F-16.net

The GAU-22/A is a lighter-weight, four barreled version of the GAU-12/A 25mm cannon used on the AV-8B Harrier. It fires the 25x137mm round which is the same round used in the 25mm chaingun found on the USMC LAV-25 APC and the US Army M2 Bradley. However, the GAU-22/A cannot fire the APFSDS rounds used on the ground vehicles; the separation of the sabot from the sub-caliber munition could cause bad juju for the aircraft (think sabot striking aircraft, getting sucked down intakes etc). The GAU-22/A has a rate of fire of 3300rpm, and a dispersion specification of

5 milliradians diameter, 80 percent circle (1.4 milliradians, 1-sigma radius)
Source: GAU-22/A 25mm Gatling Gun

PGU-23 TP (i.e. training round; Orbital ATK)
PGU-25 HEI (high explosive incindiary; Orbital ATK)
PGU-32/U SAPHEI-T (dual purpose high explosive incindiary / anti-armor; Orbital ATK)
PGU-47/U APEX (dual purpose HEI / anti-armor; Nammo - Norwegian Ammunition Company)

References:

25mm_Fact_Sheet.pdf

Orbital ATK

(1.57 MiB) Downloaded 2057 times

25-mm-apex-for-the-f35-lightning-ii.pdf

(1.37 MiB) Downloaded 2732 times

Pentagon: F-35 Gun Will Fire in 2017
Brendan McGarry January 8, 2015

“Comprehensive flight test on the F-35A variant GAU-22 25mm gun system is scheduled to begin mid-year at Edwards AFB, Calif., and will include ground fire tests, muzzle calibration, flight test integration and in-flight operational tests,” he wrote.

The GAU-22/A, a four-barrel version of the 25mm GAU-12/U Equalizer five-barrel cannon found on the Marine Corps’ AV-8B Harrier II jump set, is designed to be internally mounted on the Air Force’s F-35A conventional model of the aircraft and hold 182 rounds. It’s slated to be externally mounted on the Marine Corps’ F-35B jump-jet variant and the Navy’s F-35C aircraft carrier version and hold 220 rounds.

That’s a drop in the bucket compared to the 30mm, seven-barrel GAU-8/A Avenger in the nose of the Cold War-era A-10 Warthog attack aircraft, which holds as many as 1,174 rounds.

But it’s actually more than the capacity of other existing front-line fighters, including the Russian MiG-25 and Eurofighter Typhoon, and enough to perform the close air support mission, according to Dave Stouffer, senior manager of business development at General Dynamics’ Ordnance and Tactical Systems unit.

“I love the A-10, I’m a former infantry guy,” he said in a telephone interview with Military.com. “No one is going to sit here and say it’s going to be just as good as the A-10.” But, he added, “This 25mm in the Joint Strike Fighter can perform the ground support role … This is a very capable gun system.”

The weapon, one of many slated for the aircraft, is based on a design with a proven track record on both the Harrier and the AC-130 gunship, he said. Linked to the aircraft’s fire control and targeting software, it will fire highly accurate rounds at air-to-ground or air-to-air targets, he said. Also, the exposure point — the time it takes for the pilot to point the plane and its gun at a target — may only last a fraction of a second, translating to nine or 10 bursts of fire, he said.

http://www.dodbuzz.com/2015/01/08/pentagon-f-35-gun-will-fire-in-2017

steve2267 wrote:With regard to burst length...

Pentagon: F-35 Gun Will Fire in 2017
Brendan McGarry January 8, 2015

“Comprehensive flight test on the F-35A variant GAU-22 25mm gun system is scheduled to begin mid-year at Edwards AFB, Calif., and will include ground fire tests, muzzle calibration, flight test integration and in-flight operational tests,” he wrote.

The GAU-22/A, a four-barrel version of the 25mm GAU-12/U Equalizer five-barrel cannon found on the Marine Corps’ AV-8B Harrier II jump set, is designed to be internally mounted on the Air Force’s F-35A conventional model of the aircraft and hold 182 rounds. It’s slated to be externally mounted on the Marine Corps’ F-35B jump-jet variant and the Navy’s F-35C aircraft carrier version and hold 220 rounds.

That’s a drop in the bucket compared to the 30mm, seven-barrel GAU-8/A Avenger in the nose of the Cold War-era A-10 Warthog attack aircraft, which holds as many as 1,174 rounds.

But it’s actually more than the capacity of other existing front-line fighters, including the Russian MiG-25 and Eurofighter Typhoon, and enough to perform the close air support mission, according to Dave Stouffer, senior manager of business development at General Dynamics’ Ordnance and Tactical Systems unit.

“I love the A-10, I’m a former infantry guy,” he said in a telephone interview with Military.com. “No one is going to sit here and say it’s going to be just as good as the A-10.” But, he added, “This 25mm in the Joint Strike Fighter can perform the ground support role … This is a very capable gun system.”

The weapon, one of many slated for the aircraft, is based on a design with a proven track record on both the Harrier and the AC-130 gunship, he said. Linked to the aircraft’s fire control and targeting software, it will fire highly accurate rounds at air-to-ground or air-to-air targets, he said. Also, the exposure point — the time it takes for the pilot to point the plane and its gun at a target — may only last a fraction of a second, translating to nine or 10 bursts of fire, he said.

http://www.dodbuzz.com/2015/01/08/pentagon-f-35-gun-will-fire-in-2017

The Fighter Aircraft Gun Comparison seems to be an interesting comparison of aircraft cannons. It lists the spin-up time of the GAU-22/A cannon at 0.4 seconds, and that it fires 16 rounds in 0.5 seconds. If the GAU-22/A sends 4-5 rounds back to the magazine when it clears itself, then a burst of 16 rounds would consume around 20-21 rounds, which would work out to nine bursts of fire, plus or minus, and would seem to agree with the dodbuzz.com quote above.

(Question: The F-16.net F-16 Armament - M61 A1 Vulcan web page states that the M61 sends between 5-9 unfired rounds back to the ammunition magazine when it clears itself after firing. This ranges from one round less than the number of barrels the M61 hasa to 1.5x the number of barrels. So I am guessing that th GAU-22/A will clear roughly 3-6 rounds when it ceases fire. Can anyone state and/or reference how many rounds are consumed when the GAU-22/A clears itself after firing? (I have not seen any specifications or statements about this.))

Does anyone know if the GAU-22/A gun on the F-35 will be burst-selectable in that the pilot could software select, say, a 10 round, or 15 round, or 20 round burst? I am thinking of a couple different ways to fire this cannon with the ammunition capacity that it has: a semi-auto-burst mode where you could select the number of rounds fired in a burst and only that number are fired with each press of the cannon trigger, or a full-auto mode where the cannon continues to fire as long as you keep the fun switch depressed.

Since so much of the F-35 is software defined, this feature would seem to be a no-brainer, but I have not seen it definitively specified anywhere. So I ask.

steve2267 wrote:

count_to_10 wrote:Wait, does that mean that the F-35 will only be firing 70 to 90% of the ammo actually loaded in it when it "empties" it's gun?

As I mentioned, the M61 Vulcan reportedly returns 5-9 rounds to the magazine when it clears itself after firing. Unless the GAU-22/A doesn't clear itself after firing, or GDOTS figured a way to return unfired rounds to the feeding mechanism / magazine so they can still be fired, then to answer your question: yes, depending on how many bursts were fired.

