Typhoon to be equipped with cannon.

#5
The Typhoon does already have the gun fitted (a 27mm Mauser) but the muzzle is faired over.They found it too expensive to remove it & fit a ballast instead & to re-writ the FBW software.So they left it in!
 
#6
soprano54 said:
Where do these cnuts get there info from, the A10 has got a 30mm cannon not a 27mm, I know its fairly close but please!
I just checked the paper and it says that the A10 has a 30mm cannon. For some reason the online version is incorrect.
 
#8
OK - now we are agreed that they got it wrong in the story line.......

Good to see that the RAF realises that the PBI actually requires a little help every now and agin
 
#9
It's perhaps worth remembering that when the Treasury caps the budget, the serials at the bottom of the pain and grief list take a hit. I hope money has been added to allow the gun and not transferred from something else on the penalty list.
 
#10
Passed-over_Loggie said:
It's perhaps worth remembering that when the Treasury caps the budget, the serials at the bottom of the pain and grief list take a hit. I hope money has been added to allow the gun and not transferred from something else on the penalty list.
But I bet it won't be.
 
#11
Passed-over_Loggie said:
It's perhaps worth remembering that when the Treasury caps the budget, the serials at the bottom of the pain and grief list take a hit. I hope money has been added to allow the gun and not transferred from something else on the penalty list.
I'm just surprised they decided that it needed both wings. I bet they could have saved even more by only having one :D

.........or better yet, they could have cancelled it years ago, It has been obvious since the early 90s that that we were unlikely to need a really top notch air-defence fighter any more.

.........next big waste of money - Trident replacement. No complex replacement needed. If we do need a Nuc then all we need is somthing very simple, it does not need to be 100% fool-proof, just enough of a threat. - See N Korea. Not even tested one but the threat is stopping action against them.
 
#12
Trossachs said:
Passed-over_Loggie said:
It's perhaps worth remembering that when the Treasury caps the budget, the serials at the bottom of the pain and grief list take a hit. I hope money has been added to allow the gun and not transferred from something else on the penalty list.
I'm just surprised they decided that it needed both wings. I bet they could have saved even more by only having one :D

.........or better yet, they could have cancelled it years ago, It has been obvious since the early 90s that that we were unlikely to need a really top notch air-defence fighter any more.

.........next big waste of money - Trident replacement. No complex replacement needed. If we do need a Nuc then all we need is somthing very simple, it does not need to be 100% fool-proof, just enough of a threat. - See N Korea. Not even tested one but the threat is stopping action against them.
I'd be very surprised if the RAF didn't fight tooth and nail to have a functioning cannon in the first place. The pilots who will be flying the Typhoon will no doubt be quite pleased to have something to use when they've shot off all the missiles!
 
#13
Fighter without a gun - moronic, akin to deciding that armies no longer need specialist infantry! Trouble with common sense is that it isn't all that common!
 
#14
but are they going to buy ammo and the loading kit for it :twisted:
 
#15
In a lot of ways this is a rehash of an old story regarding this airframe - why on earth it has taken so long for sense to prevail is beyond me - it would be akin in the civvy world to BA procuring an aircraft and saying - it's great but no seats please as passengers cost the airline too much.

For fcuk's sake what has gone wrong? I'd like to say its all in the last few years - but whenever did the Forces get the money they need to be fit for role in peacetime - I joined when we had a force structure which was fit for the role we have now - pity it was chopped as a result of a peace dividend, which from the number of tours we are doing is - as we all know - total bollox.
 
#16
Let's hear (read) it from the horse's mouth...

