The F-35 Thread

[Grimes]

Maybe I missed something, but when was it decided that making a fighter without an internal cannon was deemed a "good idea" again? Are they simply not going to put the F-35B into situations where it might be screwed without a gun on those day 1 scenarios?

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

Not needed after day 1 operations.

I was not talking about the day 1. I was talking about stealth.

 

SAM = Stealth STOP!

[GGTharos]

Pretty much. It just doesn't have the space for the gun. The AV-8 doesn't either.

 

Maybe I missed something, but when was it decided that making a fighter without an internal cannon was deemed a "good idea" again? Are they simply not going to put the F-35B into situations where it might be screwed without a gun on those day 1 scenarios?

[GGTharos]

You were talking out of context.

 

I was not talking about the day 1. I was talking about stealth.

[hitman]

What are these and why is 6) covered/uncovered on different pics?

 

The 2 on the wing near the fuselage are ram air intakes. 6 is an APU exhaust vent. 3 would be a fuselage mounted camera.

[topol-m]

The 2 on the wing near the fuselage are ram air intakes.

 

Why does it need such?

[aaron886]

SAM = Stealth STOP!

 

This is such a dumb line, you really need to stop trying it. By that logic, there's no need for any air assets at all, just build a wall of IADS and get on with the war. There's a reason why aircraft continue to perform effectively despite ground threats. Stealth, or more appropriately, LO, is a tactic to further reduce the efficacy of the full spectrum of surface to air weapons primarily by delaying initial detection. If combat turns to force on force in the air, it provides an edge. Nothing more. The idea is not to be flawlessly invisible.

 

The decision to rely on IADS or DCA/OCA is one of tactical doctrine. The former Soviet bloc nations have approached the problem differently than the West. In a large scale conflict, I don't know which would be superior, but I know what we did to the Iraqi air defense network in Desert Storm. We learned how to handle it in Nam.

 

Why does it need such?

 

ECS, cooling, hard to say.

 

 

BTW in that image, I would guess that 1 and 2 are CM dispensers... that's a pretty standard location for it. (Easy to rearm.) Anyone know where the APU intake is? That might be a guess for #4.

[swift]

MORE

 

 

F-35 test aircraft at Naval Air Station Patuxent Aircraft, Md., include F-35B short takeoff/vertical landing and F-35C carrier variant aircraft.

[hitman]

Why does it need such?

Im not really sure. My best guess is that it cools the avionics bays down (every aircraft has ram air for this). They could also be APU inlets.

[aaron886]

Hot! Thanks Swift.

[tflash]

Finally some good news: Eglin will start flying the jets!!! I guess F-35 is becoming a reality at last!

 

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2012/02/29/national/a011600S11.DTL

[swift]

How to land an F-35 jet fighter at sea

BBC Link

Related

 

BAE Systems is already carrying out test flights of the new F-35 Joint Strike Fighter plane, flying off the next generation of Queen Elizabeth Class Carriers. It has built a sophisticated simulator at its factory in Warton, Lancashire, to help pilots and engineers relearn the old skills of naval flying, using catapults and arrestor gear - or "cats and traps".

 

[tflash]

Today first flight at Eglin: http://www.pnj.com/article/20120306/NEWS12/120306002/Eglin-s-first-F-35-sortie-takes-off-this-morning?odyssey=tab%7Cmostpopular%7Ctext%7CFRONTPAGE

[Slayer]

Can't believe they never put a gun on this bird. I remember an interview with one of the aces from the vietnam war and the "experts" said guns were obsolete, with these new missiles you don't need them. The Navy and USAF all but quit teaching dog fighting skills because these new wonder weapons were so great...The result? :

 

"In 1965 the first USAF Phantom IIs were sent to Vietnam. Early versions lacked any gun armament. Coupled with the unreliability of the air-to-air missiles (AIM-7 Sparrow and AIM-9 Sidewinder) of the time, this major drawback resulted in the aircraft loss after they ran out of missiles. During the course of the Vietnam War, its contemporaries, the MiG-19 and MiG-21, inflicted heavy losses on the F-4s when the American aircraft were ambushed after returning from bombing assignments."

 

First they tried to add an external gunpod (sound familiar?) but that was garbage and couldn't hit the broad side of a barn. Finally admitting their failure the USAF put guns in the nose..

 

Those who don't learn from history are destined to make the same mistakes.

[aaron886]

Those who don't learn from history are destined to make the same mistakes.

 

That's a very fun card to play and certainly sounds good in theory! It's true that the lack of a gun on the Phantom in Nam was a mistake, but that doesn't mean the same for the F-35. We've reached a place where the reliability and Pk of air to air missiles is so high that the "no place for guns" mentality is pretty well coming true. There's a vast difference between the missiles of that era and of this.

