Nice Article on the F-22

Anything goes, as long as it is about the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

hornetfinn

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1804
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post09 Dec 2016, 15:33

mixelflick wrote:"Until the sun goes down.."

Ah, but doesn't the F-35 have a nifty IR sensor and other things to shoot in the dark?

"Guns jam on their own"

Fair point. But do we really want to leave an F-35 pilot defenseless after expending her 2-4 AMRAAMS? It's not like she can run like a Raptor. I did read of supercruise of mach 1.2 without afterburner for 150 miles, but it's plausible that it could get run down by a lightly loaded Flanker. Certainly a PAK-FA/J-20 could do it with the right engines..

I'm no Pierre Sprey, but if I were the pilot of an F-35 - I'd want that gun pod..


Well, F-35s tend to work as a wolfpacks and can also direct weapons from other sources like Aegis cruisers and 4th gen aircraft available. Running down one would mean coming to jaws of these systems. Of course running down an F-35 means you have to know where it is and this will be very hard to do.

Not that having a gun available would not be bad at all. But I think it'd be pretty meaningless if you are alone and enemy knows where you are and he has missiles to use and you only have a gun.
Offline

condor1970

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 19
  • Joined: 07 May 2011, 21:40
  • Location: Port Orchard WA

Unread post10 Dec 2016, 04:11

All this is a great discussion, but here's an even better article from the same website. One that in my opinion is far more important.

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-bu ... ptor-18587
Offline

les_paul59

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 309
  • Joined: 23 Jan 2016, 05:57

Unread post10 Dec 2016, 19:59

@Condor

I think all of us would like more raptors but that dream died when mr. 47 % lost in 2012. That article is a borderline f-35 hit piece. As we have heard from many pilots the f-35 is a beast in the subsonic range, it won't do the 60k feet super-cruising, but I would recommend against getting slow with an f-35. The f-35 is kinematically no slouch and a hot-rod when compared to 4th gen. jets in a combat configuration.
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1213
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post12 Dec 2016, 17:50

Flying without the gun goes back to the Phantom days (up to the F-4E). I wonder if it's going to be difficult for pilots to fly without it. I know I'd be hesitant.

You mentioned tradeoffs in carrying the gun pod. What negatives do you see? Drag?? Compromises stealth??
Offline

structuresguy

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 83
  • Joined: 19 Jan 2012, 15:54

Unread post12 Dec 2016, 23:15

flighthawk128 wrote:If I recall correctly, there was an article with a quote about how everytime the Marines load up the Harriers (I think it was the Harriers... might have been another plane), the gun pod is always strapped on regardless of the mission. It'll probably be the same way with the F-35B, but it really comes down to how the brass want to manage the fleet, and it'll show through the tactics they employ. If they don't mind the tradeoffs that come with the gun pod, they'll always strap it on and make it work. If they're confident in whatever other shenanigans they come up with that don't need the gun pod, they'll do that.



The Harrier has to fly with the gun or LID's in place. Without one or the other there's a hug penalty in engine efficiency during VTOL operations. Its common for them to fly with LID's instead of the gun when in a training environment.

Image
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3529
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post13 Dec 2016, 05:50

les_paul59 wrote:@Condor

I think all of us would like more raptors but that dream died when mr. 47 % lost in 2012. That article is a borderline f-35 hit piece. As we have heard from many pilots the f-35 is a beast in the subsonic range, it won't do the 60k feet super-cruising, but I would recommend against getting slow with an f-35. The f-35 is kinematically no slouch and a hot-rod when compared to 4th gen. jets in a combat configuration.



Early F-15 Eagle Drivers thought the F-16 was not going to be that hard of an opponent. Only to find out the hard way! I think the same will be said of F-22 Pilots coming up against the F-35 Lightning.
Offline

charlielima223

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 712
  • Joined: 12 Jan 2014, 19:26

Unread post10 Jan 2017, 05:57

Offline

wrightwing

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2317
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post10 Jan 2017, 17:31

mixelflick wrote:"Until the sun goes down.."

