I believe its gun is in a pod, like the Harrier's is today, not permanently mounted.
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
F-35B/C Lightning II (Joint Strike Fighter)
- Thread starter jai5w4
- Start date
I believe its gun is in a pod, like the Harrier's is today, not permanently mounted.
Yeah, I was just saying that it is my understanding is that the F-35A will have a version of the Harrier's 25mm GAU-12, not a 20mm. Also, IF the pod is done correctly and "stealthy" as advertised it could be an advantage to going the pod route. It isn't always needed, so having the extra weight off the jet when the mission doesn't call for it would be a good thing.
It will replace the A-10, but it won't fly the same way/do the same thing the A-10 does. I would like to think we have better ways of killing armor than going low and using a big gun on them. From everything I've read about the Hog in '9o/'91 says the A-10s did a lot of killing, but at a pretty high cost in terms of damage and losses. Perhaps the F-35 can do a lot of killing from outside the threat envelope that the A-10 has to fly in.
Exactly the answer the Lockheed guys gave. "We told the Navy we could put the gun in the port intake, like the AF version. They said they'd rather have a modular system to save weight and wear on the system for missions where it's not used."
Once again: somebody has already thought of the issue and dealt with it.
The A-10 has evolved quite a bit from the early nineties, with some of the biggest advances occuring over the past 5 years. It can do a lot of things the F-35 can't and not just going in low with a big gun. It would be great if killing armor could be done exclusively "outside the threat envelope," but first someone has to get eyes on it and that's not always going to be as easy as it was. We aren't the only ones who saw the tapes from Iraq #1. Not to mention the whole armor argument is irrelevant in terms of eliminating the A-10. Its been 8 years since we've faced any sort of armor, yet it's still more in demand than ever. Even though the F-35 is supposedly a "replacement," the Hog is here to stay for a few more decades. Just think phrogdriver, there's still time...
Like what?
The A-10 has evolved quite a bit from the early nineties, with some of the biggest advances occuring over the past 5 years. It can do a lot of things the F-35 can't and not just going in low with a big gun. It would be great if killing armor could be done exclusively "outside the threat envelope," but first someone has to get eyes on it and that's not always going to be as easy as it was. We aren't the only ones who saw the tapes from Iraq #1. Not to mention the whole armor argument is irrelevant in terms of eliminating the A-10. Its been 8 years since we've faced any sort of armor, yet it's still more in demand than ever. Even though the F-35 is supposedly a "replacement," the Hog is here to stay for a few more decades. Just think phrogdriver, there's still time...
I would venture to say that it may be easier with the sensor packages and ISR capabilities that have been developed since '91.
And sure the A-10 is in demand- I'm sure anything with some air to ground capability is in demand. The Raptors stay home, but everyone else is in the fight.
EP's beyond "eject" if it loses an engine.
I was just following your model of making a "witty" comment and never presenting an argument. If you want to get into a pissing match... The ability to stay on station for more than 10 minutes, FAC(A), and carry a lot more stuff that isn't just bombs. Things like a targeting pod that isn't compromised for LO, Mavericks, rockets, or whatever else you want to hang on there. For strafing it actually has a CCIP, which would certainly seem helpful (right, not talking about the gun). It actually has armor, two engines, can take a 23MM round to the face, all of which would certainly seem relevant for flying CAS. If previous LO aircraft are any indication it should cost half as much to operate (conservatively), which would be a lot less if they weren't still trying to keep a 30+ year old aircraft flying.
I guess it is irrelevant and the F-35 will serve as an excellent replacement, if one considers CAS dropping two JDAM's "outside the threat envelope" and we don't stay/get involved in any more small wars.
I see you don't know anything about CAS (from either end of the radio) or CAS platform capabilities, but please, do continue. It's fairly entertaining to those of us that do.
Is a LO platform the ideal one for the USMC if it sacrifices survivability, and more importantly, maintainability? Probably not (IMO). But in these shrinking budget times, that's what's going to happen. We are not moving towards more types of specialty aircraft, and to think that we would suddenly venture there is ridiculous.
Yes, everyone knows the A-10 is robust and can carry a large payload. Know what most of that payload is these days? PGMs. The F-35 has the ability to carry external stores too. The LO is more of a 'day one' capability. Seeing as USMC TACAIR is not a primarily day one air arm, I would expect to see us hanging pylons more often than not. CAS is not defined by the type of ordnance you employ, and if, as a FAC or shooter, I can keep the aircraft out of a threat envelope with standoff weapons, I will do it every time.
Also, CCIP has nothing to do with the way the gun is installed. The Harrier has a gun pak and it has a very capable height above target derivation ability, be it through the Litening pod or the ARBS/DMT, or the radar. Just like the F-35 likely will through the sensor and/or radar. CCIP simply means "continuously calculated impact point," and is calculated by the aircraft knowing where it is in space and something telling it where the target is, so it can do the math for the 'bombing triangle.'
I'm ready to STFU and listen...
To your edit: Noted, I appreciate the response and perspective. At no point have I argued the Marine TACAIR should have anything but the F-35B, nor have I questioned the need for STOVL or made the retarded suggestion they should have purchased the A-10 (although I've considered doing so to annoy phrogdriver).
My argument was solely in comparison to the Hog, what this whole thread detour was all about. I understand the move towards multi-role, but it's hard to make the budgetary argument for an aircraft that's going to be 100M pp and will cost even more to maintain. As someone whose going to be flying Jolly's in the near future (at least in terms of procurement's) and potentially until the F-35 is completely online, I find the notion the A-10 will be replaced by the F-35A laughable and alarming. I'm definitely not alone in that, but maybe I'm wrong and I'd like to hear convincing arguments as to why.
always a difference in the Hog drivers vs. other FW escort for the helos.....
Yes, that's an idea. Personally, I find that sticking to subjects one isnt clueless about is a good way to avoid looking like a slapdick. You certainly may see it another way.