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

Banken
I'm pretty sure the gun was sacrificed to fit the lift fan and to make the plane light enough to to do a vertical landing. It's probably not just a simple issue of "they didn't want one."

I'm not sure thats true. I would think an internal gun would weigh less than a gun pod (can't speak to the volume requirements for a lift fan however). To me the Marines don't think they need an internal gun because thier Lightning II's will be tasked with ground support and an external pod will be good enough. And as for the Navy, they omited the gun so as not to compete with the F-18E/F Super Hornets. I'm not saying I think it's a GOOD idea mind you....

FlightDreamz, do you have any evidence for this statement and what does it mean anyway: "And as for the Navy, they omited the gun so as not to compete with the F-18E/F Super Hornets." What is the competition?

I don't have any web links to back it up (so its more my theory than anything else). But Congress MIGHT decide to omit the F-18 in favor of the new upcoming F-35 Lightning Ii so as to have ONE up and coming fighter on order. Much like the F-22 Raptor run was cut short, since we have the F-35 coming anyway (the Air Force originally wanted the F-22 in production early to avoid conflicts with the Joint Strike Fighter). In my opinion if the F-18 is considered the FIGHTER/Bomber and the F-35 the naval strike aircraft the Navy might be able to have it's cake and eat it too. But then again, I've heard rumblings (again can't find a link at present) that the Navy was considering canceling teh F-35C in favor of all F-18 Super Hornets. I don't find that plausable myself (get rid of the navy's only real stealth aircraft?) I've just read that in internet posts.

FlightDreamz, OK as long as it is clear that it is not an official Navy idea, it is fair enough that you speculate. A lot of things around the purchase of the JSF are not set at moment, so there is a lot of speculation. A lot of that speculation is implausable IMHO. I don't think there is any competition between Super Hornet and JSF-C. They will work well together in different roles but that depends on how the JSF-C is purchased in numbers and when. While the JSF-C is introduced then there will be many different variations of mixes of air groups I guess. The Growler will be there until perhaps some other aircraft takes its place, but I can see the JSF-C and Super Hornet variations working well together, in the same way the combination will work in Australia (with the JSF-A most likely but then again Oz might buy the JSF-C version - heck our RAAF buy Navy aircraft anyway).

SpudmanWP wrote:LRO?

errm, I mean low radar observables. ie, stealth.

FlightDreamz wrote:

Banken
I'm pretty sure the gun was sacrificed to fit the lift fan and to make the plane light enough to to do a vertical landing. It's probably not just a simple issue of "they didn't want one."

I'm not sure thats true. I would think an internal gun would weigh less than a gun pod (can't speak to the volume requirements for a lift fan however). To me the Marines don't think they need an internal gun because thier Lightning II's will be tasked with ground support and an external pod will be good enough. And as for the Navy, they omited the gun so as not to compete with the F-18E/F Super Hornets. I'm not saying I think it's a GOOD idea mind you....

I'm pretty sure the lift fan is exactly where the ammo drum would have been. Except even the F-35A's ammo capacity is ABYSMALLY small... 125 rounds? That's retarded. I'd think something supposed to replace the A-10 should have at least 500 rounds.

But the issue of a gun pod means that the marines would choose "do I want to strafe, or do I want to hover today?" In fact, the F-35 apparently has to dump fuel just to do a vertical landing, so weight is DEFINITELY an issue.

The gun capacity is about 180 rounds for the CTOL and 200 rounds for the pod. Keep in mind that they are 25mm rounds and a lot bigger than 20mm.

Vertical landing was not a system requirement and nobody, conventional or vertically landing, lands with a full load of fuel. The STOVL variant can take off and land with the gun pod, that will never be a decision that needs to be faced.

Not true... an emergency landing landing immediately after takeoff is made with a basically full fuel load. I don't think every US fighter even has the ability to dump internal fuel.

banken, a STOVL JSF could do an emergency short running landing with full fuel for example - have a look at this thread:

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopi ... t-165.html
__________________________________

FlightDreamz, Here is what Boeing thinks (according to their 2007 sales pitch) about JSF & Super Hornet 'marriage':

"– Provides key capability, promotes interoperability
– stable/declining cost…low risk
– demonstrated affordability
– E/F/G leads-to and complements F-35…No change long-term F-35 planning
– E/F/G = F-35: Complementary capabilities – mitigates capability gap"

http://ericpalmer.files.wordpress.com/2 ... acepdf.pdf (1.1Mb)

I think the fact of the matter is that the F-35 will be a SEAD and first-strike platform with it's stealth, and the 18 will be doing the grunt work (heavy strike work, CAS, interdiction) with it's longer range (since stealth isn't an issue you can use drop tanks whenever you want) and bigger weapons capacity (12 MRMs!).

outlaw162 wrote:

hoghandler wrote:there are hundreds of kills using an internaly mounted gun. all the way back to WW I to present day there have been kills by useing a gun. hell the a-10 has two confirmed air to air kills with its gun.

The last US fighter on fighter gun kill was in 1972. Were you even born then?

The A-10 kills were both helicopters, the A-10's were defending themselves against the attacking air-superiority choppers.

OL

No 1981. I know those were choppers an a kill is still a kill.

Spazsinbad wrote:FlightDreamz, OK as long as it is clear that it is not an official Navy idea, it is fair enough that you speculate.

Fair enough, never meant to imply it was official Navy policy Spazsinbad (mind you it's not MY original idea either, I've seen it posted before, but without an available link at present....). I should've been more careful to state it as OPINION.

Although here's a quote from AviationWeek.com that lends a little weight my opinion that the F-18 and F-35 might compete against each other in funding

without discussing specific performance characteristics, Italian air force fighter pilots involved with the F-35 program tell Aviation Week that the aircraft’s performance falls “between the F-16 and the F/A-18 in terms of flight envelope—and is actually closer to the F/A-18, considering its high angle of attack and slow-speed maneuvering capabilities.”

See http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/F35-030509.xml

Banken wrote:I'm pretty sure the lift fan is exactly where the ammo drum would have been.

Hmmm, didn't think of that (have to check the 3D cutaways stored away on my hard drive somewhere, I believe you can find them somewhere on flightglobal.com, if my memory serves).
And you make a good point as far as weight issues and hovering.

Spazinbad wrote:FlightDreamz, Here is what Boeing thinks...
– E/F/G leads-to and complements F-35…No change long-term F-35 planning

Yep, thats the sales pitch (well part of it anyway). And Banken brings up a good point about payload and range (actually one the things I DESPISE about the Super Hornet compared to the legacy aircraft it\\\'s replacing, but thats another rant)

banken wrote:Not true... an emergency landing landing immediately after takeoff is made with a basically full fuel load. I don't think every US fighter even has the ability to dump internal fuel.

No, it is true. Maybe a full internal load, but the pilot is going to be punching off all external stores during an IFE that requires an immediate landing. Far from an ideal situation and if it is safe, they will stay in the air to burn off fuel. The 35 has over twice the internal capacity of the viper and that is one of the main reasons it has a fuel dump valve.

You were right though, not all aircraft have a dump valve, the 16 being one of them.

The Gun and ammo are located behind the engine inlets, not between them.

As I recall one of the early JSF test flights was to test the fuel dump facilities?