Gun data for Typhoon?

[Planejunky 0]

Hi,

 

I've just installed SF2 Europe and have everything working on the Typhoon except the gun. Does anyone have the Typhoon's Mauser 27mm data entry for the gun editor please?

 

Cheers

[+Brain32 265]

You have the gun in the Gripen mod...

[column5 63]

Didn't the UK delete the gun from its Typhoons? Or did they change that decision?

[Silverbolt 104]

Didn't the UK delete the gun from its Typhoons? Or did they change that decision?

 

afaik they've putted again

[Uhu 2]

AFAIK, the first tranche of Typhoons for the UK has the gun, but not the planned following ones, replacing it by some electronics.

 

OK, Info a little bit outdated: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurofighter_T...ts#RAF_Aircraft

 

Greets, Uhu

[Planejunky 0]

Thanks for the pointer Brain32.

 

The gun was eventually included due to aircraft weight and balance issues with the flight software. It's been recently tried and tested, so hopefully the insane decision made by our idiot politicians to remove it, will be overturned as a fighter without a gun is as much use as a handbrake on a yacht! The Harrier suffered badly in Afghanistan due to the lack of guns in the CAS role, the Tornado has already been strafing Taliban targets with its 27mm Mauser with great success, proving the point we knew already. From 2011 Typhoon's will be replacing the Tornado GR.4 force in Afghanistan, so a working gun will be a vital asset to allied troops serving on the ground.

 

The politicians excuse for trying to ommit the Typhoon's gun was laughable, "the vibration could cause damage to the airframe". The Tornado GR.1 had two of the very same Mauser guns, and rather strangely there seems to have been little or no detrimental affect to the airframes whatsoever, and these entered service in 1981! This excuse was pathetic at best, and was yet another way to screw our armed forces out of the decent kit they need.

 

Welcome to Britains third world air force folks, and it will only get worse. I can't honestly see how we can continue kidding ourselves that we're a big part on the world stage, when in reality we're only equipped to be an extra.

Edited July 21, 2009 by Planejunky

[DWCAce 19]

The politicians excuse for ommiting the Typhoon's gun was laughable, "the vibration could cause damage to the airframe".

 

 

Well, if that was the case, then the politicians should be ousted out of office for buying shoddy equipment and wasting the people's money!

 

Funny, I don't see A-10's falling apart, and I seem to remember that they have a gun...

[+Brain32 265]

Planejunky if you think you have it bad, you should see Croatian Air Force - now that's a LOL. Just a few amuzing examples:

1.) We retired Mi-24 Hind's as politicians saw no use for them to be serviced(P.S: Croatia is perfect terrain for attack helicopters btw lol)

3.) Instead of throwing them to museums and getting some proper stuff we "modernized" our MiG-21's in Romania to hold a few years until we get Gripen/F-16/Mirage2k/MiG-29M/EF-2000 ofcourse that was before the recession now there's no chance of getting any of those until we all recover.

On top of that we have a very well trained personel with big history and even war expirience and all those men will soon have nothing to fly on

[Planejunky 0]

Well, if that was the case, then the politicians should be ousted out of office for buying shoddy equipment and wasting the people's money!

 

Funny, I don't see A-10's falling apart, and I seem to remember that they have a gun...

 

Exactly. The gun will have no such effect on the airframes and they know it, as that rather pathetic excuse was nothing more than a money saving scam.

[column5 63]

Don't feel too bad. The F-35 is relegated to carrying a gun pod now.

[+Dave 2,322]

Don't feel too bad. The F-35 is relegated to carrying a gun pod now.

 

Yeah how the Navy and Marines got roped into that I will never know. Why not just have the one version with the internal gun like the USAF?

[column5 63]

Yeah how the Navy and Marines got roped into that I will never know. Why not just have the one version with the internal gun like the USAF?

 

Maybe they are using the space for fuel...the Navy's tactical aircraft since the Hornet have been notoriously short-ranged.

[+Dave 2,322]

Maybe they are using the space for fuel...the Navy's tactical aircraft since the Hornet have been notoriously short-ranged.

 

Ah good point. Still can't get over the single engine thing over water too.

[fallenphoenix1986 603]

re. the singe engine over water, I know two are preferable however it worked for the A-4, F-8, A-7 and Harriers

 

The excuse for the deletion of the gun in the Typhoon however was laughable, noone was buying it and it made the clowns look like morons (as per) why they didnt just admit to being penny pinchers I don't know, everyone knows they are and at least we'd believe them for a change.

 

Craig

[DWCAce 19]

Funny, the F-14 had range AND a gun... Too bad SECDEF was a douche..

 

:: steps off the F-14 turtledeck::