Forum: F-35 Lightning II

Is this AF-1?

F-16.net Sponsor

wolfsith wrote:

Is this AF-1?

Looks like the AA-1 to me... the Vertical Stabilizers are BIG and the fuselage end is not saw toothed around the exhaust nozzle.

Forum Veteran Joined: Jul 01, 2007 - 07:22 PM Posts: 605

Need more pictures! Drool

I love the LM marking under the wing, and the PW markings near the Horizontal Stab/Nozzle... In Love

TEG

Case in point for that other thread about increasing missile carrying capacity.

You're gonna fit it where now?

daemonllama wrote:

Case in point for that other thread about increasing missile carrying capacity.

You're gonna fit it where now?

In the bay, three abreast each, staggered. The bays are roughly the same width as the F-22's, but longer (4.2 m vs 3.8 m). They are also deeper over 2/3 of the width to accomodate the 2,000 class ordnance on the F-35A and F-35C. Right now, the issue is that the AMRAAM ejector on roof of the bay takes one missile, to carry six you need a dual ejector.

Posters on this forum are not the ones claiming that there is room for more missiles in the bays. It was General Charles C Davis -- F-35 Program Executive Officer -- who made multiple statements to this regard.

6 = feasible, that i get.

OMG F-35 wit teh 27 missile inturnol stealth mode mega macross FAST pack = not so feasible

daemonllama wrote:

6 = feasible, that i get.

OMG F-35 wit teh 27 missile inturnol stealth mode mega macross FAST pack = not so feasible

And, nobody is claiming that as a feasible configuration. It is neither feasible nor desired. It is a stretch to argue the need for 10 missiles on a single sortie much less 27. The practical F-14, F-15, F-16 and F-18 A2A warload is 4 to 8 -- with 4 or 6 being the most common on the sixteen and eigtheen, whereas 6 to 8 being more common on the heavy twins.

dwightlooi wrote:

daemonllama wrote:

6 = feasible, that i get.

OMG F-35 wit teh 27 missile inturnol stealth mode mega macross FAST pack = not so feasible

And, nobody is claiming that as a feasible configuration. It is neither feasible nor desired. It is a stretch to argue the need for 10 missiles on a single sortie much less 27. The practical F-14, F-15, F-16 and F-18 A2A warload is 4 to 8 -- with 4 or 6 being the most common on the sixteen and eigtheen, whereas 6 to 8 being more common on the heavy twins.

So, 6-AAM's would be ideal of the F-35 in a totally stealthy configuration.... Wink

daemonllama wrote:

6 = feasible, that i get.

OMG F-35 wit teh 27 missile inturnol stealth mode mega macross FAST pack = not so feasible

What missile are you talking about? Wink

Corsair1963 wrote:

So, 6-AAM's would be ideal of the F-35 in a totally stealthy configuration.... Wink

More like 2-AAM's, leave the Air Dominance to the Air Dominance to the Air Domininance fighter. The AMRAAMs are for nothing more than "self protection" against targets of oppertunity while the F-35 conducts its bombing mission.

whoops, its early and I havent finished my cup of coffee yet.

Conan wrote:

daemonllama wrote:

6 = feasible, that i get.

OMG F-35 wit teh 27 missile inturnol stealth mode mega macross FAST pack = not so feasible

What missile are you talking about? Wink

"AMRAAMS" of course......... Twisted Evil

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:

Corsair1963 wrote:

So, 6-AAM's would be ideal of the F-35 in a totally stealthy configuration.... Wink

More like 2-AAM's, leave the Air Dominance to the Air Dominance to the Air Domininance fighter. The AMRAAMs are for nothing more than "self protection" against targets of oppertunity while the F-35 conducts its bombing mission.

First, with only ~ 200 Raptors available worldwide. Its not going to always be available in sufficient numbers. Regardless, the F-35 in the next best thing and will be used by many nations in the Air Superiority Role. Wink

So, expect to see six internal AAM's shortly after it enters service....... Idea

Another Pic....

http://www.jsf.mil/gallery/gal_photo_sdd_f35atest.htm

Forum: F-35 Lightning II

New Pics Of F-35A Weapons Bays