Looking for gouge? Ask your Stupid Questions about Naval Aviation here (Part 1)

[VetteMuscle427]

"Strafing? When? I just don't see lots of situations where a well placed SDB wouldn't do the trick... or where other assets weren't close." VetteMuscle427



If you're going to get serious about CAS for the troops, a gun has some very significant advantages.

1. Accuracy. Granted, I was a lot lower and slower, but I shot bad guys off of the 5-meter wire around an outpost with a SUU-11 minigun with no problems. I've done that with 5-inch rockets too, but I didn't feel as confident.
2. Controlling ammo expenditure. If you are out of heavy ordnance, or if you need to stay on target and keep the bad guys at bay while you are waiting for more air support, the use of just a few rounds on each pass keeps you in the game, and keeps the troops covered.
3. If you have a force, either bad guys or unknown, advancing toward your troops, nothing draws a "line in the sand" (or water, or rice paddy) like a few hundred rounds in front of them. No harm, no foul, very clear message.

On top of that, there's also the fun factor. You pull the trigger, and you can watch the magic show right before your eyes. :icon_tong

I see your points, and I can see them from a helo perspective. But from a fixed wing aircraft? I don't know specifics about employing the gun, but I'd imagine it puts you a lot closer to AAA, and what happens to your RCS when you start punching holes into an aircraft?

I'm not a hater of having a gun in any way. I just don't see not having one as a significant loss of effectiveness. It's a tool, useful at times, but is it worth it? Esp with the weight issues the F-35 has.

 

[phrogpilot73]

Phrog-I'm with Battalion currently. Force doesn't exist anymore, although it'll be back soon.

Yeah, that's right - they turned into MARSOC homos. Once a homo, always a homo...

+1 on the gun run - they're excellent for urban linear targets.

 

[Flash]

They didn't put a gun in the F-35B or C because they are having a problem with weight ...

I dont' think it was a weight problem, I think it was a space issue. The Rafale M, the Navy version, does not have the gun and one less store because of the heavier and larger landing gear necessary for carrier ops.

I imagine it is the same case for the F-35B/C because of the extra room needed for the landing gear/VSTOL stuff. If I remember correctly, the B has half the internal weapons capacity and much less internal fuel of becasue of the VSTOL engine.

And while a Sidewinder cannot be carried internally, the ASRAAM can.

 

[Harrier Dude]

From what I gather, avionics-wise, it's going to be a gigantic leap forward, incorporating a lot of stuff from the F-22 program... but here’s some issues I have -

- with the 40k+ thrust, have they figured out how they are going to land on any boat (or any expeditionary airfield) without burning a hole in it? (~ 35k empty weight vs 40k thrust … I’d imagine it’s gonna be a pig to fly & it has the lowest T-W & lowest max G's of the 3 F-35's)

- the Corps is vesting it's aviation future on 2 expensive aircraft that requires precise maintenance, i.e. no more using a sledge hammers or a roll of duck tape to fix stuff. And you can't spend a shit-ton of money on a lo-observable aircraft and not wash or paint it in several months. With this in mind, the Corps will have to do a better job with overall maintenance of these aircraft which means spending more money and quit half-assing it.

- no gun (the strap on is a joke with its limited A-A capability & >200rds - do we not learn from past mistakes? seems the USAF did), limited range & ordnance w/o externals and no AIM-9's unless you strap them on the wingtips ... why spend the money on a stealthy platform if the only way to make it tactically worthwhile is to strap all the shit on externally and making it un-stealthy as well as adding more drag? Along the same lines, we are taking ourselves out of any day 1 or 2 strikes with this platform … it’s the least capable of the F-35’s & the Marines won’t be on a carrier (i.e. “tip of the spear”).

- no more tailhook for us jarheads ...

STOVL is a niche and buys us limited range & overall capability .. if we're really in it for CAS, then gimmie a MAG of F/A-18F's, A-10's, AC-130's ...

S/F

Well,.......it is what it is.

I don't have a dog in this fight, really. I'll be long gone by the time this thing is in full production and it's extremely unlikely that I'll ever fly one.

That said, I was at a presentation with the program manager, the head LM rep, and the chief test pilot for the F-35 and I was really impressed. There are some issues to work out, but it's really more about a shift in thinking.

Most of the stuff that you mentioned above is similar to the stuff that the old F-4 guys were saying about the Hornet, and the AV-8A guys were saying about the AV-8B. "It's different, and I don't like it."

They pick out some things that the old jet did that the new jet can't. In the end, though, it doesn't matter. The new jets were better and did different stuff that made all of the difference.

The F-35B is going to do the same thing. Most of the heat and weight issues are overblown and will be fixed. The leap in technology will be worth the effort.

Also, we're getting it whether we like it or not. Same on the STOVL concept. It's coming. Get used to it. It's up to the next generation of pilots to make it work. I wish I was going to fly it.

 

[DanMa1156]

the ASRAAM can.

Don't know much about this, and don't want to cross the OPSEC Line... but are you getting this? Do we have them already? Like I said, I barely know anything about it... just a quick Wikipedia read.

 

[Flash]

Don't know much about this, and don't want to cross the OPSEC Line... but are you getting this? Do we have them already? Like I said, I barely know anything about it... just a quick Wikipedia read.

The Aussie's and Brits are buying them, we aren't.....yet. Just pointing out that a 'Heater' can be carried internally, just maybe not our choice of one.

 

[phrogdriver]

and the AV-8A guys were saying about the AV-8B. "It's different, and I don't like it." .

What would an AV-8A guy have to complain about in an AV-8B? Living to see his next birthday?

 

[jarhead]

you're right, it is what it is ... and I'm on board with it. I just think that if we are in it for CAS, then we are choosing the wrong platform. But I'm just a lowly O-3 who just wants to fly. Those questions, among some others not to be discussed here, were brought up in discussion recently with a former Harrier driver now in mid-level management in the F-35 program who works in Ft Worth. Either way, it's coming, and I'm hoping to set myself up career wise to fly one, as long as it doesn't continue to be delayed.

S/F

Well,.......it is what it is.

 

[phrogpilot73]

I see your points, and I can see them from a helo perspective. But from a fixed wing aircraft? I don't know specifics about employing the gun, but I'd imagine it puts you a lot closer to AAA, and what happens to your RCS when you start punching holes into an aircraft?

I'm not a hater of having a gun in any way. I just don't see not having one as a significant loss of effectiveness. It's a tool, useful at times, but is it worth it? Esp with the weight issues the F-35 has.

From a CAS perspective - maybe the only thing that's on station is a FW aircraft and you're inside Danger Close for all his other ordnance. Maybe you need him to clear out a street quickly. Maybe you want to draw the "line in the sand" that BlkPny referred to. A fixed wing aircraft having a gun is a good thing. Again, you may only have fixed wing supporting you and need that gun.

From a ACM perspective - It's a lesson that was learned in Vietnam, that apparently might have to be learned again. The F-4 originally didn't have a gun because now that they had the new fangled missles, they were good. What about when you're inside the min range of your missiles? What about when you've shot your wad WRT missiles and have plenty of go juice? You disengage and run for the hills?

Yeah, you may get closer to AAA - but that's why we get paid the big bucks. RCS is worthless if you can't do your job, which is support the guys on the ground.

Having a gun is vital in my mind. I think it is a significant loss of effectiveness. But I'm just a dumb helo company grade.

 

[CommodoreMid]

Why did this thread migrate over to the Marine forum from the Misc forum? I was looking for it and got slightly confused.

 

[phrogpilot73]

Why did this thread migrate over to the Marine forum from the Misc forum? I was looking for it and got slightly confused.

Problem solved.

 

[osu33]

According to someone I know overseeing the JSF project, the F-35B and C will have internal guns. I don't have a link to back it up but I've seen recent literature that supports it. His position also validates his information.

 

[usmarinemike]

According to someone I know overseeing the JSF project, the F-35B and C will have internal guns. I don't have a link to back it up but I've seen recent literature that supports it. His position also validates his information.

Its been conventional wisdom since I first read about the JSF that the B and C will require an external gunpod.

Anybody have a link to confirm a change that normally would have sounded a huge alarm in the AW community?

 

[phrogpilot73]

Here's a General Dynamics PDF that says the B and C will use an external gun pod. The PDF is copyright 2007. Funny that if the argument is "weight" that the external gun is almost twice as heavy as the internal.

 

[osu33]

Working on getting a link as we speak. May be a little while as he doesn't check my emails during his working hours.