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

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.

39 Comments on "Pic of the Day: F-35B Shows Off its Gun Pod"

  1. 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.

  2. Blame Boeing.

  3. 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…

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

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

  6. 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.

  7. 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.

  8. 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.

  9. 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

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

  11. Tribulationtime | June 22, 2012 at 2:33 pm | Reply

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

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

  13. 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??

  14. 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.

  15. The great Jessmo | June 22, 2012 at 3:26 pm | Reply

    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?

  16. Where are you? | June 22, 2012 at 3:38 pm | Reply

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

  17. 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

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

  19. 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.

  20. 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

  21. 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.

  22. How many rounds does this pod hold?

  23. 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

  24. The F-35 just gets badder and badder.

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

  26. TribulationTime | June 23, 2012 at 12:56 pm | Reply

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

  27. 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….

  28. The great jessmo | June 25, 2012 at 12:09 am | Reply

    Jimmy!

    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

  29. The great jessmo | June 26, 2012 at 1:11 am | Reply

    Jimmy!

    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-
    Defense.org
    ——————————————————————————————————————–
    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.

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

    pew! pew!

  31. 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.

  32. 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

  33. Bruce Vaccaro | June 27, 2012 at 5:14 pm | Reply

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

  34. 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.

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

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

  37. Jim from A1716A | June 28, 2012 at 1:48 pm | Reply

    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.

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

  39. ….duh…does not external anything defeat the whole purpose of stealth?..the first few we loose to fifty cals will produce some blank stares and tortured explanations…seems sort of dumb to me…but I am only a taxpayer…early F4 was the lesson: unlearned…

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.


*