SO the F35B has a Gunpod now? https://www.youtube.com/watch

File: F-35B BF-01 GAU-22 Gun Pod Test.webm (2MB, 720x480px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 720x480px

>>30796813
It always has, this is just the fire live-first while mounted to the jet

>>30796813
Well yeah. That was always planned.

>>30796813
What a huge fucking fighter.

>>30797227
In many ways it's a small bomber.

What's that gun? Some 20mm Gatling?

>>30797254
25mm GAU-12.

>>30797260
Why do they have to make it 25mm? 20mm is perfectly fine.

>>30797265
I don't know what the decision for it was, but the Harrier had 25mm gun pods, so it might be the Marines wanting it for the same reason as that.

Actually, just thinking about it now, I'm going to have to agree with the decision. 20mm doesn't carry much HE. It's not as effective against ground targets. It works if a primary role was using them against enemy planes. However, with the F-35, I imagine the 25mm was chosen because the gun would be almost solely for ground attack, as well as the round providing larger space for future upgrades.

>>30797265
Why a Gatling anyway? Russians have a single-barreled systems with similar fire rate, but the weight is lower.

>>30797265
probably so it can use norwegian meme ammo

>>30797332
APEX is life, APEX is love

>>30797308
To appease a10 fanboys

>>30797265
The only 20mm I know ready for mounting on an aircraft is the M61 and its derivatives, which have somewhat meh accuracy at 8 milliradians, 80%. The next step up, the GAU-12, has accuracy equal to the GAU-8 at 5 milliradians, 80%, and has worked well for the Harrier and AC-130, so they went with that.

Also,
>>30797308
the USAF was originally looking at the BK-27 27mm revolver cannon (used in the Typhoon and Gripen), but didn't go with it probably due to licensing issues or ROF concerns (you don't get much time during a strafe, so being able to unload 55 rounds of HEI in a second in a controlled burst has its advantages).

Either way, there's also the matter of ammunition capacity; the Typhoon and Gripen only carry 150 and 120 rounds respectively.

>>30797308
>with similar fire rate
Bullshit. If you compare the GSh-30-1 (standard Russian cannon) with the M61 Vulcan (standard US 20mm cannon), the Russian gun has literally one-fourth of the rate of fire. When compared with the GAU-22/A, the 25mm gun the F-35 has, the Russian gun has half the rate of fire.

The effects thereof can't be understated. You get less rounds in the air in a given window of time, thus less of a chance to hit. In an air-to-air role this is disastrous, as you generally don't have a very large target window anyways. Because of this low target window, you want to get as many rounds in the air as possible, so you are more likely to hit, and/or hit multiple times.

Air to ground, less important, however you're still dealing with relatively short trigger time, so you want more rounds on target faster. The Russian GSh-30-1 doesn't provide that. Yes, it is indeed a bit lighter, however, it is significantly less capable.

File: 25mm APEX penetration.webm (799KB, 768x432px) Image search: [Google]

799KB, 768x432px

>>30797343

>>30797373
>The next step up, the GAU-12, has accuracy equal to the GAU-8 at 5 milliradians, 80%, and has worked well for the Harrier and AC-130, so they went with that.
The GAU-22/A, the version of the GAU-12 that the F-35 is using, allegedly is at 1.2 milliradians, according to the Wiki. The citation link is dead, but I'd wager you'd find it if you actually looked for it.

>>30797376
30mm vs 20mm vs 25mm

GSh-30-1 is recoil operated and lighter

>>30797373
>ROF concerns (you don't get much time during a strafe, so being able to unload 55 rounds of HEI in a second in a controlled burst has its advantages).
Isnt one of the main reasons for revolver-style cannons that you dont need to waste a second for spinning up to firing RPM, like you do on the Gatling? Or is that just some urban myth?

>>30797403
It's a myth.

>>30797399
For A2A 20mm will kill you just as dead as 30mm.

Fire rate is most important for the snap shots.

>>30797399
Handwaving the issues I raised, huh? Recoil operated is not a plus. Weight is the only advantage, as I did mention, however in my opinion that tradeoff is not worth it, as it makes the cannon so much less capable.

>>30797436
But if you need the cannon you are fucked anyway, right? And carrying a lighter cannon which won't be used anyway is a good trade off.

>>30797403
That's a completely bullshit myth.

>>30797431
Not quite as dead, but I'd expect you'd need multiple hits to really down anything immediately with either round.

>>30797393
It's 1.4 milliradians only for its 1-sigma radius, which means that only 39.4% of rounds will hit within that 1.4 milliradian cone, another 40.6% will hit between 1.4 and 5 milliradians and then the last 20% will hit somewhere outside of that.

>>30797403
There technically is spin-up time, but its negligible, you can see how quickly it goes from stationary to firing in this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFoJ93Kb5z0

The other thing too is that when I say you don't have much time to fire during a strafe, that's after lining up - you can come in on a long swoop and have (eg) 10 seconds to line up your shot and (if you had to) spin up your gun, but your optimal engagement distance with guns is only a little over 1km from your target, meaning that you'll only have a couple of seconds between reaching that optimal distance and having to start to pull up (to both avoid the ground and small arms fire).

You can fire from further away, but accuracy obviously declines and you can fail to meet the danger close requirements.

>>30797445
With 4x the fire rate, you be just as dead in the same timeframe.

>>30797442
Not really, no. Cannon use is valid in several different situations. This was especially true back when the GSh-30-1 was designed and introduced. And when you're talking about such small amounts of weight, I'd rather have a cannon that would actually work when I needed it than one which didn't. You really don't get how significant rate of fire is.

>>30797446
Also easy guide to sigma ratings, CEP, etc: http://gpsinformation.net/main/errors.htm

>>30797227
The f35 is actually small.
I've been it in person

>>30797452
My point being that you need more than just one hit with either round, thus the round which allows for more hits in the same time period is superior for actually killing something.

File: visual.jpg (41KB, 953x231px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 953x231px

>>30797227
Not really.

>>30797227
It's actually the size of an F-16. Seriously. Take a look at the numbers for yourself.

>>30797376
You forgot to incorporate spin up time for the GAU-22/A
The GSh-30-1, like the BK-27 also has some reliability bonuses.

>>30797533
>spin up

Nice meme.

>>30797533
It's practically nonexistent, and most certainly a nonfactor.

Also
>recoil operated
>reliability bonus
The fuck are you on about? Where do you even pull that out of your ass?

>>30797308
The barrel needs to be replaced every 250-300 rounds for the GSh-30-1 and in instance of a jam there is no intergraded saftey feature to clear the jam.

File: 1406866099377.webm (3MB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1280x720px

>>30797431
>F-22 or F-35 vs Flanker in cannon range
>>30797436
few kilos making difference when plane weights +25t

>>30797580
>The GSh-301 is equipped with a unique pyrotechnic mechanism to clear misfires: a small pyrotechnic cartridge is located to the left of the 30mm cartridge chamber. This pyrotechnic cartridge fires a small steel bolt through the side wall of the 30mm cartridge. The hot propellant gases following the bolt into the dud 30mm round ignite the powder charge of that round and firing continues.

>can't even look up wiki

>>30797609

Missfires re the only jam

Missfeeds and FTEs never happen

>>30797604
>Do that in dogfight
>20mph
>Instantly get blown to pieces

>>30797604
F-35B weighs about 14.5 tons.

>>30797604
>Do that in dogfight
>Lose pursuer
>Pursuer's wing man skull fucks you.

>>30797442
if you are fucked anyway, why even carry a cannon? So the F-35B is perfect, and that gun is optimized for air to ground. You have now successfully made the argument for the F-35B. Mission "accombplished".

>>30797621
would make a gatling choke, too.

>>30797572
there clearly is a noticeable spin-up lag. it's a fraction of a second, but strafing a target can also be a matter of a fraction of a second.

>>30798220
>there clearly is a noticeable spin-up lag.

Wew lad.

>>30798220
Literally 1/10th of a second (I put the [30fps] video of the AF-2 test into Sony Vegas, in 'frame zero' the gun is stationary, in frame 1 the gun nudges maybe 10 degrees, in frame 2 it's spinning, in frame 3 there's fire coming out of the barrel).

>>30796813
DID they strap an A-10c to it in order to make it work ?!?!?

>>30796813
>Gunpod
Tell me when it can rotate track a target while the jet circles, if it can't then i'm not impressed.

This is what 2016 and the US is still uses tech from how long ago?

What happen to you US you used to be cool.

>>30797376
>the Russian gun has literally one-fourth of the rate of fire
>he think rate of fire is only thing that matters
M61 Vulcan has 10 kg per second launched weight.
GSh-30-1 has 9.75 kg per second.
GAU-22/A has 12.26 kg per second.

>>30796813
Does the B not have an internal gun or is this just extra firepower?

>>30798540
It doesn't have an internal gun; they made it optional in order to give the F-35B more take-off and bring-back payload for the majority of its missions.

>>30797265
20mm Is good for aircraft but really lacks in stopping power and armor penetration. 25mm isn't as good as the 30mm but it's still much better than the 20 and would be good for taking out APCs and damaging tanks.

>>30797468
You've been an F-35?
Are you a planekin?

>>30797533
>Gun dependant on recoil is more reliable than one that uses an electric motor to feed, seal, and pull the brass
Holy shit you're reaching here.

>>30798729
And that is not even addressing accuracy issues.

What's the point of guns on modern fighters? Don't they all have max a few seconds to shoot before running out of bullets?

>>30797677
>Implying and F-35 will ever let itself get in a dogfight with a 4/4.5 Gen

>>30798190
Gatlings don't depend on explosive force to feed and eject, numbnuts.

