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

Unread postPosted: 11 Aug 2017, 20:22
by bayernfan
Title: Preparing the Warfighter for the Frontlines, One Flight Test at a Time

https://www.f35.com/in-depth/detail/pre ... 0000739891

Is this the first time we saw F-35 with almost maximum external load in flight? (4*GBU-31, 2000lb, 2*AIM9X)? I assume it also carry 2*GBU-31+2*AIM120 internally at the same time. What a beast.

Image

Re: Full load F-35--Preparing the Warfighter for the Frontli

Unread postPosted: 11 Aug 2017, 22:08
by sprstdlyscottsmn
The list of planes that can carry a FLIR, IRST, EW, 6 GBU-31a and 4 AAMs is a short one. Like, three aircraft short. F-35A, F-35C, and F-15E.

Re: Full load F-35--Preparing the Warfighter for the Frontli

Unread postPosted: 11 Aug 2017, 22:15
by SpudmanWP
Even then the F-15E would have to give up a droptank of fuel to do it

Image

Re: Full load F-35--Preparing the Warfighter for the Frontli

Unread postPosted: 11 Aug 2017, 22:49
by sprstdlyscottsmn
SpudmanWP wrote:Even then the F-15E would have to give up a droptank of fuel to do it

Image

And apparently the two wing tanks were ALWAYS carried in the Stan.

Re: Full load F-35--Preparing the Warfighter for the Frontli

Unread postPosted: 11 Aug 2017, 23:47
by ricnunes
And in that configuration the F-15E carries 5 x 2000lb bombs (GBU-10) in the image seen above while the F-35 can carry 6 x 2000lb bombs (GBU-31) as seen on the photo above - It's still one more 2000lb bomb than the F-15E :wink:

This also serves for the critics who often claim that the F-35 cannot carry a big weapons loadout :doh:

Well, so far I'm yet to see any fighter aircraft able to carry 6 x 2000lb bombs.

Re: Full load F-35--Preparing the Warfighter for the Frontli

Unread postPosted: 12 Aug 2017, 00:55
by bojack_horseman
Impressive shot.

The Lightning is a remarkable aircraft in what can be fit within such a small footprint.
At the very very max:
- 2 x 5,000lb bombs
- 4 x 2,000lb bombs
- 4 x AAMs

And somehow it can cram in 18,000lbs of fuel.

Re: Full load F-35--Preparing the Warfighter for the Frontli

Unread postPosted: 12 Aug 2017, 01:59
by sferrin
ricnunes wrote:And in that configuration the F-15E carries 5 x 2000lb bombs (GBU-10) in the image seen above while the F-35 can carry 6 x 2000lb bombs (GBU-31) as seen on the photo above - It's still one more 2000lb bomb than the F-15E :wink:

This also serves for the critics who often claim that the F-35 cannot carry a big weapons loadout :doh:

Well, so far I'm yet to see any fighter aircraft able to carry 6 x 2000lb bombs.


How about a Typhoon?

Re: Full load F-35--Preparing the Warfighter for the Frontli

Unread postPosted: 12 Aug 2017, 05:26
by neptune
sferrin wrote:
ricnunes wrote:And in that configuration the F-15E carries 5 x 2000lb bombs (GBU-10) in the image seen above while the F-35 can carry 6 x 2000lb bombs (GBU-31) as seen on the photo above - It's still one more 2000lb bomb than the F-15E :wink:

This also serves for the critics who often claim that the F-35 cannot carry a big weapons loadout :doh:

Well, so far I'm yet to see any fighter aircraft able to carry 6 x 2000lb bombs.


How about a Typhoon?


16,530lbs. (weapons) to MTOW, but no idea as to the max weight for each hardpoint. Care to enlighten me?
:)

Re: Full load F-35--Preparing the Warfighter for the Frontli

Unread postPosted: 12 Aug 2017, 05:57
by SpudmanWP
When people think of a Eurofighter with 6 large bombs, they think of this:

Image

Those are 1000lb Paveway2's, not 2k bombs.

Re: Full load F-35--Preparing the Warfighter for the Frontli

Unread postPosted: 12 Aug 2017, 06:01
by popcorn
The Typhoon carries Storm Shadow which weighs 1300Kg. Unknown if all pylons are similarly rated.

Re: Full load F-35--Preparing the Warfighter for the Frontli

Unread postPosted: 12 Aug 2017, 11:12
by gtg947h
I was wondering when they were going to get around to this one...

Re: Full load F-35--Preparing the Warfighter for the Frontli

Unread postPosted: 12 Aug 2017, 13:33
by count_to_10
I wonder how the platforms in question compare kinematicly with that kind of load.

Re: Full load F-35--Preparing the Warfighter for the Frontli

Unread postPosted: 12 Aug 2017, 14:51
by cantaz
popcorn wrote:The Typhoon carries Storm Shadow which weighs 1300Kg. Unknown if all pylons are similarly rated.


They can only carry Storm Shadows on two, maybe the stations. And those would be the wet stations.

Re: Full load F-35--Preparing the Warfighter for the Frontli

Unread postPosted: 12 Aug 2017, 15:35
by talkitron
ricnunes wrote:Well, so far I'm yet to see any fighter aircraft able to carry 6 x 2000lb bombs.


The F-35's load is impressive. The Su-34 is a large fighter class aircraft with a focus on ground attack. The chart below says it can carry three 1500kg (3307 lbs) bombs, which at 9921 lbs is less weight than the 12,000 lbs from six 2000 lb bombs.

Image

http://airrecognition.com/index.php?id=1721

Re: Full load F-35--Preparing the Warfighter for the Frontli

Unread postPosted: 12 Aug 2017, 17:49
by viper12
To be fair, if I'm not mistaken, the loadout with 12x something would be 500kg each, so 6,000kg. The 6x 2,000lb loadout on the F-35A/C would be around 6x 907kg = 5,442kg, so slightly lighter, nominally.

But that's very very impressive to have about the same maximum loadout with the F-35A/C as the Su-34, especially when one considers the F-35A's loaded weight is a bit lighter than the Su-34's...empty weight !

Re: Full load F-35--Preparing the Warfighter for the Frontli

Unread postPosted: 12 Aug 2017, 18:39
by talkitron
viper12 wrote:To be fair, if I'm not mistaken, the loadout with 12x something would be 500kg each, so 6,000kg. The 6x 2,000lb loadout on the F-35A/C would be around 6x 907kg = 5,442kg, so slightly lighter, nominally.


The AB-500 is not a bomb itself but a "Munitions dispenser carrying SD-2 antipersonnel fragmentation bombs or SD-4 hollow-charge antitank munitions." If the total weight of each munition is indeed 500kg as the same suggests, then I agree the weight is high.

Re: Full load F-35--Preparing the Warfighter for the Frontli

Unread postPosted: 12 Aug 2017, 22:24
by sferrin
F-15 with 2 5000-pounders.

120815-f-zz999-036.jpg~original.jpg

Re: Full load F-35--Preparing the Warfighter for the Frontli

Unread postPosted: 13 Aug 2017, 04:42
by sprstdlyscottsmn
viper12 wrote:To be fair, if I'm not mistaken, the loadout with 12x something would be 500kg each, so 6,000kg. The 6x 2,000lb loadout on the F-35A/C would be around 6x 907kg = 5,442kg, so slightly lighter, nominally.

But that's very very impressive to have about the same maximum loadout with the F-35A/C as the Su-34, especially when one considers the F-35A's loaded weight is a bit lighter than the Su-34's...empty weight !

GBU-31 is 2115# 959kg, so even closer to 6,000kg nominal.

Re: Full load F-35--Preparing the Warfighter for the Frontli

Unread postPosted: 13 Aug 2017, 08:20
by charlielima223
Image

I've tried to explain it to others on the interwebs, in that configuration it is already out hauling pretty much any westerns fighter aircraft out there in terms of munitions payload and fuel capacity... and they still don't believe me and claim that I work for Lockheed Martin.

Re: Full load F-35--Preparing the Warfighter for the Frontli

Unread postPosted: 13 Aug 2017, 08:28
by spazsinbad
8) :devil: Congrats - I work for LM too - NOT! :mrgreen: :doh:

Re: Full load F-35--Preparing the Warfighter for the Frontli

Unread postPosted: 13 Aug 2017, 10:05
by hythelday
sferrin wrote:F-15 with 2 5000-pounders.


In theory F-35 could carry 2x 5000 lb weapons on station 3 and 9, with addition of 4x 2000 lb weapons on remaining A/G hardpoints;

Big bombs are cool, but really how often do you need six of them? I would be much more pleased to see F-35 with Triple Ejector Racks carrying a mix of: 2x3 GBU-12 500 lb Paveways on stations 2 and 10, 2x3 GBU-32 1000 lb JDAMs on stations 3 and 9, 2x4 SDBs in the bays - now that would be a formidable CAS setup!

BTW, Marvin Engineering's Smart Triple Advanced Rack (http://www.marvingroup.com/images/uploa ... _Draft.pdf) brochure says "compatible with SDB I & II". Since it wouldn't make sense to put three individual SDBs instead of four carried on BRU-61 rack, does it mean they can put 12(or 8?) SDBs on a single hardpoint? I couldn't find any precise info on the net.

Re: Full load F-35--Preparing the Warfighter for the Frontli

Unread postPosted: 13 Aug 2017, 12:57
by count_to_10
hythelday wrote:
sferrin wrote:F-15 with 2 5000-pounders.


In theory F-35 could carry 2x 5000 lb weapons on station 3 and 9, with addition of 4x 2000 lb weapons on remaining A/G hardpoints;

Big bombs are cool, but really how often do you need six of them? I would be much more pleased to see F-35 with Triple Ejector Racks carrying a mix of: 2x3 GBU-12 500 lb Paveways on stations 2 and 10, 2x3 GBU-32 1000 lb JDAMs on stations 3 and 9, 2x4 SDBs in the bays - now that would be a formidable CAS setup!

BTW, Marvin Engineering's Smart Triple Advanced Rack (http://www.marvingroup.com/images/uploa ... _Draft.pdf) brochure says "compatible with SDB I & II". Since it wouldn't make sense to put three individual SDBs instead of four carried on BRU-61 rack, does it mean they can put 12(or 8?) SDBs on a single hardpoint? I couldn't find any precise info on the net.

I'm going to go with "no": that triple rack only has the three sets of attachment points, not pairs set forward and aft, so it will only be able to hold three SDB.

Re: Full load F-35--Preparing the Warfighter for the Frontli

Unread postPosted: 13 Aug 2017, 17:19
by SpudmanWP
Given that the USMC uses the Zuni and currently uses the Smart TER.... I wonder how long it will be before they start caring multiple LZuni pods (Block4.2 or further out, maybe using UAI)?

Cheap, laser guided (1m CEP), and packs TWICE the punch of a Hellfire.

It should prove to be quite the CAS weapon.

Re: Full load F-35--Preparing the Warfighter for the Frontli

Unread postPosted: 13 Aug 2017, 17:31
by quicksilver
While there are certainly many, many occasions where they have been used in "CAS", when weapon size goes above 500# the potential for collateral damage and proximity to friendlies get really restrictive. That's why we see the re-emergence of smaller class weapons for fast movers.

Re: Full load F-35--Preparing the Warfighter for the Frontli

Unread postPosted: 13 Aug 2017, 20:22
by ricnunes
sferrin wrote:
ricnunes wrote:And in that configuration the F-15E carries 5 x 2000lb bombs (GBU-10) in the image seen above while the F-35 can carry 6 x 2000lb bombs (GBU-31) as seen on the photo above - It's still one more 2000lb bomb than the F-15E :wink:

This also serves for the critics who often claim that the F-35 cannot carry a big weapons loadout :doh:

Well, so far I'm yet to see any fighter aircraft able to carry 6 x 2000lb bombs.


How about a Typhoon?


Like SpudmanWP correctly said, the Typhoon could carry 6 x 1000lb bomb but not 2000lb bombs (which was what I posted).

In theory the Typhoon could even carry a seventh (7th) 1000 x bomb on the fuselage centerline station as you can see in the image that I'll post below, however that fuselage centerline station is always used to carry a Targeting Pod (TGP) in order for the Typhoon to have any meaningful Air-to-Ground capability, which in practical terms "limits" the Typhoon to those 6 (six) 1000lb bombs.

popcorn wrote:The Typhoon carries Storm Shadow which weighs 1300Kg. Unknown if all pylons are similarly rated.


In theory the Typhoon can carry 5 x Storm Shadow cruise missile as you can see in the image below, so that's still one less 2000lb weapon compared to the F-35.
Moreover and as a side note in terms of destructive power, the Storm Shadow although it weight about 1300kg (2000lb class) its warhead weight is about 450kg which puts it in a category of 1000lb. So the F-35 carries one more big 2000lb weapon while each of the F-35's "2000lb big weapons" (2000lb JDAM) is much more destructive than each of the Typhoon's 2000lb big weapon (Storm Shadow ).

Here's the image with the Typhoon loadout capabilities:
Image

Re: Full load F-35--Preparing the Warfighter for the Frontli

Unread postPosted: 13 Aug 2017, 20:42
by ricnunes
talkitron wrote:
ricnunes wrote:Well, so far I'm yet to see any fighter aircraft able to carry 6 x 2000lb bombs.


The F-35's load is impressive. The Su-34 is a large fighter class aircraft with a focus on ground attack. The chart below says it can carry three 1500kg (3307 lbs) bombs, which at 9921 lbs is less weight than the 12,000 lbs from six 2000 lb bombs.

http://airrecognition.com/index.php?id=1721


First, we are talking about number of weapons carried an not full/total weight "per se". If we look at the max loadout weight capability specs of some (many?) fighter aircraft we could image that some (many?) of those fighter aircraft could in theory also carry 6 x 2000lb bombs. However max loadout weight isn't actually the spec that dictate how many weapons of a certain kind a certain fighter/combat aircraft can carry or at least the max loadout weight isn't the main spec that dictates this. What actually dictates this (or dictates the most) is the number and capability of the fighter/combat aircraft's pylons.
For example, if we look at the max loadout weight of the F-16 in theory it would be possible for the F-16 to carry 10 (ten) AMRAAMs like a legacy Hornet however in real and practical terms the F-16 can only carry 6 AMRAAMs - This is a limitation on the aircraft's (F-16) pylons.
The same happens when we're talking about 2000lb bombs/weapons or any other kind of weapon.

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. For "Christ Sake" that thing (Su-34) has even a bathroom and a kitchen and even a small corridor for any of the two crewmen to laydown and stretch his/hers own legs.
But even thou the Su-34 is in fact a bomber look how it cannot carry 6 (SIX) 2000lb class bombs! And again I'm not talking about total weight - I'm talking about sheer numbers of heavy weight weapons! :wink:

Re: Full load F-35--Preparing the Warfighter for the Frontli

Unread postPosted: 13 Aug 2017, 21:31
by sferrin
quicksilver wrote:While there are certainly many, many occasions where they have been used in "CAS", when weapon size goes above 500# the potential for collateral damage and proximity to friendlies get really restrictive. That's why we see the re-emergence of smaller class weapons for fast movers.


A Zuni is WAY less than 500lbs. A 4-round launcher with four rounds is less than 500lbs I'd bet.

Re: Full load F-35--Preparing the Warfighter for the Frontli

Unread postPosted: 13 Aug 2017, 21:59
by geforcerfx
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.

block 2 could get a upgraded motor giving a range of 8-10 miles.



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.

Re: Full load F-35--Preparing the Warfighter for the Frontli

Unread postPosted: 13 Aug 2017, 22:22
by quicksilver
sferrin wrote:
quicksilver wrote:While there are certainly many, many occasions where they have been used in "CAS", when weapon size goes above 500# the potential for collateral damage and proximity to friendlies get really restrictive. That's why we see the re-emergence of smaller class weapons for fast movers.


A Zuni is WAY less than 500lbs. A 4-round launcher with four rounds is less than 500lbs I'd bet.


The point I was making was in reference to someone above liking the idea of loading up on 1000# class weapons for CAS. With an explosive weight at ~45% of the weight of the weapon, the concussive effects are such that one has to be really wary of where they are being delivered ref friendly location. Similarly, the bugsplat is really large and absent "we dont care what else gets cratered/rubblized" their utility can be very limited in urban locales.

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

Re: Full load F-35--Preparing the Warfighter for the Frontli

Unread postPosted: 14 Aug 2017, 00:44
by talkitron
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.

Re: Full load F-35--Preparing the Warfighter for the Frontli

Unread postPosted: 14 Aug 2017, 01:28
by count_to_10
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.

Re: Full load F-35--Preparing the Warfighter for the Frontli

Unread postPosted: 14 Aug 2017, 03:47
by sprstdlyscottsmn
EOTS guided HPAKWS for the WVR fight?

Re: Full load F-35--Preparing the Warfighter for the Frontli

Unread postPosted: 14 Aug 2017, 04:01
by SpudmanWP
HPAKWS?

Did you mean APKWS?

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

Re: Full load F-35--Preparing the Warfighter for the Frontli

Unread postPosted: 14 Aug 2017, 04:59
by sprstdlyscottsmn
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.

Re: Full load F-35--Preparing the Warfighter for the Frontli

Unread postPosted: 14 Aug 2017, 06:51
by sferrin
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'.

Re: Full load F-35--Preparing the Warfighter for the Frontli

Unread postPosted: 14 Aug 2017, 12:21
by quicksilver

Re: Full load F-35--Preparing the Warfighter for the Frontli

Unread postPosted: 14 Aug 2017, 12:40
by ricnunes
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).

Re: Full load F-35--Preparing the Warfighter for the Frontli

Unread postPosted: 14 Aug 2017, 14:48
by sferrin
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.

Re: Full load F-35--Preparing the Warfighter for the Frontli

Unread postPosted: 15 Aug 2017, 05:54
by spazsinbad
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/

Re: Full load F-35--Preparing the Warfighter for the Frontli

Unread postPosted: 15 Aug 2017, 08:57
by white_lightning35
Very nice picture imo

Re: Full load F-35--Preparing the Warfighter for the Frontli

Unread postPosted: 15 Aug 2017, 13:23
by sferrin
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)

Re: Full load F-35--Preparing the Warfighter for the Frontli

Unread postPosted: 15 Aug 2017, 14:16
by spazsinbad
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.

Re: Full load F-35--Preparing the Warfighter for the Frontli

Unread postPosted: 15 Aug 2017, 17:38
by archeman
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.

Re: Full load F-35--Preparing the Warfighter for the Frontli

Unread postPosted: 15 Aug 2017, 18:16
by SpudmanWP
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.


Re: Full load F-35--Preparing the Warfighter for the Frontli

Unread postPosted: 15 Aug 2017, 18:54
by archeman
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)

Re: Full load F-35--Preparing the Warfighter for the Frontli

Unread postPosted: 15 Aug 2017, 19:15
by SpudmanWP
This was the quote I was referring to which is more than just a cannon for A2G replacement.

EOTS guided HPAKWS for the WVR fight?

Re: Full load F-35--Preparing the Warfighter for the Frontli

Unread postPosted: 15 Aug 2017, 19:21
by sferrin
archeman wrote:Compare those control surfaces of APKWS to these control surfaces (hint: there are none):
(sorry about the screaming)


Which doesn't matter because those projectiles don't manuever. I think what you're thinking of is something like this:

look01-1337804560718.jpg


IMG_5662.jpg


http://www.defensereview.com/sandia-lab ... -possible/

Or maybe:
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/i ... #msg231875

There was even a 40mm round tested back in the late 80s. It didn't have control fins but used tiny one-shot thrusters like the KKV in the ASM-135 ASAT. At that time they said the technology could be scaled up to everything including the 16" rounds used on the Iowas and down to 20mm.

Re: Full load F-35--Preparing the Warfighter for the Frontli

Unread postPosted: 15 Aug 2017, 22:59
by archeman
sferrin wrote:
Which doesn't matter because those projectiles don't manuever. I think what you're thinking of is something like this:



Nah...
What I was thinking of was what I said ---- in response to the suggestion in an earlier post that APKWS replace the 25mm cannon on the F-35A.

IF your going to consider APKWS, it should be in a centerline pod - not 25mm cannon replacement. And I agree that in their current form, APKWS doesn't represent a viable A2A weapon against anything other than low G drones or something that would be slow, dumb and cooperative enough to allow you to paint it continuously with a laser designator.

That centerline pod wouldn't prevent you from also having those groovy-cool steering bullets of course....

Re: Full load F-35--Preparing the Warfighter for the Frontli

Unread postPosted: 15 Aug 2017, 23:01
by count_to_10
Unfortunately, the sabot means it can't be used on forward firing aircraft. Interesting fin arrangement.

Re: Full load F-35--Preparing the Warfighter for the Frontli

Unread postPosted: 15 Aug 2017, 23:08
by count_to_10
archeman wrote:
sferrin wrote:
Which doesn't matter because those projectiles don't manuever. I think what you're thinking of is something like this:



Nah...
What I was thinking of was what I said ---- in response to the suggestion in an earlier post that APKWS replace the 25mm cannon on the F-35A.

IF your going to consider APKWS, it should be in a centerline pod - not 25mm cannon replacement. And I agree that in their current form, APKWS doesn't represent a viable A2A weapon against anything other than low G drones or something that would be slow, dumb and cooperative enough to allow you to paint it continuously with a laser designator.

That centerline pod wouldn't prevent you from also having those groovy-cool steering bullets of course....

I don't think even the most nimble fighter is going to be able to prevent an F-35 from keeping it continuously painted with its laser designator while it is within the field of regard.

Re: Full load F-35--Preparing the Warfighter for the Frontli

Unread postPosted: 16 Aug 2017, 01:33
by quicksilver
sferrin wrote:
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.


I must have sudden reading comprehension deficit cuz I missed the part where anyone was whining about anything.
The "so what" was how many hundred casualties? :wtf:

I was simply pointing out that the memory of rockets on ships is not a comfortable one for many in an institution with a very long memory; I am not a member of that tribe but I understand their culture and customs. :salute:

As for fixing the problem, HERO challenges aboard ship(s) have resulted in decades of efforts to address "RF-insensitive" primers on electrically-primed ordnance. If they think the bang is worth the bucks, I'm sure they'll get around to fixing rockets too.

Re: Full load F-35--Preparing the Warfighter for the Frontli

Unread postPosted: 16 Aug 2017, 23:25
by arian
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.


Su-34 is certainly capable of self-defense and probably better at that than most of the Su-27s out there. But, it's not a "beast" in that role. The radar is actually smaller than on an Su-27/30/35 platform due to its shape. Details of it are unknown but according to some sources it has a "50% detection probability against an air target at 120km distance". ( http://bastion-karpenko.narod.ru/Su-32_48.html ) That's not impressive in air-air, as the radar is probably more fine tuned for ground operations.

In ground modes, the Su-34's radar is not so impressive either: http://bastion-karpenko.ru/radar-system-sh-141/

Manufacturer claims it can create a 2.5 x 2.5km window with a resolution of 10-15m. APG-70 of F-15E, which is early-mid 1980s vintage, had a similar map size mode but with a resolution of 5m at that map size (minimum resolution on APG-70 was 2.5m, which was later reduced to about 1m in early 90s upgrades). Russian manufacturer does not say from what range this can be done on Su-34 radar (for APG-70 it was from 75km).

So it is certainly inferior to 1980s US radars in ground mode (and air), and in fact is is quite inferior to Su-35 radar too, although comparable to Su-30 radar in ground mode. Which is not surprising since the Su-34's radar is a contemporary of the Su-30 Bars radar.

Which makes the Russian parallel development of 3 similar planes even more problematic than their usual redundancy practices. Su-34 is no better than an Su-30 in ground attack, and worst in air, and both are worst than Su-35 in both air and ground. And yet all three are in production and being fielded.

By fielding all three they are really screwing themselves over.

Re: Full load F-35--Preparing the Warfighter for the Frontli

Unread postPosted: 17 Aug 2017, 07:12
by arian
archeman wrote:
sferrin wrote:
Which doesn't matter because those projectiles don't manuever. I think what you're thinking of is something like this:



Nah...
What I was thinking of was what I said ---- in response to the suggestion in an earlier post that APKWS replace the 25mm cannon on the F-35A.

IF your going to consider APKWS, it should be in a centerline pod - not 25mm cannon replacement. And I agree that in their current form, APKWS doesn't represent a viable A2A weapon against anything other than low G drones or something that would be slow, dumb and cooperative enough to allow you to paint it continuously with a laser designator.

That centerline pod wouldn't prevent you from also having those groovy-cool steering bullets of course....


There's no need for a centerline pod as these weapons don't have the range or the ability to be used in anything other than close support, where stealth isn't going to be much of an issue (they can see you by eye). For the close-support mission, yes this would be a great weapon but just put in underwing pylons like everything else you'd use in such a mission.

BTW the ability to use them from fixed-wing aircraft is only a recent development.


Re: Full load F-35--Preparing the Warfighter for the Frontli

Unread postPosted: 17 Nov 2017, 21:40
by spazsinbad

Re: Full load F-35--Preparing the Warfighter for the Frontli

Unread postPosted: 17 Nov 2017, 22:00
by neptune
[quote="spazsinbad"]https://www.f35.com/about/carrytheload

.....EXCELLENT!!, My. day is made!
:)

Re: Full load F-35--Preparing the Warfighter for the Frontli

Unread postPosted: 17 Nov 2017, 23:20
by popcorn
How many SACMs in beast mode? :mrgreen:

Re: Full load F-35--Preparing the Warfighter for the Frontli

Unread postPosted: 17 Nov 2017, 23:30
by SpudmanWP
popcorn wrote:How many SACMs in beast mode? :mrgreen:

44

Re: Full load F-35--Preparing the Warfighter for the Frontli

Unread postPosted: 17 Nov 2017, 23:35
by count_to_10
SpudmanWP wrote:
popcorn wrote:How many SACMs in beast mode? :mrgreen:

44

That...sounds like something out of an Ace Combat game.

Re: Full load F-35--Preparing the Warfighter for the Frontli

Unread postPosted: 17 Nov 2017, 23:43
by popcorn
Death Blossom.

Re: Full load F-35--Preparing the Warfighter for the Frontli

Unread postPosted: 18 Nov 2017, 03:41
by jetblast16
Beast Mode...that's a lot of slammers :shock:

Re: Full load F-35--Preparing the Warfighter for the Frontli

Unread postPosted: 18 Nov 2017, 03:54
by playloud
jetblast16 wrote:Beast Mode...that's a lot of slammers :shock:

Not quite yet though. That's counting 6 internal, which isn't a thing yet.

Re: Full load F-35--Preparing the Warfighter for the Frontli

Unread postPosted: 18 Nov 2017, 11:27
by kimjongnumbaun
playloud wrote:
jetblast16 wrote:Beast Mode...that's a lot of slammers :shock:

Not quite yet though. That's counting 6 internal, which isn't a thing yet.


The drawback is that bitch isn't going far with that loadout.

Re: Full load F-35--Preparing the Warfighter for the Frontli

Unread postPosted: 18 Nov 2017, 11:43
by mas
spazsinbad wrote:https://www.f35.com/about/carrytheload & https://www.f35.com/about/carrytheload/weaponry

I count 14 aamrams in beast mode. How are 10 external aamrams carried on 4 pylons when the other 2 pylons are used for sidewinders ? I know the super hornet can carry a pair of aamrams on a wing pylon but a triple too ?

Re: Full load F-35--Preparing the Warfighter for the Frontli

Unread postPosted: 18 Nov 2017, 15:19
by krorvik
The graphic very likely counts six interal slammers, then you'd have 4x2 on pylons in addition to the 9xs. Adds up nicely.

The six internal amraam is currently nearing operational testing according to tu.no - https://www.tu.no/artikler/kun-ett-krys ... erg/412047

(Norwegian artilcle, use google for translation)

Re: Full load F-35--Preparing the Warfighter for the Frontli

Unread postPosted: 19 Nov 2017, 00:34
by wrightwing
playloud wrote:
jetblast16 wrote:Beast Mode...that's a lot of slammers :shock:

Not quite yet though. That's counting 6 internal, which isn't a thing yet.

4 internal. 10 external.

Re: Full load F-35--Preparing the Warfighter for the Frontli

Unread postPosted: 19 Nov 2017, 00:53
by SpudmanWP
kimjongnumbaun wrote:The drawback is that bitch isn't going far with that loadout.
Still much, much further than the SH when it carries it's max AAM load.

Re: Full load F-35--Preparing the Warfighter for the Frontli

Unread postPosted: 19 Nov 2017, 01:08
by ricnunes
wrightwing wrote:
playloud wrote:
jetblast16 wrote:Beast Mode...that's a lot of slammers :shock:

Not quite yet though. That's counting 6 internal, which isn't a thing yet.

4 internal. 10 external.


I don't think so.

It's more like:
- 6 x internal AMRAAMs (To be or being implemented)
- 8 x external AMRAAMs (Dual Missile Rails per each external pylon -> 4 external wing pylons x 2 AMRAAMs = 8 AMRAAMs total)
Totalling 14 AMRAAMs

Plus 2 x AIM-9Xs carried on the outer wing pylons which if I'm not mistaken can only carry (or are only certified to carry) Sidewinders (AIM-9Xs) and not AMRAAMs.

Totalling 16 missiles!! (14 AMRAAMs + 2 Sidewinders) :shock:

Re: Full load F-35--Preparing the Warfighter for the Frontli

Unread postPosted: 19 Nov 2017, 01:53
by spazsinbad
Get it on - bang a gong - get it on.... (6 internal later) http://www.slideshare.net/robbinlaird/f ... s/download

download/file.php?id=16071&t=1

& bigga bwana screenshot with '6 infernals from fillum': http://i.imgur.com/twmK3rH.jpg

Lockheed Martin - F-35 Lightning II Experience [720p].mp4 4 second edit of video below:



Image


Re: Full load F-35--Preparing the Warfighter for the Frontli

Unread postPosted: 19 Nov 2017, 02:17
by wrightwing
Actually, the AMRAAM load out shouldn't be too awful, for range/endurance. Considerably less weight/drag, than an A2G load out. I'd be curious to see the radius with 6 JDAMs, 2 -120s, and 2 -9Xs.

Re: Full load F-35--Preparing the Warfighter for the Frontli

Unread postPosted: 20 Nov 2017, 12:58
by ricnunes
wrightwing wrote:Actually, the AMRAAM load out shouldn't be too awful, for range/endurance. Considerably less weight/drag, than an A2G load out. I'd be curious to see the radius with 6 JDAMs, 2 -120s, and 2 -9Xs.


Exactly.
And this specially considering the large amount of internal fuel that the F-35 carries :wink:

Re: Full load F-35--Preparing the Warfighter for the Frontli

Unread postPosted: 20 Nov 2017, 17:33
by sprstdlyscottsmn
ricnunes wrote:
wrightwing wrote:Actually, the AMRAAM load out shouldn't be too awful, for range/endurance. Considerably less weight/drag, than an A2G load out. I'd be curious to see the radius with 6 JDAMs, 2 -120s, and 2 -9Xs.


Exactly.
And this specially considering the large amount of internal fuel that the F-35 carries :wink:


I'm working on it

Re: Full load F-35--Preparing the Warfighter for the Frontli

Unread postPosted: 29 Dec 2017, 19:24
by KamenRiderBlade
If those 4x external Hard Points can carry a 2,000 lb JDAM each!

I'm surprised somebody at LM hasn't worked out a external pylon that can carry:
3x AMRAAM pylon = 335 lb x 3 = 1,005 lb
4x AMRAAM pylon = 335 lb x 4 = 1,340 lb
5x AMRAAM pylon = 335 lb x 5 = 1,675 lb

If you don't need stealth and are maxing number of AA missiles, why not add in more missiles?

Then you can go for more than 14x AMRAAM's:
3x Ext Pylon's: 6x Internal + 12x External = 18x AMRAAMS
4x Ext Pylon's: 6x Internal + 16x External = 22x AMRAAMS
5x Ext Pylon's: 6x Internal + 20x External = 26x AMRAAMS

Granted that is going to reduce Range, but that is a given if you plan on shooting that many things out of the sky

Re: Full load F-35--Preparing the Warfighter for the Frontli

Unread postPosted: 29 Dec 2017, 19:48
by castlebravo
KamenRiderBlade wrote:If those 4x external Hard Points can carry a 2,000 lb JDAM each!

I'm surprised somebody at LM hasn't worked out a external pylon that can carry:
3x AMRAAM pylon = 335 lb x 3 = 1,005 lb
4x AMRAAM pylon = 335 lb x 4 = 1,340 lb
5x AMRAAM pylon = 335 lb x 5 = 1,675 lb

If you don't need stealth and are maxing number of AA missiles, why not add in more missiles?

Then you can go for more than 14x AMRAAM's:
3x Ext Pylon's: 6x Internal + 12x External = 18x AMRAAMS
4x Ext Pylon's: 6x Internal + 16x External = 22x AMRAAMS
5x Ext Pylon's: 6x Internal + 20x External = 26x AMRAAMS

Granted that is going to reduce Range, but that is a given if you plan on shooting that many things out of the sky


There's no way those hard points are rated for 2klbs at 9g though. Carrying a butt load of slammers isn't as useful if you have to jettison them prior to performing any air combat maneuvering.

Re: Full load F-35--Preparing the Warfighter for the Frontli

Unread postPosted: 29 Dec 2017, 23:58
by KamenRiderBlade
castlebravo wrote:
KamenRiderBlade wrote:If those 4x external Hard Points can carry a 2,000 lb JDAM each!

I'm surprised somebody at LM hasn't worked out a external pylon that can carry:
3x AMRAAM pylon = 335 lb x 3 = 1,005 lb
4x AMRAAM pylon = 335 lb x 4 = 1,340 lb
5x AMRAAM pylon = 335 lb x 5 = 1,675 lb

If you don't need stealth and are maxing number of AA missiles, why not add in more missiles?

Then you can go for more than 14x AMRAAM's:
3x Ext Pylon's: 6x Internal + 12x External = 18x AMRAAMS
4x Ext Pylon's: 6x Internal + 16x External = 22x AMRAAMS
5x Ext Pylon's: 6x Internal + 20x External = 26x AMRAAMS

Granted that is going to reduce Range, but that is a given if you plan on shooting that many things out of the sky


There's no way those hard points are rated for 2klbs at 9g though. Carrying a butt load of slammers isn't as useful if you have to jettison them prior to performing any air combat maneuvering.


If you're the flying arsenal way out in the rear flanks, who's expecting you to pull 9g?

Have the person out in the front be the bait and pull 9g's should they foolishly get in a dog fight.