Jump to content

No gunpod for UK F-35 Lightnings.


GMK

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, GMK said:

https://youtu.be/W63I_FBJT4k

 

Not a factor with the F-35 gun pod - or most modern gun systems in fast jets - they’re sealed systems. 

I was referring to the actual cannon shells, the projectiles, themselves not the casings containing the propellant which have been retained on board for many years. Those shells don't simply evaporate if they don't hit something. After firing gravity takes over and they have to come down somewhere even if it is miles from the point of firing. Even if they self destruct the shrapnel still heads for mother earth. I wouldn't want to be under one when it landed.

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

2 hours ago, EwenS said:

I was referring to the actual cannon shells, the projectiles, themselves not the casings containing the propellant which have been retained

Cool. The projectile vs. the cartridge case, understood. Well aware of the hazard posed by fired projectiles, whether they hit or miss.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am interested in the comment that firing the gun on Typhoon causes/ may cause fatigue. Is that not factored into the stress calculations when designing the thing in the first place?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’ve not read deeply into the damage issue; but it seems to be limited to the outer surfaces (portions of the skin and its coating) rather than the internal structure.

 

There also seem to be ‘minor’ alignment issues, which is a bit more concerning.

 

 I agree that the design is sufficiently progressed that such issues are puzzling at this stage.

Edited by Blimpyboy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, GMK said:

Cool. The projectile vs. the cartridge case, understood. Well aware of the hazard posed by fired projectiles, whether they hit or miss.

The same (or worse) could probably be said of things such as jettisoned external tanks, cluster bomb containers/bodies, etc.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Slater said:

The same (or worse) could probably be said of things such as jettisoned external tanks, cluster bomb containers/bodies, etc.

Absolutely. Not saying it’s not real, but not a point against a gun, by any means. Fast jets launch, drop, & fire all means of things. If where  expended things fall to earth is the primary concern, maybe fast jets is the wrong area of interest. ;D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Slater said:

The same (or worse) could probably be said of things such as jettisoned external tanks, cluster bomb containers/bodies, etc.

Probably marginally better than having the remnants of one of these falling in your garden:

s-200-image18.jpg

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reminds me of the Chinese rocket program. If a stage lands on your house, well, you shouldn’t have built there! Google Juanxi Village. 
spacer.png

 

spacer.png

 

Maybe a consideration for the UK’s nascent domestic rocket program launching across Europe 😂

  • Confused 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...