6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 31 Mar 2017, 20:20
by uclass
SKSuldO.png

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 31 Mar 2017, 21:06
by playloud
That's an old pic, and not definitive.

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 01 Apr 2017, 03:06
by garrya
playloud wrote:That's an old pic, and not definitive.

It is recently confirmed AFAIK
Let’s Do More Shots
28 Mar 2017 John A. Tirpak

"​The F-35 program office is looking at adding capacity for another AIM-120 AMRAAM radar-guided air-to-air missile in each of the jet’s two weapons bays, increasing internal—and thus stealthy—missile loadout by 50 percent, program director Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan said March 22. Speaking with reporters after his speech at a McAleese/Credit Suisse conference in Washington, D.C., Bogdan said, “There is potential … to add a third missile on each side.

The upgrade would likely be part of the Block IV program of F-35 enhancements, but “that’s something I know the services and all the partners” are interested in. Bogdan said this would not require some special version of AMRAAM, but “the same AMRAAM missiles that we carry today, just an extra one; probably on the weapons bay door.” The F-35 can carry two AMRAAMs in each bay now, or a mix of AMRAAMs and Joint Direct Attack Munitions internally.

http://www.airforcemag.com/DRArchive/Pa ... Shots.aspx

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 01 Apr 2017, 03:30
by Dragon029
uclass, that image is about 5 years old and has been posted / referenced dozens of times throughout the forum, while garrya's article was posted a day or two ago here: viewtopic.php?f=54&t=52935

Can we delete this thread so that we don't have a billion different threads about Block 4?

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 01 Apr 2017, 03:48
by popcorn
AIM-9X Block 3? LOL...

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 01 Apr 2017, 04:14
by SpudmanWP
popcorn wrote:AIM-9X Block 3? LOL...


No laughing matter :roll:

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... 60-388468/

To create the new AIM-9X Block III, the NAVAIR will primarily focus on the missile's rocket motor. "Increased range will be achieved through a combination of increased rocket motor performance and missile power management," NAVAIR says.

In addition to an improved, more energetic, rocket motor, the enhanced weapon will also have a new insensitive munitions warhead, which will be safer to use onboard an aircraft carrier. However, the Block III will "leverage" the current Block II's guidance unit and electronics-including the missile's AMRAAM-derived datalink.

While the Pentagon needs the new Sidewinder to be a supplemental BVR weapon for situations where friendly fighters are faced with electronic attacks that degrade with radar-guided weapons, it will not compromise on the AIM-9X's close in performance. "The requirement and design call for the same WVR [within visual range]/HOBS [high off-boresight] capabilities as those found in the AIM-9X Block II," NAVAIR says.

The Block III is currently scheduled to enter into its engineering and manufacturing development phase in 2016, NAVAIR says. Subsequently, it will go into developmental testing in 2018 with operational tests starting in 2020. If all goes well, an initial operational capability date is expected in 2022. "The Block III development schedule follows the increased number of Joint Strike Fighter aircraft entering service," NAVAIR says.


I think it was canceled/delayed though.

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 01 Apr 2017, 04:26
by Dragon029
Postponed indefinitely, although there's still some minor upgrade planned (the digital fuse, etc mentioned on the other thread was probably it).

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 01 Apr 2017, 04:30
by spazsinbad
F-35 fires AIM-9X as Raytheon snags next-gen weapons contract
22 Jan 2016 James Drew

"...The navy wanted to extend the range of the AIM-9X by 60% under a Block III programme for beyond-visual-range engagements, but the project was cancelled in the fiscal year 2016 budget, with only an “insensitive munitions warhead” side project carried forward...."

Source: https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ns-421133/

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 01 Apr 2017, 05:32
by popcorn
Dragon029 wrote:Postponed indefinitely, although there's still some minor upgrade planned (the digital fuse, etc mentioned on the other thread was probably it).

Yeah, I considered that thing dead and money was going toward pushing missile tech in other directions.

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 10 Apr 2017, 21:01
by blain
There is an old graphic of a config with 4 AIM-9Xs and 4 AIM-120s - two AMRAAMs on the outer door. Is this possible?

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 11 Apr 2017, 01:49
by steve2267
blain wrote:There is an old graphic of a config with 4 AIM-9Xs and 4 AIM-120s - two AMRAAMs on the outer door. Is this possible?


First I've heard of it. Link to graphic? Or can you post graphic? (i.e. attach it)

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 11 Apr 2017, 01:52
by blain
This looks a bit dated, but what happened to the idea of increasing the AAM capacity to 6 per bay?

46_76124_d922db8ecda96ca.jpg

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 11 Apr 2017, 02:01
by steve2267
Well... that's a nifty graphic. First time I've ever seen it. I see no headers of footers denoting from what document (or other origin) it comes. Do you know from where it came?

From a geometric storage perspective, if the illustration is accurate, maybe everything will actually fit. But the devil usually lives in the details. In this case, the details about how you achieve clean stores separation? I foresee immediate issues with how you obtain clean separation with the "uppermost" missiles or bombs stored along the "doors". But that is why engineers get paid to figure out whether something will work, and then they go test it to death.

I'm afraid I cannot answer your question. But thanks for posting the graphic.

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 11 Apr 2017, 02:24
by SpudmanWP
It's fan fiction from YEARS ago.

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 11 Apr 2017, 02:34
by count_to_10
The size of the missiles looks all wrong.

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 11 Apr 2017, 03:06
by popcorn
Hmm... maybe Bogdan was thinking of that graphic when he mentioned the possibility of adding a second missile to the by door? :wink:

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 11 Apr 2017, 07:03
by blain
I thought there was talk a number of year's ago - Aviation Week? - where there was a discussion of increasing the internal weapons load. The best I could find is a reference to the USAFRL saying that the F-35 could carry 12 missiles internally - divided between the two bays.

I think someone else on this forum mentioned it, but I will mention it also. Why can't the F-35 carry 8 per bay - one on each door and two where the SDBs are mounted?

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 11 Apr 2017, 09:01
by Dragon029
12 missiles internally refers to the Small Advanced Capabilities Missile (SACM), also known by it's Lockheed entry named CUDA (Raytheon however has so far been the victor of the SACM R&D funding competitions). A SACM is designed to be half the length of an AMRAAM; as such you'd fit 2 where you can fit 1 AMRAAM or 1:1 for where you can fit a Small Diameter Bomb.

As for why 8 isn't possible; it's a matter of space and separation safety - it's unlikely you could fit 8 internally (that fan art earlier in the thread is wrong about the size of the bays; they're scaled up in that image). But even if fitting 8 AMRAAMs was possible, you have the issue where if a missile on the outer door (today AMRAAMs are carried on the inner doors) failed to launch / eject, you've now blocked at least one (very likely both) of the two AMRAAMs that sit on stations 4 and 8 (where internal bombs normally go).

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 11 Apr 2017, 12:44
by krorvik
blain wrote:I think someone else on this forum mentioned it, but I will mention it also. Why can't the F-35 carry 8 per bay - one on each door and two where the SDBs are mounted?


Also, note that those compartments also have pipelines, wiring and various other gadgetry. It's not spacious in there...

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 24 Jul 2018, 01:42
by SpudmanWP
Ok.. what yahoo at LM signed off on this PR video??

Image


Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 24 Jul 2018, 02:27
by count_to_10
Wait, that’s a missile on each of the four doors? I thought that wasn’t possible.

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 24 Jul 2018, 02:47
by spazsinbad
:devil: It is CGI where the aircraft MAY NOT be an F-35B on a future LHA (see ersatz deck Island) with an HUD goldarnit! :doh:

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 24 Jul 2018, 02:49
by fbw
I'm rewarding myself a cookie for calling that years ago if that configuration proves to be accurate in the future. Less separation issues if the 3rd missile per bay is mounted on the outer bay doors.

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 24 Jul 2018, 03:45
by elvis1
I know that I am probably just seeing things, but it does look like the ones on the outer doors are smaller than the ones on the inner doors. . . . . and the ones on the outer doors are the same size as the ones under wing. Is there a way to put a rail mounted system for AIM-9x on the outer door?

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 24 Jul 2018, 03:57
by spazsinbad
:doh: Would there be pretend AIM-9woppityWops and AMRAAMerDingDongs in the mix on the CVNLHA F-3xs CGIwise? :drool: :roll:

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 25 Jul 2018, 04:12
by elvis1
I understand it is CGI -- quite pretend. It did spark the question " Is there a way to put a rail mounted system for AIM-9x on the outer door?" I imagine someone here has a reason why it would not be possible, and I would like to learn from that answer.

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 25 Jul 2018, 04:15
by spazsinbad
Years ago there was a forum thread about such a question. Some TRAP EASY info from 'SWP':

viewtopic.php?f=22&t=24350&p=256283&hilit=rail+door+trapeze#p256283

Use the search text string: +rail +door +trapeze for more....

Go here for the 'Dragon029' cache of AIAA 2018 papers: viewtopic.php?f=58&t=12237&p=397209&hilit=Overview#p397209

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 25 Jul 2018, 21:05
by durahawk
So what's the real story? Are 6 Internal AMRAAMS no longer even on the radar for Block 4?

Seems like hypotheticals all around until someone commits to pay for it. I wouldn't be suprised if USAF at least is priortizing funds for SBD II integration.

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 25 Jul 2018, 21:23
by SpudmanWP
Yes they are, just not attached to the outer doors.

The cost of SDB2 "integration" into the F-35 will depend on one "which cam first, the chicken or egg" factor. SDB2 is already part of UAI so if UAI is concurrent with SDB2 in the F-35, then it will be cheap and quick. If UAI comes after they want to have SDB2 integration, then it will be more substantially expensive, in money and time.

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 26 Jul 2018, 00:08
by fbw
SpudmanWP wrote:Yes they are, just not attached to the outer doors.


The LAU-147 are attached at the hinge, Bogdan’s statement about the possibility of a second pair on the weapons bay door was vague. Adding a second launcher in the bay looks to be tight unless there is a modification for a double launcher fitted to the A-G attachment point. The outer door hinge is clear, but looking at this picture, there might not be the depth.
Any other information on this?

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 26 Jul 2018, 00:19
by spazsinbad

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 26 Jul 2018, 00:59
by fbw


Yes I remember that graphic on the video is from years ago. Bogdan’s statement was relatively recently. Really doesn’t answer the “how” anyway.

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 27 Jul 2018, 15:40
by ricnunes
Looking at this actual mock up test, it seems clear (IMO) that having 6 internal AMRAAMs inside the both F-35 weapons bay (in the near future) is perfectly doable:

Image

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 27 Jul 2018, 16:18
by krorvik
I'm sure this is what you mean by "mock up test" - but to make sure noone interprets it wrong, the image is photoshopped of course.

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 27 Jul 2018, 16:28
by ricnunes
krorvik wrote:I'm sure this is what you mean by "mock up test" - but to make sure noone interprets it wrong, the image is photoshopped of course.


Yes you're right, the image is indeed photoshopped.
However I believe that it shows (at least IMO) the feasibility of having 2xAMRAAMs in same place as 1xGBU-31, this inside the F-35 weapons bay.
Will this require some extra hardware work (namely regarding pylons)? Sure, but feasible it seems to be.

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 27 Jul 2018, 18:01
by lamoey
What is the diameter difference between an SDBII and the AIM-120C7?

Since two SDB's can fitt side by side, then unless the AMRAAM is bigger, it should be feasable without to much tidying in the bay. A suitable double ejector will obviously be needed.

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 27 Jul 2018, 18:16
by SpudmanWP
The problem are the fins

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 27 Jul 2018, 20:09
by sprstdlyscottsmn
Even the F-22 uses a longitudinal offset for six missiles. The F-35 bays are bigger. It may need an offset for the fins, but there is no way they simply won't fit.

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 28 Jul 2018, 02:34
by Dragon029
Just a reminder, Lockheed (as of mid-November 2017) is close to beginning prototype testing of a solution:



By "operational testing" I'm pretty sure the original wording meant physical prototype testing on the ground. I would also be wary of reading too much into the "stacking AMRAAM missiles on top of each other" statement.

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 28 Jul 2018, 02:56
by Corsair1963
Never heard of it as "Sidekick" before??? Also, odds that so little information is available to the general public???

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 28 Jul 2018, 13:41
by mixelflick
Stacking missiles on top of each other...

Wasn't that a big concern for the YF-23? I seem to recall a concern being voiced by the USAF concerning that arrangement jamming. In any case, I can't wait for the F-35 to get 6 AMRAAM's.

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 28 Jul 2018, 14:14
by vilters
LOL,
Germany has 122 Tiffy's to get 4 of them combat ready. (four)

With 6 Amraams on board, you have 2 spares.

End of LOL.

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 28 Jul 2018, 17:44
by wrightwing
mixelflick wrote:Stacking missiles on top of each other...

Wasn't that a big concern for the YF-23? I seem to recall a concern being voiced by the USAF concerning that arrangement jamming. In any case, I can't wait for the F-35 to get 6 AMRAAM's.

Different context than with the YF-23 layout. The F-35 uses a horizontal layout vs vertical.

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 28 Jul 2018, 17:54
by elvis1
Looks like "stacking" could be diagonal to take advantage of the depth of the bay designed for larger diameter ordinance (a cross between side-by-side and above-and-below). The ejection mechanisms could both be ejecting in the same direction more or less side-by-side (but stair-stepped relative to one another in elevation--or like Olympic medal podium if looking at all three missiles). The mechanisms would not interfere with one another and prevent jamming, but release would need to be sequenced.

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 28 Jul 2018, 18:09
by elvis1


At least that is what I see in the picture spazsinbad posted.

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 29 Jul 2018, 07:42
by doge
A similar old CG video with AMRAAM on the outer door.
https://youtu.be/z2M1YMqXYTI?t=52
F-35 outer door AMRAAM.jpg


Is the internal 6x Meteor possible? (I want to pray that it's possible...! 8) )
F-35 Meteor .jpg


Israel Stunner is smaller fin than AMRAAM.
If Stunner, Is the internal 8x Stunner possible? (I saw such an article before.)
Stunner .jpg


I love the imagine of F-35 internal AAM increase... :drool:

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 29 Jul 2018, 19:30
by ricnunes
Regarding the possible/potential "staggered internal AMRAAM" release/ejection issues, how about a Rotary launcher in the lines of the ones found on the B-1 for example?

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 29 Jul 2018, 20:02
by SpudmanWP
Not enough space since you would need vertical & horizontal space for 2 AMRAAMs, 2 Ejectors, and the rotating mechanism.

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 29 Jul 2018, 23:08
by elvis1
I am wondering if something like AMBER would fit. These two missiles are not staggered, but if they were staggered relative to the door-mounted missile. Or perhaps they could be staggered on something similar to AMBER.

I think this is the published US Patent Application for the Boeing AMBER System (attached).
USApp20170259919.pdf
Boeing AMBER Patent
(733.93 KiB) Downloaded 123 times

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 30 Jul 2018, 03:16
by eloise
station 1/11 have stealth rail and pylon
stealth pylon.png

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 30 Jul 2018, 03:21
by spazsinbad
The above graphic/text from page 11/12 of F-35 Weapons Design Integration: download/file.php?id=27745 (PDF 2.6Mb)

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 30 Jul 2018, 03:30
by ricnunes
Good points on the Rotary launcher.

Perhaps an another solution which seems to be in line with what was mentioned earlier - the staggered internal (dual) AMRAAMs - would be to adapt the proposed AMRAAM TER pylon for the F-16V by modifying it into a Dual AMRAAM Rack. Basically you would keep only one of the "sideways" AMRAAMs while the other would be "cut out" and couple it with the center and lower AMRAAM.

If the F-16V can work with AMRAAM TER pylon without separation/ejection issues than such a modified TER (to a Dual Rack) shouldn't have any separation/ejection issues as well.

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 30 Jul 2018, 05:25
by element1loop
One upside of less internal AAMs is that it becomes much more difficult to propose any reduction in airframes due to the low numbers and availability of F-22As. This maybe a problem with a viable physical solution but frankly, it may be better to solve it later, in Blocks 6 or 7 (thus providing 15 to 20 years to perfect a new missile combo, and a fighter DIRCM and tactics).

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 30 Jul 2018, 05:28
by Corsair1963
Honestly, they have the space. Just the question of making it work. Yet, I have little doubt that they can with time...

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 30 Jul 2018, 10:26
by operaaperta
From the Weapons Design Integration paper, p20

To further enhance future growth capabilities, we assessed current and future developmental weapons that could enhance weapon system effectiveness. Additional volume reserves were identified, and we are modifying the weapons bays to accommodate the new weapon volume, where required..

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 30 Jul 2018, 10:40
by Corsair1963
operaaperta wrote:From the Weapons Design Integration paper, p20

To further enhance future growth capabilities, we assessed current and future developmental weapons that could enhance weapon system effectiveness. Additional volume reserves were identified, and we are modifying the weapons bays to accommodate the new weapon volume, where required..



That "could" apply to the six internal Air to Air Missiles.

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 31 Jul 2018, 04:43
by Dragon029
operaaperta wrote:From the Weapons Design Integration paper, p20

To further enhance future growth capabilities, we assessed current and future developmental weapons that could enhance weapon system effectiveness. Additional volume reserves were identified, and we are modifying the weapons bays to accommodate the new weapon volume, where required..

I think that quote might be primarily directed towards the SDB II, which will fit into all 3 variant's bays, but requires some wiring brackets and hydraulic lines to be moved in the B variant to provide sufficient clearance.

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 31 Jul 2018, 05:33
by spazsinbad
Agree. JPO has been clear about the mods required for SDB II in the past.

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 31 Jul 2018, 08:43
by garrya
doge wrote:A similar old CG video with AMRAAM on the outer door.
https://youtu.be/z2M1YMqXYTI?t=52
F-35 outer door AMRAAM.jpg


I just realized something, if the pair of extra AIM-120s are on the bay door, does that mean in theory, F-35 can carry 4 AIM-120 and 8 SDB at the same time ?

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 31 Jul 2018, 15:58
by SpudmanWP
No... Any outer-door mounted munition would stow into the same space occupied by the A2G station weapon.

Image

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 01 Aug 2018, 02:46
by ricnunes
Thanks for that excellent picture SpudmanWP.

Looking at first glance at the picture that you posted, I'm starting to believe that putting the 3rd AMRAAM on the outer bay door for each weapon bay (bringing the total of 6 AMRAAMs) could perhaps be a feasible solution which IMO could solve any ejection/separation issues (for any of the 3 internal AMRAAMs on each bay).
Looking at the picture that you posted I can see/imagine 3 internal AMRAAMs per bay - one on the inner door (as already implemented), another on the "Air-to-Ground station" (also already implemented) and finally the third on the outer door which needs to be implemented but by looking at the inner door AMRAAM, putting another AMRAAM on the outer door seems feasible, at least IMO and at first glance while at the same time avoiding ejection/separation issues with the AMRAAM mounted on the "Air-to-Ground station".

Of course that such solution would only work for pure Air-to-Air loadouts/roles. But this I believe is what LM intends to anyway (regarding a 6 internal AMRAAM solution).

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 01 Aug 2018, 06:52
by popcorn
How about a removable adapter holding 2 AMRAAMs that plugs onto existing pneumatic launcher? Say 30Gs to eject a missile which is within missile tolerances with a single missile released per power stroke.

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 01 Aug 2018, 14:43
by steve2267
I think they should go full Transformers... and load the missiles onboard without fins. The fins are loaded separately and transformagically installed on each missile as it is prepared for launch. Since a Mk84 is 18" in diameter, and AIM-120's are only 7" in diameter, a really smart engineer should be able to design a rotary doohickey that puts like four AIM-120's on there. Another really smart engineer would design the robotic squirrel gizmos to attach the fins. Finally a third super smart aero engineer would wave her hands and pronounce that ejection of the missile poses no threat to the keep out volume of the weapons bay, nor the aircraft, over the entire flight regime and all manner of maneuvers. Walla... ten internal slammers...

I mean... why not!? We've got pichures of the inside of the weapons bays. We can do this! All that mamby schmambee yakkity yak about acoustic, vibe, and thermal environments is overrated. It's really just simple geometry. Will it fit? Yes!? Dynamics? Who cares(!?!) open the door and gravity does the rest. Aero environment of the open weapons bay during releaase? Meh. Buffet? What does this have to do with a food line anyway?

/SMH

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 02 Aug 2018, 15:16
by ricnunes
@steve2267,

I couldn't stop to notice the sarcastic tone of your post (forgive me if I'm wrong but I don't think I am in this case).

This being said, I think that your sarcastic post was a bit inappropriate since and unless things changed recently, the capability to put 6 AMRAAMs inside both F-35 weapons bay (3 per bay) is something well planned and actually scheduled for Block 4 and not some "wet/wild dream".
Therefore giving the F-35 the capability to carry 6 AMRAAMs internally is not a matter of IF but a matter of WHEN or more precisely regarding the recent discussion here, a matter of WHERE. This being said, the objective of this recent "discussion" (at least in my perspective) is only to try to figure where the 3rd AMRAAM (for each bay) will be placed. Nothing more, nothing else...

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 02 Aug 2018, 21:32
by swiss
ricnunes wrote:Therefore giving the F-35 the capability to carry 6 AMRAAMs internally is not a matter of IF but a matter of WHEN or more precisely regarding the recent discussion here, a matter of WHERE.


I really hope that will happen bevor 2025. :)

A2G weapons load

Unread postPosted: 11 Aug 2018, 14:20
by forbin
He have for finals Blocks 3F and after a very large A2G weapons panoply !
and i have these eventuals weapons if one can say if Indeed he have or planned and for what block and internaly/externaly eventualy what variant thanks

GBU-10 LGB 907 kg
GBU-24 LGB 907 kg
GBU-16 LGB 454 kg
CBU-99/100 Cluster Bomb 227 Kg
CBU-105 Cluster Bomb GPS 454 kg

Also
How many SDBs to maximum ? internaly 8 but externaly 4 on each main HPs total 16 or 24 ?
What Block planned for AIM-9X internaly ?
1612 l FTs Block 4 ?
AGM-158C not planned right now but make sense USN have this very long stick possible externaly for Block 5 ?

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 11 Aug 2018, 14:23
by forbin
swiss wrote:
ricnunes wrote:Therefore giving the F-35 the capability to carry 6 AMRAAMs internally is not a matter of IF but a matter of WHEN or more precisely regarding the recent discussion here, a matter of WHERE.


I really hope that will happen bevor 2025. :)

Planned sure for Block 5 in 2024 and possible Block 4 for 2022
http://www.airforcemag.com/DRArchive/Pa ... 202017/Let’s-Do-More-Shots.aspx

Re: A2G weapons load

Unread postPosted: 12 Aug 2018, 00:47
by Dragon029
GBU-10, GBU-16 and GBU-24 were planned for external carriage, but there's no word on if they'll still be integrated or when.

CBU-99/100 and CBU-105 likely will not be integrated, as those bombs aren't manufactured any more.

How many SDBs to maximum ? internaly 8 but externaly 4 on each main HPs total 16 or 24 ?


Theoretically 24, but these are the only loadouts that are currently certified for operational use:

Image

There has not been any separation testing of SDBs from external hardpoints.

What Block planned for AIM-9X internaly ?


AIM-9X internal storage is not planned; it would require developing a special launcher, or the AIM-9X would need to be upgraded to allow for ejection launches rather than just rail launches.

1612 l FTs Block 4 ?


426 gallon (1937L) EFTs have been under development, but they might not be included in Block 4.

AGM-158C not planned right now but make sense USN have this very long stick possible externaly for Block 5 ?


JASSM was planned for external storage, but it probably won't be integrated in Block 4; many other older platforms can safely launch JASSMs (particularly JASSM-ERs) from outside the range of SAMs and fighter patrols, with those JASSMs going after targets that F-35s locate and transmit the coordinates of. It might potentially be added in Block 5.

Planned sure for Block 5 in 2024 and possible Block 4 for 2022


Block 4 is not a single software release; it's planned to have releases occurring from 2021 to 2026, with even some notable software upgrades for the F-35 occurring beginning next year (in 2019 the F-35 is being upgraded with automatic ground collision avoidance).

Block 4 and these interim software upgrades will be getting delivered through the the C2D2 (Continuous Capability Development and Delivery) plan, where software releases will be occurring every 6 months (beginning later this year), hardware is upgraded or changed every 2 years (assuming there's something to be upgraded) and core processors, etc are refreshed every 8-10 years:

Image

You can also see the 6 month cadence in this chart (in the lower part of the "Development" section):

Image

Previously there was going to be a Block 4 and Block 5 in the early / mid-2020s, but then that changed into Block 4A and Block 4B (with Block 5 being vaguely planned to begin in the late 2020s; like in 2028 or something), then Block 4 was split up even more into Block 4.1, Block 4.2, Block 4.3 & Block 4.4, which were going to be released roughly every 1.5 years beginning in 2021. Then last year they announced the C2D2 plan and so now it's a little bit more vague as to what specific year a feature or weapon will be integrated.

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 12 Aug 2018, 02:16
by spazsinbad
Timeline:

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 12 Aug 2018, 03:22
by element1loop
Notice the loadouts still show AGM-154 only on C.

Re: A2G weapons load

Unread postPosted: 12 Aug 2018, 14:12
by forbin
Dragon029 wrote:...


Thank you very good but again some questions :)

Surprising no ext AIM-120 for Bl 3F ! are you sure ?
PS : in this case and ofc fighters are not always used in stealth mode he have AAM weapon load of 6, US F-22 with adaptors on main HPs as F-18/F-18EF/F-22 have 10 - 14 -16 AAMs, F-15 have 8, F-16 have 6
Others 4 - 6 AAMs " Flankers " in general 8 possible 10
Su-57 can have 12, J-20 int 6 + 4 ext normaly : 10 so in 3F F-35 clearly inferior
AAMs number is important coz for various reasons only about 50 + % reach the target and also for combats with big formations, flights or more


At worst AIM-120 for ext HP possible for Block 4 ? Can we envisaged as for F-18/22/15SA F-35 get adaptors for 2 AIM-120 and have up to 16 ! AAMs in Block 5 eventualy Block 4 ?

Block 3i can host internaly 2 AIM-120 as Bl 2B or 4 missiles ?

And Block 2 A can have and if is no i think at less some pre series birds used for test have or customised software allowing weapons tests ? at less 5 - 6 years we see weapons test..

PS i know all under Blocks but yet many so i don't mention it...

And possible to have this file i think your chart is in a similar ?
Weapons Design Integration: download/file.php?id=27745 (PDF 2.6Mb)

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 13 Aug 2018, 04:34
by Corsair1963
forbin wrote:
swiss wrote:
ricnunes wrote:Therefore giving the F-35 the capability to carry 6 AMRAAMs internally is not a matter of IF but a matter of WHEN or more precisely regarding the recent discussion here, a matter of WHERE.


I really hope that will happen bevor 2025. :)

Planned sure for Block 5 in 2024 and possible Block 4 for 2022
http://www.airforcemag.com/DRArchive/Pa ... 202017/Let’s-Do-More-Shots.aspx



Link doesn't work......... :?

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 13 Aug 2018, 05:38
by steve2267
Google found it:

http://www.airforcemag.com/DRArchive/Pa ... Shots.aspx

IMO, most accurate statement by Bogdan on the matter:
There’s a lot of engineering work to go with that,” Bogdan cautioned, and he did not speculate on when such a change could be made.

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 13 Aug 2018, 05:55
by Corsair1963
steve2267 wrote:Google found it:

http://www.airforcemag.com/DRArchive/Pa ... Shots.aspx

IMO, most accurate statement by Bogdan on the matter:
There’s a lot of engineering work to go with that,” Bogdan cautioned, and he did not speculate on when such a change could be made.



Oh, I remember that story now....Regardless, thanks for the link! :D

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 13 Aug 2018, 10:05
by forbin
Corsair1963 wrote:http://www.airforcemag.com/DRArchive/Pa ... 202017/Let’s-Do-More-Shots.aspx
Link doesn't work......... :?


2 days ago yes i check always before to post try again

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 13 Aug 2018, 11:32
by spazsinbad
The first link was broken as shown: http://www.airforcemag.com/DRArchive/Pa ... 202017/Let[broken]’s-Do-More-Shots.aspx

Somehow STEVIEgoogle fixed it with apostrophe being substituted with HTML code text string : %E2%80%99
http://www.airforcemag.com/DRArchive/Pa ... Shots.aspx

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 13 Aug 2018, 16:20
by SpudmanWP
Keep in mind that Block 4 will include UAI (no, I do not know which one) and after that, a lot of weapon integrations (JASSM, JDAM/SDB variants, LRASM, SOM-J, etc) will no longer be tied to a certain block. After UAI, a weapon will only need separation testing (just a few months) and will then be cleared for worldwide F-35 use.

In a similar vein, the AGM-154C for the F-35C only is due to it being a USNavy weapon. If a F-35A client expresses a desire for it, the JPO will do seperation tests and clear it for use.

-----Update-------
I was snooping around the budget docs and found in the SDB section that UAI will be in 4.1 and SDB2 IOC with the F-35 will come after that in 2022.

Image

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 13 Aug 2018, 20:12
by steve2267
spazsinbad wrote:The first link was broken as shown: http://www.airforcemag.com/DRArchive/Pa ... 202017/Let[broken]’s-Do-More-Shots.aspx

Somehow STEVIEgoogle fixed it with apostrophe being substituted with HTML code text string : %E2%80%99
http://www.airforcemag.com/DRArchive/Pa ... Shots.aspx


Google search string: "let's do more shots site:airforcemag.com"

Boom! First link listed...

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 13 Aug 2018, 20:25
by talkitron
SpudmanWP wrote:Keep in mind that Block 4 will include UAI (no, I do not know which one) and after that, a lot of weapon integrations (JASSM, JDAM/SDB variants, LRASM, SOM-J, etc) will no longer be tied to a certain block. After UAI, a weapon will only need separation testing (just a few months) and will then be cleared for worldwide F-35 use.


Wouldn't there be a lot of software work to integrate a weapon? Each weapon has a lot of distinct features in how it is optimally employed. The anti-shipping missiles you mention specifically might require quite a bit of software, as I doubt anti-shipping is a big feature in the current 3F software.

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 13 Aug 2018, 20:52
by SpudmanWP
Think if UAI as the "Print Manager (PM)" in windows. PM has a list of features that it will support but does not have a list of printers that it supports (ie integrated weapons). The UAI has an interface for a weapon to plug into much in the same way as the PM had a common interface for printers to connect to.

For UAI, here is a list of features that it supports at each step if the way and no, they have not released a similar list recently with more up to date features.

Image

Now, for a weapon to work with UAI, it must have a "driver" pack uploaded in the same way as a new printer will have a driver for the PM to interface with. The UAI "driver" can be uploaded at any time, it is not part of a block upgrade and does not change (or need to be tested with) any other part of the avionics package.

Much in the what the PM works in Windows, the avionics package talks to the UAI controller in a common format. The UIA controller will then pass the info to the weapon in a weapon-specific format according to the driver setup. I am sure there is a thread around here somewhere that goes into more detail on how it's done, but suffice it to say, UAI is far cheaper & quicker than traditional weapons integration. After a UAI weapon is created, the only plane-specific item that needs to be done is separation testing and driver tweaking.

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 13 Aug 2018, 21:08
by wolfpak
Is it safe to assume they could do separation testing prior to UAI being implemented on the F-35 for those weapons that will use that software package? If so they will have plenty of time to clear weapons for integration by 2022. I would have thought they would have pulled UAI ahead because of the advantages it gives you.

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 13 Aug 2018, 21:13
by SpudmanWP
You need to verify the separation under the control of the UAI. It only takes a couple of months, so no big deal.

They are adding UAI as soon as possible, Block 4.1. The UAI dev was a new project (ie did not exist) when JSF started and was not complete before Block 3F was locked down.

Here is a good read to get you caught up on UAI:
(Page21) http://www.dsp.dla.mil/Portals/26/Docum ... 1-DSPJ.pdf

Here is an example of what it took to use UAI for LJDAM on the F-15E. You can add the Turkish SOM-J, F-18E/F/G, B-52, B-1, and B-2 to the list of weapons & platforms getting UAI.

Image

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 13 Aug 2018, 21:19
by spazsinbad
FWIW the first two 'SWP' graphics above this page combined GIF. Click on graphic to ZOOM in.

Re: A2G weapons load

Unread postPosted: 16 Aug 2018, 15:50
by forbin
Dragon029 wrote:GBU-10, GBU-16 and GBU-24 were planned for external carriage, but there's no word on if they'll still be integrated or when.

CBU-99/100 and CBU-105 likely will not be integrated, as those bombs aren't manufactured any more.

How many SDBs to maximum ? internaly 8 but externaly 4 on each main HPs total 16 or 24 ?


Theoretically 24, but these are the only loadouts that are currently certified for operational use:

Image


Interesting and don't do mind but i have some doubts for some weapons especialy GBU-49 Block 3F can use for soon

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ei-448238/

Any source for file with the chart and what date please ?

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 16 Aug 2018, 17:01
by SpudmanWP
That is only one of many GBU-49 contracts for the F-35.

