More F-35 issues

[Giorgio N]

21 hours ago, Slater said:

In the USAF's experience, strafing has saved more than a few lives in the Iraq/Afghanistan unpleasantness. Even the F-15E has engaged bad guys with it's gun.

 

Of course, it's driven by the tactical situation at hand, location of opposing forces, weather, etc. In a "danger close" situation, a strafing pass is probably less of a bad thing than the blast and fragmentation from a GBU-12. Cheaper too.

 

Does the definition of "cheaper" include the risks to the attacking aircraft ? There's no doubt that a couple hundred rounds of 20 or 30mm are cheaper than an SDB or similar bomb, but a gun attack requires an aircraft to follow a flight profile that makes it vulnerable to several weapons. Just lose one, and the economic balance suddenly is not so good for the gun...

[Slater]

5 minutes ago, Giorgio N said:

 

Does the definition of "cheaper" include the risks to the attacking aircraft ? There's no doubt that a couple hundred rounds of 20 or 30mm are cheaper than an SDB or similar bomb, but a gun attack requires an aircraft to follow a flight profile that makes it vulnerable to several weapons. Just lose one, and the economic balance suddenly is not so good for the gun...

The USAF seems OK with it in the current environment where MANPADS and AAA isn't a major factor.

[JagRigger]

Gun mounts have cracked on many aircraft over the years - and been repaired. Done a few on.....

[hairystick]

On 2/18/2020 at 9:34 AM, Slater said:

I think the USAF still remembers the lessons of Vietnam with regard to guns on fighters. Of course, today's AAM's are much more reliable than those from that era.

A gun tends to not be as vulnerable to electronic countermeasures or software "issues"...

[junglierating]

5 hours ago, hairystick said:

A gun tends to not be as vulnerable to electronic countermeasures or software "issues"...

Unless its electrically initiated....and I could be wrong but I'd imagine fast jet are certainly ye olde Aden gun was and I bet the Mauser is too....tonka light blue bomb heads?

[Slater]

Target Practice (TP) aircraft cannon ammunition has light blue (FS35109?) projectiles.

[hairystick]

On 2/20/2020 at 10:44 PM, junglierating said:

Unless its electrically initiated....and I could be wrong but I'd imagine fast jet are certainly ye olde Aden gun was and I bet the Mauser is too....tonka light blue bomb heads?

The logic goes that a tanker will not require a rifle, an infantryman won't need a pistol, etc, etc.

When it comes down to the wire, you need everything available, so having a gun in an aircraft is still relevant, even today.

 

Even ships like to have a Phalanx...

Edited March 3, 2020 by hairystick
Removed double post.

[Giorgio N]

On 2/18/2020 at 3:31 PM, Slater said:

The USAF seems OK with it in the current environment where MANPADS and AAA isn't a major factor.

True but the same USAF has in the last few years introduced more and more close support tactics that do not require the use of the gun but rather rely on weapons dropped from medium altitude. The same A-10 has seen the introduction of a range of guided weapons that allow the type to operate differently. The use of the gun for strafing is still taught but there have been several concerns after a number of accidents in training.

[Giorgio N]

On 2/20/2020 at 5:29 AM, hairystick said:

A gun tends to not be as vulnerable to electronic countermeasures or software "issues"...

 

A gun is not vulnerable to ECMs but the rest of the "system" is. It's all good having a gun capable of firing bullets that can't be fooled by decoys but the pilot still has to find the target and when the radar is blinded by the enemy this can not always be easy.

Software issues on the other hand can easily affect a gun as the sight is displayed on the HUD thanks to the on-board electronics. Most units have a "safe" mode in case of failure, but this is not as good as a proper working sight.

More in general, guns on aircraft are not necessarily the good old reliable solution the pilot can count on in every occasion. Many aircraft guns have proved troublesome during their development and in operation. The US in particular have a long history of problems in the development of reliable guns for aircraft use and the fact that the F-35 will be the first aircraft to ditch the M61 says a lot considering that the USAF first tried to replace the Vulcan in the early '70s. Vulcan that itself took quite a long time to become a reliable weapon.

Not only building a reliable aircraft gun is more difficult that it seems, but there's also the matter of the gun/aircraft interaction. Cracked mountings are a common thing but vibrations and gas ingestion have been problems with many aircraft.

This doesn't mean that a gun is not useful, it is useful and it's always better for a fighter to have a gun onboad rather than not having one. However guns, like missiles and every other thing, can have problems and not work when needed. More often that people believe

Edited February 28, 2020 by Giorgio N

[Latinbear]

On 2/18/2020 at 2:24 PM, Giorgio N said:

 

Does the definition of "cheaper" include the risks to the attacking aircraft ? There's no doubt that a couple hundred rounds of 20 or 30mm are cheaper than an SDB or similar bomb, but a gun attack requires an aircraft to follow a flight profile that makes it vulnerable to several weapons. Just lose one, and the economic balance suddenly is not so good for the gun...

 

This brings to mind Squadron Leader Bob Iveson being shot down in the Falklands while strafing a group of Argentine troops. 

[SleeperService]

As my Grandfather told me 'Once a shell is on it's way only an Act of God will stop it'. As a PO on Dreadnaughts he knew his onions.

 

I got halfway through Jamies' post and realised it could be my brother writing. He runs oil refinery projects AKA 20 square miles of potential bomb, there is a time to be cautious.

 

Back to the F-35 and it's woes. It's pushing boundaries and has potential to go further in future, the operators seem happy enough with it and their lives will depend on it. Everytime something new comes along there will be issues that's why it's cutting edge after all. History shows that troubled development often leads to a great system - F-111 anybody? Lightning?

 

It is good that the issues and such are being tracked hopefully to ensure what gets paid for is at it should be, British procurement could take a few lessons.

[Slater]

The gun originally envisaged for the F-35 was the Mauser BK27. Compared to the 25mm, it would seem a bit lighter and harder hitting, although not as much ammunition would probably have been carried. Somewhere along the way it was dropped, though.

[exdraken]

2 hours ago, Slater said:

The gun originally envisaged for the F-35 was the Mauser BK27. Compared to the 25mm, it would seem a bit lighter and harder hitting, although not as much ammunition would probably have been carried. Somewhere along the way it was dropped, though.

I heard the main dufference is spool up tome one the revolver cannons vs the instant high rate of fire on the otherw, like the Bk27

 

So always pros and cons...

[GMK]

13 hours ago, Slater said:

The gun originally envisaged for the F-35 was the Mauser BK27. Compared to the 25mm, it would seem a bit lighter and harder hitting, although not as much ammunition would probably have been carried. Somewhere along the way it was dropped, though.

Doesn’t seem to be much in it, projectile-wise. 
BK27 round has a mass of 260 grams/9.2 ounces @ a muzzle velocity of 1,100 metres per second/3,600 feet per second compared to the GAU-22/A’s APEX round at 223 grams/7.87 ounces at a muzzle velocity of 970 metres per second/3,200 feet per second.

That rate of fire though! The -22/A is 1,600 rpm faster, even at the BK27’s maximum rate of fire. 

 

 

[Hook]

On 2/20/2020 at 5:29 AM, hairystick said:

A gun tends to not be as vulnerable to electronic countermeasures or software "issues"...

Also - it's rather more suited for a warning shot across the bow of, say, a straying Tupovlev or Sukhoi than an AAM.

 

Cheers,

 

Andre

[PattheCat]

If I was a F-35 pilot, what I would most fear would not be to shoot wide but to see this on my wide-area display:

 

 

PS bad joke on an old thread but I couldn't resist .........

[wellsprop]

On 06/02/2020 at 19:55, Julien said:

including more than 800 software flaws.

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.

I agree with @Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies.

 

This article seems a bit over-inflated.

 

800 software flaws in an aircraft with more than 8 million lines of code?! That's good going.

 

As for cracking of a gun mount, that's standard stuff in the aerospace industry. The GAU22 fires 3300 rounds per minute, that's a fatigue cycle of 55Hz, I imagine it will just require updated Finite Element Analysis (FEA) on the gun mount and a slight re-design around the stress concentration/fatigue failure to resolve the issue.

 

The article reads as if a journalist has written about some "routine" engineering issues.

 

It would be exactly the same as a journalist in the 1940's saying the Spitfire had problems because they had to introduce modifications to fit new guns, strengthening plates, stiffeners, etc, etc. It's all part of the process and the fact that all of these issues are being picked up so early on (rather than after several years of operation) means it's a lot easier to rectify the issues.

 

 

[Space Ranger]

As an American taxpayer, I find the whole F-35 saga appalling. I’m all for giving the troops the equipment necessary for them to not only survive but also prevail in combat, but the F-35 program reminds me of the adage that “the best is the enemy of good enough.” Plus, it should never have received the “F-35” designation!

[Giorgio N]

2 hours ago, wellsprop said:

It would be exactly the same as a journalist in the 1940's saying the Spitfire had problems because they had to introduce modifications to fit new guns, strengthening plates, stiffeners, etc, etc. It's all part of the process and the fact that all of these issues are being picked up so early on (rather than after several years of operation) means it's a lot easier to rectify the issues.

 

 

 

How dare you insinuating that something like the Spitfire needed any modification ? The aviation icons of the past were born perfect and served flawlessly without any issue for the whole of their operational life. If they were modified it was only to make them even better. 🤣

Edited October 12, 2020 by Giorgio N

[keefr22]

I wonder if the gun not being able to 'shoot straight' is actually more to do with the pilot's aim....  

 

K

 

 

[jenko]

Isn't it a bit like buying a new car. The latest model rolls off the production line and within a few weeks joe public start finding faults. Faults are then corrected. Said car model reaches end of production by that time most if all faults are sorted.... good time to buy that model. Also they tend to up the extras on them so the spec is better value for money.

 

So from what I have just said .... 10 years time the F-35 will be faultless and available with multi cup holders and full leather interior and Bose hi-fi system.

 

Dick

 

Giorgio... Spitfires are perfection ..... you cannot improve on perfection  

 

 

[wellsprop]

53 minutes ago, jenko said:

Isn't it a bit like buying a new car. The latest model rolls off the production line and within a few weeks joe public start finding faults. Faults are then corrected.

Yep, something like that.

 

The F35 programme gets (in my opinion) more flak than in reality it deserves. The X35 contract was signed in late 1996 and the F35A/B entered service 20 years later. That's not bad for the most advanced fighter ever developed.

 

I'm struggling to find any figures on the development costs, Wikipedia says $40bn development cost by 2005 and 1.5 trillion over the entire lifetime.

 

Even by aerospace standards, that is pricey! That said, the purchase cost for an F-35 isn't vastly more than a Typhoon, yet the capability gap is vast!

 

I didn't quite realise just how much the US taxpayer had paid towards the development of the F35, so @Space Ranger comments are quite understandable.

 

From a British point of view, it seems Britain has done fairly well, being the only tier 1 partner, buying the aircraft and having a 15% workshare (more than any other partner country). 

[Giorgio N]

2 hours ago, jenko said:

Giorgio... Spitfires are perfection ..... you cannot improve on perfection  

 

 

 

All Spitfires are equally perfect but some are more equally perfect than others 🤣

[PattheCat]

On 10/12/2020 at 9:42 AM, Space Ranger said:

As an American taxpayer, I find the whole F-35 saga appalling. I’m all for giving the troops the equipment necessary for them to not only survive but also prevail in combat, but the F-35 program reminds me of the adage that “the best is the enemy of good enough.” Plus, it should never have received the “F-35” designation!

I certainly do agree with the part "I'm all for giving the troops......".

 

Let's first say I'm no F-35 supporter - at least in the actual state of things. But why?

 

I'm a Belgian taxpayer and not satisfied with the F-35 being selected for our Air Component (as they now name our Air Force). Not directly because of its costs, but because

- the concept of the F-35 relies on it working with a dedicated air superiority fighter we Europeans don't have (the F-22). So, IMHO, the F-35 is not the "Jack of all trades" we need

- it is maintenance heavy (what of the men on the ground waiting for air defence or support?)

- costs force us to have a very limited number of planes, so even less to operationally align

 

Edited 13 october:

- costs also raised the question of possible budget cuts or at least procurement delays for other components (like Navy) of our armed forces (retarding replacements or even upgrades)

- so few planes makes me fear attrition rates adding to normal unavailability in a conflict, and that's not even considering the slower repair/replacement rate of such a hi-tech equipment (well, I reckon that's the case for most modern weapons but the F-35 is of a never seen before complexity maybe even more than the F-104 and Tomcat in their day).

 

Also I don't find it a sound situation that hundreds of planes that are not fully capable and very complex to maintain are in service and could have to be used in operational conflictual conditions.

 

But to put things into perspective let's do some comparisons from my point of view - someone who has no aeronautical or technological knowledge (and some people will for sure quite rightfully say I compare apples with oranges)

- the French Rafale story - a plane I find quite achieved - is not  what we can call a "healthy walk". Let's remember it was put into service with air-to-air capabilities only, also first flight in 1991 with the F2 multirole standard arriving in 2005 only.

- we Belgians just received our first A400M, a transport plane that needed 8 years of development, was almost cancelled, and 5 years again between first flight and certification.

 

So maybe the F-35 story is not "that" appalling ..... considering the technological challenge. It's a disturbing situation, still.

[exdraken]

13 minutes ago, Giorgio N said:

 

All Spitfires are equally perfect but some are more equally perfect than others 🤣

I would say even Spitfires were only perfect for their time (and that time span was reasonably short until the next Mk. was needed back then....)   that make them all equally perfect relative to time ...

 

 

 

On 2/29/2020 at 7:03 PM, GMK said:

Doesn’t seem to be much in it, projectile-wise. 
BK27 round has a mass of 260 grams/9.2 ounces @ a muzzle velocity of 1,100 metres per second/3,600 feet per second compared to the GAU-22/A’s APEX round at 223 grams/7.87 ounces at a muzzle velocity of 970 metres per second/3,200 feet per second.

That rate of fire though! The -22/A is 1,600 rpm faster, even at the BK27’s maximum rate of fire. 

 

 

hmm coupled with the rel slow spool up rate for the GAU compared to the ~ instant rate on the Bk bullet weight for lets say the first 10 rounds is quite different..... in air to air.... for straffing there are different aspects of course