Is this for sure going to be able to be integrated into the internal bay? I can't find anything conclusive about this. Most sites either say they are in the process of it or it will just be carried externally. Which may still be the status quo. But in case anybody knows different, shout it out.
vertical
Sponsor
Posted: Jul 24, 2008 - 10:38 PM
F-16.net Sponsor
This message from our sponsor will disappear if you log on as a member.
SpudmanWP
Posted: Apr 16, 2008 - 01:04 AM
Active member
Joined: Oct 12, 2006
Posts: 148
Status: Offline
Not in it's current config. It's fins make it too large.
Beside designing a new missile, they could design a clipped-wing HARM, ala AIM-120c, to make it fit, or they could make a HARM version of the AIM 120 with a smaller motor and a larger warhead.
fyi, Boeing got the propulsion and control surface dev contract in May '07
Corsair1963
Posted: Apr 16, 2008 - 02:11 AM
Elite
Joined: Dec 19, 2005
Posts: 621
Status: Offline
SpudmanWP wrote:
Not in it's current config. It's fins make it too large.
Beside designing a new missile, they could design a clipped-wing HARM, ala AIM-120c, to make it fit, or they could make a HARM version of the AIM 120 with a smaller motor and a larger warhead.
fyi, Boeing got the propulsion and control surface dev contract in May '07
I thought the US and Italy where working on a HARM replacement????
vertical
Posted: Apr 16, 2008 - 02:33 AM
Frequent Poster
Joined: Apr 10, 2008
Posts: 72
Status: Offline
SpudmanWP wrote:
Not in it's current config. It's fins make it too large.
Beside designing a new missile, they could design a clipped-wing HARM, ala AIM-120c, to make it fit, or they could make a HARM version of the AIM 120 with a smaller motor and a larger warhead.
fyi, Boeing got the propulsion and control surface dev contract in May '07
Thanks Spudman, I figured as much. It will still be carried externally though, I assume. And I thought the joint US-Italy venture was just AGM-88E, not an entirely new missile.
vertical
SpudmanWP
Posted: Apr 16, 2008 - 04:40 AM
Active member
Joined: Oct 12, 2006
Posts: 148
Status: Offline
The AGM-88E is still too big to fit internally in the F-22 or F-35.
The JDRADM, on the other hand, is being designed to fit internally in either aircraft.
vertical
Posted: Apr 16, 2008 - 05:03 AM
Frequent Poster
Joined: Apr 10, 2008
Posts: 72
Status: Offline
SpudmanWP wrote:
The AGM-88E is still too big to fit internally in the F-22 or F-35.
The JDRADM, on the other hand, is being designed to fit internally in either aircraft.
I'd never even heard of JDRADM. You are a man "in the know". Again, thanks Spudman.
vertical
geogen
Posted: Apr 16, 2008 - 11:01 AM
Veteran
Joined: Mar 11, 2008
Posts: 293
Location: 45km @ sea... New England
Status: Offline
I wonder what the range of that JDRADM could be on a M 1.5, 50,000' cruising F-22??
What kinda '....-Truck' would those be called?!?
_________________ The Super-Viper has not yet begun to concede.
Why would the F-35 need to carry HARM internally? The main SEAD/DEAD mission would go to F-22 with SDB. Once those are clear, you could mount a HARM externally, but that would just take up a spot that could be used for 4 SDB. The CCIP Vipers will still be around for a while and they could still perform the HARM shooter mission is you wanted weapons in the air just in case. By the time they are all retired we should have moved on to JDRADM with internal carriage in mind.
dwightlooi
Posted: Apr 16, 2008 - 03:46 PM
Elite
Joined: Aug 02, 2006
Posts: 909
Status: Offline
vertical wrote:
SpudmanWP wrote:
The AGM-88E is still too big to fit internally in the F-22 or F-35.
The JDRADM, on the other hand, is being designed to fit internally in either aircraft.
I'd never even heard of JDRADM. You are a man "in the know". Again, thanks Spudman.
vertical
JDRADM = Joint Dual Role Air Dormination Missile
It is the premise under which the next generation US AAM is being developed. The missile will cover both the roles of an AAM and HARM. It will incorporate a multi-band (probably combined Active Radar, Passive ESM and perhaps IIR) and advanced propulsion. The missile is designed to fit the F-35 and F-22.
So wait... is that a common airframe with different seeker heads, or an all-in-one package? And are they thinking ramjet or rocket?
Sorry, this is the first I've heard of this program; tried looking it up but my google-fu must be weak today.
SpudmanWP
Posted: Apr 16, 2008 - 07:43 PM
Active member
Joined: Oct 12, 2006
Posts: 148
Status: Offline
Lightndattic wrote:
Why would the F-35 need to carry HARM internally?
Just ask any SEAD pilot if he would rather carry a HARM internally or externally in the F-35. The pilot will want whatever will give him the best chance of coming home alive.
Quote:
The main SEAD/DEAD mission would go to F-22 with SDB.
Once the F-35 comes online in strength, you will not see a single F-22 used in SEAD missions. The AF will not risk it. They only have 183 of them. There is a reason why the AF has consistently used second line fighters for SEAD missions. With the increased amount of danger, the AF will not risk a front line fighter if they do not have to.
Boeing is just now, as of May 2007, beginning work on the propulsion and control portion of the JDRADM program. So as of now, there has not been a decision made re the type of engine, range, TVC etc.
I wonder how the F-35's APG-81 could help in the SEAD Role along with its Stealth Capabilities???
elp
Posted: Apr 17, 2008 - 01:47 PM
F-16.net Editor
Joined: Sep 23, 2003
Posts: 2811
Location: Australia
SpudmanWP wrote:
Quote:
The main SEAD/DEAD mission would go to F-22 with SDB.
Once the F-35 comes online in strength, you will not see a single F-22 used in SEAD missions. The AF will not risk it. They only have 183 of them.
Super cruise (Mach 1.7)at slightly under 67k ft, .....which means a much smaller missile no escape zone for a super-SAM. The whole reason for F-22 is stiff IADS. We covered this before. F-35 can't go where the F-22 can. Why? Speed and altitude limits. Which when there is a adverse stealth event, not having high speed and higher altitude gives you a problem.
F-22
-VLO
-Super cruise
-High altitude
F-35
-VLO
-No Super Cruise
-No higher altitude
What do you consider F-35 "in strength"? So far USAF as stated they can only fund 48 per year in full rate. Can you wave a magic wand in these tough budget times and bring the USAF production slots up to the original 110 per year during full rate?
_________________ - ELP -
dwightlooi
Posted: Apr 17, 2008 - 04:31 PM
Elite
Joined: Aug 02, 2006
Posts: 909
Status: Offline
Lightndattic wrote:
Why would the F-35 need to carry HARM internally? The main SEAD/DEAD mission would go to F-22 with SDB. Once those are clear, you could mount a HARM externally, but that would just take up a spot that could be used for 4 SDB. The CCIP Vipers will still be around for a while and they could still perform the HARM shooter mission is you wanted weapons in the air just in case. By the time they are all retired we should have moved on to JDRADM with internal carriage in mind.
Both the F-35 and the F-22 will be able to do SEAD/DEAD with the SDB. The F-35 probably a little better due to its superior mission systems fit. But that does not change the preference for a Mach 2.5~3 missile with a greater stand off range and faster time to target than a glide bomb.
The JDRADM is intended to provide a Mach 4+ missile, but being also an AAM it'll probably be a 7", 350 lbs class, weapon (ala AMRAAM, Meteor, etc) with a modest range. A HARM variant -- like the VFDR version recently test fired -- will be a 500 lbs class weapon with a greater stand off range and will pack a bigger boom than a typical 20~40 lbs AAM warhead.
Search
Register
Log in to check your private messages
Forum Guidelines
