F-35 news roundup

[Check Six]

1) Before you get your panties knotted any tighter, it has a gun pod.

2) Now, how many AA kills since Vietnam have occurred?

3) How many were gunshots?

4) And the internal gun is essentially a strafe gun, only good for a few (<5) 1 second burps. The Navy/USMC gun pod will carry more rounds, and is certified through the entire envelope.

5) Still a crisis? After all the discussion on this isn't really a knife fighter by design?

1) Too late ! So did the early F-4's. And the gun pods was a big PITA.

2) So what?!! How about 70+ years of air to air combat fundamentals???

3) See answer #2. In 1999 there was an engagement in which 4 allied a/c fired 6 missiles at 4 Iraqi a/c. Not 1 kill was made. There were several engagements where allied missiles failed for many reasons.

4) See answers #1 and # 2.

5) So it's not a multi-roll a/c? The F-35 is a stealth A-7 (so-to-speak) then??? Is that what you're saying?

[MarkW]

By your logic, we'd be attacking out of the sun with synchronized machine guns and dropping hand grenades in empty mayonnaise jars for ground attack.

That you have missed what is truly a revolution in military affairs I can't help.

[TaiidanTomcat]

2) So what?!! How about 70+ years of air to air combat fundamentals???

How does having a gun internally endow one with air combat fundamentals? especially vs an external cannon?

3) See answer #2. In 1999 there was an engagement in which 4 allied a/c fired 6 missiles at 4 Iraqi a/c. Not 1 kill was made. There were several engagements where allied missiles failed for many reasons.

Were they in gun range?

5) So it's not a multi-roll a/c? The F-35 is a stealth A-7 (so-to-speak) then??? Is that what you're saying?

an external gun vs an internal gun changes the entire role of the aircraft?

[11bee]

Its called engage on remote: basically the F-35 (all versions) would be able to direct weapons, but the communications system to link the aircraft to the ship is not ready yet. Here's a bit of discussion on it.

http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=23563

Whether or not a pilot will be able to actually press a button to fire a weapon on a ship is a completely different question. Rather, it is more about keeping ships EMCOM at passive, and letting other platforms (like the F-35C, F/A-18E and E-2D) detect incoming targets and provide mid-course guidance for missiles.

Thanks for the link. I was aware of the Navy's Cooperative Engagement Capability but not the other systems. From the link you provided, I found this quote to be amusing:

Hoora, an F35 with a 128 cell VLS with SM6, That'd be dangerous.

I take back what I said about the F-35 being under-armed for A2A combat :)

All good stuff, I hope the Navy can get it to work as advertised.

Edited March 11, 2014 by 11bee

[Check Six]

What lesson was taught? and why would it be ok for the USMC to go gun pod, but not the USN?

A/c designers thought air to air missiles was the answer to air to air engagements during the '50's. Heck; They even stopped teaching dogfighting in the mid-'50's through most of the '60's because they thought it was obsolete due to the missile age.

Even with today's technology, missiles are not 100% of the answer to air to air engagements. Look at the air to air engagements between 1991 through today; How many missiles fired in anger vs how many resulting kills?

Do you know the history of air to air combat in Viet Nam specifically how the F-4 evolved during that period?

How the F-4E came to be?

How many times F-4 drivers from both USN and USAF during Viet Nam war said they wished they had guns. That's how the gun pods came to be.

The F-14, F-15, F-16, F-18, and even the F-22 were designed with guns as a direct result of lessons learned in Viet Nam of having a gun on strike/fighters. Pilots wanted/needed a gun.

"... why would it be ok for the USMC to go gun pod, but not the USN?"<-- I have no idea what you're talking about here.

All F-35s should have internal guns. Period.

[-Neu-]

Look at the air to air engagements between 1991 through today; How many missiles fired in anger vs how many resulting kills?

Depending on accounting, the actual PK for the AMRAAM in combat engagements since 1990 is about .6 (mostly A model) on 17 shots, with newer models starting to get much much higher. Its likely that the AIM-9X, which predecesors were fairly accurate already, has an extremely high PK if launched within an aircraft's envelope.

And how many aircraft have been shot down with guns during that period? zero.

