Britain to have 41 F-35 jets by May 2025, more to come

If there are enough 4, 4.5 or 5th gen fighters coming at you Jim you’ll soon run out of missiles to fire at them and that assumes all missiles hit their targets successfully. True, if you’ve expended all your missiles at reach you can get the hell out of their before they get to you. Then again, if we end up with a scenario like the US had in Vietnam, obtain visual identity the target has an enemy roundel then, the defensive reach is all but eliminated, is it not? I’m no expert but the very arguments that are put forward about layered defense stand up here too; if some get through your shield, you have an alternative answer.

No you don’t, in modern air combat if you run out of missiles you run away or you die very quickly. You will never get any where near an air craft to use a cannon.

Visual ID can also be done very far way nowadays, well outside of cannon range.

Lessons from Vietnam are about as relevant as lesson from the western front bi planes.

These are not destroyers defending some fixed point that’s not how air combat works.

drones do change the mix a lot..4-5th gen fighters are not attritional units..if you could kill say 4 at beyond visual range you have mission killed the flight/squadron. Someone throws 20+ cheap attritional drones at a target you’re defending you need to kill all 20 with something cheap…because you may also have to still fend off that flight of fighters.

Drones have recreated the mass attrition low tec world that existed in WW1 WW2. So the only real answer to that is guns.

Totally Agree.

Agree – one moderate complaint of the F35B is the limited internal storage space. In the Pacific the USAF is giving the F-15 another new lease of life with the EX version which, according to the wiki, in principle can carry 16 x AIM-120; 4 x AIM-9; and 2 x AGM-88 HARMs. The F-35b only has 4 internal hard points + another 6 externally if one is willing to compromise on stealth, with ASRAAM only capable of being carried externally. Can’t help thinking in a high-end peer-to-peer fight they would run out of missiles rather quickly.

I agree, though I’d imagine that we’ll use the F-35s as spotters and our Typhoons as missile trucks; the Typhoon could comfortably carry 10-12 Meteors plus fuel tanks.

In an air to air scenario I’d see F-35s targeting enemy AEW aircraft to hamper their situational awareness, then Typhoons coming in with 10+ Meteors each to smash enemy combat aircraft.

That’s certainly the ideal and the current plan I’m sure. The US’s latest air to air missile is specifically targeted at taking out any AWACS and similar assets as much as fighters. Especially when employed on a stealth platform.

In which case they are told to scoot using its stealth to its advantage, while getting in a gun battle is putting itself in its worse possible scenario. In a recent trial ut was taken out by a Typhoon in such a scenario, it’s simply not designed for it, even Tempest is unlikely to be aerodynamically tuned to dog fighting and air superiority is its primary job. Most recent images suggest a wing best suited to give it legs and internal weaponry storage, similar to that designed for the F-22 Strike version that never happened.

And a 5th gen stealth fighter that has barely 4 seconds of ammunition is not the answer. If you’re thinking about that, Hawks with a quartet of FN HMP gun pods is a far better option

Yes and that 4 targets engaged that would not otherwise be engaged.

He said 4 seconds though not automatically 4 targets taken out which would be speculative at best. In an ideal world it would be great to have the option true but its utility is barely of use in reality. The only possible scenarios I see real potential is last ditch carrier defence against drones but surely planes flying around in that role will actually get in the way of other better fleet options, after all any drones in that scenario are likely to be quite large and better taken out by, missiles guns and in time lasers. No coincidence that the Russians have taken out their own fighters when under drone attack.

Works both ways of course meaning close in ground attack or strike is even less likely to bring an expensive jet into direct conflict or with a manned foe in the air where it would need to use its gun.

But yes that very scenario you mention in taking out drones is the only one that really makes sense. Though I would expect in nearly all scenarios that is a job for Typhoon et al rather than an F-35 but I accept having the capacity could be occasionally useful in emergencies especially when operating from the carriers so the ability to use a gun pod is certainly worthwhile as an option. That said one might hope it would still only be an emergency option when other better suited options aren’t available which would be very concerning for the Carrier Battle Group tbh. Would be nice if an aircraft unexpectedly came across a hostile drone it had a gun pod if it needed it to take it out, but I suspect that’s the least likely scenario that an F-35 would actually be fitted with one as it would be on very different mission.

