First Marine F-35 flight

[unixronin]

A week old, but I haven’t seen this anywhere else.  Marine Corps News reported last Friday that the first Marine JSF development test pilot, Maj. Joseph “O. D.” Bachmann, flew the F-35A Lightning II for the first time last Friday.

Bachmann said the purpose of the flight was to acquire experience and become comfortable with the aircraft so he can to find any potential flaws or issues that may need correction, especially in the short take-off and vertical landing version of the aircraft.

“Mission: accomplished,” said Bachmann after his first F-35 flight.  “It was amazingly easy to fly.  It was surreal.  It was badass.”

The F-35A is the conventional takeoff and landing version of the F-35, slated to replace the Air Force’s F-16s and A-10s.  The US Marine Corps will be receiving the F-35B STOVL version, which will replace their F/A-18 Hornets, AV-8B Harriers, and EA-6B Prowlers.  The US Navy will be getting the F-35C carrier variant.  In all, it is expected the F-35 will replace 13 aircraft types in the air forces of 11 nations.

An interesting detail:  Word is that only the F-35A will have an internal gun, a General Dynamics GAU-12 25mm rotary cannon with 180 rounds of ammunition.  The Marines and Navy have chosen to delete the internal gun and carry the same gun, with a helical ammunition drum holding 225 rounds, in a stealthy external pod that can be fitted to a dedicated centerline pylon.  In addition to the ability to remove it for missions when it’snot needed, one argument for the pod is that it allows larger ammunition capacity, but either way we’re only talking a couple of seconds of firing time.  I can’t help but suspect the drag of the pod will prove to be a bigger drawback than the extra 45 rounds, and I’ll bet the external pod — when carried — adds nearly as much additional weight over that of the internal gun as is saved by deleting the internal gun.

I thought we learned the lesson of the “no internal gun” idea on the F-4 in Vietnam.  The F-4 went into service without an internal gun, and it quickly became apparent that it was a bad idea, necessitating the hurried development of under-wing 20mm Vulcan gun pods.

Comments

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

not a big fan of the F-35 in general, I am worried there trying to do too much with one overall platform.

I'm a mite concerned about that myself. The trouble with building an aircraft designed to do everything is the odds are good it'll turn out not to do any of them particularly well.

I see it in particular as a very poor and utterly unsuitable replacement for the A-10. It doesn't have the firepower for the job, it doesn't have the ordnance capacity for the job, it doesn't have the low-altitude survivability for the job, and it's too fast (and not maneuverable enough at low speed) for the job. Close air support needs a slow aircraft to give the pilot time to acquire and engage targets while operating at little more than treetop height. I don't believe the F-35 can do that.

(Numbers: The F-35 carries at most 225 rounds of 25mm ammunition plus 4000lb of ordnance "clean", or 12000lb using external hardpoints and sacrificing its stealth, which will leave it nearly defenseless at low speed and altitude. The A-10 carries 1,135 rounds of 30mm ammunition and up to 16000lb of external ordnance, and stalls at 120 knots. The F-35's stall speed is not currently available, but I'll bet you it's at least 160 knots.)

[argonel.livejournal.com]

I suspect that the plans for the tactical doctrine call for a combination of precision bombing and attack helicopters to fufill the close air support missions. Either that or they fail yet again to kill off the ugly, unsexy, A-10 because there is nothing else in the world that can fufill it's role. A third option may be a new/updated A-10 with a smaller cannon. I wonder how much more ammo you could pack in if you replaced the 30mm Gau-8 with that 25mm Gau-12.

Also how will the trade off between loiter time and top speed play out for the F35 vs the A-10.

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

I wonder how much more ammo you could pack in if you replaced the 30mm Gau-8 with that 25mm Gau-12.

Oh, a lot, I'm sure. But I severely doubt the GAU-12 can do the GAU-8A's tank-busting job. It's an air-to-air gunnery weapon, not an anti-armor weapon.

Also how will the trade off between loiter time and top speed play out for the F35 vs the A-10.

Badly, I suspect. There were plenty of occasions in Korea and even Vietnam when close-air-support calls answered by "fast movers" found they were only able to stick around long enough to make one or two quick passes, while Douglas Skyraiders could loiter over the target for 45 minutes at a time, loping around at 120 knots and stomping on anything that moved. Old Spad drivers still consider the A-10 "the second-best close-support aircraft ever built".

[argonel.livejournal.com]

I'm thinking that the tankbusting role is not going to be a major requirement in the future, or that the gun will be inadequate to bust future tanks. However a lighter gun with lighter ammo would still probably be able to do a number on lightly armored or unarmored vehicles and bombs or missiles can be used on heavy armor.

Unfortunately sice we aren't in charge of procurement we don't get to make the purchasing decisions.

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

Well, heck, you can bust up APCs and scout cars with any decent 20mm, or even a .50 with Raufoss rounds. But there's a hell of a lot of everything from T-62s to T-80s out there in unstable parts of the world, and burning a missile or a PGM on each one gets expensive fast. A single A-10 carries enough 30mm to scrap about 20 main battle tanks without using a single piece of external stores. The gun is a very versatile weapon, but about every 20 years or so since the birth of the guided missile it seems like someone comes along and tries to convince everyone else that the gun is obsolete.