| Submit your comments on this article |
| Britain |
| Typhoon wins gun dogfight |
| 2006-10-03 |
| The RAF has been forced into an embarrassing U-turn on its policy of not allowing pilots of the new Eurofighter Typhoon to fire their gun.The service has decided to issue ammunition to future Typhoon squadrons and train pilots in using the fighter's single German-made 27mm Mauser cannon, reversing its cost-cutting edict.The decision follows experience in Afghanistan showing that guns are still one of the most effective weapons when supporting ground troops. In a scathing e-mail, a Parachute Regiment major commanding an isolated outpost described air support from RAF Harriers, which have no guns and rely on rockets, as "utterly, utterly useless". He contrasted their performance with the support offered by US air force A10 aircraft, which are equipped with a 27mm rotary cannon. At a conference last week, Air Vice-Marshal David Walker, the officer commanding No 1 Group, which includes the Harrier and the newly-forming Typhoon squadrons, said he had decided to proceed with the Typhoon gun, buying ammunition, spares and maintenance equipment. Seven years ago, the ministry decided to dispense with the gun on all but the first 55 of the 232 Typhoons planned for RAF service, in contrast to the other nations in the Eurofighter consortium, which kept it on all ordered aircraft. |
| Posted by:Fred |
| #25 I thought the plan for their replacement was the Longbow which was proved to be able to take the same kind of punishment on one Iraqi night. I would think that the ability to walk a cannon onto a target would make it more effective for CAS than rockets, but I am a non-pilot as I am sure my elder brother would agree. |
| Posted by: Super Hose 2006-10-03 23:57 |
| #24 It is slated to have a "service life extension" to increase the number of flying hours the airframe can endure, adv avionics, and a posssible engine upgrade. I don't know about the air speed drop when you fire the main gun, but the "G" meter will peg. |
| Posted by: TZSenator 2006-10-03 23:08 |
| #23 I'm not sure what the US has up its sleeve for when the A-10s get retired. I can't imagine replacing that plane with a bazillion dollar JSF or something, not for the up-close and personal stuff that this gun was designed for. Even the dual engines are high and set back for maximum survivability. This plane is called the Warthog because it was designed for function, not form! ;-) When the pilot fires the cannon, I hear it slows the plane down noticeably, but I don't know for sure. It is also designed to take all kinds of abuse and still be able to limp home. It's got tons of maneuverability, and the pilot has about the best view of his surroundings imaginable. So: Does anyone know what the military's plans are for replacing this fighter or its role? |
| Posted by: gorb 2006-10-03 22:34 |
| #22 #5 It speaks volumes about the knowledge of British MSM reporters that they think the A-10 has a 27 mm gun. Must be due to gun envy. :-) |
| Posted by: gorb 2006-10-03 22:17 |
| #21 The firepower is awesome, of course, but the pilot's visibility is truly amazing. No wonder this baby defines CAS. Wowsers, Tony - nice find, bro. :-> |
| Posted by: .com 2006-10-03 22:04 |
| #20 Neat video of some A10's blowin' stuff up. Day-um, that was impressive...of course, now I have to go take a cold shower! :-D |
| Posted by: Ricky bin Ricardo (Abu Babaloo) 2006-10-03 21:53 |
| #19 Neat video of some A10's blowin' stuff up. |
| Posted by: Tony (UK) 2006-10-03 20:02 |
| #18 Having witness training attacks from an A-10, let me assure you that you would be hard pressed to find *any* aircraft short of a B-52 that is more intimidating in a CAS role. Without any warning, it seems to suddenly materialize right above your position, and obliterates you before you could raise a rifle. It is not just the weapons it is carrying, it is *how* it delivers the fire from those weapons. Unlike the Typhoon or Harrier, which are half fighter aircraft, the A-10 is *ALL* CAS. And that is all the difference in the world. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2006-10-03 18:06 |
| #17 The most amazing damage of an aircraft that I saw. A picture of a B17 flying fortress with back fuselage shot away and the only thing holding the tail and the rest of the plane together was the walkway. |