The only lesson I would take from Vietnam in this regard is that ground attack is pretty much a suicide mission even then, if it wasn’t then it certainly would be now, the risk far outways the potential benefit in the age of drones. Air to Air, at the speeds modern jets operate at and the relative lack of manouverabilty of the F-35 it would be a Guinness Book of Records territory esp as it’s well known that advice for F-35 pilots is that if you have expended even your longer range missiles scoot out of there virtually no chance of being caught. Short range missiles are its last gasp defence should that remotely fail and seriously what are the chances of it and the foe running out of missiles while running foul of those pre determined scoot tactics.

Usually I argue for preparing against all contingencies as much as you can but this one I am very doubtful about and at most ‘fitted for but not with’ is for once very valid in this case, just in case every expectation of the way a conflict of confrontation will go gets it near 180 degrees wrong.

Out of interest might be worth re visiting the details of the Bimbrook Trials when I believe it was deemed the best way for a Lightning to down a Mustang because it’s infra red signature was so minimal, was with its Avon cannon, the last time perhaps the cannon was officially classified as vital in Air to Air combat. Never tested in reality of course.

In reality no formation of aircraft is going to push through losses, 4 and 5 gen fighters are not attrition units, even if say Russia throws 12 fighters at you…kill four at beyond visual range and the others are leaving fast not pushing towards to the target.

Drones, swarms of cheap as chips attack drones. Before cheap attack drones became a thing, you would be quite correct in asking what would you fire your gun at as you will be killing your apponent opponent at beyond visual range…but now everyone and their mother is throwing cheap attack drones around.

But again how likely would F-35s be used in that scenario big drones are best taken out by a missile or laser a small drone swarm by almost anything preferable to an F-35 with a gun pod which would mean it’s been specifically fitted out for just that job. Just doesn’t make sense as someone said fit out Hawks to do that in an emergency or Typhoons in emergencies not your prime stealth strike fighter of which you have very few to do all it’s usual jobs.

Can’t do warning shoots with Missiles Jim .

A warning in what scenario? You would need great anticipation to work out when to fit your gun pod for such a unique situation, as why would you fit gun pods to F-35s as a standard fit it just doesn’t make sense and money better spent. Better to employ a Typhoon surely if you can anticipate such a need in a given scenario.

You beat me to it. Air to air that close it would be outclassed by almost any current adversary. Ground attack? Has the US made any decision as yet about it replacing A-10s as originally planned. Last I heard a couple years back it a US committed deemed it not capable of doing so and questioned even with the proposed upgrades whatever they were that it was doubtful it would ever take over such a role. Fact is if the US deems such a valuable asset doing that job is deeply questionable we certainly wouldn’t be considering it. Not sure such a role is even tenable these days judging from Ukraine and the decided lack of interest in A-10s.

Yes and I remember reading some of the reports from some of those pilots it was a terrifying mission to undertake as it was for US pilots in Vietnam. Suicide now and if you are using F-35s for that the war is likely already lost.

Drones is an issue but getting down low and dirty to shoot down Shaheds at their cruise altitudes and speeds is going to kill combat radius.
We really need a really, really cheap WVRAAM.
IR Martlet drop launch, anyone?

Like that idea. Even laser designated would work surely…assuming the planes have a built in ir guidance unit.
Is Brimstone capable of targeting slow moving air targets?
AA

The guidance is a laser code being emitted of some sort (LMM and StarStreak guidance has always confused me, would greatly appreciate if someone elaborated) so an F35 ought to be able to do it. The problem would be SACLOS where both ends of the beam are moving because of the speed of the jet.
Thales keep claiming that the Martlet is multirole and modular, prove it by changing the seeker head and adding new launch options.
Doubt Brimstone has the turn rate for air targets, don’t know if it can lead the impact point so it would turn into a tail chase.

Brimstone and Spear-3 have dual active radar and semi-active laser homing (SALH) seekers. The SALH like semi-active radar homing (SARH), relies on the reflected energy “bouncing off” the target. In the case of SALH, a laser designator that uses pulse coding is aimed at the target. The laser bounces off the target. The seeker detects the laser, but then sees the laser as valid, as the coding matches what has been set in the missile.

Starstreak and LMM work differently. They use semi active command line of sight (SACLOS) guidance. Which means that the guidance and tracking unit measures the differences between the target and the missile. Then sends a signal to the missile to adjust to match the intercept. This is done where the guidance and tracking unit transmits a pair of lasers that map a grid pattern over the target. Then measures the delta between the grid and the missile. The missile communicates with tracking unit via a rear facing data-link. This means the missile is nigh on impossible to jam and cannot be decoyed by a dazzler.

Can you use laser guidance for a missile in air to air combat? Yes, this has already been proven. Where BAe’s APKWS was used to take out aerial drones when fired from a helicopter during trials. APKWS is a kitted 70mm Hydra unguided rocket. Its range is relatively short, plus its terminal speed isn’t all that great. So in reality the targets you could use it against will have to be slow moving helicopters and drones. But as APKWS can be carried in a 7 or a 19 round pod. It does give a large magazine against cheap drones.

Brimstone can be used against moving targets. It will have the software to predict where the target will be in x amount of time. So in theory it should be able to take out slow moving aerial targets. It is a supersonic missile so perhaps it could also be used against fixed wing tactical aircraft as well. The laser could be used to get it close enough to the target, where the active radar then takes over the tracking.

Oh, that makes sense.
How does it work for StarStreak with three guided projectiles? Which then have a single moving part, as far as I can tell?

The brains for the dart is really the guidance and tracking unit. By measuring the delta between the grid and where the guidance unit sees the dart. In simple terms it tells the dart to steer to get within the grid. This can be used for leading the target if it’s crossing your path or for a tail chase. The guidance unit controls each of the three darts separately, ensuring they fly parallel to each other and separated by 1 to 2m.

Wiki does allude to a slightly more complex method of guidance, which is sought of correct. Whereby the two lasers that make up the grid, are pulse coded to generate a coordinate system. The darts when within the grid receives the pulse coding and can determine where it is within the grid. But the darts have to get within the grid first. So in reality it uses a mixture of both.

Each of the darts has a freely spinning forward section that has two canards attached to it. The rear body has four fixed fins. There is a clutch mechanism that when operated freezes the rotating forward section. This causes the dart to steer away from the original path.

That last bit is the thing I am confused about
How do you angle fins so that one set of canards can both spin themselves and turn the missile?
Is there a motor spinning it that turns off when told to?

There is no motor. The forward body spinning is caused by the airflow. Although I never noticed when training with the missile. I’m pretty certain that the canards will have a fixed positive angle of attack. I’m trying to picture this, but I believe as the forward body spins freely the effect on direction is evened out, thereby keeping the dart on track. As soon as the clutch activates. The canards intact a positive vector against the airflow, thereby causing the dart to turn. As soon as the clutch deactivates, the dart’s forward body begins to spin again. Thereby negating any further turning moment.

So how do the canards manage that?
How do you cause both a spinning action and a turning one with just two fins?
That’s why I thought there might be a motor. Then you could have the canards at the same orientation so the turn balances out when the motor is on, and then has a continuous turn when off.
How the heck do you work with STARStreak, and as a JTAC, and be an expert on naval missile defences and AEW?

I did 32 years worth of service, not all with the same service. As such I got to play with a lot of kit.

From memory and a few videos. Starstreak when it comes out of the tube spins. After a few seconds the rocket and carrier dispense the three darts. These still have the inherent spin. But the fore-body spins at a faster rate. The only way it can do that is if the canards are set with opposing angles of attack (AoA). Which would kind of negate the means of causing the dart to turn, when the clutch freezes the fore-body. Unless one of the canards has a different AoA to the other. Where the difference will still cause it to turn, but not as greatly as if they were both the same AoA.

I think it must be that the canards have different AoA.
There’s no other way of doing both spinning and turning at the same time.
Thanks for an excellent set of explanations, always grateful 👍🥳

That is simple but genius. Thanks for all your information on this and explaining it in a relatively straight forward manner.

It was wrongly believed that all A2A would be missile-only, but that was in Vietnam, around 50 years ago.

Missiles and radars now are far more advanced, with a much higher probability of kill.

Other than killing drones or taking on a soft target of opportunity e.g. transport aircraft, I can’t see of a realistic scenario where an F-35 would be using its guns.

The strange thing is that the US with Chinese balloons and the Russians with their faulty stealth drone both used missiles to down them when one might have thought (esp the former) a gun would have been the better option.

GWOT?
Gulf War Op Telic?

Global War on Terror.

http s:/ /en.wikipedia. org/wiki/War_on_terror

Oh, makes sense
Thanks for the quick reply

No problem!

I called on both A10s and Apache for gun support, whilst as a JTAC in Afghan. The gun was preferred on certain targets. Though with the A10 and Apaches there was usually a choice between unguided rockets or the gun. Hellfire and Mavericks were generally only used against hardened or pin point targets. Though I did see a Maverick used on a spotter using a motorbike.

A lot of targets were in long thin tree lines. That could be the length of a football pitch. Both the gun and rockets could be used. But rockets have a wider dispersion, whereas the gun has quite a narrow arc. A JDAM or Paveway could have been used, but would have required at least two or more to cover the area.

Plus a gun run has a very high demoralizing effect. As it means the aircraft that did it is still in the local area. The A10 with its twin turbofans makes a very distinctive noise. If you’ve heard the gun from up close and seen the after effects. Trust me, you do not want to be on the receiving end! A lot of contacts were halted as the Taliban knew what was coming for them from the jet’s noise. Mind you the Apache had a similar effect. The A10 was after the AC130 the best asset for CAS. As it carried a large and wide variety of weapons, plus unlike other jets it could stay on station for a relatively long time.

This is fine against an enemy like the Taliban that has zero air power or ground-based air defence, though.

Against an enemy that has either aircraft, GBAD or even decent MANPADS, you’re not going to risk an F-35 on a gun run.

Totally agree, Afghan was very benign for aircraft. The main threat was small arms and RPGs, especially to helicopters. You would never expect something like the AC130 to operate in the Ukrainian war. It would be a suicide mission for the crew. Stand off weapons are the order of the day for that war. Plus both Russia and Ukraine have demonstrated drones to be highly effective against troops operating in tree lines.

F35 gun pods aren’t a high mass weapon either on a flight by flight basis. The number of rounds carried simply isn’t enough to shoot down lots of drones in a single mission.
The ideal weapon would be some sort of airburst 40mm high velocity grenade launcher with small cartridges so lots can be carried and proximity fuses to reduce the number needed in an engagement, but that doesn’t exist so a small light missile is the most feasible solution.

The other thing is, the kind of drone that can reasonably target a fighter is not cheap or available in mass. A FPV drone is more of a static object to dodge than a threat that can credibly target something like an F-35.

Exactly, armour piercing 27mm rounds are close to useless but then so is a Mach 2 capable hundred million dollar fighter when chasing cheap drones.

That’s what developing new missiles is for
So that you can buy a new missile specifically for shooting down drones rather than a new hundred million dollar fighter.
Modular, innit

I imagine there must be much effort being placed on drone jamming technology as well?

ADEN pod fitted for XM1223 perhaps?

Pretty much, yeah 👍

Grenade launchers of that type have been trialed in the past haven’t they, indeed I know the Russians tried it in the past or was it mines with a similar function, but seems they never really caught on.

I imagine there must be much effort being placed on drone jamming technology as well?

Where do these drones come from? If from other aerial platforms, the idea is to down those planes before they know you are there, so they never launch the drones in the first place. If from ground launch, the idea is to destroy the launch points, SEAD/DEAD. Given that this strategy relies on stealth, degrading the F-35Bs’ RCS with a gun pod could well be counterproductive.

The F-35 cannon has 220 unguided rounds (in the pod version). How many would be needed to take out a drone. perhaps if there’s AI targeting and very little distance it wouldn’t take that many, but at a greater distance it’s going to be very hard to hit a small drone with unguided ammunition and it’s arguable just how good the cannon would be.

Surely the right answer to mass drone threats is DEW, unlimited shots at the speed of light using built in hardware.

Hi jon

yes but large drones have a long range a Shahed 136 has a range of 1600 miles and can be launched from almost anywhere so your not getting the launch vehicle.

Also a Shahed is a big slow predictable target. Remember a Russian fighter knocked out a U.S. heavy U.S. drone by tapping it so moving into gun range and knocking it out with a cannon is not a problem. These unmanned aircraft fly strait arms level at a couple of hundred miles an hour, they are very very basic targets.

as for DEW, they are simply not there yet for fighters, the power supplies are still very large, the energy output still low. Large scale drone attacks are a now issue, DEW on single seat fighters is a decade or two away. Guns are a now solution for an f35b.

Fair point. I was considering threats to the aircraft rather than using the planes to intercept ground-strike drones and loitering munitions. I concede that F-35s with a cannon could take those out. I’m still not conviced that the F-35 is the best solution. The cost of simply launching F-35s (c $50K+ per flying hour) could be a lot more than the cost of a cheap drone.

The Saheed isn’t cheap, costing more than a cheap missile so I’m not sure that it falls into your original premise. I agree the F-35’s gun could take them out cheaply if the planes are already flying, as in the case of the mixed attacks against Israel (where we sent Typhoons). Is that worth arming the F-35s with gun pods? Perhaps using CAMM or a Helicopter and Martlet would be a better idea.

Although it isn’t generally talked about, I expect ECM attacks from the APG-81 and APG-85 would be enough to take out a cheap drone. Perhaps my use of DEW was wrong as people think laser and kinetic destruction.

I don’t think flying a 80m£ aircraft low and slow enough to detect and engage a small drone with a gun that makes the aircraft more visible on radar in an environment that has any sort of IADS active is the answer.

Totally agree, you don’t want to fly a stealth aircraft around with a gun pod unless at best it were being used for the specific mission of taking out drones, a bit embarrassing in itself if you are in that position except perhaps arguably on a rare occasion from a carrier. It would indicate serious deficiencies elsewhere. The other problem of course is that smaller drones are very difficult to detect certainly until very close, so when would even an F-35 be especially useful for such dedicated missions. Far better to have as many ground based platforms that are coming on to market or anti drone drones available to counter those threats while missiles are better for larger drones. A gun pod would be a rare last ditch option most of the time. So yes having it as a small scale option might best not to be totally discarded we do need to put into perspective its likely very rare usage.

Yes, but unlikely to be those fitted to aircraft. Old fashioned AA systems with their own radar, 27-40mm with either time or proximity fused ammo. Either dedicated vehicles like Gepard, or add suitable sensors to existing vehicles that already have suitable guns or add on RWS like Slinger that can be added to most military vehicles. Ground based lasers are also way easier to power & aim, as a potential alternative.

Hi Mate, I think it largely depends on the type of “dogfight”. Sea Harrier Sidewinder demonstrated how effective missile can be, and that was only shortage visual range. Your comment re doctrine and training is spot on, coupled to the poor reliability of early generation missiles.

And MQ25 is a refuelling drone that’s not even on service yet, going to be a decade before any combat drones are in service.

Agreed on the 8 and 4 sqns – a good balance.

Ideally we’d have 12 frontline Typhoon squadrons and 6 F-35 squadrons, and around 300 aircraft.

8 Typhoon plus 4 F-35 would do, though.

agreed Steve

to replace the retired Tranche 1’s?

What I am saying is that the RAF would want to upgrade all their Tranche 2’s Typhoons first, before planning to buy more, I think? Unless, SDR25 decides on more upgrades?