>>30798629
And the A-10's 30mm isn't the tank slayer people make it out to be. So, lighter, cheaper, smaller ammo optimized for the ground targets it'll actually shoot at with higher precision.

File: we-just-decided-to-6.jpg (857KB, 2048x1279px) Image search: [Google]

857KB, 2048x1279px

>>30797265

The original plan was a 27x147mm revolver cannon.

I'm still slightly triggered that didn't happen.

>>30798754
Backup weapon, mayne. Why do you think knights and samurai always carried swords, even when they had polearms and such? Battle is harsh and unpredictable, and breaks weapons often.

Also, missiles and bombs are hugely expensive. Even fancy bullets are cheap by comparison. Even if missiles never malfunctioned, those economics alone make cannons worth their weight.

>>30797227
for you

File: image.jpg (38KB, 329x429px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 329x429px

>>30798792
it can penetrate 4 inches of RHA, I'd say it is still highly effective at slaying tanks.

"It remains a versatile, precise, and effective weapon that is (relatively) safe for use in close proximity to friendly forces. Compared with any high-explosive weapon, you can get closer to friendlies with the GAU-8 than with just about any other weapon hanging from a fighter. That is a vitally important consideration in an infantry war. So, while we often think of the A-10 as a "tank killer," its application has grown far beyond that, and it has proven to be highly effective on today's battlefields."

File: 1448413190580.jpg (105KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

105KB, 800x600px

>>30798754

>What's the point of guns on modern fighters?

Because missiles are actually pretty unreliable. There is a less than 50% chance of a missile actually hitting a maneuvering target. The gun provides a quick back-up weapon for if you run out of missiles.

Now with newer missiles, that isn't as big of a concern, so you could argue that there is no longer a real "need" to have the gun in the airframe. However, it is still useful for CAS (close-air-support). There are situations where a gun is preferred against ground targets such as if you have friendlies nearby who could be hurt by the blast radius of a bomb.

There is a very good chance that future fighter projects such as the F-XX and F/A-XX will omit the gun entirely.

>>30798882
The T-72 has armour up to 11 inches thick; disabling tanks is fine (and that's something 25mm can do just fine as well), but slaying tanks is going to require the A-10 to get at the tank at a good angle to actually kill it.

>>30797945
>do that in a dogfight
>all aspect seeker is fired from the guy who just passed you TO HIS REAR and fucks you

>>30798882

If 30 mm is good enough to kill tanks, then why do we even bother with 120 mm guns on modern tanks?

Why not swap it out for a 30 mm autocannon and save a ton of weight?

>>30798948
because 30 mm is only good enough when firing from above.

>>30798882
That's great when the smallest weapon in consideration is a 500lbs JDAM. GAU-8 has the highest rate of friendly fire of all ordinance in service.

Consider this:
The F-35 can integrate data from ground Situational Awareness systems like BFT, FBCB2, and NETT Warrior. It's targeting systems can have two-way datalinks with TAC-P/JTACs. It'd be trivial for the system to do risk ring overlays while targeting and show where friendly forces are in relation to that. Stop living in the past.

>>30798882
4 inches of RHA won't cut it, especially from the front. And believery it or not, being forced to attack from the sides, rear, or straight down is hugely restrictive for an aircraft. GAU-8 is a fearsome weapon, but it's simply no longer a reliable AT weapon, at least compared to bombs and missiles. Really, it's not the 30mm round that's the problem, that shit is still gold against light armor and dudes, but the form factor of the GAU-8 with seven 2.30 meter barrels and ~1200 rounds, is no longer worth it's weight.

Also, heavy IFVs and APCs are becoming somewhat popular. Minor fact, but it further restricts the usefulness of the GAU-8 against its intended targets.

>>30798983

>GAU-8 has the highest rate of friendly fire of all ordinance in service.

>A weapon system that is used in danger-close CAS scenarios has a higher-than-average friendly fire rate than other weapons that simply would not be used in those scenarios

Who would have imagined?

This IS actually a valid criticism of the A-10, but not for the reason that you think.

A dedicated ground-attack aircraft should have two seats to help take some of the mental strain of picking targets off the pilot. This is why the AH-64E has two seats. The A-10 arguably should have two seats as well.

Of course, it is far too late to do anything about that now.

>>30797945
>do that in a dogfight
>asshole exits your body through your mouth

>>30799058
How the hell is a copilot going to help with a gun run on ground targets in a plane that originally used simple collimating sights?

File: 1450386296231.png (224KB, 413x413px) Image search: [Google]

224KB, 413x413px

>>30799058
Fixed-wing aircraft are more simple to fly than rotor-wing, and easier to deploy weapons from.

>>30798948
>abrams with main gun replaced with GAU-8
>1 of those to every 5 standard tanks
>providing air cover and soft target destruction in support of the main force
>rolling thunder set to the theme song of BRRRRRRRRRRRRRRTTTTTTTTTTTTTT

fund it

File: 30x173.jpg (56KB, 752x364px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 752x364px

>>30799006

The biggest problem that the GAU-8 has for engaging tanks is that it is an air-based platform.

APFSDS ammunition cannot be used because the fins would get sucked into the engine intakes.

A ground-based 30 mm gun can use APFSDS ammunition to be much more effective against tanks and other armored vehicles.

>>30799058
B-b-but isn't CAS striking targets that are already in contact with friendly forces?

IIRC, one of A-10s original selling points was it's ability to communicate with ground forces. It never needed a second man because the second man was always supposed to be a ground controller.

>>30797265
Target set includes BMP-2 at 2500 meters slant range. 20 mm is not fine for such target. (Do you really want to shoot BMP with F-35 cannon is another question.)

>>30798882
>it can penetrate 4 inches of RHA, I'd say it is still highly effective at slaying tanks.
>Armor penetration of Armor-Piercing Incendiary ammunition, BHN-300 RHA, attack angle 30 degrees from vertical:[21]
>76mm at 300 meters
>69mm at 600 meters
>64mm at 800 meters
>59mm at 1,000 meters
>55mm at 1,220 meters

File: AH-64E_3.jpg (247KB, 1000x540px) Image search: [Google]

247KB, 1000x540px

>>30799081

Most of the friendly-fire incidents involving the A-10 were caused by the pilot making an error in picking targets. A co-pilot could have made a big difference with that. This is part of the reason why I've always said that the AH-64 is simply a better platform of low-altitude CAS work.

>>30797227
I don't think you've ever seen a fighter in person.

>>30799113
>APFSDS ammunition cannot be used because the fins would get sucked into the engine intakes
You mean sabots, right?

>>30799164
>Most of the friendly-fire incidents involving the A-10 were caused by the pilot making an error in picking targets. A co-pilot could have made a big difference with that.

Unlikely.

Most of the cases weren't even under fire, and a "second seat" would still have the same sensors and information to work with.

The one where they engaged a Bong mechanised column they even saw the orange "friendly" tarps and engaged without permission. Someone in the back wouldn't have done much to change that.

>>30797446
>>30797403
>spin-up time
Gatling type weapons do not work that way. Ever.
A Gatling style weapon is essential an assembly of open bolt machine guns, as soon as the bolt closes it fires, and the bolt closes at whichever position is the indexed firing position for the barrels, usually 12 or 6 o'clock. The closest thing to spin up time is however long it takes the next barrel to move into the firing position.

>>30798882
>it can penetrate 4 inches of RHA

A-10's cannot fire saboted ammo.

>>30799113
>>30799186
How is there not some sort of work-around for that by now? You'd think that with all the crazy cannon rounds that exist these days, they'd be able to figure that out.

>>30797533
>reliability bonuses

pardon

>>30799257
Lack of need, for one.

>>30797403
The difference between revolver style cannons and gatling style cannons is doctrinal. The US uses gatling style cannons because the idea is that you maximize the potential for A hit with many smaller rounds. The idea of the revolver style cannons is to bring the target down with only a couple of hits.

>>30797265
>>30797300
>>30797373
The idea of the 25mm is a much more destructive projectile. Sweden or one of the other Nordic countries is developing a RAUFOSS style round for use in the F35's cannon, which basically combines the high hit probability of the gatling style cannon with the destructive power of a revolver style cannon. It does come at the cost of a lower magazine capacity, but that's probably part of the reason for the lower ROF compared to earlier US 20mm cannons.

>>30799268
I get that it's 2016 and A-10 is on her way out for a large host of reasons, but that doesn't really ring true when GAU-8 has had armor penetration issues as early as the introduction of the T-62. I find it rather hard to believe that there was never any impetus to improve the ammo being used in the GAU-8

>>30799305
Almost like the aircraft is inherently flawed or something, anon

>>30799346
But we're talking about the ammo, not the aircraft...

>>30799305
>I find it rather hard to believe that there was never any impetus to improve the ammo being used in the GAU-8
Because shit like Mavericks and bombs exist.
The 30mm is fine for hitting soft armor vehicles like most APCs and trucks, infantry and light buildings. Tanks get missiles or bombs. A 500lb bomb will still fuck any tank in the world up if it hits any where near it.

>>30799346
Also, anything could be called inherently flawed when it's at the end of its lifespan. Is F-117 inherently flawed because it was made before modern computing?

If anything, it's a testament to the general quality of the A-10as an attack aircraft that it actually stuck around and was used heavily after the fall of the USSR. It's been divorced from its original role for more than twenty years, in case you forgot.

>>30799303
>RAUFOSS style round
>which basically combines the high hit probability of the gatling style cannon with the destructive power of a revolver style cannon
Wat. I'm incredibly ignorant on this matter but this makes no sense to me...

>>30799417
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raufoss_Mk_211
Think API, Fragmentation and HE all in one tidy package.

>>30797480
Why are the rear smaller wings (control surfaces?) so far behind the engine? Like I'm assuming there's a good reason

>>30799388
Right.

The ammo for the main gun, which the aircraft is based around using. Which is a flawed concept.

>>30799415
Not really, all its used for is low-intensity bomb trucking. When they've gone up against any kind of air defence they've been blown the fuck out and had their duties put onto F-16s.

>>30799415
It is a testament to the stubbornness of autists and senile politicians, battleships are another example.

>>30799417
He's referring (poorly) to the 25mm APEX round being developed by Namco for the F-35s GAU-22A, which is essentially a GAU-12 with for barrels instead of five.

He's also characterizing the GAU-22A as midway between the six-barreled 20mm Vulcan cannon that is/was the standard for US fighters, and European revolver-cannons that tend to be closer to 30mm.

>>30799303
Norwegian/Finnish product, actually. Made in Norway though

>>30799232
>The one where they engaged a Bong mechanised column they even saw the orange "friendly" tarps and engaged without permission. Someone in the back wouldn't have done much to change that.
In that case optics with x20 zoom may help. But
>muh MK 1 eyeball best thing evur
Fucking luddits designing A-10.

>>30799453
It has to do with aerodynamics.
IIRC they provide massive control surfaces and can improve the flight characteristics of the main wing. As for them extending out behind the body of the aircraft, it's probably a function of the body being so small for the desired performance envelope of the fighter. If the body were made bigger, it would increase weight and, potentially, drag, which would decrease the aircraft's overall performance.

>>30799503
>Norwegian/Finnish product, actually. Made in Norway though
My mistake friendo. I only heard about them on some documentary or some such a couple years ago.

File: Yakovlev_Yak-141_at_1992_Farnborough_Airshow_(3).jpg (191KB, 1600x1346px) Image search: [Google]

191KB, 1600x1346px

>>30799453
I'm going to assume you understand some physics and stuff like lever arms.
First off, you need to have the control surfaces away from the center of mass to make them more effective by increasing the lever arm.
Then the F-35B's nozzle need to be close to the center of mass for the same reason but in the opposite goal : by making it closer, you reduce the rotational torque, and the balancing liftfan doesn't need to be as powerful.
The Yak-141 (that LM used to help design the F-35) looks the same too.
(Disclaimer : I'm not that good at physics, I don't really know much about aerospace engineering, and I'm absolutely not as knowledgeable on the F-35 as Dragon029 so it's just an assumption that I can't back with any citation, but it's something that the designers of the F-35 probably had to consider).

>>30799453
>>30799549

The main consideration is likely the increased control authority. This is also why the Eurocanard design wouldn't work without the forward canards for pitch control. This might be why rear surfaces behind the engines are present mostly on planes emphasizing maneuverability (dogfighters especially, ie: F-15, F-22; F-35 because of other reasons).

Other considerations more relevant for the F-35 are that it allows you to shift your center of lift more rearward so it remains on or behind your center of mass. The F-35 is a fat plane with short wings mounted fairly far back on the fuselage, so the center of mass must be rearward maybe around the engine compressor area. Anyway it also helps separate the main wing from the control surface aerodynamically, meaning disturbed airflow over the main wing can't make the control surfaces useless. Though this doesn't matter that much anymore since we understand airflow much better now, and can pretty effectively control it through geometry (see F-22 wing relative to tail surfaces).

Probably more detail than you wanted but whatever.

File: muh dick.jpg (45KB, 500x333px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 500x333px

>>30796813
>I know exactly why I have this boner

File: canardvstailhc5.jpg (73KB, 710x1617px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 710x1617px

>>30799788
I thought that with modern fly-by-wire and stuff like that you don't necessarily need to have the center of lift behind the center of mass ?

>>30799457
Well anon, A-10 has been used as a CAS aircraft in absence of huge armored pushes rolling over Europe. It's been highly effective at the role for far longer than was probable.

Judging by your vitriol I'm guessing you think I'm one of those fanboys, or at least posing as one. I'm not. A-10's usefulness at this point is as minimal as you've said, but my point is that having the role evaporate like that will kill most aircraft immediately, like what happened with B-1A. That the A-10 was retained long enough for the A-10C to happen is mildly remarkable.

File: 1463222538375.jpg (64KB, 500x606px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 500x606px

>>30799788
>>30799628
>>30799549
Thanks for the replies guys.

What I've gatheres is that the added leverage from having the control surfaces far from the com means the central lift fan doesn't have to be as pwoerful. Making ti more effiecient.

Thanks /k/

>>30799893
>It's been highly effective at the role for far longer than was probable.

No it hasn't..

Its been good at COIN. Which for all its worth, a Super Tuc could do.

>>30798475
Throw weight isn't important when you need to actually HIT with them to matter, and you will need two to three hits regardless of the shell to down a plane immediately unless it's an insane hit on a wing. In that case, the plane which is more likely to hit and more likely to get multiple hits is the correct choice.

>>30799788
>The F-35 is a fat plane with short wings mounted fairly far back on the fuselage,
It's also probably the most advanced lifting body design ever, which gives it a lot more stability and controllability than its "short" wings (that are about the same length as an F-16's) would seem to have.

File: 1410620082130.webm (722KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

722KB, 1280x720px

>>30799874
you don't, but may be needed for vtol.
Flanker and Fulcrum are very maneuverable because by design they are very unstable.

>>30799628
>The Yak-141 (that LM used to help design the F-35) looks the same too.
Not really. The Yak series VTOLs were a straight lift from the Convair 200 concept, which LM owns. What they got from the tech data buy was live test data on the concept. They didn't need to steal anything, they already owned the 3-swivel bearing, and the cold-air lift fan is superior to the twin mini-jets of the Convair and Yaks.

File: gun-test-f-35-500-3.jpg (45KB, 500x412px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 500x412px

>>30796813
F-35A will have GAU-22/A internal 25mm cannon. F-35B and F-35C will use external podded variant of the GAU-22/A.

I suppose if you wanted more dakka, you could mount a gun pod on an F-35A.

>>30797533
GAU-22 series is hydraulically driven. So, no spin up time.

>>30800783
Spin-up time is the time needed to get the barrels from stand-still up to the RPM at which firing commences. Its minuscule, but being hydraulically or electrically driven changes nothing.

File: brrt.jpg (316KB, 1000x2400px) Image search: [Google]

316KB, 1000x2400px

>>30798754
>>30800741

>F-35A: 180 rounds internal @ 3300 rpm
3.27 seconds firing time

>F-35B/C: 220 rounds external @ 3300 rpm
4 seconds firing time

https://news.usni.org/2016/07/29/f-35b-tactics-evolving

Neat article

>>30800783
gas operated has shortest spin up time.

>>30800956
Well, that's raw "crush the trigger" shooting. The F-35A is planned to use programmable bursts and have far smarter targeting systems than 4th gen aircraft.

>>30796813
The F-35B and C variants were always going to have gunpods. Only the A variant has an internal gun.

>>30800956
One will find that the amount of trigger time on the gun carried by modern fighters is almost always between 4 and 6 seconds

Hopefully they have more than 130 rounds to use this time.

>>30801167
180 in the A internal and 220 in the B/C missionized gun pod.

File: image.jpg (124KB, 1366x768px) Image search: [Google]

124KB, 1366x768px

>>30799164
Except that low altitude CAS isn't as feasible when you're engaging targets other than dirt farmers, and that's when fast moving fixed wing craft become much more appealing

>>30801191

Helicopters can use terrain to mask their position and pop up and down as need to reduce their exposure to incoming fire. I assure you that the AH-64 was not created with dirt farmers in mind. It was designed to counter soviet armor formations and the Hellfire missile was developed alongside it for that purpose.

>>30797533
You should stop using Team Fortress 2 as your source of knowledge

>>30798882
>Compared with any high-explosive weapon, you can get closer to friendlies with the GAU-8 than with just about any other weapon hanging from a fighter.
>just about any
>just about
Sneaky weasel words there. The inherent inaccuracy of a pilot-aimed cannon poses a threat to friendlies. Maybe if the F-35 got its computer-controlled trigger like it was supposed to, then we could speak of a "safe" aerial cannon. For now, there's plenty of low-collateral PGM options that are even safer for nearby friendlies because they are guided and have small, low-frag warheads.
>Griffin
>Brimstone
>Viper Strike
>Hellfire N

>>30800843
>the time needed to get the barrels from stand-still up to the RPM at which firing commences
>the RPM at which firing commences
Go back to /v/, kid

File: Laughing Ukraine.jpg (750KB, 2048x2048px) Image search: [Google]

750KB, 2048x2048px

Just a reminder that Marine corps aviation exists
That Marine carries exist
That these things have ultra shit range and payload compared to F-35A/C, yet cost diamonds

>>30797376
The Russians should have standardized either the GSh-6-23 or GSh-6-30. There is never enough dakka.

>>30801150
Ammo capacities with M61 20mm at around 6000 rpm for comparison.

AMX: 350
F/A-18E: 412
F-15E: 450
F-22: 480
F-16C: 511
F/A-18C: 578
F-4E: 640
F-106: 650
F-14: 675
F-104: 725
F-1: 750
F-15C: 940
F-105: 1,028
A-7E: 1,030
B-58: 1,200
B-52H: 1,242
F-111: 2,084
AC-130H: 3,000
AC-119K: 4,500

>>30797376
Is there any automation for gun kills?
If there is a gun solution then the radar knows where the enemy is respective to you.

Can the gun be set to fire if you sweep the enemy? Can the plane assist in the gun kill by giving inputs?

>>30801648
Still 160nmi+ better than the Harrier's radius, and not that much smaller payload than the A/C as you imply. Not that it matters, since the entire point is the Marines operate from closer to the front.

>>30800605
Is that why your webm is a maneuver that relies on ballistics and thrust vectoring instead of controlled flight?

File: 42c893a2693b7729a0db55d72a0255d78fc47cc10a299c0a212ee832492d8890.jpg (30KB, 315x236px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 315x236px

>>30798948

NAMMO 25mm for F-35
http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2014armaments/Wed15439Sande.pdf

>>30798337
They have these things called missiles nowadays

>>30800843
The gun needs to turn about a quarter circle before it starts firing, when the pilot releases the trigger the bolts are taken to the 'safety' groove instead of the firing groove so that no round is left chambered, the time it takes for the first round to arrive to the position where it fires is ridiculously small.

Even the first burst the pilot fires where the there's about 20 or so empty links before the gun the time it takes to fire is very small.

I'm not USAF but under peacetime rules we never loaded all the cannon links for some reason

>>30801685
I wouldn't trust it even if there was. It's better to start firing just before it thinks the guy will be there, and hold it down until he's past the stream.

>>30801681
dont think the rpm factors in on the ammo storage, anon.

>>30801952
It does if you're judging the time on the trigger till empty.

>>30801983
He(or you) made a list showing the number of rounds in the different aircraft. The same amount of round will be there, and not depending on, an rpm of 4000 or 6000. Firing time, yes. Ammo amount, no

>>30801685
>Can the gun be set to fire if you sweep the enemy?
F-35 was originally intended to have such a system. Pilot nominates target in the computer, pilot aims and "fires", but the gun doesn't actually fire except when the computers determine that the plane is lined up correctly.

I'm not sure what the reason(s) were exactly for not including it but I can think of a couple potential reasons.

>>30802095
The big one's that they want positive human control over offensive weapons fire.

>>30802117
I'd imagine the system would work the same as CCRP bombing works, i.e the pilot holds down a button to give consent for the bomb release.

An issue i can think of that comes to mind is that what if the gun doesn't fire when it should, the pilot needs to spend previous few seconds switching to override

>>30802095
>>30802117
We already have things like this build into the FCS on some tanks, in that you hold down the trigger and the tank decides which split second gives the best alignment of target vs muzzle before firing.

>>30802117
Human control still exists in such a system - the pilot's "trigger" must still be activated for the computer to be allowed to shoot at all, even if it's not technically a real trigger anymore.

>>30799139
>The embodiment of class warfare.

>>30799411
Plus if any rounds hit the barrel, tracks, or wheels the tank is still relatively INOP

>>30802213
This.

POC still always gives final say on rounds/ordnance going out, even on AC-130s

File: 466.jpg (743KB, 1683x1356px)

743KB, 1683x1356px

>>30800583
>and you will need two to three hits regardless of the shell to down a plane immediately
>implying 20mm and 30mm rounds do same damage to planes

>>30802986
If you knew the actualities of ww2, you'd know why it's different with modern fighters

>>30802986
I'm not sure the difference is that dramatic on modern aircraft, I'd imagine single cannon hits making them mission incapable.

File: 35216.jpg (594KB, 5484x924px) Image search: [Google]

594KB, 5484x924px

>>30802822
>tracks, or wheels
30 mm can't inflict serous damage to them. Tanks are fucking BASED.

>>30803044
Yeah modern fighters are like 3-4 times more tougher targets. """Fighters""" with weight of B-17.

>>30803100
Sure they are big, but they are packed full, any hit to the fuselage would hit a fuel tank, engine or some computers and shit, while all of them are not required to stay airborne it's a damn shame to lose your mission computer for instance

>>30803193
To an extent. A single cannon round has the possibility of creating a mission kill, but you'd likely need 2+ to actually kill the thing. I'd say 3 would be the baseline

>>30803193
Tanks are protected from explosion and with fire suppression, engines vulnerable parts are tinny relative to size of the plane and engines are often doubled, computers doubled and tripped (those from fly-by-wire system) too. Planes are literally constructed to have no single point of failure except pilot.

>>30796813
If a plane that fucking expensive has to resort to a gun then the pilot has already fucked up.

>>30801191

And even thr dirt farmers might have access to MANPADS these days with all the 'moderate' rebel Syrians we've been arming.

Neat stuff in this article - this is why the Marines didn't deploy immediately after IOC last year:
https://news.usni.org/2016/07/29/f-35b-tactics-evolving#more-20947

>>30802023
Some of the point was the M61 firing time even at 6,000rpm exceeds the F-35 because of the higher capacity available. Suppose the question would be if 180-220 rounds of 25mm is more effective or a better investment of space and weight than 400-700 rounds of 20mm.

>>30804249
Using some online tools and assuming the ammo drum stays the same dimensions, you'd only be fitting around 280 20mm rounds, not 400-700.

http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/smaller-circles-in-larger-circle-d_1849.html
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/circles-within-rectangle-d_1905.html

>>30804249
The PGU-28A/B round of the M61 is optimized to shred and burn aircraft in the air, which are thin-skinned but tend to require extensive damage to engines and control surfaces to down. It's not great on ground targets.

