F-16.net

playloud wrote:

The low RCS of the F-35 makes it a very formidable opponent in the air (at least in area of BVR). Adding external hardpoints would take away a major advantage of the F-35 (stealth) vs other jets in AA combat. When you consider the F-22 is being built in extremely low numbers, I would think finding a way to fit more AA missiles in to the F-35's internal bays would be a priority.

Regardless, what many say the F-35 will be used in a Air Defense Role just like the current F-16's and F/A-18's. As a matter fact I wouldn't be surprised to see them used in that role more than either the aforementioned. Remember, the F-22 won't be exported (if at all?) in the same scale as the F-15C. So, many countries will have little choice. That is why I am a firm believer that the F-35 will gain the capability to carry 6-AAM's at some point. More than likely sooner or than later.............just my 2 cents! Wink

F-16.net Sponsor

This message from our sponsor will disappear if you log on as a member.

Enthusiast Joined: Nov 13, 2006 Posts: 24 Status: Offline

Hmm. I didn't see where it was said that the F-35 could carry 4 AA missiles if it was not carrying any bombs. Looking over the info again, I see that is so (time for new glasses). As such, I feel a lot better knowing that. I had it in my head that the F-35 could only carry 2 AA missiles (regardless of bomb load). For a stealthy platform, 4 AA missiles seems like enough. As was previously mentioned, the F-22 will be kicking the door down in most situations. However, it is always a good idea to have your workhorse (the F-35) be capable of handling any surprise that might present itself.

Enthusiast Joined: Nov 21, 2005 Posts: 77 Status: Offline

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/planes/q0163.shtml

people,people. please look at the above sight. stealth is not a klingon cloaking device. it IS one of a set of advantages like AESA, link 16, JHMCS, etc... they are tools to meant to give an advantage. once air dominance over a given airspace is achieved, stealth will be NOT as necessary (except for SAMS of course). the weapons loadouts will be very different, loadouts that are realistic due to circumstances. war has to be looked at from the whole perspective, not just "TOP GUN" scenarios. I only wish it were that easy to end a war, shoot some planes down, game over. Our doctrine has always been to end a war as soon as possible if we cannot divert it through intimidation.

How much smaller is the AIM-9X than the AMRAAM? If, two AIM-120's are to large to replace one 2,000lbs JDAM. Is it possible that one Sidewinder and one Amraam could? This would still provide the F-35 with 6-AAM's internally. (i.e. 2 AIM-9X's & 4 AIM-120D's) Applause

The AIM-9X has basically the same fin span as the AIM-120C/D (17.5"). That is it fits into a 12.37" box just like the AIM-120C/D. The only difference being that the AIM-9X is 5" in diameter whereas the AIM-120 is 7". The AIM-9X is also shorter -- 3.0 m vs 3.65 m for the AMRAAM. If staggered (with 0.5 inch clearance between the two missiles), the AIM-9X will require 21.6" of width. This compares to 22.5" for two staggered AIM-120C/Ds.

Official references for the AIM-9X and AIM-120C/D can be found below:-

http://www.raytheon.com/products/stelle ... 054518.pdf

http://www.raytheon.com/products/stelle ... 054563.pdf

As discussed earlier, the F-35's bay is at least 18" wide across near the top. We know this because it takes the GBU-29 and BLU-109 JDAMS. This is an 18" diameter weapon with a fin span of 25.4", which fits into an 18" box. However the F-35's bays are also trapezoidal in cross section and is wider further down. Is it at least 22.5" wide at a point that is high enough that we can still fit two staggered AIM-120s and not run into the door missile? It looks that way to me, but some people disagree. I'll let you judge for yourself... here is a picture with some dimensional references made off the door missile (7" diameter) towards the rear of the bay and off the BLU-109 dummy off the front...

http://img235.imageshack.us/img235/3168/146hx9.jpg

We can conclude at this point that the current AIM-120 and/or AIM-9X can either be fitted directly into the F-35's bomb station in pairs in two ways. The first being through direct staggering (ala F-22) because they simply fit albiet tightly. The second being that they can be fitted in that position using a collapsing MRU which raises the missiles into the bay while at the same time bringing them closer together until the bodies almost kisses one another. The BRU will lower the missiles from their stowage position and widen their separation such that the fins clears each other for ejection after the bay doors open and the door missile is out of the way. Either way, the question is not whether the F-35's existing bays can handle a total of 6 AIM120C/D AAMs, it is whether a decision will be made to carry them.

dwightlooi wrote:

The AIM-9X has basically the same fin span as the AIM-120C/D (17.5"). That is it fits into a 12.37" box just like the AIM-120C/D. The only difference being that the AIM-9X is 5" in diameter whereas the AIM-120 is 7". The AIM-9X is also shorter -- 3.0 m vs 3.65 m for the AMRAAM. If staggered (with 0.5 inch clearance between the two missiles), the AIM-9X will require 21.6" of width. This compares to 22.5" for two staggered AIM-120C/Ds.

Official references for the AIM-9X and AIM-120C/D can be found below:-

http://www.raytheon.com/products/stelle ... 054518.pdf

http://www.raytheon.com/products/stelle ... 054563.pdf

As discussed earlier, the F-35's bay is at least 18" wide across near the top. We know this because it takes the GBU-29 and BLU-109 JDAMS. This is an 18" diameter weapon with a fin span of 25.4", which fits into an 18" box. However the F-35's bays are also trapezoidal in cross section and is wider further down. Is it at least 22.5" wide at a point that is high enough that we can still fit two staggered AIM-120s and not run into the door missile? It looks that way to me, but some people disagree. I'll let you judge for yourself... here is a picture with some dimensional references made off the door missile (7" diameter) towards the rear of the bay and off the BLU-109 dummy off the front...

http://img235.imageshack.us/img235/3168/146hx9.jpg

We can conclude at this point that the current AIM-120 and/or AIM-9X can either be fitted directly into the F-35's bomb station in pairs in two ways. The first being through direct staggering (ala F-22) because they simply fit albiet tightly. The second being that they can be fitted in that position using a collapsing MRU which raises the missiles into the bay while at the same time bringing them closer together until the bodies almost kisses one another. The BRU will lower the missiles from their stowage position and widen their separation such that the fins clears each other for ejection after the bay doors open and the door missile is out of the way. Either way, the question is not whether the F-35's existing bays can handle a total of 6 AIM120C/D AAMs, it is whether a decision will be made to carry them.

If, you had room to carry 6-AAM's internally? Why would any Air Force not want the capability??? Idea

Quote:

If, you had room to carry 6-AAM's internally? Why would any Air Force not want the capability??? Idea

BTW, do you know that there is NO MENTION of even carrying 4 AAMs? Yes, thats right! There is no mention of putting the LAU-142/A or a comparable AVEL on the bomb station so an AMRAAM can be carried even though this is a walk in the park. And this may not happen by IOC. Why? Because it is not a priority right now!

The Airforce isn't even planning to integrate the AIM-9X for internal carriage on the door ejectors by service entry even though there is absolutely no reason it can't be done! They are also not integrating the Harpoon or SLAM-ER for internal or external carriage by IOC. Why? Because it is not a priority right now and Lockmart has its plate full with over 20 weapons to integrate and get the jet in service with the most important capabilities in place. Do you know that at IOC the F-16 only had 5 weapons integrated? The USAF will be happy to get the F-35 in service by 2011 and have it be able to carry the most important ordances by that time. Additional weapons will be integrated over time; thats how it works!

There is a HUGE difference between the USAF not asking for it now and it is not planned for integration by IOC, and it can't be done!

I find it quite interesting that the AF is not planning on the internal AAM capability of the F-35 at ioc. Just goes to show, it's more evidence that the F-35 is not and was not designed to be a BVR a2a platform.

FireFox137 wrote:

I find it quite interesting that the AF is not planning on the internal AAM capability of the F-35 at ioc. Just goes to show, it's more evidence that the F-35 is not and was not designed to be a BVR a2a platform.

Ummm... duh? Primary role is AtG, secondary role is AtA. In the USAF, the AtA role can stay vestigial as the F-22As are doing that job.

But once US orders are filled, and allies start getting their jets, provisions will be made to carry 6 AAMs internally.

But this is a good decade away.

Quote:

I find it quite interesting that the AF is not planning on the internal AAM capability of the F-35 at ioc. Just goes to show, it's more evidence that the F-35 is not and was not designed to be a BVR a2a platform.

The USAF has the F-22 for air domination, but the USAF will use the F-35 for A2A just like they ussed the F-16 for A2A even though they have a superior platform in form of the F-15. The USN will aslo use it for A2A just like the used the F-18 for A2A. And, the F-35 offers A2A capabilities that is superior to ALL 4 and 4.5 generation types by a large margin -- albiet not as large as the F-22 offers. However, given the tight schedule priorities have to be made.

At IOC the F-35 must be able to carry 2 AAMs internally and 2~8 A2G ordanance internally. This will allow it to do the most common thing ANY aircraft in the US inventory will be asked to do in a limited war. Everything else can come after 2011; they are not urgent. There is no question that the F-35 is ideal for maritime strike, but it doesn't get Harpoons or SLAMs either by IOC. Again, its a first things first scenario.

dwightlooi wrote:

Quote:

I find it quite interesting that the AF is not planning on the internal AAM capability of the F-35 at ioc. Just goes to show, it's more evidence that the F-35 is not and was not designed to be a BVR a2a platform.

The USAF has the F-22 for air domination, but the USAF will use the F-35 for A2A just like they ussed the F-16 for A2A even though they have a superior platform in form of the F-15. The USN will aslo use it for A2A just like the used the F-18 for A2A. And, the F-35 offers A2A capabilities that is superior to ALL 4 and 4.5 generation types by a large margin -- albiet not as large as the F-22 offers. However, given the tight schedule priorities have to be made.

At IOC the F-35 must be able to carry 2 AAMs internally and 2~8 A2G ordanance internally. This will allow it to do the most common thing ANY aircraft in the US inventory will be asked to do in a limited war. Everything else can come after 2011; they are not urgent. There is no question that the F-35 is ideal for maritime strike, but it doesn't get Harpoons or SLAMs either by IOC. Again, its a first things first scenario.

Clearly, many JSF Partners will use the F-35 in various Air to Air Roles. So, this talk of the Lightning being only designed as a bomb truck is getting old..........With the exception of the F-22 Raptor no other fighter flying or projected can touch the F-35 Lightning in the BVR Arena. (like it or not) Confused

Why would someone named Everett from Brenham Texas, who enjoys bbq cookoffs, boy scouts, camping and hiking, have such a vendetta against the JSF program?

Brigadier General Charles Davis USAF (F-35 PEO "Program Executive Officer) recently revealed that the F-35A had room for more than the 4-AAM and studies are underway to create a rack to mount them.............I found this in a article on page 23 of the current Australian Defense Business Review. Very Happy

www.adbr.com.au/download/2510.pdf

FLY NAVY Cool

Elite 1K Joined: Aug 19, 2004 Posts: 1090

I see some people are learning to cite their sources. Excellent. Smile

Raptor_One wrote:

I see some people are learning to cite their sources. Excellent. Smile

Hey, if this is a backward reference to me, I cited the specific JSF Program Office document that mentioned the 6 AAM figure and provided a link to it.

F-16.net

Forum: F-35 Lightning II

F-35A internal bay with 6 AAMs