RAF Typhoons confirmed gunless?

Has the RAF confirmed that their T.1 and F.1 Typhoons are to be
supplied without the mauser gun capabilities? According to Typhoon's
entry on RAF's website there doesn't seem to have mention of a 27mm
mauser on the fighter

http://www.raf.mod.uk/equipment/typhoon.html


Smart move for an aircraft that is supposed to do Air defence and
close air support missions

On 3 May 2004 10:39:47 -0700, (Prowlus) wrote:



Thats a bit of an awkward question!, UK Government sources have
indicated the gun is only to be fitted to RAF Tranche 1 aircraft,
however others have mentioned that the gun may be installed on all RAF
tranches, Now whether they are used or trained for use is another
thing, tranche II negotiations may make the distiction clearer.

Till then the official line is IIRC - Tranche 1 RAF will have it
fitted (55 aircraft) but not supported or trained with - ranche II
148 will not have it fitted.

Cheers




Has the RAF confirmed that their T.1 and F.1 Typhoons are to be
supplied without the mauser gun capabilities? According to Typhoon's
entry on RAF's website there doesn't seem to have mention of a 27mm
mauser on the fighter

http://www.raf.mod.uk/equipment/typhoon.html


Smart move for an aircraft that is supposed to do Air defence and
close air support missions

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

(Prowlus) wrote in message . com...
Has the RAF confirmed that their T.1 and F.1 Typhoons are to be
supplied without the mauser gun capabilities? According to Typhoon's
entry on RAF's website there doesn't seem to have mention of a 27mm
mauser on the fighter

http://www.raf.mod.uk/equipment/typhoon.html


Smart move for an aircraft that is supposed to do Air defence and
close air support missions

The UK Ministry of Defence officially released the RAF designations
for the Typhoon on June 30 2003. Two-seat trainer variants will be
designated Typhoon T.1 or Typhoon T.1A, depending on the production
batch of the aircraft, whilst single-seat aircraft will be designated
Typhoon F.2.

The RAF website still has the single-seater as the F.1. It took the
webmaster long enough to update the fact that the RAF Harriers are not
fitted out for cannons.

TJ

"TJ" wrote in message
om...
(Prowlus) wrote in message
. com...
Has the RAF confirmed that their T.1 and F.1 Typhoons are to be
supplied without the mauser gun capabilities? According to Typhoon's
entry on RAF's website there doesn't seem to have mention of a 27mm
mauser on the fighter

http://www.raf.mod.uk/equipment/typhoon.html

Smart move for an aircraft that is supposed to do Air defence and
close air support missions

The UK Ministry of Defence officially released the RAF designations
for the Typhoon on June 30 2003. Two-seat trainer variants will be
designated Typhoon T.1 or Typhoon T.1A, depending on the production
batch of the aircraft, whilst single-seat aircraft will be designated
Typhoon F.2.

The RAF website still has the single-seater as the F.1. It took the
webmaster long enough to update the fact that the RAF Harriers are not
fitted out for cannons.

TJ

Surely they can't save that much weight or cost in mounting out a cannon or
two. Can't hurt to have the gun option, for air to air or air to ground.

DEP

"David E. Powell" wrote in message
s.com...
"TJ" wrote in message
om...
(Prowlus) wrote in message
. com...
Has the RAF confirmed that their T.1 and F.1 Typhoons are to be
supplied without the mauser gun capabilities? According to Typhoon's
entry on RAF's website there doesn't seem to have mention of a 27mm
mauser on the fighter

http://www.raf.mod.uk/equipment/typhoon.html

Smart move for an aircraft that is supposed to do Air defence and
close air support missions

The UK Ministry of Defence officially released the RAF designations
for the Typhoon on June 30 2003. Two-seat trainer variants will be
designated Typhoon T.1 or Typhoon T.1A, depending on the production
batch of the aircraft, whilst single-seat aircraft will be designated
Typhoon F.2.

The RAF website still has the single-seater as the F.1. It took the
webmaster long enough to update the fact that the RAF Harriers are not
fitted out for cannons.

TJ

Surely they can't save that much weight or cost in mounting out a cannon
or
two. Can't hurt to have the gun option, for air to air or air to ground.

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??)

