Eurofighter to be renamed Eurocrap

AMX · Post by **AMX** » 2005-01-31 02:28pm

Ma Deuce wrote:The RAF decided to delete the gun from it's version of the Typhoon so they could save £90 million...

*checking*
Indeed...
*not saying what I think about that, could offend someone...*

Crown · Post by **Crown** » 2005-01-31 02:35pm

Mike's right, the problem with the Typhoon is having 4 governments with their respective four different defence ministries, and 4 different treasurers fight, bicker, and pull the project into all sorts of directions.

Best arguement for an European DoD equivalent, and before we all scream 'it can't be done!!1!!!!!1!1', my question is why? ESA works, so why couldn't this?

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2005-01-31 02:47pm

Ma Deuce wrote:
Where did you get that nonsense from? The EF has a 27mm Mauser as standard.
The RAF decided to delete the gun from it's version of the Typhoon so they could save £90 million...

wow.

the stupid! it burns!

Jalinth · Post by **Jalinth** » 2005-01-31 02:50pm

Stormbringer wrote:
AMX wrote:
Stormbringer wrote:According to the Globalsecurity page the F-22 will have a 20mm Gatling gun.
Thanks.
No problem. The US learned it's lesson from the F-4 about having interceptors and fighters with out guns.

You might have confused it with the F-117 which is a pure bomber despite the common misname (and designation) of it as stealth fighter, and thusly carries no gun.

Also, my understanding is that these craft tend to be not that agile due to the needs of the stealth. Aerodynamics doesn't mesh perfectly with radar diffusion - so you have to choose.

So the lack of guns is probably a good thing. Saying, if you are picked-up by an enemy fighter, run away.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2005-01-31 02:51pm

Enjoy.

TheDarkling · Post by **TheDarkling** » 2005-01-31 02:54pm

I thought that after spending lots of time and effort trying to craft a concrete block that resembled the gun they decided it would be cheaper to fit the gun, just that they wouldn't put any ammunition in them (saving a whopping £2.5 million).

TheDarkling · Post by **TheDarkling** » 2005-01-31 02:57pm

Admiral Valdemar wrote:Enjoy.

Yes that would be it.

kheegster · Post by **kheegster** » 2005-01-31 03:00pm

I see the reasons for having cannon, but IIRC, most modern airborne cannons have something like 10 seconds worth of ammunition? How far does this go in a dogfight?

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2005-01-31 03:04pm

kheegan wrote:I see the reasons for having cannon, but IIRC, most modern airborne cannons have something like 10 seconds worth of ammunition? How far does this go in a dogfight?

Quite far when you don't hold the trigger down for ten seconds in one go. And 10 seconds is a long time, most guns have a couple of seconds worth on full auto.

Ma Deuce · Post by **Ma Deuce** » 2005-01-31 03:05pm

I thought that after spending lots of time and effort trying to craft a concrete block that resembled the gun they decided it would be cheaper to fit the gun, just that they wouldn't put any ammunition in them (saving a whopping £2.5 million).

According to the article Valdemar provided, that's exactly what they did, which is even greater stupidity than I had previously thought (all to save £2.5 million out of £105 billion)

And here I thought the stupidity that has been infecting the US DoD lately was bad (read: Eric Shinseki, Art Cebrowski and their idiotic pet projects)...

AMX · Post by **AMX** » 2005-01-31 03:17pm

Well there is some difference in weight betwen a cannon-shaped concrete block and a real cannon; and probably not enough extra space to just add more concrete.

But, here's a strange thought I just had:
Apparently, they're putting in the whole thing, including ammo feed, just no ammo...
And everything else in the plane remains the same, since changes would actually increase the price (same reason why Austrian EFs will be fitted for in-flight refueling - we don't need it, but it's standard)...

The only actual savings are said to be maintainance of the gun, additional maintainance due to the stresses created by the gun, and ammo.

Now, what's stopping them from loading (and using) the cannon anyway?
(Except for lack of ammunition - which they can buy for the already delivered planes, and possibly get from other users on short notice...)

Is it possible that's all just a deception to satisfy some savings-crazed officials without actually cutting anything from the plane?
(Of course, they'd also have to train the pilots somehow... by asking another user for help, maybe...)

salm · Post by **salm** » 2005-01-31 04:04pm

Jalinth wrote: So the lack of guns is probably a good thing. Saying, if you are picked-up by an enemy fighter, run away.

i think the Nighthawks are pretty slow. so if they´re detected they´re basicly fucked.

Vendetta · Post by **Vendetta** » 2005-01-31 04:45pm

They do have a very small RCS though, and quite low IR signature as well.

