5 ms·
In aviation every kilogram of weight is costing a lot, carrying a useless gun is pointless. If the gun use is too low to make it accurate, it is better to compl
by AdrianB1 7y ago
In aviation every kilogram of weight is costing a lot, carrying a useless gun is pointless. If the gun use is too low to make it accurate, it is better to completely eliminate that quarter ton of metal.
- greedo 7y agoPolitics and institutional inertia will often overwhelm engineering. The USAF has a strong memory of deploying the F-4 Phantom to Vietnam without a gun. They believed that the Sparrow (AIM-7) and Sidewinder (AIM-9) were mature enough to win most encounters. Turned out not to be the case, and gun pods were quickly designed and shipped out. These aren't optimal since they induce a significant amount of drag, as well as taking up an external mountpoint. So since then, the idea has stuck around that a fighter must ship with a gun. The F-35A models have internal guns, while the B (STOVL variant) and C (Naval variant) can use an external gun pod. This is a tough engineering task since the pod needs to be stealthy. The value of the gun on all three variants is really limited IMHO. The F-35A only carries 182 rounds, and the B/C gunpod 220. That's just not much ammo for CAS, nor even A2A engagements.