Full load F-35--Preparing the Warfighter for the Frontline..

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

count_to_10

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3255
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2012, 15:38

Unread post14 Aug 2017, 01:28

geforcerfx wrote:Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System
Specifications[edit]
Length: 73.8 in (1.87 m)[9]
Diameter: 2.75 in (70 mm)[10]
Wingspan: 9.55 in (24.3 cm)[10]
Weight: 32 lb (15 kg)Speed: 1,000 m/s (3,600 km/h; 2,200 mph; Mach 2.9) at max[10]
Range: 1,100–5,000 m (0.68–3.11 mi) (rotary wing); 2–11 km (1.2–6.8 mi) (fixed wing)[7][9]
Guidance: Semi-active laser homing
CEP: <0.5 meters[9]
Motor: Existing Hydra 70 motors
Warhead: Existing Hydra 70 warheads
Unit cost: ~ $30,000
APKWS is a “plug and play,” “point and shoot” weapon, and is fired like the unguided 2.75-inch rocket. The weapon is easily assembled and can be shot with minimal instruction, as if it were an unguided rocket.


comparing the typhoon's storm shadows to the F-35's 2,000lbs bomb isn't exactly fair. While the punch is smaller the range difference is massive, storm shadow is 350nmi range weapon JDAM is 30nmi range weapon. But the F-35 can carry 6 of the JSM so it has some reach to it if needed :D.
You see, I could see replacing the internal gun with some kind cycling launcher of small guided rockets. I'm pretty sure the Gatling gun on the F-35A is at least that wide.
block 2 could get a upgraded motor giving a range of 8-10 miles.
Einstein got it backward: one cannot prevent a war without preparing for it.

Uncertainty: Learn it, love it, live it.
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3637
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Phoenix, Az

Unread post14 Aug 2017, 03:47

EOTS guided HPAKWS for the WVR fight?
"Spurts"

-Pilot
-Aerospace Engineer
-Army Medic
-FMS Systems Engineer
Offline

SpudmanWP

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 7833
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post14 Aug 2017, 04:01

HPAKWS?

Did you mean APKWS?

In that case, no. It can't handle the g's.
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3637
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Phoenix, Az

Unread post14 Aug 2017, 04:59

SpudmanWP wrote:Did you mean APKWS?

In that case, no. It can't handle the g's.

Yes, that's what I meant. Sorry. Still not used to that acronym.
"Spurts"

-Pilot
-Aerospace Engineer
-Army Medic
-FMS Systems Engineer
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 4771
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post14 Aug 2017, 06:51

quicksilver wrote:I always liked zunis but rockets make people on ships nervous...for very good reasons.


Well, they can't fight without them, so they should get over it. Just sayin'.
"There I was. . ."
Offline

quicksilver

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2159
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2011, 01:30
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1524
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post14 Aug 2017, 12:40

talkitron wrote:
ricnunes wrote:Secondly, it's interesting that you mention that Su-34 - This is probably the Russian combat aircraft that I probably respect the most. However this is NOT a fighter aircraft. This is a Bomber! Yes, it can carry and launch the AA-12 and it was developed from a fighter aircraft (Su-27) but nevertheless this is still a Bomber. ...


The Su-34 is an aircraft designed and purchased for ground attack but it is capable of self protection when flying such missions. In the BVR realm it might be a fourth generation beast as it carries a huge radar! It's just too expensive to waste on BVR air defense when Russia also has Mig-31s specifically for BVR air defense.


Wasn't that what I basically said in my previous post??

Besides, that kitchen, bathroom and extended cockpit to house even a small corridor brings some serious weight impact so I'm pretty sure that the Su-34's performance (such as agility and acceleration, something that you like to talk a lot about) is considerable hampered compared to those other dedicated air-to-air combat aircraft and specially when compared to all other combat aircraft of the Flanker family (Su-27/30/33/35).
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 4771
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post14 Aug 2017, 14:48

quicksilver wrote:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1967_USS_Forrestal_fire


"An electrical anomaly had caused the discharge of a Zuni rocket on"


And this one too:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Enterprise_fire

"when a Zuni rocket, equipped with a 15-pound warhead of Composition B explosive, mounted on a F-4J Phantom parked on the stern, exploded after being heated by the exhaust from an MD-3A "Huffer", a tractor-mounted air starting unit used to start aircraft."

So what? Fix the rocket and move on. Don't whine about it.
"There I was. . ."
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 21697
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -1

Unread post15 Aug 2017, 05:54

Yes there are confusing accounts as to the cause of the Forrestal Fire some fifty years ago now. I would seek USN official history to get the facts - but then that is me. Meanwhile....
F-35As fly in weapons evaluation
14 Aug 2017 Paul Holcomb, 75th Air Base Wing Public Affairs

"HILL AIR FORCE BASE. Utah -- Airmen from the 388th and 419th Fighter Wings supported and flew F-35A Lightning II aircraft during Combat Hammer, the first operational air-to-ground weapons evaluation for the Air Force’s newest fighter jets. Combat Hammer is one phase of the Weapons System Evaluation Program, or WSEP, and tests and validates the performance of crews, pilots and their technology while deploying air-to-ground precision-guided munitions for the F-35A.

