Bearing in mind the fly-by -wire computer will need re proggramming to compensate for the missing cannon.
2007-06-09 10:31:10 · 6 answers · asked by Anonymous in Cars & Transportation ➔ Aircraft
Less than none; it actually cost money in the long run.
They had to spend money removing the cannon systems and updating the software (to account for the centre-of-gravity being moved).
But! Now, some top brass in the RAF have realised that the aircraft should be used for ground attack (since there's no need for an air-to-air fighter at the moment), and that means a cannon would be needed to attack ground targets as well as to complement its air-to-air capability.
So now cannons have been refitted (at further cost) but no ammo is available yet because it's not deemed neccessary.
And finally, the latest policy change is that since they're fitted they might as well be used. Costing money to train pilots in their use and in maintenance and ammuniton.
If they'd only left them in first of all they would have saved more than they did in the long run by messing about with them. But at least now we have a fully functioning warplane to rival anything else in the world.
2007-06-10 01:38:53 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The cost of the gun is very small compared to the cost of the aircraft. And it probably won't change much for the computer. If it already completely computer controlled, then it will likely adjust automatically. Besides, they could always mount some ballast to replace the missing gun.
As to not needing a cannon in this age of missiles: you obviously don't know what you're talking about. The USAF felt that way back in Vietnam, and then had to quickly scramble to find a way to mount guns on their planes. Missiles are great at long range, but are very limited very close. Also, a cannon is completely flexible, it can engage any kind of target from any angle. And cannon shells are really cheap compared to a single missile. The missiles have extended the maximum range of air to air and air to ground combat. But they have never replaced the cannon for close range.
2007-06-09 11:21:55 · answer #2 · answered by rohak1212 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Work it out for yourself,Computerised cannon or 1 hundredweight of concrete as ballast,which is what was put in the first planes to be made,Answer millions of Euros.
2007-06-10 00:32:50 · answer #3 · answered by Francis7 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Who needs a canon when you've got missiles that are much more precise.
Guns on fighters just don't make sense anymore.
When a plane can track and fir multiple missiles from 10+ miles and not have to worry that they enemy will out run them, what do you need a gun/canon for?
2007-06-09 10:58:05 · answer #4 · answered by mw451 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Absolutely none!!!
The canon is now been fitted.
The software for this jet is being constantly updated, so wouldn't necessarily cost anymore to add or delete a canon.
2007-06-09 10:46:30 · answer #5 · answered by flyingteeth 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
you might find these links useful
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2004/08/17/185958/eurofighter-carries-dummy-gun.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/htmlContent.jhtml?html=/archive/2000/05/01/ngun01.html
http://www.eurofighter.com/po_na.asp
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurofighter_Typhoon_variants
2007-06-09 13:45:56 · answer #6 · answered by jimbo 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