3 ms·

Is the software gun issue with the F-35 fleet in general, or with the very glitchy F-35B? The article doesn't do a good job of explaining that-though since its

Is the software gun issue with the F-35 fleet in general, or with the very glitchy F-35B? The article doesn't do a good job of explaining that-though since its a British article, I'd assume its the F-35B, which will be on the QE2 class carriers. Really, if you want a culprit for the F-35, blame the US Marine Corps (MARINES, RAWR!!) for insisting on the highly faulty and problem plagued F-35B. If the Brits had insisted on building proper through deck carriers, this wouldn't be an issue (at least the F-35B issues). The QE2 class are awfully big, and really should just be through deck without the ski jump.

arethuza 12y ago
In true British fashion we did haver about looking at changing one of the QE2 class to be CATOBAR but then changed back to the current configuration. In fact that the US Marines might be the first people to actually fly from the QE2 class: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/the-reporters-30229988 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/the-reporters-30229988 [NB If you are feeling particularly cynical you might want to take note as to whose constituency the QE2 class carriers were assembled in and note that the relevant politcian was notoriously stingy when it came to providing money for helicopters etc. for soldiers actually fighting a war.]
spartango 12y ago
Neither the F-35B nor the F-35C carries a gun. The USAF's F-35A is the only model affected by this issue. Also, the Marines want the STOVL F-35B for operation on LHA/LHDs, as well as small island bases with short/limited runways. It's not just the ski-jumping Brits who want that feature. With that said, you're right that the STOVL capability has added substantial complexity to the airframe.
- ZanyProgrammer 12y ago
  That's the problem, the Marines want to field their own superfluous air force. USN carriers routinely go to sea with understrength airwings, its not as if there's not enough room on CVNs to support Marine F-35Cs.
  - greedo 12y ago
    Marine squadrons routinely fly off CVNs with their F/A-18 Hornets. Institutionally, they have a long memory of not having carrier support in WW2, so they cling to this notion of operating their own air force.
    - engi_nerd 12y ago
      For more details on exactly why the USMC is so afraid of being without carrier support, see accounts of the Battle of Guadalcanal. I recommend "Helmet For My Pillow" by Robert Leckie, which was also one of the books used as a basis for the HBO miniseries "The Pacific".
  - tsotha 12y ago
    It's not superfluous. The navy doesn't base its aircraft on improvised forward landing strips. Naval aviation is of extremely limited utility as a result of a short range. If the fighting starts or moves inland the carrier is mostly useless.
    - GVIrish 12y ago
      Eh, something like a F/A-18 has somewhat short range but the Super Hornet is better in that regard and there's always mid-air refueling. It simply doesn't make sense to jeopardize the success of the backbone of American airpower for a mission capability that is niche. I mean, when has the Harrier ever been the difference between success and failure for a USMC operation? Sure it's nice, but it's also a jet that is very difficult to fly and prone to crashes.
      - tsotha 12y ago
        The Super Hornet has something like a 350 mile radius with a "normal" strike package. That's not very much, and it gets worse every year as US carrier fleets are forced further into blue water to deal with the latest Moskit descendants. That's why the Navy is so hot to develop the X-47 into something they can deploy. If refueling aircraft are available then far more capable land-based aircraft should have been used anyway. As far as when the Harrier has made the difference, well, we haven't fought many pitched battles lately, so it's hard to say. But you can't design a military with the idea you'll never have to fight a pitched battle. EDIT: By the way, one of the advantages of the F-35B is supposed to be that its design is inherently less crash prone. We'll see.
- gte525u 12y ago
  I believe the f-35B has an optional gun pod. [1] [1] http://defensetech.org/2012/06/22/pic-of-the-day-f-35b-shows-off-its-gun-pod/ http://defensetech.org/2012/06/22/pic-of-the-day-f-35b-shows...

arethuza 12y ago

In true British fashion we did haver about looking at changing one of the QE2 class to be CATOBAR but then changed back to the current configuration. In fact that the US Marines might be the first people to actually fly from the QE2 class: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/the-reporters-30229988 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/the-reporters-30229988 [NB If you are feeling particularly cynical you might want to take note as to whose constituency the QE2 class carriers were assembled in and note that the relevant politcian was notoriously stingy when it came to providing money for helicopters etc. for soldiers actually fighting a war.]

spartango 12y ago

Neither the F-35B nor the F-35C carries a gun. The USAF's F-35A is the only model affected by this issue. Also, the Marines want the STOVL F-35B for operation on LHA/LHDs, as well as small island bases with short/limited runways. It's not just the ski-jumping Brits who want that feature. With that said, you're right that the STOVL capability has added substantial complexity to the airframe.

ZanyProgrammer 12y ago
That's the problem, the Marines want to field their own superfluous air force. USN carriers routinely go to sea with understrength airwings, its not as if there's not enough room on CVNs to support Marine F-35Cs.
- greedo 12y ago
  Marine squadrons routinely fly off CVNs with their F/A-18 Hornets. Institutionally, they have a long memory of not having carrier support in WW2, so they cling to this notion of operating their own air force.
  - engi_nerd 12y ago
    For more details on exactly why the USMC is so afraid of being without carrier support, see accounts of the Battle of Guadalcanal. I recommend "Helmet For My Pillow" by Robert Leckie, which was also one of the books used as a basis for the HBO miniseries "The Pacific".
- tsotha 12y ago
  It's not superfluous. The navy doesn't base its aircraft on improvised forward landing strips. Naval aviation is of extremely limited utility as a result of a short range. If the fighting starts or moves inland the carrier is mostly useless.
  - GVIrish 12y ago
    Eh, something like a F/A-18 has somewhat short range but the Super Hornet is better in that regard and there's always mid-air refueling. It simply doesn't make sense to jeopardize the success of the backbone of American airpower for a mission capability that is niche. I mean, when has the Harrier ever been the difference between success and failure for a USMC operation? Sure it's nice, but it's also a jet that is very difficult to fly and prone to crashes.
    - tsotha 12y ago
      The Super Hornet has something like a 350 mile radius with a "normal" strike package. That's not very much, and it gets worse every year as US carrier fleets are forced further into blue water to deal with the latest Moskit descendants. That's why the Navy is so hot to develop the X-47 into something they can deploy. If refueling aircraft are available then far more capable land-based aircraft should have been used anyway. As far as when the Harrier has made the difference, well, we haven't fought many pitched battles lately, so it's hard to say. But you can't design a military with the idea you'll never have to fight a pitched battle. EDIT: By the way, one of the advantages of the F-35B is supposed to be that its design is inherently less crash prone. We'll see.
gte525u 12y ago
I believe the f-35B has an optional gun pod. [1] [1] http://defensetech.org/2012/06/22/pic-of-the-day-f-35b-shows-off-its-gun-pod/ http://defensetech.org/2012/06/22/pic-of-the-day-f-35b-shows...