WT Forums

http://today.reuters.com/business/newsarticle.aspx?type=tnBusinessNews&storyID=nN18155456

Looks like the Pentagon is trying to kill the AF version of the F-35.

Fender
"A woman drove me to drink
and I hadn't even the courtesy to thank her".
W.C. Fields

Yeah I saw that a few days ago. The Brits are the driving force in that. They want the AF to have the same version as the navy. Only real downside to the naval version is lack of an internal gun (one of the hard reqs for the AF)

<img src="http://img117.imageshack.us/img117/457/bgnrjsiiw81q1gc.jpg" border=0>

Gravity....its not just a good idea, its the law.

That brings up a question. With todays advanced missile technology is a gun really needed? Obviously I don't know the answer and I am talking mainly as an air-to-air asset. Let the debate begin.

Fender
"A woman drove me to drink
and I hadn't even the courtesy to thank her".
W.C. Fields

The AF tried that avenue of logic when they built the F-4. During the Vietnam war they discovered that a gun was still very desireable. They were determined not to make that mistake again.

<img src="http://img117.imageshack.us/img117/457/bgnrjsiiw81q1gc.jpg" border=0>

Gravity....its not just a good idea, its the law.

If you have a gun you can always provide emergency CAS, regardless of what other ordnance you're carrying, or what your mission was.

But to be honest, the USAF wants OUT of the F-35 altogether from what i hear.

They've been seduced by the dark side of the Raptor.

<b>There are two kinds of soldiers.
Snipers...and targets.</b>
<img src="http://www.creedmoorsports.com/images/SA9121-M21.JPG" border=0>

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>With todays advanced missile technology is a gun really needed?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote> Would you want to go into a fight carrying, say, 4 bricks and after tossing them find there's still some fighting left? Having a bunch of little friends on your hip is cheap insurance. IMHO, of course.<img src=icon_smile_wink.gif border=0 align=middle>

"Pilots Without Maintainers are Just Pedestrians With Leather Jackets and Cool Sunglasses."

_________________
\"Those who hammer their guns into plows
will plow for those who do not.\"
- Thomas Jefferson

The Navy version has the room for the gun, they're just choosing not to fit it.

My motto: pacis per vires

didn't anyone learn anything from vietnam. What happens if you get tasked to straff a building or groups of al qada who are machine gunning our troops.

Of course being an old weapons troop I believe a gun is called for. I was curious about how some of you guys that stay up on tactics and technology felt about a fighter with no gun. As I said earlier I dont know the answer however I am with you when you say it's nice to have something in your pocket after you have thrown all of your bricks.

Fender
"A woman drove me to drink
and I hadn't even the courtesy to thank her".
W.C. Fields

In air to air it has proven to be nearly unnessesary since Vietnam in numerouse Israeli conflicts and Desert Storm. But as Snipe alluded to I believe in Afghanland there was at leaste one instance of F-15Cs being called in for emergency CAS and naturally all they could use was thier gun.

A 9mm MAY expand, but a 45 will NEVER shrink!

Edited by - boomer on Nov 28 2005 11:49 AM

_________________
The only time you have too much fuel is when you're on fire.

Actually the Israelies have made an impressive number of gun kills in the post Vietnam era. The USN was so impressed with their aerial gunnery they brought in a high ranking Israeli Air Force Officer to explain the conterdiction in tactics when air to air missile advances seem to deem using the gun unessesary, even risky. The Israeli Officer's response was. "Why waste a missile on an Arab" while his response was not exactly politicaly correct, or even truthfull, it did indicate that the gun is still a viable air to air option even in the age of ultra lethal AAM's.

The fact that the most sophisticated and lethal fighter the world has ever known (F-22) still retains its cannon armament should indicate where the USAF stands on that debate.

Can you cite anything per type? Cause I only have two gun kills for Israeli F-15s

A 9mm MAY expand, but a 45 will NEVER shrink!

_________________
The only time you have too much fuel is when you're on fire.

I need to review where I read that at...I am thinking it was either Boyd's biography or one of Admiral Gillcrist's work. It may have been in reference to the Yom Kippur conflict in the early 1970's. Probably pre F-15 in IDF service.

Here's my view on the situation: a gun will probably not be used in an aerial engagement. However, it's better to be same than sorry.

My motto: pacis per vires

JSF, the Dutch get also a version of that. And imported for us, we are also deliver work and things for it.
When is the first getting operational?
And why a JSF? For all types of war is a plane to need.
Bombers, fighter, attack all 3 a different quality.

