On Mon, 10 May 2004 09:20:35 -0700, (Harry
Andreas) wrote:

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.

IIRC It wasn't so much acoustics as the couple of tonnes of recoil!!,
;-), I understand the concepts of not fighting with guns anymore, but
I really think you need them for those 'other' circumstances.
'Other' meaning all the things you never thought likely to happen.

Cheers


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.

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