and you are likely to be cut cold if you are so armed.
Posted by: Shipman   2004-09-16 2:19:06 PM  

#14  When you re-invent the wheel, it's always a good idea to stick with a round shape...
Posted by: M. Murcek   2004-09-16 2:15:30 PM  

#13  Armed with what? Spitballs?!
Posted by: jackal   2004-09-16 2:05:59 PM  

#12  How in blazes are The Royal Flying Corps expected to bag Jerry without a Lewis Gun?
Posted by: Howard UK   2004-09-16 1:58:16 PM  

#11  Col. Boyd, You may stop spinning.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis   2004-09-16 1:55:19 PM  

#10  > #4 Actually, guns in a modern jet are not very >useful. Most (could be all, AFAIK) air-to-air >killing nowadays is done with missiles. The U.S. >had that debate decades ago.

yes we did. the result: our aircraft are equipped with cannon. look up the F4 and how they ended up retrofitting it in 'nam.

perhaps you got your information from SeeBS?
Posted by: Brutus   2004-09-16 1:43:50 PM  

#9  Typical Euroweenies. If we shoot blanks, maybe the enemy will get scared and run!

The follow-on model will also include paper mache missiles and bombs.
Posted by: Brutus   2004-09-16 1:42:34 PM  

#8  Been there. Done that with early generation F-4s in Vietnam.

If it doesn't have a gun. It isn't a fighter! Missiles are great for long-range. But there's always the up-close 'Furball' and Close Air Support arenas to deal with.

Flying into harm's way without a Vulcan tucked away somewhere is tantamount to suicide.

Jack.
Posted by: Jack Deth   2004-09-16 1:32:38 PM  

#7  Most (could be all, AFAIK) air-to-air killing nowadays is done with missiles.

Until the range between aerial combatants gets really close, when a gun would be a better weapon.

What happens if there's no gun?
Posted by: Bomb-a-rama   2004-09-16 12:53:43 PM  

#6  Is that why an M-61 will be mounted in the F-22 as well as the F-104, F-105, F-106 (later models), F-111, F-4, B-58, F-15, F-16, F-14 and F/A-18?
Posted by: Mrs. Davis   2004-09-16 12:38:35 PM  

#5  MoD mismanagement of military kit and technology is waaaay beyond a bad joke. This (old) story is just plain insane. Gaah!!!
Posted by: Bulldog   2004-09-16 12:24:19 PM  

#4  Actually, guns in a modern jet are not very useful. Most (could be all, AFAIK) air-to-air killing nowadays is done with missiles.

The U.S. had that debate decades ago.
Posted by: Carl in N.H   2004-09-16 12:15:51 PM  

#3  (Battlestar Galactica flashback)

Starbuck: "How'd you guys manage to make a light fighter ship even lighter?"

MechTech: "We took out the laser generators. Those things weigh a frackin' ton, you know."

Starbuck: "Hmm, yeah, that makes sense, take out the laser generators, and..."

(5, 4, 3, 2, 1 -- Whhooooooossh!)

"...YOU'RE UNARMED!!!!!!!!"

(/flashback)
Posted by: Querent   2004-09-16 12:08:04 PM  

#2  Britain has an illustrious ignominious history of crippling their own aircraft designs. For anyone who is interested in the subject, please read Derek Wood's fascinating book, "Project Cancelled."

"The book is interesting and illustrates advanced design thinking of the British aeroengineers of the time and the short-sighted parsimony of some British politicians. It is possible that when the plastic model aircraft companies run low on the prolific "what if..." German designs of WWII, another series of "what if..." model airplane kits could be based on the proposed British designs now resting on the scrap heap of history."
Posted by: Zenster   2004-09-16 12:06:52 PM  

#1  ...I think the article may be a bit misleading - according to http://www.raf.mod.uk/equipment/accannons.html , they already have 27mm cannon in service with the Tornado, so they should have lots of ammo on hand. perhaps they're just not funding any extra right now?

Mike
Posted by: Mike Kozlowski   2004-09-16 11:56:24 AM  

00:00