On Sat, 8 May 2004 08:06:15 +0100, "Ian" wrote:


"David E. Powell" wrote in message
ws.com...
"TJ" wrote in message
om...
(Prowlus) wrote in message
. com...
Has the RAF confirmed that their T.1 and F.1 Typhoons are to be
supplied without the mauser gun capabilities? According to Typhoon's
entry on RAF's website there doesn't seem to have mention of a 27mm
mauser on the fighter

http://www.raf.mod.uk/equipment/typhoon.html

Smart move for an aircraft that is supposed to do Air defence and
close air support missions

The UK Ministry of Defence officially released the RAF designations
for the Typhoon on June 30 2003. Two-seat trainer variants will be
designated Typhoon T.1 or Typhoon T.1A, depending on the production
batch of the aircraft, whilst single-seat aircraft will be designated
Typhoon F.2.

The RAF website still has the single-seater as the F.1. It took the
webmaster long enough to update the fact that the RAF Harriers are not
fitted out for cannons.

TJ

Surely they can't save that much weight or cost in mounting out a cannon
or
two. Can't hurt to have the gun option, for air to air or air to ground.

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.


Cheers

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

In message m, David
E. Powell writes
Surely they can't save that much weight or cost in mounting out a cannon or
two.

The cannon's not that expensive.

Now, flying enough sorties for the aircrew to become and remain
proficient in its use, *that* gets expensive (airframe hours, range
time, et cetera - adds up fast).

Can't hurt to have the gun option, for air to air or air to ground.

It costs money, which is in seriously short supply. What will you give
up instead?

--
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

In article , Paul J. Adam
writes
In message m, David
E. Powell writes
Surely they can't save that much weight or cost in mounting out a cannon or
two.

The cannon's not that expensive.

Now, flying enough sorties for the aircrew to become and remain
proficient in its use, *that* gets expensive (airframe hours, range
time, et cetera - adds up fast).

Can't hurt to have the gun option, for air to air or air to ground.

It costs money, which is in seriously short supply. What will you give
up instead?

Is it necessary to think of giving up something instead? If cannon are
'the cost of doing business' for a fighter - a necessary contingency -
then the money should be allocated.

Over the last few decades, British defence funding has been dogged by
the motto 'there isn't going to be another real war, old chap' but of
course wars have a habit of turning up - and then we are stuffed.
During the Falklands we had ships that were wired up with cable that
gave off toxic fumes when it burned, and the men had overalls of man-
made fibre that shrunk nicely onto the body when close to a fire. And
as for the prospect of ships being attacked by more than one aircraft at
a time - couldn't possibly happen. Close defence? Lord 'what's a
Vulcan cannon' Chalfont didn't have much to offer when questioned on the
subject.

All such defects can be guaranteed to have been foreseen - and the
warnings filtered out by a staffing system under pressure from the
Treasury. We have the competence to avoid these traps, we just lack a
coherent vision at the top.

Cheers,

Dave

--
Dave Eadsforth

In message , Dave Eadsforth
writes
In article , Paul J. Adam
writes
It costs money, which is in seriously short supply. What will you give
up instead?

Is it necessary to think of giving up something instead?

Funding is finite and the list of desirable items is larger than the
money available.

If cannon are
'the cost of doing business' for a fighter - a necessary contingency -
then the money should be allocated.

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.

Over the last few decades, British defence funding has been dogged by
the motto 'there isn't going to be another real war, old chap' but of
course wars have a habit of turning up - and then we are stuffed.

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.

During the Falklands we had ships that were wired up with cable that
gave off toxic fumes when it burned, and the men had overalls of man-
made fibre that shrunk nicely onto the body when close to a fire. And
as for the prospect of ships being attacked by more than one aircraft at
a time - couldn't possibly happen. Close defence? Lord 'what's a
Vulcan cannon' Chalfont didn't have much to offer when questioned on the
subject.

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.

Until "screwing up defence" becomes an election issue, it's not a
problem for our lords and masters: and until then it's easy to keep
squeezing defence in the sacred name of Schoolsandhospitals.

All such defects can be guaranteed to have been foreseen - and the
warnings filtered out by a staffing system under pressure from the
Treasury. We have the competence to avoid these traps, we just lack a
coherent vision at the top.

Not even that; we just have a political class accustomed to a "can do"
attitude from the Forces, and too much experience of getting results
despite repeated cuts.

--
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

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.

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.

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur