Future military fighters and guns - yes or no ?

(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

TJ wrote:
"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

As we (the Brits) don't seem to go to war with anyone now on our own then it
would appear to be a good cost saving idea at a first glance, if we can't do
the job then someone else in the alliance will take up the slack in that
role. If at a later date it turns out to be a mistake then with the rest of
the Eurofighter client nations taking up the gun then posibly there would be
a route for us reinstating it.

--
James...
www.jameshart.co.uk

On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 22:52:39 -0000, James Hart wrote:

As we (the Brits) don't seem to go to war with anyone now on our own then it
would appear to be a good cost saving idea at a first glance, if we can't do
the job then someone else in the alliance will take up the slack in that
role. If at a later date it turns out to be a mistake then with the rest of
the Eurofighter client nations taking up the gun then posibly there would be
a route for us reinstating it.

Following that logic we could scrap the entire armed forces!

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: zen19725 at zen dot co dot uk)

phil hunt wrote:
On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 22:52:39 -0000, James Hart
wrote:

As we (the Brits) don't seem to go to war with anyone now on our own
then it would appear to be a good cost saving idea at a first
glance, if we can't do the job then someone else in the alliance
will take up the slack in that role. If at a later date it turns out
to be a mistake then with the rest of the Eurofighter client nations
taking up the gun then posibly there would be a route for us
reinstating it.

Following that logic we could scrap the entire armed forces!

That would be the logical progression of the cost saving plans.
It would make us an incredibly weak country though, virtually anyone could
sail in and cause us some major damage, or try to nibble away at our
outlying territories like the Falklands. Wasn't there a big round of cost
cutting implemented just before the Argies invaded? I recall seeing a docu
that seemed to imply if the full cutbacks had been implemented we'd never of
had the capability to go to war that far away.

--
James...
www.jameshart.co.uk

(TJ) wrote in message . com...

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

Thanks for the link, a useful reference. However, you will note that
the report was 'ordered to be published' on 28 June 2000. This was,
IIRC, before the embarrassing incident in Sierra Leone when the lack
of a gun meant that the RAF Harriers had to pass up opportunities to
attack rebels who were too close to friendlies to use rockets or
bombs, and the strafing attacks in Afghanistan and Iraq, not only by
USAF and USN fighters but reportedly by RAF Tornados also.

More recently, I have heard that the RAF will not be dropping the gun
from later batches of Eurofighter. This is what I have put in 'Flying
Guns: The Modern Era':

"At one point the RAF reportedly decided to omit the BK 27 as a
cost-saving measure, but the first batch of weapons had already been
purchased and the acquisition of the remainder had been included in
the production contract. Furthermore, the presence of the gun is
described as 'Class 1 Safety Critical' which means that it may not be
omitted. It now seems likely that the cannon will be fitted, and
functional, in service RAF Eurofighters."

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/

The great thing about this is that the guys making the decision don't know
what they're on about. The actual saving that would be made by not having
the gun is wasted now - the entire airframe and forward avionics kit has
been designed to work with gunfire vibration and exhaust fumes.

So the gun hasn't been used that often (I know we've done trials where its
been fired so it is used (although maybe not in anger of war). But show me
a pilot who'd rather have the empty space where it should be when it comes
down it?
"Tony Williams" wrote in message
m...
(TJ) wrote in message
. com...

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...cmselect/cmdfe
nce/528/52804.htm

Thanks for the link, a useful reference. However, you will note that
the report was 'ordered to be published' on 28 June 2000. This was,
IIRC, before the embarrassing incident in Sierra Leone when the lack
of a gun meant that the RAF Harriers had to pass up opportunities to
attack rebels who were too close to friendlies to use rockets or
bombs, and the strafing attacks in Afghanistan and Iraq, not only by
USAF and USN fighters but reportedly by RAF Tornados also.

More recently, I have heard that the RAF will not be dropping the gun
from later batches of Eurofighter. This is what I have put in 'Flying
Guns: The Modern Era':

"At one point the RAF reportedly decided to omit the BK 27 as a
cost-saving measure, but the first batch of weapons had already been
purchased and the acquisition of the remainder had been included in
the production contract. Furthermore, the presence of the gun is
described as 'Class 1 Safety Critical' which means that it may not be
omitted. It now seems likely that the cannon will be fitted, and
functional, in service RAF Eurofighters."

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/

(Tony Williams) wrote in message om...
(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.



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.

Tony Williams

The US is looking at putting a 100kW laser on the JSF. Does anyone
think this could supplant the gun? It is precise, effective (when they
get its power up), aimable (including well off boresight), has a
longer range than a gun, doesn't require ammo, and if you aim it up,
you don't have to worry about shells splashing at the wrong place. The
only disadvantage I can see is charge time (a second shot could take a
few seconds) and the fact that the beam is invisible to the naked eye.
Plus the laser takes electricity from an engine-driven generator
(slight fuel efficiency loss). Any thoughts?