Ah, but doesn't the F-35 have a nifty IR sensor and other things to shoot in the dark?

"Guns jam on their own"

Fair point. But do we really want to leave an F-35 pilot defenseless after expending her 2-4 AMRAAMS? It's not like she can run like a Raptor. I did read of supercruise of mach 1.2 without afterburner for 150 miles, but it's plausible that it could get run down by a lightly loaded Flanker. Certainly a PAK-FA/J-20 could do it with the right engines..

I'm no Pierre Sprey, but if I were the pilot of an F-35 - I'd want that gun pod..

Not a very likely scenario. F-35s would plink at adversaries outside of their detection range, and then move to safety. The supercruise figure, is using dry thrust, and that'sa conservative range estimate. If need be, the F-35 could fly M1.6, too. The only planes that could chase down an F-35 kinematically speaking, are the F-22, and Mig-31, and even then, it wouldn't be an easy task, if the F-35 had a 30-50nm headstart.
Offline

arian

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 745
  • Joined: 23 Dec 2014, 09:25

Unread post10 Jan 2017, 22:57

mixelflick wrote:"Until the sun goes down.."

Ah, but doesn't the F-35 have a nifty IR sensor and other things to shoot in the dark?

"Guns jam on their own"

Fair point. But do we really want to leave an F-35 pilot defenseless after expending her 2-4 AMRAAMS? It's not like she can run like a Raptor. I did read of supercruise of mach 1.2 without afterburner for 150 miles, but it's plausible that it could get run down by a lightly loaded Flanker. Certainly a PAK-FA/J-20 could do it with the right engines..


If you have to resort to your gun in an air combat these days, it's already too late.
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1213
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post11 Jan 2017, 16:53

I keep hearing things like "if you need the gun, you did something horribly wrong". "BVR combat has increasingly been the case since Vietnam, etc".

I don't doubt either. What I am wondering is if the BVR kills in air to air combat (in the Gulf and elsewhere) have lulled us into a false sense of security. Take for example the middle east wars. In almost all cases, F-15/16 kills were against 3rd generation platforms like Mig-21/23/25's or early model 4th gens like the Mig-29. And in no case that I'm aware of were these aircraft flying with the latest RWR (or any RWR at all) and/or advanced countermeasures that might spoof an AMRAAM.

Am I mistaken in that view, or have there been confrontations with late model Mig-29's with advanced counter-measures?
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 4525
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post11 Jan 2017, 17:02

mixelflick wrote:Flying without the gun goes back to the Phantom days (up to the F-4E). I wonder if it's going to be difficult for pilots to fly without it. I know I'd be hesitant.

You mentioned tradeoffs in carrying the gun pod. What negatives do you see? Drag?? Compromises stealth??


You realize the USN and USMC were using "gunless " short nosed phantoms along with the UK until they retired the type in the 1990s? Even the F-4Sierra still didn't have a internal gun

Until just a few years ago south Korea was still using short nosed phantoms sans inside guns
Choose Crews
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 4525
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post11 Jan 2017, 17:04

mixelflick wrote:I keep hearing things like "if you need the gun, you did something horribly wrong". "BVR combat has increasingly been the case since Vietnam, etc".

I don't doubt either. What I am wondering is if the BVR kills in air to air combat (in the Gulf and elsewhere) have lulled us into a false sense of security. Take for example the middle east wars. In almost all cases, F-15/16 kills were against 3rd generation platforms like Mig-21/23/25's or early model 4th gens like the Mig-29. And in no case that I'm aware of were these aircraft flying with the latest RWR (or any RWR at all) and/or advanced countermeasures that might spoof an AMRAAM.

Am I mistaken in that view, or have there been confrontations with late model Mig-29's with advanced counter-measures?



WVR kills have been missiles as well...
Choose Crews
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 4525
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post11 Jan 2017, 17:14

mixelflick wrote:"Until the sun goes down.."

Ah, but doesn't the F-35 have a nifty IR sensor and other things to shoot in the dark?

