10 ms·

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

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.
rjsw 7y ago
Since air support "A10 style" these days means "dropping smart weapons from high altitude", the F35 will be doing it the same way. Doing anything at low-level is expected to lead to the aircraft getting hit by a MANPAD.
- throw0101a 7y ago
  Is there any use of being able to engage targets at low altitude like the A-10 (sometimes?) does? If all that is actually needed is the high altitude stuff, then the F-35 may be sufficient, but is that a valid assumption?
  - rurounijones 7y ago
    FACS (the guys on the ground to direct the aircraft fire), as far as I have read, say that it is quicker to get a slow mover like an A-10 or helo updated on the situation, familiar with the layout of the terrain, and make sure they know where the good guys and the bad guys are before they let the fly-boys start firing / dropping. One of the things that is supposed to make the F-35 as capable as an A-10 in CAS/COIN (counter-insurgency, despite the wildly different approach, is it's "Sensor Fusion" system. Basically it gives the pilot so much information that it offsets the "fast-mover" disadvantages (and then some). Whether it lives up to the claim is no something I can comment on. Of course, when it comes to recent wars, everything the US military uses is massive overkill and massively expensive (apart from drones, maybe). The https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_Attack/Armed_Reconnaissance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_Attack/Armed_Reconnaissa... is supposed to be the "cheap COIN" aircraft for these kinds of conflicts. There is a popular view held that the Airforce brass doesn't like CAS/COIN (They all about killing MiGs) and that prop planes aren't sexy enough which is why this program has been taking so long.
    - throw0101a 7y ago
      > There is a popular view held that the Airforce brass doesn't like CAS/COIN (They all about killing MiGs) and that prop planes aren't sexy enough which is why this program has been taking so long. This may be getting in "jurisdiction" issues, but if the USAF doesn't really want to do CAS/COIN, why can't the Army do it? The USAF keeps think clear at >3,500 feet (1000m), and Army CAS planes mops things up for the folks on the ground. If extra muscle is needed USAF ordinance can be dropped or an AC-130 be requested.
Seenso 7y ago
> since it can't really carry a huge cannon like the a10. IIRC, the A-10 was specially and primarily designed to carry that massive gun.
- sp332 7y ago
  [Edit: not sure what I was thinking of here, seems totally wrong.] The A-10 doesn't carry much ammo though, so if it has to hit more than a few targets it will have to use missiles.
  - rurounijones 7y ago
    It carries over a thousand rounds which is 5x-10x what most planes carry; Plenty to mission kill a lot more more than a few ground targets (granted that depends on what is being targeted, but they are not going up against many T-70s at the moment.) Maybe we have different defnitions on "not much ammo" ?
- greedo 7y ago
  It's initial design, yes. But after going through IOC, the Maverick AGM become it's primary weapon.
- meerita 7y ago
  USAF has many options when it's about gunning all terrain options: C130, yeah, that plane can literally wipe an entire convoy of cars, tanks, and landforces with thousands of heavy rounds, same as the A-10. Apache helicopters and A-10. And the list goes one. I don't think it's wise to use fighters to attack land targets, more than blowing bridges or targeting tanks with missiles. The amount of rounds and the guns used in these fighters aren't suitable in my opinion. Yes, you can fight with it but that doesn't mean it's practical.
  - AdrianB1 7y ago
    A AC-130 cannot carry "thousands of heavy rounds", it is a plane not a battleship; it has a couple of dozen 105mm "heavy rounds" and a few hundred 25 or 30 mm projectiles. In the modern world, automatic cannon rounds are not classified as heavy.

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.

rjsw 7y ago

Since air support "A10 style" these days means "dropping smart weapons from high altitude", the F35 will be doing it the same way. Doing anything at low-level is expected to lead to the aircraft getting hit by a MANPAD.

throw0101a 7y ago
Is there any use of being able to engage targets at low altitude like the A-10 (sometimes?) does? If all that is actually needed is the high altitude stuff, then the F-35 may be sufficient, but is that a valid assumption?
- rurounijones 7y ago
  FACS (the guys on the ground to direct the aircraft fire), as far as I have read, say that it is quicker to get a slow mover like an A-10 or helo updated on the situation, familiar with the layout of the terrain, and make sure they know where the good guys and the bad guys are before they let the fly-boys start firing / dropping. One of the things that is supposed to make the F-35 as capable as an A-10 in CAS/COIN (counter-insurgency, despite the wildly different approach, is it's "Sensor Fusion" system. Basically it gives the pilot so much information that it offsets the "fast-mover" disadvantages (and then some). Whether it lives up to the claim is no something I can comment on. Of course, when it comes to recent wars, everything the US military uses is massive overkill and massively expensive (apart from drones, maybe). The https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_Attack/Armed_Reconnaissance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_Attack/Armed_Reconnaissa... is supposed to be the "cheap COIN" aircraft for these kinds of conflicts. There is a popular view held that the Airforce brass doesn't like CAS/COIN (They all about killing MiGs) and that prop planes aren't sexy enough which is why this program has been taking so long.
  - throw0101a 7y ago
    > There is a popular view held that the Airforce brass doesn't like CAS/COIN (They all about killing MiGs) and that prop planes aren't sexy enough which is why this program has been taking so long. This may be getting in "jurisdiction" issues, but if the USAF doesn't really want to do CAS/COIN, why can't the Army do it? The USAF keeps think clear at >3,500 feet (1000m), and Army CAS planes mops things up for the folks on the ground. If extra muscle is needed USAF ordinance can be dropped or an AC-130 be requested.

Seenso 7y ago

> since it can't really carry a huge cannon like the a10. IIRC, the A-10 was specially and primarily designed to carry that massive gun.

sp332 7y ago
[Edit: not sure what I was thinking of here, seems totally wrong.] The A-10 doesn't carry much ammo though, so if it has to hit more than a few targets it will have to use missiles.
- rurounijones 7y ago
  It carries over a thousand rounds which is 5x-10x what most planes carry; Plenty to mission kill a lot more more than a few ground targets (granted that depends on what is being targeted, but they are not going up against many T-70s at the moment.) Maybe we have different defnitions on "not much ammo" ?
greedo 7y ago
It's initial design, yes. But after going through IOC, the Maverick AGM become it's primary weapon.
meerita 7y ago
USAF has many options when it's about gunning all terrain options: C130, yeah, that plane can literally wipe an entire convoy of cars, tanks, and landforces with thousands of heavy rounds, same as the A-10. Apache helicopters and A-10. And the list goes one. I don't think it's wise to use fighters to attack land targets, more than blowing bridges or targeting tanks with missiles. The amount of rounds and the guns used in these fighters aren't suitable in my opinion. Yes, you can fight with it but that doesn't mean it's practical.
- AdrianB1 7y ago
  A AC-130 cannot carry "thousands of heavy rounds", it is a plane not a battleship; it has a couple of dozen 105mm "heavy rounds" and a few hundred 25 or 30 mm projectiles. In the modern world, automatic cannon rounds are not classified as heavy.