In message , Dave Eadsforth
writes
In article , Paul J. Adam
writes
Funding is finite and the list of desirable items is larger than the
money available.

Cannot disagree with that - but because of this it is vital to maintain
a grasp on which items must retain 100 percent effectiveness

And which are less crucial.

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.

Specifically concerning cannon: cannon provide a very fundamental
capability - and cheaply. They are there when all else is:

used up;
failed;
inappropriate.

They're also short-ranged, inaccurate, bloody hard to use...

Air-to-air and air-to-ground missiles are vulnerable to countermeasures

So is the gun - you're using a gunsight that depends on range and rate
input from the radar. The enemy screws with your radar, he screws with
your gun solution.

Or you can spray'n'pray with a fixed reticule or a basic gyro sight -
with not many rounds. It can be done, it used to be the rule, but it
needs a lot of skill and practice (for which read money) and it has an
extremely limited firing envelope compared to modern weapons.

Chop the gun and you'll *guarantee* that there'll be a time when some
pilot needed it and didn't have it. Can't argue with that. But there's
only so much money: what do you tell the families of the pilots killed
because the DASS was cut back / the ground troops told that "sorry,
Brimstone was less important than the gun"...

I'd prefer to keep the capability myself: but it's less essential than
some of the other possible cuts.

- and you don't know what the enemy might have up his sleeve until he
unveils it;

There's an old rule of bayonet fighting: the guy with the last bullet
wins. If the enemy still has one missile and you're down to guns, you're
in the kimchi. (And having a gun and the training to use it isn't much
use against an incoming AAM or SAM)

Missiles are also somewhat poor for delivering warnings - the shot tends
to go into the target instead of across the bows.

Trouble is, for combat use you don't want tracers (which warn the enemy
they're under fire). But with no tracers, how do they know they're being
shot at?

The warnings that you've been intercepted are clear, promulgated by the
ICAO and don't require a cannon.

And if you want to
bring any vehicle (boat/truck) to a halt instead of annihilating it
cannon are the only option.

27mm high-explosive cannon shells, arriving twenty or thirty a second,
are not reliably able to "bring vehicles to a halt". Trouble is, they
aren't reliably able to stop them either.

Back during Viet Nam, the US armed gunship aircraft with 7.62mm miniguns
and 20mm cannon; evolution was rapid, as air defences meant higher
standoff altitudes and the gunships moved from close support to
interdiction.

The AC-130s went from .30" and 20mm batteries, to 20mm and 40mm, to
discovering that even 20mm wasn't an effective truck killer, and ended
up with a mixed battery of 25mm, 40mm and 105mm(!)

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.

Indeed - and flexibility is key in such situations.

'Flexibility' for aircraft translates to payload, which can be turned
into fuel or ordnance.

One wonders how the Sea Harriers would have fared during the Falklands
had they been able to trade their ADEN gun pods for more Sidewinders
(like the twin-rail launcher that would have doubled their offence) and
most especially more fuel to let them have more time on station.

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.

Agreed some capability better than none, but it is no good having a
weapon system that is 80 percent as good as the enemy's -

Tell that to any tank crewman who took a M4 Sherman against a SS Panzer
unit. Or any pilot who was flying a P-51 or Tempest where Me262s were
expected.

Being "better" only counts if you can bring that advantage fully to
bear. To be controversial, the US Army's Rangers clearly and completely
outclassed the Somali militiamen in 1993 - but who retreated and who was
left running the country?

if it is to be
deployed it must be 100 percent as good if not better, and the savings
can come from elsewhere.

What will you give up to pay for keeping the Typhoon crews fully trained
in air-to-air and air-to-ground gunnery? Be specific and stick to the
remit of the relevant IPT for the required savings. Where will you find
the money through the life of the aircraft?

The forces should not have to blunt their
teeth - that is a terrible and dangerous option.

That's what the politicians demand and the electorate approves. Until
the voters protest, the politicians will keep on slicing.

--
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