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.

I must of missed that one........?

I forget now on which thread I put it but it referred to the F-35 carrying 6 AAMs for defensive counter-air while remaining fully stealthy. Only way that can be accomplished, of course, is by internal carriage only.

This is how it'll fit if they decide to do it.

Well, early blocks of the F-35 much like the Typhoon will be geared towards Air-to-Air Missions. So, I've never considered it likely that F-35's could only carrying four AAM's...........

Where oh where do you get your information from? If the F-35A/B/C is carrying more than *2* aams, it is carrying them under wing and on RF reflective pylons.

The F-35 is being geared for ground strike missions with some ability to defend itself against a stray Mig/Sukhoi - or to down the occasional helicopter when opportunity to do so comes knocking.

It'll be 2012+ before the F-35 will ever carry 4 aams internally (excpet maybe for a flight test or two).

It'll never happen. There is neither the money for it, nor was the F-35 ever designed to be a missilier. Its more than a matter of cramming junk into the weapons bays as there are airflow characteristics that need to be solved, especially, most especially, when you're going to be near-violently expelling missiles from the weapons bay. It is impossible for 3 aams in its bays to be useable aams.

(1) It'll never happen? It's impossible? The F-35 is not designed as a missilier? According to whom? You? Certainly not according to Brigadier General Charles Davis (USAF) -- the Program Executive Officer for the JSF Program. On October 6th, General Davis told the Australian press in Canberra the following <quote>:-

"The JSF had been designed to complete all USAF F-22A ‘Raptor’ missions, as well as more complex types of strike missions not required of the F-22A. In air-to-air missions, Davis admitted two F-35As might be needed for each F-22A to successfully complete some missions, noting F-22As carried up to eight air-to-air missiles internally (six AIM-120C AMRAAM two AIM- 9X ‘Sidewinder’), while the F-35A can carry only four (either AIM-120C AMRAAM and/or AIM-132 ASRAAM). While F-22As therefore had an advantage in air-to-air combat against larger formations of enemy aircraft, called 2-V-4 and 4-V-8 (two against four and four against eight), Davis revealed the F-35A’s internal carriage weapons bays have volume to carry more than four missiles, with studies underway to develop a new rack to carry additional weapons."

More complex missions: that means exactly that they are talking about coordinated missions with multiple airframes. Doesn't mean that the F-35 is going to snake its way through Russian/whomever turnpikes, weaving in abd out of skyscrapers and doing "things" that an F-22 cannot do. It simply equates to coordination. No more.

That's what I said: internal volume is/may be there, but those bays are not, were not, designed at outset to carry more missiles. A study? The USAF/DoD has studied a great many things over many years. A study is as good as the paper its written on until its feasible and put into some tooling.
Obviously I am not involved with the F-35, but there is a lot of work to be done into CFD before it is known if the F-35 can utilize more than 4 internal missiles. Fluids are a tricky thing to model, change a varible in X and then Y changes unexpectedly. Studies don't mean a thing here.

Where oh where do you get your information from? If the F-35A/B/C is carrying more than *2* aams, it is carrying them under wing and on RF reflective pylons.

The F-35 is being geared for ground strike missions with some ability to defend itself against a stray Mig/Sukhoi - or to down the occasional helicopter when opportunity to do so comes knocking.

It'll be 2012+ before the F-35 will ever carry 4 aams internally (excpet maybe for a flight test or two).

More complex missions such as hitting targets further into enemy teritory than the shorter ranged F-22A can reach for instance and hitting them with 2500 pound rocket assisted penetrating bombs for instance which the F-22A cannot carry internally. Or, hitting them with the JSOW which the F-22A also cannot carry internally. Or hitting them AFTER a long range visual ID via the advanced EOTS long range IRST rig which the F-22 lacks. Or prosecuting stealthy air superiority, deep strike or close air support missions from a carrier, amphibious assault ship or unprepared dirt stripswhich the F-22A also cannot do. In fact, the F-35 family will be able to do EVERY mission the F-22A can perform -- albiet not with as much superiority in certain cases -- but the F-22A can only do a subset of the missions the F-35 fammily is capable of. This makes the F-35 family a much more versatile and capable platform overall than the F-22A.

The F-22 bays were also not designed to carry bombs at all to begin with. But today, it has been cleared to carry two 1000 pounders and two AMRAAMs -- the same weapons load as the STOVL F-35B, albiet less than that which can be carried by the larger bays in the F-35A or C. The F-35's bays are designed with certain volume and encapsulation space. It is not designed specifically for this or that kind of ordnance. They never are. As I have said before, the spatial analysis of the bay indicates that 6 AAMs is not only a possibility, it is a likely eventuallity. And, now, it will appear that the JSF Program Executive Officer -- an Air Force General -- shares this outlook.

