Alan P Posted June 30, 2016 Author Share Posted June 30, 2016 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3666644/Lightning-flies-rainbow-UK-s-100m-stealth-F-35B-jets-roars-Britain-touching-RAF-base-ready-flown-new-617-Dambusters-Squadron.html#ixzz4D1K1yeXm I would say we could make a drinking game out of the factual errors in the report, but it would be a very quick way to get drunk. They also stole the rainbow picture without crediting the original photographer. Needless to say, he was not impressed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan P Posted June 30, 2016 Author Share Posted June 30, 2016 (edited) Three F-35A's have now arrived in the UK. Six now in total on UK soil/airspace. © Valerie Insinna, Defense News Edited June 30, 2016 by Alan P 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony C Posted June 30, 2016 Share Posted June 30, 2016 Believe it or not it was a Parliamentary decision to retain lo-vis markings. The same decision also said we would not have individual squadron markings either, so technically both RAF and RN aircraft will have identical markings. Sad but true. It's not mission-critical to have low-visibility markings, but it is a policy decision. There are other F-35s that have had hi-vis applied (eg the first F-35C) but since part of the purpose of having F-35s is low observability, you get low-visibility markings. I believe it's because at present, only certain colours of paint are properly formulated so as to preserve the aircraft's stealth capabilities. Thanks both, I'm not really upto date with modern equipment so I appreciate your input Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan P Posted June 30, 2016 Author Share Posted June 30, 2016 If you're in the Rosyth / Fife area tomorrow (Friday 1st July) an F-35B will be doing a flypast at 1400 (2pm). Lucky you! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eng Posted June 30, 2016 Share Posted June 30, 2016 *cough's behind hand* ".....still ugly!" Eng 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slater Posted July 1, 2016 Share Posted July 1, 2016 Is the UK buying the optional gun pods for the "B"s? I understand that the "A" variant is the only one with the internal gun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antoine Posted July 1, 2016 Share Posted July 1, 2016 There's no built-in gun, or the gun pod come as a supplement? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GMK Posted July 1, 2016 Share Posted July 1, 2016 There's no built-in gun, or the gun pod come as a supplement? The B model (the one the UK has bought) isn't fitted with the internal cannon that the A model has as there's no room for it. Should a gun be a mission requirement, there's a centreline, stealthy podded system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan P Posted July 1, 2016 Author Share Posted July 1, 2016 All our B models will have the podded gun GMK described. Not on initial entry to service, however. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slater Posted July 1, 2016 Share Posted July 1, 2016 The gun initially envisioned for the F-35 was the Mauser BK-27, but somewhere along the way it gave way to the 25mm rotary cannon. Haven't done a detailed comparison of the two weapons, but I would imagine that the 27mm gun would be somewhat lighter than the Gatling? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan P Posted July 1, 2016 Author Share Posted July 1, 2016 The gun initially envisioned for the F-35 was the Mauser BK-27, but somewhere along the way it gave way to the 25mm rotary cannon. Haven't done a detailed comparison of the two weapons, but I would imagine that the 27mm gun would be somewhat lighter than the Gatling? The GAU-22/A weighs about 3x as much as the Mauser, but it would be mission specific if carried at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antoine Posted July 1, 2016 Share Posted July 1, 2016 The B model (the one the UK has bought) isn't fitted with the internal cannon that the A model has as there's no room for it. Should a gun be a mission requirement, there's a centreline, stealthy podded system. Remind me about the Phantom drawbacks. What's the aircraft first mission? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan P Posted July 1, 2016 Author Share Posted July 1, 2016 Remind me about the Phantom drawbacks. What's the aircraft first mission? >deep breath<It's a multi-role strike fighter. It's an information gatherer, a deep penetrator, a point attack stealth fighter, a SEAD and DEAD interdictor, a CAS platform, an electronic warrior, a FAC platform, a BVR interceptor... It's "first mission" includes lots of things that weren't even on the horizon when the Phantom was designed. If a Lightning has to use a gun in A2A combat, it would represent a serious and fundamental failure of everything it was designed to be. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slater Posted July 1, 2016 Share Posted July 1, 2016 Since that whole Vietnam unpleasantness, the USAF has been firmly wedded to internal guns in it's fighters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Procopius Posted July 2, 2016 Share Posted July 2, 2016 Yet weirdly, had a worse exchange rate with MiGs over Vietnam than the Navy's gunless F-4s. The lack of an internal gun on the Phantom was a case of blaming training and doctrinal deficiencies on the equipment. The much-maligned AIM-4 Falcon is credited with 5 MiGs, versus 6 claimed by guns. Sidewinders claimed 80, and Sparrows 60. The gun was rarely a decisive factor in air-to-air combat for USAF crews. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slater Posted July 2, 2016 Share Posted July 2, 2016 AIM-4 was pretty much a failure (Col Olds ordered their use discontinued on his wing's aircraft, IIRC), but the charts in the back of the below document would suggest that many more than 6 gun kills were claimed): http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a476450.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Procopius Posted July 2, 2016 Share Posted July 2, 2016 AIM-4 was pretty much a failure (Col Olds ordered their use discontinued on his wing's aircraft, IIRC), but the charts in the back of the below document would suggest that many more than 6 gun kills were claimed): http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a476450.pdf Yes, quite right, I mistakenly used the figure for kills with the F-4E internal gun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan P Posted July 2, 2016 Author Share Posted July 2, 2016 Whilst it's an interesting diversion, the gun talk is irrelevant. This is 2016, and Vietnam was a very long time ago. I'm waiting for someone to produce kill ratios for all A2A conflicts involving western nations since 2003. Then we'll see the true value of the gun in today's aerial conflicts. Better to save the weight. When you're talking about an aircraft that can fry an enemy with its radar, guns are REALLY overrated. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kallisti Posted July 2, 2016 Share Posted July 2, 2016 Would the gun be only of any real use in the ground attack role? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slater Posted July 2, 2016 Share Posted July 2, 2016 I'd say that the gun is largely but not completely irrelevant. F-15E's have been called on to do strafing in Afghanistan, and the gun was thought to be be REALLY irrelevant on that particular platform. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan P Posted July 2, 2016 Author Share Posted July 2, 2016 I'd say that the gun is largely but not completely irrelevant. F-15E's have been called on to do strafing in Afghanistan, and the gun was thought to be be REALLY irrelevant on that particular platform. In that case, again, it will be mission specific whether a CAS-tasked aircraft will carry it. This isn't difficult. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slater Posted July 2, 2016 Share Posted July 2, 2016 True. This points out a difference in philosophy between the USAF and USN/USMC more than anything else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TallBlondJohn Posted July 2, 2016 Share Posted July 2, 2016 They're here via @Aeroresource ©twitter.com Typhoon, meet Lightning © MOD via British Defence News Roll on RIAT and FIA 2016! Al Well the monotone paint scheme is perfect for the British climate 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bentwaters81tfw Posted July 2, 2016 Share Posted July 2, 2016 What is it tanking off? That's not a Voyager. 13 refuellings in 10 hours, it's living up the reputation of a Lightning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colin Posted July 2, 2016 Share Posted July 2, 2016 Or were they keeping it light on fuel and taking the chance for training/data with air to air refueling ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now