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

"Sorja" wrote in message
...
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/planes/q0163.shtml

This page will need to be highlighted with the left mouse button to be
seen in
it's entirety:
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache...il/ndia/2004gu
ns/wed/maher.ppt+%22F-35%22+%2225mm%22&hl=en

It looks like either 180 or 182 rounds for the CTOL variant and either 220
or
225 rounds for the gunpod for the CV and STOVL variants. 4,000 shots per
minute is 66 rounds per second which gives the CTOL variant 3 shots with
the
gun and the CV and STOVL variants 4 shots with the gun. I'm no expert,
but to
me, it seems like a kinda low ammo supply for a close air support
aircraft.
Anyone agree? Disagree? Since the program is still in early stages, is
it
possible the ammo load would be increased?


Admittedly, you are no expert. Neither am I, but the question I have is:

How often is the gun used to strafe ground targets in the first place? If
the gun isn't used much, there isn't much point to wasting the space/weight,
is there?

On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 11:44:42 +0900, "Ragnar"
wrote:


Admittedly, you are no expert. Neither am I, but the question I have is:

How often is the gun used to strafe ground targets in the first place? If
the gun isn't used much, there isn't much point to wasting the space/weight,
is there?


The same sort of reasoning was applied to the lifeboats on the
Titanic......

Cheers

John Cook

Any spelling mistakes/grammatic errors are there purely to annoy. All
opinions are mine, not TAFE's however much they beg me for them.

Email Address :-
Spam trap - please remove (trousers) to email me
Eurofighter Website :- http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk

Admittedly, you are no expert. Neither am I, but the question I have is:

How often is the gun used to strafe ground targets in the first place?
If
the gun isn't used much, there isn't much point to wasting the
space/weight,
is there?


The same sort of reasoning was applied to the lifeboats on the
Titanic......

which weren't much use as most people didn't get to them in time anyway...

Jeroen Wenting wrote:

Admittedly, you are no expert. Neither am I, but the question I have is:

How often is the gun used to strafe ground targets in the first place?
If
the gun isn't used much, there isn't much point to wasting the
space/weight,
is there?


The same sort of reasoning was applied to the lifeboats on the
Titanic......

which weren't much use as most people didn't get to them in time anyway...

Which was a failure of organisation, not of the boats themselves. Except for
the last couple of collapsible lifeboats all of Titanic's boats were
successfully launched in sufficient time, but owing to poor regulations and the
lack of any lifeboat drill many were only partly full. IIRR they held something
like 700 of the 1,100 or so they could have.

Guy

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

Admittedly, you are no expert. Neither am I, but the question I have
is:

How often is the gun used to strafe ground targets in the first
place?
If
the gun isn't used much, there isn't much point to wasting the
space/weight,
is there?


The same sort of reasoning was applied to the lifeboats on the
Titanic......

which weren't much use as most people didn't get to them in time
anyway...

Which was a failure of organisation, not of the boats themselves. Except
for
the last couple of collapsible lifeboats all of Titanic's boats were
successfully launched in sufficient time, but owing to poor regulations
and the
lack of any lifeboat drill many were only partly full. IIRR they held
something
like 700 of the 1,100 or so they could have.

Guy

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


T3

"T3" wrote in message
om...

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

Admittedly, you are no expert. Neither am I, but the question I
have
is:

How often is the gun used to strafe ground targets in the first
place?
If
the gun isn't used much, there isn't much point to wasting the
space/weight,
is there?


The same sort of reasoning was applied to the lifeboats on the
Titanic......

which weren't much use as most people didn't get to them in time
anyway...

Which was a failure of organisation, not of the boats themselves.
Except
for
the last couple of collapsible lifeboats all of Titanic's boats were
successfully launched in sufficient time, but owing to poor regulations
and the
lack of any lifeboat drill many were only partly full. IIRR they held
something
like 700 of the 1,100 or so they could have.

Guy

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

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

Ian wrote:

"T3" wrote in message
om...

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

Admittedly, you are no expert. Neither am I, but the question I
have
is:

How often is the gun used to strafe ground targets in the first
place?
If
the gun isn't used much, there isn't much point to wasting the
space/weight,
is there?


The same sort of reasoning was applied to the lifeboats on the
Titanic......

which weren't much use as most people didn't get to them in time
anyway...

Which was a failure of organisation, not of the boats themselves.
Except
for
the last couple of collapsible lifeboats all of Titanic's boats were
successfully launched in sufficient time, but owing to poor regulations
and the
lack of any lifeboat drill many were only partly full. IIRR they held
something
like 700 of the 1,100 or so they could have.

Guy

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

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

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

Guy

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


the gun isn't used much, there isn't much point to wasting the
space/weight,
is there?


The same sort of reasoning was applied to the lifeboats on the
Titanic......

which weren't much use as most people didn't get to them in time
anyway...

Which was a failure of organisation, not of the boats themselves.
Except for the last couple of collapsible lifeboats all of Titanic's
boats were successfully launched in sufficient time, but owing to poor
regulations and the lack of any lifeboat drill many were only partly
full. IIRR they held something like 700 of the 1,100 or so they could
have.

Guy

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

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

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

T3 wrote:

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

Admittedly, you are no expert. Neither am I, but the question I have
is:

How often is the gun used to strafe ground targets in the first
place?
If
the gun isn't used much, there isn't much point to wasting the
space/weight,
is there?


The same sort of reasoning was applied to the lifeboats on the
Titanic......

which weren't much use as most people didn't get to them in time
anyway...

Which was a failure of organisation, not of the boats themselves. Except
for
the last couple of collapsible lifeboats all of Titanic's boats were
successfully launched in sufficient time, but owing to poor regulations
and the
lack of any lifeboat drill many were only partly full. IIRR they held
something
like 700 of the 1,100 or so they could have.

Guy

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

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

Guy

John Cook wrote:

On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 11:44:42 +0900, "Ragnar"
wrote:

Admittedly, you are no expert. Neither am I, but the question I have is:

How often is the gun used to strafe ground targets in the first place? If
the gun isn't used much, there isn't much point to wasting the space/weight,
is there?

In that case, how many rounds do YOU think the F-35 should carry -- 250, 500,
1,000, 10,000? What other equipment are you willing to do without, since
space/weight will always be limited? Have you factored into your calculations
that the F-35's FCS is likely to be far more accurate than the previous
generation, meaning that fewer rounds are needed to hit and kill a target? Will
the GAU-12 have selectable rates of fire, and burst limiters? Autofire
capability? Here's your chance to show us your skills as an analyst.

The same sort of reasoning was applied to the lifeboats on the
Titanic......

Well, no, the reasoning was rather different in that case, having to do with the
feeling that making the ship itself safer was more important than the lifeboats,
and the lifeboats would be used to transfer passengers to a rescue ship rather
than needing to carry the entire complement at once. Also, there was the thought
that in many sea conditions where ships would likely be in trouble it would be
impossible to launch the lifeboats or keep them from swamping. This in fact
happened about a year after the Titanic, when a passenger ship, the Volturno
IIRR, caught on fire in bad weather on the North Atlantic run. Rescue ships
reached her, but the first few attempts to launch lifeboats resulted in them
being lost with all aboard in the heavy seas. They were later able to get a few
away safely, but had to wait until a US navy ship showed up (an oiler IIRR) and
could lay down a slick to calm the seas, to allow the lifeboats to be launched
and row back and forth. Fortunately the fire was kept away from the remaining
passengers and crew until that could be done, but it was a near thing. See

homepages.rootsweb.com/~daamen1/volturno/story.htm

So, post-Titanic everyone agreed that there had to be sufficient lifeboats for
everyone on board, but that doesn't guarantee your safety. Depending on how the
ship is damaged and how quickly it sinks, you may not be able to use the
lifeboats on one side or the other, even if the sea conditions allow it. Both
the Lusitania and Andrea Doria took on such big lists in a short time that the
lifeboats on the high side of the ship couldn't be launched (wouldn't clear the
side of the ship), cutting the total available in half. Do we then require that
every passenger ship have sufficient lifeboats _on each side_ to accommodate
everyone on board? But that's no guarantee of success either; the Lusitania sank
so fast (ca. 18 minutes) that she still had way on, and several of the starboard
lifeboats were lost while launching owing to that. And being steeply down by the
bow or stern may also prevent boats from being launched, so do we now require
sufficient boats fore and aft, on each side, so that any one quadrant will have
sufficient capacity for everyone on board even if the other three quadrants'
boats are unusable? This also provides redundancy in the event of fire, which
seems to be the main threat to cruise and passenger ships.

What does this ship look like? Can anyone make money with it? Will anyone want
to travel on it? After all, any view of the surroundings is blocked by the boats
stacked four or five high and six across from prow to counter. There have been
improvements in lifeboats and launching methods in the last 90+ years, but not
enough to meet all of those requirements. The best idea is still to make the
ship itself sufficiently safe so that rescue ships (and aircraft) have time to
arrive.

Guy