Frankly, this isn't 1964: it is fifty years later. Relying on parallels about Vietnam is about as relevant as talking about Battleship tactics in 1950; times have changed. Back then you had vacuum tubes, transistors and less computing power than what we put into household thermostats today. Having 25% missile launch failure rate was considered a very very good outing... as was a PK of 0.2, Reliability, sensing and discrimnation just wasn't there. However, since 1990 we're witnessing a technological revolution in microprocessor technology, primarily due to the development of mobile technology. Billions of mobile phones have been produced, and we now have extremely accurate sensor systems, as well as highly discriminating programming in the civil world. This has spurred military development, making missiles much more lethal and reliable than before. Thus comparisons with the 1960s, and even into the 1980s, are not very relevant to today;s situation.

Are guns useful? absolutely. However the question is whether guns more useful than more fuel or other weapons? Entirely arguable.

Edited March 11, 2014 by -Neu-

[TaiidanTomcat]

A/c designers thought air to air missiles was the answer to air to air engagements during the '50's. Heck; They even stopped teaching dogfighting in the mid-'50's through most of the '60's because they thought it was obsolete due to the missile age.

Guns (but only the internal variety) can teach dogfighting?

Even with today's technology, missiles are not 100% of the answer to air to air engagements. Look at the air to air engagements between 1991 through today; How many missiles fired in anger vs how many resulting kills?

How would a gun have changed that? were they ever in gun range?

Do you know the history of air to air combat in Viet Nam specifically how the F-4 evolved during that period?

Ive never heard about it.

]<-- I have no idea what you're talking about here.

Well both the B and the C have an external gun. You only got upset when you found out the C had one as well.

All F-35s should have internal guns. Period.

Why?

The B doesn't have room for it. The C substitued fuel for it, the F-35C carries 20,000 lbs of gas which is also pretty helpful and on a day to day basis at that.

JHMCS

HOBS missiles are making it so even if you have a gun, you don't want to take it against someone who might have missiles.

[Aaronw]

Some seem to be forgetting the Bekaa Valley, 1982.

All but one kill were made within visual range (5 missiles launched beyond visual range, only 1 resulted in a kill), 54 kills by Aim-9, 12 kills by Aim-7, 8 kills with guns.

[11bee]

Do you know the history of air to air combat in Viet Nam specifically how the F-4 evolved during that period?

How the F-4E came to be?

How many times F-4 drivers from both USN and USAF during Viet Nam war said they wished they had guns. That's how the gun pods came to be.

Why do you keep quoting factoids from Viet Nam? Why not quote some stuff from WW1 to support the claim that all triplanes should have guns?

Vietnam was a half century ago. Things do change....

[ghatherly]

It's not complicated. The USAF is terrible at manpower and personnel management. They are always at least 90-180 degrees out of phase with reality. And yes, they want older, experienced pilots to leave, especially before retirement for the airlines.

Are you speaking from an informed position inside of the service? For the Air Force to payout $100,000 a year in bonus above salary for a 10 year enlistment is a big commitment to stabilize manpower, and with all Academy and ROTC scholarship cadets having to be pilot qualified physically that puts 1000 or so new pilots into the system each year.

[Check Six]

Ive never heard about it.

"Those who haven't learned from history are doomed to repeat it."

Your above quoted comment tells me all I need to know (Understanding is a wonder thing ) .

I made the mistake of assuming you knew more aviation history.

If you care; study up on U.S. aviation history and development from 1950 until at least 1980. The hard lessons learned during that period stand just as true today as it did back then.

Lessons of dogfighting that were learned during WWI still apply today.

[TaiidanTomcat]

We aren't even talking about If they should have guns, they will mount them if they need them. Its debating about external vs internal at this point.

If the gun is external it means the sky is falling, if its internal all is well and the ghost of vietnam is not forgotten.

[Check Six]

Why do you keep quoting factoids from Viet Nam? Why not quote some stuff from WW1 to support the claim that all triplanes should have guns?

Vietnam was a half century ago. Things do change....

Yet fundamentals never do.

[ghatherly]

Guns (but only the internal variety) can teach dogfighting?

How would a gun have changed that? were they ever in gun range?

Ive never heard about it.

Well both the B and the C have an external gun. You only got upset when you found out the C had one as well.

Why?

The B doesn't have room for it. The C substitued fuel for it, the F-35C carries 20,000 lbs of gas which is also pretty helpful and on a day to day basis at that.

JHMCS

HOBS missiles are making it so even if you have a gun, you don't want to take it against someone who might have missiles.

Very Cool Picture!!!!!

[TaiidanTomcat]

Your above quoted comment tells me all I need to know (Understanding is a wonder thing ) .

I made the mistake of assuming you knew more aviation history.

Well before you look down your nose at me too much:

I made the mistake of assuming you had read the thread where this was covered previously ad nausem.

BTW adding guns didn't magically fix ACM in Vietnam. It was a host of problems that were addressed through training, maintenance, tactics, doctrine, etc. One could argue that it wasn't the gun that fixed things, but better pilot training, knowledge about launch envelopes, and increased missile reliability through increased and better maint. You see the USN kills increased thanks to these things, which is why their kills still didn't come from guns once top gun pilots started hitting back in the early 70's HTH.

having a gun doesn't magically endow someone with A2A prowess, any more than holding a maple leaf flag makes me a hockey-loving Canadian.

[Crazy Snap Captain]

The one thing that stands out from the last few posts is that technology has changed the game significantly. I'ts probably fair to say that until we have a real world A2A engagement with current 4.5/5 Gen fighters with the latest missiles (and I mean something like Flanker v Typhoon or Raptor v PAK-FA, not Raptor v Fishbed/some other older gen a/c) we wont really know if guns are redundant or not and we wont know the true effectiveniess of the current generation of missiles. History is just that; history. I agree that lessons should be learnt from history, but as stated, sometimes technology simply changes the game too much to make it relevant.

Personally I dont see the difference between an internal cannon or external pod. They both shoot bullets yeah? If the cliamed effectiveness of the current batch of next missiles is to be relied upon, most a/c wont come into VR of each other ever. In which case...guns = waste of space. Having said that, if I was a pilot I wouldn't mind having the back up...just in case.

[Check Six]

We aren't even talking about If they should have guns, they will mount them if they need them. Its debating about external vs internal at this point.

If the gun is external it means the sky is falling, if its internal all is well and the ghost of vietnam is not forgotten.

Well; Since you admit you have little to no knowledge of the F-4 and how it evolved during the Viet Nam War you probably also don't know how inaccurate the gun pod was nor do you probably know how much of a PITA it was for the ground crews to deal with.

The ground crews had a difficult if not impossible task of sighting said gun pod. The gun pod was time-consuming and a PITA.

But it sounds like it's a new and wonderful K.I.S.S. concept to you, right?

With all due respect; History started in, what, 1981 or 1982 for you?

[spejic]

The ground crews had a difficult if not impossible task of sighting said gun pod. The gun pod was time-consuming and a PITA.

But this isn't a pod fitted to a generic pylon. It's all specially made for the purpose. It's like the external gun pods on the Harrier.

[Ken Cartwright]

Well; Since you admit you have little to no knowledge of the F-4 and how it evolved during the Viet Nam War you probably also don't know how inaccurate the gun pod was nor do you probably know how much of a PITA it was for the ground crews to deal with.

The ground crews had a difficult if not impossible task of sighting said gun pod. The gun pod was time-consuming and a PITA.

But it sounds like it's a new and wonderful K.I.S.S. concept to you, right?

With all due respect; History started in, what, 1981 or 1982 for you?

I don't want to speak for TT, but I think this might apply:

Click Me

[Check Six]

BTW adding guns didn't magically fix ACM in Vietnam. It was a host of problems that were addressed through training, maintenance, tactics, doctrine, etc. One could argue that it wasn't the gun that fixed things, but better pilot training, knowledge about launch envelopes, and increased missile reliability through increased and better maint. You see the USN kills increased thanks to these things, which is why their kills still didn't come from guns once top gun pilots started hitting back in the early 70's HTH.

I already mentioned that in one sentence in a earlier post.

having a gun doesn't magically endow someone with A2A prowess, any more than holding a maple leaf flag makes me a hockey-loving Canadian

Why must you use a strawman argument ?

Besides you; please show where I or someone else made the, "having a gun doesn't magically endow someone with A2A prowess" argument??

I'm simply referring to pilots having weapons to complete the mission and return to base/carrier.

Not having a gun takes away one layer of capability.

Edited March 11, 2014 by Check Six

[Check Six]

But this isn't a pod fitted to a generic pylon. It's all specially made for the purpose. It's like the external gun pods on the Harrier.

Good point there.

Mr. Murphy (Law) will dictates when the F-35 pilot needs his gun pod, he won't have it on him.

[Fellow Hobbyist]

Check Six; The lack of an internal cannon was not the predominant problem Phantom pilots faced during the Vietnam War. The big problem was the lack of Air Combat Training; in particular being training against dissimilar aircraft. The Air Force in particular had poorly prepared pilots as Steve Davis wrote in "Red Eagles" many commanders forbade ACM training out of fear of losing their jobs if a mishap occurred (A problem that apparently persisted for many years after the war too). Basically airmen and aviators in Phantoms really didn't know how to fight the more nimble MiGs used by the North Vietnamese.

I recall an old Air Force history program in which the narrator talked of the different approaches the Navy and the Air Force took to turn things around in the air war over North Vietnam. The Navy established the TOPGUN program; a program that exposed aviators to DACT and taught ACM tactics. The Air Force instead focused on improving the F-4; namely the installation of a gun and some aerodynamic improvement in the Phantom "E", but did little if anything to improve tactics. The Navy's approach saw significant improvements in the victory to kill ratios against NVAF MiGs. The Air Force however saw only marginal improvements. And mind you; the Navy Phantoms lacked internal cannons.

Thus it is arguable that air combat tactics and training make more of a difference in close quarter combat then the presence of a gun. If the Navy and Air Force had properly trained Phantom pilots in modern tactics and exposed them to combat against dissimilar fighter types prior to the escalation of the Vietnam War, things may have been more favorable toward US pilots.

[TaiidanTomcat]

I don't want to speak for TT, but I think this might apply:

Click Me

correct, and thank you.

But this isn't a pod fitted to a generic pylon. It's all specially made for the purpose. It's like the external gun pods on the Harrier.

You sir are right. Just like you were right 3 and half years ago

http://www.arcforums.com/forums/air/index.php?showtopic=209836&st=280

(I searched and found when this first came up on the thread, way back on page 15!)

^check the link check six :thumbsup:/>/>/>

Well; Since you admit you have little to no knowledge of the F-4 and how it evolved during the Viet Nam War you probably also don't know how inaccurate the gun pod was nor do you probably know how much of a PITA it was for the ground crews to deal with.

The ground crews had a difficult if not impossible task of sighting said gun pod. The gun pod was time-consuming and a PITA.

This is not an F-4. In fact I'm willing to bet that the F-35 gun pod shares as much with a 50 year old F-4, as the F-4 shared with the 50 year old Sopwith Camel.

But it sounds like it's a new and wonderful K.I.S.S. concept to you, right?

lets review:

You are upset because the F-35C has a gun. but its optional, and externally mounted. however it carries more rounds than an internal gun, and is also a 25MM as opposed to the 20MM used in the teen series.

You are now trying to spin the idea that the F-35C having an external cannon means that the USN is no longer practicing fundamentals.

With all due respect; History started in, what, 1981 or 1982 for you?

it did actually, I also served. and I am a disabled vet. But if you would like to tell me how I don't know what I am talking about because I am young and actually served in the 21st century, and not 1969, I am all ears. CSB, most of the F-35 pilots flying now are my age or even younger. I was tickled that the F-35C pilots in that Q&A were both former Tomcat guys too. Im fact of everyone on that stage only the Marine had not flown an F-14. My point is that their gray matter doesn't suddenly turn to mush the second they sit down in an F-35C that doesn't have a gun mounted on it.

Nothing is changing with the external gun. The USN approved it over a decade ago. And whats happened it with things like HOBs and JHMCS its become extremely inadvisable to get in close and attempt to get a 6 o clock guns kill, in a world where an enemy need only turn his head, and not even his aircraft to kill you.

Its not going to stop NSAWC or Red Flag, or ACM training, so relax-- fundamentals aren't going anywhere. Its putting a pod on an airplane if it needs it, and as has been covered its most likely going to be used for ground strafing.

How many F-4Es did the USN and USMC fly? How Many guns kills did Duke Cunningham get?

There is always going to be a fine balance. History is rife with advanced weapons failing to work at the moment of truth, its also littered with examples of how using good old fashioned fundamentals has led to disaster when advanced weapons proved them completely obsolete-- the hard way.

The navy isn't throwing the baby out with the bath water. Its not saying guns are obsolete or unneeded or that fundamentals are no longer important, its just the acknowledgement that it won't always be necessary, in which case, you don't mount it.

Edited March 11, 2014 by TaiidanTomcat

[spejic]

You sir are right. Just like you were right 3 and half years ago

These arguments always go in circles, don't they.

[11bee]

Looks heavy, draggy and probably doesn't help RCS (although it obviously has been designed with that in mind). Personally, I can't see this thing being used very often. I think it would have made more sense to mount it internally like the A model and spend the money on a stealthy external tank to make up for the lost fuel. I think it would have been much cheaper to design and build a stealthy fuel tank vrs a stealthy gun pod.

Any of you smart guys know what the purpose is of that clear window above the cannon muzzle?