Is the lack of an integrated gun on the F-35B/C...

skrip00 · by **skrip00** » 02 Nov 2009, 21:15

...a help or will it be a hindrance?

I only ask because the last tri-service aircraft, the gloriously awesome F-4 Phantom did not have a gun, needed one, then used a gun pod, and ended up having one integrated after all.

The thing is: with a mounted gun, you may be in a situation where you need it and don't have it. If I were a pilot, I'd rather have it, and never need it, than be caught without one. But I'm just a desk jockey, so what do I know?

Scorpion82 · by **Scorpion82** » 02 Nov 2009, 21:20

I think it's merely a weight issue. Of course it would be better to have one at all times, but todays weapons are more deadly than ever before.

FoamtanaS · by **FoamtanaS** » 02 Nov 2009, 22:26

All missiles can and will be countered, guns are your best weapon and it is a mistake to leave it out of the F35.

nam11b · by **nam11b** » 02 Nov 2009, 23:01

FoamtanaS wrote:All missiles can and will be countered, guns are your best weapon and it is a mistake to leave it out of the F35.

If the F-35 is in a WVR fight and needs a gun, then the pilot is in a lot of trouble or the situation has already spun out of control. In most instances guns are a very poor weapon and the main reason the Air Force wanted one was for strafing, not dogfighting.

banken · by **banken** » 03 Nov 2009, 03:23

I think the F-35B is going to be considered a failure as far as conventional warfare goes... the ability to do short takeoffs and vertical landings isn't going to help as much as having twice as much internal fuel, more internal weapons, and an internal gun.

Although, it will be great in a nuclear war where bases and airfields might end up being destroyed within hours.

rivetspacer · by **rivetspacer** » 03 Nov 2009, 03:37

The gun costs weight & more importantly volume. The package is only so big, and given all the other a$$ kicking capability we crammed in there, stovl and cv will have to do with the external pod. As a warfighting package, you will be hard pressed to find anything comparable, with or without pod. Not to mention the vast majority of aircraft being produced will be the ctol, with internal gun.

Prinz_Eugn · by **Prinz_Eugn** » 03 Nov 2009, 07:48

banken wrote:Although, it will be great in a nuclear war where bases and airfields might end up being destroyed within hours.

Ever read anything by Bill Gunston back in the day?

shep1978 · by **shep1978** » 03 Nov 2009, 10:04

Prinz_Eugn wrote:Ever read anything by Bill Gunston back in the day?

Can I ask what you're alluding to? :?:

Guysmiley · by **Guysmiley** » 03 Nov 2009, 14:46

Prinz_Eugn wrote:
banken wrote:Although, it will be great in a nuclear war where bases and airfields might end up being destroyed within hours.

Ever read anything by Bill Gunston back in the day?

LOL!

(Gunston believed that any conventional take-off aircraft would be entirely useless in an all out war and thus the Harrier was the de facto greatest aircraft EVAARRR)

skrip00 · by **skrip00** » 03 Nov 2009, 16:54

nam11b wrote:
FoamtanaS wrote:All missiles can and will be countered, guns are your best weapon and it is a mistake to leave it out of the F35.

If the F-35 is in a WVR fight and needs a gun, then the pilot is in a lot of trouble or the situation has already spun out of control. In most instances guns are a very poor weapon and the main reason the Air Force wanted one was for strafing, not dogfighting.

I'm sure that's what some Pentagon boy said when the F-4 Phantom requirements were being drawn up.

Tinito_16 · by **Tinito_16** » 03 Nov 2009, 20:36

I think the point of the vertical takeoff variant is definitely NOT dogfighting. And while I do believe the Carrier Variant could use a gun, I don't think the gun pod will be as bad this time around. Besides, getting into a dogfight when you have stealth sort of defeats the purpose of having stealth, doesn't it?

hoghandler · by **hoghandler** » 04 Nov 2009, 02:24

any fighter that does not have a gun is going to have a major disadvantage. vietnam was proof of that. yes missles have improved greatly since then but they still have failures and can be countered. i say leave the gun in an call it a day.

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 04 Nov 2009, 02:35

hoghandler, attacking from out of the sun (beware of the HUN in the sun) used to be an excellent tactic. Probably still is today but hardly relevant. Attacking from just above a cloud to a target below was another 'oldie but a goldie'. If any aircraft today has to use a gun in a dogfight, then they are really in bad shape. Firstly one has to assume that the only weapon the opponent(s) have is a gun also. Why is there always an assumption that fighters of today will fight alone against one another in a visual dogfight. No way.

BVR with networked JSFs stealthily finding and killing targets will be the new paradigm. If a JSF runs out of missiles surely a not too distant networked wingman will be on the scene soon enough within range for another BVR kill. Perhaps in future the JSF will have a drone wingman with plenty of ammo/missiles to shoot (or let the UAV wingman take a missile hit?).

Ask yourself why would two BVR opponents get within visual range NOT knowing if one or the other had some missiles to shoot? Dogfighting with guns is a non-existent scenario in today's BVR or even closer in missile environment.

skrip00 · by **skrip00** » 04 Nov 2009, 03:45

spazsinbad wrote:hoghandler, attacking from out of the sun (beware of the HUN in the sun) used to be an excellent tactic. Probably still is today but hardly relevant. Attacking from just above a cloud to a target below was another 'oldie but a goldie'. If any aircraft today has to use a gun in a dogfight, then they are really in bad shape. Firstly one has to assume that the only weapon the opponent(s) have is a gun also. Why is there always an assumption that fighters of today will fight alone against one another in a visual dogfight. No way.

BVR with networked JSFs stealthily finding and killing targets will be the new paradigm. If a JSF runs out of missiles surely a not too distant networked wingman will be on the scene soon enough within range for another BVR kill. Perhaps in future the JSF will have a drone wingman with plenty of ammo/missiles to shoot (or let the UAV wingman take a missile hit?).

Ask yourself why would two BVR opponents get within visual range NOT knowing if one or the other had some missiles to shoot? Dogfighting with guns is a non-existent scenario in today's BVR or even closer in missile environment.

I'll call BS on that one.

There is such a thing called running out of missiles... especially in a situation where you are fighting your way back out of enemy airspace.

Also, Murphy's law is very important here, not every situation is some ideal scenario where you have enough aircraft/missiles available. All it takes is one instance where a pilot needed a gun, and was caught without one.

rivetspacer · by **rivetspacer** » 04 Nov 2009, 05:20

Those cenarios are rare and hypothetical. Even more so if you consider the roles of the variants in question. Remember, we're talking stovl and cv. The vast majority of f35S will be ctol with an internal gun. In the off chance the condition you pose occurs, remember the f35 will have targeting information, and the ability to Securely forward bogey locations to other assets providing cover.

In any event, does your one rare condition justify the exclusion of more important capabilities to incorperate. Everything is a trade off.

Me, I'll take the extra internal gas, bombs and everyday capability.