"Guns jam on their own"

Fair point. But do we really want to leave an F-35 pilot defenseless after expending her 2-4 AMRAAMS? It's not like she can run like a Raptor. I did read of supercruise of mach 1.2 without afterburner for 150 miles, but it's plausible that it could get run down by a lightly loaded Flanker. Certainly a PAK-FA/J-20 could do it with the right engines..

I'm no Pierre Sprey, but if I were the pilot of an F-35 - I'd want that gun pod..


sweet Jesus it's not black and white. With cooperative engagement it's never out of missiles. In a world of HOBS going for a gun kill can end you. And I've been hearing the lack of disengagement talk going back to the Super Hornet.

We are talking about a very small slice of the F-35 "not having guns" which is horse puckey. They have guns they just go on the outside.

The bottom line is that there is always going to be someone who says" but but the gun!!"

I don't believe that even without a gun the pilot is utterly defenseless it doesn't work that way. This is becoming something akin to a magic feather or lucky socks.

The lack of a gun in nam wasn't the only issue either. People forget that. It was a lack of training and knowledge of how to employ ALL weapons, including missiles. The USN and USMC were still flying sans guns for decades later. Yet the kill ratios improved dramatically how is that so? Simple they learned how to fight.

Dogfights are going to exist but they will.look different. Just like 21st century infantry and tactics look different from 19th century infantry and tactics. It's infantry but not like that
Choose Crews
Offline

zero-one

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1090
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 16:19
  • Location: New Jersey

Unread post11 Jan 2017, 17:39

Fair points on all sides.

So lets talk the gun, should the F-35 have it?

It seems that we have a pretty fair amount of people that think that if you get into WVR ranges in an F-35 then you have a lot of explaining to do once you land, its almost a crime.

But from what the F-22 has been through, this doesn't seem to be the case, the Raptor has gone to WVR ranges just because it can. Because the green light to engage isn't always there.

Today the F-22 regularly goes into air intercept missions closing into visual range with the confidence that it can rely on a gun IF needed.

The F-35 will be pitted in similar scenarios if it is needed. Now imagine being in an F-35 with no gun, you're now in perfect firing position on a bandit that has no idea that you're there. You we're suddenly ordered to shoot.

It's simple you let loose your million dollar AMRAAM D and watch the fire works. but if you had the gun, you could've spent less than $1000 on 25mm API rounds with the same effect.

An interview with veteran ace William P. Driscoll caught him saying, we will always need the knife, Spear is good, I'll use the spear, but give me a knife, I'll need it eventually.

It's better to have something and never need it than to need something but never have it
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 4525
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post11 Jan 2017, 19:48

zero-one wrote:Fair points on all sides.

So lets talk the gun, should the F-35 have it?

It seems that we have a pretty fair amount of people that think that if you get into WVR ranges in an F-35 then you have a lot of explaining to do once you land, its almost a crime.

But from what the F-22 has been through, this doesn't seem to be the case, the Raptor has gone to WVR ranges just because it can. Because the green light to engage isn't always there.

Today the F-22 regularly goes into air intercept missions closing into visual range with the confidence that it can rely on a gun IF needed.

The F-35 will be pitted in similar scenarios if it is needed. Now imagine being in an F-35 with no gun, you're now in perfect firing position on a bandit that has no idea that you're there. You we're suddenly ordered to shoot.

It's simple you let loose your million dollar AMRAAM D and watch the fire works. but if you had the gun, you could've spent less than $1000 on 25mm API rounds with the same effect.

An interview with veteran ace William P. Driscoll caught him saying, we will always need the knife, Spear is good, I'll use the spear, but give me a knife, I'll need it eventually.

It's better to have something and never need it than to need something but never have it


Then you use the missile. The cost is irrelevant. I see the gun like any other piece of ordnance. I think of a million scenarios where a situation could arise but the optimal piece of ordnance isn't on the aircraft. What if you need a cluster bomb? JDAM? Laser? B-61? What if?!
What if you need 2 guns? Or triple the rounds?! What if?


You adjust. And cost should not be the prime motivation. It's nice to save money but it's not a primary driver.
Choose Crews
PreviousNext

Return to General F-22A Raptor forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests