F-35 fighter bid brochure, depicting drag chute fairing

Related to the Norwegian acquisition programme.

Here's a PDF which includes some <a href="http://norway.usembassy.gov/root/pdfs/volume-1---executive-summary---part-1_dista.pdf"> interesting mission profiles and updated technical facts</a>

Document with: <a href="http://photos.state.gov/libraries/norway/45384/pdfs/F35Overview.pdf">General information</a>


Regards,
B. Bolsøy
Oslo

Interesting. Thanks!

Page #9 under Air-to-Air

6 x AIM-120 (D+)

dwightlooi wrote:Page #9 under Air-to-Air

6 x AIM-120 (D+)

Yeah, I saw that too. Would be nice if the plane is actually working by then.

Hate to nitpick but it doesn't say six INTERNAL AIM-120.

Thanks for sharing.

LowObservable wrote:Hate to nitpick but it doesn't say six INTERNAL AIM-120.

True. It also says AIM-9X on that same list which the F-35 won't carry internally.

I wonder if Norway find the presentation (I understand this was just a summary) helpful as half of the document talk about stealth (not a NoAF requirement) and the other 50% talked about its awesome sortie rates and low costs which is honestly nothing but guesses at this stage.

Three things...

(1) The chart appears to indicate Block 4/5 capability which comes after Block 3 which includes everything that is to be cleared during the current SDD phase of the project.

(2) The AIM-9X Block two does indeed include LOAL which will permit internal carriage and launch. LOAL is one of the primary features which separates Block I from Block II AIM-9Xes.

(3) The chart does not say 6 x internal AIM-120 (D+). However, aircraft can already carry the AIM-120 on each of the external stations. So, if it does not refer to internal missiles, then what does it refer to? I mean you can already sling 10 external AMRAAMs plus the 4 internal ones, if you don't care about VLO, so why bother to say that you can carry 6? It'll be like saying that a gun's 20 round magazine can also be loaded with 12 rounds instead...

Would have been better to improve the size of internally carried laser guided munitions. As it is now the limitation is 2 x 500lb or a unspecified number of the tiny SDB II in the future.

They promise a FOC by 2020 for Norway but still no electronic attack capability in theirs block version. And what if they want to keep the IRIS-T missiles they just bought for the Vipers?

Vipernice wrote:Would have been better to improve the size of internally carried laser guided munitions. As it is now the limitation is 2 x 500lb or a unspecified number of the tiny SDB II in the future.

They promise a FOC by 2020 for Norway but still no electronic attack capability in theirs block version. And what if they want to keep the IRIS-T missiles they just bought for the Vipers?

Already taken care of.

The Paveway IV is not the only LGB option. The user can always use the Laser Guided Joint Direct Attack Munition (LJDAM). This is similar to the GPS/Inertial guided JDAM, but adds a laser seeker in the nose of the kit. 500, 1000 and 2000 lbs version of the LJDAM is available. The testing was concluded in 2007 and Boeing is currently delivering production guidance kits to the US Military. 600 guidance kits are to be by 2009.

The LJDAM kits are mounted to the classic Mk82/83/84 bombs (500, 10000 and 2000 lbs respectively) and the F-35A/C can carry all three internally.

The IRIS-T is compatible to the external rail launchers used for the AIM-9X/ASRAAM -- that was an IRIS-T requirement. If they want to use the weapon internally, they'll have to pay to have it certified for internal carriage and make LOAL and ejector launch capabilityadditions to the missile if necessary. Or, they can do the certification themselves on their own F-35s when they get them -- it surely won't be the first time a country does their own weapons integration on an imported platform.

IRIS-T integration will be mainly about software and ejector launch. The weapon was designed for LOAL operations and features an INS for that purpose like the ASRAAM for example.

Again, I'll believe six internal AMRAAM when I see it. They key issue is that there are only two hardpoints in each bay. Unless they add two internal hardpoints per bay (one each side of the A/S station) it means that you have to acommodate not only two AMRAAMs, but also a two-missile adaptor with ejectors, which will have to absorb some significant asymmetrical forces as the missile is punched out.

LowObservable wrote:Again, I'll believe six internal AMRAAM when I see it. They key issue is that there are only two hardpoints in each bay. Unless they add two internal hardpoints per bay (one each side of the A/S station) it means that you have to acommodate not only two AMRAAMs, but also a two-missile adaptor with ejectors, which will have to absorb some significant asymmetrical forces as the missile is punched out.

They are not going to add hard points to the internal bay.

3 AAMs per bay will have to be accommodated by having a dual ejector rack on the "A/S" station. The asymmetrical forces are not likely to be a major issue -- the BRU-61/A used to carry four SDBs (2x2 tandem arrangement) holds four 285 lbs ordnance off the hard point axis such that not only are the loads and ejection forces side-to-side off axis, they are also front to back off center. There is plenty of structural rigidity in a 2500 lbs station to deal with whatever carriage or ejection loads of two 335 lbs missiles.

dwightlooi wrote:3 AAMs per bay will have to be accommodated by having a dual ejector rack on the "A/S" station. The asymmetrical forces are not likely to be a major issue -- the BRU-61/A used to carry four SDBs (2x2 tandem arrangement) holds four 285 lbs ordnance off the hard point axis such that not only are the loads and ejection forces side-to-side off axis, they are also front to back off center. There is plenty of structural rigidity in a 2500 lbs station to deal with whatever carriage or ejection loads of two 335 lbs missiles.

I asked Jim Latham, LMs business director, this question at Farnborough. Six internal AAMs has been looked into, but so far noone has requested such a requirement.

Regards,
B. Bolsøy
Oslo