The 25mm APEX rounds of the GAU-22/A are optimized for ground attack, and the F-35 will ideally need less per target than the A-10 or M61-equipped fighters do.

>>30803055
>I'd imagine single cannon hits making them mission incapable.

Go check on battle damaged US aircraft in Vietnam and then consider modern designs and their emphasis on survivability

>>30796813

thats a decent amount of dakka

>>30797265

they can request more money for the "research" :DDD

>>30807320
Yeah, it's not because they actually carefully weighed the various factors and concluded that 20mm was a bit weak for light armor, but 30 was too fat for the space intended.

Idiot.

>>30804513
>>Shred and Burn


Very technical terms.

File: 1454385451456.png (27KB, 593x539px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 593x539px

>>30797609
>This pyrotechnic cartridge fires a small steel bolt through the side wall of the 30mm cartridge.
So literally this.

why not just add more engine to an A-10 and make it hover?

File: 3682158854_e37345dc2b_z.jpg (60KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 640x480px

>>30809161
Hasbro copyrighted that idea 30 years ago.

>>30809021
Semi Armor Piercing High Explosive Incendiary. It's literally what the round does, send shrapnel and fire out inside the target airframe.

>>30797486
What is the ultimate F16? I know the F15 had the whole thrust vectoring Nasa model.. F18 has the advanced superhornet....did the F16 ever get an insane one-off platform?

Is it unreasonable to assume... we can just get LASERS eventually, which will absolutely change the face of mid range and close range combat?

>>30809540
Isnt the closest thing that one strange plane with the wings bent forward? I think its based on the F-16 fuselage, but i might be wrong

File: Falcon-flourishes-in-the-desert[1].jpg (94KB, 752x423px)

94KB, 752x423px

>>30809540
Probably the Block 60/61s the UAE just bought.

>>30796813
>2016
>thinking a internal gun is not needed
>F-4 Phantom taught you nothing

>>30809704
CONFORMATIONAL FUEL TANKS

File: F16XL_AGM65.jpg (27KB, 350x241px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 350x241px

>>30809540

>>30809635
The US forward sweep aircraft the X-29 is based on the F-5E.

The Russian Su-47 is more or less it's own aircraft but both were only tech demonstrators.

>>30809743

>F-4 Phantom

Arguably the most successful fighter aircraft of all time?

>>30810083
don't forget the F-4X, which used water injection to reach speeds fast enough to catch up with and intercept an SR71!

https://tacairnet.com/2015/06/18/redeveloping-the-f-4-phantom-ii-into-a-mach-3-fighterspy-plane/

>>30809743
>Implying the gun was more than a comfort blanket
>Implying the Navy, who never had a gun on it, didn't have significantly better combat performance because of superior training, operational culture, and tactics

>>30809743
>>F-4 Phantom taught you nothing
Seems you learned the wrong lessons about the F-4.
https://etd.auburn.edu/bitstream/handle/10415/595/MICHEL_III_55.pdf

>>30809937
Ah, thanks.

>>30810083
That would be the F-15, which has a gun btw.

>>30810761
Yeah, a gun which it basically has never used.

>>30797265
No, it's not. It's quite underpowered for most roles.

>>30797376
>GSh-30-1
>not GSh-30-2

>>30799070
Hahaha exactly this. You can pull that stuff off at low speed in air shows, you trying flipping a bitch at dog fighting speeds like that and you will definitely be shitting out of your mouth.

>>30813729
That's only on Su-25s, which happens to be a dedicated ground attack platform.

So why do the lights not turn on in the back until later in the test fire? Is budgeting that tight or did someone forget to flip them on until it just started firing.
They obviously have nothing to do with a high speed camera or the bullets themselves

>>30797468
>been in an F-35
>lived
callin bullshit right here

>>30797109
seems like pretty shit accuracy desu. a 2 foot spread at like 10 yards?

>>30814790
>F-35 has been flying for nearly 10 years now
>Zero crash record
>Pilot was unharmed in the one ground fire
34 Rubles have been deposited in your account.

>>30814812
The end of that hallway is a lot farther than 10 yards, and there are two target boards at different distances.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nAkv9qz8dTA

>>30814812
Watch the video again, the first target is around 25m and one fist-sized hole, the second is at the far end by the sand pile.

>>30814833
Thanks, I need to get enough rubles so I can buy vodka to drink myself insensate after reading your shitty post

>>30814861
thats a LOT better but the original vid showing the f35 seems pretty bad accuracy wise. what distance are those targets then? maybe because of the way its mounted?

>>30814873
It is a similar spread despite being closer to the gun than the F-35 video.

>>30814872
Just because you're a stupid vatnik doesn't make my post wrong.

>>30814726
motion sensor