# First test of gatling gun pod on $104million F-35 jet



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Jul 31, 2016)

Capable of firing 55 rounds per second,  this footage shows the first test firing of the pod-mounted version which will be used by the Marines and Navy.



















Locheed Martin, the company behind the warplane, had originally promised 1,035 jets by end of fiscal year 2016, but provided less than 200, CNN reports.

The final jet is now destined to enter service by 2040, a move McCain described as making 'no sense' since Chinese and Russian investment means it will likely have been superseded since then.


----------



## droopyRO (Jul 31, 2016)

Why did they switch to a 25mm one ? since all the current planes use 20mm.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Jul 31, 2016)

The A 10's cannon is my favourite....( 30mm)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GAU-8_Avenger


----------



## Deeveo (Jul 31, 2016)

droopyRO said:


> Why did they switch to a 25mm one ? since all the current planes use 20mm.



They can ask more money for developing the system? Which seems to be the trend with the whole F35 project looking at how much over budget the whole thing has gone. Logistically using the same ammo as other planes would make a lot more sense.


----------



## Ferrum Master (Jul 31, 2016)

Can anyone tell me at least one thing that is done/developed properly with this project? Only the helmet comes to my mind.

I guess the switch is higher penetration power, due to modern shielding. The ammo types doesn't matter really, as this plane should be the only one replacing all aircrafts in the future.

A-10 is the best thing for modern combat actually. STILL. This ulgy duck cannot support troops and there is nothing that replaces the A10's.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jul 31, 2016)

droopyRO said:


> Why did they switch to a 25mm one ? since all the current planes use 20mm.


More penetration.  You don't need many hits with a big bullet to do a lot of damage.  A bigger bullet can also tear through armor a smaller bullet could not.

Also, Congress will be more likely to discontinue the A-10 Thunderbolt II because the gun on the F-35 is almost as good.  The Pentagon really wants to get rid of them but Congress refuses.



Deeveo said:


> They can ask more money for developing the system? Which seems to be the trend with the whole F35 project looking at how much over budget the whole thing has gone. Logistically using the same ammo as other planes would make a lot more sense.


If it were just USA, like the F-22, it would have been done years, if not a decade ago.  The problem is they keep bringing in more buyers (read: countries) and it costs money to redesign for each buyer's needs.  



Ferrum Master said:


> Can anyone tell me at least one thing that is done/developed properly with this project? Only the helmet comes to my mind.


VTOL?  The last aircraft to do that was the Harrier and it's a dinosaur.



Ferrum Master said:


> A-10 is the best thing for modern combat actually. STILL. This ulgy duck cannot support troops and there is nothing that replaces the A10's.


It's not super-sonic and has no anti-air capabilities.  F-35 does it all, except dropping nuclear bombs.


----------



## Ferrum Master (Jul 31, 2016)

FordGT90Concept said:


> VTOL?  The last aircraft to do that was the Harrier and it's a dinosaur. It's not super-sonic and has no anti-air capabilities.  F-35 does it all, except dropping nuclear bombs.



Is really VTOL really that needed? Sacrificing payload? 

And anti air? Ehrmm... how small commando warfare against some armed terrorists need anti air, this thing isn't an interceptor too? I mean modern combat? Are you implying really fighting Russians or China? Naah... They will shot the ugly ducking either way down as the darn thing cannot fly, just because it does all. How this thing can effectively support troops? How long this thing can hover around the area versus the old A10s? Just relying on this one half baked critter is massive weakness in my books. 

I understand your point, that the thing is not completely useless. But looking at the costs and what it tries to replace... it is just crazy.


----------



## rvalencia (Jul 31, 2016)

CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> Capable of firing 55 rounds per second,  this footage shows the first test firing of the pod-mounted version which will be used by the Marines and Navy.
> 
> 
> 
> ...












F-35 beating Su-35.


----------



## Ferrum Master (Jul 31, 2016)

rvalencia said:


> F-35 beating Su-35.



Oh yes... at last beating basically an upgraded SU-27(still very analog, known to be hard to pilot) made in the 70ties... what an achievement...


----------



## Vayra86 (Jul 31, 2016)

Ferrum Master said:


> Is really VTOL really that needed? Sacrificing payload?
> 
> And anti air? Ehrmm... how small commando warfare against some armed terrorists need anti air, this thing isn't an interceptor too? I mean modern combat? Are you implying really fighting Russians or China? Naah... They will shot the ugly ducking either way down as the darn thing cannot fly, just because it does all. How this thing can effectively support troops? How long this thing can hover around the area versus the old A10s? Just relying on this one half baked critter is massive weakness in my books.
> 
> I understand your point, that the thing is not completely useless. But looking at the costs and what it tries to replace... it is just crazy.




I think it is exactly BECAUSE the likelihood of large scale prolonged warfare in the classic manner is getting lower every day, and guerilla-style, smaller scale urban conflicts are on the rise. We don't need anti-tank support in the air because there are no tanks because tanks lack the mobility that a modern warzone requires. Versatility, mobility are key. Presence can be created by infantry, the use cases for heavy armor are really limited these days. We also don't need tanks because we have artillery, and artillery is also well covered from roadside bombs and all that other fun stuff.

There is another factor: cost. While the F35 is expensive, if it can replace multiple older alternatives and do its job even 'almost as good', that is a huge win for defense budgets. Perhaps not today, but in the long run, with regards to maintenance, logistics, but also pilot training.

I still think it's very questionable that the Netherlands is buying these, but on the other hand, the F16 has lasted us far too long and if the F35 does the same, it'll be a cheap plane in the end.


----------



## little cat (Jul 31, 2016)




----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jul 31, 2016)

Ferrum Master said:


> Is really VTOL really that needed? Sacrificing payload?


Yes.  VTOL can escort helicopters.  Case in point: the only anti-air defense the squads that assaulted Osama bin Laden's compound had was stealth.  If the F-35 had been ready, they could have flown in advance of the helicopters and landed in a valley so they're ready to respond if there's a threat.



Ferrum Master said:


> And anti air? Ehrmm... how small commando warfare against some armed terrorists need anti air, this thing isn't an interceptor too? I mean modern combat? Are you implying really fighting Russians or China? Naah... They will shot the ugly ducking either way down as the darn thing cannot fly, just because it does all. How this thing can effectively support troops? How long this thing can hover around the area versus the old A10s? Just relying on this one half baked critter is massive weakness in my books.


Conventional military weapons are ineffective against dynamic forces (read: guerilla warfare).  The F-35 is as effective in this role as the A-10 when those dynamic forces organize into a cohesive threat (e.g. bombs on hardened structures they're hiding in, moving in a convoy, etc.).

A-10 can only move into a theater where air-superiority has already been established.  F-35, on the other hand, is expected to be hot on the heels of the F-22 spearheading any attack.

F-35 has a combat radius of 625 nm versus A-10's 250 nm.  It gets there faster and can linger longer.



rvalencia said:


> F-35 beating Su-35.


One of the reasons why F-22 orders were stopped.  The F-22 kicks ass if the target is far away but the Air Force is VERY concerned that most air superiority engagements occur at close range (too many ways to defeat missiles).  Because the F-22 is such a large aircraft, the F-35 can outmaneuver it in most cases.  The Air Force would rather have 30 more F-35s than 10 more F-22s.


----------



## Ferrum Master (Jul 31, 2016)

Well... That's not the point... you cannot compare that still doesn't work. F-35 in current state is a death trap. Reading Pentagon reports about the software[I loled - it needed to be rebooted each 4 hours], engine serviceability speed, fuel tank safety... it makes me only giggle. Years have passed and the problems are not addressed, obviously it is a design flaw.

