F-35 Shoots itself

[Corsairfoxfouruncle]

Just saw this and haven't seen anything else on it. An F-35 flown by the Marines fired its Gun in support/training, and caused $2.5 million in damage. Its being listed as class “A” damage. Which is catastrophic or write off according to the article.

 

 https://apple.news/AM-RsrzooR4eR3zsJjFo1EA

 

Dennis

[dov]

If it is true, so it is a fantastic thing. A self destroying weapon! If this is the desire of US defence industry?

Or the F-35 is just an agile project? We have to wait an other 6 weeks for the next increment in data update?

Who knows!

Just won´dering!

[treker_ed]

Cannot look as need to log into site

[Giorgio N]

Since the accident was due to the premature detonation of a cannon round, the aircraft has very little fault here.

[PLC1966]

Just now, Giorgio N said:

Since the accident was due to the premature detonation of a cannon round, the aircraft has very little fault here.

Yeah, but then that means not knocking the F-35, which does seem to be a bit of a thing over the last few years.

[wellsprop]

Unfortunately, the headline is slightly misleading. 

 

An F-11 genuinely managed to shoot itself with it's own guns - so did an F-16 in 2019 (allegedly)

 

https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/a35938986/f-35-shoots-itself/

[dov]

38 minutes ago, wellsprop said:

Unfortunately, the headline is slightly misleading. 

 

An F-11 genuinely managed to shoot itself with it's own guns - so did an F-16 in 2019 (allegedly)

Yes, but the human should learn out of mistakes.

This is what I miss.

Always excuses.

A new project should always implement the knowledge about mistakes on earlier projects.

This is the matter!

[Giorgio N]

13 minutes ago, dov said:

Yes, but the human should learn out of mistakes.

This is what I miss.

Always excuses.

A new project should always implement the knowledge about mistakes on earlier projects.

This is the matter!

 

And what teaching from previous mistakes should be implemented in this case ? To me it seems that the only thing to learn from the past here is that ammo must be made properly and not explode before hitting the target, that is something that has been discovered many decades ago so nothing new.

The same ammunition is used on the AV-8B gun, the same accident could have occurred to one of these aircraft

[Ray_W]

2 hours ago, treker_ed said:

Cannot look as need to log into site

Few non-apple locations to read about this. Here is another one https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/39920/a-marine-f-35b-fighter-jet-accidentally-shot-itself-with-its-own-gun-pod 

[dov]

3 hours ago, Giorgio N said:

And what teaching from previous mistakes should be implemented in this case ? To me it seems that the only thing to learn from the past here is that ammo must be made properly and not explode before hitting the target, that is something that has been discovered many decades ago so nothing new.

 

4 hours ago, wellsprop said:

An F-11 genuinely managed to shoot itself with it's own guns - so did an F-16 in 2019 (allegedly)

This post from wellprop

 

4 hours ago, dov said:

Yes, but the human should learn out of mistakes.

 

This (from wellsprop) is what I wanted to say, Georgio. Exactly this.

 

[wellsprop]

I think what I posted may have been taken out of context.

 

There was very likely nothing that could have been done to prevent the cannon shell exploding prematurely.

 

Occasionally weapons systems fail.

 

It would be brilliant if, once a failure occurred, a system could be redesigned to prevent that failure ever recurring - unfortunately explosives are, by their very nature, explosive and occasionally they go wrong.

[Ray_W]

The learnings should really kick in now on the specific reasons for failure. No criticism can be brought until the full story comes out and I suspect this is unlikely to be told and nor should it be unless there has been endemic negligence or obstructive processes at play (e.g. WW2 USN Mark 14 torpedo). An isolated incident is not really news worthy, but there is always a narrative to push like bash the F-35 - it sells news, drives clicks. Still, better to have the failures now and learn/correct than when you really need the asset. I hope that all users of this system, continue to push it to its limits and find the problems. Thanks to the brave young people who put their lives at risk and those who contribute to every facet of such a project that, I am sure, they love.  I trust we never need the F-35 to fully meet its promise yet we do not know.

 

 

I think I'll just turn up the speakers and watch this again:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QF7FSDpFYSs

 

Ray

 

Edited March 26, 2021 by Ray_W
Sent too early

[exdraken]

Question is:

Was the shell at fault, or did the aircraft/cannon do something to trigger it prematurely, or possibly have rejected it when loading.

 

And the second question:

Why is the damage that severe?

Did it explode outside the cannon pod or still inside,?

 

[Corsairfoxfouruncle]

17 minutes ago, exdraken said:

Question is:

Was the shell at fault, or did the aircraft/cannon do something to trigger it prematurely, or possibly have rejected it when loading.

 

And the second question:

Why is the damage that severe?

Did it explode outside the cannon pod or still inside,?

 

I would almost think it had to be inside to get damage that severe. 

[exdraken]

10 minutes ago, Corsairfoxfouruncle said:

I would almost think it had to be inside to get damage that severe. 

Is the damage that severe, or the replacement parts that expensive...

[Corsairfoxfouruncle]

12 minutes ago, exdraken said:

Is the damage that severe, or the replacement parts that expensive...

Probably a bit of both  ? 

[Head in the clouds.]

I have shot myself in the foot many times but I am still here to talk about it, so will the F35.😆

[Filler]

9 hours ago, PLC1966 said:

Yeah, but then that means not knocking the F-35, which does seem to be a bit of a thing over the last few years.

I think you can understand that though. The military aviation enthusiast has seen a steady decline in his hobby since I guess the turn of the century and that decline has sped up notably in the last five years or so. And the F-35 is the poster boy for the marking-less, rather ugly and numerically few future of military aviation. So a lot of the criticism is probably very unfair, but is very understandable from the perspective of people who have enjoyed numerous squadrons of varied types with camouflage and a multitude of special markings for various occasions.

 

The funny thing is, perhaps a time not so far away will come when the F-35 is lamented as the last manned military fighter jet we saw. It’s all about drones and laptops from now on.

 

I have to confess myself, the F-35 might be an awesome bit of kit, but I just do not like it. That B thing is just an awful looking contraption with its wheelie bin lid. They can all shoot themselves down for me!

[dov]

Hi

The criticism I made is not meant to be bad. However, to be seen in the context of the fact that the F-35 is the best aircraft.

But what you can still see today as a string of pearls are costs and errors. This lines up like pearls on the necklace.

After decades: No records. It's like a hobby auto mechanic whose vehicle breaks down after every 100 mile.

This is astonishing and also raises the key question about the mischief of this project structure.

If only costs are incurred, and also damage, as a taxpayer I probably justifiably frown.

[Slater]

The F-35 was originally envisioned to be armed with the Mauser BK-27 27mm gun. Obviously not quite as high a rate of fire than the Gatling, but I would imagine that the 27mm round would have somewhat greater terminal effects.

[exdraken]

17 hours ago, Slater said:

The F-35 was originally envisioned to be armed with the Mauser BK-27 27mm gun. Obviously not quite as high a rate of fire than the Gatling, but I would imagine that the 27mm round would have somewhat greater terminal effects.

this high rate of fire thing is a bit missleading always, as the Gatling type ones have a very high continuous rate of fire; during the spool up it has not. There other cannons are in advantage.

usually in air combat the first few bullets count and need to hit. the instantaneous high rate coupled with higher bullet weight is arguably of advantage here.

 

of course than there is the point of buying American and not German.....

 

 

[NoSG0]

Gun/ammo issues reminded me of this pair of pics:

 

A-10

https://www.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/123947/a-10-makes-wheels-up-landing/

 

Cant blame the F-35, but the 2.5 mil. Ouch!  Must have hit the Fit watch in one of the bays(a joke)

 

Edited March 29, 2021 by NoSG0

[exdraken]

2 hours ago, NoSG0 said:

Gun/ammo issues reminded me of this pair of pics:

 

A-10

https://www.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/123947/a-10-makes-wheels-up-landing/

 

Cant blame the F-35, but the 2.5 mil. Ouch!  Must have hit the Fit watch in one of the bays(a joke)

 

Maybe the cannon pod is that much alone... not too many in existence for now... 

[Giorgio N]

6 hours ago, exdraken said:

this high rate of fire thing is a bit missleading always, as the Gatling type ones have a very high continuous rate of fire; during the spool up it has not. There other cannons are in advantage.

usually in air combat the first few bullets count and need to hit. the instantaneous high rate coupled with higher bullet weight is arguably of advantage here.

 

of course than there is the point of buying American and not German.....

 

 

 

 

Considering the very little time in which an enemy aircraft is in the sight, it's not much the first few bullets that count, what matters is to be able to lay down enough bullets to have a decent chance of hitting. Reason why rate of fire is one of the most important aspect in an aircraft gun.

Yes spooling times must be considered in the calculation of how many rounds a gatling gun actually fires when the trigger is pressed and when real combat situations are considered the effective rate of fire of these guns is lower then the theoretical values, putting them closer to revolver gas operated guns like the BK27.

In any case the Americans love their Gatlings as these guns have certain advantages over other types. It's no surprise that one such gun was in the end chosen for the F-35.

[exdraken]

1 hour ago, Giorgio N said:

 

 

Considering the very little time in which an enemy aircraft is in the sight, it's not much the first few bullets that count, what matters is to be able to lay down enough bullets to have a decent chance of hitting. Reason why rate of fire is one of the most important aspect in an aircraft gun.

Yes spooling times must be considered in the calculation of how many rounds a gatling gun actually fires when the trigger is pressed and when real combat situations are considered the effective rate of fire of these guns is lower then the theoretical values, putting them closer to revolver gas operated guns like the BK27.

In any case the Americans love their Gatlings as these guns have certain advantages over other types. It's no surprise that one such gun was in the end chosen for the F-35.

isn't it bullet weight on target that counts ins ashort, ~ 0,5 second burst?

 

the BK27 (27mm)  and  or Defa/GIAT (30mm) guns have instantaneous max rate of fire while the gatling types invariably need to spool up their barrels. 

 

and anoher point, originally the F-35 was to have the BK27, so probably the B/C versions could have kept the internal gun.... instead of this strange podded version