Joint Strike Missile tested on an external station

[marksengineer]

I can't see where a fit check will delay the program. Don't know what the schedule is for the JSM but would be surprised if it entered production before the F-35's IOC. If the JSM is UAI compliant won't that ease integration?

[SpudmanWP]

If it is then yes it will, not only for the F-35, but also all F-16s and F-15s.

That would open up the market considerably which would be a good reason to enter production prior to the F-35's IOC.

Besides, JSM & UAI will not come to the F-35 prior to Blk4, not IOC.

[mor10]

The Norwegian F-35 Program Office have just confirmed that the JSM will meet the requirements for UAI.

[SpudmanWP]

Well, that will make it easier to integrate into the F-35, F-15E/SG/K/SA/Etc, and the F-16.

[Gums]

Salute!

To be honest, since we went to the Mil-STD-1760 interface 30 years ago, the fit check was/is the least of our integration problems.

Our little company had a seat at the table for the SAE's AE-9 group that maintained the "standard" and I gained a lot of understanding and experience at the meetings.

The UAI effort seems to be a sub-section of the 1760 standard that we spent most of our time on - the software protocol for initializing, controlling and releasing the compliant weapons. Only two I recall that met the standard then were the AMRAAM and the Penguin. All of the legacy weapons required "adapter" launchers or interface units ( as we called them in the Viper).

You guys have no idea how bad things were back in the 80's. All the weapons had unique electrical and logical interfaces. Most required dedicated boxes in the jet - HARM. Harpoon, Hellfire, and on and on. Surprisingly, Maverick wasn't too tough, as the dedicated box was the actual launcher - LAU-88, if I recall. Nevertheless it and the Hellfire had 50 or 60 connections that were mostly for discrete weapon functions.

I worked on JDAM, Advanced Rocket System, WCMD, Harpoon and HARM integration. Old jets new weapons like JDAM, new jets and old weapons like Maverick and the beat went on.

Most of our discussion and arguments revolved about the "logical" interface implemented via the data buss ( or busses nowadays, as then it was only the twisted wire 1553 buss). So we had to define and have all agree on the protocols, data entity formats, error detection, and so forth and so on. Sandia folks were scared to death that aircraft systems could get on the data bus and inadvertantly pre-arm nukes! i.e. a certain combination of speed and altitude from the air data system might duplicate a critical message the weapon used.

Then we had the "critical" message formats and the complicated checksum algorithm used to ensure the pilot or system actually meant to arm or release a weapon. Finally got that sucker in firmware on the weapons to help with speed and such, plus easy to check/verify it.

The "one thing" we always agreed upon was a separate, discrete signal on a dedicated wire for "release consent". In other words, the "pickle button" was still hot, and all the software and such couldn't release/launch a weapon unless Joe Baggadonuts had the button/trigger depressed. We also had a separate electrical line for "safety critical" DC power, but that be gone by now.

Those were neat days, folks, and I learned an awful lot and maybe helped get some of the new stuff working on the new ( and older) jets.

Gums steps off the podium.....

[fiskerwad]

Salute!

snip

You guys have no idea how bad things were back in the 80's. All the weapons had unique electrical and logical interfaces. Most required dedicated boxes in the jet - HARM. Harpoon, Hellfire, and on and on. Surprisingly, Maverick wasn't too tough, as the dedicated box was the actual launcher - LAU-88, if I recall. Nevertheless it and the Hellfire had 50 or 60 connections that were mostly for discrete weapon functions.

snip

Gums steps off the podium.....

Gums, what do you remember about the dreaded ten fingers of death for either a hobo or maverick launch? I was working next to the group that was assigned to work on it and all I remember is the daily tearing of hair while they tried to get all the mux blocks figured out.

I hope the shiny new interface approach works as advertised, the old way was painful.
fisk

[energo]

Good catch as the only purpose of the fairing seems to be to hold the wings in (for aero or RCS reasons).

Possibly, but think FOD protection and folding wing flutter prevention.

/BB

[sirsapo]

Good catch as the only purpose of the fairing seems to be to hold the wings in (for aero or RCS reasons).

Possibly, but think FOD protection and folding wing flutter prevention.

/BB

Besides, they probably don't want the engine windmilling before they fire it off.

[maus92]

Two JSMs on wing stations. It could be an illusion, but the outboard missile seems canted outward.

[spazsinbad]

Zoom/WideAngle lens perspective illusion - look at the size of the wing compared to nose for example.

[SpudmanWP]

Outboard pylon is canted up and the inboard pylon is canted down (relative to each other).

There is no toe-in or toe-out like the Super Hornet.

[geogen]

Now if only UAI will some day be adapted on the block II+ Super Hornet too!?!

Hate to see the Super have to settle for JSOW only!! Is greed a crime?

In the interim however, prior to a 'going commando' Block IV F-35 achieving IOC (2020-2021?), it could be a prudent and arguably strategic stopgap plan to evaluate a quadruple JSM loadout profile on a modernized F-16? Perhaps 5 rounds (for CFT-equipped birds), if 1 mounted on the center? That could be a pretty darn 'good enough' capability and deterrent as gap-filler, for at least 5 years!

Not just for the JSM, but for JSOW/-ER too?

[SpudmanWP]

No thanks... An IOC F-35 with JSOW would have a better chance of mission success and pilot survival... and be ready sooner.