Matt Clonfero ] wrote in message ...
In article , Chad Irby
wrote:

Well, only because you carry an awful lot of it. It's got a specific
density less than one, so it's a fair assumption that replacing a gun
installation with a fuel tank saves you weight - even if you assume that
50% of the volume of a gun installation is free air.

But compared to the amount of fuel you get, it's not a massive savings
by any stretch. You're also forgetting that fuel tanks weigh a *lot*,
not to mention their associated piping and pumping systems.

Sure - but making an existing tank bigger has a very very marginal
increase in tank weight; and no additional cost in piping and pumping.

It's the fact that a gun adds a completely different
support line than "more of the same" missiles which drives the whole
life cost up.

Not really. Missiles are *bloody* expensive to buy, store, maintain,
and use. Guns are cheap in comparison. A gun and a few hundred
thousand rounds of ammunition are less than the price of a couple of
plane's worth of missiles, and that's before you add in maintenance
costs.

Yes, but by eliminating the guns, you eliminate the gun, the ammunition,
the three lines of servicing, a complete trade of ground crew, and both
the servicing and pilot's training for gun maintenance and usage.

Yep. And if you eliminate the missiles and the plane's radar too,
you'll save most of the cost of the weapon system!

Military aircraft are extremely expensive to purchase, maintain and
train for. It makes no sense to save a tiny percentage of the
whole-life costs of acquiring an aircraft system if by doing so you
remove a useful, if secondary, military capability.

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