Jump to content

No gunpod for UK F-35 Lightnings.


GMK

Recommended Posts

I very much qualify as an armchair air marshal but I don't understand why you wouldn't fit a gun if you had the opportunity unless it was saving money of course?

 

I recall that the RAF spent several tens of millions trying to find the equivalent ballast to fit in the Typhoon because they decided a gun wasn't necessary and after wasting the cash realised that the best answer was to fit the gun. Happy to be corrected but the genesis of the gun in the F4E Phantom was the belated realisation that missiles alone couldn't be relied upon.

 

As Baldric would say "I have a cunning plan."

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Latinbear said:

I recall that the RAF spent several tens of millions trying to find the equivalent ballast to fit in the Typhoon . . . . . 

Also in a similarly money wasting vein but for different reasons there was money spent in the failed attempt to replace the US built GAU-12 gun system for the second-generation Harriers with the Aden 25 which resulted in the UK operated aircraft not having any gun capability whatsoever.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Des said:

Also in a similarly money wasting vein but for different reasons there was money spent in the failed attempt to replace the US built GAU-12 gun system for the second-generation Harriers with the Aden 25 which resulted in the UK operated aircraft not having any gun capability whatsoever.

Yep. I remember that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps this is more of the you do not fly the F-35 like it is an F-16/F-18/Harrier etc thinking.  It should be flown in such a way/envelope so as to maximize it's stealth etc.  That is what I read in the link I posted in the other F-35 thread.

 

Perhaps the thinking is that they(planners/higher ups) in this case do not want the F-35 down low to use a gun, and the pilot should not need to get themselves into a dogfight anyway.  If the pilot is in a dogfight, they have messed up in a big way.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, NoSG0 said:

Perhaps this is more of the you do not fly the F-35 like it is an F-16/F-18/Harrier etc thinking.  It should be flown in such a way/envelope so as to maximize it's stealth etc.  That is what I read in the link I posted in the other F-35 thread.

 

Perhaps the thinking is that they(planners/higher ups) in this case do not want the F-35 down low to use a gun, and the pilot should not need to get themselves into a dogfight anyway.  If the pilot is in a dogfight, they have messed up in a big way.

 

 

There's something to what you say. On the other hand, a gun does give added flexibility in combat situations where stealth isn't needed. Too, the F-35 has provisions for carrying external stores so it makes sense it's expected it will operate on missions where stealth use isn't required, hence where a cannon could be most useful.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sure if the decision makers asked pilots, they would say they wanted a gun on their combat jet. It'd be useful for hitting targets of opportunity or low value targets not worth a multi-thousand pound precision missile. A pick-up truck full of insurgents for example.

 

Imagine how gutting it would be for a pair of F-35s to get a call from a nearby FAC or lads on the ground asking for help but only having a giant guided weapon that would risk blue on blue in such close proximity.

 

Unfortunately all decisions are made solely by bean counters who are never in harm's way. 

  • Like 5
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, NoSG0 said:

Perhaps this is more of the you do not fly the F-35 like it is an F-16/F-18/Harrier etc thinking.  It should be flown in such a way/envelope so as to maximize it's stealth etc.  That is what I read in the link I posted in the other F-35 thread.

 

Perhaps the thinking is that they(planners/higher ups) in this case do not want the F-35 down low to use a gun, and the pilot should not need to get themselves into a dogfight anyway.  If the pilot is in a dogfight, they have messed up in a big way.

 

 

Procurement’s Occam’s razor: it’s almost always £££, regardless of the post-decision rationalisations. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If as defence pundits have been suggesting from before the F-35 saga even began that the UK faces becoming embroiled in a succession of low-intensity conflicts fighting insurgents on pick-up trucks as mentioned or the motorbikes that seemed to be favoured in Afghanistan or even just taking pot shots from a nearby compound housing goodness knows how many civilians it will be reassuring to know that said insurgents will be terrified to know that an RAF F-35 is circling them at great height completely impervious to the radar systems that they do not possess.

 

Unfortunately if a show of force is required , forget the low-level high-speed fly through - don't want to risk the F-35 at low level , forget escalating to a strafing run - no gun , most likely the same with rockets , low-weight dumb or guided bombs - maybe not got round to clearing them yet but instead as suggested above some other form of dirty great and far more expensive Precision Guided Recruiting Tool to make dirty great holes in the countryside.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Richard E said:

Yet .......

From the Freedom of Information response:

 

“Although the UK’s F-35B Lightning fleet is capable of being fitted with a gun pod, there are currently no plans for the UK to do so.”

 

With an in-service life measured in (hopefully) decades, sure, never say never. Seems unlikely though, according to the official MoD line. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Lord Riot said:

I'm sure if the decision makers asked pilots, they would say they wanted a gun on their combat jet. It'd be useful for hitting targets of opportunity or low value targets not worth a multi-thousand pound precision missile. A pick-up truck full of insurgents for example.

 

Imagine how gutting it would be for a pair of F-35s to get a call from a nearby FAC or lads on the ground asking for help but only having a giant guided weapon that would risk blue on blue in such close proximity.

 

Unfortunately all decisions are made solely by bean counters who are never in harm's way. 

Field Marshall von Moltke, Prussian Chief of General Staff famously quoted :"No plan ever survives first contact with the enemy"!.

Wonder how long this "plan" will last!

 

Allan

 

Edited by Albeback52
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, NoSG0 said:

Perhaps this is more of the you do not fly the F-35 like it is an F-16/F-18/Harrier etc thinking.  It should be flown in such a way/envelope so as to maximize it's stealth etc.  That is what I read in the link I posted in the other F-35 thread.

 

Perhaps the thinking is that they(planners/higher ups) in this case do not want the F-35 down low to use a gun, and the pilot should not need to get themselves into a dogfight anyway.  If the pilot is in a dogfight, they have messed up in a big way.

 

 

Think you are right....it is afterall a stealthy mudmover first and fighter second...except hmm maybe in the FAA ....i predict lots of role changes for squadron slip watches

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Des said:

If as defence pundits have been suggesting from before the F-35 saga even began that the UK faces becoming embroiled in a succession of low-intensity conflicts fighting insurgents on pick-up trucks as mentioned or the motorbikes that seemed to be favoured in Afghanistan or even just taking pot shots from a nearby compound housing goodness knows how many civilians it will be reassuring to know that said insurgents will be terrified to know that an RAF F-35 is circling them at great height completely impervious to the radar systems that they do not possess.

 

Unfortunately if a show of force is required , forget the low-level high-speed fly through - don't want to risk the F-35 at low level , forget escalating to a strafing run - no gun , most likely the same with rockets , low-weight dumb or guided bombs - maybe not got round to clearing them yet but instead as suggested above some other form of dirty great and far more expensive Precision Guided Recruiting Tool to make dirty great holes in the countryside.

 

A great argument for having larger numbers of cheap and cheerful aircraft ! The snag with much of this is the difficulty of predicting what the need is likely to be in the near future.   Given past history, providing as much flexibility as reasonably possible is a good idea...

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies said:

It strikes me that Apache is by far the better platform for shooting at insurgents in pickup trucks than asking a jet to hose one down at great closing speed and with a very short time window to fire in.

But the problem then becomes launching the Apache off a carrier!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, John B (Sc) said:

 

A great argument for having larger numbers of cheap and cheerful aircraft ! The snag with much of this is the difficulty of predicting what the need is likely to be in the near future.   Given past history, providing as much flexibility as reasonably possible is a good idea...

And therein hides the devil in the detail.

 

Time and again history shows that whatever war you prepare for next the one you get is not the one you did prepare for or have the kit to fight.  Anything that works well tends to be the product of serendipity and not brilliant foresight.  There are notable exceptions of course but more often the exception is not the rule.

 

The examples from our own times are legion.  The lack of adequate and role applicable equipment for the Falklands War is a good example.  There are many others.

 

So if in the time that the F-35 may have to stand in harms way a gun is not needed its a brilliant decision.  And if it is needed then its not.  Of course then sensible solution is to give it the capability to be added at very short notice but if the balloon goes up* then how quick could the gun packs be acquired and fitted and pilots trained up to use?  

 

 

*  thread drift alert - where does that phrase originate from?  I realised when I was having a read the other day and checked and I was right so felt quite chuffed at making a correct guess - no Googling etc and cheating chaps - not true Britmodeller ethic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The DAVE-B might have some issues with the weight of a gun, since all the extra fans, doors, etc add up.

When you have to use the rudders as fuel tanks there us "something" going on!

On 6/11/2020 at 8:26 AM, NoSG0 said:

Perhaps the thinking is that they(planners/higher ups) in this case do not want the F-35 down low to use a gun, .

Certainly not the case in the US where the higher-ups in the USAF have been doing their very best to kill off the A-10, using the argument that "the F-35* can do that CAS role".

Luckily all the facts stack up and they are talking utter rubbish.

 

* they also consider F-16's, or anything with a pointy nose.

5 hours ago, junglierating said:

Think you are right....it is afterall a stealthy mudmover first and fighter second....

I'd suggest a recon aircraft first.

The Israeli AF are doing very interesting things with flying around and looking at things, before any mud-moving happens...

Fighter would come a distant third.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies said:

It strikes me that Apache is by far the better platform for shooting at insurgents in pickup trucks than asking a jet to hose one down at great closing speed and with a very short time window to fire in.

Problem is speed and endurance....when the troops are under fire you want suppression quick so unless there is an Apache pair on patrol its no good.Plus QE POW will be someway offshore so again time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, hairystick said:

Fighter would come a distant third.


I s’pose.

 

There’s always the option of pushing the Super Hornets and Eurofighters out front to do the air-to-air, I guess. It clears up some of the airspace so the F-35s can play as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, junglierating said:

Problem is speed and endurance....when the troops are under fire you want suppression quick so unless there is an Apache pair on patrol its no good.Plus QE POW will be someway offshore so again time.

Drones.

 

Low cost, no risk to pilot. Endurance far beyond any piloted aircraft.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And if the airspace’s ‘safe’ enough, there’s always:

ac-130-dll.jpg

Tell me that doesn’t have bags of fun written all over it...

 

And, if the Herc’s too old fashioned for the kids these days, there’s:

ac27j.jpg

Edited by Blimpyboy
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...