Have Gun Won't Work: Eurofighter/Typhoon.

Is this for freakin' real?
$164 million for guns that don't work/can't fire?

The Eurofighter project has been bedevilled with difficulties

Senior RAF officers defended the decision by saying that the use of guns on aircraft was outdated and would be a waste of money.

It was too late to stop the first tranche of 55 British aircraft being fitted with the Mauser BK27 gun, but the rest would have a lead or concrete weight in its place.

But engineers found the only way to preserve the aircraft's aerodynamics was to have something that not only weighed the same as the gun but was also shaped exactly the same.

To make matters worse, each individual part of the makeweight's shape also had to weigh exactly the same as the real thing. In short, the cheapest option was to fit the cannon. So all 232 of the RAF's Eurofighter/Typhoon aircraft will be fitted with the gun at a cost of �90 million - but in order to save what is now a mere �2.5 million they will have no rounds to fire.

RAF gets a new fighter with a gun it cannot fire

Since this is a thread dealing with aircraft guns, perhaps its time to discuss whether modern fighter-jet guns are necessary or just a matter of time before they are or become obsolete?




seekerof

This has been posted a while ago. But I wonder if the EF canons really cannot fire, or they just bought no ammo for them?

I think the RAF will find, as others have in the past, that however advanced A2A technology becomes you will still always need the back up of a gun. The good thing of course is that all the aircraft will actually have the gun in place so reversing the decision will be a quick and cheap option the next time the RAF needs to go to war, which is when this sort of thing always gets sorted.

Originally posted by waynos
I think the RAF will find, as others have in the past, that however advanced A2A technology becomes you will still always need the back up of a gun. The good thing of course is that all the aircraft will actually have the gun in place so reversing the decision will be a quick and cheap option the next time the RAF needs to go to war, which is when this sort of thing always gets sorted.

Well the EF is a fighter/bomber therefore wouldn't the gun at least be needed for a possible air to ground use ? For air to air, the technology of missiles these days almost guarantees a first round kill, so maybe cannons in the a2a role are becoming obselete.

there is already a discussion on this here

and the gun would not carry any ammo

Originally posted by dnnx
there is already a discussion on this here

and the gun would not carry any ammo

- It seems to me this is a total non-story. A right-wing rag having a go at a government it doesn't (and never has) liked.

They tried to save some money and ended up being unable to in the way they thought they might. Big deal. They're hardly the first people to think guns out-dated on a fighter these days.

In any event I believe the gun will be fitted and just be left empty, won't it?

Er, so it's got a working gun then hasn't it, with ammunition bins and all the kit necessary hasn't it?

So, if required, they could buy the rounds from the suppliers, arm and load the thing and it would have an operating gun, wouldn't they?



[edit on 4-9-2004 by sminkeypinkey]

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
- It seems to me this is a total non-story. A right-wing rag having a go at a government it doesn't (and never has) liked.

They tried to save some money and ended up being unable to in the way they thought they might. Big deal. They're hardly the first people to think guns out-dated on a fighter these days.

[edit on 4-9-2004 by sminkeypinkey]

Well, since yopu made it political ......

It is a story, because we all know that if any conservative group had done this, and spent 100+ million dollars on something akin to a toy gun, then you damn well better believe every flaming liberal in all the land would be up in arms bitching about how the US wastes money on the military. I can hear it now:

"THEY SPENT ALMOST 2 HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS ON SOMETHING THAT CAN'T EVEN BE USED!!!!!! THAT COULD HAVE FED ABDULLA BIN NUT JOB IN AFGHANISTAN!!!! BUT ALL OF THESE EVIL CONSERVATIVES DO IS BUY GUNS - AND THEY DON'T EVEN WORK!!! IT MUST HAVE BEEN BUSH'S IDEA - HE'S THE ONLY ONE STUPID ENOUGH TO DO THAT!!!!!! OR MAYBE IT WAS RUMSFELD!!!!!! DOES HALIBURTON MAKE THESE GUNS?????!!!!!!"

Originally posted by American Mad Man
It is a story, because we all know that if any conservative group had done this, and spent 100+ million dollars on something akin to a toy gun, then you damn well better believe every flaming liberal in all the land would be up in arms bitching about how the US wastes money on the military.

- Naaa mate, it's a non-story because the net effect is �2.5 million saved on some ammunition and a slightly shorter training course for the crews.

End of.

The rest political crap from the opponents of the current UK gov. That is all and truely that is all this amounts to.

They looked at deleting the gun to save money, found they couldn't.

Big deal.

(anything beyond that is your imagination and paranoia )

EHHH
wait a second last paper i read said the gun was fine. just they werent going to use it.
they didnt have money for it so they would fly with the gun with no bullets.

People in the USAF thought that the use of guns on aircraft was outdated and would be a waste of money.

They were proven dead wrong. We had pilots in Vietnam that had to make thier own gun pods because they were given a plane without a gun which they needed.

I can not believe this is true? Does Vietnam ring a bell? The F-4 was not to have a gun and later one was retrofited, I can not believe they would fall for such crap. Glad the Brits are getting the guns, can buy ammo later

Typhoon was supposed to be a Multirole fighter.

Whatever the story, I beleive in guns.

If your BVR turns into a nightmare and gets close and personal,

If you get asked to shoot the sh...ebas outa a tuna boat. (RN Shars -v- Argentine spy trawler Narwhal Falklands 1982)

Or if your target of opportunity is Osama bin Laden in a Lexus 4x4 and 30mike is all your left packing....

Reach out and touch someone with an Aden.

Originally posted by craigandrew
Typhoon was supposed to be a Multirole fighter.

Whatever the story, I beleive in guns.

- Then you'll no doubt be happy to know the EF has a fully fuctioning gun and software for it's use in it's rather sophisticated computer.

The last I heard is that it even takes a very similar round to the cannon fitted to the Tornado. In which case the RAF has plentiful stocks should they feel the need to load the thing anytime.

Joy all round then, right?

I can't believe this turkey of a thread has resurfaced

Maybe we could have a new motto; "Deny Common Sense".

As sminkey said, Tornado also carries the same 27mm Mauser as the Typhoon, the gun is installed not missing, the ammo is in stock. Making the gun 'operational' will be about as complicated as ticking a box on a request form.

Oh I knew it was a donkey story.

I just thought for the "Hi Tech, Stealth and BVR missiles rules" club I'd state why I love guns in planes.

Oh yea. Try firing a BVR as a warning shot against a 747. "and I fired my million dollar ASRAAAM as a warning to get them to turn. It worked in the movies".

The auditors reply....."couldnt he have fired $5,000 bucks worth of 27mm for gods sakes!"

Yet another reason to maintain the human element in the cockpit.


0100001000010001000100100010....Logic circuit says target. Shoot it down............the channel nine news helecopter plummets to the ground mid traffic report. The courtmartial scrapped the onboard computer.

[edit on 8-10-2004 by craigandrew]

Could the reason the UK didnt buy any ammo is because they plan to produce it themselves? It not like they cant make it and it would bring more jobs to the UK and it would be a better supply line for your ammo. Thats what I would do.

[edit on 8-10-2004 by ShadowXIX]