British weapons for the F-35

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

squirrelshoes

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 133
  • Joined: 08 Nov 2016, 23:53
  • Warnings: 1

Unread post23 Oct 2020, 22:39

Did the F-14 even routinely fly with six AIM-54s? That would have been a hell of a load for an AA role.
Offline

h-bomb

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 328
  • Joined: 26 Apr 2009, 20:07
  • Location: South Central USA

Unread post24 Oct 2020, 00:20

squirrelshoes wrote:Did F-14 even routinely fly with six AIM-54s? That would have been a hell of a load for an AA role.


Only on land based operations. They could not trap with full fuel reserves and 6 Phoenix. Jettisoning perfectly good weapons cost a lot.
Offline

squirrelshoes

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 133
  • Joined: 08 Nov 2016, 23:53
  • Warnings: 1

Unread post26 Oct 2020, 01:54

h-bomb wrote:Only on land based operations. They could not trap with full fuel reserves and 6 Phoenix. Jettisoning perfectly good weapons cost a lot.

Thanks. So how would they usually fly on a CAP, was there a standard mix of Phoenix/Sparrow or depend on era and region?

Also = do you know if Iran flew with six AIM-54 since land based ops?
Offline

marauder2048

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1453
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post26 Oct 2020, 02:22

squirrelshoes wrote:
marauder2048 wrote:Wake me up when you can make a cogent contribution on matters technical.

Snickering at how that poster waded through your bluster and sliced you to pieces until you withered and fled was beyond anything cogent... funny would be the better word.


He regurgitated and misrepresented scholarly sources that I had posted in another thread.
I'm sorry that you can only appreciate technically involved discussions on a superficial and risible level.

Again, let us know when you have something to contribute on the technical front.
Offline

basher54321

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2072
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2014, 15:43

Unread post26 Oct 2020, 13:50

squirrelshoes wrote:Thanks. So how would they usually fly on a CAP, was there a standard mix of Phoenix/Sparrow or depend on era and region?

Also = do you know if Iran flew with six AIM-54 since land based ops?


Era specific no doubt

According to David Parsons, during the 1980s during the many Libyan confrontations his squadron flew with AIM-9/AIM-7 only because they expected to merge. Some other squadrons though, he said, did do a AIM-54/9/7 with 2 AIM-54 despite the extra weight penalty.

What has come from Iran in the 80s would suggest they felt 2 x AIM-54A was the max they could load and still retain some agility if they had to merge. They also had to conserve the far more limited supply.

6 x AIM-54s not only significantly reduces performance but also range/endurance and Iranians give an Rmin of about 4 miles for the A model which if anywhere near would mean it was useless close in compared to even the AIM-7E-2.
Offline

squirrelshoes

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 133
  • Joined: 08 Nov 2016, 23:53
  • Warnings: 1

Unread post27 Oct 2020, 13:43

basher54321 wrote:Era specific no doubt

According to David Parsons, during the 1980s during the many Libyan confrontations his squadron flew with AIM-9/AIM-7 only because they expected to merge. Some other squadrons though, he said, did do a AIM-54/9/7 with 2 AIM-54 despite the extra weight penalty.

What has come from Iran in the 80s would suggest they felt 2 x AIM-54A was the max they could load and still retain some agility if they had to merge. They also had to conserve the far more limited supply.

6 x AIM-54s not only significantly reduces performance but also range/endurance and Iranians give an Rmin of about 4 miles for the A model which if anywhere near would mean it was useless close in compared to even the AIM-7E-2.

Thanks for the info, makes sense. I imagine ROE would often steer away from usefulness of AIM-54 for many operations.

It's a big plus for F-22 (and now F-35) how much farther they can take identifying contacts from BVR passively via RF signature.
Offline

marauder2048

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1453
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post27 Oct 2020, 16:51

That's your ego talking, he flayed you. I can assure you many others on here also enjoyed watching that happen to a thin-skinned forum bully who enters discussions mainly to "win" by marathon BS shoveling than anything else. That dude had the patience to call you out on everything you threw until you faded and quit. Funny stuff.


At some point, I can't continue to explain what a "gas generator" is. I can't continue to hold hands on radome
fineness ratios. I can't kepp handhold on why seeker sensitivity is cubic in aperture size.
I can't continue finding/referencing actual scholarly sources that are then misrepresented and mischaracterized.

If you have anything to contribute technically to enhance the discussion please do so. But you don't.
Offline

garrya

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 901
  • Joined: 25 Dec 2015, 12:43

Unread post28 Oct 2020, 09:39

marauder2048 wrote:At some point, I can't continue to explain what a "gas generator" is

At a certain point, it is more honorable to just admit that you are wrong than to keep digging yourself into a hole.
You don't have to explain what a "gas generator" is because that isn't what you brought up initially.
This is your exact words:
exact words.PNG

I said GQM-163, HSAD and T-3 aren't the same because they don't have the same length, they don't have the same diameter, they don't have the same weight, they don't have the same number of inlet, they don't have the same combustor, they don't carry the same amount of propellant. Even the name of the ramjet stage is different
If you want to claim that the motor of GQM-163, HSAD and T-3 are the same, then you need to prove it with evidences, and that evidences better be something else rather than "Aerojet made all three of them, therefore they are the same".
I have repeated this many times but if you want to claim that the gas generator and EM valve/plunger arrangement on the three missiles are the same then you also need to provide some evidences to support that claim. You can either provide an official statement from Aerojet saying that they stick the same EM valve and gas generator on all three missile or some photographic evidences. However, you haven't provide anything to back up your claim, so how can anyone take that serious?

marauder2048 wrote:I can't continue to hold hands on radome fineness ratios.

You don't need to hold anyone hand. Fineness ratio is actually just the ratio of length over diameter. It is actually that simple.
Of course, fineness ratio isn't the only factor that can affect Cd. The actual shape of the radome and missile fuselage also play a vital role.
finess ratio.PNG

However, to truly analyze that, we need some sort of CFD study of Meteor and AIM-54, which you can't provide. I mean you didn't provide any evidence to prove that the radome cone of AIM-54 will be superior to Meteor despite inferior fineness ratio either

Nevertheless, your claim is only that AIM-54 has much better radome fineness then Meteor. Hence, a simple length/diameter calculation shows that claim to be wrong.

marauder2048 wrote:I can't kepp handhold on why seeker sensitivity is cubic in aperture size.

That doesn't apply when the two seekers don't have the same operating frequency

marauder2048 wrote:I can't continue finding/referencing actual scholarly sources that are then misrepresented and mischaracterized.

If I only summarized and paraphrased your source with my own words then maybe you can claim that I misrepresented and mischaracterized your source. However, your argument doesn't fly because I didn't do that. I merely screenshot and put vital paragraph in red box so that others has easier time to follow. Those weren't my words, those were paragraphs and charts directly cited from your scholarly source.
Offline

marauder2048

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1453
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post28 Oct 2020, 17:57

garrya wrote:
marauder2048 wrote:At some point, I can't continue to explain what a "gas generator" is

At a certain point, it is more honorable to just admit that you are wrong than to keep digging yourself into a hole.
You don't have to explain what a "gas generator" is because that isn't what you brought up initially.
This is your exact words:

And passing familiarity with VFDR should indicate to you that the gas generator/em-valve is the dominant contributor
to motor performance since that determines turndown ratio. You focused on inlets which aren't significant.

garrya wrote:The actual shape of the radome and missile fuselage also

Which is exactly what I pointed out. You disregarded it. I can't handhold through
different ogives.


garrya wrote:That doesn't apply when the two seekers don't have the same operating frequency

You pointed out that the seeker frequencies are close enough such that prop loss
and atmospheric attenuation won't matter between them. Hence the cubic aperture term will dominate
over the gain.

garrya wrote:If I only summarized and paraphrased your source with my own words then maybe you can claim that I misrepresented and mischaracterized your source. However, your argument doesn't fly because I didn't do that. I merely screenshot and put vital paragraph in red box so that others has easier time to follow. Those weren't my words, those were paragraphs and charts directly cited from your scholarly source.


You claimed minutes of powered flight when the source clearly indicated that that was not the case.
You claim high altitude launch when the source clearly indicates mid-altitude i.e. there are bounds provided and
turn-down reasons why this is so. You were shotgunning to distract.
Offline

garrya

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 901
  • Joined: 25 Dec 2015, 12:43

Unread post29 Oct 2020, 05:28

marauder2048 wrote:And passing familiarity with VFDR should indicate to you that the gas generator/em-valve is the dominant contributor
to motor performance since that determines turndown ratio. You focused on inlets which aren't significant.

I would say that the amount of propellant play a vital role, and that amount is a limited by the mass and size of the missile. The number of inlets and their volume dictate how much air it take in and the air drag, both affect range.
Besides, you haven't present a single piece of evidence to prove that the gas generator and EM valve/plunger arrangement are the same between GQM-163, HSAD and T-3. Without any evidences how can anyone take your claims serious?



marauder2048 wrote:Which is exactly what I pointed out. You disregarded it. I can't handhold through
different ogives.

No, your original claim is: "AIM-54 has much better radome fineness ratio than Meteor" . When I pointed out that claim is wrong by a simple length/diameter calculation. Your excuse is that Meteor and AIM-54 nose has different ogives. However, the shape of the nose doesn't change the fineness ratio. The fineness ratio is length/diameter, nothing more, nothing less. If you said AIM-54 has better Cd than Meteor, then maybe you can use that excuse. Unfortunately, that wasn't what you said, you just shifted your goal post
Furthermore, as you can see from the diagram I posted earlier, with the same fineness ratio, the different in Cd even between an ogives and a cone is tiny. Keep in mind that Meteor has superior fineness ratio compared to AIM-54. Thus, if you want to say that AIM-54 has better Cd than Meteor then you not only have to prove that AIM-54 radome ogives is superior to Meteor radome ogives, but you also have to prove that the superiority is significant enough to counter the much inferior fineness ratio of AIM-54. That why I asked for a CFD comparison between Meteor and AIM-54 which you can't provide either
AIM-54.jpg

METEOR-MBDA.jpg



marauder2048 wrote:You pointed out that the seeker frequencies are close enough such that prop loss
and atmospheric attenuation won't matter between them. Hence the cubic aperture term will dominate
over the gain.

No, I pointed out that the atmospheric attenuation from 8-20 GHz is negligible and that not because the frequencies are close but because atmospheric attenuation is only a significant factor at higher frequency regime
6m32f1.jpg




marauder2048 wrote:You claimed minutes of powered flight when the source clearly indicated that that was not the case.

I told you before, it is clearly indicated in your source that they simulated a missile launch from 6 km altitude and they also indicated that fuel consumption at 6km is much higher than at high altitude such as 15-20 km. The time of powered flight for a ramjet missile isn't a constant like for a solid rocket motor missile, it depends on the fuel consumption rate. Which clearly indicated in your source to be altitude dependence
fuel rate altitude.PNG


Moreover, as indicated in your source, the booster size is dictated by the minimum altitude/speed requirement, lower minimum altitude and speed require bigger booster stage,and as a result there is less propellant for the ramjet sustain stage. The minimum altitude and speed of the missile in your source is Mach 0.5, sea level whereas the minimum altitude and speed requirement for A3M is Mach 0.9, 3 km.
Meteor conclusion.PNG


What's more, Indian currently trying to reverse engineering Meteor to make their own indigenous ramjet air to air missile and these are the specifications:
action time 120-200 seconds depending on conditions
india ramjet missile.jpg

india.PNG

Astra-2 BVRAAM with SFDR-2.jpg
Offline

garrya

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 901
  • Joined: 25 Dec 2015, 12:43

Unread post29 Oct 2020, 08:04

marauder2048 wrote:You claim high altitude launch when the source clearly indicates mid-altitude i.e. there are bounds provided and
turn-down reasons why this is so. You were shotgunning to distract.

I didn't shotgunning to distract anyone. I explained to you why your claim is wrong by using information from your source
This is your claim:
Capture.PNG


Then the source:

Image
The source indicates that the operating envelope is dictated by 3 elements:
- Minimum altitude and speed requirement: the lower the minimum altitude, the bigger the booster has to be and it also increases the maximum flow requirement since low altitude air is thicker
- Radome heating effect: although the propulsion system might be able to keep the missile at Mach 4, the missile must be slow down to a slower speed so that the radome stagnation temperature is lower than 800K (526°C)
- Turn down ratio: lower altitude require higher max fuel flow (to fight the air resistance) while higher altitude require lower minimum fuel flow (to keep the missile slower and reduce radome stagnation temperature). Thus, a bigger turn down ratio means the operating envelope can be expanded in both ways.
In their simulation, they estimated that for their simulated ramjet missile if the minimum launch altitude requirement is: sea level from Mach 0.5 and the turndown ratio is 1:5 then the maximum altitude that it can cruise is 15 km (49kft).
If the turndown ratio is increased to 10 then the maximum cruising altitude is 20 km (65kft).
On the other hand, if they relaxed the minimum altitude requirement to be 5 km instead of sea level then even with a turndown ratio of 1:7.5 then the missile can still cruise at an altitude beyond 20 km (65kft)
-------------------------
For comparison, the minimum launch altitude requirement for A3M (later become Meteor) is 3 km height from Mach 0.9 and the demonstrated turn down ratio is 1:9 .Thus, not only the mininum altitude requirement of A3M is not as low as the missile in the scholarly study, the turndown ratio ratio is also higher than 5. Both factors clearly indicate a much higher maximum crusing altitude than 15 km (49kft) so your claim is wrong.
Image
Offline

madrat

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2822
  • Joined: 03 Mar 2010, 03:12

Unread post29 Oct 2020, 11:40

I'm surprised they cannot create the missile's radome with some kind of single-crystal ceramic or carbon-carbon with an inert gap insulated by some aerogel on both surfaces to handle significantly higher speeds in transit. Exotic solutions are justified.

It's easier to revamp the booster than re-engineering the whole missile if they ever decided to get an ER-version. Attaching a booster really adds its value as a ground-based solution, too. If Mach 3.5 is your constant limit then you really are handicapped with what you can do for the boost phase. In today's budget environment the multipurpose solution has an edge.
Previous

Return to F-35 Armament, Stores and Tactics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests