eurofighter is a joke

[bison3255]

sorry if this has already been posted, but search doesnt work...

rofl

EUROFIGHTER WILL NOT FIRE A SHOT
More News | Back to home page

16:45 - 13 August 2004
By Chloe Rigby c.rigby The RAF's new Eurofighter plane has to carry a gun it cannot fire if it is to operate properly, according to reports that have emerged today.

A powerful wing-mounted cannon was in the original plans for the Eurofighter but it was cut out of the specification four years ago as designers looked to save money on the £109 billion jet plane project, which will be powered by engines built in Patchway by Rolls-Royce.

It was hoped that losing the cannon would save £90 million on the £109 billion jet fighter project.

But since then it has emerged that the hi-tech jet needs the gun because its sophisticated computerised flight controls rely on the ballast provided by the gun.

Engineers did attempt to fit the plane with lumps of lead or concrete in place of the cannon, before deciding it would actually be cheaper to use it after all.

But to save £2.5 million on the aircraft, built by Bristol employer BAE Systems at sites in the north of England, it will have no rounds to fire.

The decision has been slated by RAF sources. The cannon had been seen as outdated but Air Commodore Andrew Lambert, one of the RAF's leading air power strategists, said that view was now "old thinking".

He told the Daily Telegraph: "When you are dealing with terrorists and other unpredictable situations, you want all the flexibility you can get and a gun gives you a lot of utility. We were prepared to use gunfire against helicopters breaching UN rules over Bosnia in the 1990s. You could also use it for strafing targets like pick-up trucks in the desert."

An anonymous officer told the Daily Mail that the decision was "pretty stupid".

The officer said: "With a cannon you can fire warning shots, which you can't do with missiles, and in a messy conflict or some kind of crisis short of full-scale war that could be very useful.

"And if you're returning from a mission with no missiles or bombs left, a gun means you can still react to a target of opportunity.

"Even in this age of precision bombs, and guided missiles it's a worthwhile weapon."

A Ministry of Defence spokesman refused to comment directly on the reports but insisted the jet would have a "range of weapons" allowing it to carry out air defence and ground attack missions.

"That will include missiles and bombs," the spokesman said. "The exact fit of weaponry has yet to be decided upon."

rofl

[usa320]

Ive heard on another forum that since this article was released a decision was made to equip the plane with a gun.

[Hellman109]

It's not finished yet, they will work on something.

[AFACadet]

It won't have a gun.


Please, somone let me know when was the last gun kill by a Western Air Force on another aircraft.


*listening*


Thought so.


P.S. A-10 doesn't count


The Eurofighter is second only to the Raptor.

[Romulus]

Wow Bison you must be some sort of aeronautical genius in seeing all these flaws in the Patriot missile and now the Euro Fighter. :roll:

[bison3255]

BVR missiles arent perfect, AMRAAM still only has 35-55% success rate, and even its well ahead of AA-10, sparrow, etc. in this regard..

[MEGR]

It won't have a gun.


Please, somone let me know when was the last gun kill by a Western Air Force on another aircraft.


*listening*


Thought so.


P.S. A-10 doesn't count


The Eurofighter is second only to the Raptor.

I believe that was Vietnam. Our jets soon required a gun after duels with communist migs. Results with just missles were poor so the designers placed a 20mm gatling gun which really put a hurt on the communist migs. I mean what's cheaper? A cool missle, or a bunch of shells and powder?

[AFACadet]

If your BVR missiles suck (which they don't as much as people think), then you go to WVR (In the Typhoon's case, the ASRAAM). If these don't work, bug out--you're wingman is there to back you up.

The only time I can see a gun being useful in the future are on large aircraft (transports, tankers, AEW&C), and emergency straffing runs as done in OEF and OIF.

[Flagg]

It won't have a gun.


Please, somone let me know when was the last gun kill by a Western Air Force on another aircraft.


*listening*


Thought so.


P.S. A-10 doesn't count


The Eurofighter is second only to the Raptor.

Ummm, let's see:

USAF F15 killed one or more rotary wing aircraft in Gulf War, Chapter One( Iraqi and Blue on Blue I think :oops: )

IAF F15 & F16 had some gun kills on both rotary and fixed wing aircraft in 1982 Bekaa Valley, as well as plus or minus a few years

[Durandal]

Please, somone let me know when was the last gun kill by a Western Air Force on another aircraft.

That is only part of the issue.

Crap man, they had F-14s in A-stan doing CAS with guns.

This argument was solved over the jungles of North and South Vietnam years ago. A Combat Fighter needs a gun, period.

rofl I mean this makes me laugh, in a sad and pathetic way. Someone is trying to justify NOT having a gun to save money and save face. A corporation screwed the pooch and now they are paying some military and government group cash of fist to justify it.

[usa320]

Indeed... even if not for AA combat, a gun is an essential tool for any plane flying strike or CAS missions.


BVR missiles arent perfect, AMRAAM still only has 35-55% success rate, and even its well ahead of AA-10, sparrow, etc. in this regard..


The advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile (AMRAAM) is combat-proven. AMRAAM has scored combat victories over the skies of Iraq, Bosnia, and Kosovo

The AMRAAM definately has better than 35% accuracy... Anytime ive ever heard of the AMRAAM being fired in actual combat within the suggested firing parameters, its hit its target.

Keep in mind, Planes flying strike sorties generally only carry 2 AIM-120's. So if they only had a 35% accuracy rating then they would need 4 or 5 of em.

[Midav]

BVR missiles arent perfect, AMRAAM still only has 35-55% success rate, and even its well ahead of AA-10, sparrow, etc. in this regard..

Really?

I've always wondered what the stats were on the Aim-120.

[usa320]

I've always wondered what the stats were on the Aim-120.

Well id reccomend looking somewhere other than Bison's posts...

[Hellman109]

Remeber that the AAMRAM is being remoddled (IIRC, 15mc longer, more fuel, better targetting).

But agreed that any fighter needs a gun, otherwise there open slather as soon as the enemy sees there wings are empty.

If I was in a fighter, saw a euro with it's wings empty, and knew it didnt have a gun, Id be fighting it with guns till it hit it's own aircover.

Basically without that 'hidden' weapon, you know instantly if it can attack you or not.

I couldnt find accuracy details on teh AAMRAM, but at $366,000 each, your not going to pay that much for a substandard weapon.

[Midav]

I've always wondered what the stats were on the Aim-120.

Well id reccomend looking somewhere other than Bison's posts...

It's an open ended question.

Seeveral were used over Iraq in the very early 90's, with one Mig-25 being splashed.

I do remember at least one being fired at Iraqi jets retreating out of the S. No fly zone ca. 1995 and it missed, because the jets flew out of the kill zone.

However, it did awesome in actual engagements afaik.

[jedisponge]

If your BVR missiles suck (which they don't as much as people think), then you go to WVR (In the Typhoon's case, the ASRAAM). If these don't work, bug out--you're wingman is there to back you up.

The only time I can see a gun being useful in the future are on large aircraft (transports, tankers, AEW&C), and emergency straffing runs as done in OEF and OIF.

if you see the guns being useful in the future then why speak against it?

if you were to graduate the academy and become a pilot, would you rather have absolutely no weapons in a combat zone, or atleast a cannon?

and now for our history lesson; the f-4 was originally fitted without a machine gun/cannon/gattling gun. after extended service during a very tough war, they finally put a gun on it. and i can guarentee you every phantom pilot was happy about it. maybe not guarentee but logic dictates they would be happy.

they take out the gun, they don't learn from history, and they repeat problems from the past all over again.

[Caraway]

PROGAPANDA!!! Americans are just trying to boost up their own fighter sales in Asia. :|

[usa320]

PROGAPANDA!!! Americans are just trying to boost up their own fighter sales in Asia.

I do believe it is propaganda, as i recall a tread on here or another forum that debunked the crap out of the article, but i dont think it was politically or economically motivated, i think it was just a journalist who didnt look into the facts first.

[Caraway]

In other words the whole article is BS. :cantbeli:

[Midav]

PROGAPANDA!!! Americans are just trying to boost up their own fighter sales in Asia. :|

I've come to find out those that make such bold accusations are usually the ones that spread such accusations themselves http://www.linda-goodman.com/ubb/biggrin.gif

[usa320]

In other words the whole article is BS

I reckon that was determined...im trying to find the thread.

[obd]

Funny, we made the same mistake in Vietnam with our F4 phantoms. And you know what, with the United States having the largest, best equiped, and best trained force of its size, plus the most technologically advanced air force in the world, choosing to equip even its super stealthy and super high tech F-22 Raptor with a cannon, it JUST MIGHT be a god idea to have one.