Again, as I have said before, you are going to have a hardtime pushing the "airflow" argument because the F-35's bay has no problems ejecting all manners of stores slimmer, fatter, lighter and heavier than the AMRAAM. The closest example will be the ejection of the 7.5" Small Diameter Bombs which are two in tandem and side by side for a total of four per bay with very little clearance in between. The 7" AMRAAM wouldn't be all that different. Just to give a little perspective... the BRU-61/A rack used for carrying four SDB per bay in the F-35A and F-22 took about $35 million to develope. You are also going to have a hardtime pushing the argument that a $42 billlion R&D budget cannot find $35 million for an ejector rack which will significantly enhance the aircraft's capabilities and attractiveness to a large number of export clients.

IRST - not as effective as radar mapping. Radar mapping not as hemmed in by atmospheric conditions. IRST - irrelavent except for picking out which tanks/mobiles have had their engines running. IRST is also foolable with laser blinders which do indeed exist in certain nations with certain high value assets.

F-35 as a replacement for the F-117 or F-15E - USAF has already admitted that the F-35 can replace neither aircraft. F-35 with one engine hauling 18k pounds of fuel, 29000 pounds of fat airframe, ~5000 pounds of weapons, will not outpace/outrange higher/faster flying F-22s. Simply put, the 35 has a lot of weight and will not reach altitudes where the air is thinner and easier to move through ala' F-22. F-22 supercruising and launching SDBs, JDAMs, yet-to-be's, from higher altitudes will reach deeper targets. Thus, the USAF is replacing the F-117 with the F-22 (and not the F-35) and rightly so.

F-35 is under no LO conditions further ranged than the F-22. You have to understand that the -22 cruises w/o a/b above 2.0 mach regardless of what anyone may read otherwise. -35 is going to burning a lot if its JP simply to lug itself along at a respectable high subsonic. The F-35 also has LESS LO than the -22, and you expect it to fly further into enemy airspace? subsonically? No way Jose'.

The 35 is going to be starting its missions in the hole with respect to t/w and wing loadings for the sake of getting *2* respectably sized munitions to target - it simply cannot afford to be pounced on by a flight Migs/Sukhois/SAMs due to energy-manuevering equations. It won't be able to outfight the situation or to go to supercruise to outrun it. The 35 much like the F-117 is going to rely on mission planning for success rather than performance.

All the F-35 has going for it is the helmet-hud-camera and newer microprocessors than the F-22. The only other thing is the 2K lb class internal weapoms, but once the high yield compounds are put into production the F-22 will pack the same punch with less heavy munitions.

Truth be told, the F-35 will not generate the sorties per airframe per unit of time as can the F-22 because of operational speed. Especially given basing rights issues and distances to targets. The F-35 fleet is going to find itself following KC tankers like a pack of dogs chasing a man with sausages in his pockets. Sorry, but that 18k lbs of fuel, some of its simply going to be burned off just to achieve a respectable cruise speed until enough fuel has been exhausted.

No, I am not simmer either. The closest thing to flying a computer was some flight time in a glass cockpitted Lancair.

Cheers!

IRST - not as effective as radar mapping. Radar mapping not as hemmed in by atmospheric conditions. IRST - irrelavent except for picking out which tanks/mobiles have had their engines running. IRST is also foolable with laser blinders which do indeed exist in certain nations with certain high value assets.

F-35 as a replacement for the F-117 or F-15E - USAF has already admitted that the F-35 can replace neither aircraft. F-35 with one engine hauling 18k pounds of fuel, 29000 pounds of fat airframe, ~5000 pounds of weapons, will not outpace/outrange higher/faster flying F-22s. Simply put, the 35 has a lot of weight and will not reach altitudes where the air is thinner and easier to move through ala' F-22. F-22 supercruising and launching SDBs, JDAMs, yet-to-be's, from higher altitudes will reach deeper targets. Thus, the USAF is replacing the F-117 with the F-22 (and not the F-35) and rightly so.

F-35 is under no LO conditions further ranged than the F-22. You have to understand that the -22 cruises w/o a/b above 2.0 mach regardless of what anyone may read otherwise. -35 is going to burning a lot if its JP simply to lug itself along at a respectable high subsonic. The F-35 also has LESS LO than the -22, and you expect it to fly further into enemy airspace? subsonically? No way Jose'.

The 35 is going to be starting its missions in the hole with respect to t/w and wing loadings for the sake of getting *2* respectably sized munitions to target - it simply cannot afford to be pounced on by a flight Migs/Sukhois/SAMs due to energy-manuevering equations. It won't be able to outfight the situation or to go to supercruise to outrun it. The 35 much like the F-117 is going to rely on mission planning for success rather than performance.

All the F-35 has going for it is the helmet-hud-camera and newer microprocessors than the F-22. The only other thing is the 2K lb class internal weapoms, but once the high yield compounds are put into production the F-22 will pack the same punch with less heavy munitions.

Truth be told, the F-35 will not generate the sorties per airframe per unit of time as can the F-22 because of operational speed. Especially given basing rights issues and distances to targets. The F-35 fleet is going to find itself following KC tankers like a pack of dogs chasing a man with sausages in his pockets. Sorry, but that 18k lbs of fuel, some of its simply going to be burned off just to achieve a respectable cruise speed until enough fuel has been exhausted.

No, I am not simmer either. The closest thing to flying a computer was some flight time in a glass cockpitted Lancair.