Forum: F-35 Lightning II

Pilotasso wrote:

apg77 wrote:

fact that F-35 can carry AIM-9M, many docs show it.

Man, get your act together, your really confused there.

apg77 is more aware of the technical limitations and plays fewer flight sims apparently. Pilotasso, the AIM-9 was possible to use from the F-117. In order to fire several other weapons tested on the F-117 the AIM-9 compatibility had to be there by default. This was a well known fact out in the public's eye for a decade or better now.

F-16.net Sponsor

Last edited by Pilotasso on Jul 01, 2010 - 05:04 PM; edited 2 times in total

You got be joking...right? you know the difference between tests and operational capability right? Show me ONE photo with sidwinders on a cpmbat ready night hawk.

The first link apg77 mentioned is WRONG. Search official sources.

Also, apg77 mentioned the 117 only to confuse himself with the 35 on the very same subject.

apg77 wrote:

F-117 can carry GBU-24, while F-35 cannot.
it's very useful.
GBU-24 is very effectve and accurate, not depend on GPS.

Neither does GBU-12. It is very effective and accurate too. F-35 will be able to carry GBU-12 internally.

JDAM doesn't "depend" on GPS either. Nor does JSOW and F-35 will be able to carry both of these internally, including 2000lbs JDAM's.

So what is your point exactly?

apg77 wrote:

F-22 can carry 2 AMRAAMs and 8 SDBs in its main bay.
can F-35 carry 2 AMRAAMs and 8 SDBs in its main bay or not?

Yes.

madrat wrote:

apg77 is more aware of the technical limitations and plays fewer flight sims apparently. Pilotasso, the AIM-9 was possible to use from the F-117. In order to fire several other weapons tested on the F-117 the AIM-9 compatibility had to be there by default. This was a well known fact out in the public's eye for a decade or better now.

How exactly was the AIM-9M seeker supposed to lock on to a target before launch from the F-117, when it's only carried in an internal bay? AIM-9M certainly doesn't have lock on after launch capabilitty. Not even AIM-9X has this capability as yet...

The F-22 I believe manages this by poking it out into the airstream. I doubt F-117 had such a capability, but am happy to be corrected...

Last edited by apg77 on Jul 01, 2010 - 05:18 PM; edited 2 times in total

Conan wrote:

How exactly was the AIM-9M seeker supposed to lock on to a target before launch from the F-117, when it's only carried in an internal bay? AIM-9M certainly doesn't have lock on after launch capabilitty. Not even AIM-9X has this capability as yet...

F-117 can use differenct method to lanuch AIM-9M, not the same "drop" to lauch MK-84.

F-22 uses differenct methods to lanuch AIM-120 and AIM-9M, too.

Last edited by apg77 on Jul 01, 2010 - 05:37 PM; edited 4 times in total

Pilotasso wrote:

You got be joking...right? you know the difference between tests and operational capability right? Show me ONE photo with sidwinders on a cpmbat ready night hawk.

Do you know the difference between "can" and "need'?
F-16 can carry AIM-7, but USAF F-16 needn't use it.

Nearly all F-117's tasks are to attack surface targets, why carry AIM-9M.

Conan wrote:

apg77 wrote:

F-117 can carry GBU-24, while F-35 cannot.
it's very useful.
GBU-24 is very effectve and accurate, not depend on GPS.

Neither does GBU-12. It is very effective and accurate too. F-35 will be able to carry GBU-12 internally.

JDAM doesn't "depend" on GPS either. Nor does JSOW and F-35 will be able to carry both of these internally, including 2000lbs JDAM's.

So what is your point exactly?

I don't know what you say.

these are GBU-24's adventages.
JDAM depends on GPS, GBU-24 doesn't.
GBU-24's CEP is smaller than JDAM.
GBU-24's penetration is better than GBU-12.

but F-35 cannot carry it in its bay.

apg77 wrote:

Pilotasso wrote:

You got be joking...right? you know the difference between tests and operational capability right? Show me ONE photo with sidwinders on a cpmbat ready night hawk.

why?

nearly all F-35's tasks are to attack surface targets, why carry AIM-9M.

Mistaking F-117 for f-35 again...how do expect to be understood?

Are you having fun at our expense?

Pilotasso wrote:

Mistaking F-117 for f-35 again...how do expect to be understood?

Are you having fun at our expense?

I don't know your idea.
you consider that "F-117 cannot carry AIM-9?".

F-117 can carry AIM-9.
F-35 cannot carry GBU-24.
F-35 cannot carry AIM-9 now, may carry it in the future.
I think it's very simple.

is someone still confused?

The reason that the GBU-24 cannot be carried internally is that it is over 14 feet long compared to about 12 feet for a GBU-31.

They are finishing development on a upgraded JDAM kit that includes a laser seeker. It is called LJDAM and will allow a F-35 to carry a laser&GPS guided 2000lb class bomb internally.

apg77 wrote:

F-117 can carry AIM-9.

It could not. never did in operational service. You must try inform yourself in better sources than fan made internet sites.

Pilotasso wrote:

You must try inform yourself in better sources than fan made internet sites.

better source?

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/products/ ... riant.html
Speed Mach 1.6 (~1,200 mph)

this source is official, but a lot of mistakes.

apg77 wrote:

Pilotasso wrote:

apg77 wrote:

F-117 can carry AIM-9.

It could not. never did in operational service. You must try inform yourself in better sources than fan made internet sites.

your English is much better than me, please google it.

There's a difference between technically being able to do something, and operationally doing it. The F-117 never operationally carried the AIM-9.

apg77 wrote:

Pilotasso wrote:

You must try inform yourself in better sources than fan made internet sites.

better source?

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/products/ ... riant.html
Speed Mach 1.6 (~1,200 mph)

this source is offcial, but a lot of mistakes.

That would be M1.6 at sea level or M1.8 at altitude. Seeing as how the F-35 can't do M1.6 at sea level, the more important number is 1,200mph.

Conan wrote:

How exactly was the AIM-9M seeker supposed to lock on to a target before launch from the F-117, when it's only carried in an internal bay?

Same way the F-102 and F-106 fired their falcons, by lowering them into the airstream prior to launch so that they could acquire their target. Nobody is claiming they were a perfect match for the Sidewinder. But its a capability that was there is they intended to use it.

MADRAT,

There was also a mention in AvLeak back in the late ONW/OSW period of

F-117s operating with presumably Blk.50d F-16s with HARM capability.

This also supports the rail launch theory though extending the launcher

before firing massively increases the RCS and the rocket motor from a

HARM has some pretty serious airframe interaction issues (high acoustic

stress and ablation, which wouldn't be good for a plastic plane, even a

plastic coated one...).

Something that interests me is one of the latest JAGM videos on

Youtube-

(Time Index 1:50)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PCaVlhZSSSA

Which show a JCM/AGM-114K like airframe being stored in tandem. Since

the BRU-61 doesn't look right for the spacing and the JDRL is too wide,

that leaves a new launcher (the F-18F with the triple cluster is also

new, notthe LAU-145).

It is weapons like these and the GBU-53 which will truly dictate

capability in a modern, COIN/LIC environment and even most conventional

MRCs because they are more suited to engaging fleeting/dispersed

targets in collaterals dense environment and may also offer significant

standoff advantage in cleaning out a Gen-4/5 mobile S2A system

(S-400/500 or MEADS).

The GBU-24/31 and to a large extent 12/49 are munitions that are in

search of a mission. If you are dealing with heavy S2A, it's better to

put Tomahawks into the mix and strike defenders as they engage the

inbounds (attacking HAS farms or whatever). Even four AGM-158, with

180nm range from under the F-35s wings gives you better options in

terms of making the threat come to you than closing to a BRL only 10-12

miles down range.

Once you shift to OBAS in support of a ground campaign, you tend to hit

major bottlenecks for gas vs. passes and here, it's wiser to put 2

F-35s through an area with as many as 16 external GBU-39/53 than it is

to keep shoving F-16/18 into the area with even lightweight LGB.

Since the fuel trade vs. targeting funnel issues (EOTS is a smart

targeter so can presumably stack and sort on it's own from a very basic

FFAC/Strike Coordinator handoff) are pretty enormous for deep

penetration in the 450-700nm radius areas, you really need to keep the

total flow through limited so that each player can stay on target as

long as possible.

In OEF, we were looking at 15 minutes in the target area. 45 if there

was a tanker out of Kyrghzstan to hit targets up by Kabul. That's just

dumb.

Unfortunately, it also presents the F-35s biggest shortcoming. Being

more of an A-6 than an F-18 replacement, (8-12 jets per deck) you are

looking at a 'precision engagement force' that is designed around a

Cold War all weather/deep penetrating roll back scenario that no longer

exists.

In this, it's not the number of weapons you have onboard, internally or

otherwise.

It's the number of sorties per day you can generate to service all kill

boxes.

When the USN/USMC rationalized their tactical airpower modernization

plans they never really explained how halving their force metric would

let them play in the 'From The Sea, Forward' deep littoral with such

vastly different radius, payload and basing mode compatible systems

(the F-35B won't operate from a waist cat because the roll distance

ahead of the JBD is too short and will foul up the launch stack if you

give it full run from the rounddown forwards. On it's own, there is no

evidence that the Marine assault carriers are going to become full

blown CVEs, minus their helo compliment either. That means a

'detachment' of half squadron strength at 8-10 jets...).

Given that the F-35 was only supposed to begin being considered now as

a 'CALF' for the USAF F-16 replacement mission and the Maritime Stealth

issue was the big driver after A/F-X turned into the F-18E/F, it's

kinda hard to see how we are buying a 112 million dollar platform in

such small numbers and with such disparate (460nm and 700nm radius, and

1,500lb and 4,000lb payloads) capabilities.

We need a filler jet with similar legs, ala A-7. And a fighter jet

that doesn't cost too much, ala F-8. And there isn't the money to do

either.

LEG

Forum: F-35 Lightning II

Six AMRAAMs carried internally in the F-35