exdraken Posted June 15, 2020 Share Posted June 15, 2020 6 minutes ago, Blimpyboy said: Putting a gun on the aircraft indeed makes sense for carrier operations, especially in contingencies where there may be no other mission-suitable aircraft types available on the carrier. The USMC and USN (and most other carrier-borne F-35 operators) will almost certainly have deployment contingencies that envisage no support from any other force or direct combat platform. In a similar vein, countries that have chosen the F-35 to be the only direct combat fighter in their inventories will also face similar contingency scenarios. Therefore, a gun becomes an important option. but then isn't that exactly what the B version is for in the RAF/ Royal Navy environment? ... QE carriers come to my mind..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blimpyboy Posted June 15, 2020 Share Posted June 15, 2020 (edited) 5 minutes ago, exdraken said: but then isn't that exactly what the B version is for in the RAF/ Royal Navy environment? True! 🤨 I can’t speak to the UK’s force design, but I imagine that the RN may have a funding option down the track, to acquire a gun later on in the F-35’s life (in typical ‘fitted for, but not with’) fashion. Either that, or they just don’t plan to fight in ways that require a gun... Edited June 15, 2020 by Blimpyboy 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blimpyboy Posted June 15, 2020 Share Posted June 15, 2020 (edited) All highly successful fighters and/or bombers that did not have, or did much of their tasking without, a gun. Irony note: yes, the F-111 in this post has the gun installed! 🤦♂️ Edited June 16, 2020 by Blimpyboy 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blimpyboy Posted June 15, 2020 Share Posted June 15, 2020 (edited) Besides, real men and women don’t need no stinkin’ gun in combat... Edited June 16, 2020 by Blimpyboy 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blimpyboy Posted June 16, 2020 Share Posted June 16, 2020 (edited) I forgot to add, too, that the gun is in a removable pod for the B and C variants, which enables the aircraft to be configured to meet contingencies where a gun might be required. This would better meet the needs of operators with aircraft carriers and sole fighter type inventories. Also, while the gun pod will have stealth characteristics, it will still increase the radar cross section of the aircraft overall - from certain aspects. Re some British and US takes on gun usage: https://www.wired.com/2007/07/royal-air-force/ and https://www.airforcemag.com/article/0707strafing/ To quote RAF Air Chief Marshall Sir Glenn Torpy (as a loose analogy to the F-35 debate - italicising and underlining, and final sentences are mine): "Our thinking up to now on the Typhoon gun has been that we will not require it because of the advances in short-range missiles and various other tactics and techniques and procedures, but we could get to a situation which we have not foreseen where we will require it. Well, we have a gun in Typhoon and we are not planning to fire it because it would cost us quite a bit more money in terms of ground support equipment, fatigue on the air-frame and so on, but if we decided that actually we did need it for something, we could bring it into operation in very short order, so we have complete flexibility as far as the Typhoon gun is concerned." How very Duncan Sandys. Let's hope, too, that the enemy operates in an RAF-friendly (tactical and budgetary) time frame. Edited June 16, 2020 by Blimpyboy 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GMK Posted June 16, 2020 Author Share Posted June 16, 2020 3 hours ago, Blimpyboy said: Also, while the gun pod will have stealth characteristics, it will still increase the radar cross section of the aircraft overall - from certain aspects. To quote RAF Air Chief Marshall Sir Glenn Torpy ”...but if we decided that actually we did need it for something, we could bring it into operation in very short order..." Not a fan of absolutes - and it’s been a decade since I had to do the radar range equation etc. - so I’d say “...(fitment of the gun pod) is likely to affect platform’s relevant RCS...”. Lots of variables at play. Lots of yikes in the good ACM’s quote. A lot. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hairystick Posted June 16, 2020 Share Posted June 16, 2020 4 minutes ago, GMK said: ... so I’d say “...(fitment of the gun pod) is likely to affect platform’s relevant RCS...”. Lots of variables at play. It appears that using the afterburner does the same thing, by degrading the paint "stealth" coating. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GMK Posted June 16, 2020 Author Share Posted June 16, 2020 2 minutes ago, hairystick said: It appears that using the afterburner does the same thing, by degrading the paint "stealth" coating. Indeed - over the projected 40-year life of the jet. The test pilot involved provided further insight, and the likelihood (complete with absolute 😞 ”Nobody is going to do [that] tactically,” he said. “There’s not a combat scenario where that is going to happen.” “flying out at 700 knots in the C model up and down the East Coast ... and then out over the ocean, firing missiles at almost 1.6 Mach as we cleared out the weapons for the airplane. That’s extreme speed, and that’s repeated flights in those environments.” “Make a run at 700 knots, make another run at 700 knots, go to an aerial refueling tanker, get fuel for myself … and then race out again and again and again. Repeat this cycle for four- and five-hour missions,” https://www.defensenews.com/smr/hidden-troubles-f35/2020/05/22/the-inside-story-of-two-supersonic-flights-that-changed-how-america-operates-the-f-35/ 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blimpyboy Posted June 16, 2020 Share Posted June 16, 2020 (edited) 17 minutes ago, GMK said: Not a fan of absolutes - and it’s been a decade since I had to do the radar range equation etc. - so I’d say “...(fitment of the gun pod) is likely to affect platform’s relevant RCS...”. Lots of variables at play. Yeah, true! My motherhood statement is rather broad brush and certainly doesn't take in the myriad elements that need considering for each individual engagement! Notwithstanding, if going up against an S-400, I'll leave the pod off... Edited June 16, 2020 by Blimpyboy 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duncan B Posted June 16, 2020 Share Posted June 16, 2020 On 6/13/2020 at 10:12 PM, exdraken said: hmm strange decisions....after all the F-4 in RAF service always had it mounted externally.... they should know better! Now there's the thing, the first RAF F-4s to fly purely Air to Air rôle couldn't carry a gun until the mid 1970's. The FG.1 (that 43 Sqn operated) wasn't originally configured for the SUU gun so there's a parallel with this F-35B decision (in A to A use), it's not planned now but who knows about further down the line. The original user of the FG.1 Phantoms never had the SUU gun capability at all so maybe the FAA don't see the need for guns? Duncan B 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John B (Sc) Posted June 16, 2020 Share Posted June 16, 2020 On 6/11/2020 at 11:03 PM, JohnT said: 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. Very true JohnT. Always a challenge for planners, and easy for historians who of course look back with the the benefit of hindsight! I think Service senior officers, especially the RAF's VSOs, have done a worryingly poor job in this regard over recent years. I suspect the ability to reflect and analyse for the future does not have any significant impact on promotion prospects, so perhaps it's not surprising ! As for your phrase, my guess is it related to observation balloons preparing for artillery spotting. I have a vague recollection of their being a battle or war in Central America or Mexico around the end of the 18th Century where observation balloons were used. Hmm - now to check. (Actually I first thought you meant the phrase 'devil is in the detail'. Don't know who first used that one) 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John B (Sc) Posted June 16, 2020 Share Posted June 16, 2020 Having now checked, I see it is also suggested that 'the balloon' was used as a co-ordinating signal between artillery batteries for simultaneous firing. Not sure I believe that one, I'd use a very light or or signal rocket. As for my wondering about 'the devil in the detail', I see it was earlier 'God is in the detail'. Sounds like some, engineers were asked and pointed that only a devil would make life so darn hard! 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnT Posted June 16, 2020 Share Posted June 16, 2020 23 minutes ago, John B (Sc) said: As for your phrase, my guess is it related to observation balloons preparing for artillery spotting. I have a vague recollection of their being a battle or war in Central America or Mexico around the end of the 18th Century where observation balloons were used. Hmm - now to check. (Actually I first thought you meant the phrase 'devil is in the detail'. Don't know who first used that one) Yes, correct. A coconut for the gentleman winner. I was reading a book on 1918 and the author wrote that one witness to the trenches said every time we saw their balloon go up we knew we were in for it ie artillery shelling. Seemed likely so I googled it I gather the devil is on the detail is either an old German or French saying More on topic it might be suggested that given the poor levels of success in future conflict prediction there is more merit in having equipment and training that is flexible and capable of several missions hence at least making provision for a gun pack as a quick and easy addition to capability should be allowed for. On the Phantom gun pod I seem to recall reading that it was not the most accurate and had the tendency to spray the target. I imagine that could be a general issue with podded weapons versus those integral to the platform and designed as such from the outset Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duncan B Posted June 16, 2020 Share Posted June 16, 2020 1 hour ago, JohnT said: On the Phantom gun pod I seem to recall reading that it was not the most accurate and had the tendency to spray the target. I imagine that could be a general issue with podded weapons versus those integral to the platform and designed as such from the outset It's quite probable that the podded SUU gun wasn't as accurate as the F-4E's internal gun but at least it was available. When the original SUU gun was introduced to the F-4Cs in Vietnam they didn't have it integrated with the HUD so the pilots had to bore sight it but the F-4D had it integrated for sure. With regards to the F-35B podded gun I have read that, currently, the podded gun is actually more accurate than the F-35A's internal gun which is causing structural damage (twisting the structure). Not sure if that has been addressed now but it seems like a fairly basic engineering mistake to not make the supporting structure strong enough to cope with the recoil of the gun. Duncan B 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blimpyboy Posted June 16, 2020 Share Posted June 16, 2020 41 minutes ago, Duncan B said: the F-35A's internal gun which is causing structural damage Naw, it’ll be fine, just limit yourself to three-round bursts. A bit of training and you’ll all learn the right amount of trigger pull... Problem mitigated! 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
junglierating Posted June 16, 2020 Share Posted June 16, 2020 12 hours ago, GMK said: Not a fan of absolutes - and it’s been a decade since I had to do the radar range equation etc. - so I’d say “...(fitment of the gun pod) is likely to affect platform’s relevant RCS...”. Lots of variables at play. Lots of yikes in the good ACM’s quote. A lot. Oooh shudders at the Radar equation especially with EW😯 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GMK Posted June 16, 2020 Author Share Posted June 16, 2020 2 minutes ago, junglierating said: Oooh shudders at the Radar equation especially with EW😯 Sorry, mate. I know we mostly come here to relax. Didn’t mean to revive a trauma for you! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
junglierating Posted June 16, 2020 Share Posted June 16, 2020 11 hours ago, Duncan B said: maybe the FAA don't see the need for guns? Ah I knew all that sat in a puddle under a pair of aden guns shouting 'cocking the gun' was a figmant of my very vivid imagination 🤣🤣 2 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slater Posted June 16, 2020 Share Posted June 16, 2020 During the Iraq/Afghanistan unpleasantness, there's been several occasions when strafing F-15's and others have pulled some ground troops bacon out of the fire. So it's not very common, but when you need it you need it. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blimpyboy Posted June 16, 2020 Share Posted June 16, 2020 (edited) 5 hours ago, junglierating said: Oooh shudders at the Radar equation especially with EW😯 Plus the added fun of rotor returns for the helo guys... Edited June 16, 2020 by Blimpyboy 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duncan B Posted June 17, 2020 Share Posted June 17, 2020 14 hours ago, junglierating said: Ah I knew all that sat in a puddle under a pair of aden guns shouting 'cocking the gun' was a figmant of my very vivid imagination 🤣🤣 Yes but that's because you were using a navalised version of finely procured and well planned RAF kit whereas poor 43 Sqn were having to go hunt Bears with something originally procured for their Lordships to sit on their floating gin palaces and go around the world waving flags at the natives (if they hadn't parked the Eagle on a sandbank and set fire to Victorious then the RAF might have actually been spared the embarrassment completely). Nelson didn't have guns on his aircraft at Trafalgar so why did their Lordships need them in 1969 (when the rest of the western world was scrambling around trying to shoehorn an M61 into their Phantoms)? Could it be that to not fit them was a budgetary thing back then too? Tongue firmly placed in cheek. Duncan B 7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blimpyboy Posted June 17, 2020 Share Posted June 17, 2020 59 minutes ago, Duncan B said: Nelson didn't have guns on his aircraft at Trafalgar so why did their Lordships need them in 1969 Brilliant! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Truro Model Builder Posted June 17, 2020 Share Posted June 17, 2020 Interesting looking back at those photos of well known combat jets without guns. Most of them, I noticed, were designed before 1970. In fact, I cannot recall off the top of my head any major Western combat aircraft designed since 1970 that did not have a gun, either internal or podded -except the F-117, which is so specialised that it almost doesn't count. I'm darn sure there was a reason why they all had guns... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blimpyboy Posted June 18, 2020 Share Posted June 18, 2020 11 hours ago, Truro Model Builder said: I'm darn sure there was a reason why they all had guns... Just. In. Case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blimpyboy Posted June 18, 2020 Share Posted June 18, 2020 Ouch... 1 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