9 ms·

Yes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II#F-35A https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning...

arethuza 7y ago
Sorry, what I meant was more is that something they are expecting to do regularly or is it a backup if other weapons systems aren't available?
- mitchty 7y ago
  They're meant to replace the A-10 eventually, so yes regularly would be appropriate. At least: "its in the expected role of the airframe"
  - rurounijones 7y ago
    Not really. The F-35 might replace the A-10 in the CAS role but it will not be achieving it in the same manner. Whereas an A-10 may roll in for a gun-run at low altitude the F-35 will be dropping precision SDBs (Small Diameter Bombs) from high altitude instead. I would be astounded if the F-35's gun gets anywhere within spitting distance of "regular" usage, especially since getting into gun range puts your exceedingly expensive plane into range of MANPADs. I agreee that it is a requirement of the design but I have serious doubts it will ever be actually used that way.
- thearn4 7y ago
  Yes, ultimately the intention (quite surprisingly) of the USAF is to replace the A-10 series with the F-35.
- pirocks 7y ago
  I'm no expert(casual aviation nerd) but I'm under the impression that the gun exists mostly for completeness and isn't expected to be used regularly. The F35 is meant to conduct air support a10 style, but will use missiles instead of bullets, since it can't really carry a huge cannon like the a10.
  - clSTophEjUdRanu 7y ago
    The A-10s cannon is overrated. Everytime I see it used most of the rounds miss the target. Targeting should be less dependent on the pilot IMO.
    - blattimwind 7y ago
      On the other hand, most targets probably only require a single hit from that cannon.
      - clSTophEjUdRanu 7y ago
        Yeah, then sprays the other 50 rounds over the rest of the village.
        blattimwind 7y ago
        It's precision and recall all over again.
        GhettoMaestro 7y ago
        Cute reply. Simple remedy: Don't be a fuckin combatant in the middle of a civilian area. . . . Wait... wait... let me guess... "Still your fault"
        thrower123 7y ago
        Suppression is part of the point. Stuka dive bombers didn't have their 'Jericho Sirens' attached for no reason, despite their disadvantages.
    - tropo 7y ago
      Misses are deadly against soft targets. Those are exploding shells made out of pyrophoric metal.
    - AdrianB1 7y ago
      The gun is extremely precise, so precise that is useless: if you miss the first shell, all will be misses. They intentionally made it disperse the projectile to cover an area, not 1 square meter.
- tomatotomato37 7y ago
  For current third-world proxy war purposes its not very useful; but in a real war its an expected possibility that missile & countermeasure tech accelerates such that an F-35's current missile armament's range may shrink to dogfight range, at which point you need a cannon. Of course a ground-attack plane shouldn't be dog-fighting in the first place but you gotta have that multi-role capability
- RugnirViking 7y ago
  Yes. In the sense that current gen figters are often called upon to strafe ground targets, in the absence of air targets. Even in less asymmetrical warfare, its very common for there to be not very many ground targets for periods of time, and then a whole bunch all at once. This means that while we can have dedicated ground attack planes to take up the baseline loads, it's useful to have fighters able to take up the slack on any variable load spikes, even if they aren't quite as good at it, they can be used for other things when demand isn't quite so high.

arethuza 7y ago

Sorry, what I meant was more is that something they are expecting to do regularly or is it a backup if other weapons systems aren't available?

mitchty 7y ago
They're meant to replace the A-10 eventually, so yes regularly would be appropriate. At least: "its in the expected role of the airframe"
- rurounijones 7y ago
  Not really. The F-35 might replace the A-10 in the CAS role but it will not be achieving it in the same manner. Whereas an A-10 may roll in for a gun-run at low altitude the F-35 will be dropping precision SDBs (Small Diameter Bombs) from high altitude instead. I would be astounded if the F-35's gun gets anywhere within spitting distance of "regular" usage, especially since getting into gun range puts your exceedingly expensive plane into range of MANPADs. I agreee that it is a requirement of the design but I have serious doubts it will ever be actually used that way.
thearn4 7y ago
Yes, ultimately the intention (quite surprisingly) of the USAF is to replace the A-10 series with the F-35.
pirocks 7y ago
I'm no expert(casual aviation nerd) but I'm under the impression that the gun exists mostly for completeness and isn't expected to be used regularly. The F35 is meant to conduct air support a10 style, but will use missiles instead of bullets, since it can't really carry a huge cannon like the a10.
- clSTophEjUdRanu 7y ago
  The A-10s cannon is overrated. Everytime I see it used most of the rounds miss the target. Targeting should be less dependent on the pilot IMO.
  - blattimwind 7y ago
    On the other hand, most targets probably only require a single hit from that cannon.
    - clSTophEjUdRanu 7y ago
      Yeah, then sprays the other 50 rounds over the rest of the village.
      - blattimwind 7y ago
        It's precision and recall all over again.
      - GhettoMaestro 7y ago
        Cute reply. Simple remedy: Don't be a fuckin combatant in the middle of a civilian area. . . . Wait... wait... let me guess... "Still your fault"
      - thrower123 7y ago
        Suppression is part of the point. Stuka dive bombers didn't have their 'Jericho Sirens' attached for no reason, despite their disadvantages.
  - tropo 7y ago
    Misses are deadly against soft targets. Those are exploding shells made out of pyrophoric metal.
  - AdrianB1 7y ago
    The gun is extremely precise, so precise that is useless: if you miss the first shell, all will be misses. They intentionally made it disperse the projectile to cover an area, not 1 square meter.
tomatotomato37 7y ago
For current third-world proxy war purposes its not very useful; but in a real war its an expected possibility that missile & countermeasure tech accelerates such that an F-35's current missile armament's range may shrink to dogfight range, at which point you need a cannon. Of course a ground-attack plane shouldn't be dog-fighting in the first place but you gotta have that multi-role capability
RugnirViking 7y ago
Yes. In the sense that current gen figters are often called upon to strafe ground targets, in the absence of air targets. Even in less asymmetrical warfare, its very common for there to be not very many ground targets for periods of time, and then a whole bunch all at once. This means that while we can have dedicated ground attack planes to take up the baseline loads, it's useful to have fighters able to take up the slack on any variable load spikes, even if they aren't quite as good at it, they can be used for other things when demand isn't quite so high.