Meanwhile upgrade programs for other aircraft are frozen due to lack of money including the A-10. Versatility? Eliminated. The F-16 block 60 is a fine jet covering already the air superiority coupled with proven A10's - they actually do work. Stealth is a useless gimmick, especially while covering helicopters... I agree that the Raptor is an overrated aircraft too, but it does it's designed task really well especially that is an old cold war product. It an interceptor not a all in one mishmash.

F-35 is a money sink hole. One of the worst examples in human history. The delays, over years and years... while entering service after xx years of delays... I suspect it being outdated already. Other countries also don't sleep even the Japanese are constructing their own fighter.


----------



## cdawall (Jul 31, 2016)

All planes are money pits. The f35 is no different, the a10 is outdated as all get out and flying a b1 low level was just as effective as spinning up the a10 gun


----------



## Caring1 (Jul 31, 2016)

The faster they fire, the faster they run out.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jul 31, 2016)

The faster they fire, the less time the aircraft has to spend pointing at the target.


----------



## Easo (Aug 1, 2016)

Ferrum Master said:


> F-35 is a money sink hole. One of the worst examples in human history. The delays, over years and years... while entering service after xx years of delays... I suspect it being outdated already. Other countries also don't sleep even the Japanese are constructing their own fighter.



Just so that you know - more F-35's have already been made than there are supposed competitors, including PAK FA, Chinese, eee, "copies" or anything Japan might make, later of which probably would be made hand in hand with Western experts and advisors anyway.
P.S.
Japan will have it's own F-35 too, 42 planes ordered at the moment.


----------



## Totally (Aug 1, 2016)

FordGT90Concept said:


> More penetration.  You don't need many hits with a big bullet to do a lot of damage.  A bigger bullet can also tear through armor a smaller bullet could not.
> 
> Also, Congress will be more likely to discontinue the A-10 Thunderbolt II because the gun on the F-35 is almost as good.  The Pentagon really wants to get rid of them but Congress refuses.
> 
> ...



The thing is the f-35 is not a good airframe it suffers from jack-of-all-trade syndrome, it fall short In every category that the planes it was replacing were good at and nothing to make up for those short comings. F-18: dogfighting, range, speed. A-10: loitering time, payload. Just as good isn't enough when you need something to be the best where it counts. So there is the crux of the matter what is the point of this aircraft when coming out the gate it is behind the curve and late to the party.


----------



## Uberclocked (Aug 1, 2016)

Totally said:


> The thing is the f-35 is not a good airframe it suffers from jack-of-all-trade syndrome, it fall short In every category that the planes it was replacing were good at and nothing to make up for those short comings. F-18: dogfighting, range, speed. A-10: loitering time, payload. Just as good isn't enough when you need something to be the best where it counts.


Dogfighting capabilities don't really matter as much in a generation where the first aircraft to get a lock (at a much longer range than what 20mm cannon is viable for) wins.
The F-35 is better suited than the F-18 for these types of fights.

The A-10 also doesn't work in a very high threat situation for CAS as well as the F-35.  It's much slower and doesn't have stealth capabilities.
Also, the GAU-8 firing depleted uranium armor piercing incendiary rounds inclined 30° from vertical at 300 (never going to happen) penetrates 76mm of RHA.  In a perfect scenario.
For reference, the turret armor on the T-72B offers ~500mm of RHA equivalent protection.
The only way an A-10 is going to defeat modern tanks is via the AGM-65 Maverick.


----------



## rvalencia (Aug 1, 2016)

Ferrum Master said:


> Oh yes... at last beating basically an upgraded SU-27(still very analog, known to be hard to pilot) made in the 70ties... what an achievement...



http://nettsteder.regjeringen.no/ka...-35-in-a-dogfight-what-have-i-learned-so-far/
English translation near the bottom of the article. Norwegian F-35 pilot  claims Norway's F-35A beats F-16s in a dogfight.



http://nettsteder.regjeringen.no/kampfly/2015/11/20/a-fly-f-35-erfaringer-fra-den-forste-uka/
More info for F-16 vs F-35 from Norwegian pilot.
I quote
_Overall, flying the F-35 reminds me a bit of flying the F/A-18 Hornet, but with an important difference: It has been fitted with a turbo._



Original source (non-English)
http://suomenkuvalehti.fi/jutut/kotimaa/suomella-vahvat-ilmavoimat-mutta-kuinka-kauan/

Frisian flag 2012 exercises in Holland, Finnish airforce gets 100 kills and 6 loses against Eurofighter (Germany, UK), Polish new F-16 and older F-16 planes (Norway, Belgium) and Gripen (Swedish) of course we dont know what were the rules in that exercises, but still its a amazing numbers.


Finland has F-18C with 10 percent engine thrust upgrade.


In Finnish:
http://blogit.iltalehti.fi/jussi-nii...tien-seuraajien-valinta-haamottaa/

But translated, the Finnish Defence Minister basically said for the replacement of their F/A-18 force, "selecting an other plane besides the F-35 would be a purely political decision."




From https://fightersweep.com/4210/dogfighting-in-an-fa-18-hornet/
The USN pilot's view on F-18's minimum turn radius vs F-16's sustain turn rate dogfight.











Super Hornet's minimum turn radius vs F-15's sustain turn rate dogfight.











Around 1 :09:51,  Australia's RAAF commander mentioned how the Super Hornet had a positive kill ratio in excess of 20 to 1 against the Alaska aggressors F-16 in an exercise in Australia more than a year ago.  This is similar to Finland 2012 result.


F-35's critics such as Pierre Sprey's arguments are similar to YF-16 (sustain turn rate) vs YF-17(minimum turn radius).


----------



## GreiverBlade (Aug 1, 2016)

Caring1 said:


> The faster they fire, the faster they run out.





FordGT90Concept said:


> The faster they fire, the less time the aircraft has to spend pointing at the target.


well then .... the ideal would be a Revolver Cannon type ...

actually for the F-35 ... is it a gatling ... with rotating barrel and a single front opening or a revolver cannon
ah ... quadtub gatling indeed http://www.gd-ots.com/armament_systems/mbw_GAU-22A.html

Revolver Cannon should replace Gatling ... they have some heavy advantages, aside from being immediately at maximum ROF VS a few tenth second for a gatling (data from 20mm M61A2 from the F22 versus Rafale's 30mm Revolver Cannon, so the GAU-22 probably negate that issue) more precise and heavier hitter (if comparing caliber in the 22 to 30mm range at equal calliber and letting out the GAU-8 Avenger as it is out of league) , even Russian (the second of the two country using Gatling in planes) prefer gas driven single barrel cannon (like the gryazev-shipunov gsh-301 GRAU: 9A-4071K ) over rotaries (like the gryazev-shipunov gsh-6-30... well ... GAU-8 Avenger ... you have a contestant...plus it's also gas driven, thus being faster to spin up than a hydraulic type) ok ... Gatling wear the barrel slowly than a single barrel type cannon and external powered tend to jam a little less than gas operated ... i reckon

fun one about the Gryazev-Shipunov GSh-6-30
"The recoil of the GSh-6-30 was so powerful that it gives the weapon a thrust-to-weight ratio of 40. If you were able to point one at the ground and fire, you would lift into the air, experiencing 40 gees of acceleration. According to *what if?,* the GAU-8 Avenger's recoil is powerful enough to accelerate a car in neutral to over 60 mph in three seconds. Compared to the Avenger, the GSh-6-30 weighs half as much and fires up to 1.43 x faster. (6000/4200). The recoil force of the GAU-8 is almost 5 tons, while the GSh-6-30 produces around 6.05 tons."  (yep i know the GSh-6-30 has numerous issue)

oh btw ... i like neither side ... i just like ... warbirds tanks guns whatever that goes boom, pew pew, etc etc etc .... but i like them for something else than their true purpose ... (thus which mean i don't like war  )

anyhow nice video .... nice music ... me like ... (respect kept versus those who fear that noise for various reason)


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Aug 1, 2016)

The point of Gatling guns is to prevent the barrel from overheating from extended fire.  Revolver cannons don't do that.  Where does it show?  Rate of fire.  A comparable revolver cannon peaks at 1700 RPM where this GAU-22A does double that at 3300 RPM.  It reaches that fire rate in less than a second and in the two second burst these guns are fired, the GAU-22A will have almost 100 bullets on target compared to about 50 for a revolver cannon.  Top of that that, it's ready to fire again immediately (fire at one target, shift to a further down range target, fire again).  As long as those targets aren't really hard, there's a good chance they're dead.

Additionally, never underestimate the psychological impact of a Gatling gun.  First they hears the impact of bullets, then they hear the terrifying roar of hundreds of bullets being fired, and then maybe they'll hear the aircraft that fired them.  Revolver cannons make a lot of racket too, but they don't sound like a freaking zipper of destruction.

Good video of the GAU-8 here (stop it when the music starts playing, because stupid):


----------



## GreiverBlade (Aug 1, 2016)

FordGT90Concept said:


> The point of Gatling guns is to prevent the barrel from overheating from extended fire.


which i already noted in my post 

tho ... no need for extended fire for their primary use (which isn't the use of the GAU-8 Avenger, hence perfectly adapted to that one )



FordGT90Concept said:


> Rate of fire.  A comparable revolver cannon peaks at 1700 RPM where this GAU-22A does double that at 3300 RPM.


"The Rafale's cannon (GIAT 30) has a selectable rate of fire system allowing rates of 300, 600, 1500, or 2500 rounds per minute and precisely controlled bursts of 0.5 or 1 second"
no need for 3300 if it can achieve 2500 immediately

"you don't really need long burst, a 0.5s burst on a Rafale delivers 1 kg of explosives"
well ... i don't like the Rafale that much either ...

although i value more efficiency over "Psychological" impact ... noise/racket? ... yep initiate fear indeed.

still a cute noise from a 27mm MK at the end of the video tho.









ooohh ... not the pod i see ....









august 2015 ... @CAPSLOCKSTUCK does that mean the GAU-22A video is not the "first test"   ok ... gun pod test ... 1st one indeed... tho is it not more practical to have it internal than in pod?

re read the OP ... i fail to see the achievement ... same gun ... external mounting ...


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Aug 3, 2016)

Air Force says their version is "combat ready:"
http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/02/politics/air-force-f-35-combat-ready/index.html


----------



## Solaris17 (Aug 3, 2016)

Ferrum Master said:


> Only the helmet comes to my mind.



Actually IIRC the helmet was considered bad by test pilots because it was heavy and the cockpit didnt allow ample room to move with it on.


----------



## xorbe (Aug 3, 2016)

CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> Capable of firing 55 rounds per second, this footage shows the first test firing of the pod-mounted version


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Aug 3, 2016)

GreiverBlade said:


> "The Rafale's cannon (GIAT 30) has a selectable rate of fire system allowing rates of 300, 600, 1500, or 2500 rounds per minute and precisely controlled bursts of 0.5 or 1 second"
> no need for 3300 if it can achieve 2500 immediately


They take about the same time to get up to firing speed.  We're talking a fraction of a fraction difference.  Inside of 1 second, the GAU-22A will still put more rounds down range by a wide margin.

You can hear the difference...it is massive:








I took a snippet of I think that first burst where you hear the bullets hitting the ground before you hear the aircraft firing them.  It only fired 7 rounds in about half a second.


Edit: Here's a better video of what it is like to be attacked by the A-10.  Fast forward to 0:44:








Literally cuts a limb off a tree.  3 second delay between the hits and hearing the "brrrt" that fired them.


----------



## GreiverBlade (Aug 3, 2016)

FordGT90Concept said:


> They take about the same time to get up to firing speed.  We're talking a fraction of a fraction difference.  Inside of 1 second, the GAU-22A will still put more rounds down range by a wide margin.
> 
> You can hear the difference...it is massive:
> 
> ...


i know all of that ... i am a plane fanatic since i was 5 yrs old

but the inertia and spin up force needed is way less on a revolver cannon than on a Gatling ... and the Mauser BK27 is not the GIAT/NEXTER-30


and the A10 is not the best example (altho one my favorite flying cannon ) as it's only suited to ground attack and also the Gau-8 Avenger is impressive ... but massively out of proportion (compared to a Gryazev-Shipunov GSh-6-30 or a GIAT/NEXTER-30)
a little faster in round per minute but packing an equal destructive power was the ADEN 30 Mk4 quad, lovely sound (listened to it live from Swiss Hawker Hunter ) still impressive, around 6800 30mm rounds a minute versus 4200 in GAU-8 high mode altho not the same ammo capacity or engagement ... originally it was meant to shreds bomber to pieces, Switzerland intended it for ground support, pairing the cannon with 8 cm Flz.-Rakete Oerlikon with HEI and SC warhead type (the Swiss Hunter carried the casing retrieval system to avoid engine issue of the original F1 model )

do we need a size comparison? i sure do love the Beetle to Avenger comparison 
 

now more generally talking, a GAU-22/A 0.5 burst is 27.5 bullet (rounded 28) HEI: 5,060kg API: 5,912kg GIAT-30 0.5 burst is  20,83333333333333 (rounded 21) HEI: 5,124kg APHEI-SD: 5,670kg (tho it's a Armor Piercing HEI ) granted the GAU-22/A is closer to 6kg than the GIAT/NEXTER-30 and will also put 7 bullet more (altho the GIAT achieve close result with a 800 R/M less ROF thanks to 5mm more ) tho the Rha penetration value is not the same, GAU-22/A 25x137 APEX ammunition an AP-HEI type = 18mm Rha, a BK-27 DM73 MP 27x145 ammunition = min 20mm Rha,  30x113 of the GIAT/NEXTER-30 is ~ 25mm Rha for the APHEI-SD

so in the end same performances  (not dimnishing the awesomeness of the GAU-22/A after all our F/A-18 Hornet, who replaced our F-5E/F Tiger II which used the M39A2 revolver cannon, use the M61A1 Vulcan )


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Aug 3, 2016)

Not the same performance.  GAU-22 requires less maintenance and can fire more rounds continuously without damaging barrels.  Where revolver cannons often don't fire more than 0.5-1 second bursts, the GAUs are often fired 1-2 seconds.   We're talking 6-12kg versus 12-24kg of munitions on target.

Gatling guns are usually powered by an electric motor which has a flat torque curve.  The time it takes to accelerate from 0 to 825 rpm is negligible.  You can see it in @CAPSLOCKSTUCK's video.


----------



## GreiverBlade (Aug 3, 2016)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Not the same performance.  GAU-22 requires less maintenance and can fire more rounds continuously without damaging barrels.  Where revolver cannons often don't fire more than 0.5-1 second bursts, the GAUs are often fired 1-2 seconds.   We're talking 6-12kg versus 12-24kg of munitions on target.
> 
> Gatling guns are usually powered by an electric motor which has a flat torque curve.  The time it takes to accelerate from 0 to 825 rpm is negligible.


on a single engagement run : same performances (and the GIAT/NEXTER-30 is electrical powered ) 

but you're right for the 0.5-1 versus 1-2 (altho not much needed but in case it's needed : they can )
adapted for the GAU-8 Avenger since it's needed for sustained fire .... a little bit less for air to air (i assume the gunpod of the F-35 is for ground support )


----------



## Recon-UK (Aug 3, 2016)

My personal fave...


----------



## rvalencia (Aug 4, 2016)

Solaris17 said:


> Actually IIRC the helmet was considered bad by test pilots because it was heavy and the cockpit didnt allow ample room to move with it on.


That was gen 2 helmet. My Norway based link has gen 3 helmet.


----------