Besides, the GBU-49 is only needed for rapidly moving ground targets (over 45mph) as normal Paveways and LJDAMs can handle anything slower with the current EOTS.

Re: A2G weapons load

Unread postPosted: 16 Aug 2018, 20:24
by spazsinbad
forbin wrote:
Dragon029 wrote:GBU-10, GBU-16 and GBU-24 were planned for external carriage, but there's no word on if they'll still be integrated or when.

CBU-99/100 and CBU-105 likely will not be integrated, as those bombs aren't manufactured any more.

How many SDBs to maximum ? internaly 8 but externaly 4 on each main HPs total 16 or 24 ?


Theoretically 24, but these are the only loadouts that are currently certified for operational use:

Image


Interesting and don't do mind but i have some doubts for some weapons especialy GBU-49 Block 3F can use for soon

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ei-448238/

Any source for file with the chart and what date please ?

F-35 Weapons Design Integration 10 May 2018 download/file.php?id=27745 (PDF 2.6Mb) 4 page excerpt below
OR
F-35 Weapons Design Integration (AIAA 2018-3370) https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/pdf/10.2514/6.2018-3370

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 16 Aug 2018, 20:35
by blain
I suspect that if the USAF thought its ability to gain air superiority or air dominance against potential adversaries was becoming an issue they would move faster to increase the internal AMRAAM load.

I am surprised there isn't an option to carry to AMRAAMs externally yet. Maybe not for the USAF, but for the USN and FMS. Since the USN does not have a dedicated air superiority fighter like the F-22, a mix of F-35Cs - some in stealth mode and some in missile truck mode would be a formidable force for fleet defense or OCA missions. Would the F-35 even be able to carry dual missile rails on one of its external pylons? The pylon spacing seems close.

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 16 Aug 2018, 21:00
by SpudmanWP
Give it time.. Given that it's just a matter of certifying the functionality it will likely come in one of the bi-annual C2D2 updates.

Think of all of the ways that they will need to certify it:
1. AMRAAMs on stations 3/9
2. AMRAAMS on 3/9 with bombs on 2/10
3. AMRAAMS on 2/10
4. AMRAAMS on 2/10 with bombs on 3/9
5. AMRAAMs on 2/3/9/10
6. Now do all of that with different bomb types and BRU combos
7. Now do all of that with asymmetric loads
8. Now do all of that with the Gunpod

9. Now do all of that with a 2xAMRAAM rack



When was the last time you have seen an F-16/18 with more than 4 AMRAAMs being used operationally?

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 17 Aug 2018, 13:11
by squirrelshoes
blain wrote:Since the USN does not have a dedicated air superiority fighter like the F-22, a mix of F-35Cs - some in stealth mode and some in missile truck mode would be a formidable force for fleet defense or OCA missions.

They are still buying Superbugs, USN envisions a mixed fleet of two squadrons each F-35/F-18 on carriers until whatever 6th gen naval fighter goes into production and starts replacing the older F-18s. Long time away.

I agree that it makes sense to qualify F-35C for as many wingload combinations as possible, but like SpudmanWP pointed out it's no hurry for USN since the hunter/killer tactics that are possible with F-35Cs could be accomplished paired with F-18s, which can already carry 10 AMRAAMs.

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 27 Aug 2018, 20:55
by blain
squirrelshoes wrote:
blain wrote:Since the USN does not have a dedicated air superiority fighter like the F-22, a mix of F-35Cs - some in stealth mode and some in missile truck mode would be a formidable force for fleet defense or OCA missions.

They are still buying Superbugs, USN envisions a mixed fleet of two squadrons each F-35/F-18 on carriers until whatever 6th gen naval fighter goes into production and starts replacing the older F-18s. Long time away.

I agree that it makes sense to qualify F-35C for as many wingload combinations as possible, but like SpudmanWP pointed out it's no hurry for USN since the hunter/killer tactics that are possible with F-35Cs could be accomplished paired with F-18s, which can already carry 10 AMRAAMs.


I am not discounting the SH as an option as a missile truck. I am thinking of those scenarios where you might want to exploit 5th gen capabilities against a challenging adversary - either in technology or if you are fighting outnumbered.

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 27 Aug 2018, 22:32
by popcorn
The Navy's approach to.dealing with aerial threats is NIFC-CA.

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 28 Aug 2018, 05:23
by Corsair1963
The SLEP for the current Super Hornet Fleet is good for about ten years of life. Which, will be about the time that it will take to produce two F-35C Squadrons per CVW. (Carrier Air Wing)


So, don't be surprised to see F-35C Production to continue past that point. By replacing the remaining Super Hornet Squadrons one by one.....

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 29 Aug 2018, 11:55
by forbin
Corsair1963 wrote:The SLEP for the current Super Hornet Fleet is good for about ten years of life. Which, will be about the time that it will take to produce two F-35C Squadrons per CVW. (Carrier Air Wing)


So, don't be surprised to see F-35C Production to continue past that point. By replacing the remaining Super Hornet Squadrons one by one.....

According last reports new Super Hornet up to about 100+ to see replace Hornet in the 4 VFA to Oceana also in Blue Angels and others and first F-35C replace in VFA-147 Super Hornet so yes but necessary increase F-35C orders right now 273 + 67 USMC or eventualy also a new fighter 6th generation there are again 260 Hornet + 540 Super Hornet + soon almost 160 EA-18G the 4th AF in the world with India !

According actuals orders the last USN F-35C are build in 2031 and delivered some months later initiazly planned 20/year now sure at less 16

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 30 Aug 2018, 16:15
by mixelflick
6 AMRAAM loadout looks good, although when you consider the F-35s ability to call on other assets/platforms perhaps not as dire a need as originally envisioned. I dunno. We've had air superiority for so long I'm afraid some may take it for granted. Still, 6 is a nice insurance policy IMO.

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 18 Sep 2018, 22:13
by sprstdlyscottsmn
Yes.

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 19 Sep 2018, 00:33
by Corsair1963
Any additional updates on the subject???

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 19 Sep 2018, 05:44
by Dragon029
Nope.

Re: A2G weapons load

Unread postPosted: 19 Sep 2018, 06:33
by akelafreedom
F-35 Weapons Design Integration 10 May 2018
download/file.php?id=27745 (PDF 2.6Mb)


Why I can't get access for this file. Please help :)

Re: A2G weapons load

Unread postPosted: 19 Sep 2018, 21:21
by Lieven
akelafreedom wrote:
F-35 Weapons Design Integration 10 May 2018
download/file.php?id=27745 (PDF 2.6Mb)


Why I can't get access for this file. Please help :)


I don't know. But you can find the same document at https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/10.2514/6.2018-3370

Re: A2G weapons load

Unread postPosted: 20 Sep 2018, 06:41
by akelafreedom
I don't know. But you can find the same document at https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/10.2514/6.2018-3370


Sorry to trouble you, but in the link that you give to me - I have only first page - for others I need to be a member of that site.
But when I use the link in this forum I get the message - "You are not authorised to download this attachment." How comes it?

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 20 Sep 2018, 09:57
by Dragon029
They were deleted at the request of Lockheed due to copyright violation.

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 20 Sep 2018, 11:21
by aasm
I'm confused. Sidewinder and asraam were cleared for outer station?

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 20 Sep 2018, 11:45
by Dragon029
?

Yes, with Block 3F (which was released to the fleet back in February) they can mount Sidewinders and ASRAAMs on stations 1 & 11 (the outer wing hardpoints).

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 20 Sep 2018, 14:25
by aasm
Dragon029 wrote:?

Yes, with Block 3F (which was released to the fleet back in February) they can mount Sidewinders and ASRAAMs on stations 1 & 11 (the outer wing hardpoints).


TY. I thouht those were delayed due to flutter issues.

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 20 Sep 2018, 14:49
by SpudmanWP
IIRC there was an issue with the F-35-C outer wing fold, but that was resolved.

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 20 Sep 2018, 16:26
by ricnunes
aasm wrote:
Dragon029 wrote:?

Yes, with Block 3F (which was released to the fleet back in February) they can mount Sidewinders and ASRAAMs on stations 1 & 11 (the outer wing hardpoints).


TY. I thouht those were delayed due to flutter issues.


Yes and like Spudman said, I believe that was a problem specifically related to the F-35C variant and didn't affect the other variants (-A and -B).

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 21 Sep 2018, 16:01
by aasm
SpudmanWP wrote:IIRC there was an issue with the F-35-C outer wing fold, but that was resolved.


TY, in my younger years, lock on before launch was a very interesting capability to shorten OODA loop.

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 21 Sep 2018, 16:36
by SpudmanWP
I think you mean LOAL (Lock On After Launch)

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 22 Sep 2018, 10:48
by aasm
SpudmanWP wrote:I think you mean LOAL (Lock On After Launch)


Definitely not. BEFORE launch. Helps a lot to hasten the process.
LOAL is another story.

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 22 Sep 2018, 15:52
by mixelflick
Forgot where I saw this mentioned, but it was here on F-16.net (about those outer pylons).

It was mentioned these were "low observable" pylons for the 9X. I knew I should have saved it somewhere, LOL. If true, that's huge. Coupled with this 6 AMRAAM loadout, it would bring its missiles up to the number a Raptor (or F-15) carry.

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 22 Sep 2018, 16:36
by SpudmanWP
aasm wrote:
SpudmanWP wrote:I think you mean LOAL (Lock On After Launch)


Definitely not. BEFORE launch. Helps a lot to hasten the process.
LOAL is another story.

Now I am confused.....

With LOBL the target has to be within the seeker cone of the missile before launch.

With LOAL it can be launched whenever the target is detected and is within range. Without the need to maneuver in order to get the target in the cone, this allows for a quicker engagement of the target with the LOAL missile.

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 22 Sep 2018, 16:58
by spazsinbad
mixelflick wrote:Forgot where I saw this mentioned, but it was here on F-16.net (about those outer pylons).

It was mentioned these were "low observable" pylons for the 9X. I knew I should have saved it somewhere, LOL. If true, that's huge. Coupled with this 6 AMRAAM loadout, it would bring its missiles up to the number a Raptor (or F-15) carry.

Page 4 this thread - IS THIS IT? viewtopic.php?f=54&t=52958&p=398805&hilit=pylon+stealth#p398805

download/file.php?id=27959&mode=view I'll get the PDF + text of page attached....

Image

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 22 Sep 2018, 17:10
by spazsinbad
F-35 Weapons Design Integration [PDF PAGE ATTACHED BELOW]
"...The air-to-air pylons at Stations 1 and 11 presented a unique challenge, and commonality was once again a key consideration. Ideally, from a structural standpoint, the pylon would accommodate a launcher directly below the hardpoints. However, adjacent store station clearance and structural provisions on the three variant wings meant that the missile could not be located directly below the hardpoints and needed to be offset. Rather than creating a unique canted pylon, the pylon was designed with two launcher attach points at its base. This allowed for launcher offset while also allowing the same pylon to be used on the left or right wing by simply switching the location of the launcher. Additionally, the same pylon could be used on all three variants’ wings – despite significant angular differences – by simply changing a set of bushings used during the attachment.

The rail launcher used at the base of the pylon was originally designated as a non-low observable LAU-148 and LAU-149. The only difference between the two was that only the LAU-149 contained a gas generation system. This was needed to provide continuous cryogenic cooling to the AIM-132 Advanced Short Range Air-to-Air Missile (ASRAAM) seeker head. By contrast, the LAU-148 contains ballast. Either launcher can be used with an AIM-9X®. The fact that the LAU-148 used ballast was done to create similarity between the two launchers such that extensive flutter and loads testing would not need to be repeated. As the F-35 program matured, the desire for improved low observability (LO) of the air-to-air mission evolved. This new requirement resulted in the design of the LAU-151 and LAU-152 rail launchers and an associated upgrade to the air-to-air pylon (now designated as a SUU-96). Image 2 depicts these designs. To limit the financial impact of potential regression flight testing, a significant effort was expended to design the new AME to be very similar (structurally) to the initial design. The cost savings of this approach over a completely new qualification and certification program were significant...."

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 24 Sep 2018, 13:34
by mixelflick
Thank you so much!

I knew I wasn't imagining things, LOL. This is BIG IMO, as the 9x is a fearsome weapon. It will negate any alleged super maneuverability advantage claimed by various flanker derivatives.

It appears F-22 cancellation made the F-35 a better plane. With so few Raptors, LM realized the F-35 would have to hold its own air to air and innovations like this resulted. Yes, I know even before the recent changes it was a hell of an air to air platform, but now there can be no denying it: The F-35 really is second only to the Raptor as an air to air killing machine...

Anyone attempting to jump a flight of F-35's and thinking "this is going to be easy" is in for a nasty surprise. That's IF they can find them in the first place..

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 25 Sep 2018, 10:38
by aasm
What is so revlutionary about the 9X? Some foreign missiles already have cooling generators and/of medium range. (israeli i think, french for sure)

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 25 Sep 2018, 11:22
by element1loop
aasm wrote:What is so revolutionary about the 9X? Some foreign missiles already have cooling generators and/of medium range. (israeli i think, french for sure)


9X was an awesome weapon when it came out, then it got better, and better again. BKII+ is now in production. But the thing that makes it somewhat 'revolutionary' is not just the missile, it's the system-of-systems the launch F-35A is attached to that extends it. The '9X' is no longer relying on its own seeker to find a target, it has off-board radar cuing, on-board LPI radar cuing, DAS cueing, plus EOTS for mid-range BVR PID, plus the usual helmet-cuing, and is no longer just a WVR missile. BKII+ will be able to engage with true fire-and-forget BVR range, that's not unlike the range of the early AIM-120A. But with better PK potential due to automated systems-of-systems support all the way. So it gains more range and energy (than if used on a Hornet for WVR support and flight profile) thus more PK-potential. With true BVR detection, BVR tracking and a completely passive BVR ambush-kill supported all the way to a target via a duplex 2-way datalink.

i.e. even if the on-missile homing sensor were to fail, or was fried by a DIRCM, you could still drive the missile precisely to intercept the target, using DAS/EOTS laser-ranging and the datalink directing it, and it would still track to target as if its own sensor was still working. i.e. you can't spoof it, you can't jam it, you can't decoy it, you can't fry it, and you won't know it's coming.

While providing F-35A with 6 BVR AAMs in A2A roles in the process, or 4 BVR AAMs on attack missions.

So if you do get 6 BVR AAMs internally you then have 8 BVR AAMs per jet, which becomes equivalent to the F-22A's A2A war loads.

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 25 Sep 2018, 16:05
by aasm
I'm dubious about final engaement without seeker. Whatever is the quality of onboard sensors and datalinks of the platform.

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 25 Sep 2018, 19:47
by wrightwing
aasm wrote:I'm dubious about final engaement without seeker. Whatever is the quality of onboard sensors and datalinks of the platform.

Its got a 2 way datalink, and can be guided with high precision by the aircraft, which greatly complicates countermeasures. It also has an A2G mode.

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 25 Sep 2018, 20:00
by ricnunes
aasm wrote:I'm dubious about final engaement without seeker. Whatever is the quality of onboard sensors and datalinks of the platform.


The final engagement is never done without the weapon's/missile's onboard seeker even in LOAL mode. Look at what LOAL means: LOck After Launch - it means that the missile is guided by other means (usually a waypoint which can be updated by the launching aircraft's or even by other platform's own sensors) this until the weapon's/missile's onboard seeker is able to take over (and lock the target) and thus controlling the weapon's/missile's own path until the target is hit/destroyed.

LOAL weapons have been used for quite some time. Even the Apache's Laser guided Hellfire missiles in the 1980's had LOAL modes. Who would know this, when the basically the entire world was playing with Rubik Cubes, the Americans were already "playing" with LOAL weapons/missiles :wink:

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 25 Sep 2018, 22:36
by popcorn
AIM-9X blk 2 has a unidirectional data link, not 2-way.

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 26 Sep 2018, 00:01
by blain
spazsinbad wrote:
F-35 Weapons Design Integration [PDF PAGE ATTACHED BELOW]
"...The air-to-air pylons at Stations 1 and 11 presented a unique challenge, and commonality was once again a key consideration. Ideally, from a structural standpoint, the pylon would accommodate a launcher directly below the hardpoints. However, adjacent store station clearance and structural provisions on the three variant wings meant that the missile could not be located directly below the hardpoints and needed to be offset. Rather than creating a unique canted pylon, the pylon was designed with two launcher attach points at its base. This allowed for launcher offset while also allowing the same pylon to be used on the left or right wing by simply switching the location of the launcher. Additionally, the same pylon could be used on all three variants’ wings – despite significant angular differences – by simply changing a set of bushings used during the attachment.

The rail launcher used at the base of the pylon was originally designated as a non-low observable LAU-148 and LAU-149. The only difference between the two was that only the LAU-149 contained a gas generation system. This was needed to provide continuous cryogenic cooling to the AIM-132 Advanced Short Range Air-to-Air Missile (ASRAAM) seeker head. By contrast, the LAU-148 contains ballast. Either launcher can be used with an AIM-9X®. The fact that the LAU-148 used ballast was done to create similarity between the two launchers such that extensive flutter and loads testing would not need to be repeated. As the F-35 program matured, the desire for improved low observability (LO) of the air-to-air mission evolved. This new requirement resulted in the design of the LAU-151 and LAU-152 rail launchers and an associated upgrade to the air-to-air pylon (now designated as a SUU-96). Image 2 depicts these designs. To limit the financial impact of potential regression flight testing, a significant effort was expended to design the new AME to be very similar (structurally) to the initial design. The cost savings of this approach over a completely new qualification and certification program were significant...."



Interesting. So the pylon is low observable? To what extent? I would assume the AIM-9X is not.

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 26 Sep 2018, 00:15
by Corsair1963
If, the external Sidewinder pylons have little impact on the overall RCS of the F-35. That would explain why they aren't in a hurry to adapt the F-35's internal weapons bay. To carry six air to air missiles..... :|

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 26 Sep 2018, 00:41
by wrightwing
blain wrote:




Interesting. So the pylon is low observable? To what extent? I would assume the AIM-9X is not.


The frontal RCS of an AIM-9X is very small. (Not first day of war small, but small.)

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 26 Sep 2018, 01:29
by popcorn
Worth noting that the jet knows the rcs it presents with different load configurations and it can detect incoming radar waves and assess the threat level for the pilot.

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 26 Sep 2018, 02:41
by marauder2048
I've always interpreted

"AIM-9X Block II+, which incorporates specialized external materials to enhance aircraft platform survivability."

as some attempt at signature reduction since that variant (which is also confusingly called AIM-9X-3) is only being
procured for the F-35.

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 26 Sep 2018, 03:45
by squirrelshoes
element1loop wrote:and you won't know it's coming
Why not?

An AIM-9X still has a (granted small) radar and optical signature, still burns propellant, and still generates friction heat. What makes this missile immune to frontal radar or rear-aspect MAW system?

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 26 Sep 2018, 08:37
by element1loop
popcorn wrote:AIM-9X blk 2 has a unidirectional data link, not 2-way.


BKII+ is getting the AIM-120's two-way datalink.

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 26 Sep 2018, 08:48
by element1loop
squirrelshoes wrote:
element1loop wrote:and you won't know it's coming
Why not?

An AIM-9X still has a (granted small) radar and optical signature, still burns propellant, and still generates friction heat. What makes this missile immune to frontal radar or rear-aspect MAW system?


It's not a case of immune. It's another system-of-systems advantage which other jets using the same missile can't employ, namely, the Mission Data Files (MDF). DAS or EOTS can both image a BVR opponent, and use the MDF to positively ID the type, then on-the-fly refer to the MDF data on that aircraft to look up its sensor FOVs, and their effective ranges, for the current prevailing conditions, and find the optimal range and relative aspect from which to launch the 9X attack on the IDed target, that's least likely to be detected, tracked or provide early-warning.

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 26 Sep 2018, 10:23
by aasm
element1loop wrote:
squirrelshoes wrote:
element1loop wrote:and you won't know it's coming
Why not?

An AIM-9X still has a (granted small) radar and optical signature, still burns propellant, and still generates friction heat. What makes this missile immune to frontal radar or rear-aspect MAW system?


It's not a case of immune. It's another system-of-systems advantage which other jets using the same missile can't employ, namely, the Mission Data Files (MDF). DAS or EOTS can both image a BVR opponent, and use the MDF to positively ID the type, then on-the-fly refer to the MDF data on that aircraft to look up its sensor FOVs, and their effective ranges, for the current prevailing conditions, and find the optimal range and relative aspect from which to launch the 9X attack on the IDed target, that's least likely to be detected, tracked or provide early-warning.


What would prevent a Typhoon/pirate, Gripen E/F, Rafale F3 etc. to do exactly the same thing? (or for instance the S35 S that just photographed F22 above Syria using OLS) ?

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 26 Sep 2018, 10:45
by element1loop
aasm wrote:
element1loop wrote:It's not a case of immune. It's another system-of-systems advantage which other jets using the same missile can't employ, namely, the Mission Data Files (MDF). DAS or EOTS can both image a BVR opponent, and use the MDF to positively ID the type, then on-the-fly refer to the MDF data on that aircraft to look up its sensor FOVs, and their effective ranges, for the current prevailing conditions, and find the optimal range and relative aspect from which to launch the 9X attack on the IDed target, that's least likely to be detected, tracked or provide early-warning.


What would prevent a Typhoon/pirate, Gripen E/F, Rafale F3 etc. to do exactly the same thing? (or for instance the S35 S that just photographed F22 above Syria using OLS) ?


ahahaha ... yah ok. :doh:

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 26 Sep 2018, 11:22
by squirrelshoes
element1loop wrote:that's least likely to be detected, tracked or provide early-warning.

That's what I was getting at, saying they won't see it coming seemed a bit over the top since it's still a physical missile that can be detected by various sensors and circumstances don't necessarily always allow for an optimal shot.

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 26 Sep 2018, 11:32
by squirrelshoes
aasm wrote:What would prevent a Typhoon/pirate, Gripen E/F, Rafale F3 etc. to do exactly the same thing? (or for instance the S35 S that just photographed F22 above Syria using OLS) ?

They lack the avionics to achieve what elementloop described quite so seamlessly. That's not to say a well trained/experienced pilot couldn't accomplish similar goal of getting to an optimal attack angle without being detected (pilots have been doing it for over 100 years) but there are advantages that 5th gen aircraft have.

No way the SU-35 you referenced is doing it though, that F-22 was probably aware of the SU-35 as soon as he took off and I'm not sure it's possible for a missile to approach an F-22 without the pilot knowing.

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 26 Sep 2018, 13:03
by sferrin
element1loop wrote:
popcorn wrote:AIM-9X blk 2 has a unidirectional data link, not 2-way.


BKII+ is getting the AIM-120's two-way datalink.


A shame it's not getting the 6" motor upgrade they'd originally planned. :cry:

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 26 Sep 2018, 15:15
by element1loop
sferrin wrote:
element1loop wrote:
popcorn wrote:AIM-9X blk 2 has a unidirectional data link, not 2-way.


BKII+ is getting the AIM-120's two-way datalink.


A shame it's not getting the 6" motor upgrade they'd originally planned. :cry:


I'm with you on that and it was a decision driven by no money, as far as I can see. But big-wigs who make these choices also seem to think it's not really needed on the grounds BKII easily met its requirements. I decided to check what was possible so wheeled-out the old 16-bit minizap tool to check the implications of speed altitude and lofts, using BKII open spec. That program doesn't take into account loss of control stability with increasing altitude of loft, so it's overly optimistic as to the practicality of its modeled prediction run's altitude. So knowing that, I plugged in 36k feet launch @ M=0.94, and I got an rmax as far out as 136 km. But that was using a fairly extreme ballistic loft climb to drop the friction. So not realistic, as it went to 150k ft at apogee. :)

Even so, after playing about it looked (to me) as though a 75 km radius energy-hit should be achievable with little problem against a non-alerted target, cruising at altitude. Which was an eye-opener. As you went higher and faster at launch it went out further, of course.

If you look at the fins on the recent versions they have thermally resistant leading-edge treatments, so they can dig into the air stream for longer, at a higher speed. The AIM-9X actually has a lot more fin area as a ratio of missile-mass, as compared to the SLAMMER, so it will be more effective in thin air, to get turned faster, or to maintain altitude stability for longer when coasting.

So I came to the conclusion the BKIII engine was not going to add much because you can't go any higher to take advantage of the thinner air without losing flight stability and stalling it. So all you can do is burn a booster for longer to maintain a very high speed and altitude, for longer. But then you probably run it into some counterproductive heating issues. Plus you get it out to a range where DAS and EOTS lose their res/sensitivity needed to prosecute such a long-range passive BVR kill. So then you'd need to arc-up the radar to finish off the engagement. Which opens up another can of worms for a passive stealth-killer paradigm.

So do you need more range via BKIII boost?

I concluded BKII, with '+' improvements added may be what's needed to get to the 'sweet-spot' where sensor ranges, D/link sensitivity, and missile range corresponds best for an ideal passive BVR ambush energy-kill, with the current combination of technological constraints. Thus AIM-120's datalink becomes necessary because it's higher-gain and sensitivity is required at such range in degraded conditions, whereas the existing datalink's gain wasn't designed to go out that far. So put the Slammer's d/l on it, so it can do a full BVR missile fly-out profile.

Anyway, that's my working 2c thesis.

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 26 Sep 2018, 16:10
by aasm
Even so, after playing about it looked (to me) as though a 75 km radius energy-hit should be achievable with little problem against a non-alerted target, cruising at altitude. Which was an eye-opener. As you went higher and faster at launch it went out further, of course.


Definitely agree a chinese (Taiwanese) MICA (comparable size) killed a drone 67 Kms away. However i guess it is applicable only in extremely favourable conditions.

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 26 Sep 2018, 16:29
by botsing
aasm wrote:Definitely agree a chinese (Taiwanese) MICA (comparable size) killed a drone 67 Kms away. However i guess it is applicable only in extremely favourable conditions.

Networked SA and stealth allows a 5th gen to best position itself before firing on their target.

aasm wrote:What would prevent a Typhoon/pirate, Gripen E/F, Rafale F3 etc. to do exactly the same thing?

Being non-VLO prevents them from taking the best position undetected, so they have to keep a longer distance (which results in a lower sensor-resolution to work with) and they lack the complete sensor suite and high level of data-fusion that networked F-35's have.

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 26 Sep 2018, 20:28
by wrightwing
aasm wrote:


What would prevent a Typhoon/pirate, Gripen E/F, Rafale F3 etc. to do exactly the same thing? (or for instance the S35 S that just photographed F22 above Syria using OLS) ?

Because an F-22 would've already seen and shot them, long before they got close enough to detect the F-22, much less sneak up on it.

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 27 Sep 2018, 09:34
by aasm
Because an F-22 would've already seen and shot them, long before they got close enough to detect the F-22, much less sneak up on it.


If you say so...

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 27 Sep 2018, 10:53
by botsing
aasm wrote:
Because an F-22 would've already seen and shot them, long before they got close enough to detect the F-22, much less sneak up on it.


If you say so...

That is the current understanding after long discussions between experts and pilot reports.

If you like to seed doubt you need to come with solid facts and arguments instead of this simple oneliner.

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 27 Sep 2018, 12:41
by sferrin
aasm wrote:
Even so, after playing about it looked (to me) as though a 75 km radius energy-hit should be achievable with little problem against a non-alerted target, cruising at altitude. Which was an eye-opener. As you went higher and faster at launch it went out further, of course.


Definitely agree a chinese (Taiwanese) MICA (comparable size) killed a drone 67 Kms away. However i guess it is applicable only in extremely favourable conditions.


What are you referring to here?

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 27 Sep 2018, 17:03
by aasm
botsing wrote:
aasm wrote:
Because an F-22 would've already seen and shot them, long before they got close enough to detect the F-22, much less sneak up on it.


If you say so...

That is the current understanding after long discussions between experts and pilot reports.

If you like to seed doubt you need to come with solid facts and arguments instead of this simple oneliner.


Simply put, you are assuming something one cannot prove. There will always be unfavourable situations, whatever the quality of awareness an aircraft can show. F22 is reknown for that, but there is no magic wand allowing it to be ever conscious of everything.

About 9x Mica trial http://www.taiwanairpower.org/af/mirage.html

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 27 Sep 2018, 18:05
by wrightwing
aasm wrote:
Because an F-22 would've already seen and shot them, long before they got close enough to detect the F-22, much less sneak up on it.


If you say so...

Are you suggesting that there's a scenario, where a 4th generation aircraft has a situational awareness advantage over an F-22/35, much less a first look, first shoot, first kill opportunity? You do realize that F-22s and F-35s have flown against AESA and IRST equipped opponents (and on some occasions, those opponents have flown F-22/35s,) and the outcomes have been the same.

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 27 Sep 2018, 18:11
by akelafreedom
Dragon029 wrote:They were deleted at the request of Lockheed due to copyright violation.


Could you please share with only onу page from "F-35 Weapons Design Integration (AIAA 2018-3370)"?

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 27 Sep 2018, 18:43
by sprstdlyscottsmn
wrightwing wrote: You do realize that F-22s and F-35s have flown against AESA and IRST equipped opponents (and on some occasions, those opponents have flown F-22/35s,) and the outcomes have been the same.

and non-emitting little F-5s, so turning off your own radar isn't going to save you.

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 27 Sep 2018, 19:27
by wrightwing
aasm wrote:


Simply put, you are assuming something one cannot prove. There will always be unfavourable situations, whatever the quality of awareness an aircraft can show. F22 is reknown for that, but there is no magic wand allowing it to be ever conscious of everything.

About 9x Mica trial http://www.taiwanairpower.org/af/mirage.html


Au contraire, it's been proven over and over. There has yet to be an instance where any 4th generation jet, spotted a 5th generation jet first. Put differently, there is no situation where a 4th generation jet will enjoy a situational awareness/element of surprise.

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 28 Sep 2018, 00:27
by element1loop
sferrin wrote:
element1loop wrote:
popcorn wrote:AIM-9X blk 2 has a unidirectional data link, not 2-way.


BKII+ is getting the AIM-120's two-way datalink.


A shame it's not getting the 6" motor upgrade they'd originally planned. :cry:


Nicely stated 'Lurp', anyways, getting back to BVR missiles on the F-35s ...

I checked on this a bit more last night with the missile flight-sim runs and as it turned out the 6-inch motor of the BKIII was not an advantage. It has to push more air molecules out of the way during fly-out passage, and with such a light residual missile (after fuel mass burns off) the 6-inch diameter actually reduced AIM-9X BKII range by about 1/7th when compared to the range of the standard 5-inch AIM-9X diameter with no other physical changes made, other than diameter and its drag implication.

So it seems the BKIII engine option got canned not just due to the lack of money but because it offers nothing in extra range (counter-intuitively it does just the reverse) which the BKII engine could not already do, quite a bit better if you just change the NAV fly-out software to true BVR mode, and add the SLAMMER D/L for a genuine medium-range BVR fly-out (while maintaining WVR performance of course). The indicated BVR range available was impressive, either head-to-head, or head-to-beam aspects of engagement.

The thing that really changes the AIM-9X BKII range was adding more propellant mass by reducing the mass proportion of the other sections (the ideal would be make it a hit-to-kill or with a very small frag charge and increase expendable fuel mass accordingly) plus significantly slowing the rate of the fuel burn while lofting by at least 33 degrees nose-up launch condition, for a 33 to 45 degree loft. This resulted in hypersonic flight profiles (M7.5 to M8 was typical) and huge range extensions (which the 6-inch motor was much inferior at). At those speeds stalling at high-altitude of apogee is much less of a concern (though heating during extended flight still is) and the range then goes well beyond the 75 km energy-kill radius that I mentioned.

Frankly we could be very pleasantly surprised at the effective kill radius of a BKII+ as its NAV options and flight profile are tweaked.

I maybe see now why we're not getting a 'new missile', we seem to have just gotten one, by stealth.

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 28 Sep 2018, 01:44
by squirrelshoes
I'm still curious under what mission profiles they'll use the AIM-9X on F-35.

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 28 Sep 2018, 07:53
by marsavian
CAP, interceptions, beast mode self-protection ? It might be as mundane as having Sidewinders but no AMRAAMs to hand. The UK seems to be putting ASRAAMs as standard on their Bs but no gunpod at the moment so different choices from different air forces.

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 28 Sep 2018, 09:02
by krorvik
squirrelshoes wrote:I'm still curious under what mission profiles they'll use the AIM-9X on F-35.


Excellent for QRA - you *want* it visible.

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 28 Sep 2018, 10:05
by aasm
wrightwing wrote:
aasm wrote:


Simply put, you are assuming something one cannot prove. There will always be unfavourable situations, whatever the quality of awareness an aircraft can show. F22 is reknown for that, but there is no magic wand allowing it to be ever conscious of everything.

About 9x Mica trial http://www.taiwanairpower.org/af/mirage.html


Au contraire, it's been proven over and over. There has yet to be an instance where any 4th generation jet, spotted a 5th generation jet first. Put differently, there is no situation where a 4th generation jet will enjoy a situational awareness/element of surprise.


