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

On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 11:40:19 +0900, "Ragnar"
wrote:


"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.

Legally enough is fine... as long as your not the one whos left at the
end.

The point I was trying to make was the gun should not be left out,
because its rarely used, that 'rarely' might come in very handy one
day, its not a question of the number of rounds, 180 rounds seems
quite enough to me.

The same with the Titanic you can have legally enough lifeboats, or in
the extremly unlikely event of it hitting an iceberg a glancing blow
( a full head on impact would have been much better), a sufficent
number of life boats to accomadate the large number of disorganised
untrained people who in the confusion of an actual sinking didn't pack
enough in each lifeboat..

Or the cost of a walkway across the world trade centres was too
expensive, due to it being only needed in very unlikely events.

The point is risks can be forseen, adequate protection comes at a
cost, unfortunatly costs usually win.

By all means remove the gun on an aircraft, but I think you would also
have to remove the title 'Fighter' from its name.

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

"Guy Alcala" wrote in message
. ..
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

I little off topic but according to the History channel I watched last
night. The Captain ordered almost half the life boats removed the day of
sailing as " they looked appalling and were not needed", man, he knew what
he was talking about, huh?


T3

"T3" wrote in message
om...

"Guy Alcala" wrote in message
. ..
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

I little off topic but according to the History channel I watched last
night. The Captain ordered almost half the life boats removed the day of
sailing as " they looked appalling and were not needed", man, he knew what
he was talking about, hu

Sounds \a little bit wrong - according to Harland & Wolff, it was White Star
who specified the number fo lifeboats - the captain knew there weren't
enough, but relied on the fact that it was unsinkable (which it may have
been if the correct steel had been delivered and not diverted to other
tasks)

T3 wrote:
"Guy Alcala" wrote in message
. ..
Jeroen Wenting wrote:


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

I little off topic but according to the History channel I watched last
night. The Captain ordered almost half the life boats removed the day of
sailing as " they looked appalling and were not needed", man, he knew what
he was talking about, huh?

Not true. It is true that the davits were designed by Welin to carry two
lifeboats each, but the White Star Line decided long before the maiden
voyage of the Titanic that they didn't need that many. I believe the
Olympic may have made its maiden voyage with a full load of lifeboats,
but the second rank was removed after passengers in the Promenade Deck
cabins (the luxury suites) complained that they spoiled the view.

--
Marc Reeve
actual email address after removal of 4s & spaces is
c4m4r4a4m4a4n a4t c4r4u4z4i4o d4o4t c4o4m

Ian wrote:

"T3" wrote in message
om...

"Guy Alcala" wrote in message
. ..
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

I little off topic but according to the History channel I watched last
night. The Captain ordered almost half the life boats removed the day of
sailing as " they looked appalling and were not needed", man, he knew what
he was talking about, hu

Sounds \a little bit wrong - according to Harland & Wolff, it was White Star
who specified the number fo lifeboats - the captain knew there weren't
enough, but relied on the fact that it was unsinkable (which it may have
been if the correct steel had been delivered and not diverted to other
tasks)

Seeing as how this is r.a.m. I'm not going to wander even further off charter,
other than to mention that both the lifeboat claim and the steel one have long
since been disproved by reputable researchers. For the lifeboat one I refer you
to the text of both the British and American inquiries, available online. As
for the steel claim Garzke did a metallurgical analysis of steel from various
parts of the hull and rivets and there was noticeable variation in quality
between individual plates, but this was typical at that time. Consistency was
difficult owing to basic lack of knowledge and manufacturing skills compared to
say 20-30 years later.

Guy

Ragnar wrote:

"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.

Sorry about that - poor snippage on my part. I was replying to John Cook's
earlier post, not yours.

Guy

John Cook wrote:

On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 11:40:19 +0900, "Ragnar"
wrote:


"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.

Legally enough is fine... as long as your not the one whos left at the
end.

