What will the Government buy if the F35 is cancelled?
Discussion
andymadmak said:
Red 4 said:
Perhaps you do take yourself too seriously given your reply. Like I said, I'm happy for banter but, in my experience, people who over-compensate and always want to be right are often covering up for inadequacies (or worse).
Carry on, Field Marshall
It's Field MarshalCarry on, Field Marshall
And thank you for proving my point (See above).
Red 4 said:
Have our F35s got a gun/ guns ? Are they able to fire the gun without risking damaging the airframe ?
Is it possible that any of our pilots will ever say "I'm too close for missiles, I'm switching to guns".
Come on guys, 2 pages on and I'm none the wiser.
0.005 secs on Google, have a read:Is it possible that any of our pilots will ever say "I'm too close for missiles, I'm switching to guns".
Come on guys, 2 pages on and I'm none the wiser.
https://www.raf.mod.uk/aircraft/lightning-f35b/
Tony1963 said:
Red 4 said:
Have our F35s got a gun/ guns ? Are they able to fire the gun without risking damaging the airframe ?
Is it possible that any of our pilots will ever say "I'm too close for missiles, I'm switching to guns".
Come on guys, 2 pages on and I'm none the wiser.
0.005 secs on Google, have a read:Is it possible that any of our pilots will ever say "I'm too close for missiles, I'm switching to guns".
Come on guys, 2 pages on and I'm none the wiser.
https://www.raf.mod.uk/aircraft/lightning-f35b/
Is this different to the gun that apparently cracks the airframe ?
andymadmak said:
Red 4 said:
Oh, I see. Due to your garbled message I thought you were referring to Biggy over on the other thread.
We (or at least I) appear to have our wires crossed.
Perhaps you do take yourself too seriously given your reply. Like I said, I'm happy for banter but, in my experience, people who over-compensate and always want to be right are often covering up for inadequacies (or worse).
Carry on, Field Marshall
It's EventWe (or at least I) appear to have our wires crossed.
Perhaps you do take yourself too seriously given your reply. Like I said, I'm happy for banter but, in my experience, people who over-compensate and always want to be right are often covering up for inadequacies (or worse).
Carry on, Field Marshall
Red 4 said:
Tony1963 said:
Red 4 said:
Have our F35s got a gun/ guns ? Are they able to fire the gun without risking damaging the airframe ?
Is it possible that any of our pilots will ever say "I'm too close for missiles, I'm switching to guns".
Come on guys, 2 pages on and I'm none the wiser.
0.005 secs on Google, have a read:Is it possible that any of our pilots will ever say "I'm too close for missiles, I'm switching to guns".
Come on guys, 2 pages on and I'm none the wiser.
https://www.raf.mod.uk/aircraft/lightning-f35b/
Is this different to the gun that apparently cracks the airframe ?
The gun issue is on the internal gun on the F35A
The U.K. has F35Bs which don’t even have an internal gun. There is an option of having a gun externally fitted in a gun pod. That’s why the RAF website describes it as optional. As I understand it the U.K. has no gun pods for the F35 and no plans for any.
If we did get the gun pod then it wouldn’t have the same issues as the internal gun on the F35A cracking the stealth coating.
This is what the external pod looks like, on the F35B
The F35A has the internal gun like this,
aeropilot said:
Skyrocket21 said:
It looks like the F35 and F22 will have some loyal friends to play with, this is the Kratos XQ-58, I'm guessing within the next 10 years, probably less, there will be no need for a manned fighter jet, the F35 will be replaced with drones. Times are changing very rapidly.
That's not the idea of being a unmanned replacement for F-35 or F-22.The idea of that is 'cheap' force multiplication, one manned F-35/F-22 would each control a formation flight of up to 4 drone 'wingmen'.
In practice this is just a way to get the unmanned assets into service before that manned fighter starts heading further and further to rear, being replaced by someone on an AWACs or in a bunker back in CONUS.
In the next 10 years the DoD is going to build their own version of Starlink with low latency comms to anywhere in the world and probably a multispectral camera or SAR capability bundled in there.
The winner in near peer combat is likely to be the person who gets as many men out of the loop, the manned/unmanned teaming is very much a legacy of a world where the deadly weapons are mostly on our side and thus the greatest threat to our side is our own weapons.
Talksteer said:
That's what they tell the leadership of the air force who are all ex fast jet pilots!
In practice this is just a way to get the unmanned assets into service before that manned fighter starts heading further and further to rear, being replaced by someone on an AWACs or in a bunker back in CONUS.
