Forum: F-35 Armament, Stores and Tactics

The attachment lugs of the B61 may be in the wrong place to allow the F-22 to carry the B61.

F-16.net Sponsor

Does anyone have an idea of whether any consideration has been given to giving the F-35 a fuel tank that it can carry in one of it's internal bays? If you could fit a significant amount of fuel in it, I could see wanting one for missions where more range is needed, but one or more of the internal weapon stations isn't being used.

SpudmanWP wrote:

The attachment lugs of the B61 may be in the wrong place to allow the F-22 to carry the B61.

I suppose that *could* be the issue, but I rather doubt it; and even if that were the case, it doesn't strike me as a very difficult fix if a serious need was there. Lack of need and small numbers are probably the real reasons for the F-22's lack of nuclear payload. My understanding is that the USAF doesn't want to spend money on tactical nuke certification unless it applies to a larger number of platforms flown by us and our allies alike.

count_to_10 wrote:

Does anyone have an idea of whether any consideration has been given to giving the F-35 a fuel tank that it can carry in one of it's internal bays? If you could fit a significant amount of fuel in it, I could see wanting one for missions where more range is needed, but one or more of the internal weapon stations isn't being used.

Given that the ejector racks/bays are probably complicated enough already, I don't think anyone wants to go the trouble of adding the requisite plumbing. Besides, the volume might not really be there for a significant enough benefit to justify giving up a weapon or two.

1st503rdsgt wrote:

I suppose that *could* be the issue, but I rather doubt it; and even if that were the case, it doesn't strike me as a very difficult fix if a serious need was there. Lack of need and small numbers are probably the real reasons for the F-22's lack of nuclear payload. My understanding is that the USAF doesn't want to spend money on tactical nuke certification unless it applies to a larger number of platforms flown by us and our allies alike.

The B61 wont fit in the bay according to Wikipedia, and it is longer than a 1000lb GBU-32 which is cleared for the F-22 internal bay. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B61_nuclea ... Deployment

Quote:

The B61 cannot fit inside the F-22 Raptor's weapons bays and will instead be carried by the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II.

neurotech wrote:

1st503rdsgt wrote:

I suppose that *could* be the issue, but I rather doubt it; and even if that were the case, it doesn't strike me as a very difficult fix if a serious need was there. Lack of need and small numbers are probably the real reasons for the F-22's lack of nuclear payload. My understanding is that the USAF doesn't want to spend money on tactical nuke certification unless it applies to a larger number of platforms flown by us and our allies alike.

The B61 wont fit in the bay according to Wikipedia, and it is longer than a 1000lb GBU-32 which is cleared for the F-22 internal bay. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B61_nuclea ... Deployment

Quote:

The B61 cannot fit inside the F-22 Raptor's weapons bays and will instead be carried by the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II.

You read the same wiki article I did, but I also read the citation given for that factoid (well, scanned it anyways). Nothing was mentioned of any fit issues. Whoever made that edit didn't read their own source.

Quote:

Air Force plans dating back to the 1980s called for the F-16’s replacement to take over the tactical nuclear role, and due to the effort involved in full nuclear certification, the Air Force wanted only one nuclear fighter type in its future arsenal. A nuclear-capable F-16 replacement also needed to be an interoperable export fighter that NATO allies in particular could buy to maintain their extended deterrence role. Therefore, the F-22 was never intended to be a nuclear fighter, and was instead optimized for air-to-air operations and destruction of enemy air defenses.

http://www.airforce-magazine.com/Magazi ... 0nato.aspx

Seems the USAF is just trying to keep things simple and save a little money in the process.

Wikipedia has its uses, but it's not really a good idea to view it as a definitive source. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RK8dMRLVWvg

An 'updated' Weapons Loadout Graphic adding to the one posted (from another thread here) by 'wrightwing'.

Yes, The AFM article doesn't mention the F-22 size issue. The citation is wrong, although the claim hasn't been removed after much discussion.

Other sources put the B61 as significantly longer than the GBU-32 so it is quite plausible that size could be a factor. A B61 is longer than a AIM-120C, and would have different pylon ejector handling in the main bays.

LOL on youtube video. I am not a physician though Smile

neurotech wrote:

Yes, The AFM article doesn't mention the F-22 size issue. The citation is wrong, although the claim hasn't been removed after much discussion.

Other sources put the B61 as significantly longer than the GBU-32 so it is quite plausible that size could be a factor. A B61 is longer than a AIM-120C, and would have different pylon ejector handling in the main bays.

LOL on youtube video. I am not a physician though Smile

Hmm... too many variations for me to be sure. B61 seems to be 1ft longer than a Mk-83 (GBU-32 after it gets tail-kit), but 1ft shorter than one of the AMRAAM variants (probably the 'D'). Suffice to say that if the USAF wanted a nuke for the F-22, it could probably get one; the actual physics package for a tactical fusion weapon is quite small.

The internal bay looks cramped to me. So future missiles and bombs will have to be shaped tiny in order to fit in the bay rather than designed to have best optimum performance, range, maneuverability, etc. I doubt the newer missiles would have better range than the older fatter variant since it is thinner while retaining the length. Common sense is the fuel payload for the rocket motor is the same size or smaller?

From the armament chart, looks like the F-35 would be fitted with external pylons anyway meaning that the F-35 will be flown as low RCS rather than stealth mostly when comes to war especially when stealth not required. So why everyone still complaining my comment ridiculous when I came up with the idea to have low RCS conventional variant F-35 that could reduce much weight, maintenance and selling price?

'jayraptor' claims:...."So why everyone still complaining my comment ridiculous when I came up with the idea to have low RCS conventional variant F-35 that could reduce much weight, maintenance and selling price?" Because you have not been reading about the stealth nature of the F-35 which is manufactured as part of the aircraft itself, machined tolerances of parts fitting together plus stealth coating is part of the fabric of the skin of the aircraft. How about reading up on it. You have been pointed in that direction but obviously you are unable to comprehend.

What I find most disturbing is that this retarded thread and others like it receive so many postings. Doh

Well, one does try to get people to educmacate thoseselves but if one thinks someone is a troll then complain to the moditators to have them removed. OK? Smooth moditators, Smooooth Moditators, Smooth Moditators.... Very Happy

(aka Smooth Operator - the song).

spazsinbad wrote:

Well, one does try to get people to educmacate thoseselves but if one thinks someone is a troll then complain to the moditators to have them removed. OK? Smooth moditators, Smooooth Moditators, Smooth Moditators.... Very Happy

(aka Smooth Operator - the song).

It is important to refute some of that stuff so the casual reader who might run across the thread via google doesn't see it stand unchallenged.

No problem with refuting if the claim can be understood. Some of the recent posts have been incomprehensible or so general as to take either a madman or a book to refute. YMMV.

Forum: F-35 Armament, Stores and Tactics

Weapons on the F-35s