Forum: F-35 Armament, Stores and Tactics

What's the word on the F-35 and a gun? I realize that we (unfortunately) can't put a 30mm cannon in the 35 (ala, the A-10's GAU-8/A) but I thought the F-35 would have a 20mm cannon, stored in a retractable gun port, just like its big brother, the F/A-22.

All of the points you guys have brought up are excellent, and always remember, whatever course we take with the F-35, will ultimately come down to one proposition: our boys on the ground come FIRST. We can put our pilots in virtually any new strike fighter, and get the job done, but we need something reliable, and surviviable, with a full weapons suite, in order to save as many lives on the ground as possible.

I think the Jump Jet 35 is a very smart choice for the USAF.

F-16.net Sponsor

TC wrote:

What's the word on the F-35 and a gun? I realize that we (unfortunately) can't put a 30mm cannon in the 35 (ala, the A-10's GAU-8/A) but I thought the F-35 would have a 20mm cannon, stored in a retractable gun port, just like its big brother, the F/A-22. All of the points you guys have brought up are excellent, and always remember, whatever course we take with the F-35, will ultimately come down to one proposition: our boys on the ground come FIRST. We can put our pilots in virtually any new strike fighter, and get the job done, but we need something reliable, and surviviable, with a full weapons suite, in order to save as many lives on the ground as possible. I think the Jump Jet 35 is a very smart choice for the USAF.

See here is the inherent problem. The Airforce version is getting a 27mm non gatling Mauser/Boeing Cannon. The Navy and Marine Version are getting a pod..... which means either loosing already valuble internal space or hanging it out on the wings at which point you may as well use a conventional fighter.

Wow didn't we learn how much pods suck from the Old F-4s? As for CAS, why not use a Cheap fast Drone?

You're kind of mistaken the USAF versoin of the F-35 isn't built for a VTOL that's why the USAF version is the easiest to make and is farthest along in designing.

Last edited by Stefaan on Mar 14, 2004 - 07:40 PM; edited 1 time in total

My mistake here - I split off TC's post from another topic, which discussed the possible acquisition of the VTOL version by the USAF. Hence TC's remarks about the jumpjet - sorry for the confusion !

stefaan

Well, on a larger scale, IMHO the whole JSF program stinks. The gun is only a small example of it. There won't be much "Jointness" in it after everyone is done. We have already seen what happens to a fighter project when multiple countries are involved in some kind of R&D partnership and workshare. ( EF2000 ) Slow program. Dead Slow program. A few years after the bid for JSF was annouced, you now have an anouncement of a 5 billion over budget red flag. WTF? So, as for the program management, I don't think I am going to be a cheerleader for it.

The jet on paper has a lot of killing ability. The Navy needs a platform that can thread through a stiff air defense, which the Super Hornet while useful, can't. The USMC, well the USMC just needs some decent funding for starters, but in their finest tradition I am sure they will make a JSF work to their needs.

USAF? Well IMHO I find the airframe number bothersome. This jet can do more with less ( one of my most hated terms Smile

). Going up against a stiff air defense combined with other team players it should do well. I just don't think we need that many of them. For doing basic policing with no stiff air defense, I can do the same job and do it on cheaper operating costs with a new F-16. Even though USAF will never go for it now, I would still rather see a mix of new F-16 and JSF because it would cost the taxpayer less and we will still have fearsome firepower to do the job anyway.

Other users? RAF is a hard call, The MOD hobby of cutting stuff is always completely unpredictable. Example: Their new Apaches that went into storeage immediately because they didn't have money for an aircrew training program and equipment. And the EF2000 is still at risk from cutting, and the future of their new carrier given that funding climate, is not secure is not an absolute.

Some of the other countries just don't need what the JSF does best, penetrate a stiff AD. Doing intercepts and other duties, especially with the threat level facing some of these countries ( no more Soviet Fulda Gap scenario, it just doesn't make sense at all ). I can run an airforce way cheaper, still do intercept and policing duties with a single engine jet like the F-16 or Gripen, than a Rafale or EF2000, and as we don't know how the JSF will flesh out on operating cost ( stealth skin management / refirb ) etc. Well, why buy into anything of that tech when you can by a single engine legacy jet right off the shelf that will meet your needs? So if it was me I would pick a Gripen or F-16 in these scenarios, instead of ponying up money for a JSF which might not even meet my needs and/or is overkill considering the threat. For some threat profiles would rather have a force of modern F-16s with all the "J" weapons ( JDAM, JSOW, JASSM ), SDB's and dual use Paveway IV, a small number of SNIPER -XR pods ( btw that I can take off or put on the jet as needed Wink

) and X-45 or X-47 UCAV.

Artwork- JDAM and UCAV
http://www.airforce-technology.com/proj ... UCAV_3.jpg

Ok enough rant.

Well. The US Army did exactly what you say, elp. They cancelled the Comanche so that they can have the $14 billions excess to use on existing operative birds. But it took them from 5000 units 20 years ago to 1292 in 1992. Then down to 650 in 2002 and then 0 in February 2004. They did manage to spend $6.3bn before it got down to zero though.

