| Author |
Message |
|
rapier01
|
 Posted: Nov 08, 2008 - 12:38 AM
|
 
|
|
Enthusiast
Joined: Nov 10, 2005 - 02:43 AM
Posts: 92
Status: Offline
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Sponsor
|
 Posted: May 26, 2012 - 3:00 PM
|
|
|
F-16.net Sponsor
|
|
|
|
|
|
SpudmanWP
|
|
Posted: Nov 08, 2008 - 01:05 AM
|
|
|
Elite 3K
Joined: Oct 12, 2006 - 08:18 PM
Posts: 3321
Location: California
Status: Offline
|
| Great read... thanks |
_________________
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
|
|
|
|
|
|
gtg947h
|
|
Posted: Nov 08, 2008 - 04:37 AM
|
|
|
Enthusiast
Joined: Apr 07, 2008 - 05:52 PM
Posts: 92
Status: Offline
|
I love how people keep bringing up the "but it's heavier at takeoff weight!" argument... yeah, it's heavier cause it's carrying 18k lbs of fuel. 
Or the "but it only carries 4k lbs of bombs"... just like the F-16? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
sferrin
|
|
Posted: Nov 08, 2008 - 05:22 PM
|
|
|
Elite 1K
Joined: Jul 22, 2005 - 04:23 AM
Posts: 1470
Status: Offline
|
|
gtg947h wrote:
I love how people keep bringing up the "but it's heavier at takeoff weight!" argument... yeah, it's heavier cause it's carrying 18k lbs of fuel.
Or the "but it only carries 4k lbs of bombs"... just like the F-16?
And that's just internally. Wish I had a higher rez version of that photo of the F-35 over the crater though.  |
_________________
"There I was. . ."
|
|
|
|
|
|
f-15eagle
|
|
Posted: Nov 08, 2008 - 05:42 PM
|
|
|
Enthusiast
Joined: Sep 22, 2008 - 07:59 PM
Posts: 40
Status: Offline
|
| They even said the F-35 can carry as many as 8 internal AAMs and more externally if need be to. That should put to rest the BS that the F-35 has a small weapons load. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SpudmanWP
|
|
Posted: Nov 08, 2008 - 06:07 PM
|
|
|
Elite 3K
Joined: Oct 12, 2006 - 08:18 PM
Posts: 3321
Location: California
Status: Offline
|
Sorry f-15eagle,
As much as I would like it to be, the F-35 can currently only carry 4 AAM internally. Did you mean 8 SDBs?
There have been studies that 6 AAMs is likely and there is a potential for 8. But, this solution would require a specifically designed and complex ejector system. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LowObservable
|
|
Posted: Nov 08, 2008 - 08:33 PM
|
|
|
Active Member
Joined: Jan 11, 2007 - 04:34 PM
Posts: 171
Status: Offline
|
Do I hear two internal AAMs? Four! Four from the gentleman in the corner. Six, can I have six. Yes sir, six. Any advance on six? Going once? Eight, from Gen. Katie Kaboom. Do I hear ten? Ten?
Four is funded. Six is unproven (and let's get the basic configuration, which is the only weapon bay I've ever seen where the stores are toed inward, tested first). Eight, perhaps with JDRADM or folding fins. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SpudmanWP
|
|
Posted: Nov 08, 2008 - 08:37 PM
|
|
|
Elite 3K
Joined: Oct 12, 2006 - 08:18 PM
Posts: 3321
Location: California
Status: Offline
|
|
|
|
|
|
Corsair1963
|
|
Posted: Nov 09, 2008 - 12:18 AM
|
|
|
Elite 1K
Joined: Dec 19, 2005 - 04:14 AM
Posts: 1831
Status: Offline
|
|
SpudmanWP wrote:
Sorry f-15eagle,
As much as I would like it to be, the F-35 can currently only carry 4 AAM internally. Did you mean 8 SDBs?
There have been studies that 6 AAMs is likely and there is a potential for 8. But, this solution would require a specifically designed and complex ejector system.
Personally, I have no doubt the F-35 will be able to carry 6-AAM's shortly after it enters service. That said, it was intersting to hear possibly "8".
Note: We have no idea how far the "studies" have progressed? Of, course considering many partners will use the F-35 in a fighter role. Its likely closer than some mite like to believe........  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
wrightwing
|
|
Posted: Nov 09, 2008 - 03:34 AM
|
|
|
Elite 1K
Joined: Oct 23, 2008 - 04:22 PM
Posts: 1741
Status: Offline
|
|
SpudmanWP wrote:
Sorry f-15eagle,
As much as I would like it to be, the F-35 can currently only carry 4 AAM internally. Did you mean 8 SDBs?
There have been studies that 6 AAMs is likely and there is a potential for 8. But, this solution would require a specifically designed and complex ejector system.
The guy in the article said there's room for 6 and maybe8 AAMS, carried internally. In time we shall see. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Corsair1963
|
|
Posted: Nov 09, 2008 - 04:12 AM
|
|
|
Elite 1K
Joined: Dec 19, 2005 - 04:14 AM
Posts: 1831
Status: Offline
|
|
wrightwing wrote:
SpudmanWP wrote:
Sorry f-15eagle,
As much as I would like it to be, the F-35 can currently only carry 4 AAM internally. Did you mean 8 SDBs?
There have been studies that 6 AAMs is likely and there is a potential for 8. But, this solution would require a specifically designed and complex ejector system.
The guy in the article said there's room for 6 and maybe8 AAMS, carried internally. In time we shall see.
..................and look at the source! Sounds like "6" is no problem and possibly "8".  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
geogen
|
|
Posted: Nov 09, 2008 - 05:26 AM
|
|
|
Elite 2K
Joined: Mar 11, 2008 - 03:28 PM
Posts: 2498
Location: 45 km offshore, New England
Status: Offline
|
Most likely, it won't be until at least 2016 before 6x are delivered though. Same goes for the Meteor clearance, if at all? Poor planning flat out.
Design a platform around a 'must have' weapon system and then you'll have a more sound/worthy platform for sales. If you add the weapon systems/plumbing as an after-thought, then you'll ultimately have big problems all around. |
_________________
The Super-Viper has not yet begun to concede.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Corsair1963
|
|
Posted: Nov 09, 2008 - 06:03 AM
|
|
|
Elite 1K
Joined: Dec 19, 2005 - 04:14 AM
Posts: 1831
Status: Offline
|
|
geogen wrote:
Most likely, it won't be until at least 2016 before 6x are delivered though. Same goes for the Meteor clearance, if at all? Poor planning flat out.
Design a platform around a 'must have' weapon system and then you'll have a more sound/worthy platform for sales. If you add the weapon systems/plumbing as an after-thought, then you'll ultimately have big problems all around.
Personally, I am not so sure the 6-AAM's in the F-35 was an after thought. (8 definately) Remember, from the start the F-35 was going to be the primary fighter for many JSF Partners. On the otherhand I can see why Lockheed Martin and the USAF wouldn't want to highlight the F-35 capability to carry a similar number of missiles as the F-22. As the last thing the USAF would want is for the much cheaper F-35. To look nearly as capable as the expensive F-22.......Of course only time will tell. Personally, as soon as production stops on the F-22. I think we will get a flood of information..........just my personal belief for what its worth. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
geogen
|
|
Posted: Nov 09, 2008 - 06:22 AM
|
|
|
Elite 2K
Joined: Mar 11, 2008 - 03:28 PM
Posts: 2498
Location: 45 km offshore, New England
Status: Offline
|
|
Corsair1963 wrote:
geogen wrote:
Most likely, it won't be until at least 2016 before 6x are delivered though. Same goes for the Meteor clearance, if at all? Poor planning flat out.
Design a platform around a 'must have' weapon system and then you'll have a more sound/worthy platform for sales. If you add the weapon systems/plumbing as an after-thought, then you'll ultimately have big problems all around.
Personally, I am not so sure the 6-AAM's in the F-35 was an after thought. (8 definately) Remember, from the start the F-35 was going to be the primary fighter for many JSF Partners. On the otherhand I can see why Lockheed Martin and the USAF wouldn't want to highlight the F-35 capability to carry a similar number of missiles as the F-22. As the last thing the USAF would want is for the much cheaper F-35. To look nearly as capable as the expensive F-22.......Of course only time will tell. Personally, as soon as production stops on the F-22. I think we will get a flood of information..........just my personal belief for what its worth.
LMAO,
Classic, man... so now the F-35 production is holding back it's best stuff, so not to compete with or offend the F-22... and as well the F-22's production is holding back it's top tech so as not to compete with F-35!! Now I got it, thanks!
 |
_________________
The Super-Viper has not yet begun to concede.
|
|
|
|
|
|
sferrin
|
|
Posted: Nov 09, 2008 - 07:05 AM
|
|
|
Elite 1K
Joined: Jul 22, 2005 - 04:23 AM
Posts: 1470
Status: Offline
|
|
geogen wrote:
LMAO,
Classic, man... so now the F-35 production is holding back it's best stuff, so not to compete with or offend the F-22... and as well the F-22's production is holding back it's top tech so as not to compete with F-35!! Now I got it, thanks!
Not picking a side here either way but how many Eagles would the USAF have got if they started F-16 production with the F-16C? How many F-16s would have been purchased if F-15 production had started with the Strike Eagle? (And I'm talking capabilities here, i.e. no "not a pound for air to ground" for the Eagle and no "heaters only" for the F-16. ) |
_________________
"There I was. . ."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Search
Register
Private Messages
Forum Guidelines
