The problem was as I understand it at least, that the MoD cut off the cash before the guns had been fully integrated saying (because afterall they are the experts and know what they are talking about) that ‘a cannon was no longer needed on the aircraft’. Sounds familiar doesn’t it? Thats the British government for you. The one on the AV8B (GAU12 is it? here pictured: http://nl.airliners.net/photos/middle/3/6/1/1206163.jpg) was, as is their custom in the USA, fully funded, fully fielded and fully utilised. My thoughts are that they would fit right in and be working with the minimum of fuss but the British MoD doesn’t think that the requirements of British troops in the line of fire are worth looking after in deference to a British MPs wages or pention so I doubt it will ever happen. 😡 😡

Just get the one thats cheaper. Of course, it will still cost more than no gun at all. :rolleyes:
I wonder if the UK F-35 fleet will come with gun pods.

Vortices are a tricky subject. One cannot assume just because of wing roots, you will have proper vortices. Even these layers have to carefully designed in wind tunnels and simulations. There is a big difference in the way it is shaped, in its cohesion and lamination, versus to the way it degenerates into turbulence (bad). Proper vortice formation and the way it flows over an aircraft without breaking up into something bad is not a product of design accident.

Agree. I just wanted to note that there are some devices on the F-15 that help. Its not like the F-15 is an aerodynamic dinosaur.

I cannot agree that the F-15 systems didn’t need upgrades. They do. F-16s upgrade more frequently and that is partly because they have a much larger installed base around the world, hence they face more diverse national requirements. Today, the air superiority only F-15C isn’t that much useful either, considering that since the sixties, the greatest threat to aircraft has been SAMs, and SAMs have killed more combat aircraft in the last four decades than air to air combat. The great majority of missions being run by airpower is directed against the ground or surface. Molded by modern and export requirements, something like the Slam Eagle is also a very different animal from the F-15A.

Yes, the F-15 recieved upgrades of course. But not as extensive as the F-16 in the A/A arena. You say its because of the larger numbers, I say its because the original Viper was limited. 😉
A/G is another matter, it wasnt required because there were other options. Note the F-15A had the same A/G capability as the F-16A.

Or better still, use the same gun pack that the US Marines use.

I assume the old 30mm pods are still around, the Sea Harrier used them too after all. The US ones would have to be purchased first.

Yes, very true. One reason why small fighters grow in size in the first place, is that the engines they are build around of, keeps growing bigger and more powerful. Ever since the Sopwith Camel, the general idea of designing a fighter is to build an airframe around an engine. Same with the Me-109, same with the F-16, and same with the JSF.

Dont you think its rather requirements for avionics, range and payload that drive weight up? That leads to a heavier plane and thus a bigger motor needs to be built. Only then the airframe is wrapped around the engine.

The F-16 may well be the exception here.

I’m sorry but the F-15 doesn’t really score over the F-16 in sheer range. Everytime you have two engines, you are also consuming twice the amount of fuel, and most of the energy being generated is not about pushing the aircraft against the air, but lost as waste in overcoming internal mechanical friction of the parts, as well as in sheer heat.

The F-15 has twice the fuel load and the same engines as the F-16. So it has the same energy losses per kg of fuel than the Viper.
But it hasnt twice the drag, esp. not when loaded.