Home » Air » Pic of the Day: F-35B Shows Off its Gun Pod

Pic of the Day: F-35B Shows Off its Gun Pod

by John Reed on June 22, 2012

Ever wondered what the stealthy-ish, bolt-on gun pod of the F-35B short take-off and vertical landing variant of the Joint Strike Fighter looked like?

Well, this great picture shows an F-35B rolling while armed with an inert AIM-9X Sidewinder missile on the outer wing pylon and the center gun pod housing a 25 mm GAU-22 cannon. The jet was also carrying a BGU-32 1,000-pound bomb and an AIM-120 advanced medium range air-to-air missile (AMRAAM) inside its weapons bay.

Remember, unlike the AIr Force’s F-35A, the B-model doesn’t have room for an internal cannon.

Share |

{ 108 comments… read them below or add one }

Mastro June 22, 2012 at 11:13 am

Seems a shame to put a heavy pod like that on it. Maybe a smaller Mauser-like canon would have been a better choice.

Straffing seems like a lost tactic with a $200 million + plane.

I wonder if the F35B will be mainly gun-free- the pod is just there to please the old fighter jockeys.


Moose June 22, 2012 at 1:09 pm

Ask the Marines who've spent the last decade in 'Stan: Guns are still great for CAS.


UAVgeek June 22, 2012 at 4:28 pm

Ask anyone who's had their butts saved by A-10's F-15E's or F-16's strafing. Check the history of the Battle of Robert's ridge.


blight_ June 22, 2012 at 8:54 pm
Mastro June 23, 2012 at 5:43 pm

"According to the citations, F-15 pilots Maj. Chris “Junior” Short and Capt. Kirk “Panzer” Rieckhoff each made low-level strafing passes exposing themselves “to the same enemy fire that downed the CH-47 helicopter.”"

So basically my point is made- we should leave the straffing to A10's, and other COIN aircraft- not $200 million Swiss army knife planes.


UAVgeek June 25, 2012 at 6:28 pm

I take the opposite view. A 200 million Swiss army knife fighter should AT LEAST BE ABLE TO STRAFE. Your argument is akin to having a Swiss Army knife that doesn't have a knife blade, or a infantryman not being able to use a bayonet. Modern weapons need to be able to do either be 1. Super specialized, inexpensive and numerous or 2. If they are expensive then they must be able to do even the dirty jobs (like strafing) well.

TMB June 28, 2012 at 12:21 am

Mastro, the Air Force doesn't plan on any A-10s or "COIN" aircraft in the future, therefore the F-35 better be able to do everything.

majr0d June 23, 2012 at 12:07 am

Good overall point but the Marines have not been in the Stan for the last decade. They were conspiciously absent from around 2004 – 2008.


Benjamin June 23, 2012 at 11:33 am

wrong, you should double check your facts before you say something like that



CWitt June 28, 2012 at 12:07 am

They said the same thing about the F-4 Phantom


miles June 22, 2012 at 11:59 am

Blame Boeing.


IronV June 22, 2012 at 12:00 pm

At the risk of stating the obvious… can't help but cringe at the stealthy shape with all that radar-bait hardware hanging off it…


Mastro June 22, 2012 at 12:17 pm

I really wonder how often they will fly clean.

Maybe they SHOULD fly "dirty" for Bear interceptions, training, COIN flights.

No reason to give away the RCS profile if not needed.

I remember seeing photos of the F22 intercepting Bears with large fuel tanks- I really hope the tanks had some reflective tape on them, etc- no reason for the Bears to record the RCS one year in.


Matt June 22, 2012 at 1:39 pm

No worries. Stealth aircraft like the F-22 are fitted with a radar reflector often called a Luneburg lens when flying routine missions. This helps air traffic controllers keep track of them and it keeps their real RCS profile secret.


Jason June 22, 2012 at 12:18 pm

If the F-35B is going to be serving as a CAS platform then it definitely needs a gun pod.


Pablo Munoz June 22, 2012 at 12:18 pm

What's the point of putting a gun on it when it's not maneuverable enough to dogfight with aircraft like a Sukhoi?


ziv June 22, 2012 at 12:24 pm

It isn't meant to dogfight with a Sukhoi. It is supposed to be an unseen assassin, not a brawler. In theory…
And the gun is more for CAS than dogfighting. Look at the config the F-35 was in, it is set up like it is operating in a permissive environment, not a first day conflict with peer level adversaries.


tee June 22, 2012 at 1:33 pm

It better hope it doesn't have to dogfight with any Sukhoi version, because if it does it's TOAST, sure hope the ejection seat works better than the rest of the F-35's so called features.


Davyd August 17, 2012 at 11:31 am

The F-35 is supposed to be an unseen assassin? I thought that’s what the F-22 was supposed to be? I know, i know; in theory. But it does light up an interesting point – are we really looking at buying TWO unseen assassins? Then what is really supposed to be available to get down in the mud? What’s supposed to deep strike (something that really does need all the stealth possible)? I’m a little nervous.. Our future force is going to be comprised of 170 F-22s, 20 B-2s and 1500 F-35s.


The gun toting is gonna be a real good idea if future -35 pilots get to train like AV-8 pilots. If they’re going to VIFF and SIH then the gun pod is going to be a great and necessary addition.


Jeb April 12, 2014 at 7:57 pm

The F-22 is primarily an air superiority airframe, as opposed to the F-35's more CAS/Recon-oriented mission.


majr0d June 22, 2012 at 2:14 pm

The F4 was less maneuverable than Migs and they put a gun pod on it. Shot down some Migs too!


538d June 24, 2012 at 2:07 am

Sure did then they put the gun inside.


john jay June 23, 2012 at 10:53 pm


people get hurt in dog fights. why fight a sukhoi when you can fly away from it, and shot it at a distance?

john jay
milton freewater, oregon usa

p.s. but, dollars to donuts, i think the wart hog a better plane for this sort of thing. the military has always wanted its planes to be "swiss army knives." besides, if that gun pod will bolt on, it will "bolt off," as well. end of discussion sort of a deal.


Meph June 25, 2012 at 1:33 am

Hmmm flying away from a Sukhoi will only encourage him to chase. ^_^ Y'know, with their L-Band Radars, incredible speed, big IRS, and very long range missiles, the Sukhoi will have a blast with such a large, open, incredibly hot exhaust to chase. It'll be like letting dog sniff a steak and then throw it just a few feet.


Jubly June 25, 2012 at 3:09 pm

And the dog would find its face punched in as missile seekers go active and alarms start going off. The F-35 can throw an AMRAAM over its should and go into afterburners if it needs to. The difference in top speed of combat configuration F-35s and SU-35s is minimal. Aircraft L-band radar likely has a detection range so bad they may as well rely on IR.


Rob June 27, 2012 at 2:09 pm

the F35B is a CAS platform, not a dogfighter. The Marines hugging the ground will appreciate that gun pod!


Bill June 27, 2012 at 6:25 pm

The F-15 Eagle and mutch especially the F-22 Raptor can out perform and Russian Aircraft.


Melvin Wagstaff June 27, 2012 at 6:34 pm

thats why its stailth its for ground support


blight_ June 27, 2012 at 10:08 pm

If you looked at the missions of aircraft that were designed with LCS in mind, ground support isn't on them. Survivability against a ZSU-23 is a little more important…


Chris June 22, 2012 at 12:35 pm

Marine Air's main objectives are to support lethernecks on the ground, and supplement blue water ops when necessary. A gun is a must. Just wish it was internal.


Michael June 22, 2012 at 12:52 pm

It's awesome that the F-35B is going to be able to carry a greater weapons load than the Harrier it is replacing. This thing looks awesome.


Jeb April 12, 2014 at 8:01 pm

Not to mention the fact that it can move much faster, make better use of its STOVL/VTOL capabilities, AND sport BVR and stealth capability. It really is an impressive aircraft, despite all the hate.


McPosterdoor June 22, 2012 at 1:29 pm

Hoped they learned from Vietnam, the F4 was another (arguably) poorly thought out fighter and no internal gun installed. The gun pod was powered by a dropdown wind turbine, sometimes when slowly strafing the gun couldn't power up.


blight_ June 22, 2012 at 2:00 pm

Interesting. The SUU-16 used the ram air turbine, and the SUU-25 used an "electric inertia starter" (I'm guessing a rotary solenoid?). Ram air turbine would probably work best at some speeds versus others, plus the drag penalty…


majr0d June 23, 2012 at 12:27 am

There were more reliable gun pods. Don't count on Military Channel's "Dogfights" for all your info. (Blight named some)


Kole June 22, 2012 at 1:46 pm

I still think the F-35 is completely incapable of performing CAS. The stealth is a complete waste on a plane that is supposed to strafe tanks and AAA with flammable skin, thin, armor-less wings, and an external gun? LOL


citanon June 22, 2012 at 4:26 pm

Are you seriously contending that a plane that can see targets with better than Apache clarity using its integral IRST (1 telescope and 6 DAS cameras), able to carry and drop 20+ independently targetable, moving target tracking SDBIIs from up to 60 miles away, and capable of communicating with every radio on the battlefield, is going to make a bad CAS platform?

It will be a spectacular CAS platform. It will be able to stay at 20,000 ft and still get good CAS effects. It will just do things a little differently then the A-10.


Kole June 22, 2012 at 4:35 pm

It will be a horrible CAS platform. CAS cannot be performed from 60 miles away, and this has been true of all wars to date. The reason the A-10 was/ is so successful is because it can not only engage from some (10 to 20) miles away, it can get down and STRAFE (nothing can jam the good old gun/ ARMOR). What happens when an F-35 cannot use missiles or bombs and soldiers on the ground need help? Are you saying the armor-less/ Flammable jet equipped with only a 20mm will go down and dirty? It won't. The F-35 will do things differently than the A-10. It is a pure waste. If you want something to do that use a drone, not 358 billion of our tax dollars.


blight_ June 22, 2012 at 4:48 pm

I envision it replacing the OA-10, but not the A-10. Using the A-10 as an observer seemed rather silly anyways.

Next up, OF/A-35B?


Jeb April 12, 2014 at 8:04 pm

Actually, its long loiter time and slow speed makes the A-10 a wonderful observer. That function is largely being taken over by MQ-9's though, I believe.

tiger June 25, 2012 at 1:02 pm

Under current rules of engagement, You may not get any fixed wing CAS. As for the job of hunting tanks? That is what we still have Sea Corbra & Ah-64's for. Yes the A-10 is nice. But it's old, worn out from 10 years of combat & half the force is being retired. Time to move on.


bigguy97 June 22, 2012 at 1:54 pm

I love the look of the stealth skin. Reminds me of freshly oiled gun metal.


Tribulationtime June 22, 2012 at 2:33 pm

Outer load points was a option from the begining of JSF program?.


Weaponhead June 22, 2012 at 2:36 pm

Brilliant, spend $150-200M ea. to make stealthy CAS jets and then slap pylons/pods all over them.


Joey Serio June 22, 2012 at 10:27 pm

My concerns as well! What a bunch of crap!


Curt June 24, 2012 at 9:59 pm

I guess you missed the part about using external stores for when you don't need to be stealthy.


blight_ June 24, 2012 at 10:50 pm

Yup. I guess we're a generation away from stealthy hardpoints and missile casings. Perhaps something that blends into the shape of the aircraft, like conformal fuel tanks.

Alternatively, they're sitting in a warehouse somewhere waiting to be used (like the OBL stealth helicopter?)


Lance June 22, 2012 at 3:00 pm

More prof that the B isn't needed. Don't want a F-4 like mistake with the B the gun is a always need weapon and I do think the Lighting looks cool with the pod on. I wonder if it make a whistle when flying like the F-4 did with the pod on??


Jimmy June 22, 2012 at 3:16 pm

Even without a gun pod, the F-35's stealth is compromised by its external AIM-9 missiles and launchers. Despite the emphasis on stealth, the designers nontheless never created enough internal space to fit all the F-35's standard loadout of missiles. Dumb.


blight_ June 22, 2012 at 8:56 pm

There's that fine line between wanting a reasonably compact aircraft for clean missions, and one big enough to carry everything internally.

Perhaps what's really called for is a scaled up heavy fighter that can carry large payloads internally. However, it would be niche application?


The great Jessmo June 22, 2012 at 3:26 pm

Jimmy what are you talkign about? 6 AMRAAMs isnt enough?
How many AMRAAM does the F-16 carry in a 600NM combat radius type of config?
How many AMRAAM does the Av-8 carry in a 450 NM CR?
How many does the T-50 carry in its internal bay?


Jimmy June 22, 2012 at 3:48 pm

The F-35 is primarily an attack aircraft. When carrying its standard load of bombs it can only fit two AMRAAMS and zero AIM-9s in its internal bomb bay.


superraptor June 22, 2012 at 5:56 pm

The T-50 can carry 10 AAMs internally versus 2 for the F-35.


majr0d June 23, 2012 at 12:21 am

I think you're talking bombs not air to air missiles.

Why are we comparing an air superiority fighter against the F35? The T50 is supposed to be the F22's counterpart?


Where are you? June 22, 2012 at 3:38 pm

Where is Black Owl's "F-35-is-a-waste" tirade? Is he on holiday?


Black Owl June 22, 2012 at 3:54 pm

Nope, just wondering if you guys missed me. I'm actually pretty tired of typing after getting into a debate with an Air Force Academy graduate on DoDBuzz over why the Navy and Marine Corps shouldn't buy the F-35C or F-35B. I think I'll just sit this one out.


Nicky June 22, 2012 at 3:54 pm

That decision to not put a gun on the F-35B is a haunting reminder of the earlier F-4's when they didn't have a Gun on board. It's going to come back and Bite the US Navy in the Butt sooner or later. They should have included a Gun pod that the Marines use on the AV-8B II harriers


citanon June 22, 2012 at 4:29 pm

Missile effectiveness in 2012 is in a different world compared to the 1960s.


Mastro June 23, 2012 at 5:49 pm

Yeah- I think the Fighter Mafia needed to read up on Moore's Law.

Especially when the IAF got most of their kills over Lebanon in '82 using missiles- and the Israelis love guns too-


Stormcharger June 22, 2012 at 8:52 pm

Um… The GAU22 is the lighter weight, 4 barrel version of the GAU12 mounted on the Harrier AV8B's. So, while technically it's not exactly the same weapon, it's not almost 40 years old either and is more accurate and uses the same ammunition.


Nicky June 22, 2012 at 11:09 pm

Wouldn't the GAU12 be prefect for the F-35B and C model.


blight_ June 23, 2012 at 1:08 am

The GAU-12 is heavier: why would it be better for either aircraft?

Won't be long before we pretend project vulcan never happened and switch to single-barrel weapons. Fire until empty, and pay for weight reduction with very short barrel life.


UAVgeek June 26, 2012 at 5:23 pm

It is basically the same gun. The GAU-22 is an evolution of the GAU-12 25mm gun that was developed for the AV-8B


Black Owl June 22, 2012 at 4:07 pm

… I don't think I even need to comment on this article. This is retarded.


blight_ June 22, 2012 at 8:55 pm

F-35B shows off its taxiing in this video…


Politically Correct June 22, 2012 at 9:21 pm

Good nobody pays attention to your comments anyways. All you are is troll.


Tribulationtime June 25, 2012 at 1:28 pm

Yes!! like wear night-digital camo and light a torch to see the path. Hahaha how many people blame India, and others about bribe-buying weapons. How a Brasshead can buy a F powerpoint; I mean What the demostrator showed, the paint finished?


PenguinMedic June 22, 2012 at 4:15 pm

The "Gun" in some form will ALWAYS be a weapon of war. Missiles can be spoofed by any number of active & passive systems, hell the first Sidewinders couldn't be fired towards the sun. They also are a very expensive waste against some targets. How does it make sense to kill a 20' RIB with a 2 mil missile? It's also kind of hard to "Fire a warning shot" with a missile, again at a few mil a pop. As for the "Lasers & diected energy weapons fanboys", hope it's not cloudy/raining/snowing when you want to fire your toy.
The bottom line is this: Guns are proven, reliable, inexpensive, systems that have a solid kill record and can be used against ANY target just by pointing it at them. Air-to-Air, Air-to-Ground, Air-to-Surface ship (or surfaced sub for that matter).
Ask any Grunt on here that has spent time in the Suck & had an A-10 come in for CAS, I bet you'll hear a lot of love for the "lowly" gun.


blight_ June 22, 2012 at 8:54 pm

Find it weird that the A-10 is the only standard that seems to come up when talking about gun fire support. But it won't always be an A-10 on tap, now will it?


majr0d June 23, 2012 at 12:05 am

It's not wierd. The A10 is one of only two aircraft the Air Force designed primarily to attack targets on the ground (AC130 is the other one). The A10 is the gold standard. Why would one cite other aircraft when talking about the effectiveness of "gun fire support"?

There are other examples of aircraft providing gun fire support (e.g. F15's at Robert's Ridge Op Anoconda). It's just not as common.


blight_ June 23, 2012 at 1:05 am

I'm always curious to see numbers. Don't know if there's a breakdown for CAS by aircraft and ordnance type.

I suspect JDAM, SDB and Hellfires come out pretty high.


majr0d June 23, 2012 at 1:18 am

Those numbers would be interesting.

I bet all those bomb/missile numbers are high also but we are talking about guns :)

TMB June 28, 2012 at 1:08 am

Don't know about CAS specifically, but A-10s made up less than 10% of the aircraft used in ODS, but flew 30% of all sorties and were responsible for over 50% of all ground targets destroyed. They fired 95% of all the Maverick used in the war.

Ordnance released for CAS missions for OIF and OEF are probably heavy on hellfires since every aircraft can carry them to include helicopters and they're better at hitting small targets.

El Sid June 29, 2012 at 1:07 pm

The RAF publishes figures from time to time. Contacts are split roughly 50:50 between the Reapers and Tornados. About 10% of Tornado patrols result in a contact, and those contacts are split roughly 1:1:1 between flypasts, gunfire and "bombing" (Paveway or Brimstone).

So a squadron of Tornado drops a Paveway/Brimstone about 2-3 times a month, although that obviously varies depending on how busy things are.

tiger June 25, 2012 at 12:55 pm

The A-10 is being retired largely. So find a new standard.


majr0d June 25, 2012 at 1:02 pm

Largely retired? That's news!

30% is being mothballed. That means 70% will still fly. In what world is 30 more than 70?

tee June 22, 2012 at 4:45 pm

Well I hope at least the gun doesn't depend on the" Visor" because if it does ? With a new report on the "Visor" problem and GAO's findings on it and I quote " the GAO report says “these shortfalls may lead to a helmet unable to fully meet warfighter requirements — unsuitable for flight tasks and weapons delivery, as well as creating an unmanageable pilot workload, and may place limitations on the [F-35’s] operational environment.”

If you want to read the rest of the article it has even more "Scathing GAO" finding on the F-35, http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/m


Tad June 22, 2012 at 8:21 pm

Reminds me of turning a puppy upside down to see if its a boy or girl. I think it's obvious which it is in this case.


retired462 June 22, 2012 at 9:13 pm

How many rounds does this pod hold?


Jim37F June 22, 2012 at 9:20 pm

Didn't the Air Force try to replace the A-10 in the 90s by placing an external 30mm gun pod on an F-16? I heard that the recoil made the pod vibrate so bad that they couldn't hit the broad side of a barn. Hopefully for Soldiers and Marines downrange depending on CAS, that isn't the case here


LetsLobRob June 23, 2012 at 11:14 am

The F-35 just gets badder and badder.


Old Navy June 23, 2012 at 11:42 am

Add 5# of *hit to 25# of *hit and what do you get…a F35B.


New Navy June 24, 2012 at 1:06 pm

Fail… That will only give you 30# of s**t…


TribulationTime June 23, 2012 at 12:56 pm

Thumps up!! If like go with All New Futuristic Tech ElectricBike to race in Superbike championship. I know i am so funny!!


Belesari June 23, 2012 at 10:54 pm

So basicly the F-35's are all kind of like the LCS?

99% of the time the stealth wont be called for. That 1% of the time it is needed it will have to meet a set of peramiters that will dictate if the aircraft is really viable and if they arent then its a no go or watch as half of the men sent die and lose 2bil+ of planes….


Belesari June 23, 2012 at 10:54 pm

So its fine if,

The planes are clean when that moment comes, this will make them Stealthish (note these aircraft are only LO in a narrow range. Not full stealth like the B-2 or F-22). If they arent things like those gun pods or anything will give them away.

The opposing force has no EW birds or AWACS as the F-35 is a ninja apparently (no seriously listen to people describe this aircraft they act like its a ninja with missiles like magic swords-its helarious). If the enemy has these he can make leave the F-35 (or f22 for that matter) unable to fire missiles. So its a gun duel…..which the F-35 has a serious defeicency in compared to many other aircraft.

Some how everyone on the planet fails to build the low tech radars that when combined with modern ones can detect basicly anything……..

Oh yea forgot, high powered naval radars like the ones found on Missile cruisers and destroyers can pick up many LO aircraft even ours…..

So basicly even if we did buy them all and they worked perfectly they are obsolete in less than a decade….


The great jessmo June 25, 2012 at 12:09 am


1.The T-50 carries 6 weapons internally. http://www.redstar.gr/Foto_red/Aircraft/PAKFA/T_5
2. How is is that the F-16/F-18 which are less capable than the F-35 have provided CAS for years but suddenly the F-35 is impotent?
3. How is it that a AV-8 provides decent CAS but a podded F-35 doesn't?
4. How is it that The F-117 provided good 1st day strike capability, but the F-35 cant?

The plane does, the F-18,F-16, F-117, AV-8 all in 1 airframe. Its not a High end mach 1.8 super cruising fights its a stock fighter. But being on the low end of a high low mix did not stop the F-16 or the F-18 or the Av-8.

All I'm asking is for a little more critical thinking. Less "dude bro and Lemming imitating and more reading for your self. thanks


Belesari June 25, 2012 at 12:11 pm

Because it can provide good CAS..to fragile so its never going to drop down to the deck and get a real look or hit a damn thing with that gun….to fast.

Its less manuverable than either F-18 or F-16. The F-18G growler has been able to spoof the F-22's radar so as too force a dog fight which the F-18 was able to win or atleast go toe-toe with.

You cant buy 4 F-18 Super Hornets for the price of a single F-35B (Which no one really knows what these planes cost BTW…they arent going down but ever up in price.

I can keep going but i have things to do.


The great jessmo June 26, 2012 at 1:11 am


1.Because it can provide good CAS..to fragile so its never going to drop down to the deck and get a real look or hit a damn thing with that gun….to fast.

Read more: http://defensetech.org/2012/06/22/pic-of-the-day-
So let me understand your logic. The F-16 is more maneuverable and faster you say?
But the F-16 does CAS fine. If being fast in CAS is a liability then by your logic the F-16 would be a failure.
BTW you cant compare a clean F-16 to a combat loaded F-35. they are both clean but one is ready for war and the other isnt. try loading up the F-16 with 2 1kLB jdams 2 or 3 fuel tanks and 2 AMRAAMS and see how it compares with the clean F-35 then.

Its less maneuverable than either F-18 or F-16. The F-18G growler has been able to spoof the F-22's radar so as too force a dog fight which the F-18 was able to win or at-least go toe-toe with.
You are aware that the F-35 will be qualified to 50 degrees angel of attack right? Can the F-16 sustain 50 degrees? Can they do it with a full strike load? Further more the F-18 that you speak of Broke the ROE. What does spoofing the F-22s radar have to do with anything any way? the F-22 has passive sensors

You cant buy 4 F-18 Super Hornets for the price of a single F-35B (Which no one really knows what these planes cost BTW…they arent going down but ever up in price.

Once the super hornet contract is up the price will grow substantially. That $60 million dollar price is in the contract. You seem to be under the delusion that you can add all of the F-35s goodies to the F-18 for a $60 million dollar price. I have a bridge in the Atlantic I would like to sell you.


tee June 27, 2012 at 8:48 pm

I'd bet Boeing would do it just to pi$$ off LM :-)


Ralphie June 27, 2012 at 11:33 am

pew! pew! pew! Looks like something from half-life you can pick up off an alien corpse.

pew! pew!


Gary Klemm June 27, 2012 at 12:41 pm

i've a friend who works at the plant, as well as having followed the "paper trail" of this monkey plane. the "joint strike fighter program is an accountant's wet dream. it's a military man's nightmare. it'll do many jobs ok or even well, but do none of them exceptionally. if we are going to "control" the enemy from the air, we MUST be exceptional. the Israelis have A-10's as CAS for a reason it's the ABSOLUTE best plane for the job. the original F-16 was a SUPERIOR high altitude fighter/interceptor, etc,etc. making a aircraft do 30 jobs to satisfy a bean counter is crap. it WON'T do ANY of them exceptionally. i was a grunt. if it's simple and don't break, it's good. if it's complex and breaks a lot, it's a paperweight. let's get off the "
we wanna make ALL our defense buddies money" train, and build equipment that works, REGARDLESS of who makes it. anything else is just political pandering, and getting my buddies shot up for NO reason.


blight_ June 27, 2012 at 2:27 pm

"the Israelis have A-10's as CAS for a reason"

News to me


Will June 27, 2012 at 2:04 pm

seems like some folks here know their stuff, just a retired engr USMC type, but i know how much the grunts value CAS and have had to fight to keep it in house…or keep USMC for that matter, it's a Marine thing but mentallity is if you don't leave garrison with it in your pack, you don't have it (read as preserving USMC air), defense spending at issue since Ike's comment "beware of the military-industrial complex" paraphrased


Bruce Vaccaro June 27, 2012 at 5:14 pm

HEY! You guys quit badmouthing my F-35, K?? It's the sweetest, quickest, stealthiest fighter around…nuff said!


Robert June 27, 2012 at 5:36 pm

If your gonna keep an airplane around for ground support, upgrade the A-10 or build something new similar to it. It's done great all these years. It's nearly bullet proof and the pilots swear by it and trust it. And you definitely don't need stealth if your gonna be flying low and slow for ground support anyways! Hello! A-10s don't worry about being stealthy. They roll in there with that awesome sound of those turbo fan engines and the enemy takes off running. Some know that sound and know it doesn't so much good to shoot at it. And it's gonna rain hell on them any second! Lol.


blight_ June 27, 2012 at 10:09 pm

Stealth and countermeasures might be useful for the A-10. However, stealth cannot substitute for all the redundancy measures that can keep an A-10 after being shot to hell.


