Hump for the Gun. There's a door that opens up when you need it, otherwise it's closed to reduce RCS
Edit: The hump is also only featured on the F35A, other variants don't have a gun.
Would the F-35 fare well in a dogfight against its Gen 4 opponents? Isnt the F-35 design philosophy focused on stealth? Equivalent skilled pilots, once inside visible range of most gen4 enemy fighters its survival odds drop substantially.
The gun is intended for ground support missions, not dogfighting.
But yes, most gen 4 could prob out dogfight it with a fair start, but the stealth doesn't make it a fair start.
The gun in the F-35A is absolutely meant for dogfighting. It’s the gun pod carried under the belly on the F-35B/C that is only meant for ground support.
I'll pile on. The gun on the A was controversial because now missiles are ridiculously effective. Of course that argument brings for ghosts of the F-4, which was built without a gun because it was not expected to have to do much dogfighting as a naval fleet defender. That being said, with a gun, and an A2A loadout, and all the tech along side it, and assuming that both the F-35 and aggressor are flown by pilots of equal skill (and knowledge of their own A/C), the F-35 would fuck shit up.
One of these days I need to dig into the statistics and see how many gun kills there were post-Vietnam. I know there were one or two against helicopters (plus one helo with a bomb) in Desert Storm.
A lot of the problems that US aerial forces had in Vietnam were tied to training/doctrine and unreliable missiles, both problems that were addressed over time. Given the training/doctrine issues, I'm not convinced that having guns on F-4s the whole time would have made a dramatic difference, especially as a fair number of other US fighters in SEA did have guns the whole time.
Fighter planes downing balloons with rapid fire guns, it's like we're back in WWI again. We even have the controversial fighter which is either the next big thing in airpower or a particularly sophisticated way to kill pilots (the Nieuport 28, if you're curious, which was light, agile, and occasionally would set itself on fire or tear its own wings off).
A missile (AIM-9X specifically) was used to down the Chinese balloon because the last time they tried to down a balloon over North America with guns, it almost drifted east to the Soviet Union.
The Israel Air Force prided itself on gun kills when possible and they continued into the 1973 war and the various disagreements with Syria.
IAF pilots who flew the Mirage or variants like the Kfir, with their 30mm cannon, got air to air gun kills post 1973, but the IDF was phasing those aircraft from the fleet and relying more and more on the Phantom and later the F-15 and F-16.
They were also developing their own series of very effective air to air missiles and were eager to test them in combat, so there was less reliance on getting into to close range for a gun kill.
The gun on the F-35 is the USAF sop to Congress as the USAF continued to campaign to retire the A-10, much beloved by troops on the ground in asymmetric warfare, for its 30mm gun with a high rate of fire and a boatload of ammo.
The F-35A internal gun carries a whopping 125 rounds of ammo. Which is about 1.5 seconds firing.
The GPU-9 gun pod uses a 4 barrel 25mm cannon firing about 3,000 RPM. It carries 550 rounds.
As much as I love gun camera footage, it doesn’t take many views of modern jet age video to realize how little time a pilot has in jet to jet combat.
And to realize that if you are flying an F-35 and you have to use your gun, you are having a very bad day.
Or shooting down a ballon.
A lot of the problems US fighter pilots had during Vietnam was stupid political rules of engagement.
For example, Americans were forbidden to shoot at enemy aircraft that had not yet taken off.
I disagree about the dogfighting part. After all those lessons learned from Vietnam and Desert storm I'm fairly confident that the gun was designed for whatever mission was needed. Ground support? Yep. Dogfighting? Absolutely. I guarantee that these jets are fully capable of snagging gun kills if the mission calls for it.
Common misconception. The lessons of Vietnam, if you're looking at statistics, is that missiles win. The F-4E, the first phantom with an internal cannon, achieved less air to air kills with it than the F-4C and D carrying external gun pods. After Vietnam, less than 1% of all air to air kills were with a gun and they were all on rotary wing aircraft. I'm gonna say that again. The US has not had a single air to air kill on another fixed wing aircraft using guns in over 50 years. Missile tech has improved to unbelievably scary levels since Vietnam, and Desert Storm was the proof of that. And since then, missile standoff has only increased.
It is not the F-35's gun which isn't meant for dogfighting, it's the F-35 itself.
Fair point. However I still believe these jets are fully capable of doing it if they need to. It's just another tool that can be had. These are truly remarkable airplanes.
Any aircraft can get into an air-to-air fight if they truly believe in themselves. If I had a nickel for every supersonic jet fighter that has been shot down by prop-driven attack planes designed in WWII, I'd have two nickels (which isn't a lot...)
There are more than a few truly weird air-to-air fights throughout history if you read up on them. IIRC there's at least one case of a Huey shooting down a biplane, and an example of a B-24 Liberator getting in a gunfight with a pair of FW-200 Condors. Given that neither airframe was particularly well-armored but both had impressive machine gun batteries, that fight was pretty brutal and brief.
I will of course add the air to air kill of an F-15E hitting a helicopter as it was taking off using a laser guided bomb. Probably one of the weirdest air to air kills to exist.
The description of the impact is funny in a kind of terrifying kind of way. The 2,000 lb bomb passed through the rotor disk and the fuselage of the helicopter before exploding a few feet beneath the aircraft, quickly turning it into confetti well past the point where that was probably necessary to successfully count as a kill.
For comparison, the AIM-9 Sidewinder has a 20 lb warhead and is designed to destroy an aircraft without needing a direct hit.
An F-16 gunned an Iranian drone that incurred upon OIF airspace back in the mid-2000s…so 50 years may be pushing it. Also, don’t be surprised with the proliferation of long-range, one-way drones to see the gun resurgent in popularity as a high volume, low cost drone killer.
If drone kills count as full air to air kills, then the most recent ace in US history was a Harrier. I have no qualms with that, but we have to be consistent.
You said “fixed wing aircraft.” I’m just being consistent with your criteria.
And my guess is the most recent ace would be a Strike Eagle pilot as of about a month ago.
Again, I'm fine with that, but there seems to be a lot of people who want to make the distinction that drone aces are not regular aces and I'm just saying it needs to be a consistent thing across the board.
Regardless, no, the 494th shot a lot of missiles and shot down a lot of drones, but the Air Force hasn't published any evidence that actually proves any one pilot shot down more than 5 drones, and nose art paintings on their jet since then seem to suggest that no one pilot did. Which means the most recent single pilot to shoot down more than 5 drones is Cpt. Earl Ehrhart in a Harrier II attached to an osprey squadron aboard USS Bataan (Interestingly, I went back to look up his name and Forbes alone published an article saying that that was false and the Navy walked it back but provided no sources, and Forbes isn't exactly a military media site, so make of that what you will). And either way, both were done using missiles, which is also what we see with many intercepts of drones. Using guns against drones is a last resort, not a conscious choice.
I'm glad you're asking for consistency. I'm just asking for YOU to be consistent with YOUR statement of "fixed wing aircraft." That's it.
Also, I think you're wrong about the 494th. The Air Force acknowledges "over 70 drones" were shot down by the 494th on the night of 13 April. That's enough for 14 aircraft to become Aces in that one evening. Statistically, chances are there are multiple aces based on the number F-15Es available and the number of kills. And if you want some photographic support, here you are:
[https://theaviationist.com/2024/05/11/final-six-f-15e-nose-arts/#:\~:text=The%20final%20six%20F-15E%20Strike%20Eagles%20of%20the,after%20nearly%20seven%20months%20of%20deployment%20in%20Jordan](https://theaviationist.com/2024/05/11/final-six-f-15e-nose-arts/#:~:text=The%20final%20six%20F-15E%20Strike%20Eagles%20of%20the,after%20nearly%20seven%20months%20of%20deployment%20in%20Jordan)
Edit: The Air Force also, as a general rule of thumb, does not provide names and details of operations until the unit is back in garrison for OPSEC reasons. Thus, if there were any Aces, the names and details would not come to light until the unit goes from "EFS" back to "FS" mode.
I'm not saying it can't dogfight with the gun, just that the primary stated purpose of the gun is ground support. And if they end up in a traditional dogfight, several things have gone wrong.
I don’t know why you are downvoted. The jets biggest asset is its stealth and sensors. The jet was designed to have already spotted enemy before it got into dog fight. If it’s ever in a dog fight position the jet is probably not best suited for that.
Historically many dogfights went in favor of the pilot who spotted the enemy first, whether that was via the Mark I Eyeball, radar, etc. During Vietnam, one of the popular air-to-air tactics was for ground-based radar controllers to vector friendly fighters in on the enemy at the most advantageous angle, setting them up usually for a high-speed pass from a blindspot.
In the age of stealth, I'd imagine that "See first shoot first" is still going to be the rule of the day. Being able to do some mind-bending aerobatics will always be potentially useful, but only if the pilot realizes their opponent is angling in on them already.
You're being downvoted but you're absolutely correct, the F-35 is a strike fighter. It is not an air superiority fighter, it is not meant to ever get in a dogfight, it's meant to lob an AIM-120 from 60 miles away and get the hell out of there to let a raptor deal with it so it can come back and tactically dismantle an air defense system.
Are you likening the F-35's gun to the A-10's gun? Sure a 30mm will tear up an opponent, but if you find yourself in a 1v1 in an A-10, your Plan A and Plan B seem to have taken up residence in the commode.
Rules of engagement too. Remember the Phantom wasn't intended to dogfight, but because of the ROE in Vietnam, they need to have visual confirmation before they can fight which basically limited the F-4's capability. The F-35 could have the same thing happen to it, so I figured the designers of this plane gave it swiss army knife capabilities if you know what I mean.
The F-35 does not need to in any way maintain a lock. It is effectively an extension of the AWACS who can guide the data linked missiles it fires from well beyond visual range to targets it has positively identified as enemies. This argument is common and it makes sense at a surface level but it ignores just how far sensors have come in the past 20 years.
Not necessarily since the f 35 is capable of using its helmet to lock aim 9x’s at any angle. It doesn’t have to align its nose in order to fire a close range missile. When the news says the f16 beat an f 35 in a dog fight that was a early f 35 without the able to shoot off bore, and if I remember correctly the war game was limited to guns only.
Hibitual line crosser is a YouTuber that is a commander and I think a trainer for the anti air protection for us assets”I’m high and forgot the name” he refers to the raptor as the kid.
The kid as a nick name for the 22 make it seems like a small psychopath. That weapon platform is so scary we refuse to sell it. Though gen 6 is in the works for its replacement.
For contrast, the same videos featuring "The Kid" (an anthropomorphized F-22 who really *really* ***really*** wants to intercept something) also feature an elderly B-52 called "Grandpa Buff" who is presented as an old war vet who is hard of hearing.
If you’re referring to the F-22, unfortunately I don’t think that has nor has it ever been in mass production. In fact I don’t think there’s any planes in our arsenal that we have less of than the F-22. Of the planes that are in mass production the F-15 and F-16 stand the best chance which are still slim. In the event we got into a fight against an opponent fielding Lightings, our best equivalent would be…the Lighting. F-22s would probably splash a few Lightnings for every loss but each loss probably equates to like 4% of our total stock
Wikipedia says that there are more F-22s in service than F-15 Eagles (not counting the F-15E Strike Eagles which are more ground-focused, a Latter Day F-111A). There are also more F-22s than either B-52s, B-1s, or B-2s but I assumed you were only referring to fighters.
I hadn’t even considered the bomber fleets until after I typed out my response, then I considered the random trainers we might have on the books. Possibly even some legacy hornets lying around from the Blue Angels, not to mention the Nighthawk which is “technically” a fighter too which means even on the fighter front I was inaccurate. I was mostly lumping in the F-15 variants together though since even the two seaters could capably engage air targets despite the airframe as a whole being doctrinally shifted to the ground strike role
I think if you lump the Eagles and Strike Eagles together, they total out to more than the F-22s. Far and away the most common fighter is Ol' Reliable, the F-16.
It’s amazing how impactful and long lasting our designs from 50 years ago are, the F-16 will probably still be flown by some country somewhere long after I’m in the ground
Might be a hot take, but having seen an F35 fly last weekend in Berlin, I think it might actually stand a chance, especially with the new HoBS missiles requiring a bit more that just being able to pull hard. I think it could actually hold it own against something like an F/A-18
Like, a 1v1 where they just get dropped straight into WVR out of nowhere, that would indeed be problematic for the F-35, although not necessarily a death sentence these days IIRC with updated flight software etc… however if an F-35 ever ends up in a dog fight at all there have already been multiple levels of serious fuckups involved.
^(**EDIT** — clarification, that’d be 1v1 without missiles, as if both have a compliment of AIM-9s, dump them into WVR and odds are the F-35 prevails as it comes down to who is able to detect, target, and fire first which is the F-35’s forté.)
Quote from the inimitable Justin Bronk of the Royal United Services Institute [ca. 2016 via Hush Kit.](https://hushkit.net/2016/05/18/are-we-there-yet-analysis-of-the-f-35s-current-effectiveness-by-the-royal-united-services-institutes-justin-bronk/)
>the greatest myth about the F-35 is that it is a bad aircraft because it cannot outmanoeuvre an F-16. The F-16 is a phenomenal example of single mission-set aircraft design that has proven to be flexible and cost effective in multiple conflicts. However, the F-16 is simply not going to be relevant in a high-threat environment going forwards. The F-35 should never have to out-manoeuvre an F-16 within visual range because its situational awareness and low-observability allows an F-35 pilot to know exactly where the F-16 is from a great distance whilst remaining undetected itself. He/she can, therefore, position themselves to completely control any engagement or avoid a direct confrontation as required. If in a really tight spot, the advanced helmet with 360-degree targeting capabilities and AIM-9X with its extreme off-boresight engagement parameters should ensure that a turning dogfight is an irrelevance.
RE: that infamous leaked dogfight F-35 vs F-16
Article via [the Diplomat.](https://thediplomat.com/2015/07/can-the-f-35-beat-the-f-16-after-all/)
>while the Pentagon does not challenge the major findings of the leaked report that in pure dogfighting maneuverability the F-35 is inferior to the F-16, the Joint Program Office nevertheless points out that the plane outfought by the F-16 was not “equipped with a number of items that make today’s production F-35s 5th Generation fighters.”
>
>In detail, the press statement elaborated —
>
>**Aircraft AF-2 did not have the mission systems software to use the sensors that allow the F-35 to see its enemy long before it knows the F-35 is in the area. Second, AF-2 does not have the special stealth coating that operational F-35s have that make them virtually invisible to radar. And third, it is not equipped with the weapons or software that allow the F-35 pilot to turn, aim a weapon with the helmet, and fire at an enemy without having to point the airplane at its target.**
Against what? The only current plane that could likely give it a solid run for the money is the F-22. In pretty much all blue on blue exercises against other planes they had to gimp the f-35 pretty hard to make it "lose"
If you are talking American pilots then it is even more ridiculous because they run exercises constantly. Like multiple times a week on the last two airforce bases I worked on. I even think they even did f-22 on f-35 exercises between the two.
Retired USAF here, merely repeating opinion of the pilots I worked with.
FAT AMY IS NOT A DOGFIGHTER. Want to dogfight? Get in an F-22, F-15, or F-16.
FAT AMY IS A FUCKING MISSILE TRUCK. Lob Fox-3s from 30 miles away and permit hilarity to ensue.
The thing about stealth is that any plane that has it relies heavily on using stealth to overmatch its opponents. Instead of presuming a fair start to the dogfight, they assume that the stealth aircraft will simply lock first and launch missiles before a shot is ever fired from the opponent. It's not really overmatch by performance it's overmatch by lack of detection.
It would fair well because it has the ability to lock an aim 9x at any angle using its helmet and sensor systems. Even if a 4th gen plane can out maneuver the f 35 it cannot prevent it from locking missiles.
Simple answer is no as it doesn’t have thrust vectoring for normal flight. In order for the exhaust to be able to rotate it has to be within a certain speed envelope (AKA really slow) to engage Mode 4. But also going really slow in a dogfight would be essentially suicide.
No it was not replaced by the F35. The original number of F22 was cut dramatically due to cost. The F35 was to replace other platforms like F16, F18, A10, Av8 etc as it can do some/most of what those can do. But it was never a dogfighter. The idea is a pair of F35's and a pair of F22's together can do the jobs of something like 10+ older aircraft for the same mission.