 

You wouldn't take mounted swordsmen into combat in the infantry combat of today. Same principle applies... for the purpose of air to air combat, the gun is far outdated. For the purpose of air to ground combat, the platform is unsuitable to be strafing things with, and precision-guided munitions have become so lethal and reliable (and even autonomous) that there is little practicality to a gun on a relatively fragile platform, as all modern fighters are. In contrast, the practical uses for a gun on the F-4 at the time were enormous.

 

The lack of the gun on the F-4 was an oversight. The lack of a gun on the F-35 is adaptation.

[topol-m]

Wait a second, it's only the B version that won't have a gun right? I can hardly imagine a modern fighter without a gun, the F-22 has one ffs. A multirole fighter such as the F-35 would certainly benefit from a cannon, in situations where it has dropped its bombs but there's an immediate need to destroy one or several soft targets the gun would come in handy. Having to use an amraam to shoot down a Mi-17 or other similar aircraft looks like a waste of money. There could be a number of situations where you might need a gun on a multirole fighter, that's why they all have one.

Edited March 7, 2012 by topol-m

[Slayer]

Lets face it missiles can and will be be defeated. The same goes for stealth. An F-117 was shot down using old antiquated missile systems by a resourceful commander. If not now then someone will find a way to defeat them. Bullets on the other hand can't be defeated by ECM, just good piloting. My point is simply that since the advent of missile and/or stealth systems the military keeps wanting to write off dogfighting skills and guns as being obsolete. It has been wrong. Just as wrong as trying to retire the A-10...

[GGTharos]

Lets face it missiles can and will be be defeated.

 

So can guns, and more easily than missiles.

 

The same goes for stealth. An F-117 was shot down using old antiquated missile systems by a resourceful commander.

 

Poor example. Stealth wasn't defeated; rather, it was the exception that proved the the rule.

 

 

Bullets on the other hand can't be defeated by ECM, just good piloting.

 

Actually they can be ... if that radar director gets jammed, you just might have to revert to a slightly less accurate aiming method.

Good piloting is also not entirely necessary (in terms of skill difference in BFM), just good decisions, of course you could just as well claim that this skill is mostly about making good BFM decisions anyway :)

 

My point is simply that since the advent of missile and/or stealth systems the military keeps wanting to write off dogfighting skills and guns as being obsolete. It has been wrong. Just as wrong as trying to retire the A-10...

 

Your point is moot and incorrect. Air forces all over the world continue and will continue to teach BFM since everything builds on it, including BVR, and the gun will be part of the curriculum even if you don't have one for a very simple reason: The bandit may have one.

[wilky510]

Can't believe they never put a gun on this bird. I remember an interview with one of the aces from the vietnam war and the "experts" said guns were obsolete, with these new missiles you don't need them. The Navy and USAF all but quit teaching dog fighting skills because these new wonder weapons were so great...The result? :

 

"In 1965 the first USAF Phantom IIs were sent to Vietnam. Early versions lacked any gun armament. Coupled with the unreliability of the air-to-air missiles (AIM-7 Sparrow and AIM-9 Sidewinder) of the time, this major drawback resulted in the aircraft loss after they ran out of missiles. During the course of the Vietnam War, its contemporaries, the MiG-19 and MiG-21, inflicted heavy losses on the F-4s when the American aircraft were ambushed after returning from bombing assignments."

 

First they tried to add an external gunpod (sound familiar?) but that was garbage and couldn't hit the broad side of a barn. Finally admitting their failure the USAF put guns in the nose..

 

Those who don't learn from history are destined to make the same mistakes.

Pretty sure the F-35A has an internal gun. It's the other two models lacking (B, C). Apparently they have a 'stealthy' gunpod for those two though; and they plan to use it after day one operations (where stealth won't be needed as bad). Regardless of it being stealthy.. it's still an RCS increase..

 

My personal opinion on the subject makes me think those two models were trying to keep weight down by removing the gun (plane is close to being overweight for the B model) and the C was already heavy because of the fuel weight increase.

[wilky510]

Went through my pics and i'm pretty sure there is where the internal gun is on the F-35A model: http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/17/f35gun.jpg/

[Vekkinho]

Yeah!

[Wolfie]

No gun, no fly. Like going into battle without a knife.

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

This is such a dumb line, you really need to stop trying it.

You are not reading it right. It is a response to GG signature. As you may notice, I put this statement at the end of my text only when I respond to GG.

 

His and my statement have their own context.

Edited March 8, 2012 by =4c= Hajduk Veljko

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

Actually they can be ... if that radar director gets jammed, you just might have to revert to a slightly less accurate aiming method.

He said “bullets” not the “radar director”. Bullets (projectiles) cannot be jammed after they leave cannon barrel. You know what he meant.

 

SAM = Stealth STOP!

[GGTharos]

I'm still right. When those bullets aren't pointed in the right direction, your gun is quite effectively ECM'ed. Pedantic nitpicking won't make you right.

 

He said “bullets” not the “radar director”. Bullets (projectiles) cannot be jammed after they leave cannon barrel. You know what he meant.