Dirty F-35B wearing a gun!

Just so we're all looking at the same thing, I hope it's cool to post a cropped view of ST's pic of the outboard launcher in question:

Also added is the blended pod.

And if one zooms in on the inboard pylons, one could pretty much assume those are not the final design by looks of the underside connection?

I assumed you were speaking of a complex structural design (my field) and evidently you were speaking of a complex aerodynamic design. Sorry for the confusion.

Can you show some evidence the pylons are canted outboard?

Edit

From the zoom-in geogen posted (thanks) I can see the odd rotation of the AIM-9X launcher. Maybe that is the "cant" cywolf speaks of. Again, it is a matter of semantics, but an "outboard cant" can refer to a rotation around the vertical axis, so the nose moves outboard and the tail moves inboard. So if the rotation visible in the photo is what cywolf calls outboard cant, then once again, sorry for the confusion in semantics. Note though that the pylon is not rotated, only the launcher.

geogen, I see the inboard pylon connection you mention, and that design would be fine for any flight test purpose other than performance or LO. In fact it looks identical to the original F-16 pylon - connection, since replaced with a much slicker design.

Just look at the picture. It's obvious that the 9x's are not pointed in a straight configuration in relation to the wing.

wrightwing wrote:Not any more capable kinematically than the F-16/F-18? Why then do the chase planes have to use A/B to keep up, if it's such a dog? Additionally, the F-35 will be able to fly faster with a combat load of missiles than either of the other 2.

I didn't claim the F-35 is a dog. By design, however, it is not required to kinematically outperform the F-16, merely equal its performance. And yes, with an internal load the F-35 should substantially improve upon the F-16 or F-18 with an equivalent load, as well as lot of other Gen 4 and 4.5 fighters out there. That is something that many F-35 detractors, no matter how much you point it out, simply don't seem to get.

Sextusempiricus, I will admit I have been something of a F-35 detractor. It is not a bad plane, yet in my opinion it simply could have been a better design. I am not saying I could have done better myself, but many of the CALF/JAST concepts and MDD's design seem to have more promise. Though the aircraft supposedly had some serious problems, Boeing's X-32 got the back end right, with a stealthier 2D thrust vectoring configuration.

Northrop had some interesting designs at one point that looked somewhat like a smaller, single-engined YF-23, but with a 2D thrust vectoring nozzle like that of the F-22.

That gun is supposed to be low observable? It looks just like the gun pod that was mounted on the F-4. Also another thing, yeah, RCS is not really important in this situation when the F-35 is "going dirty" but what if it needed stealth, then would the pod affect it's radar susceptibility?

Several things will make the pod LO.

1. RAM

2. Notice the horizontal "knife edge" that all LO aircraft share.

3. Treated seams

4. Gun set back farther from opening and cannot be easily seen.

5. Ram-Air generator buried in the frame.

How big is that gun pod? Looks to me like a 1K JDAM hanging there.

Most of the F4 guys who flew the C & D didn't like the gun pod.
It jammed alot. It made great video firing, but they said it
was not much of anything else. But at least it looks sexy...

PhillyGuy wrote:How big is that gun pod? Looks to me like a 1K JDAM hanging there.

Larger, i'm guessing. Looks like a 2k.
here's a diagram for comparison.

t3h_pr3t3nd3r wrote:

PhillyGuy wrote:How big is that gun pod? Looks to me like a 1K JDAM hanging there.

Larger, i'm guessing. Looks like a 2k.
here's a diagram for comparison.

Pretty large, but consider that the centerline is cleared for 1000 lbs. Actually page seven in Dave Maher's presentation offers some numbers.

B. Bolsøy
Oslo

energo wrote:

t3h_pr3t3nd3r wrote:

PhillyGuy wrote:How big is that gun pod? Looks to me like a 1K JDAM hanging there.

Larger, i'm guessing. Looks like a 2k.
here's a diagram for comparison.

Pretty large, but consider that the centerline is cleared for 1000 lbs. Actually page seven in Dave Maher's presentation offers some numbers.

B. Bolsøy
Oslo

Ah, I see. Does any one know why the CV F-35C version decided to go with an external gun?

FWIW - 1997 discussion about JSF and guns here: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... rovich.htm

"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Title: The Joint Strike Fighter: A Strike Fighter Without an Internal Gun?
Author: Lieutenant Colonel Douglas P. Yurovich USMC
Thesis: Is the internal gun necessary armament for the Strike Fighter of the next generation or has it been rendered obsolete by the proposed threats of the future battlefield, joint design criteria and the developing tactics for future air power employment?

Discussion: Initially, the decision to include an internal gun in the Joint Strike Fighter seemed like a simple decision of programmatics over tactics, dollars over capabilities. In fact, the Air Force has decided to force the issue, and include the internal gun on their version of the JSF. In this case, tactical decision making overcame strict programmatics. When asked, the Navy has been mute on the issue.

Upon further inspection, the situation facing the Marine Corps is as unique as the STOVL Joint Strike Fighter platform itself The Marine Corps' position implements the STOVL version of the Joint Strike Fighter as the only fixed wing fighter attack platform in the Corps' inventory from 2007 to 2025. Any threat to the existence of the STOVL concept within that platform represents a threat to the existence of fixed wing Marine TACAIR. The tactical versus the programmatic debate notwithstanding, the strategic reality is that if Marine TACAIR is a carbon copy of either the Air Force and/or the Navy it will cease to exist as a separate entity.

Conclusions: The Joint Strike Fighter will be the Marine STOVL fixed wing fighter attack platform, accepted with tactical compromises, to maintain the unique structure of the expeditionary force. The STOVL JSF will be a Strike Fighter without an internal gun, because of this it will be less lethal than its predecessors in some tactical arenas, and less lethal than initial advertisements would lead you to believe!"

"The US Navy, on the other hand, has mostly given up on the F-35 gun system for
the CV. Although the gun system was originally only an objective requirement, issues
with weight and space have largely caused the gun system to be abandoned." p.25 of 47

The Need for a Permanent Gun System On the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter April 2007

http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD ... tTRDoc.pdf (332Kbs)

Thanks. It never really struck me that the HMD would affect the gun's accuracy.