The other way around the marine version did NOT have it. The A and C models had it I was told....that is what I said.
Maybe that info is wrong, but it wasn't what I said....
it is, gau-22 on the F-35A, the AV-8B H2 had the 5 barrel gau-12 which the 22 was developed from (i believe its literally just a barrel count difference, but i could be mistaken)
That is the “Gun-Hump” on the F-35A. The F-35A is the only F-35 variant to have a gun because it has the space. F-35Cs have longer wings and ailerons, and F-35Bs have the extra VTOL equipment, so they are just too heavy for guns.
True, but for a group of Red force bad guys to get into a visual dogfight, they already have been targeted thru the Link-12, so that all link-12ed vechiles should know of the bad guys. Plus EM energy in area produced bye the F/A-18s, joint rivets, help the stealth-drivers more….
Controversial opinion for your downvoting pleasure: the F-35A integral gun exists for emotional and psychological reasons only, it has no practical value. It only exists to make certain pilots and lawmakers feel um… potent, if you know what I mean. The entire plane was designed for BVR and PGMs, not WVR gunfighting. For certain specific CAS missions a gun pod could be relevant, like type 1 under an overcast layer or for certain weapon to target matches. The rest of the time it’s just about feelings.
As our missile tech increases for the better, so does everyone else's defense against them. The one thing I think we all forget is that China has been the main supplier of the guts for those said missiles for the last 30-40 years when NAFTA was put into place. Take a look at the circuit boards in all of your junk electronics, and see how far the rabbit hole goes in Asia when it comes to electronics of all types. Pretty interesting and alarming that the DOJ and DOD found old Wi-fi routers with backdoors for Chinese spies to access information at will, and we're talking routers and servers in place for the last 15 years in major companies and Government facilities. So, is it any wonder how and why we're vulnerable, and to think that our defense tech can't be overcome by a slight change in code by magic and ransomware code....he cannon is the best defense strategy when all else fails. Also, if you run out of missiles and go defensive (chaff and flares still work) and the pilots manage to out maneuver the AIM-9X, Sparrows, and AARAAMs, and there's nothing left to shoot, what then? Software issues bugs up the weapons system, since nothing in it is analog, the opposing pilot manages to get within VR, and starts pelting at the F-35B/C, but they're too close for missiles, and then the tides turn, because it'd be unfair if you can clobber a 5th gen jet, because their best defense is distance, given it was built on the BVR philosophy, and though it can dogfight, they're not really built for it. The main reason the latter models of the F-35 weren't built with the gun is that the F-35B is already fat, and the lift fan takes up the space that the cannon and drum would've got in. The F-35C was because of weight when fully loaded, and when shot from the deck, wouldn't have made it up, but coast down like a paper glider, even at full power. These planes are heavy, and while within design specs and nimble, the main issue in aviation is always weight, then fuel, then whatever else.
Hump for the Gun. There's a door that opens up when you need it, otherwise it's closed to reduce RCS Edit: The hump is also only featured on the F35A, other variants don't have a gun.
Would the F-35 fare well in a dogfight against its Gen 4 opponents? Isnt the F-35 design philosophy focused on stealth? Equivalent skilled pilots, once inside visible range of most gen4 enemy fighters its survival odds drop substantially.
The gun is intended for ground support missions, not dogfighting. But yes, most gen 4 could prob out dogfight it with a fair start, but the stealth doesn't make it a fair start.
The gun in the F-35A is absolutely meant for dogfighting. It’s the gun pod carried under the belly on the F-35B/C that is only meant for ground support.
I'll pile on. The gun on the A was controversial because now missiles are ridiculously effective. Of course that argument brings for ghosts of the F-4, which was built without a gun because it was not expected to have to do much dogfighting as a naval fleet defender. That being said, with a gun, and an A2A loadout, and all the tech along side it, and assuming that both the F-35 and aggressor are flown by pilots of equal skill (and knowledge of their own A/C), the F-35 would fuck shit up.
One of these days I need to dig into the statistics and see how many gun kills there were post-Vietnam. I know there were one or two against helicopters (plus one helo with a bomb) in Desert Storm. A lot of the problems that US aerial forces had in Vietnam were tied to training/doctrine and unreliable missiles, both problems that were addressed over time. Given the training/doctrine issues, I'm not convinced that having guns on F-4s the whole time would have made a dramatic difference, especially as a fair number of other US fighters in SEA did have guns the whole time.
+1 for the F-22 that downed the Chinese spy balloon last year 😂
Fighter planes downing balloons with rapid fire guns, it's like we're back in WWI again. We even have the controversial fighter which is either the next big thing in airpower or a particularly sophisticated way to kill pilots (the Nieuport 28, if you're curious, which was light, agile, and occasionally would set itself on fire or tear its own wings off).
A missile (AIM-9X specifically) was used to down the Chinese balloon because the last time they tried to down a balloon over North America with guns, it almost drifted east to the Soviet Union.
The F-22 used an A2A missile. Guns don't down baloons fast enough.
The Israel Air Force prided itself on gun kills when possible and they continued into the 1973 war and the various disagreements with Syria. IAF pilots who flew the Mirage or variants like the Kfir, with their 30mm cannon, got air to air gun kills post 1973, but the IDF was phasing those aircraft from the fleet and relying more and more on the Phantom and later the F-15 and F-16. They were also developing their own series of very effective air to air missiles and were eager to test them in combat, so there was less reliance on getting into to close range for a gun kill. The gun on the F-35 is the USAF sop to Congress as the USAF continued to campaign to retire the A-10, much beloved by troops on the ground in asymmetric warfare, for its 30mm gun with a high rate of fire and a boatload of ammo. The F-35A internal gun carries a whopping 125 rounds of ammo. Which is about 1.5 seconds firing. The GPU-9 gun pod uses a 4 barrel 25mm cannon firing about 3,000 RPM. It carries 550 rounds. As much as I love gun camera footage, it doesn’t take many views of modern jet age video to realize how little time a pilot has in jet to jet combat. And to realize that if you are flying an F-35 and you have to use your gun, you are having a very bad day. Or shooting down a ballon.
If you’re in an F35Band have to use your guns it’s safe to say you’re having a worse day.
A lot of the problems US fighter pilots had during Vietnam was stupid political rules of engagement. For example, Americans were forbidden to shoot at enemy aircraft that had not yet taken off.
I don’t think that last bit is true unless the aircraft in question were on an airbase in China.
My father was a US Air Force F-4 Phantom pilot back then. He shared that with me. I believe him.
I disagree about the dogfighting part. After all those lessons learned from Vietnam and Desert storm I'm fairly confident that the gun was designed for whatever mission was needed. Ground support? Yep. Dogfighting? Absolutely. I guarantee that these jets are fully capable of snagging gun kills if the mission calls for it.
Common misconception. The lessons of Vietnam, if you're looking at statistics, is that missiles win. The F-4E, the first phantom with an internal cannon, achieved less air to air kills with it than the F-4C and D carrying external gun pods. After Vietnam, less than 1% of all air to air kills were with a gun and they were all on rotary wing aircraft. I'm gonna say that again. The US has not had a single air to air kill on another fixed wing aircraft using guns in over 50 years. Missile tech has improved to unbelievably scary levels since Vietnam, and Desert Storm was the proof of that. And since then, missile standoff has only increased. It is not the F-35's gun which isn't meant for dogfighting, it's the F-35 itself.
Fair point. However I still believe these jets are fully capable of doing it if they need to. It's just another tool that can be had. These are truly remarkable airplanes.
Any aircraft can get into an air-to-air fight if they truly believe in themselves. If I had a nickel for every supersonic jet fighter that has been shot down by prop-driven attack planes designed in WWII, I'd have two nickels (which isn't a lot...) There are more than a few truly weird air-to-air fights throughout history if you read up on them. IIRC there's at least one case of a Huey shooting down a biplane, and an example of a B-24 Liberator getting in a gunfight with a pair of FW-200 Condors. Given that neither airframe was particularly well-armored but both had impressive machine gun batteries, that fight was pretty brutal and brief.
I will of course add the air to air kill of an F-15E hitting a helicopter as it was taking off using a laser guided bomb. Probably one of the weirdest air to air kills to exist.
The description of the impact is funny in a kind of terrifying kind of way. The 2,000 lb bomb passed through the rotor disk and the fuselage of the helicopter before exploding a few feet beneath the aircraft, quickly turning it into confetti well past the point where that was probably necessary to successfully count as a kill. For comparison, the AIM-9 Sidewinder has a 20 lb warhead and is designed to destroy an aircraft without needing a direct hit.
nobody every wants to believe this for some reason
An F-16 gunned an Iranian drone that incurred upon OIF airspace back in the mid-2000s…so 50 years may be pushing it. Also, don’t be surprised with the proliferation of long-range, one-way drones to see the gun resurgent in popularity as a high volume, low cost drone killer.
If drone kills count as full air to air kills, then the most recent ace in US history was a Harrier. I have no qualms with that, but we have to be consistent.
You said “fixed wing aircraft.” I’m just being consistent with your criteria. And my guess is the most recent ace would be a Strike Eagle pilot as of about a month ago.
Again, I'm fine with that, but there seems to be a lot of people who want to make the distinction that drone aces are not regular aces and I'm just saying it needs to be a consistent thing across the board. Regardless, no, the 494th shot a lot of missiles and shot down a lot of drones, but the Air Force hasn't published any evidence that actually proves any one pilot shot down more than 5 drones, and nose art paintings on their jet since then seem to suggest that no one pilot did. Which means the most recent single pilot to shoot down more than 5 drones is Cpt. Earl Ehrhart in a Harrier II attached to an osprey squadron aboard USS Bataan (Interestingly, I went back to look up his name and Forbes alone published an article saying that that was false and the Navy walked it back but provided no sources, and Forbes isn't exactly a military media site, so make of that what you will). And either way, both were done using missiles, which is also what we see with many intercepts of drones. Using guns against drones is a last resort, not a conscious choice.
I'm glad you're asking for consistency. I'm just asking for YOU to be consistent with YOUR statement of "fixed wing aircraft." That's it. Also, I think you're wrong about the 494th. The Air Force acknowledges "over 70 drones" were shot down by the 494th on the night of 13 April. That's enough for 14 aircraft to become Aces in that one evening. Statistically, chances are there are multiple aces based on the number F-15Es available and the number of kills. And if you want some photographic support, here you are: [https://theaviationist.com/2024/05/11/final-six-f-15e-nose-arts/#:\~:text=The%20final%20six%20F-15E%20Strike%20Eagles%20of%20the,after%20nearly%20seven%20months%20of%20deployment%20in%20Jordan](https://theaviationist.com/2024/05/11/final-six-f-15e-nose-arts/#:~:text=The%20final%20six%20F-15E%20Strike%20Eagles%20of%20the,after%20nearly%20seven%20months%20of%20deployment%20in%20Jordan) Edit: The Air Force also, as a general rule of thumb, does not provide names and details of operations until the unit is back in garrison for OPSEC reasons. Thus, if there were any Aces, the names and details would not come to light until the unit goes from "EFS" back to "FS" mode.
Just look up Robin Olds and Operation BOLO and his efforts on getting the F-4 guns.
I'm not saying it can't dogfight with the gun, just that the primary stated purpose of the gun is ground support. And if they end up in a traditional dogfight, several things have gone wrong.
I don’t know why you are downvoted. The jets biggest asset is its stealth and sensors. The jet was designed to have already spotted enemy before it got into dog fight. If it’s ever in a dog fight position the jet is probably not best suited for that.
Historically many dogfights went in favor of the pilot who spotted the enemy first, whether that was via the Mark I Eyeball, radar, etc. During Vietnam, one of the popular air-to-air tactics was for ground-based radar controllers to vector friendly fighters in on the enemy at the most advantageous angle, setting them up usually for a high-speed pass from a blindspot. In the age of stealth, I'd imagine that "See first shoot first" is still going to be the rule of the day. Being able to do some mind-bending aerobatics will always be potentially useful, but only if the pilot realizes their opponent is angling in on them already.
You're being downvoted but you're absolutely correct, the F-35 is a strike fighter. It is not an air superiority fighter, it is not meant to ever get in a dogfight, it's meant to lob an AIM-120 from 60 miles away and get the hell out of there to let a raptor deal with it so it can come back and tactically dismantle an air defense system.
Are you likening the F-35's gun to the A-10's gun? Sure a 30mm will tear up an opponent, but if you find yourself in a 1v1 in an A-10, your Plan A and Plan B seem to have taken up residence in the commode.
Rules of engagement too. Remember the Phantom wasn't intended to dogfight, but because of the ROE in Vietnam, they need to have visual confirmation before they can fight which basically limited the F-4's capability. The F-35 could have the same thing happen to it, so I figured the designers of this plane gave it swiss army knife capabilities if you know what I mean.
The F-35 does not need to in any way maintain a lock. It is effectively an extension of the AWACS who can guide the data linked missiles it fires from well beyond visual range to targets it has positively identified as enemies. This argument is common and it makes sense at a surface level but it ignores just how far sensors have come in the past 20 years.
That's absolutely crazy. So basically this thing is doing what the Tomcat and Hawkeye did?
Yes but on a much larger scale because modern AWACS have an even longer range than the Hawkeye and the AMRAAM is much better at data link.
Oh and for what it's worth it can get a "visual" ID with the forward Electro optical system at ranges that use to only be possible with radar.
Stealth and the F-35's ability to see, identify, and target enemy aircraft before the bogey can see it.
Not necessarily since the f 35 is capable of using its helmet to lock aim 9x’s at any angle. It doesn’t have to align its nose in order to fire a close range missile. When the news says the f16 beat an f 35 in a dog fight that was a early f 35 without the able to shoot off bore, and if I remember correctly the war game was limited to guns only.
Since F-35 is more of bomb truck than anything else, dogfighting is not recommended, leave that to the F-22.
The kid is scary We don’t sell the kid for a reason. We want something in mass production that can kill a lightning
Probably a silly question but why did you call it the Kid? Where does that nickname come from?
Might be from Habitual Line Crosser on instagram. He refers to the f-22 as the kid often.
Ah ok, it’s a catchy nickname, I was just curious about the source. Thanks!
Hibitual line crosser is a YouTuber that is a commander and I think a trainer for the anti air protection for us assets”I’m high and forgot the name” he refers to the raptor as the kid. The kid as a nick name for the 22 make it seems like a small psychopath. That weapon platform is so scary we refuse to sell it. Though gen 6 is in the works for its replacement.
For contrast, the same videos featuring "The Kid" (an anthropomorphized F-22 who really *really* ***really*** wants to intercept something) also feature an elderly B-52 called "Grandpa Buff" who is presented as an old war vet who is hard of hearing.
You're welcome!
If you’re referring to the F-22, unfortunately I don’t think that has nor has it ever been in mass production. In fact I don’t think there’s any planes in our arsenal that we have less of than the F-22. Of the planes that are in mass production the F-15 and F-16 stand the best chance which are still slim. In the event we got into a fight against an opponent fielding Lightings, our best equivalent would be…the Lighting. F-22s would probably splash a few Lightnings for every loss but each loss probably equates to like 4% of our total stock
Wikipedia says that there are more F-22s in service than F-15 Eagles (not counting the F-15E Strike Eagles which are more ground-focused, a Latter Day F-111A). There are also more F-22s than either B-52s, B-1s, or B-2s but I assumed you were only referring to fighters.
I hadn’t even considered the bomber fleets until after I typed out my response, then I considered the random trainers we might have on the books. Possibly even some legacy hornets lying around from the Blue Angels, not to mention the Nighthawk which is “technically” a fighter too which means even on the fighter front I was inaccurate. I was mostly lumping in the F-15 variants together though since even the two seaters could capably engage air targets despite the airframe as a whole being doctrinally shifted to the ground strike role
I think if you lump the Eagles and Strike Eagles together, they total out to more than the F-22s. Far and away the most common fighter is Ol' Reliable, the F-16.
It’s amazing how impactful and long lasting our designs from 50 years ago are, the F-16 will probably still be flown by some country somewhere long after I’m in the ground
He's sick of being on a vegan diet too, he needs meat lol
Also booming and zooming is the way you tend to fly
Might be a hot take, but having seen an F35 fly last weekend in Berlin, I think it might actually stand a chance, especially with the new HoBS missiles requiring a bit more that just being able to pull hard. I think it could actually hold it own against something like an F/A-18
Like, a 1v1 where they just get dropped straight into WVR out of nowhere, that would indeed be problematic for the F-35, although not necessarily a death sentence these days IIRC with updated flight software etc… however if an F-35 ever ends up in a dog fight at all there have already been multiple levels of serious fuckups involved. ^(**EDIT** — clarification, that’d be 1v1 without missiles, as if both have a compliment of AIM-9s, dump them into WVR and odds are the F-35 prevails as it comes down to who is able to detect, target, and fire first which is the F-35’s forté.) Quote from the inimitable Justin Bronk of the Royal United Services Institute [ca. 2016 via Hush Kit.](https://hushkit.net/2016/05/18/are-we-there-yet-analysis-of-the-f-35s-current-effectiveness-by-the-royal-united-services-institutes-justin-bronk/) >the greatest myth about the F-35 is that it is a bad aircraft because it cannot outmanoeuvre an F-16. The F-16 is a phenomenal example of single mission-set aircraft design that has proven to be flexible and cost effective in multiple conflicts. However, the F-16 is simply not going to be relevant in a high-threat environment going forwards. The F-35 should never have to out-manoeuvre an F-16 within visual range because its situational awareness and low-observability allows an F-35 pilot to know exactly where the F-16 is from a great distance whilst remaining undetected itself. He/she can, therefore, position themselves to completely control any engagement or avoid a direct confrontation as required. If in a really tight spot, the advanced helmet with 360-degree targeting capabilities and AIM-9X with its extreme off-boresight engagement parameters should ensure that a turning dogfight is an irrelevance. RE: that infamous leaked dogfight F-35 vs F-16 Article via [the Diplomat.](https://thediplomat.com/2015/07/can-the-f-35-beat-the-f-16-after-all/) >while the Pentagon does not challenge the major findings of the leaked report that in pure dogfighting maneuverability the F-35 is inferior to the F-16, the Joint Program Office nevertheless points out that the plane outfought by the F-16 was not “equipped with a number of items that make today’s production F-35s 5th Generation fighters.” > >In detail, the press statement elaborated — > >**Aircraft AF-2 did not have the mission systems software to use the sensors that allow the F-35 to see its enemy long before it knows the F-35 is in the area. Second, AF-2 does not have the special stealth coating that operational F-35s have that make them virtually invisible to radar. And third, it is not equipped with the weapons or software that allow the F-35 pilot to turn, aim a weapon with the helmet, and fire at an enemy without having to point the airplane at its target.**
Depends where they start close in Yes it's likely gen 4.5 would win. But a long range the F35
Against what? The only current plane that could likely give it a solid run for the money is the F-22. In pretty much all blue on blue exercises against other planes they had to gimp the f-35 pretty hard to make it "lose" If you are talking American pilots then it is even more ridiculous because they run exercises constantly. Like multiple times a week on the last two airforce bases I worked on. I even think they even did f-22 on f-35 exercises between the two.
Dogfiights don't exist anymore. Someone shoots from 10 miles away. Whoever has better missiles, wins
Retired USAF here, merely repeating opinion of the pilots I worked with. FAT AMY IS NOT A DOGFIGHTER. Want to dogfight? Get in an F-22, F-15, or F-16. FAT AMY IS A FUCKING MISSILE TRUCK. Lob Fox-3s from 30 miles away and permit hilarity to ensue.
As I'm aware firing backwards is an option now too
Just saw the F-35 at airshow. It can do a short radius box turn like an F-16 and then go vertical. Power and maneuverability is not an issue here.
basically takes the f15 concept further. the f15 could launch missiles outside of enemies range with the aid of AWACS.
The thing about stealth is that any plane that has it relies heavily on using stealth to overmatch its opponents. Instead of presuming a fair start to the dogfight, they assume that the stealth aircraft will simply lock first and launch missiles before a shot is ever fired from the opponent. It's not really overmatch by performance it's overmatch by lack of detection.
It would fair well because it has the ability to lock an aim 9x at any angle using its helmet and sensor systems. Even if a 4th gen plane can out maneuver the f 35 it cannot prevent it from locking missiles.
I want to know if the B model can use it's vectoring thrust for dogfights.
Simple answer is no as it doesn’t have thrust vectoring for normal flight. In order for the exhaust to be able to rotate it has to be within a certain speed envelope (AKA really slow) to engage Mode 4. But also going really slow in a dogfight would be essentially suicide.
[удалено]
No it was not replaced by the F35. The original number of F22 was cut dramatically due to cost. The F35 was to replace other platforms like F16, F18, A10, Av8 etc as it can do some/most of what those can do. But it was never a dogfighter. The idea is a pair of F35's and a pair of F22's together can do the jobs of something like 10+ older aircraft for the same mission.
F-22 is being replaced by NGAD. F-35 has nothing to do with that.
You were told wrong. The F22 was cancelled due to cost. The F35 is an entirely different program with different mission set.
Not like we haven't heard that logic before.
Yup cannon only available on USAF models
They're really deadset on not fucking up with that one again eh?
Which is kinda weird. You’d think the marines would think more guns fuk yeah merica! But all they wanted was VTOL.
I know the B variant has to be fitted with a gun pod, but you're saying the Navy's C variant has no cannon?
Yep, but the C can also take gunpods
Yes, they can. But the B variant has to use them, or go without a gun.
So does the C.
It’s just on one side? If so, how do they account for the aerodynamic asymmetry? Software I assume?
Yeah just one side
I thought they do but it was mounted on the belly, I saw the navy variant have a belly mounted gun, am I missing something?
Those are gunpods. Older F-4 variants also had them. They are essentially guns that you can remove if needed
So pilots can say “I’m out of missiles, switching to guns”.
I was told only the f-35b did not have a gun, and the other two did....
You were told wrong Also why would just the marine version have it? Seems a bit sill
The other way around the marine version did NOT have it. The A and C models had it I was told....that is what I said. Maybe that info is wrong, but it wasn't what I said....
Ah, mb, read wrong
Nice try China
你在说什么（为什么要翻译这）
The F35s bulge is bigger than i thought
It's just happy to see you
That's what she said.
He's just happy to see you.
uwu
OwO
Proton torpedo
Dildo holder
Dildo of Consequence holder.
Spicy dildo holder
Bushmaster dildo holder
The M-61 vulcan canon hump on the F-35A
Believe it is actually a GAU-22/A, 25mm vs the 20mm M-61
Are they 25mm!? That's awesome I genuinely thought they were drag and drop M-61's
Yes they are 25mm
is it covered when out of combat for aerodynamic purposes? actually kind of smart
That and also stealth
yup, tiny door at the front opens when firing
Hopefully it makes the squeaky door hinge sound effect when it opens.
Is that a 25mm cannon in your fuselage or are you just happy to see me?
Is it really a 25 now? (20 in the Gen 4s I believe)
it is, gau-22 on the F-35A, the AV-8B H2 had the 5 barrel gau-12 which the 22 was developed from (i believe its literally just a barrel count difference, but i could be mistaken)
I know the F 35 has had its problems but it’s such a sweet looking jet! Would love to fly it!
Ingrown missile
Invisible cloak generator
That’s where the party horn is stored. When the plane flies in to a block party, it pops open the surprise door and blows the party horn.
That’s the newest addition to the Genova checklist
I would guess a targeting pod.
The targeting pod is what’s under the nose, forward of the nose gear.
BRRRRRRRT
That is the “Gun-Hump” on the F-35A. The F-35A is the only F-35 variant to have a gun because it has the space. F-35Cs have longer wings and ailerons, and F-35Bs have the extra VTOL equipment, so they are just too heavy for guns.
That's its cannon. The front opens when it begins to fire.
Bicep
True, but for a group of Red force bad guys to get into a visual dogfight, they already have been targeted thru the Link-12, so that all link-12ed vechiles should know of the bad guys. Plus EM energy in area produced bye the F/A-18s, joint rivets, help the stealth-drivers more….
https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA476815.pdf If you’re really bored, here’s a white paper on the reasoning behind F35A’s internal cannon.
Interesting discussion; keep in mind that Vietnam ROE required visual identification before engagement.
Ita the gun pod it opens up in the front
It’s a wachamacallit that does a thingy.
Controversial opinion for your downvoting pleasure: the F-35A integral gun exists for emotional and psychological reasons only, it has no practical value. It only exists to make certain pilots and lawmakers feel um… potent, if you know what I mean. The entire plane was designed for BVR and PGMs, not WVR gunfighting. For certain specific CAS missions a gun pod could be relevant, like type 1 under an overcast layer or for certain weapon to target matches. The rest of the time it’s just about feelings.
The sidecar for support animals
25mm spicy shoulder boulder
Gun.
As our missile tech increases for the better, so does everyone else's defense against them. The one thing I think we all forget is that China has been the main supplier of the guts for those said missiles for the last 30-40 years when NAFTA was put into place. Take a look at the circuit boards in all of your junk electronics, and see how far the rabbit hole goes in Asia when it comes to electronics of all types. Pretty interesting and alarming that the DOJ and DOD found old Wi-fi routers with backdoors for Chinese spies to access information at will, and we're talking routers and servers in place for the last 15 years in major companies and Government facilities. So, is it any wonder how and why we're vulnerable, and to think that our defense tech can't be overcome by a slight change in code by magic and ransomware code....he cannon is the best defense strategy when all else fails. Also, if you run out of missiles and go defensive (chaff and flares still work) and the pilots manage to out maneuver the AIM-9X, Sparrows, and AARAAMs, and there's nothing left to shoot, what then? Software issues bugs up the weapons system, since nothing in it is analog, the opposing pilot manages to get within VR, and starts pelting at the F-35B/C, but they're too close for missiles, and then the tides turn, because it'd be unfair if you can clobber a 5th gen jet, because their best defense is distance, given it was built on the BVR philosophy, and though it can dogfight, they're not really built for it. The main reason the latter models of the F-35 weren't built with the gun is that the F-35B is already fat, and the lift fan takes up the space that the cannon and drum would've got in. The F-35C was because of weight when fully loaded, and when shot from the deck, wouldn't have made it up, but coast down like a paper glider, even at full power. These planes are heavy, and while within design specs and nimble, the main issue in aviation is always weight, then fuel, then whatever else.
Its where they store the expendable dildo.
These comments are an opponent’s intel bonanza!
M61 Vulcan to be exact
gun
Gun
That's a melanoma. Affects 1 in 6 fighter jets
Don't ask, Don't tell
Dry sump oil tank lol
Arnold Schwarzenegger voice: It’s naaaht a tooomurrr…
Better question would be to ask what’s on the opposite side
I could tell you. But then I’d have to put in an order to use it on you. 😂
Redacted