F-16.net

Enthusiast Joined: Sep 07, 2006 Posts: 30 Status: Offline

A while back this board hosted a heated debate on whether the F-35 will be able to carry more than two AAMs internally. This discourse included drawings on pictures and volumetric estimations to justify claims of whether six AAMs could be carried internally.

Bill Sweetmen, on Aviation Week's Ares blog has posted that there is a plan to incorporate six AMRAAMs in the F-35's weapon bays. It read like this plan is not new, but has not been openly discussed to keep from undercutting Raptor funding (as had been speculated).

http://tinyurl.com/2xtxxq

So I guess kudos go out to the faithful and woe to the naysayers.

-- Shaken - out --

F-16.net Sponsor

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

Elite 1K Joined: Apr 26, 2004 Posts: 1198 Status: Offline

Okay ....so it can carry 6 120's.....tell me under what scenario you might really need that many. With all the combat missions we have flown with the F-16 the most I have seen expended was 2......so who is the new threat?

Purplehaze wrote:

Okay ....so it can carry 6 120's.....tell me under what scenario you might really need that many. With all the combat missions we have flown with the F-16 the most I have seen expended was 2......so who is the new threat?

Flying air superiority missions against an air force like China or Russia's while at a numerical disadvantage?

Senior member Joined: Jul 01, 2007 Posts: 347

Like when the Raptors get grounded for structural problems, just like the Eagles did. Very Happy

Elite 1K Joined: Jul 22, 2005 Posts: 1010 Status: Offline

dwightlooi wrote:

Purplehaze wrote:

Okay ....so it can carry 6 120's.....tell me under what scenario you might really need that many. With all the combat missions we have flown with the F-16 the most I have seen expended was 2......so who is the new threat?

Flying air superiority missions against an air force like China or Russia's while at a numerical disadvantage?

That's the F-22's job.

Enthusiast Joined: Jun 01, 2004 Posts: 53

sferrin wrote:

dwightlooi wrote:

Purplehaze wrote:

Okay ....so it can carry 6 120's.....tell me under what scenario you might really need that many. With all the combat missions we have flown with the F-16 the most I have seen expended was 2......so who is the new threat?

Flying air superiority missions against an air force like China or Russia's while at a numerical disadvantage?

That's the F-22's job.

keep it mind that F-35's are gonna be used as a primary fighter of many other nations, nations who can't afford the F-22's, if they are offered in the first place. for these nations, they will field the F-35's as their air superiority platform so 6 slammers is a very likely configuration for these missions.

The ability for the F-35 A & C models to carry more than 2 AMRAAMs internally was never in question as mentioned numerous times by several individuals on the previous long-winded thread. The main issue, as mention in the same long-winded thread, is the need. For the U.S., the F-35's mission is not to conduct air superiority/dominance. That is the domain of the F-22, as correctly mentioned here by sferrin.

Unless someone is going to conduct an imminent war against the most dedicated and determined foe with a large air force such as China, Russia, or even North Korea, we have enough A2A assets (Raptors & Eagles, even Vipers) to dominate the skies today and in the near future. Fortunately, I haven't heard such a plan, thus maintaining and developing the A2G striker's capabilities, such as the Lightning II, is presently more important to that airframe.

HOWEVER, knowing the scenarios I mentioned above is not out of the question, the need to expand and develop new capabilities into the F-35 (and F-22) is always ongoing (spiral upgrades). When I took a go in the simulator, I was briefed that the F-35's A2A capability is second only to the F-22. That's the conclusion I got when I stepped out of the simulator.

If anyone is looking for increased internal AMRAAM capability, it's the partner nations. Understandably, some will rely on their F-35s solely for air superiority while, as previously mentioned, the U.S. won't because we have something else. The issue though is that the F-35 is a U.S. program, with much of the funding coming from us, and again putting 4-6 AMRAAMs in the bays isn't a priority. Other nations might want this capability sooner, but it needs time and $$$ to be developed.

If the other nations want more internal AMRAAM capability, they need to fork out the dough to have this done.

Scorpion1alpha wrote:

If anyone is looking for increased internal AMRAAM capability, it's the partner nations. Understandably, some will rely on their F-35s solely for air superiority while, as previously mentioned, the U.S. won't because we have something else. The issue though is that the F-35 is a U.S. program, with much of the funding coming from us, and again putting 4-6 AMRAAMs in the bays isn't a priority. Other nations might want this capability sooner, but it needs time and $$$ to be developed.

If the other nations want more internal AMRAAM capability, they need to fork out the dough to have this done.

4 AMRAAMs is was never even in question. That was required, funded and in progress. From the first day it enters service, all three versions of the F-35 will be able to carry 4 AMRAAMs internally. The only question is whether a 6AAM capability will be certified, and if so, when. This will require a dual ejector rack for the two 2,500 lb internal stations. This has been studied, planned for and deemed viable. However, at this time it is not being funded or pursued at this time due to the lack of a need by the USAF, USN and USMC.

F-16.net Editor Joined: Sep 23, 2003 Posts: 2848

I wouldn't make a big fuss about it. The space is there and it will be part of a spiral program. A hell of a lot more important things to be thinking about now to get the program up and running. I would be more worried about a 3rd tier stealth user wanting a built in self protection jammer and towed decoy.

Quote:

If anyone is looking for increased internal AMRAAM capability, it's the partner nations.

i have already proven my deep ignorance. But i am afraid USA wont be protected at all by 180 raptors, hence the need of a JSF with improved AA capability. If it will be affordable as they say, if it will have affordable maintenance costs, or just simply fly hour expenses will be more affordable than F-22, an AA JSF will be more US priority than for anything else. Besides, LM couldnt afford both F22 and JSF to be commercial disasters: then, or LM will get much more Raptor orders, and JSF can remain the dedicated mud mover it is, or will manage to lower prices and will dramatically push for foreign sales, and AA capability will be top priority. In either case, the middle solution would be the worst of all: a little more raptors but not enough for AA coverage, an average AA capability for JSF but not enough to be a natural (air)born(e) killer.

Elite 1K Joined: Jul 22, 2005 Posts: 1010 Status: Offline

Maffa wrote:

Quote:

If anyone is looking for increased internal AMRAAM capability, it's the partner nations.

i have already proven my deep ignorance. But i am afraid USA wont be protected at all by 180 raptors,

Why, are they all going to the bone yard tomorrow?

not tomorrow, but what about the day after tomorrow... the project is that, yes. And since you are still in project phase, there's still time to make some adjust.

dwightlooi wrote:

Purplehaze wrote:

Okay ....so it can carry 6 120's.....tell me under what scenario you might really need that many. With all the combat missions we have flown with the F-16 the most I have seen expended was 2......so who is the new threat?

Flying air superiority missions against an air force like China or Russia's while at a numerical disadvantage?

That is very true. When sending 4 or 5 F-35 jets to intercept or to engage any enemy regardless of nation, and they have 2 squadrons of MIG 29s or Sukhoi-30, you would want to get as many with the AMRAAM missiles (range of 30+ miles) before getting into DOGFIGHT distance.

Quote:

That is very true. When sending 4 or 5 F-35 jets to intercept or to engage any enemy regardless of nation, and they have 2 squadrons of MIG 29s or Sukhoi-30, you would want to get as many with the AMRAAM missiles (range of 30+ miles) before getting into DOGFIGHT distance.

it'd also depend on how many targets F-35 radars can lcok at the same time...

Enthusiast Joined: Jul 27, 2004 Posts: 89 Status: Offline

elp wrote:

I wouldn't make a big fuss about it. The space is there and it will be part of a spiral program. A hell of a lot more important things to be thinking about now to get the program up and running. I would be more worried about a 3rd tier stealth user wanting a built in self protection jammer and towed decoy.

The last I heard (which was awhile ago), the LO/CLO EXCOM had not made a decision as to whether different users would get different levels of stealth and how this would be managed. My understanding is that there are significant technological challenges related to releasing different F-35 models with different levels of stealth. Different technical manuals would have to be supported, the plane's threat warning systems would have to be programmed with different parameters, different upgrade paths would have to be supported, etc. Has a decision been made in this regard?

Mike

F-16.net

Forum: F-35 Lightning II

Six AMRAAMs carried internally in the F-35