Air Chief Marshal Sir Jock Stirrup said:
I think the position with the Typhoon gun is an excellent example of where we want to be across the board with our equipment capability. We cannot foresee with any accuracy the nature and/or scale of all the threats and challenges we might have to face in the future, so for us adaptability and agility, the ability to react to an unforeseen future is crucial. We cannot do that by investing in everything we can think of because we certainly will not need all of those things and anyway we could not afford them. Our thinking up to now on the Typhoon gun has been that we will not require it because of the advances in short-range missiles and various other tactics and techniques and procedures, but we could get to a situation which we have not foreseen where we will require it. Well, we have a gun in Typhoon and we are not planning to fire it because it would cost us quite a bit more money in terms of ground support equipment, fatigue on the air-frame and so on, but if we decided that actually we did need it for something, we could bring it into operation in very short order, so we have complete flexibility as far as the Typhoon gun is concerned.
Response to DSC question 20 October 2004. Link: here

Apart from anything else, this goes to show that even as late as 2 years ago, the RAF was really viewing the Typhoon as an AD fighter that had a secondary AG role - in order to justify its existence. I mean, the reason for NOT supporting the cannon was cost, yes, but not considered as a cost-effective in the AD role. No mention of consideration in the AG role. Was it considered and then disregarded as pointless, or not bothered about at all....
 
#17
They don't want to use typhoon for close air support as it will be too fast for the pilots to ID the targets. It will have to 15,000ft close air support. Somebody please correct me as I would like to be wrong about that!!

We need some a10s or ac130s for that role.

Ski.
 
#18
SkiCarver said:
They don't want to use typhoon for close air support as it will be too fast for the pilots to ID the targets. It will have to 15,000ft close air support. Somebody please correct me as I would like to be wrong about that!!

We need some a10s or ac130s for that role.

Ski.
No we dont! That's what the JSF is being designed for,to replace the Harrier in that role.(IF it ever get's built on time.... :twisted: )
 
#19
Er.... Merkator - the question and answer immediately before your quote:

Q100 Mr Viggers: The first tranche of Typhoon is 55 in an air defence role initially. Will they be multi-role before entering service and when will they enter service?

Air Chief Marshal Sir Jock Stirrup: Well, of course the Royal Air Force is already operating Typhoon. We have ten aircraft in our colours now and in the hands of our pilots and that number is increasing all the time. The question of introduction to service is not a black-and-white state because we will be introducing capabilities in an incremental way over the next several years. The initial air defence capability we expect to be fielded within the next few years, certainly in the second half of this decade. What we have done is advance our air-to-surface capability which we were expecting to introduce quite a bit later and we have now brought that forward into the final batch of tranche one aircraft, so our ability to be able to use the aircraft in a multi-role sense will help us much earlier than we had anticipated.
The RAF's plan for Typhoon has always been for it to have an A-G capability, and there's more than enough evidence to show this. The idea was to retire the F3 first, since the RAF would have three Jaguar squadrons which could do the A-G work, and the need to retire the F3 was most urgent. The money isn't there to run squadrons on while Typhoon units re-equip, so introducing the GA capability first would have reduced the number of squadrons available to provide CAS. It was thought that ensuring that having the maximum amount of AG capability was more important in the 'New World Order' era than the AD capability, so taking the hit of losing an AD unit while a new one formed was far preferable.

Hence it appeared to make more sense to work up the AD Typhoon units first, introducing the AG capability after the first two AD squadrons had formed on Tranche 1 airframes so that the loss of AG-capable airframes was only temporary. The plan didn't survive contact with the Treasury, which demanded the retirement of the Jaguars earlier than the RAF's plan assumed.
 
#20
SkiCarver said:
They don't want to use typhoon for close air support as it will be too fast for the pilots to ID the targets. It will have to 15,000ft close air support. Somebody please correct me as I would like to be wrong about that!!

We need some a10s or ac130s for that role.

Ski.
The thing about Ac130s is that they are very vunerable to attack during daylight hours & they are VERY expensive to run.

A10s are awesome & I agree that we should have some.

Typhoon will have a CAS capability. The idea with CAS is to have a mixture of a/c, with different capabilities that will suit the needs of the troops on the ground. Don't dismiss Typhoon simply because of it's speed, it's low workload in the cockpit and excellent sensors will make it a great CAS platform.

JSF is the white elephant here. From a Harrier point of view, I hope they cancel JSF & buy more Typhoons.
 

Similar threads

Top