Joint Strike Missile tested on an external station

F-35 Armament, fuel tanks, internal and external hardpoints, loadouts, and other stores.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

marksengineer

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 192
  • Joined: 18 Jul 2011, 21:01
  • Location: Ohio

Unread post12 Mar 2013, 22:17

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?
Offline

SpudmanWP

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8408
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post12 Mar 2013, 22:57

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.
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline
User avatar

lamoey

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1104
  • Joined: 25 Apr 2004, 17:44
  • Location: 77550

Unread post13 Mar 2013, 21:24

The Norwegian F-35 Program Office have just confirmed that the JSM will meet the requirements for UAI.
Former Flight Control Technican - We keep'em flying
Offline

SpudmanWP

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8408
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post13 Mar 2013, 21:56

Well, that will make it easier to integrate into the F-35, F-15E/SG/K/SA/Etc, and the F-16.
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline
User avatar

Gums

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2412
  • Joined: 16 Dec 2003, 17:26

Unread post13 Mar 2013, 23:27

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.....
Gums
Viper pilot '79
"God in your guts, good men at your back, wings that stay on - and Tally Ho!"
Offline

fiskerwad

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 753
  • Joined: 13 Nov 2004, 19:43
  • Location: 76101

Unread post14 Mar 2013, 00:59

Gums wrote: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
Mipple?
Offline

energo

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 578
  • Joined: 09 Dec 2007, 14:06

Unread post14 Mar 2013, 23:55

SpudmanWP wrote: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
Offline

sirsapo

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 67
  • Joined: 03 May 2009, 21:40
  • Location: Phoenix, AZ

Unread post15 Mar 2013, 01:47

energo wrote:
SpudmanWP wrote: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.
Offline

maus92

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2052
  • Joined: 21 May 2010, 17:50
  • Location: Annapolis, MD

Unread post14 May 2013, 02:08

Two JSMs on wing stations. It could be an illusion, but the outboard missile seems canted outward.
Attachments
F-35-RNoAF.jpg
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 24863
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post14 May 2013, 02:15

Zoom/WideAngle lens perspective illusion - look at the size of the wing compared to nose for example.
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

SpudmanWP

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8408
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post14 May 2013, 02:50

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.
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline

geogen

Banned

  • Posts: 3123
  • Joined: 11 Mar 2008, 15:28
  • Location: 45 km offshore, New England

Unread post14 May 2013, 04:40

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?
The Super-Viper has not yet begun to concede.
Offline

SpudmanWP

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8408
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post14 May 2013, 08:42

No thanks... An IOC F-35 with JSOW would have a better chance of mission success and pilot survival... and be ready sooner.
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Previous

Return to F-35 Armament, Stores and Tactics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], operaaperta and 3 guests