It is not a "one vs one" situation up there. We are not talking about a boxing ring. Other assets 'AWACS, networked IADS etc.), weather, etc. do play an essential role. sttealth is not a 100% insurance of success. And there is certainly more difference, in terms of avionics, between a F16 A/B (thinking about dutch or danish ones e.g.) and a modern Eurocanards or Suhoi/J20 etc. Than between the latter and a F-35 (not to mention F-22).

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 28 Sep 2018, 10:17
by wrightwing
aasm wrote:
wrightwing wrote:
aasm wrote:


Simply put, you are assuming something one cannot prove. There will always be unfavourable situations, whatever the quality of awareness an aircraft can show. F22 is reknown for that, but there is no magic wand allowing it to be ever conscious of everything.

About 9x Mica trial http://www.taiwanairpower.org/af/mirage.html


Au contraire, it's been proven over and over. There has yet to be an instance where any 4th generation jet, spotted a 5th generation jet first. Put differently, there is no situation where a 4th generation jet will enjoy a situational awareness/element of surprise.


It is not a "one vs one" situation up there. We are not talking about a boxing ring. Other assets 'AWACS, networked IADS etc.), weather, etc. do play an essential role. sttealth is not a 100% insurance of success. And there is certainly more difference, in terms of avionics, between a F16 A/B (thinking about dutch or danish ones e.g.) and a modern Eurocanards or Suhoi/J20 etc. Than between the latter and a F-35 (not to mention F-22).


I'm not talking about F-16A/Bs. I'm talking about F-15s with APG-63(v)3/APG-82, F-18s with APG-79, and F-15/16/18 with IRST21/ATFLIR, DRFM jammers, JHMCS II w/ HOBS missiles, etc...

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 28 Sep 2018, 10:18
by wrightwing
F-22/35s will have all the 3rd party assets, too.

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 28 Sep 2018, 10:43
by popcorn
Yes, the opposing side will have all those assets and capabilities but I'd hesitate to say they're on par with what the West has. Plus the 5Gens have been specifically designed to counter existing and projected threat systems so it really boils down to a test of reasonableness supported by available evidence as to who would have the upper hand. As for now, the playing field seems quite tilted against potential foes.

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 28 Sep 2018, 10:44
by akelafreedom
Gentlemen Could you please share with only one page from "F-35 Weapons Design Integration (AIAA 2018-3370)".

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 28 Sep 2018, 11:29
by spazsinbad
akelafreedom wrote:Gentlemen Could you please share with only one page from "F-35 Weapons Design Integration (AIAA 2018-3370)".

I cannot understand what you require. Is it just the graphic you depict OR just the page with the graphics AND/OR including text on that page OR other pages. I could go on but will stop now.

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 28 Sep 2018, 13:13
by aasm
popcorn wrote:Yes, the opposing side will have all those assets and capabilities but I'd hesitate to say they're on par with what the West has. Plus the 5Gens have been specifically designed to counter existing and projected threat systems so it really boils down to a test of reasonableness supported by available evidence as to who would have the upper hand. As for now, the playing field seems quite tilted against potential foes.



Certainly. I only intended to say that assessing 'the F22 will have detected it way before" is a little simplistic.

Btw, i see APG 79. F-35 was opposed to F-18?

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 28 Sep 2018, 14:32
by ricnunes
aasm wrote:
popcorn wrote:Yes, the opposing side will have all those assets and capabilities but I'd hesitate to say they're on par with what the West has. Plus the 5Gens have been specifically designed to counter existing and projected threat systems so it really boils down to a test of reasonableness supported by available evidence as to who would have the upper hand. As for now, the playing field seems quite tilted against potential foes.



Certainly. I only intended to say that assessing 'the F22 will have detected it way before" is a little simplistic.

Btw, i see APG 79. F-35 was opposed to F-18?


I would say that's quite possible.

But even if it didn't the fact that the F-35 (and F-22 as well) was already opposed to F-15s equipped with AN/APG-63(V)3 AESA radars and that the AN/APG-63(V)3 should be more powerful and therefore have better range (versus RCS) compared to the SH's APG-79 or if you prefer also compared to the RBE2-AESA than it doesn't matter much if the F-35 was already opposed to F-18 (I assume Super Hornet) or not...

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 28 Sep 2018, 16:55
by mixelflick
krorvik wrote:
squirrelshoes wrote:I'm still curious under what mission profiles they'll use the AIM-9X on F-35.


Excellent for QRA - you *want* it visible.


I highly question this. More than once I've seen that pylon/sidewinder 9x referred to as low observable. It may not be as LO as when flying "clean", but it's not going to make it mushroom like a B-52, either. In fact, I think it's quite stealthy. We'll know for sure once it starts flying with it in highly contested environments..

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 28 Sep 2018, 17:43
by marsavian
Visible as in intercepted escorted aircraft can actually see the missile when up close showing the F-35 is armed.

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 28 Sep 2018, 19:05
by wrightwing
aasm wrote:
popcorn wrote:Yes, the opposing side will have all those assets and capabilities but I'd hesitate to say they're on par with what the West has. Plus the 5Gens have been specifically designed to counter existing and projected threat systems so it really boils down to a test of reasonableness supported by available evidence as to who would have the upper hand. As for now, the playing field seems quite tilted against potential foes.



Certainly. I only intended to say that assessing 'the F22 will have detected it way before" is a little simplistic.

Btw, i see APG 79. F-35 was opposed to F-18?

F-22s and F-35s have flown against western aircraft, with superior sensors to anything on Flankers, and remained undetected (i.e. can see them visually, but not on radar.) Remember, they were designed to deal with S-300/400 level threats, which have far more powerful sensors than any fighter. It's the range at which F-22/35s can be detected, that are the reasons 4th generation aircraft be detected far sooner. Their best chance of detection is via IRST, which under best case conditions might be ~50km. F-22/35s can detect 4th generation aircraft at many times that distance.

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 28 Sep 2018, 20:34
by akelafreedom
spazsinbad wrote:I cannot understand what you require. Is it just the graphic you depict OR just the page with the graphics AND/OR including text on that page OR other pages. I could go on but will stop now.


Thank You very much! It's exactly what I want.

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 29 Sep 2018, 16:18
by aasm
wrightwing wrote:
aasm wrote:
popcorn wrote:Yes, the opposing side will have all those assets and capabilities but I'd hesitate to say they're on par with what the West has. Plus the 5Gens have been specifically designed to counter existing and projected threat systems so it really boils down to a test of reasonableness supported by available evidence as to who would have the upper hand. As for now, the playing field seems quite tilted against potential foes.



Certainly. I only intended to say that assessing 'the F22 will have detected it way before" is a little simplistic.

Btw, i see APG 79. F-35 was opposed to F-18?

F-22s and F-35s have flown against western aircraft, with superior sensors to anything on Flankers, and remained undetected (i.e. can see them visually, but not on radar.) Remember, they were designed to deal with S-300/400 level threats, which have far more powerful sensors than any fighter. It's the range at which F-22/35s can be detected, that are the reasons 4th generation aircraft be detected far sooner. Their best chance of detection is via IRST, which under best case conditions might be ~50km. F-22/35s can detect 4th generation aircraft at many times that distance.


In their six? (that is just an example), radar turned on? Anw we are going a little bit of topic no?

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 29 Sep 2018, 17:20
by ricnunes
aasm wrote:
wrightwing wrote:
aasm wrote:

Certainly. I only intended to say that assessing 'the F22 will have detected it way before" is a little simplistic.

Btw, i see APG 79. F-35 was opposed to F-18?

F-22s and F-35s have flown against western aircraft, with superior sensors to anything on Flankers, and remained undetected (i.e. can see them visually, but not on radar.) Remember, they were designed to deal with S-300/400 level threats, which have far more powerful sensors than any fighter. It's the range at which F-22/35s can be detected, that are the reasons 4th generation aircraft be detected far sooner. Their best chance of detection is via IRST, which under best case conditions might be ~50km. F-22/35s can detect 4th generation aircraft at many times that distance.


In their six? (that is just an example), radar turned on? Anw we are going a little bit of topic no?


Are you aware that those questions of yours works twofold or for both sides/ways (for the 4th gen fighters and for the F-35) right?

Moreover, saying or implying that Stealth doesn't give a MASSIVE, I repeat MASSIVE advantage over previous 4th/4.5th gen fighter aircraft in detection advantage is the same as someone claiming that fighter aircraft powered by jet engines don't have a massive advantage over propelled-driver fighter aircraft or that an air-to-air missile armed fighter aircraft doesn't have a massive advantage over a fighter aircraft armed with guns only.
If you want to keep with this logic, you might as well claim that the Earth is flat...

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 29 Sep 2018, 18:52
by hythelday
ricnunes wrote:.. claiming that fighter aircraft powered by jet engines don't have a massive advantage over propelled-driver fighter aircraft...


In before he says Me 262 had negative air-to-air "saldo" :D

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 30 Sep 2018, 00:56
by wrightwing
aasm wrote:





In their six? (that is just an example), radar turned on? Anw we are going a little bit of topic no?

A 4th generation aircraft won't know they're on an F-22/35's six, before the F-22/35 is aware, especially if they aren't flying EMCON. That's kind of the point. Both aircraft have 360 degree spherical situational awareness, from multi-spectral sensors/ESM, as well as from 3rd party sharing via datalinks.

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 30 Sep 2018, 10:57
by aasm
Both aircraft have 360 degree spherical situational awareness, from multi-spectral sensors/ESM, as well as from 3rd party sharing via datalinks.


Modern eurocanards also do. Not as well as F-22 in their 6 i must admit ("off" data). But again. Stealth isn't a magic wand. And there WILL be cases where, despite a superior situation awareness where they'll be tricked. Nevermind... OFF TOPIC

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 30 Sep 2018, 14:54
by mixelflick
marsavian wrote:Visible as in intercepted escorted aircraft can actually see the missile when up close showing the F-35 is armed.


Ah, I see. Thank you for the clarification..

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 30 Sep 2018, 22:15
by wrightwing
aasm wrote:
Both aircraft have 360 degree spherical situational awareness, from multi-spectral sensors/ESM, as well as from 3rd party sharing via datalinks.


Modern eurocanards also do. Not as well as F-22 in their 6 i must admit ("off" data). But again. Stealth isn't a magic wand. And there WILL be cases where, despite a superior situation awareness where they'll be tricked. Nevermind... OFF TOPIC

It's not a magic wand, but the 4th gen aircraft have to find the F-22/35, before they can get on its six. Due to stealth, the F-22/35 can see opponents long before they can be spotted. In addition to their on board sensors, they're also networked to myriad other 3rd party sensors. The likelihood of a 4th generation jet getting within hundreds of kilometers of an F-22/35, undetected, is very likely 0%.

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 01 Oct 2018, 16:59
by aasm
It's not a magic wand, but the 4th gen aircraft have to find the F-22/35, before they can get on its six. Due to stealth, the F-22/35 can see opponents long before they can be spotted. In addition to their on board sensors, they're also networked to myriad other 3rd party sensors.


you do realize that eurocanards are also networked don't you? There is way more difference between lets say F16A/B and a gripen ng than between said gripen and F-35 in terms of systems. "4th" gen is a pot in which LM wanted to discard everyother aircrafts bar theirs, but it has no real consistence in its definitions.

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 01 Oct 2018, 17:20
by marsavian
The only way later 4th gens can start to equalize the playing field against stealthy 5th gens is if they can manage to geolocate 5th gens using their RWR/ESM and can get a sufficiently high quality target track from say a pair using their datalinks to set off a BVRAAM. However detecting the APG-81/77 in the first place will not be easy as the way they are sensor fused means they are used sparingly to fill in the dots of the other sensors so the 4th gens will probably be picked up first in the respective RWRs. The F-22/F-35 have big attenna so they will be most likely to win a detection war, active or passive.

Also the 5th gens can detect a missile launched, switch off their radar and do an evasive maneuver and the BVRAAM is then relying on the initial coordinate to get their own radar in range which is the next problem as a small missile radar will have a lot of trouble locking onto a stealthy aircraft even up close which reduces the pK a lot even if the stealthy aircraft remains on the same course. Probably a long range IR aam is the best bet but then you are probably already dead by then from a long range AMRAAM. Great RWR and IRST are the only theoretical ways to combat stealth but stealthy aircraft have them too plus ever increasing computing power to mask their AESAs.

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 01 Oct 2018, 19:28
by ricnunes
aasm wrote:
It's not a magic wand, but the 4th gen aircraft have to find the F-22/35, before they can get on its six. Due to stealth, the F-22/35 can see opponents long before they can be spotted. In addition to their on board sensors, they're also networked to myriad other 3rd party sensors.


"4th" gen is a pot in which LM wanted to discard everyother aircrafts bar theirs, but it has no real consistence in its definitions.


LOL, LOL and LOL!

I admit that it's been awhile since I read this ("hilarious") comment implying that 5th gen fighter aircraft concept is some abstract, PR and publicity "stunt" by LM :roll:
Or, are you trying to even hint that the Eurocannards are 5th gen too? Or, is it that 5th gen doesn't exist at all?

Oh, and the your comment that the 5th gen (versus 4th) concept "has no real consistence" is also so hilarious that goes against the fact that even your country's (France I believe?) top air force officials admits the superiority of the F-35 against the 4th gen (like the Rafale) and your country together with Germany is trying to figure out how to build one of those fighter aircraft based on LM(tm) "thin air" 5th concept... The same goes with Russia and China as well!
Well I guess that for you the Earth is really flat indeed...

While a 5th gen aircraft is also about network and sensor fusion (which in part could be in theory be "retrofitted" on 4th gen fighter aircraft), there's something that clearly and above all makes the 5th gen fighter aircraft like the F-22 or F-35 apart from the 4th gen fighter aircraft like the Eurocannards:
Stealth, Stealth and Stealth!

It doesn't matter how to put it. Stealth is here to stay as the previous examples that I gave about of Jet Engines and Air-to-Air missiles. Stealth will again give you a MASSIVE advantage because it limits the ONLY SENSOR that is capable of DETECTING an aircraft at LONG RANGE with its RADAR OFF in ALL WEATHER conditions - That sensor is of course the "ubiquitous" RADAR. And it's not only the fighter/interceptor aircraft that use the radar as its main sensor. The main sensor of the platforms are more important at "feeding the network" such as AWACS and ground stations is also, surprise, surprise... the RADAR! :wink:
You can come up with IRST. But even the best ones do NOT work in all weather conditions. You have a cloud between you and the enemy aircraft? IRST is NOT going to detect it!
You can come up with ESM. But if the enemy aircraft is not emitting than again you are NOT going to detect it!
The Radar detects aircraft in all the condition above, unless the enemy aircraft is... lets see... STEALTH! :wink:

About your "potential tricks" for try to get down/lure a 5th gen fighter aircraft, think this way:
- Those SAME TRICKS will work even and way, way better against 4th gen fighter aircraft!

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 01 Oct 2018, 19:53
by wrightwing
aasm wrote:
It's not a magic wand, but the 4th gen aircraft have to find the F-22/35, before they can get on its six. Due to stealth, the F-22/35 can see opponents long before they can be spotted. In addition to their on board sensors, they're also networked to myriad other 3rd party sensors.


you do realize that eurocanards are also networked don't you? There is way more difference between lets say F16A/B and a gripen ng than between said gripen and F-35 in terms of systems. "4th" gen is a pot in which LM wanted to discard everyother aircrafts bar theirs, but it has no real consistence in its definitions.

Having Link 16 doesn't automatically make you a 5th generation peer. The individual sensors and fusion engines on the Eurocanards are not on par with F-22/35 systems. Those aircraft would be contemporaries of the F-18E/F.

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 01 Oct 2018, 20:14
by SpudmanWP
Not to mention that using Link16 is turning on a huge "Hey guys, I'm over here" beacon in the new ESM meta that air warfare is becoming. That is also why the EF's "active" radar-based MAWS is a bad thing to actually have turned on.

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 02 Oct 2018, 00:36
by wrightwing
lrrpf52 wrote:
[



Rear aspect best-case detection range for OLS-35 is 90km. In that imagination, you have to sneak up on an F-35 4-ship and sensor network, then get within 20km to get range data, and you still won't know what it is because TGT reco isn't going to magically happen until closer, and in cooperation with the PESA. Go ahead and light up a PESA in theater in see what happens, if you magically remained undetected until that point.

But we're talking about launching BVR missiles at the F-35 still after all of this? Doesn't make sense. There's a reason Russian embarked on the PAK-FA, and it wasn't because they wanted a cool new airplane.

That 90km detection range is against afterburning targets, too. That means the Flanker would have to get within 90km undetected, and then catch up to the supersonic F-35. How much fuel would it take to close 70km in a supersonic tail chase, when you might be able to fly at M1.6 with weapons? Aside from a Mig-31 or maybe F-22, no fighters have the catch up speed.

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 02 Oct 2018, 00:53
by lbk000
How do you get within 50 miles of something you don't know the location of again?

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 02 Oct 2018, 02:58
by squirrelshoes
lrrpf52 wrote:I see a discussion about launching BVR missiles at the F-35, but it's missing the steps that got to that point

Indeed, I've seen some hilariously fantastic scenarios typed up that usual ignore things like actual optimal cruising speeds/altitudes and performance limitations related to lugging around 8 large AAMs under the wings, but they also tend to ignore the fact that US fighters almost always come in (at least) pairs. How do these SU-35s that magically spend all day flying around at 60k feet at mach 2 defeat two 5th gens flying 20 miles apart where one is scanning LPI and the other isn't pushing any RF? Ain't gonna happen.


wrightwing wrote:That 90km detection range is against afterburning targets, too. That means the Flanker would have to get within 90km undetected, and then catch up to the supersonic F-35. How much fuel would it take to close 70km in a supersonic tail chase, when you might be able to fly at M1.6 with weapons? Aside from a Mig-31 or maybe F-22, no fighters have the catch up speed.

Bonus = what are the chances an F-35s rear facing sensors don't pick up a fighter flying that fast with full afterburners before they are in range to get a firing track?

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 02 Oct 2018, 13:17
by ricnunes
wrightwing wrote:That 90km detection range is against afterburning targets, too.


And this again, with clear weather. If you happen to have a cloud cover between both aircraft than the IRST is not even going to pick up an afterburning aircraft.

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 02 Oct 2018, 17:57
by element1loop
lrrpf52 wrote: ... how many A2A encounters are going to require 16 x AIM-120D?


Very few probably, as 16 SDB just hit their shelters.

We're not far from this now, as you can have two AIM-120D in one bay, and one AIM-120D in the other, plus four SDB.

16 SDB
8 AIM-9X
12 AIM-120D

How many A2A encounters are going to require 20 BVR capable AAMs?

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 03 Oct 2018, 11:26
by aasm
wrightwing wrote:
aasm wrote:
It's not a magic wand, but the 4th gen aircraft have to find the F-22/35, before they can get on its six. Due to stealth, the F-22/35 can see opponents long before they can be spotted. In addition to their on board sensors, they're also networked to myriad other 3rd party sensors.


you do realize that eurocanards are also networked don't you? There is way more difference between lets say F16A/B and a gripen ng than between said gripen and F-35 in terms of systems. "4th" gen is a pot in which LM wanted to discard everyother aircrafts bar theirs, but it has no real consistence in its definitions.

Having Link 16 doesn't automatically make you a 5th generation peer. The individual sensors and fusion engines on the Eurocanards are not on par with F-22/35 systems. Those aircraft would be contemporaries of the F-18E/F.


How do you know the part about fusion engines not being on par?

LOL, LOL and LOL!
OMGZ LMFAO KIKOO i'm OWNED!

we are not in schoolyard are we?

If you had bothered reading what i wrote... Never talked about 5th Gen. Just sayed 4th gen is so heterogenous that these aircrafts should not be put into a single category for comparisons.

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 03 Oct 2018, 12:25
by wrightwing
aasm wrote:



How do you know the part about fusion engines not being on par?



I'm not going to revisit years of reading, to disprove a negative.
Not even Eurofighter/Dassault/SAAB make such ridiculous claims. Suffice it to say, the F-35s systems compile data in orders of magnitude larger and faster. We're not talking about a 10 or 20% improvement. We're talking dial up vs high speed internet, in capabilities.

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 03 Oct 2018, 13:53
by aasm
wrightwing wrote:
aasm wrote:



How do you know the part about fusion engines not being on par?



I'm not going to revisit years of reading, to disprove a negative.
Not even Eurofighter/Dassault/SAAB make such ridiculous claims. Suffice it to say, the F-35s systems compile data in orders of magnitude larger and faster. We're not talking about a 10 or 20% improvement. We're talking dial up vs high speed internet, in capabilities.


Sorry, but what you say is quite unsubstantiated. Do you know their respective calculators performances ? (perso I don't), algorithms etc. ? Gripen NG for example is more recent than F-35 isn't it ? As i said, 4th gen is very variable so comparing plane X vs 4th gen is rather unmeaningful. What do you compare it with? F-16 block 20/30? Gripen NG? World apart!

Do not misunderstand me. I do think the F-35 networking as being the most advanced ever atm. AND as its greatest stregnth. But again, do not say "it is networked, the others arent". Gripen NG for example has satcom and also an IFDL...

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 03 Oct 2018, 15:00
by wrightwing
aasm wrote:
wrightwing wrote:
aasm wrote:



How do you know the part about fusion engines not being on par?



I'm not going to revisit years of reading, to disprove a negative.
Not even Eurofighter/Dassault/SAAB make such ridiculous claims. Suffice it to say, the F-35s systems compile data in orders of magnitude larger and faster. We're not talking about a 10 or 20% improvement. We're talking dial up vs high speed internet, in capabilities.


Sorry, but what you say is quite unsubstantiated. Do you know their respective calculators performances ? (perso I don't), algorithms etc. ? Gripen NG for example is more recent than F-35 isn't it ? As i said, 4th gen is very variable so comparing plane X vs 4th gen is rather unmeaningful. What do you compare it with? F-16 block 20/30? Gripen NG? World apart!

Do not misunderstand me. I do think the F-35 networking as being the most advanced ever atm. AND as its greatest stregnth. But again, do not say "it is networked, the others arent". Gripen NG for example has satcom and also an IFDL...

F-35 vs Typhoon, Rafale, and Gripen as they exist. Not how they may exist in 2025. The F-35 will look a lot different in 2025, as well.

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 03 Oct 2018, 15:30
by SpudmanWP
There are several items that show that the amount of data that the fuses is higher than any 4th gen jet:
1. There are more sensors involved (EODAS is unique and it always has a FLIR & IRST)
2. The sensors gather more granular data (AESA vs traditional radar, improved EOTS, EODAS, etc)
3. The Data Link transmits raw data, not just tracks and is "always on"
4. The ICP (computer) will be getting 25x more powerful (Block 4.2) before Gripen NG goes IOC
5. Australian Parliamentary testimony stated that the typical 4th gen jet can ID a target using a dozen or so parameters, the200 and the 600 parameters.

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 03 Oct 2018, 16:21
by aasm
SpudmanWP wrote:There are several items that show that the amount of data that the fuses is higher than any 4th gen jet:
1. There are more sensors involved (EODAS is unique and it always has a FLIR & IRST)
2. The sensors gather more granular data (AESA vs traditional radar, improved EOTS, EODAS, etc)
3. The Data Link transmits raw data, not just tracks and is "always on"
4. The ICP (computer) will be getting 25x more powerful (Block 4.2) before Gripen NG goes IOC
5. Australian Parliamentary testimony stated that the typical 4th gen jet can ID a target using a dozen or so parameters, the200 and the 600 parameters.


EODAS unique? Best ould be closer to reality (e.g. DDM-NG)
Sensor gather more granular data. AESA isn't a specific of 5th gen is it? EOTS neither
Datalink. Gripen also has IFDL. In fact Sweden was the very first country to build such a system.
All computers are evolving.
Typical australian4th gen is well... Somehow completely outdated. That's exactly that type of aircraft i had in mind when i said "4th " gen is so heterogenous that it should not be considered as a whole.

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 03 Oct 2018, 16:22
by aasm
F-35 vs Typhoon, Rafale, and Gripen as they exist. Not how they may exist in 2025. The F-35 will look a lot different in 2025, as well.


you have insights on their data fusing capabilities? Please let me know, i'm genuinely interested.

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 03 Oct 2018, 16:41
by spazsinbad
NOT a bad overview of SENSOR FUSION for the F-35 and of course there are other explanations - often on this forum:
Elite Engineering: The Brain of the F-35
LM PR 14 Apr 2015

"...Pieces of the Puzzle
F-35 fusion has the ability to take partial data from each sensor and combine it to make an accurate assessment. It not only combines data, but figures out what additional information is needed and automatically tasks sensors to gather it—without the pilot ever having to ask.

Given this unique capability, the way F-35 sensors had to adjust how they “think about” and report incoming data to take full advantage of the fusion system.

“Fusion is the core of our 5th Generation system,” Kent remarks. “We’re asking the sensors to send us not only their answer, but we want to know the reasoning and details behind that answer. That is what we combine during fusion to give us the whole picture.”...

The Fusion Evolution
While the concept for fusion was first conceived in the 1970s on the F-15 program, no one ever fully succeeded in standing it up in an aircraft system until the F-22.

With 18 years spent as a representative on the F-22 fusion team, Tom is one of only a handful of people who have intimate knowledge of both the F-35 and F-22 fusion systems.

“Some innovations had to happen mathematically to deal with data the way they were sharing it before the F-22” he says. “By the time the F-22 came along, the computers and technology finally caught up, and we launched the first real 5th Generation fusion on an aircraft.”

That was “Fusion 1.0.” The F-35 takes it one step further.

“The F-35 not only has the ability to proactively collect and analyze data, but it adds the ability to share it amongst the fleet and work as a pack,” he explains. “That’s ‘Fusion 2.0.’”..."

Source: https://www.f35.com/in-depth/detail/eli ... f-the-f-35

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 03 Oct 2018, 16:57
by SpudmanWP
aasm wrote:EODAS unique? Best ould be closer to reality (e.g. DDM-NG)
While the sensor itself is IIR based, the DDM-NG does not provide that image to the avionics system. It only serves as a MAWS/MLD. The same holds true of the F-22's MLD/MAWS (eg IIR based but only does MLD/MAWS).

Sensor gather more granular data. AESA isn't a specific of 5th gen is it? EOTS neither
The APG-81 is unarguably better than any 4th gen AESA and thereby provides more data to be fused. It also fictions as part of the ESM in both active and passive functions.

Datalink. Gripen also has IFDL. In fact Sweden was the very first country to build such a system.
The MADL is "always on" and links up to 25 nodes, the IFDL does 4 IIRC. MADL will also likely be a "fatter pipe" to allow for more data to be shared.

All computers are evolving.
No doubt, just remember that the people with the biggest budgets can evolve faster.

Typical australian4th gen is well... Somehow completely outdated.

It was an Australian General testifying under oath about a technical capability. Note that he also mentioned that the F-35 out performed the F-22 in this area by a wide margin.

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 03 Oct 2018, 17:46
by spazsinbad
This quote is repeated several times in/on this forum: viewtopic.php?f=62&t=52626&p=375650&hilit=Osley#p375650
& viewtopic.php?f=22&t=52482&p=359635&hilit=Osley#p359635 MORE TEXT: viewtopic.php?f=22&t=27994&p=303055&hilit=Osley#p303055 AyYiYi: viewtopic.php?f=62&t=25198&p=266896&hilit=Osley#p266896
Department of Defence annual report 2010-11
16 MARCH 2012 CANBERRA BY AUTHORITY OF THE PARLIAMENT page 61-62

“...Air Vice Marshal Osley: The F-35 will play to its strengths using low observability and using better situational awareness. Its aim would be not to get within visual range. It does not need to be within visual range because of the sensors it has on board. I mentioned before that it has perhaps three times the software and therefore the discrimination of other modern aircraft. Its strength is its ability to recognise and identify an enemy aircraft at beyond visual range well ahead of the other aircraft —...

...And so the strength of the joint strike fighter—and I use this as an example — is that it has the ability to have up to 650 parameters by which it will identify a potential threat out there. Other aircraft, such as the F-22 have about a third of that and fourth-generation aircraft have perhaps half a dozen. So if you are in an F-18 or in some of the other Soviet aircraft you only have a very limited understanding of what the threat is and being able to identify it at a distance. If we are able to do as we plan with the F-35, and that is to have good access to the software and to be able to program it appropriately with mission data, it will have the ability to identify hostile aircraft at quite a considerable distance. Then decisions will be made within the formation, it will play to its strengths and it will defeat it, but not by going within visual range....”

Source: http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/dow ... ficial.pdf (0.8Mb)

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 03 Oct 2018, 19:07
by aasm
While the sensor itself is IIR based, the DDM-NG does not provide that image to the avionics system. It only serves as a MAWS/MLD. The same holds true of the F-22's MLD/MAWS (eg IIR based but only does MLD/MAWS).


Again, that is a negative assumption. None of us has any clue that , for example, DDM-NG do not feed the the data fusion system. Even Mica IR sensor do.

The APG-81 is unarguably better than any 4th gen AESA and thereby provides more data to be fused. It also fictions as part of the ESM in both active and passive functions.


Possible. unarguably? Why? afterall it is older than Raven ES05, RBE2 AESA, not to say about Captor E

The MADL is "always on" and links up to 25 nodes, the IFDL does 4 IIRC. MADL will also likely be a "fatter pipe" to allow for more data to be shared.


I refered as IFDL for intraflight datalink, not the F-22's. Can't remember the name of the present swedish datalink. MADL is in K band isn't it? Has its own issues (small range for example). MADL is already 25 nodes? And do we have numbers about its output, do we?

F-18 or in some of the other Soviet aircraft
Frankly, aussie F-18 are kind of prehistoric in terms of avionics...


Once again i do not intend to deny the excellent sensor and communication suite the F-35 owns, probably the best atm. However, comparing it to "fourth gen" is imho meaningless considering the huge differences between lets say a danish F-16C and a Rafale F3R or Gripen NG.

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 03 Oct 2018, 19:25
by ricnunes
aasm wrote: OMGZ LMFAO KIKOO i'm OWNED!

we are not in schoolyard are we?


Sometimes it seems indeed that it's you who's in some sort of a schoolyard.
Let's recap:
- First you come up here "fantasying" about some "magical tactics" that could somehow level the advantage that 5th gen aircraft (like the F-35) definitely have over 4th gen and that those "magical tactics" would give the 4th gen fighter aircraft a fighting chance against the 5th gen.
- Then and for example you were reminded that such "magical tactics" would work even better against 4th gen fighter aircraft than against 5th which means that the 5th gen advantage could even be bigger in such circumstances.
- After this, you claimed that 4th gen "doesn't exist" and is some sort of LM's PR.

With all due respect, this (specially the last part) is a schoolyard type of rethoric!


aasm wrote:If you had bothered reading what i wrote... Never talked about 5th Gen. Just sayed 4th gen is so heterogenous that these aircrafts should not be put into a single category for comparisons.


Care to name a single jet fighter aircraft generation which is homogeneous (as opposed to heterogeneous)??
Lets see, starting with 1st gen where you have aircraft like the F-86 or Mig-15 which were day-fighters/dogfighters while in the same gen (1st) you also had so different aircraft like the F-94 or the CF-100 which were all-weather interceptors. Do you want a more heterogeneous gen than the 1st one??
And what about the 2nd gen and 3rd generation? For example, would you classify the F-8 Crusader a 2nd or a 3rd generation fighter aircraft? This is really a honest question which again honestly, I don't know the answer.
So IMO I have no doubts in categorizing the 4th gen as probably the "most homogeneous" of all initial 4 generations of fighter aircraft. Only the 5th gen would IMO be "more homogeneous" but then again this is because this new gen is very, very recent.
Moreover, the newest 4th gen fighter aircraft like the Super Hornet, Rafale, Typhoon, Gripen NG and Su-35 are often categorized as being 4.5 gen, which makes things even more homogeneous (and less heterogenous as per your claim).

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 03 Oct 2018, 19:46
by ricnunes
aasm wrote:
While the sensor itself is IIR based, the DDM-NG does not provide that image to the avionics system. It only serves as a MAWS/MLD. The same holds true of the F-22's MLD/MAWS (eg IIR based but only does MLD/MAWS).


Again, that is a negative assumption. None of us has any clue that , for example, DDM-NG do not feed the the data fusion system. Even Mica IR sensor do.


Because it is stated by the manufacturer itself that it (DDM-NG) currently only works as a MAWS/MLD?
Source here:
https://www.mbda-systems.com/product/ddm-ng/

The same also applies to the F-22's MLD/MAWS.
The F-35's DAS does indeed have more functionalities (for example IRST, navigation, etc...) besides of course the MLD/MAWS functions, all of this is implicitly and explicitly stated by the manufacturer itself.



aasm wrote:
The APG-81 is unarguably better than any 4th gen AESA and thereby provides more data to be fused. It also fictions as part of the ESM in both active and passive functions.


Possible. unarguably? Why? afterall it is older than Raven ES05, RBE2 AESA, not to say about Captor E


So according to your logic when the Su-27 first came out it was or could be more advanced compared to the F/A-18 (when it came out) because the F/A-18 was older than the Su-27...

The reasons why the APG-81 is more advanced than the Raven ES05, RBE2 AESA, etc... were already debated to the death here.
And speaking about schoolyard discussions/debates...

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 04 Oct 2018, 03:51
by spazsinbad
On previous page this thread there was talk about F-35 SENSOR FUSION - here is some more but....

download/file.php?id=27755 "you are not authorized to download this attachment" DUNNO AHA! it is a banned PDF so I'll have to excerpt a page or three.... F-35 Information Fusion This is complicated so I'll REGRESS to some graphics....
"Information fusion is a set of algorithms that combines data from all sources to create an integrated view of the environment to provide situational awareness. Fusion is a core attribute of the F-35, designed into the mission systems from initial conception. The F-35 Information Fusion development leveraged experience from past fusion projects across the corporation and industry. However, there were some fundamental architectural decisions and algorithmic solutions that are unique to the F-35 concept of operation. This paper discusses some of the key design decisions and features that shaped the final F-35 Information Fusion solution.

5th Generation fighters, with their diverse sensor suites and multirole mission sets, require some form of information fusion to support the pilot’s situational awareness (Fig. 1). The F-35 avionics suite comprises several complementary sensors and off-board datalinks but is a single-seat fighter with no weapon systems operator. Without some form of information fusion, the pilot would be left to manually correlate sensor and datalink tracks together, while executing tactical air, land, and sea missions while also trying to fly the aircraft. This combination of factors can increase pilot workload and quickly lead to an overwhelming amount of displayed information. Information fusion algorithms aggregate the onboard and off-board sensor information to provide a complete and accurate representation of the environment, resulting in an increase in situational awareness, which is the ultimate goal of fusion.

Fig. 1 Information fusion is a set of algorithms that combines data from all sources to create an integrated view of the environment.

The terms data fusion, sensor fusion, and information fusion are often used interchangeably, and yet these terms have subtle distinctive connotations within the community. The Joint Directors of Laboratories (JDL) Data Fusion Model defines a useful categorization of fusion algorithms and techniques used in the solution of many general fusion problems [11]. They define data fusion as the combining of information to estimate or predict the current or future state of the environment. Level 1 fusion is focused on object assessment. Level 1 fusion algorithms include: (1) data association algorithms, which determine whether information from multiple sources describes the same object; and (2) state estimation algorithms, which estimate the current (and, in some cases, future) state of the physical object in the environment. The estimate includes both the kinematic state (e.g., position, velocity) and an estimate of the object’s identification (ID). Level 2 fusion focuses on aggregating the Level 1 objects, inferring relationships between/among the objects and corresponding events, and assessing the unfolding situation. Level 3 fusion assesses the impact of perceived, anticipated, or planned actions in the context of the unfolding situation, for instance, in terms of lethality and survivability. Level 4 fusion is focused on process refinement, including sensor resource management or sensor feedback to modify sensor actions and refine the overall situational picture....

...VIII. Co-operative Sensing
The F-35 MADL was designed to support full sharing of information among aircraft. MADL bandwidth supports the exchange of all air and surface tracks between/among participants within the flight group. Given that each F-35 has multiple sensors detecting multiple targets – and sometimes spurious signals – this can lead to the exchange of numerous, potentially duplicative tracks over MADL. Therefore, the F-35 places limits on the kinds of tracks and associated information that can be transmitted over the link.

For MADL distribution, a single F-35 system track is divided into three messages: the basic MADL surveillance track, extended combat ID (XID), and RF parametric extensions. The basic surveillance track provides the independent kinematic state estimate and track covariance at the time of the last measurement update. It is important to note that the kinematic estimate for a sent track can be either ranged or angle-only (no observed range). This distinction becomes important for advanced multi-ship tracking techniques, such as angle/angle ranging or time difference of arrival (TDOA), described later. The MADL surveillance track also includes a list of sensors contributing to this track, as well as ID summary data. The XID message contains a higher-fidelity ID ambiguity list, in addition to ID measurements (e.g., IFF). The RF parametric message contains the electronic signal measurement (ESM) data correlated to this track. The sharing of this detailed information allows each aircraft to leverage the spatial diversity of the flight group.

One of the initial multi-ship capabilities of the F-35 was the ability to cooperatively range airborne emitters by finding the intersection (or point of nearest approach) for angle-only tracks on two or more different aircraft (Fig. 8]….

IX. Summary
The F-35 Information Fusion software combines information from both onboard and off-board data sources, providing the pilot with advanced capabilities not available on legacy aircraft. Further, this extensible approach to information fusion leverages the spatial and spectral diversity among multiple F-35 wingmen, creating an innovative tactical network where data is shared instantaneously with other F-35s and legacy aircraft. The F-35 Information Fusion implementation of data association, state estimation, and combat ID ensures that the pilot has accurate situational awareness, allowing for advanced target detection, tracking, and tactical employment. The autonomous sensor manager provides timely reaction to a changing environment and ensures that all tracks are refined to a prespecified quality based on priority, allowing the pilot to return to the role of tactician. The F-35 MADL provides sufficient bandwidth for complete sharing of detailed fusion solutions and accuracies for all air and surface targets, resulting in improved situational awareness for all pilots in the MADL network. Using data-sharing methods to ensure that the data pedigree is maintained, the MADL information can be processed like a remote sensor, resulting in improved accuracies and new capabilities."

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 04 Oct 2018, 11:16
by element1loop
aasm wrote:Typical australian4th gen is well... Somehow completely outdated. That's exactly that type of aircraft i had in mind when i said "4th " gen is so heterogenous that it should not be considered as a whole.


FYI, I reported within a dead thread recently that Thai Gripen were at the recent month-long "Exercise Pitch Black" airpower exercise in Northern Australia, along with Indian Su30MKIs, French Rafale, F-16 and F-15 from several countries, including the USA, and several other types as well.

At the end of the first week of the exercise the leader of the RAAF force reported to camera that RAAF Hornets [F/A-18A which are heavily upgraded of course] supported by Growlers, had achieved an A2A kill-exchange ratio of ...

78 : 3


So you're sorta talking out of your posterior vent again, about things you don't grasp, which is your defining-characteristic for which you have only yourself to blame.

I considerably doubt that an equal number of Gripen would survive long in a fight with RAAF Hornets and the systems-of-systems approach that's been developed for them as there's just a little bit more to it than the jet. Which is why you continually (obviously willfully) fail to comprehend how hopelessly obsolete Gripen now is.

But if your country's airforce is flush enough and has the time and dedication, and wished to prove a point, they could always come the next Exercise Pitch Black, and show us what Gripen can do.

I must mention though that next time there will be RAAF F-35A present, but maybe you can ask them to go easy on you.

Your country's airforce would be very welcome, I'm sure, and we wouldn't even be rude about the unmitigated thrashing that they'll be getting. All among friends of course.

Put your Gripen where your mouth is. Come on down! We'll have you. :mrgreen:

https://www.airforce.gov.au/news-and-ev ... itch-black

Send them an email, they'd love the correspondence.

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 04 Oct 2018, 16:43
by aasm
So you're sorta talking out of your posterior vent again, about things you don't grasp, which is your defining-characteristic for which you have only yourself to blame.


I am sorry, i dutifully tried to take example on you. Couldn't properly immitate the unique scent of your "talks" apparently of course, i do not spend my time grasping my anatomy.

Thai Gripen are outdated, i agree. Nothing to do with Gripen NG. And Assie F-18 are heavily modernized (like swiss, canadian etc.) but on the verge to be replaced... no data fusion, rwr, AESA.... Nothing to compare with superhornets or recent gripens (MS20) Sure WITH Growlers (NOT and original F/A 18, is it) it is another problem.

Just putting F-18 and F18 E/F in the same generation is abusive.

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 04 Oct 2018, 17:43
by element1loop
aasm wrote:Thai Gripen are outdated, i agree. Nothing to do with Gripen NG. And Assie F-18 are heavily modernized (like swiss, canadian etc.) but on the verge to be replaced... no data fusion, rwr, AESA.... Nothing to compare with superhornets or recent gripens (MS20) Sure WITH Growlers (NOT and original F/A 18, is it) it is another problem.

Just putting F-18 and F18 E/F in the same generation is abusive.


Again, you just don't know what you're talking about. The F/A-18A/Bs were updated continuously from 1999 to 2012 and by about 2004-5 they had a spec that was remarkably close to that of the F/A18E of the day. So they were in the same generation as SH in capabilities at that point. And the connectivity and functionality with the off-board systems has gone ahead in leaps since then. That is why they work in so well with RAAF's SuperHornets and Growlers, they talk through the same systems, and they share the same data. That's why they worked so well in in A2A against what are often incorrectly presumed to be more capable jets. The 78:3 kill ratio is the truth of that matter.

As for your other absurd nonsense.

“ … Saab delivered three Gripens in April 2013, and three more in September 2013.[216], Air Force Marshal Prajin Jantong stated that Thailand is interested in purchasing six aircraft more in the near future, pending government approval. … “


The Thai Gripens are five years old, they're barely into FOC! :roll: :doh:

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 04 Oct 2018, 18:55
by marsavian
From accounts it appears that the blue air force that participated in that 78:3 asset escort exercise consisted of (E)F-18A/F/G, US/Singapore/Indonesia F-16, Su-30MKi, Gripen along with E-7 AWACS. The only participants specifically not mentioned are Rafale, F-15, USMC/Malaysia F-18C/D but they may have been included in the 'bunch of aircraft designed to escort transports'. No composition of Red Air was given. I suspect the Blue Air won mainly because of the E-7 and Growlers support (hinted in the second link) as it seems Blue and Red Air were quite mixed maybe with the same aircraft even.

http://aviationphotodigest.com/pitch-bl ... woe-to-go/
http://aviationphotodigest.com/we-seek- ... ike-first/
https://www.airforce.gov.au/exercises/P ... g-aircraft

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 05 Oct 2018, 09:02
by aasm
Again, i basically meant that 4th gen is too wide a category to be compared to other aircrafts. Aussie FA18/A/B might be better than i thought, however 1) they are going to be replaced (aswell as swiss, canadian and finnish) 2) do not fit in modern fouth gen due to lack of AESA. I do not consider Gripen A/B as a very modern aircraft, except on MS-20 upgrades (maybe), with radar enhancements and moreover Meteor integration.

No more, no use being rude.

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 05 Oct 2018, 19:21
by ricnunes
aasm wrote:Again, i basically meant that 4th gen is too wide a category to be compared to other aircrafts.


aasm wrote:Just putting F-18 and F18 E/F in the same generation is abusive.


You didn't you read a single word if what I previously posted, did you?

Just because the SH, Rafale, Typhoon or Gripen NG are more modern and in general terms and generally speaking have more modern avionics such as like you mentioned, AESA radar or some form of sensor fusion doesn't warrant putting these aircraft into a whole new generation.
Apart from having more modern systems in terms of generational leaps there's not much of a different, namely conceptually, between a legacy Hornet and a Super Hornet for example.

Moreover, previously you mentioned the F-16. I guess that you could say that the F-16C (starting from Block 30) would be a new generation compared to the F-16A (Block 5 for example) but the vast majority of people would certainly disagree with you, at least I would! What would be the generational/conceptual differences between a F-16A and a F-16C and between a Legacy Hornet and a Super Hornet? No much if any, I'm pretty sure of!
Also if we look at the latest F-16 variant, the Block 70 wouldn't this aircraft belong and rightfully so into the same gen as a SH, Rafale, etc...? So according to your own argument, the F-16 would exist into 3 different generations but then again how could this be, if we're taking about the same aircraft (albeit, like everything else begin modernized)? Starting to get the idea, or not?

Another example that I could give you: Look at the F-104 Starfighter. This is a second generation fighter aircraft right? I guess a few here have doubts about this and why? Because the 2nd gen of jet fighter aircraft was the first generation to bring supersonic (level) flight capability together with some initial radar and air-to-air missiles capability, in which the F-104 fits perfectly.
However if we look at the most advanced F-104 Starfighter variant the Italian F-104S, this one brought BVR air-to-air combat capabilities (this case with Aspide missiles), capabilities that were first seen on 3rd gen fighter aircraft. But just because the 2nd gen F-104 got some 3rd gen warfighting capabilities does this make it automatically a 3rd gen fighter aircraft as well as for example the F-4 Phantom, Mig-23, Mig-25, etc...? I don't think so!
Generational leaps are much more than just retrofitting some of the new technologies onto older gen designs. In the case of the newest generation (the 5th gen) it MUST forcibly include Stealth, something that you just cannot retrofit onto aircraft like Super Hornet, Rafale, Typhoon, Gripen NG, Su-35, etc...!

But even thou and in order to cater "the needs/oppinion" of people like you, these newer 4th gen fighter aircraft (SH, Rafale, Typhoon, Gripen NG, Su-35) are considered to be 4.5th gen fighter aircraft - this consideration is even acknowledged by the manufacturers of these (4.5th) aircraft - so be happy with this!


aasm wrote:No more, no use being rude.


If you didn't keep ignoring others posts while at the same time keep posting your same and already debunked argument(s), over and over again, maybe people would be "less rude" to you here, no?

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 06 Oct 2018, 15:38
by aasm
So according to your own definitions, stealth is the generation differentiator and F-117 is a fifth gen?

I'd prefer saying that fifth gen is a force multiplier and that stealth is ONE of multiple capabilities allowing it. But we are far from the original discussion...
5th gen is the paramount of multirole airplanes. And first steps into 6th gen. Paramount will change when capacities, instead of being pulled into a single platform, will be directed by highly networked and specialized assets at a desired effect whatever the platform. (at least it is my opinion)

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 06 Oct 2018, 16:11
by marsavian
Of course F-117 was fifth gen, it wrecked the Iraqis in the early attacks in Desert Storm with previously unheard of impunity. The jump from fourth to fifth is a lot bigger in real capability then third to fourth or second to third. It's like the difference in having radar and not having it. Having missiles and not having them.

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 06 Oct 2018, 16:16
by botsing
aasm wrote:So according to your own definitions, stealth is the generation differentiator and F-117 is a fifth gen?

Another fallacy and dare I say it, a strawman.

In the same category as "a swallow can fly, so everything that flies is a swallow..."

Now you only need to argue if it was an African or European one. :mrgreen:

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 06 Oct 2018, 16:51
by aasm
marsavian wrote:Of course F-117 was fifth gen, it wrecked the Iraqis in the early attacks in Desert Storm with previously unheard of impunity. The jump from fourth to fifth is a lot bigger in real capability then third to fourth or second to third. It's like the difference in having radar and not having it. Having missiles and not having them.


I nderstand what you mean. The only thing i wanted to underline is that the definition of a gen is a complex matter and that saying "vs 4th gen" is abusive. "vs F-16 block 10" and vs "Typhoon PE4" for example are a whole different matter.
There will ALWAYS be some situations, be it faulty planification/piloting, tricky adversary, pure unluck, huge numbers of adversaries etc. wherer 5th gen or not, an aircraft can be in trouble. No more. I don't see what is so shocking?

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 06 Oct 2018, 17:07
by marsavian
Sure unfortunate circumstances can affect any military aircraft but that does not take away the first look advantage that fifth gen F-35 has over other fighters, even its EOTS IRST is more advanced and longer ranged than its competition.

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 06 Oct 2018, 17:37
by SpudmanWP
Despite having an "F", the F-117 is a bomber not a fighter and thereby is not a "5th gen fighter".

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 06 Oct 2018, 19:35
by aasm
marsavian wrote:Sure unfortunate circumstances can affect any military aircraft but that does not take away the first look advantage that fifth gen F-35 has over other fighters, even its EOTS IRST is more advanced and longer ranged than its competition.


Ahem? EOTS more advanced? I thought it was advanced sniper in american inventory and that EOTS (sniper XR declination) was going to be updated ?

Nvm, i never said that low observability isn't an advantage.

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 06 Oct 2018, 20:02
by marsavian
More advanced than its Sukhoi competition also Euro canards too. 1k * 1k staring array and can pick out individual Las Vegas hotel windows at 50nm. Of course with the SWIR (possibly LWIR too) update it will only get better as will the new twice as powerful DAS in 2024. F-35 will stay ahead of the competition on the IR front too which is their only real hope of finding the F-35 in BVR.

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 06 Oct 2018, 22:26
by wrightwing
marsavian wrote:More advanced than its Sukhoi competition also Euro canards too. 1k * 1k staring array and can pick out individual Las Vegas hotel windows at 50nm. Of course with the SWIR (possibly LWIR too) update it will only get better as will the new twice as powerful DAS in 2024. F-35 will stay ahead of the competition on the IR front too which is their only real hope of finding the F-35 in BVR.

5x more powerful DAS, along with significant improvements to EOTS, too.

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 06 Oct 2018, 22:44
by marsavian
5x the resolution, twice the range.

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 07 Oct 2018, 14:07
by aasm
marsavian wrote:More advanced than its Sukhoi competition also Euro canards too. 1k * 1k staring array and can pick out individual Las Vegas hotel windows at 50nm. Of course with the SWIR (possibly LWIR too) update it will only get better as will the new twice as powerful DAS in 2024. F-35 will stay ahead of the competition on the IR front too which is their only real hope of finding the F-35 in BVR.


Arent you confusing EOTS and DAS, and in what a 1k*1k staring array would be more advanced than russian/chinese /european products? You are talkin of 2024, a "wice as powerful" (what doese it mean???). In 2024, Su57, Typhoon with new sensors, Rafale F4 should be in service then.... Apparently, the only thing really more advanced in IR is the number of apertures, definitely not the sensibility of sensors...
5* the resolution, ok. Don't you think competition will ALSO advance in the meantime?

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 07 Oct 2018, 16:44
by marsavian
Sure the F4 Rafale will bring it up to standard EOTS MWIR capability but advanced EOTS with SWIR and possibly LWIR too will raise the bar again.The Russians are bringing up the rear on this with their outdated technology.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source= ... CSvxOoSlLe

The latest 3rd generation matrix detector technology has been chosen for future versions of the FSO to ensure extended detection ranges, and the IR module is fully capable of operating in hot and humid climate conditions.The TV sensor has an exceptional long-range identification capability, allowing a high-resolution image of the target to be displayed on any of the cockpit's three screens. Target counting for raid assessment is also a key advantage of the FSO, and tracking of low radar cross-section aircraft is a distinct possibility. Similarly, hostile fighters performing a defensive 'beam' manoeuvre will be tracked easily.


I also am not getting confused with EOTS/DAS as both are being improved. Let Hornetfinn explain it to you

viewtopic.php?p=397317#p397317

So it seems like EOTS is technologically pretty much on par with latest operational podded targeting systems (save for SWIR and/or EO channels in some very latest pods) and clearly superior to any fielded fighter IRST system. Pretty impressive for built-in and fully integrated system.

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 07 Oct 2018, 18:58
by SpudmanWP
aasm wrote:Arent you confusing EOTS and DAS, and in what a 1k*1k staring array would be more advanced than russian/chinese /european products? You are talkin of 2024, a "wice as powerful" (what doese it mean???). In 2024, Su57, Typhoon with new sensors, Rafale F4 should be in service then.... Apparently, the only thing really more advanced in IR is the number of apertures, definitely not the sensibility of sensors...
5* the resolution, ok. Don't you think competition will ALSO advance in the meantime?


Yes, he might be confusing EODAS with EOTS when it comes to the Las Vegas quote as there are pics from both systems of Las Vegas, but that does not negate the issue. EOTS performs better than the same systems on Russian fighters. There are plenty of Russian mfg published docs that state it's range. EOTS is getting an upgrade in Block 4.2 but the technical details are not available yet. What is known is that it's a drop-in replacement (no new electrical or cooling needs), costs less, and has higher reliability than the current EOTS.

On the EODAS side, given that the nobody has anything like it operationally, by default the EODAS is superior. It is also getting an update in Block 4.2 that will give it 5x the resolution, decreased cost and increased reliability.

Finally, the F-35 needs to do something with all of this current & increased capability. The current ICP uses, and more importantly shares, the raw data to form a single, coherent picture of the battlefield. The added capability of the new sensors will not overwhelm the ICP in Block 4.2 because it too is getting an update to increase it's CPU power bu 25x.

While I have no doubts that at some point in the future Russian planes will have the same kinds of systems that the F-35 currently has, by that time the F-35 and other newer US fighters will to have advanced beyond the current tech. In order for Russia to catch up to, let alone surpass US tech, it has to advance at a higher rate than the US. That takes money, lots of money, which Russia does not have.

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 07 Oct 2018, 19:44
by ricnunes
aasm wrote:So according to your own definitions, stealth is the generation differentiator and F-117 is a fifth gen?


Like SpudmanWP correctly said, the F-117 is NOT a fighter, it is a bomber just like the B-2 for example and as such the F-117 could never be considered a 5th gen fighter aircraft (and neither the B-2 by the way).


aasm wrote:I'd prefer saying that fifth gen is a force multiplier and that stealth is ONE of multiple capabilities allowing it. But we are far from the original discussion...


Agreed that stealth in not the only new capability when we're talking about 5th gen fighter aircraft but it's a vital one or resuming without stealth you don't have 5th gen. I believe we can agree on this, right?


aasm wrote:5th gen is the paramount of multirole airplanes. And first steps into 6th gen. Paramount will change when capacities, instead of being pulled into a single platform, will be directed by highly networked and specialized assets at a desired effect whatever the platform. (at least it is my opinion)


I absolutely agree that for a fighter aircraft to be 5th gen it is paramount to be multirole and as such this totally and completely contradicts your F-117 example (the F-117 could be anything but definitely NOT multirole).

So lets see, you claim that the Rafale, Typhoon, etc... are not 4th gen, but they aren't 5th gen for sure (completely lack stealth for starters), 6th gen are definitely NOT as well (this gen still doesn't exist) and neither they are 3rd gen, what generation would they be (in your opinion)??



aasm wrote:The only thing i wanted to underline is that the definition of a gen is a complex matter and that saying "vs 4th gen" is abusive. "vs F-16 block 10" and vs "Typhoon PE4" for example are a whole different matter.


The thing that your still missing (I'm starting to feel that it's on purpose) is that just because the Typhoon FGR4 is more advanced than a F-16 block 10 - and it better be since afterall they are what? 30 years apart? - doesn't mean that they are from a different generations. Afterall they share the same characteristics/traits like for example, high agility, multirole capable and other features that characterize the 4th gen.
If you want to compare a Typhoon FGR4 with a F-16 then you must use the F-16 Block 70 for comparison since they are both contemporary (the F-16 block 10 is not contemporary) and a comparison between a Typhoon FGR4 and the F-16 Block 70 certainly wouldn't look that great for the Typhoon in an overall Typhoon vs F-16 comparison.

And as such, would you categorize the F-16 block 10 as a 4th gen fighter aircraft while the F-16 block 70 would belong to that "new magical" gen of yours??
And what about the F-104 example that I gave you earlier?
For example you have the F-104A/C then later it came the F-104G and then finally the most advanced Starfighter variant, the Italian F-104S. So according to your logic, the F-104A/C would be 2nd gen, the F-104G would be 3rd gen and the F-104S 4th gen??
Then in what generations would you fit aircraft like the F-4, Mig-23, Mig-25, F-14, F-15, F-16, F/A-18, etc....
Moreover, if we look at what you call "pure" 4th gen, we had F-15A and then the F/A-18A. Wouldn't the F/A-18A be far more advanced than the F-15A, afterall and for example the F/A-18A already had MFDs while the F-15 did not. Does this mean that the F-15A would be 3rd gen while the F/A-18A would be 4th gen?? I guess that the vast majority here would totally disagree (probably including you) if someone said something like that.

I really would like to see you answering those questions/points above!

And again, if it rocks your boat we can call aircraft like the Rafale, Typhoon, SH, etc... 4.5th gen fighter aircraft, I personally wouldn't have any problems with that. But then again the 4.5 name itself implies (and correctly so) a 4th gen or more precisely an improved 4th gen (but still 4th gen) which is what aircraft like the Rafale, Typhoon, SH, etc... really, really are.

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 07 Oct 2018, 19:58
by marsavian
Really not confused, just included both EOTS/EODAS proposed updates in one post for completeness sake.



How it all works together


Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 08 Oct 2018, 05:06
by element1loop
aasm wrote:Don't you think competition will ALSO advance in the meantime?


Already been pointed out to you that those with best resourcing can evolve faster.

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 08 Oct 2018, 11:46
by aasm
Already been pointed out to you that those with best resourcing can evolve faster.


money helps for sure, but there are many other factors...

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 08 Oct 2018, 15:03
by botsing
aasm wrote:
Already been pointed out to you that those with best resourcing can evolve faster.


money helps for sure, but there are many other factors...

Talent you mean?

The biggest talents in the world get the best career opportunities in the USA, not only financially but also with greater freedom, more responsibility, better funds, better tools and of course all the other talents in their team.


Espionage you mean?

Espionage might give some insight but it will not give you an instant production capability. Imagine WW2 Germany that gets their hands on a modern ARM chip, how long before they can even come close to producing an equal part?


Luck you mean?

Well yeah, it's always a great thing to base your military doctrine on luck.

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 09 Oct 2018, 11:26
by aasm
botsing wrote:
aasm wrote:
Already been pointed out to you that those with best resourcing can evolve faster.


money helps for sure, but there are many other factors...

Talent you mean?

The biggest talents in the world get the best career opportunities in the USA, not only financially but also with greater freedom, more responsibility, better funds, better tools and of course all the other talents in their team.


Espionage you mean?

Espionage might give some insight but it will not give you an instant production capability. Imagine WW2 Germany that gets their hands on a modern ARM chip, how long before they can even come close to producing an equal part?


Luck you mean?

Well yeah, it's always a great thing to base your military doctrine on luck.


Over simplified. Otherwise USA would be more advanced on every field, which is not always the case (see cars, airbus for example). May be you should consider that EU economics as a whole is on par with USA... Or that NASA sometimes consults DA for aero issues, that the very software used to build F-35 is Catia (french) etc., that Boeing is patnering with SAAB to build FX... I intently stayed on mechanical/sofware engineering stuff.

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 09 Oct 2018, 12:47
by ricnunes
aasm wrote:Over simplified. Otherwise USA would be more advanced on every field, which is not always the case (see cars, airbus for example). May be you should consider that EU economics as a whole is on par with USA... Or that NASA sometimes consults DA for aero issues, that the very software used to build F-35 is Catia (french) etc., that Boeing is patnering with SAAB to build FX... I intently stayed on mechanical/sofware engineering stuff.


No, it's you who's oversimplifying.
Obviously the USA (or any other nation) cannot be more advanced in every possible field since in order to be more advanced in every possible field would mean having unlimited resources (or near unlimited) something which even the USA doesn't have.
Nevertheless the USA is by far the most advanced country in the majority of fields (due to the reasons mentioned by botsing) and since that even the USA doesn't have unlimited resources, this means that the USA tends to work to be more advanced in fields that (strategically) interests it more such as and namely as aerospace industry.
If you want to deny this than go ahead but then you could also claim that it's the sun that orbits around the Earth instead the actual truth and fact (which is exactly the opposite).

Funny that you mentioned Airbus. By the way did you forget about BOEING??

Here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerospace_manufacturer

Above you can see/read that Boeing is bigger than Airbus!
Moreover if you look at the 10 biggest aerospace companies, 6 are American and the rest divided among European countries (namely UK, France and Italy). And if you look at the top 5, four (4) of them are American and there's only one (1) European company (Airbus).

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 09 Oct 2018, 15:06
by swiss
marsavian wrote:Really not confused, just included both EOTS/EODAS proposed updates in one post for completeness sake.



How it all works together



Very informative videos. :thumb:

How will the F-35 get information from space, maritime and ground sources? Link 16? As far as i know MADL works only from F-35 to F-35?

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 09 Oct 2018, 16:05
by SpudmanWP
MADL is designed to work with 25 nodes for a reason, 24 being other F-35s and one terminal to act as a gateway to other sources. NG actually makes a turnkey MADL & IFDL Gateway so that you can add F-35s & F-22 into your existing network without using Link-16. The F-35 is scheduled to also get SATCOM in Block 4. You are also correct in that the F-35 can use Link-16 (along with other broadcast-type data links), but that is not the optimal choice.

http://www.northropgrumman.com/Capabili ... fault.aspx

https://www.northropgrumman.com/Capabil ... rminal.pdf

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 09 Oct 2018, 17:47
by playloud
SpudmanWP wrote:MADL is designed to work with 25 nodes for a reason, 24 being other F-35s and one terminal to act as a gateway to other sources. NG actually makes a turnkey MADL & IFDL Gateway so that you can add F-35s & F-22 into your existing network without using Link-16. The F-35 is scheduled to also get SATCOM in Block 4. You are also correct in that the F-35 can use Link-16 (along with other broadcast-type data links), but that is not the optimal choice.

http://www.northropgrumman.com/Capabili ... fault.aspx

https://www.northropgrumman.com/Capabil ... rminal.pdf

So, do all F-35s have to be on the same network? Or can the network span beyond 25 nodes, even if you're only connected with the closest 24?

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 09 Oct 2018, 18:57
by SpudmanWP
MADL is a self-healing network so I would imagine that it self-constructs based on geography & nearby units.

Basically, it's a Network of Networks where an overall battle picture will be shared between the networks with detailed data being shared when requested. That detailed data might also be automatically gathered without active participation from the F-35/22 pilot.

Image

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 09 Oct 2018, 19:17
by hythelday
Uh... B-2 acting as node between sattelite and F-22s?

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 09 Oct 2018, 19:23
by SpudmanWP
hythelday wrote:Uh... B-2 acting as node between sattelite and F-22s?


It could be that or a high flying VLO drone.

IIRC they have talked of the B-2 either getting MADL or some other gateway functionality. Acting as a gateway is logical given the F-22's lack of SATCOM or transmit Link-16 (they are getting that soon).

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 09 Oct 2018, 22:17
by swiss
SpudmanWP wrote:MADL is designed to work with 25 nodes for a reason, 24 being other F-35s and one terminal to act as a gateway to other sources. NG actually makes a turnkey MADL & IFDL Gateway so that you can add F-35s & F-22 into your existing network without using Link-16. The F-35 is scheduled to also get SATCOM in Block 4. You are also correct in that the F-35 can use Link-16 (along with other broadcast-type data links), but that is not the optimal choice.

http://www.northropgrumman.com/Capabili ... fault.aspx

https://www.northropgrumman.com/Capabil ... rminal.pdf



Thanks for the links Spud.

So with Freedom550 F-22, F-35 and 4 gen Jets can share Date fore more secure then with Link-16.

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 09 Oct 2018, 22:26
by SpudmanWP
Not only more secure, but LPI/LPD within the F-35/22 groups.

IIRC MADL also shares data at a faster rate than Link-16.

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 10 Oct 2018, 04:41
by Dragon029
Remember too that the F-35 does also already have SATCOM hardware, though I don't recall if it's active in Block 3F or not.

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 10 Oct 2018, 06:12
by SpudmanWP
Not sure of the hardware, but the functionality was moved to Block 4 in the late 2000s.

Here is a slide from 2009.

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 10 Oct 2018, 14:44
by aasm
SpudmanWP wrote:Not only more secure, but LPI/LPD within the F-35/22 groups.

IIRC MADL also shares data at a faster rate than Link-16.


Wich is fairly normal due to hgher frequency.

Lost some documents about NATO, US and EUro projects for datalinks / C4 btw if any?

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 10 Oct 2018, 15:33
by swiss
SpudmanWP wrote:Not only more secure, but LPI/LPD within the F-35/22 groups.

IIRC MADL also shares data at a faster rate than Link-16.


Do you know how the status is? I assume it will take a lot of time to equip all F-22 and US 4 gen fighters with this system.

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 10 Oct 2018, 16:22
by SpudmanWP
Items like the Freedom550 are not put into each fighter/bomber, but into a "gateway" system like a U2, Gulfstream, IFR, ISR, AWACS, etc. There are programs to add a gateway "pod" to a 4th gen fighter like an F-15 called "5th to 4th". An F-35 itself can act as a gateway as it has transmit Link-16 capability as will the F-22 in upcoming upgrades. There is no current plan for the F-22 to be able to talk directly with an F-35 using either MADL/IFDL so they require a gateway to communicate.

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 10 Oct 2018, 22:36
by swiss
SpudmanWP wrote:Items like the Freedom550 are not put into each fighter/bomber, but into a "gateway" system like a U2, Gulfstream, IFR, ISR, AWACS, etc. There are programs to add a gateway "pod" to a 4th gen fighter like an F-15 called "5th to 4th". An F-35 itself can act as a gateway as it has transmit Link-16 capability as will the F-22 in upcoming upgrades. There is no current plan for the F-22 to be able to talk directly with an F-35 using either MADL/IFDL so they require a gateway to communicate.


Ah ok. Thanks for clarification.

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 10 Oct 2018, 23:01
by steve2267
I’ve lost track in this thread, what with the changes from “Block 4.1, 4.2” etc to 6 month rolling updates and tech refreshes etc...

Is the F-35 still slated for a weapons bay makeover & 6 X AIM-120 capability? And, if so, is that still in the 2020 timeframe?

Re: 6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

Unread postPosted: 11 Oct 2018, 00:44
by SpudmanWP
The Block 4 plan is done but waiting approval. Until that is made public, I cannot say for sure what it contains or a specific schedule.

https://www.defensenews.com/air/2018/10 ... tion-exec/