The weeklong evaluation exercise concluded Aug. 11, 2017 and Lt. Col. Timothy Smith, the 86th Fighter Weapons Squadron detachment commander who oversaw Combat Hammer, said he received positive feedback regarding above-average mission and sortie rates.

“Overall, everything went as planned and all participating units performed very well, including the 34th Fighter Squadron’s F-35s,” he said. Smith also praised the team effort involving corporate partners, the 388th and 419th FWs, pilots, munitions and maintenance personnel and the 86th FWS evaluators for making Combat Hammer a success.

The 53rd Wing is the operational test wing for the Air Force. They develop, test, evaluate and deliver effective and sustainable combat capabilities to perfect lethality and survivability of our nation’s combat forces. Teams from the 53rd Wing, the parent command of the 86th FWS, have been integral in the operational testing and evaluation of the F-35A that supported last year’s Initial Operational Capability declaration and now continue marching toward full operational capability for the Joint Strike Fighter...."

"An F-35A Lightning II aircraft from Hill Air Force Base, Utah, drops a 2,000-pound GBU-31 bomb over the Utah Test and Training Range, Aug. 10, 2017. The F-35 flew Combat Hammer, an evaluation exercise which tests and validates the performance of crews, pilots and their technology while deploying precision-guided munitions. (Courtesy Photo/Scott Wolff)
https://media.defense.gov/2017/Aug/11/2 ... 5-0001.JPG (0.3Mb)


Source: http://www.af.mil/News/Article-Display/ ... valuation/
Attachments
F-35AdropsGBU-31aug2017.jpg
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline
User avatar

white_lightning35

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 366
  • Joined: 18 Sep 2016, 03:07
  • Location: Home of nuclear submarines, engines, and that's about it.

Unread post15 Aug 2017, 08:57

Very nice picture imo
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 4771
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post15 Aug 2017, 13:23

spazsinbad wrote:Yes there are confusing accounts as to the cause of the Forrestal Fire some fifty years ago now.


No, that's describing two different fires, one on the Forrestal and one on the Enterprise. Of course the REAL damage on Enterprise was the 8 bombs cooking off on the flight deck. Maybe they should get rid of bombs too. /sarc (not directed at you)
"There I was. . ."
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 21697
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -1

Unread post15 Aug 2017, 14:16

sferrin wrote:
spazsinbad wrote:Yes there are confusing accounts as to the cause of the Forrestal Fire some fifty years ago now.


No, that's describing two different fires, one on the Forrestal and one on the Enterprise. Of course the REAL damage on Enterprise was the 8 bombs cooking off on the flight deck. Maybe they should get rid of bombs too. /sarc (not directed at you)

OH OK. Yes I see it now. What I had in mind were all the 'stories' about McCain setting off the fires etc. also. Without checking the stories of the two separate fires IIRC also arming the rockets whilst aft - when pointing at other aircraft (rather than the SOP of arming rockets/bombs on the catapult when facing forward pointing at nothing) to save time for the air strike launches - was part of the problem as well.
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline
User avatar

archeman

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 699
  • Joined: 28 Dec 2011, 05:37
  • Location: CA

Unread post15 Aug 2017, 17:38

Sorry Spaz....
count_to_10 wrote:You see, I could see replacing the internal gun with some kind cycling launcher of small guided rockets. I'm pretty sure the Gatling gun on the F-35A is at least that wide.block 2 could get a upgraded motor giving a range of 8-10 miles.

SpudmanWP wrote:HPAKWS?

Did you mean APKWS?

In that case, no. It can't handle the g's.


How many Gs are we talking about?
https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedi ... leared-hot


I like the concept despite whatever the G limitations are of the current generation of these 2.75 rockets.
It would be a better idea for the F-35 B and C however, with a unique version of the centerline Gun Pod.
This could potentially give much more punch and accuracy in both Air to Air and Air to Ground (vs GAU-22).
Putting it in a pod also bypasses the scheduling and build/test conflicts that would be unavoidable by attempting to replace the A model GAU-22.
Daddy why do we have to hide? Because we use VI son, and they use windows.
Offline

SpudmanWP

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 7833
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post15 Aug 2017, 18:16

The control surfaces for the APKWS are pretty small so they will not have much control authority and will not be able to pull many Gs.

Start at the 4:00 mark in this vid to see how small the moving control surface actually is.

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

archeman

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 699
  • Joined: 28 Dec 2011, 05:37
  • Location: CA

Unread post15 Aug 2017, 18:54

SpudmanWP wrote:The control surfaces for the APKWS are pretty small so they will not have much control authority and will not be able to pull many Gs.

Start at the 4:00 mark in this vid to see how small the moving control surface actually is.



IF your going to compare APKWS to the existing inventory of A2A missiles, then I concur the maneuver control surfaces are inferior.
However, that may be the wrong comparison...
We're not discussing replacing the F-35 A2A missiles, just adding an additional A2A option to the F-35 (and an excellent A2G option too).

Compare those control surfaces of APKWS to these control surfaces (hint: there are none):
(sorry about the screaming)
Daddy why do we have to hide? Because we use VI son, and they use windows.
PreviousNext

Return to F-35 Armament, Stores and Tactics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest