F16 destroyed 11.0+

So you’re arguing that War Thunder is perfect & that everyone that says War Thunder is flawed is the insult you put in… lol

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


Classic RazerVon move, twist and turning people’s argument.

Then don’t accuse people that criticize War Thunder, & point out flaws in a construct manner of things.

accuse? I have a whole thread of you actually defending Gaijin.

You mean the thread where I exclusively said that Gaijin is wrong?
The same thread where I argued for decompression as a whole…

So true lmao

F-35 suffers from multiple issues the aircraft as well as the whole programme.
Sure nothing unusual but it is the most expensive defense programme to ever exist.
Combined with certain issues of the hardware, software especially in regard to low readiness that is not ideal to say the least.

Wether the aircraft will deliver what is promised in real aerial warfare against near peer, peer or in part technologically superior adversaries remains to be seen. Hopefully it does not come to that.
Similar to how the Gulf War can not be seen as proof that F-15 with it’s therein documented efficacy is the best air to air platform in the world.

Most importantly doctrine be it US, Soviet or now Russian or the one of whomever else always has to stand the test. It is based on all kinds of data, analyses, tests and assumptions.
Wether it was the right tool for the job might be known after a conflict and will likely be debated for decades after as well. Additionally a militaries doctrine can easily happen to be designed for a enemy it never goes to war with.

I’m sure F-35 does it’s job decently at the very least but as I see it with it’s focus on export it is what F-16 was in the 70s or 80s.

Not mounting a gun for self defense at the very least was a fault in the 50s and 60s. The doctrine assuemd that air to air missiles guided by radar would render cannons in aerial warfare and depending on whom you asked even planes themselves obsolete.
Both quite obviously wrong in retrospect. With a quite similar issue at hand on the F-35 variant you discussed.
In a changing ‘‘threat environment’’ ideally if not restrained by funds, manpower, technology or any other factor a military will of course retain all abilities needed to counter known threats while developing for service everything that is needed to face projected threats combining capabilities wherever possible.

The only thing that can be assuemd with a good amount of certainty is that aircraft will be unmanned at some point at the very least for a time.

Stealth technology for example is not black magic. While a aircraft certainly it’s airframe is being developed for a service life measured in decades electronical warfare and radar technology also evolve constantly. Missiles with all their components a well of course.

Stealth technology grants a further advantage though many nations are leveling the palyingfield which leads to stealth technology being just another tool in the box of military aircraft developement.

Idk what the rest of the wall of text is really addressing, but yes a gun on the F-35 for self defence is dumb. Well, a gun on any of the heavily upgraded 4th gen or normal 5th gen aircraft is stupid. But at least the 4th gen options has their roots in aircraft that could potentially use it.

To bring it back on track, seems like the last air-air kill for the F-16 when using the gun was against a light attack aircraft in 1992. Marking the third air to air kill with a gun on the F-16. One being a helicopter and one being an Su-22.

Perhaps read again to find out where you went wrong?

In short leaving out some of the more complex roundabout stuff as long as air to air missiles do not guarantee winning the engagement or as long as it can not be ruled out that it will come to WvR situations a gun is a required certainly a desired fall back option.
Leaving out a gun is a compromise ergo a negative.

Additionally whould you say getting rid of short to medium infrared guided air to air missiles would be reasonable?
It would save weight or free up hardpoints for long range radar guided air to air missiles.

They currently serve as the close self defence role that a gun previously did. With potentially some functionality targeting incomming munitions.

If some weapon or usage change made them entirely unnecessary. Sure yeah, get rid of them and use the space for literally anything else.

Actually its a positive, you can use the space for literally anything else, like fuel for loiter time. A thing you will actually use regularly. The gun has a good chance of never being used with occasionally drones/helicopters in low threat enviroments presenting opportunities

Like the F-16 barely has any gun kills on air-targets. The last being 30 years ago in a low threat enviroment against a light attack aircraft.

Designing an aircraft as Multi Role, but doesn’t have a tool for - as example - show of force at Air Policing is just evenly dumb.

And that’s most of the time the main Job, a carrier group overseas is doing. Enforcing a no fly zone and intercepting civilian Aircrafts.

How do you want to manange the rules of engagement and the steps of escalation, if your only option up close is shooting a missile to a not responding craft? A warning shot? How so?

Laws doesn’t matter, if it’s Amuhricca, right?

This Autocorrection on my smartphone…


You dont use a gun to do that job.

And if you wanted to, you can actually just carry a gun-pod.

The show of force is you intercepting them with the aircraft.

The alternative the gun offers in this instance is shooting them down, or warning shots. Which i suppose is something neat you can just do with the gun-pod if that was deemed necessary.

As a trade-off for having to carry a gun pod for air policing in an environment you expect to shoot warning shots. You get internal space for anything else, like fuel.

Edit: and when you go check what the Marines plan to use the gun pod for it is for show of force in low threat enviroment or warning shots. Damn its almost as if you dont need to jam the gun inside the aircraft to do what is a peacetime mission. As a bonus, the regular gun-pod fucks with radar cross section, which is nice for peacetime missions

Imagine the situation back in the day in Kosovo.

The job was to enforce a no fly zone, Show of Force (in some instances) and Air Policing (intercepting civilian Aircrafts and forcing them to land/change directions) while also in a high threat environment due to hostile Radar AA and expected hostile Aircrafts.

That’s exactly the situation, where the new shiny overfunded F-35 starts to miss a tool for it’s job.

That’s a step backwards, not forward?
That’s simply the point.

Getting rid of the internal gun (Wich would cause less drag) and slapping on a gun pod - Wich will increase its drag, while also loosing its stealth argument, is not smart.

The F-22 doesn’t have this problem, nor is the F-22 a single engine fighter.

Sticking to its overall layout and redesigning it, would have made more sense, than developing the F-35 Wich is limiting itself in so many ways.

1 Like

Last i checked you do not do warning shots in an environment where there are enemy radars looking to shoot you down. F-35 and F-22 can get closer than other aircraft, but it also means thats not a situation where you do that.

You are either in a situation where you can use the gun-pod just fine, or it is a situation where basically no other aircraft can get close enough where for some reason a low visibility aircraft is expected to go in and potentially fire warning shots.

The US navy seems fine with the current arrangement, so unless this is somehow a big deal and nowhere along the years long process they asked for a gun to be added to the C-variant (a larger aircraft than the A-variant carrying a gun) id argue its such a edge case usecase its not really noteworthy.

You know, the carrier version of the F-35, attached to the most “show of force” Force on the world. A US carrier group.

The gun is still for self defence, the short range air to air missiles are more than that.

Many compromises. As in most militaries.
That you don’t care much for doctrine or anything else but how a certain aspect of F-35 can be angled to illustrate it as soemthing of a world beating machine stands out a little.

I dont think ive painted the F-35 as world beating. I see where its limited, and the compromizes made.

I will however trust the people issuing requirements and selecting aircraft and what the new aircraft is supposed replace more than people on forums. Because those are the people who looked at the B and C variants of the F-35, and the gun was seen as a “nice to have” but not wanted if it compromized on other requirements.

Had a look through the JSF whitepaper advocating for the inclusion of an integrated gun. And its most convincing points either missrepresents the nature of what options the aircraft has or puts it in some imaginary threat environment where somehow they expect the aircraft not to be manpadded when engaging in an air to air duel. Overall its not perticualry convincing.

Like i openly say that guns can have uses, because i look to industry and implementation and whoa, there are 2 different gun pods for the non-cannon F-35 where they can fit it if the mission asks for it.

I see.


Based on that, i’ll recommend you to read a little bit of the Bradley’s as well as the Striker’s development history, and the blackholes around the military industrial complex, who was in charge for those projects and who did support them… 👍

1 Like