1/32 F-35C from Trumpeter in april

[Juggernut]

On 3/4/2022 at 12:32 PM, Pete Fleischmann said:

I’ll ’prolly buy it and throw it on the pile. 
 

As an Air Force guy, I hate to say it, but the “C” model F-35 is the best performer of the bunch. It still needs a gun though-

 

cheers

P

 

While not technically an "Air Force Guy", I grew up as a Air Force brat and I'll still have the A model with the gun.  Without knowing a lot about the aircraft, I can't believe they're making the same mistake with the B, and C, that they did with the Century Series fighters (and the early USAF and NAVY/USMC versions of the F-4)  and omitting the gun.

Edited March 7, 2022 by Juggernut

[firefly7]

they ( whomever they are )  never learn. 

[Juggernut]

1 hour ago, Tony T said:

 

Nobody's going to use a $200m jet to strafe the roads, except in the movies. As for air-to-air, the F-35 isn't a turn-and-burn kind of machine. It mostly prances about at 40,000ft or higher, often supercruising, and relying on arm's reach ordnance. The Naval versions trade the gun for increased fuel capacity. No doubt the Marines will start hanging all sorts of whizz-bang gear under the wings. 

 

Quite excited by this kit. Partly because it means Trumpy is still in the 1/32 jet business, and partly because it was kept under wraps so I wonder what else might be in development [insert favourite wish here]. 

 

Tony 

 

 

That logic (by whomever) is almost identical to the those long-lost assumptions that led to the F-4 (and a lot of other platforms) needing an internal gun. The F-14, F-15, F-16, F/A-18, and F-22 (all of which can employ air-mud munitions) among others have guns (M61A1/2 or better) and in development year dollars, I'm sure was not cheap either. 

 

I'm glad the USAF version has the gun...it can defend itself up close and personal IF it even gets detected.  The F-35 (at least the F-35A) has air-to-air capability which is primarily what the gun is for.  Attacking ground targets with a gun is not a part of the mission (as far as I'm aware) as the F-35 shouldn't ever be close enough to it's target(s) to be within gun range.  That is why we still have A-10's (and haven't retired them in spite of Congressional/USAF whines to get rid of them).  To wit, almost any other platform in the US Inventory (including the AH-64 Apache) can do the job but not necessarily with the survivability of the A-10.

 

The F-35A only costs $110.3 million (cheaper than either the B or C versions but neither of those are even close to $200 million). From the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation - July 2021, accessed 3/7/2022:  "The F-35’s price per unit, including ancillary costs like depot maintenance, ground support equipment, and spare parts is $110.3 million per F-35A..."  That's a lot less than $200 million. It's also not capable of sustained super-cruise.  From Air Force Magazine dated 11/1/2012 accessed 3/7/2022): "The F-35, while not technically a “supercruising” aircraft, can maintain Mach 1.2 for a dash of 150 miles without using fuel-gulping afterburners."  It's also super-cruise limited due to the erosion of the stealth coating and damage to antennas in the aircraft''s tail (Popular Mechanics, April 29, 2020, accessed 3/7/2022).

 

You'll please excuse my long-winded post as I'm a very deeply committed proponent of US Military Airpower, and particularly the United States Air Force.  None of the above has anything to do with the announced F-35C by Trumpeter...sorry for the hijack.

Edited March 7, 2022 by Juggernut

[Tony T]

Add in R&D etc and I doubt you'll get much change from $200m for the Naval variants. 

Missiles have come a long way over the past fifty years and the Navy needs a bigger fuel fraction. 

 

Tony

 

 

 

 

[Juggernut]

I also read that the RAF is going to be acquiring the F-35B (if it hasn't already) as a replacement for the Tornado.  Is the Harrier still in service and will the F-35B operate with the Royal Navy as well?

Edited March 7, 2022 by Juggernut

[Dave Williams]

Can’t the F-35B, and I assume the C also, carry an external gun pod under the belly?  If the gun is rarely/never used, it, and it’s ammo, is just dead weight, which may be more of a consideration for carrier based aircraft than land based.  Strap it on when needed, otherwise leave it at home.  
 

I can see for A-A combat, it may be reassuring to have, although the likelihood of using it in turn and burn combat these days seems remote.  But for ground strafing, in Afghanistan, and later on in OIF, there was little to no ground A-A capability.  Doesn’t seem likely that many pilots would go down to strafe a target like a convoy or group protected by A-A vehicles, or that has a high chance of MANPADS.

[Pete Fleischmann]

14 minutes ago, Dave Williams said:

Can’t the F-35B, and I assume the C also, carry an external gun pod under the belly?  If the gun is rarely/never used, it, and it’s ammo, is just dead weight, which may be more of a consideration for carrier based aircraft than land based.  Strap it on when needed, otherwise leave it at home.  
 

I can see for A-A combat, it may be reassuring to have, although the likelihood of using it in turn and burn combat these days seems remote.  But for ground strafing, in Afghanistan, and later on in OIF, there was little to no ground A-A capability.  Doesn’t seem likely that many pilots would go down to strafe a target like a convoy or group protected by A-A vehicles, or that has a high chance of MANPADS.

Hi Dave,

You are correct. There is the option for mounting a centerline gun pod on the F-35. And while I understand your point about the gun and magazine being potential dead weight, plenty of aircraft have them permanently installed- the value added overrides the weight penalty is one way to consider it.

 

As you know, not all wars are the same. The threat drives your tactics, and The next one will likely be very different from Afghanistan and OIF. My point is that people much smarter than me recognize that a gun may be very important in the scenario I describe. I agree; and I strongly believe that we should keep training to employ the gun in both A/A and A/G mission sets so we are prepared for week 3 when we are out of missiles vs. a capable adversary; and for those days when we are able to stick our nose at the dirt and strafe when the threat allows.

The nice thing about an internal gun vs a pod mounted gun is the fact that it isn’t subject to carriage limits, (g, AOA, etc)and needs infrequent bore sighting. Having never carried a gun pod, I’m not sure if you can just hang it and go (?) or if it needs to be boresighted every time it’s uploaded. A full magazine on the F-16 was about 500 lbs IIRC; so perhaps just not loading the magazine for those sorties where the gun is not required..

 

At any rate, I consider you one of the more thoughtful and insightful thinkers that frequent these boards- always interested in what you have to say-

 

best

 

Pete

 

 

 

[Neo]

1 hour ago, Dave Williams said:

Strap it on when needed, otherwise leave it at home.  

[Alex]

On 2/28/2022 at 7:35 PM, LSP_Ron said:

The link doesn't work but I don't think I would waste my money or my time. How close to being remotely accurate even externally could this kit possibly be when your average joe can't get near one let alone Trumpeter in China?

 

 

 

 

I have a copy of the Meng 1:48 F-35 kit (not started), but the parts look superficially right and it got a lot of positive reviews from people who know more than me.  The Hasegawa 1:48 F-22 is also very nice, and since we didn’t even share those with Japan, much less anyone else, they couldn’t just bop over to the local JASDF base and measure one up either.  These companies must have some means of either accessing low-res but accurate blueprints or doing 3D modeling from photos correcting for angle, foreshortening, etc.

[Kagemusha]

Ok fellas, let's keep the discussion kind of on the plastic please, anyone want to speculate when the Devastator is going to be released..?

[Tony T]

I'm just hoping they have other surprises in development. I'm perplexed as to why they haven't yet made a 1/32 Chengdu J.10B, given the size of the domestic market.

 

Tony 

 

 

[Violator1991]

6 hours ago, Tony T said:

I'm just hoping they have other surprises in development. I'm perplexed as to why they haven't yet made a 1/32 Chengdu J.10B, given the size of the domestic market.

 

Tony 

 

 

That's a qood question! J-10B is a good looking plane and it would sell in thousands, the Chinese market to start with.

What could be even a greater hit is the J-20, though. 

 

[npb748r]

8 hours ago, Kagemusha said:

Ok fellas, let's keep the discussion kind of on the plastic please, anyone want to speculate when the Devastator is going to be released..?

moderators want to herd, it must feel like we are cats !!??  And you jumped to the Devastator, you know which buttons to push 

[wunwinglow]

On 3/7/2022 at 7:25 PM, Juggernut said:

I also read that the RAF is going to be acquiring the F-35B (if it hasn't already) as a replacement for the Tornado.  Is the Harrier still in service and will the F-35B operate with the Royal Navy as well?

Harriers gone 12 years ago....

[Kagemusha]

16 minutes ago, wunwinglow said:

Harriers gone 12 years ago....