Salute
Dutchy

Termites do it in the dark!
(47FS Barksdale afb)

_________________
73-1664

Everybody is trying to get thier hand in the JSF pie, I was reading earlier today that Turkey is trying to get some engine work for the JSF program.

A 9mm MAY expand, but a 45 will NEVER shrink!

_________________
The only time you have too much fuel is when you're on fire.

Can their be a possibility that maybe the JSF is equal to the F22 in the ACM arenas ? This may be a reason the Air Force wants out of the program. I read somewhere that a few of the test pilots prfer the JSF to the F22.

"By this time tomorrow I shall have gained either a peerage or Westminster Abbey !" Nelson the Immortal Memory

_________________
YGBSM !

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>I read somewhere that a few of the test pilots prfer the JSF to the F22. <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
I've heard the same thing Hawg, the quote I saw was:

<b>The F22 is officially headed to the reserves and ANG as soon as the F35
comes on line. Kind of turns on the lights as to the operating parameters
of the 22 vs the 35.

Having flown both, they are not even close to being the same aircraft. The
35 is already light years ahead of the 22. My X/F35 experience was one of
my most memorable test programs I have been involved in. Stepping out of
the Sims and into the aircraft, you found you could push the 35 well past
what the Sims prepared you for. That was a first in my career.

Although the Raptor is a very capable aircraft, If I had the choice and had
a 35 on the line, I wouldn't leave home with out it. It looks like they got
it right the first time out and the F35 will be with us for some time to
come.</b>

A 9mm MAY expand, but a 45 will NEVER shrink!

_________________
The only time you have too much fuel is when you're on fire.

Thats quite a statement. I hope that it is accurate for it would mean that the USN would be getting the high performance strike fighter that they need...

I think it has more to do with system integration more than up and away performance. But anything that lowers pilot workload without taking away capabilities is a good thing.

A 9mm MAY expand, but a 45 will NEVER shrink!

_________________
The only time you have too much fuel is when you're on fire.

Considering the absolutely glowing praise that OPERATIONAL F-22s are getting, and the fact that the F-35 is still a prototype that has yet to be fully integrated, and that most of that integration came about BECAUSE of the F-22 experience, and finally, the sheer flight performance of the 22- performance that the F-35 can never hope to match, i have to take all the above with a big fat, "Yeah, right".

<b>There are two kinds of soldiers.
Snipers...and targets.</b>
<img src="http://www.creedmoorsports.com/images/SA9121-M21.JPG" border=0>

Well considering the flight performance of the F-22 will probly never get used except at airshows and considering the F-22 cant carry any 2000lb class weapons internally and the F-35 can carry two of them or JSOW class weapons plus 2 AMRAAMs the F-35 looks a lot better. Add to that the fact that nobody other than perhaps Isreal wants the F-22 but 6 airforces NEED the F-35 and the likelyhood of F-35 production numbers far surpassing the F-22 is looking pretty good.

A 9mm MAY expand, but a 45 will NEVER shrink!

_________________
The only time you have too much fuel is when you're on fire.

Well i sure hope the F-35 production FAR exceeds the F-22, because if it doesn't, the economy of scale will probably result in the total cancellation of the program.

With the continuing woes of the F-35B, that is not an altogether outlandish possibility to begin with.

As far as the ability to carry 2000lb bombs internally, i dont really care, the F-22 is a fighter first, and the ability to carry six SDBs internally and release them at Mach 1.8 means that in reality they will damned near match the penetration of the larger weapons anyway.

As far as the F-22s flight performance 'never being used anywhere but airshows', i feel there is ABSOLUTELY no ground whatsoever to justify such a statement.

But you did, so feel free to prove it with USAF doctrine that states such.

<b>There are two kinds of soldiers.
Snipers...and targets.</b>
<img src="http://www.creedmoorsports.com/images/SA9121-M21.JPG" border=0>

Real world vs propoganda, number of USAF dogfights in the last 20 years lol.

A 9mm MAY expand, but a 45 will NEVER shrink!

_________________
The only time you have too much fuel is when you're on fire.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote> Real world vs propoganda, number of USAF dogfights in the last 20 years lol.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Exactly that kind of thinking is what lead to the USAF & USN almost getting their collective asses handed to them over Southeast Asia. Desert Storm was the first example of BVR tactics employed for air superiority, still with limited impunity. If ROE's dictate that a F-22 must play the SU-35 ACM game, then I am certainly glad it atleast has the capability to be better at it, if not by choice then by the ROE's.