Does the RAF F35 have a gun?

[Sky Dancer]

C24,

Without being flippant:-

Paveway bomb = £22,000
Brimstone missile = £105,000
Coalition lives saved = priceless

[gnirtS]

What can the F35 do that the Harrier couldn’t ?

First strike capability, i.e using its stealth it an advantage

Except it appears to not be that stealthy in radar or IR and obviously useless up close

Networked warfare

Which most aircraft can be upgraded to

STOVL but for the 21st century

Which makes it even heavier and less agile than the other versions so has an horrifically poor combat radius already,

Ability to use the latest weaponary in our arsenal

Except it can't

Compatibility with other nations' doctrines, support and logistics system

etc.

So have other aircraft.

Basically we bought by far the worst performing version of an already massively underperforming and over budget aircraft project. We're not the only ones but it was a huge mistake.

[POL]

Where are you going to put the network kit in a Harrier, why are you comparing a non-STOVL F-35 to a STOVL F-35 all of a sudden? Then why do you move away from Harrier Vs F-35, the whole point of your post and my reply?

Suddenly realised you were wrong, so decided to move the goalposts..?

[Nighthawke]

However much you moan and put up half-hearted "arguments" nothing is going to change so unless you can provide some more constructive argument rather than pure anti F-35 and pro-Harrier soundbites, in the nicest possible way, please let's get on.

[Vulcanone]

I'm sure he could write a book about it....

[gnirtS]

Where have i ever mentioned harrier?! It was obsolete years before we retired it. Nobody sane thinks we should keep them or have kept them.

But that doesn't change the fact the F-35 and in particular the -B is hugely unsuitable for the RAF and even more so to the navy. Grossly over budget, massively underperforming, leaves a huge capability gap and there were far far better options out there.

Ultimately we're paying massively over the odds for a supposed 5th gen plane that cant hold its own against 4th gen aircraft at close OR long range, has a very limited payload, very small combat radius and we wont even own the source code or other important parts. We're "renting" them.
As far as the navy goes, combined with the castration of the QE carrier to one that cant launch real planes we have a carrier fleet that cant operate more than a few hundred miles from the target, has a plane that hasnt got a combat radius enough to even provide fleet defence and cant operate without being in range of land based tanker, EW and other support. That's not exactly a great deal. Oh and a single engine aircraft operating over water is great - a loss of an engine guarantees a loss of airframe.

[jem60]

Guess lt's time for you to get in touch with the M.O.D chappies personally, and tell them how useless they all are, then they might take notice of you, because you obviously know better than them how to run the Armed Forces!!.

[Agent K]

This is only my opinion but for that type of close air support I find a mix of gunships and uav's a better option than fast jets

Is this opinion based on actual combat experience? Otherwise it’s not really worth much.

[C24]

C24,

Without being flippant:-

Paveway bomb = £22,000
Brimstone missile = £105,000
Coalition lives saved = priceless

I posted the info to show how expensive these weapons are compared with ( I assume ) the cost of cannon shells to achieve the same/similar result. Admittedly, launching a missile is safer than a cannon ground attack but having 30 seconds of cannon shells would give repeated attacks rather than one bang and back to base for a refill
As with most others who post on FC, I am an acknowledged, world-wide armchair expert in all matters military, based upon many years of non-military operational experience.

FYI. For years, no, decades, I have pondered over the fitting of 0.303" guns in the turrets of bombers during the Second World War. Our opponents had 20mm cannon. I read recently that one reason was that at the start of hostilities we had millions of rounds of ammunition left from the First War with production facilities in place to continue. So the 0.5" American guns were not adopted. If true, what price coalition forces?
Rear turrets of a few Halifax aircraft did have 0.5" fitted but very late on.

And now, folks, back to the F-35Bs


Edited during half-time.
Vietnam. F4s were sent into this fight with only missiles, no gun. The missiles did not have a good operational performance but the USAF pilots found that they were quite often too close for the missiles to be used anyway.
Gun pods were fitted.
WW2. A Ball (ventral) turret was installed on B-17s; British designers dropped the idea when they built the 3 four engined bombers, the HS2 ? radar pod was mounted on the underside which allowed the upward firing cannon to be fitted to Nazi night-fighters with devastating results to our aircraft.
Current. Is the F-35B primarily a fighter or intelligence gathering aircraft?

Edit2. Courtesy Wipiped...
The GAU-22/A is a four-barrel version of the GAU-12/U designed for use on the F-35 Lightning II.[1] The CTOL version of the aircraft will carry the gun internally, while the STOVL and naval versions use it in an external gun pod. The GAU-22/A's major difference is the use of four barrels, rather than the five barrels on the GAU-12/U. The GAU-22/A is lighter, has a reduced rate of fire of 3,300 rounds per minute and an improved accuracy of 1.4 milliradians as compared to the GAU-12.[2] This system is undergoing intensive testing and qualification. The weapon is currently produced by General Dynamics Ordnance and Tactical Systems.

The Nammo 25 mm APEX projectile is being developed for the GAU-22/A.[3]
we aim to please, as the armourer said to the pilot.

[ColintheCaterpillar]

Admittedly, launching a missile is safer than a cannon ground attack but having 30 seconds of cannon shells would give repeated attacks rather than one bang and back to base for a refill

That's a rather big "admittedly" when today's modern weaponry can kill a proverbial rat in a shoebox from a place where most of the bad guys (the kind that drive in Hiluxes) don't even know you are.

Unless you want to take the risk at low level.

[Agent K]

I have to say that a good friend of mine, who happens to be an F35 squadron Commander, and has therefore flown and operated the F35 including in combat simulations speaks glowingly of the aircraft and its capabilities....

....but really... what would he know compared to some of the experienced armchair pilots around....

It's not stealthy with an external gun, a 40 year old F16 shot one down..... it doesn't work etc. etc. etc. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz..............

[Fighterfoto]

But that doesn't change the fact the F-35 and in particular the -B is hugely unsuitable for the RAF and even more so to the navy. Grossly over budget, massively underperforming, leaves a huge capability gap and there were far far better options out there.

Ultimately we're paying massively over the odds for a supposed 5th gen plane that cant hold its own against 4th gen aircraft at close OR long range

Grossly over budget? No, and the costs keep falling. Notwithstanding that the value to UK industry exceeds what we're paying for the aircraft and secures tens of thousands of jobs, the cost of an F35B is equivalent to the cost of a 737 Max 200, and the third the price of a 777-300ER.

Underperforming? No, it's a third generation stealth aircraft and so builds on experience of F117 and F22, technology and knowledge we would have no access to otherwise. Whilst competitors are building aircraft that look the same, they are for all intent and purposes first generation stealth for them and do not have the same technology under the hood.

Capability gap? Genuinely interested in further details on this.

Better options? What other options have the UK, USAF, USN, USMC, Italian, Norwegian, Netherlands, Turkish, Israeli, Australian, Korean and Japanese missed?

4th Gen? Which ones bearing in mind F35 can see them passively at a significantly longer range than they can see F35? Would you get in a boxing ring with Mike Tyson in his prime? No, but what if he was blindfolded, it was dark, you havd NVGs and a six foot spear to stab him with? Why get into a toe to toe fight when you can stack the odds so heavily in your favour?

[C24]

Hello,
Agent K.. It might help this thread if you could ask your F-35B pilot whether he has flown / similated performance with a gun and what his opinion is relating to having a gun or being without one.
Something like that

[Dazza37]

Grossly over budget? No...

the cost of an F35B is equivalent to the cost of a 737 Max 200, and the third the price of a 777-300ER...

Underperforming? No...

If you seriously believe any of what you wrote above, you must be living on a different planet to the rest of us!
And there's that staggeringly ridiculous price comparison with a civilian airliner again, seriously, that's analogous of comparing a transit van to a family hatchback, the two are mutually exclusive!
I'm guessing you've never read any of the DOT&E's annual reports on the F-35 programme?

-Dazza

[Fighterfoto]

I have read them (in my office seat, not an armchair), and the price per jet comparison stands. The fact the two aircraft do not compare in capability is precisely the point, for the same price as the airliner which takes you on holiday you can acquire a 5th Gen stealth fighter. It puts the cost in perspective in my view.

The fact is, if you stand still you get left behind, and there is nothing comparable available. What do you say we should buy instead?

[Dazza37]

I have read them (in my office seat, not an armchair)
The fact is, if you stand still you get left behind, and there is nothing comparable available. What do you say we should buy instead?

I'm not really sure why you think what type of chair and it's location is relevant to where you read the DOT&E reports, they read the same whatever the chair type/location, and they do not make for encouraging reading!
I agree, if you stand still you get left behind.
Personally, and this is purely my opinion based on what I've read in open source, I would prefer if we'd built the carriers as conventional cat and trap equipped (steam or EMALS) from the start and had a split buy of F-35As for the RAF and F-35Cs for the FAA, or even all F-35Cs in extremis. By the time the government decided on the u-turn to revert to conventional carriers, the die had been cast and the carriers were too far along for the reversion to ever be economically viable. I think we've missed a huge opportunity for cross-decking ops with the USN and accepted a reduction in capability by choosing the F-35B, even more so since both the RAF and FAA are to be lumbered with it, a split buy of As and Bs would've at least gone some way to redressing the balance and this may yet still happen, but we are where we are and I've absolutely no doubt the two services will make the F-35B perform admirably.

-Dazza

P.S. I still think your airliner analogy is ridiculous...

[Blackjack56]

Thank's to everyone who replied to my original question.so it looks as though the RAF/RN will get the podded gun eventually,i hope we will see straffing runs at Holbeach ranges in the future,or maybe the MOD won't come up with the fundingfor pods,who knows?.I remember they tried to cut costs when the first typhoons were not going to be equipped with a cannon but common sense prevailed in the end,let's hope it does again.