F-35 25mm cannon 180 round ammo load too low?

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/planes/q0163.shtml

This page will need to be highlighted with the left mouse button to be seen in
it's entirety:
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache...il/ndia/2004gu
ns/wed/maher.ppt+%22F-35%22+%2225mm%22&hl=en

It looks like either 180 or 182 rounds for the CTOL variant and either 220 or
225 rounds for the gunpod for the CV and STOVL variants. 4,000 shots per
minute is 66 rounds per second which gives the CTOL variant 3 shots with the
gun and the CV and STOVL variants 4 shots with the gun. I'm no expert, but to
me, it seems like a kinda low ammo supply for a close air support aircraft.
Anyone agree? Disagree? Since the program is still in early stages, is it
possible the ammo load would be increased?

Thanks

"Sorja" wrote in message
...
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/planes/q0163.shtml

This page will need to be highlighted with the left mouse button to be
seen in
it's entirety:
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache...il/ndia/2004gu
ns/wed/maher.ppt+%22F-35%22+%2225mm%22&hl=en

It looks like either 180 or 182 rounds for the CTOL variant and either 220
or
225 rounds for the gunpod for the CV and STOVL variants. 4,000 shots per
minute is 66 rounds per second which gives the CTOL variant 3 shots with
the
gun and the CV and STOVL variants 4 shots with the gun. I'm no expert,
but to
me, it seems like a kinda low ammo supply for a close air support
aircraft.
Anyone agree? Disagree? Since the program is still in early stages, is
it
possible the ammo load would be increased?

Thanks

They are probably thinking the gun won't see much use in Air-To-Air and that
missiles and bombs are more likely for Air-To-Ground as well. I seem to
recall 400-600 rounds being loaded for Vulcans on 20mm armed fighters. It
might be wise to increase it in the F-35, but we will see. The 25mm should
be a good weapon on a per-shot basis, though.

"Sorja" wrote in message
...
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/planes/q0163.shtml

This page will need to be highlighted with the left mouse button to be
seen in
it's entirety:
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache...il/ndia/2004gu
ns/wed/maher.ppt+%22F-35%22+%2225mm%22&hl=en

It looks like either 180 or 182 rounds for the CTOL variant and either 220
or
225 rounds for the gunpod for the CV and STOVL variants. 4,000 shots per
minute is 66 rounds per second which gives the CTOL variant 3 shots with
the
gun and the CV and STOVL variants 4 shots with the gun. I'm no expert,
but to
me, it seems like a kinda low ammo supply for a close air support
aircraft.
Anyone agree? Disagree? Since the program is still in early stages, is
it
possible the ammo load would be increased?


Admittedly, you are no expert. Neither am I, but the question I have is:

How often is the gun used to strafe ground targets in the first place? If
the gun isn't used much, there isn't much point to wasting the space/weight,
is there?

Sorja wrote:
It looks like either 180 or 182 rounds for the CTOL variant and
either 220 or 225 rounds for the gunpod for the CV and STOVL
variants. 4,000 shots per minute is 66 rounds per second which gives
the CTOL variant 3 shots with the gun and the CV and STOVL variants 4
shots with the gun. I'm no expert, but to me, it seems like a kinda
low ammo supply for a close air support aircraft. Anyone agree?
Disagree? Since the program is still in early stages, is it possible
the ammo load would be increased?

It seems unlikely that the gun ammo will be increased given the weight
issues that have been raised.

But I doubt that this is a real problem. The gun is necessary as an
in-extremis weapon, but I've not heard of any AV-8s shooting dry their
300-round magazines in CAS missions. The STOVL JSF's 225 rounds is only one
fewer burst (by your calculations). That should be enough for amost all
uses.

--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"Our country, right or wrong. When right, to be kept right, when
wrong to be put right." - Senator Carl Schurz, 1872

On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 11:44:42 +0900, "Ragnar"
wrote:


Admittedly, you are no expert. Neither am I, but the question I have is:

How often is the gun used to strafe ground targets in the first place? If
the gun isn't used much, there isn't much point to wasting the space/weight,
is there?


The same sort of reasoning was applied to the lifeboats on the
Titanic......

Cheers

John Cook

Any spelling mistakes/grammatic errors are there purely to annoy. All
opinions are mine, not TAFE's however much they beg me for them.

Email Address :-
Spam trap - please remove (trousers) to email me
Eurofighter Website :- http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk

Admittedly, you are no expert. Neither am I, but the question I have is:

How often is the gun used to strafe ground targets in the first place?
If
the gun isn't used much, there isn't much point to wasting the
space/weight,
is there?


The same sort of reasoning was applied to the lifeboats on the
Titanic......

which weren't much use as most people didn't get to them in time anyway...

John Cook wrote:

On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 11:44:42 +0900, "Ragnar"
wrote:

Admittedly, you are no expert. Neither am I, but the question I have is:

How often is the gun used to strafe ground targets in the first place? If
the gun isn't used much, there isn't much point to wasting the space/weight,
is there?

In that case, how many rounds do YOU think the F-35 should carry -- 250, 500,
1,000, 10,000? What other equipment are you willing to do without, since
space/weight will always be limited? Have you factored into your calculations
that the F-35's FCS is likely to be far more accurate than the previous
generation, meaning that fewer rounds are needed to hit and kill a target? Will
the GAU-12 have selectable rates of fire, and burst limiters? Autofire
capability? Here's your chance to show us your skills as an analyst.

The same sort of reasoning was applied to the lifeboats on the
Titanic......

Well, no, the reasoning was rather different in that case, having to do with the
feeling that making the ship itself safer was more important than the lifeboats,
and the lifeboats would be used to transfer passengers to a rescue ship rather
than needing to carry the entire complement at once. Also, there was the thought
that in many sea conditions where ships would likely be in trouble it would be
impossible to launch the lifeboats or keep them from swamping. This in fact
happened about a year after the Titanic, when a passenger ship, the Volturno
IIRR, caught on fire in bad weather on the North Atlantic run. Rescue ships
reached her, but the first few attempts to launch lifeboats resulted in them
being lost with all aboard in the heavy seas. They were later able to get a few
away safely, but had to wait until a US navy ship showed up (an oiler IIRR) and
could lay down a slick to calm the seas, to allow the lifeboats to be launched
and row back and forth. Fortunately the fire was kept away from the remaining
passengers and crew until that could be done, but it was a near thing. See

homepages.rootsweb.com/~daamen1/volturno/story.htm

So, post-Titanic everyone agreed that there had to be sufficient lifeboats for
everyone on board, but that doesn't guarantee your safety. Depending on how the
ship is damaged and how quickly it sinks, you may not be able to use the
lifeboats on one side or the other, even if the sea conditions allow it. Both
the Lusitania and Andrea Doria took on such big lists in a short time that the
lifeboats on the high side of the ship couldn't be launched (wouldn't clear the
side of the ship), cutting the total available in half. Do we then require that
every passenger ship have sufficient lifeboats _on each side_ to accommodate
everyone on board? But that's no guarantee of success either; the Lusitania sank
so fast (ca. 18 minutes) that she still had way on, and several of the starboard
lifeboats were lost while launching owing to that. And being steeply down by the
bow or stern may also prevent boats from being launched, so do we now require
sufficient boats fore and aft, on each side, so that any one quadrant will have
sufficient capacity for everyone on board even if the other three quadrants'
boats are unusable? This also provides redundancy in the event of fire, which
seems to be the main threat to cruise and passenger ships.

What does this ship look like? Can anyone make money with it? Will anyone want
to travel on it? After all, any view of the surroundings is blocked by the boats
stacked four or five high and six across from prow to counter. There have been
improvements in lifeboats and launching methods in the last 90+ years, but not
enough to meet all of those requirements. The best idea is still to make the
ship itself sufficiently safe so that rescue ships (and aircraft) have time to
arrive.

Guy

Jeroen Wenting wrote:

Admittedly, you are no expert. Neither am I, but the question I have is:

How often is the gun used to strafe ground targets in the first place?
If
the gun isn't used much, there isn't much point to wasting the
space/weight,
is there?


The same sort of reasoning was applied to the lifeboats on the
Titanic......

which weren't much use as most people didn't get to them in time anyway...

Which was a failure of organisation, not of the boats themselves. Except for
the last couple of collapsible lifeboats all of Titanic's boats were
successfully launched in sufficient time, but owing to poor regulations and the
lack of any lifeboat drill many were only partly full. IIRR they held something
like 700 of the 1,100 or so they could have.

Guy

"John Cook" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 11:44:42 +0900, "Ragnar"
wrote:


Admittedly, you are no expert. Neither am I, but the question I have is:

How often is the gun used to strafe ground targets in the first place?
If
the gun isn't used much, there isn't much point to wasting the
space/weight,
is there?


The same sort of reasoning was applied to the lifeboats on the
Titanic......

Nice try. There were legally enough lifeboats on the Titanic, the designers
very carefully followed existing laws that governed ships over 10,000 tons.

Now, show me the law that says how many rounds a gun should carry on the
F35.

"Guy Alcala" wrote in message
. ..
John Cook wrote:

On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 11:44:42 +0900, "Ragnar"
wrote:

Admittedly, you are no expert. Neither am I, but the question I have
is:

How often is the gun used to strafe ground targets in the first place?
If
the gun isn't used much, there isn't much point to wasting the
space/weight,
is there?

In that case, how many rounds do YOU think the F-35 should carry -- 250,
500,
1,000, 10,000? What other equipment are you willing to do without, since
space/weight will always be limited? Have you factored into your
calculations
that the F-35's FCS is likely to be far more accurate than the previous
generation, meaning that fewer rounds are needed to hit and kill a target?
Will
the GAU-12 have selectable rates of fire, and burst limiters? Autofire
capability? Here's your chance to show us your skills as an analyst.

You did read my reply to the original post, right? I'm not an expert on the
F35, so how can I show analyst skills in a subject I don't know? I could
care less how many rounds the gun carries, so long as the platform
effectively carries out the intended mission.