So you have no proof then i cant search something up that doesn’t exist
Gonna cry more or gonna search for it? I know you like to praise UK vehicles but like it or not that is the truth.
If you’re not gonna bother to search for that information then dont waste my time please.
You say as baseless fakse claim and then when asked for proof you refuse to show any and ask for me to find it
I think it is clear that you are wrong
In that case show us your proof that every single EFT was deployed with Gun from the start please.
Im waiting for documents cause according to RAF pilots first couple EFT’s didnt had gun and they immediately expressed their discomfort about this issue, only after that EFT’s deployed with gun and the ones without one recieved their Mauser 27Mm.
Yet again you seem to be confusing this with something else
The RAF planed to not have a gun but realised it would cost more to not have the gun so the didn’t remove the gun
This was done before any plane entered service and every EFT had a gun when it entered service
You are the one who is making a baseless claim about the gun and refusing to post anything to support your claim as we both know it is wrong but this isn’t a Eurofighter thread is it so i am leaving this here
IF you dont have any proof that supports your claim please dont waste my time with this.
Im too tired today to trawl and find the original scope document and acceptance criterias for all partners.
Not having a gun…guns relevancy drops off with every generation.
Aircraft are not using the gun to provide CAS or shoot each other down. If you are out of missiles you go home.
It is true that the Eurofighter nations considered air to air capability to be a higher priority, however to say the Eurofighter was not designed to be multirole is false. AST 414 was the original UK requirement issued for the Eurofighter in the early 1980s, it plainly states the aircraft must have a good ground attack capability in order to serve as a replacement for the Jaguar.
This seems unlikely to me, the RAF originally wanted to get rid of the gun to save money, but then found out that due to the need to buy ballast kits and update the FCA it would be cheaper to retain the gun. So for a period of time they retained the gun and just didn’t issue any ammo for it or allow the crew to use it.
Source: Cannons will be operable on all UK RAF Eurofighter Typhoons | News | Flight Global
When pilots complain about the lack of a gun they are likely talking about the lack of a useable gun, rather than the gun physically not being there.
If you have evidence to support your claims then please share it.
Rafale had a larger emphasis on air-to-ground, but both entered service without air to ground capability.
Tranche 1 Block 1/2 Eurofighters were air to air only, with ground attack capability added in Tranche 1 Block 5. All Block 1&2 aircraft were later upgraded to Block 5 standard though.
F.1 standard Rafale’s were air to air only, with F.2 standard being the first ones with ground attack capability. Funnily enough LF.1 standard Rafales (the very first standard to enter service) actually did lack a gun.
7 Likes
F1 was because the french navy was still angry and kept asking for an f18 so it was a bit rushed and it didn’t had a lot.
I hope the tornade F3 with concrete blocks instead of radars caused the same reaction
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
Its a known factor that UK requirements doesnt always meeted. In fact Challenger 2 is a famous example in this case.
Just because UK asked for something doesnt mean it was designed to be that way from the beginning.
EFT was designed to be Air Superiority Fighter until they realized they can use it for multirole efficiently.
Thats why First Tranche models doesnt even support basic Cas capabilities.
So in other words they had no usable guns, which indicates that First operational Typhoons had no gun for CQC and CAS which proves my point to begin with.
Cause like @_OceanFish said First block of Rafales were actually rushed to meet minimum requirements, unlike EFT.
Anyway this a Rafale thread and we derailed it enough.
If you wish to continue this conversation there are dedicated EFT threads for that.
1 Like
Tranche 1 Block 1 had a fully functional BK27 fit to the aircraft, it only received operational clearance by the time Tranche 1 Block 2 was received.
Maybe this is a misunderstanding of terms. It had a gun, it always had the gun, it just took a couple years to work up to its release to service. This happens pretty frequently with airframes that are “worked” up to an operational standard.
It would be more correct to say “The Typhoon wasn’t cleared to use its BK27 gun until 2 years after the introduction of Tranche 1 Block 1.”
3 Likes
Possibly due to RAF pilots interview a misunderstood happened from the beginning.
1 Like
As you wish:
3 Likes
Some research today shows that the new changes is correct. You can see it for yourself using the motor manufacturer’s archived pages. I used to think these informations were classified but they were not apparently.
Source:
These changes will result in quite a bit higher acceleration due to decreased burntime and increased thrust but should still maintain the overall same ranges(?). The devs reached a separate conclusion than I did, a better one too.
13 Likes
mica has a page too??
1 Like