In the next 10 years the DoD is going to build their own version of Starlink with low latency comms to anywhere in the world and probably a multispectral camera or SAR capability bundled in there.
The winner in near peer combat is likely to be the person who gets as many men out of the loop, the manned/unmanned teaming is very much a legacy of a world where the deadly weapons are mostly on our side and thus the greatest threat to our side is our own weapons.
At what point do you consider data links to be impervious to denial?In practice this is just a way to get the unmanned assets into service before that manned fighter starts heading further and further to rear, being replaced by someone on an AWACs or in a bunker back in CONUS.
In the next 10 years the DoD is going to build their own version of Starlink with low latency comms to anywhere in the world and probably a multispectral camera or SAR capability bundled in there.
The winner in near peer combat is likely to be the person who gets as many men out of the loop, the manned/unmanned teaming is very much a legacy of a world where the deadly weapons are mostly on our side and thus the greatest threat to our side is our own weapons.
At what point are you happy to send an unmanned aircraft on a complex mission (patrol, identify and execute autonomously) that it cannot be recalled from?
El stovey said:
Red do you know anything about this aircraft you’re constantly berating?
The gun issue is on the internal gun on the F35A
The U.K. has F35Bs which don’t even have an internal gun. There is an option of having a gun externally fitted in a gun pod. That’s why the RAF website describes it as optional. As I understand it the U.K. has no gun pods for the F35 and no plans for any.
If we did get the gun pod then it wouldn’t have the same issues as the internal gun on the F35A cracking the stealth coating.
This is what the external pod looks like, on the F35B
The F35A has the internal gun like this,
Interestingly, the gun pod - or rather the ammunition - does seem to be having some teething problems:The gun issue is on the internal gun on the F35A
The U.K. has F35Bs which don’t even have an internal gun. There is an option of having a gun externally fitted in a gun pod. That’s why the RAF website describes it as optional. As I understand it the U.K. has no gun pods for the F35 and no plans for any.
If we did get the gun pod then it wouldn’t have the same issues as the internal gun on the F35A cracking the stealth coating.
This is what the external pod looks like, on the F35B
The F35A has the internal gun like this,
A Marine Corps F-35 was damaged by a round fired from the fighter's own cannon that exploded.
It appears that a 25mm Semi-Armor Piercing High Explosive Incendiary-Tracer round (is there any job it can't do?) exploded under the aircraft after leaving the gun, causing much disappointment, upset and shrapnel damage.
I'm sure they'll get it sorted sooner rather than later, and you can't pin issues with the ammunition on the aircraft itself, but the arrangement of the gun on the F-35A means that in the same situation the round would be exploding right next to the cockpit, which would cause even more disappointment and possibly tears before bedtime.
eharding said:
Interestingly, the gun pod - or rather the ammunition - does seem to be having some teething problems:
A Marine Corps F-35 was damaged by a round fired from the fighter's own cannon that exploded.
It appears that a 25mm Semi-Armor Piercing High Explosive Incendiary-Tracer round (is there any job it can't do?) exploded under the aircraft after leaving the gun, causing much disappointment, upset and shrapnel damage.
I'm sure they'll get it sorted sooner rather than later, and you can't pin issues with the ammunition on the aircraft itself, but the arrangement of the gun on the F-35A means that in the same situation the round would be exploding right next to the cockpit, which would cause even more disappointment and possibly tears before bedtime.
I'm not sure the ammunition is having teething problems, it almost seems like the round was fired and then the aircraft "chased it", whether that was due to flight profile or not I don't know. The gun is only a development of an existing design, the integration isn't exactly special, and HEI round doesn't appear to be significantly different (The AP being a function of a hardened tip, not a re-profiling).A Marine Corps F-35 was damaged by a round fired from the fighter's own cannon that exploded.
It appears that a 25mm Semi-Armor Piercing High Explosive Incendiary-Tracer round (is there any job it can't do?) exploded under the aircraft after leaving the gun, causing much disappointment, upset and shrapnel damage.
I'm sure they'll get it sorted sooner rather than later, and you can't pin issues with the ammunition on the aircraft itself, but the arrangement of the gun on the F-35A means that in the same situation the round would be exploding right next to the cockpit, which would cause even more disappointment and possibly tears before bedtime.
Evanivitch said:
eharding said:
Interestingly, the gun pod - or rather the ammunition - does seem to be having some teething problems:
A Marine Corps F-35 was damaged by a round fired from the fighter's own cannon that exploded.
It appears that a 25mm Semi-Armor Piercing High Explosive Incendiary-Tracer round (is there any job it can't do?) exploded under the aircraft after leaving the gun, causing much disappointment, upset and shrapnel damage.
I'm sure they'll get it sorted sooner rather than later, and you can't pin issues with the ammunition on the aircraft itself, but the arrangement of the gun on the F-35A means that in the same situation the round would be exploding right next to the cockpit, which would cause even more disappointment and possibly tears before bedtime.
I'm not sure the ammunition is having teething problems, it almost seems like the round was fired and then the aircraft "chased it", whether that was due to flight profile or not I don't know. The gun is only a development of an existing design, the integration isn't exactly special, and HEI round doesn't appear to be significantly different (The AP being a function of a hardened tip, not a re-profiling).A Marine Corps F-35 was damaged by a round fired from the fighter's own cannon that exploded.
It appears that a 25mm Semi-Armor Piercing High Explosive Incendiary-Tracer round (is there any job it can't do?) exploded under the aircraft after leaving the gun, causing much disappointment, upset and shrapnel damage.
I'm sure they'll get it sorted sooner rather than later, and you can't pin issues with the ammunition on the aircraft itself, but the arrangement of the gun on the F-35A means that in the same situation the round would be exploding right next to the cockpit, which would cause even more disappointment and possibly tears before bedtime.
eharding said:
Interestingly, the gun pod - or rather the ammunition - does seem to be having some teething problems:
A Marine Corps F-35 was damaged by a round fired from the fighter's own cannon that exploded.
It appears that a 25mm Semi-Armor Piercing High Explosive Incendiary-Tracer round (is there any job it can't do?) exploded under the aircraft after leaving the gun, causing much disappointment, upset and shrapnel damage.
I'm sure they'll get it sorted sooner rather than later, and you can't pin issues with the ammunition on the aircraft itself, but the arrangement of the gun on the F-35A means that in the same situation the round would be exploding right next to the cockpit, which would cause even more disappointment and possibly tears before bedtime.
So the F35 As internal gun doesn’t shoot straight and cracks the aircraft coating and the Bs external gun pod had some exploding (at the wrong time) ammunition. A Marine Corps F-35 was damaged by a round fired from the fighter's own cannon that exploded.
It appears that a 25mm Semi-Armor Piercing High Explosive Incendiary-Tracer round (is there any job it can't do?) exploded under the aircraft after leaving the gun, causing much disappointment, upset and shrapnel damage.
I'm sure they'll get it sorted sooner rather than later, and you can't pin issues with the ammunition on the aircraft itself, but the arrangement of the gun on the F-35A means that in the same situation the round would be exploding right next to the cockpit, which would cause even more disappointment and possibly tears before bedtime.
I don’t expect the U.K. are in a hurry to attach any gun pods to ours then?
Initially it did seem odd to me that the B didn’t have a gun (due to weight saving) but then I suppose, it’s assumed that the aircraft won’t be needing to shoot anyone close up.
At least I know if I get hijacked and intercepted by an F35B (in the U.K.) it’s going to be missiles rather than bullets heading toward the aircraft? Best make sure I subdue the hijackers (with a crash axe) before it gets to that?
El stovey said:
At least I know if I get hijacked and intercepted by an F35B (in the U.K.) it’s going to be missiles rather than bullets heading toward the aircraft? Best make sure I subdue the hijackers (with a crash axe) before it gets to that?
Given that we didn't have a requirement for a gun of Typhoon, I think this has been the case for a while...eharding said:
Weren't the manufacturers of the ammunition claiming "improved graze sensitivity" for the latest incarnation of the rounds i.e. making it more likely to explode even if it just makes a glancing impact on the target, which would presumably mean some fettling about with the sensitivity of the fuses?
Fuze sensitivity is a very dark art, one which I have no real knowledge of.El stovey said:
Best make sure I subdue the hijackers (with a crash axe) before it gets to that?
They should make that part of the standard biannual simulator check - the examiner plays the role of the hijacker, and then the crew under assessment start hacking him about with a crash axe. I'm sure the idea has already crossed the minds more more than a few folk sweating their way through a sim check, and it would do wonders for morale. Well, not examiner morale, obviously.Evanivitch said:
El stovey said:
At least I know if I get hijacked and intercepted by an F35B (in the U.K.) it’s going to be missiles rather than bullets heading toward the aircraft? Best make sure I subdue the hijackers (with a crash axe) before it gets to that?
Given that we didn't have a requirement for a gun of Typhoon, I think this has been the case for a while...Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff