It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Whats next? Ejection seats that dont eject?

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:
RAB

posted on Aug, 14 2004 @ 07:34 AM
link   
Just worked out that I FULL of #,
In that my post kills my point and the UK Ministry Of # is really buying a plane with no gun!

O well guess they will buy them later when they work out it'll be usefull!

But it's interesting as hopefully we put a optical gun on it as we have been putting lasers on ships for years!




posted on Aug, 14 2004 @ 07:39 AM
link   
Maybe they are just buying the plane is smaller pieces to make it look like it is only a few billion over budget.

Maybe when (or if) the MOD get some money to spend they will buy some cannons.

Or maybe they are waiting until they have to go to war again when they will force the government to buy them some cannons.



posted on Aug, 14 2004 @ 02:10 PM
link   

But it's interesting as hopefully we put a optical gun on it as we have been putting lasers on ships for years!


What lasers are talking about? And im sure they wont be happy but if Britain goes to war they will realize just how the US realized the F-4 need a gun and added one later.



posted on Aug, 14 2004 @ 06:30 PM
link   
hmm, so they did not want to spend the money to put in an existing piece of equipment, and now you think that they would spend more money to develop a new weapon that does not exist for a plane a just started to exist?



posted on Aug, 15 2004 @ 07:48 PM
link   
The Raptor does not need a cannon, but it still has one, the Eurofighter needs a cannon but it doesn't have one.

The Eurofighter is not stealth, it was built primarily for dogfighting, you can't have a dogfight without cannons, it just isn't the same, a Raptor does not need a cannon because it is stealth and has more capabilities than the Eurofighter, so the Raptor is very flexible, the Eurofighter cannot carry many ordinance so it needs a cannon for last defense.

You cannot strip an aircraft of its airframe and say it doesn't need one.

You might as well put up a sign on each UK EuroFighter that reads "Can you shoot me now? Good."

Shattered OUT...

[edit on 15-8-2004 by ShatteredSkies]



posted on Aug, 16 2004 @ 09:10 PM
link   
I concur with Westpoint23, modern aircombat has evolved to a different level, but a cannon is a MUST. Pure stupidity on the RAFs part. Trying to save 2.6M pounds? What about the wasted money when one of these planes buys the farm after engaging in a dogfight WITHOUT the trusty cannon?



posted on Aug, 17 2004 @ 04:30 AM
link   
A cannon is a must even though the Raptor will probably never use it. The USAF put the cannon on the Raptor as a weapon of last resort but also because of tradition. Even if we have a mach 5 fighter that cant be seen it will still have a cannon out of tradition.



posted on Aug, 17 2004 @ 05:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
A cannon is a must even though the Raptor will probably never use it. The USAF put the cannon on the Raptor as a weapon of last resort but also because of tradition. Even if we have a mach 5 fighter that cant be seen it will still have a cannon out of tradition.



I don't think the USAF put cannon on their planes just because of tradition.

Cannons are essential so the fighter can fight after it has used all of its missiles or when it is in a close combat situation.



posted on Aug, 17 2004 @ 05:46 AM
link   
Thats right, the cannon is on the Raptor because the USA tried gunless fighters in the fifties and sixties, as did the RAF and FAA, theorising that guns were useless in a modern high performance missile armed interceptor. Experience, not least in Vietnam, showed it to be a massive error. We've said this this before, are you listening Westpoint? More to the point ARE YOU LISTENING MOD(PE)????



posted on Aug, 17 2004 @ 11:08 AM
link   
It just makes sense to have a cannon for many reason, especially when you already paid for the cost of research, development and implementation of said cannon in to the airplane.



posted on Aug, 17 2004 @ 11:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
A cannon is a must even though the Raptor will probably never use it. The USAF put the cannon on the Raptor as a weapon of last resort but also because of tradition. Even if we have a mach 5 fighter that cant be seen it will still have a cannon out of tradition.


What tradition is that?

A cannon is no longer a must. With the latest in short range IR missiles it is possible to live without it. I would prefer to have myself. Have yet to meet a system that can counter a bullet.



posted on Aug, 17 2004 @ 10:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by COOL HAND

Originally posted by WestPoint23
A cannon is a must even though the Raptor will probably never use it. The USAF put the cannon on the Raptor as a weapon of last resort but also because of tradition. Even if we have a mach 5 fighter that cant be seen it will still have a cannon out of tradition.


What tradition is that?

A cannon is no longer a must. With the latest in short range IR missiles it is possible to live without it. I would prefer to have myself. Have yet to meet a system that can counter a bullet.

Hmm, I see one fault with your opinion; Does not matter if we are further advanced in technology, a cannon is essential, it is the same thing as Rocket infantry without a 9mm pistol.

You always need a last resort weapon that can last you the entire if not most of the battle.

You must think, even if it's not needed, it is essential, and if it is needed for god knows what reason, it will be there.

It is just the insurance of the pilot that he/she has a weapon after he/she has spent all of his/her missiles and rockets and bombs.

Shattered OUT...


E_T

posted on Aug, 18 2004 @ 04:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ezekial
Trying to save 2.6M pounds? What about the wasted money when one of these planes buys the farm after engaging in a dogfight WITHOUT the trusty cannon?

And those moneys which goes to overpaid bureaucrats or to their expensive PR-dinners.

But if they're going to save money this way why not to remove other engine while at it? I bet it would save money (and fuel).



posted on Aug, 18 2004 @ 06:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by ShatteredSkies
Hmm, I see one fault with your opinion; Does not matter if we are further advanced in technology, a cannon is essential, it is the same thing as Rocket infantry without a 9mm pistol.

That is a poor analogy. The cannon is only good for a close in dogfight, something that does not occur on the modern battlefield. Advances in sensors and improved missiles make it highly unlikely that there will need to be a close in fight, unless your opponent is equally equipped.



You always need a last resort weapon that can last you the entire if not most of the battle.


I agree, but not as a last resort weapon.

I would rather have the cannon on the aircraft, but I understand why people think that they are no longer needed.



posted on Aug, 18 2004 @ 04:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by COOL HAND
That is a poor analogy. The cannon is only good for a close in dogfight, something that does not occur on the modern battlefield.


Actually a cannon is very handy to have as a cheap air-to-ground weapon, certainly in CAS missions.



posted on Aug, 18 2004 @ 10:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by UK Wizard


the excuss from the MoD is that in modern warfare air combat doesn't need a cannon

Stupid MoD


This was also thought by the USAF after the Korean war, that modern air combat would be purely missiles and consequently the F-4 was originally produced without a cannon. But combat in Vietnam showed that modern fighters can still benefit from a 'sidearm' and that air combat was still more of an art than a science. The kill ratio of US to Vietnamese fighters went up dramatically after the establishement of the 'Top Gun' school.



posted on Aug, 19 2004 @ 09:37 PM
link   
Cool Hand, in my opinion that is a good analogy because if you think of it, sa 9mm Colt .45 is best used in close range combat, you try hitting a target 550m away with just a standard issue pistold, more like 1-20m at best-decent range.

And rocket infantry do not have an infinite supply of rockets do they? So when they run out of long range rockets, what do they use? Close range handguns/pistols.

Same goes for an aircraft, when an aircraft runs out of medium-long range missiles, it needs it close range cannon to bring the enemy that has missiles from within the enemie's firing range, you can't shoot a missile at 50-150m and hope it hits its target. A cannon is good from 50-250m(I believe, that is stretching it I think).

So in some cases, I think that is a good analogy, correct me if I'm wrong.

Shattered OUT...



posted on Aug, 20 2004 @ 01:12 PM
link   
Cannons have effective range of above 1 km but they are used at shorter distances in dogfight. Cannon is very useful for aircraft, especialy when it runs out of rockets and its a dedicated dogfighter, like EF2000. Building dogfighter without cannon is like building hunter submarine without torpedo tubes.



posted on Aug, 20 2004 @ 02:18 PM
link   
MOD = money ominously deficient

We need to sort our military asap unless we want to go the same way as mother ruzsia.



posted on Sep, 4 2004 @ 09:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by UK Wizard
i doubt the Tories would make more cut backs, they have a tradition of a good well equipped military - it's Labour who have destroyed our once proud military


- sorry I missed this.

This is simply not true.

The tory government of 1957 with it's infamous Duncan Sandys white paper on defence is the single biggest act of self-inflicted destruction ever wrought on the UK's defence forces and military manufacturing base.

I suggest you look it up and check it out.


we have the troops but we simply don't have the equippment anymore


we don't need to put more money in just spend it properly on good flexible systems

Cheap and Flexible Modular Tanks

switch from the SA80 to the G36 range of weapons

withdraw from Iraq within 2 years


- Yeah, like the tories aren't responsible for any of that either and would pull out of Iraq. Dream on my friend.

.....oh, and it turns out the UK Typhoons are getting the cannons, they just won't be loaded.....which means they could be if the need ever did arise.

[edit on 4-9-2004 by sminkeypinkey]




top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join