The point I was trying to make was the gun should not be left out,
because its rarely used, that 'rarely' might come in very handy one
day, its not a question of the number of rounds, 180 rounds seems
quite enough to me.

The same with the Titanic you can have legally enough lifeboats, or in
the extremly unlikely event of it hitting an iceberg a glancing blow
( a full head on impact would have been much better), a sufficent
number of life boats to accomadate the large number of disorganised
untrained people who in the confusion of an actual sinking didn't pack
enough in each lifeboat..

Or the cost of a walkway across the world trade centres was too
expensive, due to it being only needed in very unlikely events.

The point is risks can be forseen, adequate protection comes at a
cost, unfortunatly costs usually win.

By all means remove the gun on an aircraft, but I think you would also
have to remove the title 'Fighter' from its name.

Ah, so then the F-4B/C/D/G/J/K/M/N/S should also have the title 'Fighter' removed
from its name. And many MiG-21s as well, along with the F-102, the F-106, most
F-101s, etc. I guess you could at least make the argument that the interceptors
shouldn't have been called fighters, but I'd have to say that the Phantom's a
fighter in anyone's book, with or without internal gun.

Guy

T3 wrote:

"Guy Alcala" wrote in message
. ..
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

I little off topic but according to the History channel I watched last
night. The Captain ordered almost half the life boats removed the day of
sailing as " they looked appalling and were not needed", man, he knew what
he was talking about, huh?

If they actually made that claim, then (if it's possible) my opinion of the
accuracy of the 'History Channel' has sunk even lower than the great depth it
had already reached.

Guy

snip


By all means remove the gun on an aircraft, but I think you would also
have to remove the title 'Fighter' from its name.

Ah, so then the F-4B/C/D/G/J/K/M/N/S should also have the title 'Fighter' removed
from its name. And many MiG-21s as well, along with the F-102, the F-106, most
F-101s, etc. I guess you could at least make the argument that the interceptors
shouldn't have been called fighters, but I'd have to say that the Phantom's a
fighter in anyone's book, with or without internal gun.



I think you just proved the point, the biggist drawback to those
Phantoms was the lack of an internal gun, otherwise it was a bloody
good design... I really like the Phantom!.

Funny thing is I was going to mention what you said about
interceptors(strike/attack) but I deleted it at the last moment...


Cheers







Guy

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

John Cook wrote:

snip

By all means remove the gun on an aircraft, but I think you would also
have to remove the title 'Fighter' from its name.

Ah, so then the F-4B/C/D/G/J/K/M/N/S should also have the title 'Fighter' removed
from its name. And many MiG-21s as well, along with the F-102, the F-106, most
F-101s, etc. I guess you could at least make the argument that the interceptors
shouldn't have been called fighters, but I'd have to say that the Phantom's a
fighter in anyone's book, with or without internal gun.


I think you just proved the point, the biggist drawback to those
Phantoms was the lack of an internal gun, otherwise it was a bloody
good design... I really like the Phantom!.

I'd list several other items before the gun as major drawbacks to the Phantom: for
most of its combat career the smoking engines were a major problem, plus poor
visibility from the cockpit, poor switchology, crews that were often less well-trained
in ACM than they could have been, and inadequate A-A dogfight missiles. Given the
missile technology of the time a gun was nice to have for close-in fights but improved
missiles plus better-trained crews could (and did) make more of a difference.
Checking the Israeli total, out of their 116.5 F-4 kill claims, 58 were claimed by
missiles, most of them by AIM-9Ds; 34 by guns (but 14 of those were helos on the first
day of the Yom Kippur war, which the available missiles couldn't lock onto) and the
rest listed as either 'no weapon' kills or unknown. Their F-4s were normally carrying
limited numbers of AAMs on ground attack missions, so an ability to carry more
missiles instead of the gun might have led to an even greater number of kills.

Once the Israelis got decent missiles the gun scored a smaller and smaller percentage
of kills, fading away to almost nothing in Lebanon, and to nothing (of a small sample)
since.

Guy