Stealth doesn't make them invincible, as they've been downed before, but with their mission profile, it helps more than a gun would, and having an opening for it would potentially increase RCS.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2005-01-31 04:49pm

Vendetta wrote:They do have a very small RCS though, and quite low IR signature as well.

Stealth doesn't make them invincible, as they've been downed before, but with their mission profile, it helps more than a gun would, and having an opening for it would potentially increase RCS.

Only one stealth aircraft has ever been brought down, and it was more because of shitty mission planning than anything the aircraft did wrong.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2005-01-31 05:06pm

AMX wrote: Is it possible that's all just a deception to satisfy some savings-crazed officials without actually cutting anything from the plane?
(Of course, they'd also have to train the pilots somehow... by asking another user for help, maybe...)

That's not going to work, both for practical reasons and because the BK.27 cannon needs a new barrel as often as it needs a fresh drum of ammunition. That means borrowing a plane for training also means paying for lots of new barrels, besides paying for the cost of flying the fighter for extra hours. Those costs aren't that huge in comparison to the price of the program, but they aren't budgeted for and they aren't the sorts of thing, which you can simply fund by cutting minor corners out of the normal operating budget. Either the aircraft officially has a useabul gun and funding for it, or it doesn't happen. The only other option would be to not fly training missions for other things, which is not going to happen for very good reasons.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2005-01-31 05:09pm

Ma Deuce wrote:
According to the article Valdemar provided, that's exactly what they did, which is even greater stupidity than I had previously thought (all to save £2.5 million out of £105 billion)

And here I thought the stupidity that has been infecting the US DoD lately was bad (read: Eric Shinseki, Art Cebrowski and their idiotic pet projects)...

You've got to admire a military though, which can deploy its 'First Armored Division' into combat with one battalion sized 'regiment' of tanks in its entire force, and keep a straight face while doing it.

Post by **Vympel** » 2005-01-31 06:10pm

There are extensive reports from the General Accounting Office on exactly why the F-22 had such massive cost overruns. You can get them from their website. The most obvious reason is because they dramatically underestimate how much the fucking thing is going to cost when they bring it before Congress, spread out subcontracts to every possible Congressional district, and then hit Congress with the real price. Voila, program becomes virtually unkillable.

Crown · Post by **Crown** » 2005-01-31 06:12pm

Admiral Valdemar wrote:Enjoy.

Oh that is fucking grade A gold man! Thanks for posting it!

Stuart Mackey · Post by **Stuart Mackey** » 2005-01-31 11:25pm

Sea Skimmer wrote:
Ma Deuce wrote:
According to the article Valdemar provided, that's exactly what they did, which is even greater stupidity than I had previously thought (all to save £2.5 million out of £105 billion)

And here I thought the stupidity that has been infecting the US DoD lately was bad (read: Eric Shinseki, Art Cebrowski and their idiotic pet projects)...
You've got to admire a military though, which can deploy its 'First Armored Division' into combat with one battalion sized 'regiment' of tanks in its entire force, and keep a straight face while doing it.

Ahem a cavalry/armour 'regiment' in the British tradition is always that size and has been for centuries, as you well know.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2005-02-01 04:57pm

Jalinth wrote:Also, my understanding is that these craft tend to be not that agile due to the needs of the stealth. Aerodynamics doesn't mesh perfectly with radar diffusion - so you have to choose.

So the lack of guns is probably a good thing. Saying, if you are picked-up by an enemy fighter, run away.

Actually, that's only true of the first generation stealth aircraft such as Tacit Blue, the Hopeless Diamond, and the F-117. At the time there wasn't the understanding or computing power to adequately shape the aircraft, particularly to provide a curve, for manuverability and stealth. So in those aircraft stealth was the priority.

The B-2,F-22, F-23, and F-35 are all competetive, and the F-23 actually is supposedly more manuverable than the F-15! They're definitely performance aircraft in all respects.

And there are plenty of good reasons for a gun on fighter. If nothing else it's a last ditch defense. It's also useful for strafing and other oppurtunities. The Air Force long ago realized it was worthwhile to mount a cannon on fighters.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2005-02-01 04:59pm

Master of Ossus wrote:
Vendetta wrote:They do have a very small RCS though, and quite low IR signature as well.

Stealth doesn't make them invincible, as they've been downed before, but with their mission profile, it helps more than a gun would, and having an opening for it would potentially increase RCS.
Only one stealth aircraft has ever been brought down, and it was more because of shitty mission planning than anything the aircraft did wrong.

Not to mention that they don't have any real reason to give an attack aircraft a cannon. The A-6 didn't have one and did just fine. It's all about what the aircraft is going to be doing.