Eurofighter for the RAF DOES have the gun installed, a 27mm Mauser actually.

The original RAF plan was not to include a gun, but thay found that this affected the balance and aerodynamics in a bad way. At first they decided to solve this by fitting something the same size and weight as the gun(?), and after spending quite a sum of money on developing this concept and having some difficulty, they realsied it would actually be easier and cheaper just to fit the gun anyway.

I’m not sure if the RAF will be purchasing ammunition for the guns, but i imagine that since they have the guns now they will. The whole episode also doesn’t show the RAF at its best, as not fitting a gun would be quite a big mistake in itself, but then wasting the time and cash on this project was a little stupid.

Not the RAFs fault mate point your finger at the MoD. This crappy idea was driven by them and their penny pinching, the RAF did not have any say in it.

I see Pilot GHT is still a clueless zenophobic t**t.

Phil 🙂

Arthur said:

The RAF will cancel Eurofighter tranche III, buy two squadrons of F-22s instead.

Blimey mate the MoD wants to spend less money, not more.

Phil 🙂

Hi all

About that F/A-22 scale back thing (buying about 160 planes), I’d like to ask if that Pentagon’s decision means more F-15C/Ds remaining in USAF’s service?

Thanks

160?!

Won’t that put the unit cost up to $225mn?

This sounds like folly to me.

Phil 🙂

Well at least I can say I did something productive yesterday then, serving as your rant’s conduit

Well done that man! 😀

[QUOTE=cru

WTF have to do WWII with F22 ???

The difference is that UK was attacked (or to be accurate declare war to Germany) so the Brits had to fight to defend themselves, while the Americans died (more or less compared to the Bits is not so important) for the freedom of others.
What to say about the 15.000.000-20.000.000 Russians loses?[/QUOTE]

The USA wasn’t attacked? WTF was Pearl Harbour all about then? They were dragged in just like everybody else. In fact, up to that piont the vast majority of the US population was dead set against war, just like everybody else. Except of course the Axis nations who had been preparing for war for years.

This has nothing to do with the F22. It does however have everything to do with proportional responsibility. At least in an historical sense.

Phil 🙂

The point I’m making is that even though the F/A-22 has a higher per unit cost and program cost over the EF-2000, the EF-2000 is more expensive-it takes up a greater percentage of the available money. When someone claims that the US has imperialistic ambitions because we developed the most expensive (per unit) fighter aircraft in the world, it’s time to step back and look at the reality of the situation. Comparitively speaking, Europe is spending more money. Should the rest of NATO be fearing for their territorial sovereignty because of the EF-2000?

So if Europe is spending more money why are we being constantly asked by the US to spend more on defence when proportionally, or so you would have us beleive, we are already spending more than the USA? We would be even when we bought US equipment, what gives with that demand?

While we are talking about proportions…..

Rant mode on…….

Did you know that during WW2 the UK alone, not to mention the rest of the Commonwealth, lost as many people as the USA did and yet our population is/was 5 or 6 times smaller? Yet we get it rammed down our throats year on year since that the USA won the war single handed and paid in blood for our freedom? When you say things like this do you think for one second about all the Brits, and not to mention the rest of the Commonwealth, who paid in blood to hand you yours? Yet we never for one second pretend that we did it all alone and Gods forbid if we don’t think about the part the USA paid, that would be unforgiveable.

……rant mode off.

This rant has been brought to you by an ungrateful Brit.

Phil 🙂

As of March 15th 2004 the USAF and the US tax payer had spent $36bn (USD) on the F22 programme and were planning to buy 218 aircraft. That makes them $165m (USD) each.

Okay I have done my research or at least most of it and the news is that you are partially correct. The Typhoon costs the British taxpayer $82m (USD) per aircraft but as I have illustrated above the cost of the F22 to the US taxpayer is considerably higher than the $135m (USD) that you quoted earlier though a lot cheaper than the $250m quoted elswhere. Assuming the figures are correct of course. I just needed to get my head around the way you were doing it. Sorry, my mistake.

My point is, how much would the F22 cost the British tax payer were we to buy that instead? Are you going to let us off the R&D costs? Are you going to let us build our own? Are you going to sell it to us anyway? Even before you discount the impact on the British, not to mention the European aviation industry, the F22 would cost us a whole lot more than the Typhoon no matter what it is costing the the US tax payer. So, back to my original question. What point are you trying to make?