F-35 Completes First Live Air-to-Air Kill Test [AIM-9X]

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

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 21741
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -1

Unread post01 Aug 2016, 22:25

F-35 Completes First Live Air-to-Air Kill Test
01 Aug 2016 JPO

"The F-35 Lightning II advanced its combat capability by launching an air-to-air missile and directly hitting a drone over a military test range off the California coast on July 28.

U.S. Air Force test pilot, Maj. Raven LeClair, employed an AIM-9X missile from an F-35A's external wing [station] against an aerial drone target in restricted military sea test range airspace. Test data and observers confirmed the F-35 identified and targeted the drone with its mission systems sensors, passed the target ‘track’ information to the missile, enabled the pilot to verify targeting information using the high off-boresight capability of the helmet mounted display (HMD) and launched the AIM-9X from the aircraft to engage the target drone. After launch, the missile successfully acquired the target and followed an intercept flight profile before destroying the drone, achieving the first F-35 Air-to-Air kill or “Boola Boola,” which is the traditional radio call made when a pilot shoots down a drone. Immediately prior to launching the AIM-9X, LeClair employed an internally carried AIM-120C missile against another target drone. This target was beyond visual range and the AIM-120C was given a successful self-destruct signal right before target impact.

The AIM-9X is a short-range heat-seeking missile with an off-boresight capability for accuracy and features thrust-vectoring controls for increased turn capability. The F-35 can carry two AIM-9X missiles on its wings. During previous test shots a self-destruct signal had been sent to the missile prior to it hitting the target.

“It's been said you don't really have a fighter until you can actually hit a target and we crossed that threshold with the first air-to-air weapon delivery of an AIM-9X. This successful test demonstrates the combat capability the F-35 will bring to the U.S. Military and our allies,” said LeClair. “This test represents the culmination of many years of careful planning by combined government and contractor teams. We want to ensure operators will receive the combat capability they need to execute their mission and return home safely – we cannot compromise or falter in delivering this capability.”

The missile test is part of a weapons delivery accuracy surge being conducted by the F-35 Joint Program Office Test Teams at Edwards Air Force Base, Point Mugu Sea Test Range, White Sands Missile Range and Naval Air Weapons Station China Lake. The focus of the increased weapons testing is to advance 3F software testing, which will provide full warfighting capabilities to the F-35. Other ordnance being released during surge testing include: Small Diameter Bombs, Joint Direct Attack Munitions and AIM-120s."

PHOTO: https://a855196877272cb14560-2a4fa819a6 ... __main.jpg

Source: https://www.f35.com/news/detail/f-35-co ... -kill-test
Attachments
f35andaim9x-news__main.jpg
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline

nutshell

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 458
  • Joined: 04 May 2016, 13:37

Unread post02 Aug 2016, 04:04

Quick question: won't the F35 able to carry 9X internally?
Offline
User avatar

Dragon029

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1275
  • Joined: 22 Dec 2014, 07:13

Unread post02 Aug 2016, 04:40

As discussed in several other threads, nope; the AIM-9X can only be launched off a rail as it cannot self-ignite its motor after being ejected (like the AMRAAM). Firing a rocket inside the F-35's weapon bay is suicidal and there's currently no trapeze launcher designed or suited for use from the F-35's door hardpoint.

So unless they develop a suitable trapeze launcher, or Raytheon adds a timed / remote activation motor igniter, the AIM-9X cannot be carried internally. As such, only the AMRAAM, Meteor and ASRAAM are planned for internal carriage (with the Meteor not being integrated until Block 4 and the ASRAAM being external only until Block 4). If SACM / MSDM progress fast enough, the AIM-9X nor any future variants might potentially never see internal carriage.
Offline

charlielima223

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 891
  • Joined: 12 Jan 2014, 19:26

Unread post02 Aug 2016, 06:22

It is my understanding that the AIM-9X for the F-35 is to be part of its block 3F capability. I know they are currently testing block 3F software and capability and that it is set for 2018-19 time frame. Does this mean they are ahead of schedule?
Offline
User avatar

Dragon029

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1275
  • Joined: 22 Dec 2014, 07:13

Unread post02 Aug 2016, 06:40

charlielima223 wrote:It is my understanding that the AIM-9X for the F-35 is to be part of its block 3F capability. I know they are currently testing block 3F software and capability and that it is set for 2018-19 time frame. Does this mean they are ahead of schedule?


External carriage of the AIM-9X is part of Block 3F, which is to be finalised and released late next year (around November). In 2018 IOT&E will take place (and finish after a few months) but it has no impact on when squadrons receive Block 3F.
Offline

bojack_horseman

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 211
  • Joined: 02 Jun 2016, 19:51
  • Location: Ireland

Unread post02 Aug 2016, 09:25

the AIM-120C was given a successful self-destruct signal right before target impact.


My impression from this line was that they knew the target would be hit, but they aborted if only to save the cost of 1 target drone?

Am I right in this impression?

However, DOD Buzz give this line: http://www.dodbuzz.com/2016/08/01/air-f ... kill-test/
LeClair fired an AIM-120C Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile, or AMRAAM, carried internally, to take out another drone. This was a miss, however, as the drone target was out of visual range


This doesn't make sense?
Isn't the AMRAAM supposed to be a BVR anyway?!?!
Offline

zero-one

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1731
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 16:19
  • Location: New Jersey

Unread post02 Aug 2016, 09:42

bojack_horseman wrote:
LeClair fired an AIM-120C Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile, or AMRAAM, carried internally, to take out another drone. This was a miss, however, as the drone target was out of visual range


This doesn't make sense?
Isn't the AMRAAM supposed to be a BVR anyway?!?!


Whats so surprising about this? we all know that hitting a target BVR has a lower chance of success than WVR.
Offline

bojack_horseman

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 211
  • Joined: 02 Jun 2016, 19:51
  • Location: Ireland

Unread post02 Aug 2016, 09:57

zero-one wrote:Whats so surprising about this?.


The surprising part is probably that a BVR missile doesn't work if it goes BVR....

Remarkable considering the target was a relatively slow moving target drone.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 21741
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -1

Unread post02 Aug 2016, 10:00

What is difficult to understand: "...successful self-destruct signal right before target impact...."
Aviation reporter ignorance knows no bounds - & in the age of the internet where most 'facts' can be checked. Of course they have no time to 'check' and a good story which is incorrect is much better than a boring factual story eh.

Hope Hodge Seck is a seriously ignorant reporter. Only recently she claimed an F-35B taking off from the hangar deck would burn a hole in it - or words to that effect. DoDbuzz is a crap source I reckon. Do you get a buzz from bullshit? They do. Here is the erroneous ignorant claim: viewtopic.php?f=57&t=51344&p=348530&hilit=Hope+Hodge+Seck#p348530
"...In March, the America wrapped up a ten-month period of maintenance that included deck-strengthening measures needed to accommodate regular F-35 take-offs, which can scorch and melt a conventional hangar deck over time...." [take offs/hangar deck? WTF]
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline

bojack_horseman

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 211
  • Joined: 02 Jun 2016, 19:51
  • Location: Ireland

Unread post02 Aug 2016, 10:16

spazsinbad wrote:What is difficult to understand: "...successful self-destruct signal right before target impact...."
Aviation reporter ignorance knows no bounds - & in the age of the internet where most 'facts' can be checked. Of course they have no time to 'check' and a good story which is incorrect is much better than a boring factual story eh.



That's what I assumed.....

My concern probably belongs in the 'Basement dweller' thread.

Anyway, congratulations to the F-35 for this milestone.
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 4708
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post02 Aug 2016, 10:34

spazsinbad wrote:What is difficult to understand: "...successful self-destruct signal right before target impact...."
Aviation reporter ignorance knows no bounds - & in the age of the internet where most 'facts' can be checked. Of course they have no time to 'check' and a good story which is incorrect is much better than a boring factual story eh.

Hope Hodge Seck is a seriously ignorant reporter. Only recently she claimed an F-35B taking off from the hangar deck would burn a hole in it - or words to that effect. DoDbuzz is a crap source I reckon. Do you get a buzz from bullshit? They do. Here is the erroneous ignorant claim: viewtopic.php?f=57&t=51344&p=348530&hilit=Hope+Hodge+Seck#p348530
"...In March, the America wrapped up a ten-month period of maintenance that included deck-strengthening measures needed to accommodate regular F-35 take-offs, which can scorch and melt a conventional hangar deck over time...." [take offs/hangar deck? WTF]


untitled (3).png
Offline

zero-one

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1731
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 16:19
  • Location: New Jersey

Unread post02 Aug 2016, 11:09

bojack_horseman wrote:
zero-one wrote:Whats so surprising about this?.


The surprising part is probably that a BVR missile doesn't work if it goes BVR....

Remarkable considering the target was a relatively slow moving target drone.


Looks like we have some conflicting jornalism here.
However its puzzeling how they let the sidewinder hit but let the AMRAAM self destruct.

Maybe the truth was somewhere in between
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 21741
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -1

Unread post02 Aug 2016, 11:11

F-35A takes down target drone
02 Aug 2016 Leigh Giangreco

"...The aircraft also carried an internal Raytheon AIM-120C AMRAAM missile, which the pilot employed on a separate target drone before launching the AIM-9X. The drone was beyond visual range and the AIM-120C was directed as planned to self-destruct before impact...."

Source: https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ne-428085/
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 21741
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -1

Unread post02 Aug 2016, 11:13

zero-one wrote:
bojack_horseman wrote:
zero-one wrote:Whats so surprising about this?.


The surprising part is probably that a BVR missile doesn't work if it goes BVR....

Remarkable considering the target was a relatively slow moving target drone.


Looks like we have some conflicting jornalism here.
However its puzzeling how they let the sidewinder hit but let the AMRAAM self destruct.

Maybe the truth was somewhere in between

No conflict. Misunderstandings perhaps or wilful ignorance and misinterpretation of a press release. But who cares - this is the age of internet misinformation. You can believe whatever you want - I for one do not care in the slightest. Just facts.
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline

vanshilar

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 394
  • Joined: 26 Aug 2015, 11:23

Unread post02 Aug 2016, 11:53

zero-one wrote:Looks like we have some conflicting jornalism here.
However its puzzeling how they let the sidewinder hit but let the AMRAAM self destruct.

Maybe the truth was somewhere in between


Speculation here. The purpose of the test is to gather data to verify that the missiles will perform as expected in operational use. It's possible that the AMRAAM, with its longer range, gives sufficient data throughout the flight that the testers can be confident of its NEZ performance without needing to sacrifice an expensive drone, while the Sidewinder, due to its short range, does need to have its entire flight be tested, including exploding on a target.
Next

Return to F-35 Armament, Stores and Tactics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests