[David_Hayward (RIP)]

Mark, don't forget that some bright spark at the MoD [we know whom it was as his name has been stated in the aviation press] decreed that the new Typhoon aka MRCA was to have the cannon deleted from a certain build point onwards because of costs concerns and those equipped or able to be equipped were to have no cannon installed. Now, that smacks of harking back to the late Fifties whereby missiles would replace piloted 'planes. Yes, missiles are all right but what happens when the missiles run out, misfire, won't operate, etc., or the pilot comes up against a helicopter, tank, truck, people, buildings, etc.? You need a cannon, and a rapid fire efficient one at that that won't eject casings straight into the air intake.

I also remember during the Falklands War that the much-vaunted Tigerfish torpedo was not used againt the Belgrano..the sub used good old fashioned WW2 design torps. A neighbour of mine worked on Tigerfish and they were always concerned that they might in practice decide after firing to return back and blow up the launching sub! Also, on ship in Carlos Bay/Water, small arms machine guns were apparently strapped to the ship's railings anfd made to fire verticaly so that when a Mirage or Skyhawk flew over it flew into a hail of small arms fire. Hardly hi-tech but it worked. I HAVE JUST REMEMBERED that a lo-tech anti-tank gun was fired by the Royal Marines at the Argentine Frigate and holed it. The Brits do have a history of using ingenious solutions when faced with no equipment designed for the job. Look at the second Boer War when naval cannon were manhandled across country.

A question I have is where are the Jaguar ground-attack 'planes that were used in the last Gulf War? Are the Aussie Hornets being used in the GA role?