The USAF is apparently considering blowing the dust off 7-8 parked B-1B’s, so they may be thinking in similar fashion, although I don’t know what they will scarifies to pay for that restoration. It may cost as much as $18bn to get them flying.

There seem to be early discussions about the need for the FA-22 as well, so the next few years may be interesting in this respect.

good points all around.

however, elp-- I think your view is a bit short sighted. I think your points about a smaller fighter fleet apply more to the ATF program. The meat of Air Forces lies in the F-16, that's why we're going to need a replacement in the next ~15+ years.

Many people criticized the LWF program for many of the same reasons you give, but look where that program is today. I think that the big wigs are looking for the next F-16, a fighter that will be able to dominate for the next 50 years. The F-16 blossomed into the most influential jet in history, ever since General Dynamics made the bird unstable, to it's beautiful work in Osiraq, Gulf War II.

I also don't really like the "joint" theory of airplane building. In-house, small projects often worked the best. This era in plane building is unfortunately over, and by making the project huge, cost is defrayed to a large degree. Just as much if not more than time.

The F-16 is the most widely exported jet fighter ever, iirc. When the Pentagon dreamt up the JSF program, they thought they might as well make it international from the get-go. Best to go all-out when you choose to do something. Our domestic jewel is the F-22, and we can't give up on that now, so, just like F-16 following the F-15, the F-35 follows the F-22. So hopefully we will see some even more astounding multi-role and adaptability capability from the F-35.

The F-16 is, in my humble opinion, the best airplane ever. However, even the best airplanes become obsolete. One of the kudos points of the X/F-35 has been its remarkably short development/building/testing timeframe, especially when compared to its older siser the -22. Delays, especially in today's bureaucracy, are inevitable; the Stars know this and planned ahead. The time spent doing it right with other nations will be time well spent, the F-16 as you said will hang on for another 20 years. And, we will have to see a mix from the years 2010-2020, when you replace your fleet fighter unit, the change will take a while strategically. Many of the F-16s are coming to reach their age limits anyway, and the USAF isn’t buying any more of them iirc. By that time, it will lose a lot of its grip and the -35 will be ready. We need the -35, bad. Already the Viper is starting to be overtaken by the Russians in some ways.

Since the only country to sink enough money into making this bird a long-hauler for the 21st century is Israel, the USAF can't afford not to continue with the JSF. That's why the IAF was so late in committing to the JSF, they thought the Sufa’s would carry them for another what- 30 years? There is only so far an airframe can go before the costs of retrofitting, etc. outweigh the benefits. Look how the Viper has tacked on the roles and pounds since '73-'74. The poor girl can’t take much more! Lol!

Ok I need to read more on the subject before I dig any bigger of a hole for myself -- please point out flaws (and good points Razz

) any and everyone!

Thanks-

Quote:

I also don't really like the "joint" theory of airplane building. In-house, small projects often worked the best. This era in plane building is unfortunately over, and by making the project huge, cost is defrayed to a large degree. Just as much if not more than time.

Folks I know on JSF say this is also the reason they are battling weight problems. Each subcontractor may be over their weight limit by only a few pounds but, when you add all those subcontractors pounds together you have a design that's 3500 lbs over its design limit.

They'll work it out. Give them time, LM/SW has not had trouble making light aircraft ... Very Happy

No but Ft Worth has... Sad

(F-111B, A-12...)

Don't get me wrong, I hope the JSF program is a success. One cannot ignore history though...

That's exactly what you're doing! lol Very Happy

read my post! Wink

LM/SW - assuming you mean Lockheed Martin Skunk Works - isn't designing/building the production aircraft. The JSF design center is in Ft Worth, at LMTAS - the former General Dynamics plant, where the F-111B and A-12 design teams were. GD made/makes great Air Force jets, but have historically had (weight) problems with Navy designs. The USAF JSF variants aren't the ones with the weight problem - it's the vertical lift variants for the Navy and Marines etc.

I will put my two bobs in:
Specifically talking about us defense procurement, it is not about defending the USA, or buying the best plane, or meeting requirements or defeating other enemy aircraft. It is about getting hold of a slice of the procurement budget between the Air Force, the navy and the army. It is about giving people things to do, careerism, keeping the status quo, promotions, looking after your own, giving only good news to your superiors, not rocking the boat, making things look good. This is a huge subject. I believe the burocratically-designed F-35 will be a piece of goldplated crap that will reach its maturity and do the things it is supposed to do by 2030. not 2016. Very unlike the YF-16 process as stated before. The defense department wants The Royal Australian Air Force to replace F-111s and F-18s with the F-35, and we are so cheesed off about it. They come up with all sorts of manipulated reports and so on to justify their political decision. I am extremely unhappy about the gap being left by he early retirement of the F-111s and filling the gap who knows when with the f-35, if it survives. The F-35 will be a complicated, unreliable, expensive, overweight, underperforming plane, hope I am wrong for the sake of my country.

Quote:

The defense department wants The Royal Australian Air Force

Oh, by the way I am refererring to the Australian Defense Department.

Forum: F-35 Armament, Stores and Tactics

F-35 Gun