| Posted by: djohn66 2006-10-03 17:12 |
| #16 It's good at anything it does. Plus it takes a licking, and keeps on ticking. There's also that F-14 that made it home with 3/4 of the starboard wing missing (with pictures to prove it). |
| Posted by: Whineter Claish9302 2006-10-03 16:46 |
| #15 I heard that they took out the gun for cost saving measures, then when they realized the weight and balance of the plane was out of whack, they had to put it back in, albeit without any ammo.... Might be an urban legend, but it has the sound of authenticity about it..... |
| Posted by: Mark E. 2006-10-03 16:44 |
| #14 ..Just noticed something else - the RAF ebsite shows a 3-view of a Harrier GR7..with gun pods. http://www.raf.mod.uk/equipment/harrier.html Mike |
| Posted by: Mike Kozlowski 2006-10-03 16:43 |
| #13 Chinter- You are correct, sir. The airplane was actually designed around the GAU-8. The decision of the MoD to get rid of the gun was just another example of how intent the British government has been to kill the RAF ever since the mid-50s. Notice that the article says nothing about putting the gun back into the Typhoon - just that the ones that do have it will be allowed to use it, presumably if they don't use too much ammo. And the first time somebody loses one of those Typhoons during target practice, they'll stop it again. Too dangerous, y'know. Mike |
| Posted by: Mike Kozlowski 2006-10-03 16:37 |
| #12 this was a cost saving measure! I wonder if there weren't some who hoped it would keep British fighters from directly attacking visible enemy. Rockets are a bit more .... antiseptic. |
| Posted by: lotp 2006-10-03 16:37 |
| #11 I was under the impression that the A10 was a flying cannon with a plane draped around it for decoration. Actually, the plane is there to provide the support for the gun. I've heard several times that the plane was literally designed AROUND the gun. The major purpose was to stop Soviet tank armies breaking out into Central Europe. It's good at anything it does. I'd love to see it in an anti-shipping role sometimes, say against Iranian "small craft". |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2006-10-03 16:34 |
| #10 I was under the impression that the A10 was a flying cannon with a plane draped around it for decoration. |
| Posted by: Chinter Flarong9283 2006-10-03 16:08 |
| #9 Worse yet for the Telegraph is the fact that the A-10's GAU-8/A gun has depleted uranium rounds purpose built for it. Combine those with the dual purpose explosive rounds, and the A-10 can make life miserable for all things on the ground, armoured or not. And yes, the GAU-8/A is a 30mm cannon, not 27mm. |
| Posted by: Shieldwolf 2006-10-03 15:30 |
| #8 A10's kick ass. That's not in the Typhoon mission profile, apparently |
| Posted by: Frank G 2006-10-03 15:02 |
| #7 Our own Phantoms in Vietnam were made without guns and relied on various rockets for offense and defense. The lack of cannon or machine guns made it a terrible dogfighter and the mistake has not been made again with US planes. |
| Posted by: jim 2006-10-03 15:00 |
| #6 Come now children. This answer has been out there for a long time (at least a year) Now, boys and girls....What makes the world go round? That's right this was a cost saving measure! |
| Posted by: AlanC 2006-10-03 14:56 |
| #5 It speaks volumes about the knowledge of British MSM reporters that they think the A-10 has a 27 mm gun. Al |
| Posted by: Frozen Al 2006-10-03 14:55 |
| #4 US air force A10 aircraft, which are equipped with a 27mm rotary cannon Guess the Telegraph can't trouble itself with fact-checking. The GAU-8 is a 30mm jobber. Unless my facts are out of date! Fact check please! |
| Posted by: Dreadnought 2006-10-03 14:54 |
| #3 It must be a EUro thingy, Spot. Perhaps a "gun" is too "hard power" - leaflet pods are prolly what they really wanted. I guess the precise reason for even having the Typhoon is so sophisticated and nuanced we wouldn't understand. :-} |
| Posted by: .com 2006-10-03 14:52 |
| #2 Mmmm... maybe their afraid the big bad gun might offend someone.... (sorry.. had to be said...) |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2006-10-03 14:49 |
| #1 Why the hell would you not want a gun? Especially given that ground-support is the main mission of "fighters" these days. |
| Posted by: Spot 2006-10-03 14:31 |