[ ETA: They did! They DID! They did figure out a way to return unfired rounds to the feeding mechanism: they clear the GAU-22/A (and GAU-12/U on which the -22 is based) by cycling it in reverse. Everything written below is incorrect for the GAU-22/A. It would have been correct if the gun cleared itself in the same manner as the M61 Vulcan. ]

If you just hold down the fun switch until all rounds have been fired in one, continuous burst, then obviously you will fire 100% of the loaded ammo. If you fire two bursts, and four rounds are returned to the magazine after the first burst, you will have fired 98% of your rounds. Three bursts ~ 8-9 rounds returned for 95% of loaded ammunition expended. Nine bursts of fifteen rounds fired, five rounds returned: 75% loaded ammunition expended, 45 rounds returned. If only four rounds returned when clearing, then a nine bursts yields 16 rounds fired per burst, four returned: 80% loaded rounds will be fired.

Personally, I think the Bk27 might have been a better choice as far as an auto-cannon goes, but that ship sailed a long time ago. If they had used the Bk27, the USMC, among others, loses any possible logistical advantage to using the same calibre round in their ground machines (LAV-25) and the F-35. Granted, they use different rounds, so the logistal advantage may be overstated.

Having said all that, I don't think it is necessarily a bad thing. Yeah, I'd like to be able to use 100% of my loaded rounds, but if the software permits me to fire only 15 rounds at a time, and enables me to accurately target those 15 rounds, that may be all I need.

count_to_10 wrote:It occurs to me, though that, if the ammo belt is one continuous feed that can cycle around multiple times, then you should be able to leave a full burst worth of rounds unexpended after each fired burst. That might be complicated if the pilot wanted to change burst length in flight, but the computer should be able to set things up so that those skipped rounds could be fired in bursts on the second pass through.

count_to_10 wrote:Does anyone know if it was possible to fire those skipped rounds (if sporadically and unpredictably) on legacy platforms?

cantaz wrote:In some of the videos of the GAU-22 test fires, the gun spins backwards after firing. This might be to clear the unfired rounds back out into the feed chute. The M61 cannot cycle in reverse.

steve2267 wrote:

cantaz wrote:In some of the videos of the GAU-22 test fires, the gun spins backwards after firing. This might be to clear the unfired rounds back out into the feed chute. The M61 cannot cycle in reverse.

I never noticed that before - an excellent observation.

In this video you do in fact see the gun spin in the opposite direction briefly (appears to be about one revolution).



count_to_10... it looks like the engineers got your 25-30% back through an elegant solution!

Dragon029 wrote:http://www.edwards.af.mil/News/Article/ ... oward-ioc/

As of days ago, all Block 3F F-35A and F-35C WDAs have been completed, with only a single WDA for the F-35B remaining.

F-35 Problems: Late IOTE, F-35A Gun Inaccurate, F-35B Tires, Threat Data, Cyber…

by Colin Clark, Jan 26, 2018

...

There’s another important problem which will make it very difficult for the Air Force to argue that it can replace the A-10 with the F-35A, as planned: “The F-35A gun has been consistently missing ground targets during strafe testing; the program is still troubleshooting the problems.” The gun shoots “long, and to the right.” The Marine’s F-35B and the Navy’s F-35C guns, which are not built in, are apparently performing better. “Initial accuracy testing of the F-35B and F-35C podded guns showed better results than that of the F-35A model,” Behler writes. “Both the F-35B and the F-35C gun pods exhibited the same right aiming bias as the F-35A, however the long bias is not manifested in the podded gun systems.”

The other bad news here is that “delays in completing the remaining gun testing and correcting gun-related deficiencies within SDD, especially for the F-35A, are adding risk to the IOT&E schedule,” the report says.

...

https://breakingdefense.com/2018/01/f-35-problems-late-iote-f-35a-gun-inaccurate-f-35b-tires-threat-data-cyber/

* Flight testing of the different gun systems on the F-35 (internal gun for F-35A and external gun pods for the F-35B and F-35C) revealed problems with effectiveness, accuracy, pilot controls, and gunsights displayed in the Helmet Mounted Display System (HMDS). The synopsis and assessment of specific HMDS problems are classified. The gun profiles include the testing and qualification of four separate 25 mm rounds in the two gun types. The F-35A internal gun testing includes the PGU-23 training round, PGU-47 Armor Piercing High Explosive Incendiary round, and the PGU-48 Frangible Armor Piercing round. The F-35B and the F-35C variants external gun pod testing is limited to the PGU-32 Semi-Armor Piercing High Explosive Incendiary round used by the Marine Corps.

p.42 of http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2 ... f35jsf.pdf

Gun Testing

• Gun Activity
  
  • All three F-35 variants add gun capability with Block 3F. The F-35A gun is internal; the F-35B and F-35C each use an external gun pod. Differences in the outer mold-line fairing mounting make the gun pods unique to a specific variant (i.e., an F-35B gun pod cannot be mounted on an F-35C aircraft).
  • AF-31, the only Block 3F mission systems-capable F-35A test aircraft configured for gun testing, completed the first air-to-ground gun firing at Naval Air Weapons Station (NAWS) China Lake, California, in February 2017.
    
    • Helmet Mounted Display System (HMDS) alignment problems identified during the test event prevented further weapons demonstration activities with the gun until corrections were developed and tested. The test team accomplished a risk reduction test flight in March while awaiting resolution of the HMDS alignment and line-of-sight problems.
    • AF-31 completed an air-to-ground live fire accuracy event on September 27, 2017, and a gun lethality mission on October 5. Additional testing was ongoing at the time of this report.
  • BF-1 completed the first F-35B airborne gun firing on February 21, 2017. BF-1 then attempted more gun testing in March, but gun pod problems, weather, and range availability prevented the completion of the initial set of scheduled events.
    
    • BF-1 resumed testing in April, but gun pod seal problems and cracks at the FS 346.5 frame further delayed testing. BF-1 completed airborne gun firing in May to complete the flight sciences testing of the gun pod on the F-35B.
    • BF-17, the only Block 3F mission systems-capable test aircraft configured for gun accuracy testing, completed a gun lethality mission on September 12, 2017.
  • CF-3 performed the first F-35C airborne gun firing on June 6, 2017, and continued more gun testing throughout the month. It completed flight sciences testing with the gun pod in July.
• Gun Assessment
  
  • F-35A gun accuracy testing on AF-31 demonstrated uncharacterized bias toward long and right of the target. Also, the gunsight display in the HMDS was cluttered and slow to stabilize.
  • The initial F-35B strafing results with the gun pod have been better than those for the F-35A. The aim-point projection through the HMDS was more stable and the F-35B does not appear to have significant angular bias errors like the F-35A. The program will complete accuracy assessments; however, because the program used just a single aircraft per variant to assess compliance with specification requirements, the JPO will make more assessments with OT aircraft before and during IOT&E.
  • F-35C accuracy results with the gun pod to date have been consistent with those observed with the F-35B.
  • The JOTT and the Services will need to develop shot-kill criteria, possibly for each variant, to assess the effectiveness of simulated gun employment during training and test mission trials in IOT&E. Ongoing delays in completing the remaining gun testing and correcting gun-related deficiencies within SDD, especially for the F-35A, are adding risk to the IOT&E schedule.

p.43 of http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2 ... f35jsf.pdf

• sounds like gun system assessment to continue during IOT&E as there was only one -A, one -B, and one -C available for gun testing during SDD.
• -A had (has?) some HMDS display issues
• -A also has "significant angular bias errors" (someone needs to brush up on their trig? )
• The services still need to settle on what constitutes a gun kill

archeman wrote:I never understood why the USAF didn't pony up the development cost to mod the external gun pod for the A model.

In one pretty simple move, the USAF could have silenced the 'Big Guns Win Wars' crowd and given the A-10 chest beaters something serious to chew on (dual GAU-22s) which would nearly double the A-10 rate of fire and nearly match the total A-10 kilojules of kinetic target impact.
A lesser but not unimportant note of course is that doubling the cannon fire of the F-35A it actually WOULD be a serious ground attack improvement. It wouldn't become twice as effective overall but when it did transition into ground strafe it would saturate the target area exactly 100% better than before.

magitsu wrote:

archeman wrote:I never understood why the USAF didn't pony up the development cost to mod the external gun pod for the A model.

.......

Why would anyone in their right mind start ground strafing with F-35? If such a cozy airspace exists in the future, the likes of Tucano can handle it. Cannon isn't really that effective, almost a sideshow compared to PGMs with jets. There are certain platforms like AC-130 for it though.

magitsu wrote:Why would anyone in their right mind start ground strafing with F-35? <snip>

archeman wrote:I never understood why the USAF didn't pony up the development cost to mod the external gun pod for the A model.

In one pretty simple move, the USAF could have silenced the 'Big Guns Win Wars' crowd and given the A-10 chest beaters something serious to chew on (dual GAU-22s) which would nearly double the A-10 rate of fire and nearly match the total A-10 kilojules of kinetic target impact.
A lesser but not unimportant note of course is that doubling the cannon fire of the F-35A it actually WOULD be a serious ground attack improvement. It wouldn't become twice as effective overall but when it did transition into ground strafe it would saturate the target area exactly 100% better than before.

count_to_10 wrote:Is the A’s gun door causing the problem?

archeman wrote:It is just another method and tool in the arsenal of democracy apparently. If you're going to have weapons at all, they should work well, and you should know how to use them.

steve2267 wrote:

count_to_10 wrote:Is the A’s gun door causing the problem?

I've read nothing that states, let alone even suggests that. What are you thinking / why would you ask that?

As I ponder your question, though... I do wonder... could local flow perturbation caused by the door possibly cause the inaccuracy? Man, I have to think LM accounted for that -- that someone would have thought of it or otherwise considered it and accounted for such an effect.

But in the favor of a "gun door causing a problem" line of inquiry, the door always opens to the same position, so any effect (e.g. right bias) would be the same, and repeatable. On the other hand, flow perturbation effects (e.g. strength) could possibly change with airspeed, and at some critical Mach number, maybe 0.7M or 0.8M, I wonder if a local shock could be established by the door fairing. But would a projectile exiting the muzzle at > 1000m/s be sufficiently perturbed by such a local flow burble?

Still... it sounds like the gun bias is consistent. If it can be quantified and mapped vs flight dynamics variables, then it should be fixable via software kentucky windage.

archeman wrote:I never understood why the USAF didn't pony up the development cost to mod the external gun pod for the A model.

In one pretty simple move, the USAF could have silenced the 'Big Guns Win Wars' crowd and given the A-10 chest beaters something serious to chew on (dual GAU-22s) which would nearly double the A-10 rate of fire and nearly match the total A-10 kilojules of kinetic target impact.

stevedapirate wrote:
Would deleting the internal gun in favor of additional fuel be the equivalent of giving the F-35A a little 330 gal drop tank?

steve2267 wrote:Do not forget that the -B is rated to 7g, and the -C to 7.5g. You either have to de-rate the -A to 7.5g for a pod, or design the pod to handle 9g.

PHOTOS: 388th FW fires F-35A cannon for first time
15 Aug 2018 Todd Cromar, 388th Fighter Wing Public Affairs

"Pilots from the 388th Fighter Wing’s 4th Fighter Squadron were the first operational unit to fire the F-35A’s 25 mm cannon in a strafing run during training. The two-ship formation fired on two sets of ground targets on the Utah Test and Training range Aug. 13. Loading and firing the cannon was one of the few capabilities Airmen in the 388th and 419th FWs had yet to demonstrate. The F-35A’s internal cannon allows the aircraft to maintain stealth against air adversaries as well as fire more accurately on ground targets, giving pilots more tactical flexibility. (Air Force photo by Todd Cromar)"
https://media.defense.gov/2018/Aug/15/2 ... 5-0009.JPG (1.1Mb)

Source: https://www.acc.af.mil/News/Article-Dis ... irst-time/

spazsinbad wrote::doh: INERT 'WINDER UNDER PORT WING DRAG STOPS THE GUN FIRING HIGH & TO THE RIGHT DONCHA KNOW!

steve2267 wrote:In his article, https://theaviationist.com/2018/08/16/t ... -training/, Cenciotti states that Aim-9X was inert. Dumb question, why fly around with an inert 9X? The test boys have already conducted all the asymmetric and 9X firing tests. Only guess I have is if the F-35 avionics only do certain 9X-specific "tricks" if they know there is one on the wing?

forbin wrote:Many pics in this configuration with 2 AIM-9X can be considered stealth as it ?

forbin wrote:The gun had a problem internal not or less in pod fired too on the side fixed now ?

steve2267 wrote:

forbin wrote:The gun had a problem internal not or less in pod fired too on the side fixed now ?

Is English your native language? I don't ask this to be rude, but I do not understand this question at all.

zerion wrote:

steve2267 wrote:

forbin wrote:The gun had a problem internal not or less in pod fired too on the side fixed now ?

Is English your native language? I don't ask this to be rude, but I do not understand this question at all.

He’s wondering if the drift problem caused by the door of the internal gun was fixed.

steve2267 wrote:

forbin wrote:Many pics in this configuration with 2 AIM-9X can be considered stealth as it ?

If you are asking whether the F-35 retains its VLO characteristics when carrying two AIM-9X, I think the general consensus around here is that external AIM-9X carriage degrades VLO by some amount, but by how much, no one knows, and those that know aren't saying. Some have said the F-35 is "still stealthy", or "must still be stealthy or else XYX..." but no one knows for sure, and no numbers have been thrown around, let alone quoted.

forbin wrote:The gun had a problem internal not or less in pod fired too on the side fixed now ?

Is English your native language? I don't ask this to be rude, but I do not understand this question at all.

The A-10 used the its 30mm cannon to kill tanks in Iraq

charlielima223 wrote:People are still bitching about the magazine capacity for the F-35A. Its really annoying.

maybe if they get their heads out of their 4th point of contact and understand that the gun on the F-35 wont be its primary means of engaging ground targets, then they wouldn't be so damn annoying. Hell... even the GAU-8 (as awesome as it is) isn't the primary means of engagement for the A-10 in most situations.
Of course I would always come across this uneducated comment

The A-10 used the its 30mm cannon to kill tanks in Iraq

No, the GAU-8 wasn't the primary or the most successful/effective means of destroying Iraqi tanks in the Gulf War, it was bombs and the AGM-65.
Also when compared to the magazine size of other aircraft (Western European and Russian), the F-35 still has a larger magazine capacity, but that doesn't matter because its not the GAU-8

mk82 wrote:Donccha know.......in the land of the basement dwellers.....the GAU 8 slays all! And saves the rainforest too LOL!

1. The F-35 has been described as a flying supercomputer. With all that computing power, has George been designed to fly or otherwise fine tune the flight path such that, with a commit switch (or authorize to release) depressed, George will position the aircraft and automatically fire the gun to deposit 25mm shells on the target indicated by the pilot's helmet gunsight?
2. Could such a feature apply both to Air to Ground strafing missions as well as to Air to Air combat? After all, the fourth gen aircraft have had CCRP / CCIP forever now... why not let George greatly increase the Pk of a gun engagement?
3. Can the APG-81 track the outbound cannon shells and be used to either create a closed system gun solution (ala the Phalanx), or update in real time the helmet display gun pipper?

steve2267 wrote:One metric used to discuss / analyze / design gun systems for tactical aircraft is throw weight. In one second, an M61 Vulcan set at the 6000rpm rate, will fire 100 shells each weighing approx. 102g, or 10.2 kg in a second. Contrast that with the GAU-22/A spitting out fifty 25x137mm Nammo PGU-47/U Apex 223g(*) projectiles a second for a total one second throw weight of 11.1 kg /sec. So a full rate burst from the GAU-22/A has a better throw weight compared to the teen series aircraft. (Only the Harrier and the Hawg, of US aircraft, will have higher per second throw weights.)

Comparing the F-35A to the F-16 for total throw weights, the F-35A will have about 40.6 kg of shells, where the F-16 has 52.1kg total shell throw weight.

charlielima223 wrote:People are still bitching about the magazine capacity for the F-35A. Its really annoying.

maybe if they get their heads out of their 4th point of contact and understand that the gun on the F-35 wont be its primary means of engaging ground targets, then they wouldn't be so damn annoying. Hell... even the GAU-8 (as awesome as it is) isn't the primary means of engagement for the A-10 in most situations.
Of course I would always come across this uneducated comment

The A-10 used the its 30mm cannon to kill tanks in Iraq

No, the GAU-8 wasn't the primary or the most successful/effective means of destroying Iraqi tanks in the Gulf War, it was bombs and the AGM-65.
Also when compared to the magazine size of other aircraft (Western European and Russian), the F-35 still has a larger magazine capacity, but that doesn't matter because its not the GAU-8

kimjongnumbaun wrote:

charlielima223 wrote:People are still bitching about the magazine capacity for the F-35A. Its really annoying.

maybe if they get their heads out of their 4th point of contact and understand that the gun on the F-35 wont be its primary means of engaging ground targets, then they wouldn't be so damn annoying. Hell... even the GAU-8 (as awesome as it is) isn't the primary means of engagement for the A-10 in most situations.
Of course I would always come across this uneducated comment

The A-10 used the its 30mm cannon to kill tanks in Iraq

No, the GAU-8 wasn't the primary or the most successful/effective means of destroying Iraqi tanks in the Gulf War, it was bombs and the AGM-65.
Also when compared to the magazine size of other aircraft (Western European and Russian), the F-35 still has a larger magazine capacity, but that doesn't matter because its not the GAU-8

Indeed, the GAU-8 didn't even have the ability to penetrate most tanks from the front.

https://imgur.com/gallery/fd4sK

kimjongnumbaun wrote:

charlielima223 wrote:People are still bitching about the magazine capacity for the F-35A. Its really annoying.

maybe if they get their heads out of their 4th point of contact and understand that the gun on the F-35 wont be its primary means of engaging ground targets, then they wouldn't be so damn annoying. Hell... even the GAU-8 (as awesome as it is) isn't the primary means of engagement for the A-10 in most situations.
Of course I would always come across this uneducated comment

The A-10 used the its 30mm cannon to kill tanks in Iraq

No, the GAU-8 wasn't the primary or the most successful/effective means of destroying Iraqi tanks in the Gulf War, it was bombs and the AGM-65.
Also when compared to the magazine size of other aircraft (Western European and Russian), the F-35 still has a larger magazine capacity, but that doesn't matter because its not the GAU-8

Indeed, the GAU-8 didn't even have the ability to penetrate most tanks from the front.

https://imgur.com/gallery/fd4sK

hythelday wrote:
This argument is usually brought up to counter "muh GAU-8 brrrrt!" crowd, but it is not that solid, IMO:

1) An MBT with shredded barrel, tracks, roadwheels, sights and ERA is still an operational loss for the enemy. E.g. T-72's engine bay is virtually unarmored from the top. (a couple of Serbian M-84s strafed by A-10: http://www.srpskioklop.paluba.info/grob ... L-GT16.HTM and http://www.srpskioklop.paluba.info/grob ... -gt17.html)

2) BMP-1 & -2s wouldn't have stood a chance

In this example, the target was missed during the first
burst of fire. A second long burst destroyed the target.
The length of time required to complete the operation
previously described will depend on gunner proficiency and
training, but a Soviet article in 1979 stated that in a
timed test of ZSU's engaging targets without radar "the
majority of the crews were lost, much time was wasted
finding targets, refining and using the fire data. The
result of this is that gun crews opened fire, as a rule,
minutes after the helicopters appeared."12 The best
trained crew and most experienced in the test took 32
seconds.

viper12 wrote: that's an 8.78-second window of opportunity to shoot at the A-10, which pretty much means you'd need an automated system with fast reaction times to engage it.

hornetfinn wrote:ZSU-23-4 was very limited system with poor performance but was widely used because it was cheap and fairly simple and reliable system.

hythelday wrote:It's just that A-10 as a platform for GAU-8 is not as survivable as was anticipated.

hornetfinn wrote:Systems like 2S6 Tunguska, German Gepard, Marksman (used in Finland) and some other self propelled anti-aircraft systems can pretty easily fire within 5-10 seconds after detecting a target. All can also fire at anything as far as there is direct LOS between target and AD system. All have max effective firing range between 3,000-4,000 m (10,000 to 13,000 ft) with guns. 2S6 Tunguska could even engage further out with missiles. A-10 would be in a world of trouble against all of them. Of course the only potential system it could've ever met of these is 2S6 Tunguska (or later Pantsir-variants) which became operational in early 1980s. Of course it took to 1990 before it became more widespread in Soviet/Russian army. ZSU-23-4 was very limited system with poor performance but was widely used because it was cheap and fairly simple and reliable system.

ricnunes wrote:I know that this is a computer game

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:

ricnunes wrote:I know that this is a computer game

That is a disservice to DCS: A-10C. It is a fully immersive aircraft study in which every system and subsystem is modeled for maximum accuracy.

hythelday wrote:

hornetfinn wrote:ZSU-23-4 was very limited system with poor performance but was widely used because it was cheap and fairly simple and reliable system.

Still, Shilka and Osa were enough to punish low-fliers, including F-15Es, A-7s (before they were ordered higher). The worst loss per sortie in that war belongs to Tornados, who had to attack airfields with JP233 at low altitude on the first days of war.

basher54321 wrote:AFAIK originally the version did for the ANG was A-10C Suite 3.1 pre 2010 and part of the contract for a public version included removing and simplifying certain systems as you can see in the TOs. So the module itself is a simulator but the systems only go as far as what was allowed (unsurprisingly).

Nammo completes first live fire trials of GAU-22 gun for F-35 aircraft
13 September 2018

Norwegian / Finnish aerospace and defence group Nordic Ammunition Company (Nammo) has concluded the maiden live fire trials of the GAU-22 Gatling gun.

Developed specifically for the F-35 Lightning II, the four-barrelled GAU-22 gun was fired at Nammo’s purpose-built facility in Raufoss, Norway.

The gun is currently the only weapon of its kind being used outside the US.

Nammo Aircraft Ammunition programme director Anders Nyhus said: “This setup is really unique, in that allows us to do all the testing we need just minutes away from the production site.

But it's good, IMHO, that Nammo is proceeding with APEX production, which appears to be a highly effective munition ranging from anti-armor usage (light armor) through to air-to-air uses.

“That again means that can cut down the time between a production lot leaving the factory, and when it is tested and ready to go to the customer. It also means we can have a much higher confidence in the quality of the products we deliver, as we are able to control every aspect of the process from beginning to end.”

The GAU-22 Gatling gun and its associated facility have been procured through an agreement with the Norwegian Defense Materiel Agency as part of the development of Nammo’s APEX-ammunition for the F-35.

The APEX is the only ammunition type that is available for the F-35 fighter jets and will enable the aircraft to use its gun effectively in any scenario.

Nammo serves as the only ammunition provider for the F-35 aircraft able to carry out a complete range of verification and acceptance testing for every production lot independently.

https://www.airforce-technology.com/news/nammo-live-fire-trials-gau-22-f-35/

Dragon029 wrote:That might potentially be just for Norway or international partners; the US has different ammunition cleared for the F-35.

steve2267 wrote:

forbin wrote:Many pics in this configuration with 2 AIM-9X can be considered stealth as it ?

If you are asking whether the F-35 retains its VLO characteristics when carrying two AIM-9X, I think the general consensus around here is that external AIM-9X carriage degrades VLO by some amount, but by how much, no one knows, and those that know aren't saying. Some have said the F-35 is "still stealthy", or "must still be stealthy or else XYX..." but no one knows for sure, and no numbers have been thrown around, let alone quoted.

forbin wrote:The gun had a problem internal not or less in pod fired too on the side fixed now ?

Is English your native language? I don't ask this to be rude, but I do not understand this question at all.

U.S. Marine Corps F-35B Jets Involved In First Operational Deployment Near the Horn of Africa Flying With External Gun Pod
by David Cenciotti Sep 21 2018

Photos show Marines F-35B aircraft carrying the external gun pod during exercise off the coast of Djibouti.

For the last two weeks, U.S. Marine Corps F-35Bs assigned to the Marine Fighter Attack Squadron (VMFA) 211 “Wake Island Avengers”, deployed with the 13th Marine Expeditionary Unit, have undertaken the type’s first operational deployment in international waters off the coast of Djibouti.

Beginning on Sept. 8, the aircraft have taken part in a Theater Amphiobious Combat Rehearsal (TACR) operating from the flight deck of Wasp-class amphibious assault ship USS Essex (LHD 2), deployed to the U.S. Central Command area of responsibility near Horn of Africa along with the rest of the Essex Amphibious Ready Group, that includes the San Antonio-class amphibious transport dock USS Anchorage (LPD 23) and Whidbey Island-class amphibious dock landing ship USS Rushmore (LSD 47).

The F-35B were involved in CAS (Close Air Support) missions, supporting Marines on the ground during drills in the military ranges in Djibouti that, according to USNI News, involved Marine Medium Tiltrotor Squadron 166 (Reinforced)’s complement of CH-53E Super Stallion heavy-lift helicopters, MV-22 Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft, UH-1 Huey utility helicopters and AH-1 Cobra attack helicopters

... [more blah blah blah at the jump]

https://theaviationist.com/2018/09/21/u-s-marine-corps-f-35b-jets-involved-in-first-operational-deployment-near-the-horn-of-africa-flying-with-external-gun-pod/

• Appears to be positive incidence on the tail slabs, so the tails appear to be generating lift
• Why are the gunpods painted white? I would think you'd want a grey to match the aircraft?
• Looks like they got some shootin' in -- second photo appears to show discoloration consistent with cannon firing

The new General Dynamics GAU-22 25mm gun pod uses a unique four-barrel configuration that was developed from the highly successful five-barrel, 25mm GAU-12/U gun also built by General Dynamics. Noteworthy, although it was designed with LO (Low Observability) characteristics, the external pod degrades the F-35’s radar cross section making the 5th generation aircraft more visibile to radars. Still, this should be acceptable (as it is for the non-stealthy AV-8B Harrier jets they will replace) for the scenarios where the U.S. Marine Corps F-35Bs will be called to carry out CAS missions (read here about the so-called “third day of war” configuration).

spazsinbad wrote:The first fotie has the Bee formating on photie taker so the control surfaces could be everywhichwaybutloose temporarily.

"F-35C flies for the first time with 10 weapons plus gun pod. 4x external GBU-12, 2x internal GBU-32, 2x internal AMRAAM, 2x external Sidewinder 9X." http://www.codeonemagazine.com/images/m ... 7_5170.jpg

"PATUXENT RIVER, Md. – On June 14, F-35B Joint Strike Fighter test aircraft BF-2 completed the first test flight for the short takeoff and vertical landing variant with an asymmetric weapons load. Cmdr. Eric Buus flew BF-2 with an AIM-9X Sidewinder inert missile on the starboard pylon, a centerline 25 mm gun pod, and a GBU-32 and AIM-120 in the starboard weapon bay...." https://www.flickr.com/photos/marine_corps/7419480466 for https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5275/741 ... 32_o_d.jpg (3.3Mb)

steve2267 wrote:At 6 sec and 26 sec of this video of the F-35's strafing practice this past August in Utah, the bursts are incredibly short. It would be interesting to know how few rounds were expended in these bursts and if this is an example of the "round counting" or "round setting" ability in the F-35 gun system. (But that would mean defense aerospace journalists actually figuring out and asking some interesting questions.)

steve2267 wrote:At 6 sec and 26 sec of this video of the F-35's strafing practice this past August in Utah, the bursts are incredibly short. It would be interesting to know how few rounds were expended in these bursts and if this is an example of the "round counting" or "round setting" ability in the F-35 gun system. (But that would mean defense aerospace journalists actually figuring out and asking some interesting questions.)

wrightwing wrote:The burst length is selectable. The pilot isn't "free gunning."

steve2267 wrote:[



Oh, I understand this fact. But this is the first "hard" evidence I have seen of this capability -- a capability I do not believe any other tactical aircraft shares, short of possibly an AC-130 gunship.

But I am curious if the pilot can type in or specify the number of rounds in a burst, or if he has to select a preset burst length.

mixelflick wrote:First all new gun since the Vulcan used in everything from the Phantom to Raptor, correct?

mixelflick wrote:The bigger round is a step up and should do the job strafing most targets. It'll never be the GAU-8 but hey, what is? Hopefully it can punch a hole in a tank, or at least keep their heads down for a bit.

mixelflick wrote:Of more interest to me is its air to air "punch". For decades we seem to have favored the lighter M61 20mm cannon for use in our fighters. The Russians and Europeans, heavier 23 and 30mm rounds (though carrying fewer of them than the M61). So what's the thinking here? Need more "umph" to cause more damage to bigger and more powerful (Flanker) airframes? Or is the move to 25mm solely to find a sweet spot for air to ground/air to air engagements?

F-35A, 25mm GAU-22/A with 180 rounds.
3300 RPM / 55 RPS rate of fire, 223 gram projectile weight for 12.3 kg/s throw weight, 3.27 seconds firing time of ammunition and 40.1 kg of total projectile weight.

F/A-18E/F, 20mm M61A1 with 412 rounds.
6000 RPM / 100 RPS rate of fire, 102 gram projectile weight for 10.2 kg/s throw weight, 4.12 seconds firing time of ammunition and 42.0 kg total projectile weight.

Typhoon, 27mm BK 27 with 150 rounds.
1800 RPM / 30 RPS rate of fire, 260 gram projectile weight for 7.8 kg/s throw weight, 5.00 seconds firing time of ammunition and 39.0 kg total projectile weight.

Gripen, 27mm BK 27 with 120 rounds.
1800 RPM / 30 RPS rate of fire, 260 gram projectile weight for 7.8 kg/s throw weight, 4.00 seconds firing time of ammunition and 31.2 kg total projectile weight.

Rafale, 30mm GIAT 30 with 125 rounds.
2500 RPM / 42 RPS rate of fire, 275 gram projectile weight for 11.6 kg/s throw weight, 2.98 seconds firing time of ammunition and 34.4 kg total projectile weight.

Su-35, 30mm GSh-30-1 with 150 rounds.
1800 RPM / 30 RPS rate of fire, 390 gram projectile weight for 11.7 kg/s throw weight, 5.00 seconds firing time of ammunition and 58.5 kg total projectile weight.

The biggest difference with the F-35A and GAU-22/A is that it has more programmable bursts. For A2A, you could get 9 x 20rd bursts if you wanted, or 3 x 60rd bursts, etc.

One of the assumptions most outside observers have made is that the F-35 will rely on missiles for its first kills in A2A, when the gun is more of an option in the F-35 than any 4th Gen jet as a first kill system when approaching VLO. Threat air is flying along, all of a sudden they get shredded by 25mm dual-purpose projectiles and don't know why.

https://www.ar15.com/forums/general/F-3 ... #i74212670

• high rate of fire (though not as high as the Vulcan, but probably more than "dense enough for air-to-air work)
• very good throw weight (in fact, highest of all cannon listed above)
• decent total throw weight
• high velocity (~1000m/sec)
• very good shell lethality against both soft and hard targets (PGU-47/U APEX)
• very good gun accuracy / low dispersion (nascent F-35 aiming issues aside)
• high round / burst efficiency with the ability to select very short bursts (e.g. 12-15 rounds each)

zerion wrote:Video of Dutch 323TES Squadron loading gun and gun run.
https://twitter.com/Kon_Luchtmacht/stat ... 5706190849
he seemed to like it. (P.S. anyone know how to pull just a video off Twitter?)

. Taking into account a realistic incidence angle (30-45° ?) suggests there are places on modern MBTs that may be vulnerable to an F-35 strafing it

marauder2048 wrote:For a typical F-35 high-angle strafe (45 degrees, 9,000 ft) Nammo claims that APEX penetrates all of 8mm RHA NATO.
Not sure that's a meaningful increase over the PGU-32. And the PGU-48 will be superior to both.

marauder2048 wrote:Against enemy personnel operating on anything other than a hard surface, there's a need for a
programmable airburst or proximity round given that even very expensive, low impact velocity,
low-drag contact fuzes like the one used in the PGU-46 are going to dud.

Air Force Presses Lockheed On F-35 Readiness: Lt. Gen. Bunch
01 Feb 2019 Colin Clark

"The Pentagon's independent tester reports that F-35 readiness is stuck at 60 percent, while the A model's gun is unacceptably inaccurate.…

...F-35 Gun Misses Mark
The other notable fact in the DOTE report, beyond continuing problems with ALIS, the logistics and mission planning system for the F-35, is that the F-35A 25mm gun, needed for its Close Air Support role, is not very accurate. Here’s the damning language in the report:

“Based on F-35A gun testing through September 2018, DOT&E currently considers the accuracy of the gun, as installed in the F-35A, to be unacceptable. “F-35A gun accuracy during SDD failed to meet the contract specification. Although software corrections were made to the F-35 mission systems software to improve the stability of gun aiming cues, no software or hardware corrections have yet been implemented to correct the gun accuracy errors.

“Investigations into the gun mounts of the F-35A revealed misalignments that result in muzzle alignment errors. As a result, the true alignment of each F-35A gun is not known, so the program is considering options for re-boresighting and correcting gun alignments.

“During air-to-air gun testing, F-35A operational test pilots received intermittent ‘unsafe gun’ cockpit alerts while attempting gun attacks. These alerts occurred with two different aircraft; the root cause is under investigation.”

But there is good news! The F-35B and F-35C guns are accurate and “meet the contract specifications.” While the F-35A carries a permanently installed internal gun, firing through a shutter in the side of the fuselage, the B and C variants carry their gun in an optional external pod (see video below), which means it makes them less stealthy when installed, but apparently it shoots straighter."

Source: https://breakingdefense.com/2019/02/air ... gen-bunch/

popcorn wrote:Strange, I would have expected the I vernal gun to be more accurate

“Investigations into the gun mounts of the F-35A revealed misalignments that result in muzzle alignment errors. As a result, the true alignment of each F-35A gun is not known, so the program is considering options for re-boresighting and correcting gun alignments."

kimjongnumbaun wrote:In the AH-64 the targeting computer aligns the boresight of the bushmaster. I expect that aligning the gun in the F-35 would not be significantly different but it does require a few runs at the range.

kimjongnumbaun wrote:In the AH-64 the targeting computer aligns the boresight of the bushmaster. I expect that aligning the gun in the F-35 would not be significantly different but it does require a few runs at the range.

Extreme precision is not necessarily a quality in itself, specifically in A2A. You want some dispersion.

Extreme precision is not necessarily a quality in itself, specifically in A2A. You want some dispersion.

Rheinmetall Supplies Ammunition for USAF F-35s: Working to Expand to RAAF
26 Feb 2019 SLDinfo

"...25mm x 137 Frangible Armour Piercing (FAP)… [described from earlier sources]

...In an article by Andrew McLaughlin published in the Australian Defence Business Review on February 25, 2019, the efforts of the company in Australia were highlighted. Rheinmetall Defence Australia has offered a new 25mm munition specifically designed for the F-35 Lightning II JSF to Australia.

Rheinmetall says the 25mm frangible armour piercing (FAP) ammunition designed for the F-35’s GAU-22/A gun is already in service with the USAF with the PGU-48/B designation. It offers superior lethality against air and ground targets by combining high penetration performance, versatility, reliability, low dispersion and handling safety....

...The FAP round was specifically developed by Rheinmetall for NATO F-35 operators to provide a non-depleted uranium and non-high explosive cartridge with superior lethality against armoured vehicles at extreme slant ranges, while still remaining effective against aircraft in air-to-air engagements."

Source: https://sldinfo.com/2019/02/rheinmetall ... d-to-raaf/

The 25mm gun on Air Force models of the Joint Strike Fighter has “unacceptable” accuracy in hitting ground targets and is mounted in housing that’s cracking, the Pentagon’s test office said in its latest assessment of the costliest U.S. weapons system.

The annual assessment by Robert Behler, the Defense Department’s director of operational test and evaluation, doesn’t disclose any major new failings in the plane’s flying capabilities. But it flags a long list of issues that his office said should be resolved — including 13 described as Category 1 “must-fix” items that affect safety or combat capability — before the F-35’s upcoming $22 billion Block 4 phase.

The number of software deficiencies totaled 873 as of November, according to the report obtained by Bloomberg News in advance of its release as soon as Friday. That’s down from 917 in September 2018, when the jet entered the intense combat testing required before full production, including 15 Category 1 items. What was to be a year of testing has now been extended another year until at least October.

“Although the program office is working to fix deficiencies, new discoveries are still being made, resulting in only a minor decrease in the overall number” and leaving “many significant‘’ ones to address, the assessment said.

The Air Force and Navy versions are also continuing to have cracks in structural components, according to the report, saying, “The effect on F-35 service life and the need for additional inspection requirements are still being determined.”

The three F-35 models are all equipped with 25mm guns. The Navy and Marine versions are mounted externally and have acceptable accuracy. But the Air Force model’s gun is mounted inside the plane, and the test office “considers the accuracy, as installed, unacceptable” due to “misalignments” in the gun’s mount that didn’t meet specifications.

The mounts are also cracking, forcing the Air Force to restrict the gun’s use. The program office has “made progress with changes to gun installation” to improve accuracy but they haven’t been tested yet, according to the report.

Death Claw Shows Path to Faster Development
Steve Trimble AVIATION WEEK & SPACE TECHNOLOGY/JANUARY 27-FEBRUARY 9, 2020

"...“Flight tests showed aircraft-pointing accuracy improves significantly when Death Claw is engaged (see graphic below) compared to pilot control.”...

"A 40-year-old idea to improve strafing accuracy by transferring flight control of a manned fighter to the autopilot to aim the gun is being revived as the U.S. Air Force looks internally for innovations that can
be demonstrated and delivered quickly.

An operational version of the Digitally Enhanced Aiming Through Control Law (Death Claw) system is in
development less than two years after the U.S. Air Force Test Pilot School conceived and performed an eight month demonstration.

In effect, Death Claw has two functions. As a new automated flight mode, it solves a practical problem for pilots of F-16s and potentially other flyby-wire fighters. The system also highlights a path to introducing aircraft upgrades faster by involving the test community up front.

The practical problem has been known for decades. Like any modern fighter, the F-16’s sensors and flight computer can precisely calculate where the F-16 needs to be pointed for the 20-mm rounds from the fighter’s M61 cannon to hit a moving target in the air or on the ground. But the computer still relies on the human pilot to accurately point the aircraft at the spot indicated on the gunsight-pipper on the head-up display.

The answer seems obvious. Add an “auto-gunnery mode” to the flight control law, and allow the autopilot control to point the aircraft when the gun is engaged. Bill Gray, chief test pilot of the test pilot school, launched a demonstration program in late 2017 to prove it could work.

...“To a P-51 pilot, the gun was precise, it was your precision. Well, now the gun is the least precise weapon on the F-16,” Gray says. “Death Claw was basically a project to make the gun a precision weapon.”..."

Source: https://aviationweek.com/defense-space/ ... evelopment
from page 29 of the AvWeak FREE PDF online: https://aviationweek.com/sites/default/ ... 0127_0.pdf (8.5Mb)

marauder2048 wrote:DOT&E report FY19 (JSF)

https://www.dote.osd.mil/Publications/Annual-Reports/2019-Annual-Report/

Static Structural and Durability Testing

Activity

• Teardown inspections of the F-35A full scale durability test article (AJ-1) were completed in July 2019 and correlations to the finite element models (FEM) are in progress. The FEM data are used to estimate the structural and durability performance of the original design structure. The program expects the F-35A Durability and Damage Tolerance report to be released in February 2020.

• Teardown inspections of the original F-35B full scale
durability test article (BH-1) were completed in October 2018. The program canceled the third lifetime testing of BH-1 due to the significant amount of discoveries, modifications, and repairs to bulkheads and other structures that caused the F-35B test article to no longer be representative of the wing-carry-through structure in production aircraft. The program secured funding and contracted to procure another F-35B ground test article, designated BH-2, which will have a redesigned wing-carry-through structure that is production representative of Lot 9 and later F-35B aircraft.

• Disassembly and teardown of the F-35C durability test
article (CJ-1) were completed in November 2019. Testing
was stopped during the third lifetime testing in April 2018, following the discovery of more cracking in the Fuselage Station (FS) 518 Fairing Support Frame. The cracking had been discovered near the end of the second lifetime and required repairs before additional testing could proceed. After estimating the cost and time to repair or replace the FS 518 Fairing Support Frame, coupled with other structural parts that had existing damage (i.e., fuel floor segment, bulkheads FS 450, FS 496, FS 556, and front spar repair), the program determined that the third lifetime testing would be
discontinued.

Assessment

• For all F-35 variants, structural and durability testing led to significant discoveries requiring repairs and modifications to production designs, some as late as Lot 12 aircraft, and retrofits to fielded aircraft.

• Based on durability test data, there are several life-limited parts on early production F-35 aircraft which require mitigation. In order to mitigate these durability and damage tolerance shortfalls, the program plans to make modifications to these early production aircraft, including the use of laser shock peening to increase fatigue life for specific airframe parts, e.g., bulkheads. The JPO will also continue to use Individual Aircraft Tracking of actual usage to help the Services project changes in timing for required repairs and modifications, and to aid in Fleet Life Management.

• For the F-35A and F-35C, expected service life will be
determined from the durability and damage tolerance
analyses, once completed. Although the program planned for a third lifetime of testing to accumulate data for life extension, if needed, the program has no plans to procure another F-35C ground test article.

• Procuring and testing a production-representative F-35B ground test article will allow the program to certify the life of the design improvements. Once on contract, program plan dates will be finalized.

• Despite the F-35 program’s FEM-based structural design, static and durability testing, and developmental flight testing, additional structural discoveries requiring repairs and modifications are occurring in the field. For example, the F-35A has gun-related structural problems and the F-35A/C are experiencing longeron (structural component) cracks. The effect on F-35 service life and the need for additional inspection requirements are still being determined.


Gun Testing

Activity

• All three F-35 variants have a 25-mm gun. The F-35A gun is internal; the F-35B and F-35C each use an external gun pod. Differences in the outer mold-line fairing mounting make the gun pods unique to a specific variant (i.e., an F-35B gun pod cannot be mounted on an F-35C aircraft).

• Units flying newer F-35A aircraft discovered cracks in the outer mold-line coatings and the underlying chine longeron skin, near the gun muzzle, after aircraft returned from flights when the gun was employed.

Assessment

• Based on F-35A gun testing to date, DOT&E considers
the accuracy of the gun, as installed in the F-35A, to be
unacceptable. F-35A gun accuracy during SDD failed to
meet the contract specification. Investigations into the gun mounts of the F-35A revealed misalignments that result in muzzle alignment errors. As a result, the true alignment of each F-35A gun is not known, so the program is considering options to re-boresight and correct gun alignments.

• The program has made mission systems software corrections to improve the stability of gun aiming cues. The program also made progress with changes to the gun installation, boresight processes, and hardware. However, testing to confirm the effectiveness of these changes was not yet complete. Until the new hardware and software changes are successfully tested
and verified in operationally representative conditions, the F-35A internal gun system remains unacceptable.

• Due to the recent cracking near the gun muzzle in newer F-35A aircraft, the U.S. Air Force has restricted the gun to combat use only for production Lot 9 and newer aircraft.

• F-35B and F-35C air-to-ground accuracy results to date
with the gun pod have been consistent and meet the contract specifications. The results do not show the accuracy errors of the internal F-35A gun.

The program has made mission systems software corrections to improve the stability of gun aiming cues. The program also made progress with changes to the gun installation, boresight processes, and hardware. However, testing to confirm the effectiveness of these changes was not yet complete. Until the new hardware and software changes are successfully tested
and verified in operationally representative conditions, the F-35A internal gun system remains unacceptable.

Due to the recent cracking near the gun muzzle in newer F-35A aircraft, the U.S. Air Force has restricted the gun to combat use only for production Lot 9 and newer aircraft

Units flying newer F-35A aircraft discovered cracks in the outer mold-line coatings and the underlying chine longeron skin, near the gun muzzle, after aircraft returned from flights when the gun was employed.

"The F-35 Operational Requirements Document (ORD) currently requires the gun system to have an accuracy of < 3.1 miliradians and it must have a Probability of Kill (Pk) of .35 against lightly armored and thin-skinned vehicles at 9,000 feet of slant range. In layman’s terms, this means the gun system must have an accuracy of approximately 3 feet for every 1000 feet of range from the target. At 9,000 feet of slant range this means the gun must be accurate to within approximately 27 feet. Additionally, the JSF is required to have a fully integrated, cockpit programmable fire control system that accounts for the effects of wind and aim wander on long-range air to ground employment opportunity. Within the DoD’s Joint Munitions Effectiveness Manual (JMEM), a publication that deals with data and methodologies for conventional weapons, it is suggested that lightly armored and thin-skinned vehicles be targeted using a .35 Probability of Kill. By performing a 30-45 degree High Angle Strafe (HAS) attack at 9000 feet of slant range, the JSF will be able remain above small arms fire while achieving the desired Probability of Kill against these types of targets."

Source via the footnotes was: Joint Strike Fighter Operational Requirements Document (Joint Strike Fighter Program Office, March 2000)

marsavian wrote:I am not sure if there is a grammatical error in that report as what you quoted does not tie in with this earlier quote*.

*

Units flying newer F-35A aircraft discovered cracks in the outer mold-line coatings and the underlying chine longeron skin, near the gun muzzle, after aircraft returned from flights when the gun was employed.

Based on F-35A gun testing to date, DOT&E considers the accuracy of the gun, as installed in the F-35A,
to be unacceptable. F-35A gun accuracy during SDD failed to meet the contract specification

charlielima223 wrote:Now we're going to read on the interwebs that the gau-22 is tearing the F-35 apart

Newer F-35As cracking due to gun use
03 Feb 2020 Pat Host

"Key Points
• Lot 9 and newer F-35As have developed cracks after gun use
• The aircraft variant's gun inaccuracy has stumped the programme for years

The Pentagon has restricted gun use on Lot 9 and newer Lockheed Martin F-35A Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) conventional variants to combat-only after discovering cracks in the aircraft after gun operation.

Robert Behler, director of operational test and evaluation (DOT&E), said in his fiscal year 2019 (FY 2019) report released on 30 January that units flying these newer F-35As discovered cracks in the outer mold-line coatings and the underlying chine longeron skin, near the gun muzzle, after the gun was used. F-35A Lot 9 aircraft were delivered in 2017....

…a F-35B gun pod cannot be mounted on a F-35C aircraft. Lockheed Martin spokesperson Brett Ashworth said on 1 February that the B- and C-models carry a low observable belly gun pod mounted on the centreline.….

…Ashworth said that the F-35 programme has made significant progress on the F-35A gun since the data used for the DOT&E report. The programme has implemented software updates and installed a field gun alignment aid to ensure proper gun barrel position."

Source: https://www.janes.com/article/94071/new ... to-gun-use

spazsinbad wrote:
…a F-35B gun pod cannot be mounted on a F-35C aircraft. Lockheed Martin spokesperson Brett Ashworth said on 1 February that the B- and C-models carry a low observable belly gun pod mounted on the centreline.….

neptune wrote:
1- how does this issue(s) with the GAU-22A compare to the M61A2 of the other LM stealth aircraft?

steve2267 wrote:It had been previously stated on this forum (some wheres) that the Bee and Cea use different gunpods. I forget what the differences are exactly... something to do with how they mate the fuselage, if memory serves.

"...All three variants have a 25 mm gun. The F-35A gun is internal while the F-35B short take-off and vertical landing (STOVL) model and the F-35C aircraft carrier variant each use an external gun pod.

Differences in the outer mold-line fairing mounting make the gun pods unique to a specific variant. For example, a F-35B gun pod cannot be mounted on a F-35C aircraft. Lockheed Martin spokesperson Brett Ashworth said on 1 February that the B- and C-models carry a low observable belly gun pod mounted on the centreline…."

Update: Newer F-35As cracking due to gun use
14 Feb 2020 Pat Host

"[nothing we don't already know in this very brief excerpt and I don't have the full 90% extra woids]"

Source: https://www.janes.com/article/94336/upd ... to-gun-use

Lockheed Martin responds to concerns about Pentagon-identified F-35A issues
06 FEBRUARY 2020 By: Stephen Kuper

Regarding concerns about the continued use of the F-35A variant's main 25mm gun impacting the low observable skins of the F-35A and issues relating to the accuracy of the weapon system, the Lockheed Martin spokesperson explained:

"The F-35 enterprise has made significant progress regarding the F-35 gun since the data used for the DOT&E report. In the F-35A integral gun, we have implemented software updates and installed a field gun alignment aid to ensure proper gun barrel position. We tested this in December and the results were improved accuracy."

The Lockheed Martin spokesperson added, "It should be noted that the B and C models carry a LO belly gun pod mounted on centerline and had no barrel alignment issues. As for the software on all variants, conversion conditions and algorithms were reviewed. Updated conversions have been implemented in the software and the corrected software has been delivered to the field.

"It remains the warfighter’s choice when to update to the newest software. This software provides improved precision, further highlighting the value of agile software implementation. We knew the complexity of incorporating a gun on a high performance aircraft would be a challenge, but we are confident in the steps we’ve taken and the progress we’ve made."

Air Force expects fix this spring to cracked F-35 panels caused by gun misalignment
By Courtney Albon February 7, 2020
The Air Force expects the F-35 program will begin fielding a fix this spring that will address problems with the A-model gun that have caused cracks in the muzzle. A recent report from the Pentagon's top weapons tester highlighted continued problems with the F-35A gun’s accuracy, which it attributed to a misaligned muzzle. That misalignment has caused cracks in the panel surrounding the muzzle and led to a decision by the Air Force to restrict gun use for low-rate initial...

Now the F-35 cannon hits better. It's just one of several improvements in recent months
– The F-35 delivers on time, cost and with a better performance than expected," the Norwegian Ministry of Defence states.
PER ERLIEN DALLØKKEN DEFENSE 13. FEB 2020 - 7 p.m.
As The Technical Magazine reported last week, there is still much to address when it comes to the development of the F-35 combat aircraft, according to the latest report by us Pentagon gun testers.
As of November 4, 2019, there were still 873 discrepancies or deficiencies in the F-35 program, several of them of a critical nature, according to this year's review from the Department of Operational Testing and Evaluation in the U.S. Department of Defense(DOT & ).

However, the Norwegian Ministry of Defence is not particularly concerned:
– All of the aforementioned problems in the report are well known to us, and we are constantly working to resolve these. The F-35 delivers on time, cost and with a better performance than expected, the ministry writes in an E-mail to Teknisk Ukeblad.

Improvement after update
Among those highlighted in the report are what is described as a lag of faults that need to be addressed to ensure that the F-35s have a robust and stable machine and software before introducing a number of new capacities in Block 4.
Another known problem area is the Autonomic Logistics Information System (Alis). This is an all-round system where everything from logistics to operational flying and briefing is built in. Here, the Air Force in Norway through its operational test and evaluation of the F-35 has also uncovered some errors and deficiencies. DOT & points out that despite several Alis updates in 2019, the system remains inefficient and cumbersome.
Another concrete example of weakness on the combat aircraft, which DOT & highlights, is that the 25-millimeter cannon on the F-35A should have an unacceptable poor accuracy due to misassembly of the weapon installed inside just above the left air intake on the aircraft.

The Ministry of Defence uses the same example but with the opposite sign:

– The report is based on collected data from the period up to September 2019 and does not reflect work on bug fixes that have occurred in the period since then. One example of this is improved match safety with the built-in machine cannon. After software updates on this system and installing an aid to ensure proper positioning of the machine cannon, we see from tests in December that this provides better accuracy, the ministry said.

Promises continued transparency
The Ministry further writes that it is working continuously to improve and address all identified efficiency and suitability challenges on the F-35, and promises to remain open about any challenges to be addressed.
As has been evident in Teknisk Ukeblad's previous mentions of the DOT & reviews, these are discrepancies where the mandate is to point to errors and deficiencies – not only in the F-35 program, but also in the testing of other major material systems procured by the different U.S. arms branches.
This is also something the Ministry of Defence comes in after being asked to comment on the content of the message from the Director Operational Test & Evaluation.

– Naturally, the report focuses on the challenges that still exist," points out areas that need to be adjusted to get full use of the weapon system and make concrete recommendations on measures. As a partner in the program, we greatly appreciate the quality assurance DOT & contributes to the program and which they document through their annual reports.

Nato mission in two weeks
Two years after the first three aircraft landed on Norwegian soil, the Air Force declared the first operational capability (IOC) with its squadron of 15 F-35A aircraft stationed at Ørland. This happened in November 2019 after the F-35 system had passed the test by moving planes, people and equipment to Rygge and operating from there, what defense officials call deploying.
In a couple of weeks' time, the 332 squadron travels to Iceland on its first overseas mission. Here they will exercise air control on behalf of Nato, so-called "air policing."
This capacity and emergency response, "Quick Reaction Alert" (QRA), is going on a tour among Nato countries. The last time Norway was in charge was in June 2016.