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

[johnkzin.livejournal.com]

yeah, no gun on an F plane == bad idea.

But, why the hell is this thing being given an F designation? It's clearly an A platform, replacing A and similar role planes (The A-6 platform's EA-6B variant, etc.). An A plane not having a gun actually makes LOTS of sense (the A-6 didn't, the A-4 didn't, etc.). They relied upon dogfight protection from the F parts of the air wing. The A-10 is a significant exception, solely for its tank-killing role; it's not a dog-fight gun.

I have a feeling that, like the F-117, this plane is an A plane in F plane's clothing. (and, if it has stealthy capabilities comparable to the F-117, then you can throw in a comparison there, as well: the F-117 is gun-less as well, relying upon stealth to avoid dog fights, not a gun to survive/win dog fights)

But, lets say that they do discover that they need an internal gun. How hard will it be to retrofit the gun into the B and C variants? I expect that since they're sister designs, it shouldn't be too difficult; not trivial (not possible in the field), I'm sure, but probably not impossible.


As for the A-10 ... it will never be replaced by anything. The Air Force doesn't want an A-10 replacement. Remember the slogan of the F-15 design team: not a pound for air to ground. The fact that the F-15 turned out to be a great Air Force style ground support platform was frosting, not cake. For the Air Force, fast, agile, and sexy are the right mix (even for ground support), not low, slow, flying-armored and ugly. The only reason the Air Force hasn't been able to get rid of the A-10 isn't because the A-10 is the best beast at it's job (it is, but that's not the reason the Air Force hasn't gotten rid of it). The reason the Air Force hasn't been able to get rid of it is: the Army wont let them. If the Air Force was given its druthers, the anti-tank arena would be solely the domain of helicopters and precision guided weapons. That's why the A-10 has been in the hands of the reserve type units within the Air Force for a VERY long time.

I bet that the integrated gun on the A model is NOT for ground support. It's for "we need this thing to be dog-fight able, just in case". Sort of like sysadmin's in a data center who wear hiking boots ... just in case a mountain springs up in the middle of the data center. And that's why the B model wont have a gun: the Marine Corps recognizes that the integrated gun wouldn't be enough of a win for ground support, and that this plane is an A role aircraft, not an F role aircraft.

I have a feeling that, despite the bad idea of having an F plane that is gun-less, the Navy and Marine Corps have more correctly identified the role of this plane than the Air Force, and that's why their versions are gun-less. For the Navy and Marine Corps, this is a replacement for the A-6 platform (and A-12), really. We have yet to see what the post-millennium Navy/USMC F plane will be, IMO. This isn't it, and the F/A-18 may still have enough life in it that they wont need one for a while.

Though, with the modern needs of the carrier air wing not being as focused on the F role, combined with the economy, I wouldn't be surprised to see the Navy/USMC try to figure out how to make this into an F/A plane. If they go down that path, it will almost certainly require an integrated gun.