6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 13 Aug 2018, 11:32

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

SpudmanWP · by **SpudmanWP** » 13 Aug 2018, 16:20

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.

steve2267 · by **steve2267** » 13 Aug 2018, 20:12

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...

talkitron · by **talkitron** » 13 Aug 2018, 20:25

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.

SpudmanWP · by **SpudmanWP** » 13 Aug 2018, 20:52

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.

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.

wolfpak · by **wolfpak** » 13 Aug 2018, 21:08

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.

SpudmanWP · by **SpudmanWP** » 13 Aug 2018, 21:13

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.

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 13 Aug 2018, 21:19

FWIW the first two 'SWP' graphics above this page combined GIF. Click on graphic to ZOOM in.

forbin · by **forbin** » 16 Aug 2018, 15:50

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:

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 ?

SpudmanWP · by **SpudmanWP** » 16 Aug 2018, 17:01

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.

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 16 Aug 2018, 20:24

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:

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

blain · by **blain** » 16 Aug 2018, 20:35

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.

SpudmanWP · by **SpudmanWP** » 16 Aug 2018, 21:00

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?

squirrelshoes · by **squirrelshoes** » 17 Aug 2018, 13:11

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.

blain · by **blain** » 27 Aug 2018, 20:55

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.