Like the RAF pilot said, although the last time a cannon was used in air to air combat was the A-10 in Gulf War of a decade ago, the cannon is still very useful and in fact, the last time a fighter aircraft used its cannon was in support of Special Forces in A-stan.

Several cases of F-15C (not even the attack variant, Im talking the pure air superiority version) in A-stan using its cannons are documented.

Plus, the Eurofighter is designed from the outset to have an attack role and any attack aircraft without cannon is just plain moronic........sorry but us yanks learned the "cannon lesson" 35 years ago......You Brits would do well to pay attention......but as they say "Ye who ignores history is doomed to repeat it" .........

And if you dont trust us Yanks, just ask the Israeli's. They love thier cannons.

[Caraway]

If you don't exploit a certain aspect....the enemy will. But anyway, I don't think that the Eurofighter is a joke. I think that EF is pretty far from a joke. ;)

[Midav]

If you don't exploit a certain aspect....the enemy will. But anyway, I don't think that the Eurofighter is a joke. I think that EF is pretty far from a joke. ;)

Actually, Caraway, hope that people take the Typhoon for a joke. Because they won't regret to make that mistake twice after facing it ;)

Btw, just to let you know and if I recollect correctly, bison is not American.

And even if he is, he certainly only speaks for himself.

[FallenAngel]

If you don't exploit a certain aspect....the enemy will. But anyway, I don't think that the Eurofighter is a joke. I think that EF is pretty far from a joke. ;)

No...just a decade late entering service and millions (billions?) overbudget.

The plane itself doesn't suck- the development program sure did.

[Caraway]

No...just a decade late entering service and millions (billions?) overbudget.

The plane itself doesn't suck- the development program sure did. Sadly enough....if the development sucks....oh **** it.....it's enough if it can beat the Russians.

[fantassin]

Eurofighter has been called "Air Farce One" for a while now.

[Knutsen]

I think i don't get everything.

If the cost of the project is 109million( i can't find the symbol of pound).
Why supressing a gun will save 90 million?????? Does that mean the most expensive part of a fighter is the gun ?
Some kind of mistake there..

[supercontra]

A perfect example of "military intelligence"

[platform389]

The RAF's new Eurofighter plane has to carry a gun it cannot fire if it is to operate properly, according to reports that have emerged today.

Everyone seems to be missing the point of the article. Regardless of the need for a gun in a current generation fighter, this one will carry a non operative one as ballast! The sheer absurdity is hilarious. At the very least if you have it, make it work!

Toto, this ain't the Skunk Works making this thing.

rofl

[Backis]

I believe that was Vietnam. Our jets soon required a gun after duels with communist migs. Results with just missles were poor so the designers placed a 20mm gatling gun which really put a hurt on the communist migs. I mean what's cheaper? A cool missle, or a bunch of shells and powder?

No, the Red Flag and Top Gun programmes put a hurt on the NVA airforce, not the gun per se.

Hardware without training is like a turd without a potty...

And I know of a gun-kill from a F14A against a Libyan Su-7 in '86 btw.


Typical Navy Aviator hotdogging for sure, but... ;)

[Backis]

I couldnt find accuracy details on teh AAMRAM, but at $366,000 each, your not going to pay that much for a substandard weapon.

Considering the cost of fighter aircraft that is still cheap as chips even if you have to fire TEN missiles per kill (ie at a Pk of 0.10), wich you won't need with the AMRAAM...

[Backis]

Another thing, the "Eurofighter" has always carried a gun (the Mauser Bk-27 btw, also carried by Gripen and most likely by JSF in the future as well), it was only the UK version, EFA Typhoon, that removed the gun (for budgetary reasons).

The real problem with that is that the gun was relied upon for some structure carrying purpose, and the developers found out that it would be more expensive to fix that problem than actually carry the gun...

Gotta love beaurocrats meddling with details of military procurement... :bash:

[Kitsune]

Another thing, the "Eurofighter" has always carried a gun (the Mauser Bk-27 btw, also carried by Gripen and most likely by JSF in the future as well), it was only the UK version, EFA Typhoon, that removed the gun (for budgetary reasons).



Exactly. The German version has a gun, and I can't remember that there was ever talk about getting rid of it, or that it is inoperable and only good for ballast purposes. (Actually I bet the British version will have an operable gun sooner or later, too...)

But I find the nearly pathological need to ridicule the Typhoon some people (quite a few of them russians) seem to have quite interesting.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

Even the experts seem divided. From FAS.org


Abstract: Historically, a short-range weapon system was all that was available for air-to-air fighters. As a result, the gun has been a constant in aerial warfare. However, the advent of air-to-air missile technology and sophisticated airborne radar systems has changed the fighter pilot's primary weapon of choice to longer range missiles. This trend is evident by highlighting the percentage of gun kills in relation to over all air-to-air kills. The percentage has shifted from 100% gun kills in WWI and WWII to 0% gun kills in the Persian Gulf War. The improvement in air-to-air missile performance has made the necessity of a gun system suspect. This advancing trend begs the question; is there a need for a short-range weapon in 21st century air-to-air fighters? This paper examines the requirement of equipping future fighters with a short-range capability by conducting a varied literary review. An examination of historical aerial engagements, modern training and technologies, as well as future trends provides sufficient information to make procurement decisions. Additionally, a prediction of future combat situations assists planners in developing air-to-air requirements. In conclusion, technology will surely allow for beyond visual range employment, although future missions will be predominantly low intensity conflicts restricted by political rules of engagement. These restrictions will limit the utilization of stealth benefits and missile advantages because fighters will be drawn into the visual arena where a short-range weapon system will be required.

The full .pdf file for those interested (106k) http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/docs/98-210.pdf

Personally, if the airframe will be 100% air to air (like the "not a pound for air to ground" F-15A), a gun probably isn't required any more. If it's multirole & may be down in the mud, it had better have a gun.

[Backis]

Personally, if the airframe will be 100% air to air (like the "not a pound for air to ground" F-15A), a gun probably isn't required any more. If it's multirole & may be down in the mud, it had better have a gun.

As said, the missile vs gun debate is decades old...

Why drop the gun when you don't have to, makes no sense... maybe tomorrow some engineer builds a gee-whiz jammer that makes BVR-missiles obsolete overnight... and there you sit with a whole fleet of almost obsolete aircraft...

Just because some buearocrat wanted to save 0,01£...

[Durandal]

Personally, if the airframe will be 100% air to air (like the "not a pound for air to ground" F-15A), a gun probably isn't required any more. If it's multirole & may be down in the mud, it had better have a gun.

Ah, but here is the clincher. In the future, someone WILL want to use it to to attack something not flying.

[marktigger]

AFA cadet hopeyour instructors will catch on and turf you out soon.


Even for a foot soldier like my self the Gun has two purposes

1. Air to Air when missiles miss or when you have to warn of a target

2. Against ground targets.


oh yes I forgot your USAF were air to ground isn't fashionable.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

Personally, if the airframe will be 100% air to air (like the "not a pound for air to ground" F-15A), a gun probably isn't required any more. If it's multirole & may be down in the mud, it had better have a gun.

Ah, but here is the clincher. In the future, someone WILL want to use it to to attack something not flying.

mmmm I don't know if the F-15A (for example...although it does have guns) has ever done air-to-ground. Those guys live and train air-to-air, I believe,and are mission tasked accordingly (anybody have that info?). The AF has the luxury to draw upon a pretty diverse mix of aircraft. They could use an A-10, F-15E, F-16 etc (or back in the day, an F-111).

I think the argument is that the space the gun takes up (plus the weight) could better be used for another avionics box, or maybe a plasma stealth flux capacitor (oh dear, now I've done it...damn these infernal impulses).

Strangely enough, the F-22 does have guns - although it's role is supposed to be moslty air-to-air - with the JSF down low. I pity the fool who takes that $80gajillion dollar bird down to the mud, and gets pwned by a lucky shot from an AK-47.

Anyhow - your point is well taken - that unless you are the USAF with an assload of other multirole or dedicated A-G stuff, you'd better be ready to send whatever you have.

[oldsoak]

The lack of a usuable gun is not the fault of the Typhoon - we can safely lay the blame on the desk of some d*ckheads in the MoD who thought they might save a couple of bucks and really didnt engage their brain. The RAF wanted a gun. The rest of the countries who made up the consortium thought we were barmy and guess what - they are right. The plane is as good as the non-US market will get to buy, and unless we go to war with the US ( very unlikely ) it wont let its pilots down.

[Hydro]

Dontcha just love Procurement?

The MOD reminds me of a line from Family Guy, spoofing the 6 million dollar man - "We can rebuild him! We have the technology! We just don't want to spend much money.."

[oldsoak]

If you remove the gun, because of the way its integrated into the whole software suite in Typhoon ( think stores management, CG limitations etc ) you end up having to re-write parts of the software. Software has to be validated, tested etc etc and guess how cheap that is going to be versus sticking the gun back in. It actually works out more beacuse UK will have to pay for it - alone. The people whose idea it was have no doubt been promoted, in accordance with the finest UK traditions.

[Durandal]

The people whose idea it was have no doubt been promoted, in accordance with the finest UK traditions.

OPr have a job with a defense contractor...which is par for the course pretty much ANYWHERE. It is not just a UK tradition. The disease is world wide.

[bison3255]

35% was for initial versions of AMRAAM, 55% is still a good deal better than 13% for AA-10/R-27...

[usa320]

ya okay bison. sure thing.

Anyway.

The gun IMHO is useless in air to air combat these days, though people could argue against using AA missiles on planes at all because of our success with destroying the enemy airforce on the ground. Im not one of those people. But i dont feel there is a need for a gun in the AA battle anymore.

HOWEVER

The gun is a great weapon when it comes to strike, interdiction, SEAD, CAS and RESCAP.

Therefore, IMHO all planes should be equipped with a cannon of some type.

[bison3255]

its still a joke when to save a measly $2.5 mil, the planes get guns, but only as ballasts and with no ammo for them :roll: :lol:

[Deuterium]

Procurement is always a joke. Wait ten years then make your decision.

[usa320]

My guess is, is after a few years, if the EFA drivers feels it would behouve them to have a gun, they will most likely jury rig guns to their planes in some way like our Phantom pilots did in nam.

[Roktiken]

The Americans made a deastic mistake in Vietnam when the USAF were using F-4's which dident have cannons because the USAF and high command believed that Dogfights were extint and the battles in the air would be decided with one shot missiles.

Boy were they wrong.

International militaries should not think of the Cannon as an outdated weapon in the air, you run out of missiles, what then? Planes need some sort of close range defence weapon.

[oldsoak]

its not just self defence. If you have a situation where you just want to warn someone off, - for instance in peace keeping - you just want to bang a few tracer rounds nearby without actually hitting anyone. You dont want to loose off a missile at upwards of 50000 dollars, you just want to use 100 dollars worth of 27mm rounds. The on board gun is a great way to make a point without having to go "the whole hog" as it were.

[Porta_jon]

ok so put a weight in its place

[oldsoak]

Not as easy as that. The following forum can explain it a bit better than I can.



http://www.eurofighter.starstreak.net

[von_Moo142]

IMO, we would be better off with an existing fighter design that the eurofighter. That way the money could be spent on more infantry battalions (and not deactivating existing infantry units) or C-17s. These aren't nearly so flashy though.

But its far to late for that anyway. Far too much cash has been put into the eurofighter project already.

[oldsoak]

It was experience with Eurofighter assembly and production that gave BAe leverage on the F35. BAe were selected because they could "add value" to the F35 project. Typhoon gives the UK strategic skills they otherwise would not have. Yes we could buy an off the shelf aircraft - there is nothing the UK makes that is not availiable elsewhere. We could ditch our defence industries alltogether and buy from the US or the EU, but would it be a good move ?

[von_Moo142]

We could ditch our defence industries alltogether and buy from the US or the EU, but would it be a good move ?

You are, of course, quite right. Keeping the British defence industry in business is important, and I neglected to think about that in my post.

[Deuterium]

It was experience with Eurofighter assembly and production that gave BAe leverage on the F35. BAe were selected because they could "add value" to the F35 project. Typhoon gives the UK strategic skills they otherwise would not have. Yes we could buy an off the shelf aircraft - there is nothing the UK makes that is not availiable elsewhere. We could ditch our defence industries alltogether and buy from the US or the EU, but would it be a good move ?

Good post, good point.

[Novara]

Guns aren't precision weapons so many people up top don't like 'em on planes. Remember that wars are now political, especially concerning things like collateral damage. Will the new JSF by Lockheed-Martin have guns? Er...no.
The Eurofighter is a swing-role plane, therefore valid in todays combat arena. Even the 'new' F/A18 Superhornet isn't a true swing-role aircraft and that's supposed to serve the US Navy for at least another ten years.

[Novara]

For anyone who doesn't know the various development cylcle of combat aircraft-

1st generation- Single-Role aircraft. F-14, F16. Fighters. Water-Land...only difference between them (apart from size etc.). Still pure-bred fighters. They'll deliver an ordnance pay-load, but you'll have to set them up especially for this mission and not that good at it to boot. Obselete.

2nd Generation- Multi-Role. F/A 18. Fighter/Attack. Can do the role of both perfectly. Only prob is you have to set her up just for the task. Becoming obselete but these are the ones most used today.

3rd Generation- Swing-Role. Eurofighter Typhoon, F22, Saab Grippen. These can do the same missions the Multi-Role can, but without returning to base. They load up air-air, air-ground precision munitions and can be given changing objextives during the battle. Primary mission CAP, "oh look, there's a T-55 near a company of light infantry...". Mission changes to CAS by the flick of a switch. And back again to CAP. The ever changing battlefield. Therefore the Typhoon is valid today.

4th Generation- Swing-Role (Stealth). JSF, F22. Internal loadbays, radar reflective material etc. notice the F-22 is included here as well. It's a generation ahead of it's time. thus expensive and not many produced. This is the near future of air-combat.

5th Generation- UAV or UAF/A. Unmanned Aerial Vehicles or Unmanned Aerial Fighter/Attack. The future. Expect these in about 2030. Spotty 15 year-old geeks behind computer screens will be the new Maveriks and Iceman.

[YankeeDeVallecas]

Air to Air guns are still needed. No look down/shoot down radar is capabale of locking up aircraft that are flying low level against the ground clutter 100% of the time or even close to it, especially in terrain.

So if you can't lock something up what to do? Nose down and hope you get a second or two of gun time before you have to pull up.

[oldsoak]

I think for the most part a gun is a good idea simply because it can be used for the warning shot. Its rather difficult to warn with a fire and forget missile....ooops.
I dont think the line "lacking the ability to warn the airliner it was moving into restricted airspace, I had no option but to shoot it down" is going to go down well at the court of inquiry !

[ShadowNeo]

I dont think the line "lacking the ability to warn the airliner it was moving into restricted airspace, I had no option but to shoot it down" is going to go down well at the court of inquiry !


Could it be argued though that Tornado F3's might be more likely to be involved with such incidents?

[Novara]

For low flying planes which fool radar, you have IR missiles. You also have SAMS and shoulder-launched SAMS which are primarily IR.

Why fire a warning shot when you have a perfectly good radio to communicate with?

[oldsoak]

For low flying planes which fool radar, you have IR missiles. You also have SAMS and shoulder-launched SAMS which are primarily IR.

Why fire a warning shot when you have a perfectly good radio to communicate with?

Assuming of course you are both on the same frequency and procedures are being followed. What do you do if you cant raise the pilot ? I've seen light aircraft blithely fly through a drop zone ignoring calls for them to stay out, it happens.

[oldsoak]

I dont think the line "lacking the ability to warn the airliner it was moving into restricted airspace, I had no option but to shoot it down" is going to go down well at the court of inquiry !


Could it be argued though that Tornado F3's might be more likely to be involved with such incidents?

Currently yes. But they will be replaced eventually. Bringing down an aircraft over the densely populated UK mainland is admittedly not an option, neither is loosing off a few rounds above cities as they must come down somewhere - dont fancy going out to find the dog and his kennel spread around the yard. However how else do you get the attention of an aircraft thats illegally entering UK airspace without doing something that could be construed as an act of war ?

[ShadowNeo]

Could you "buzz" the aircraft, i.e visibly close flypasts in front and across the aircraft? Even flying alongside the aircraft with a view from the pilot's cockpit might grab his attention.

[YankeeDeVallecas]

For low flying planes which fool radar, you have IR missiles. You also have SAMS and shoulder-launched SAMS which are primarily IR.


True...however, IR missles can be defeated also. Especially when flying in the desert, lots of heat of the ground. Then there's IRCM and DIRCM and LIRCM and flares, etc..

In order for MANPADS to even be fired you have to be within 2 miles of that person at best, not always going to happen.

My point is why loose a tool? Bullets can't be fooled once they are on trajectory.

[oldsoak]

Could you "buzz" the aircraft, i.e visibly close flypasts in front and across the aircraft? Even flying alongside the aircraft with a view from the pilot's cockpit might grab his attention.

Yes, you can - although the civilian pilot might wonder what the prat outside was doing and file a near miss report :) - in daylight, you are right. At night, you have to be a bit more careful . There are of course procedures for hailing an aircraft in the abscence of comms. In peacetime you have to give the other aircraft some inkling that you will be nasty if they persist and cavorting around them will either result in a midair collision or calling your bluff. Its a hard one if all you've got is a missile.