Eric June 27, 2012 at 10:02 pm

Didn't anyone learn anything from the early model F4 Phantoms that did not have guns…


Jonesy June 30, 2012 at 7:58 am

That was 40yrs ago now Eric. You want to go WW1 red doggy with a guy who's carrying a modern IIR dogfight missile?. Answer no…its immune to flares and is turning right angle corners.

Get WVR (thats Within Visual Range) to a modern fighter and all bets are off. F-35, until it gets its DIRCM in block5, wants the air-fight beyond visual range where it has all the advantages of LO and situational awareness.

For CAS you dont want to go lo-lo to strafe….look what happened to that Turk RF-4 when he got too low. Look at what happened to three Russian Sukhoi 25's over Georgia (not to mention 1 Backfire!). CAS now is stay high…use the sensors…and drop SDB's on anything that looks at you wrong. Run an A-10 in against todays SAM's and they'll be as dead as those Russian Su-25s.


Ken June 28, 2012 at 7:10 am

What's the point of putting external stores on a stealth aircraft? Just asking


blight_ June 28, 2012 at 10:00 am

You can jettison them in an emergency if you need to: or fire them all.

Conversely, one would probably ask why JSF carries so little if it was internal stores only, like the F-117.


Jim from A1716A June 28, 2012 at 1:48 pm

If a pop-up enemy aiircraft appears on your windscreen and you have your gun trigger on the "stick" just pull!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! and make Gatling proud. If he's too far away, use the missles. We're probably long past 20 seconds to arm the missles and not as severely aspect-angle limited.


Ruben Garcia September 19, 2013 at 8:19 pm

this pod only holds 225 rounds what good is that going to do


blight_ June 23, 2012 at 10:24 am

True. In the grand scheme of things, it's about delivering CAS to the troops. If the majority of deliverable CAS is by bombs, then it means the A-10's role is either as the largest fixed-wing gun platform in inventory or as the most survivable fixed-wing platform in inventory.

Going back to guns, it's not like A-10s will always be around. Other aircraft will be called upon to provide gun support due to necessity. Strangely, nobody seems to have love for the M61…


majr0d June 23, 2012 at 2:02 pm

No doubt bombs and missiles are important but guns can do things bombs and missiles can't which are often forgotten by the technophiles.

E.G. Collatoral damage is less. The threat of gun runs deters an enemy when bombs/missiles are expended. Guns can be fired in closer proximity to troops in contact.

The M61 was greatly appreciated by the Rangers on Takur Ghar and ODA 525 in Desert Storm.


tiger June 26, 2012 at 4:44 pm

USAF Releases The Aircraft Retirement List
Next Article → PEACE TIME: Iraq And The American Gift

February 7, 2012: The U.S. Air Force has responded to looming cuts in the defense budget by making plans to reduce personnel strength (by at least 10,000) and to retire 280 aircraft. This would include 102 of 272 A-10s and 21 of 1250 F-16s, 27 of 59 C-5As, 65 of 435 C-130s, 20 of 500 KC-135s, and 21 of 38 C-27s, 18 RQ-4 Block 30 UAVs (that are on order), all 11 RC-26s, and one E-8 that was damaged and not worth repairing. Some of the aircraft cut are orders that are being cancelled. Most of the others are older aircraft that are close to retirement anyway.

37.5% by my math. With budget cuts & 10 years of hard use, that will in crease as Air Guard units trade their birds in for something else.


majr0d June 26, 2012 at 5:19 pm

Let's use your numbers. So when is 37% greater than 63%?

The Air Guard is going to get replacement aircraft? Where did that idea come from? 80% of the planes mentioned above are coming out of Guard structure with ZERO replacement.

You started this with telling me to find a new standard. Maybe it's time for you to take a math refresher and course in rational thinking?


Bob July 6, 2012 at 2:12 am

And it will. Just pretty badly.


Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: