Lockheed develops rack to make F-35A/C a six-shooter

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

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23335
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post07 May 2019, 03:29

'Sadly' this meme is incorrect. It was started and perpetuated by those wishing to knock somebody except the Su-nitwit. Shornet shot WARNING FLARES as per SOP/ROE whilst none from Su-HoldThePhoneWUT? WOTSUPPP!!!!???? AIM-9 DeD.
"... But flares from an SU-22 can counter an AIM-9X..."

There is a short/long video from the 1st Persons involved (except the Su-Ck pilot). First is short - next is long explain....

Su-22 Shoot Down 4 USN Pilots Explain TAILHOOK 2017 Excerpt: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XAbxl_jxquo



Su-22 Shoot Down 4 USN Pilots Explain ALL at TAILHOOK 2017: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uston4gybSk

A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6003
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post07 May 2019, 03:58

loke wrote:MAD means "Mutually Assured Destruction" -- not "Agreed"


I meant the Mutually part of the moniker.

Of course one may hope that even after escalation to tactical nuke, one may hope that it does not escalate further -- however I am not that optimistic -- also keep in mind that when one party start to feel that it may be losing, the level of desperation will increase, and the probability of sending off more nukes will increase dramatically. What is there to lose? If they don't send off the nukes now then the foe will probably disable the nukes. Also, since we are losing we must use whatever tools left to crush the enemy = send off all the IBMCs still functional.

Why wait for the enemy to crush you, if you may have a chance to crush the enemy first? Seems illogical to do nothing if the enemy is about to crush you... So to avoid a nuclear winter the US should not be too aggressive in a potential future conflict with China/Russia -- to make sure they don't become desperate and fire off all the nukes they got, while they are still functional... sounds like a recipe for disaster to me...


Of course it does. We'll give Russia Sweden, and China Japan so as to not be "too aggressive" if fighting starts. We ask that Sweden capitulate completely so as not to anger the Nuclear gods. One can't be too cautious these days. We wouldn't want anyone to get hurt, this is war after all.

What do you want? we are pursuing conventional arms to the point where we are fielding hundreds of fighters that can take off a multitude of ships and even a barren road, we are working on every conventional option that we possible can. including the ones people think are of limited (or even no) tactical value in the F-35B.

It will go nuclear!

Well probably not, but if it did this is whats likely to happen, and conventional forces always matter

It will go nuclear anyway! Fight them, but just enough to win, and not so hard they go nuclear anyway!

ok sure, we will fight a very calm non-threatening global war were we don't push them too hard. just the right amount of massive global conflict

Irrelevant IMO -- this is not the early 1980s anymore, and China is not the USSR -- the question is, what tools and methods will the Chinese have available to locate and attack forward bases? The capabilities is developing very rapidly and is IMO already today above and beyond what the USSR had during the cold war. Imagine where they will be 10-15 years from now...


Imagine where we'll be 10 to 15 years from now.

and of course its Relevant Loke, Fanbase Gripen has made a really big deal of this shoot and scoot in the woods concept and the Norwegian neighbor has taken a lot of flak over having a centralized F-35 base. I'll take the pacific of over Scandinavia any day, especially considering the ranges involved and number of hiding locations.

sounds like the Gripen and the whole forward basing concept is even more useless then?

there is no perfect answer to any of this. A lot of people are going to die. You may well have a forward operating base with a half dozen F-35Bs get utterly destroyed, but we are also talking about possibly losing whole aircraft carriers too and we know that we are going to lose dozens of bases on day 1. Ironically the ones that don't get wasted might be the "less secure, less safe" F-35B bases.
Last edited by XanderCrews on 07 May 2019, 04:15, edited 2 times in total.
Choose Crews
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6003
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post07 May 2019, 04:01

southernphantom wrote:Why anyone takes Solomon seriously is beyond me.


He's not a Marine, thats one major strike against him.

My wife demanded I leave him alone after she assessed him of being mentally handicapped. Once she said that all the fun left.


marauder2048 wrote:
There might well be nukes that are used. But Its not MAD. People confuse that. MAD was never "mutually agreed on" despite the moniker. the Soviets never agreed with or adopted that as their doctrine.


Assured destruction was a McNamara era concept for strategic weapons: you build essentially an all
SLBM force with relatively inaccurate weapons to assure, because SSBNs are highly survivable,
the destruction of Soviet cities and industrial centers.

The argument is that the inaccurate SLBMs are not first strike weapons (can't threaten hardened targets,
not responsive) and the enemy has no incentive to build a large arsenal to counter the SLBM force
because the enemy can't, absent ASW breakthroughs, ever build enough nukes to
blind bombard the world's oceans.

The Soviets never adopted it and surprisingly to some the US never adopted it either; McNamara never
implemented it and neither did his successors.

But assured destruction never extended below the strategic level; NATO and the Warsaw Pact had all sorts of
theater and tactical nukes and all sorts of contingency plans on how and when to use them.

In an era before PGMs, there was no other way to offset NATO's huge (1:4) disadvantage in armor.


Yep
Choose Crews
Offline

hornetfinn

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2818
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post07 May 2019, 06:57

blain wrote:
marauder2048 wrote:
blain wrote:There is a trade off with carrying the AIM-9X. It really depends how much do you lose with regards to the RCS. I really wonder whether its better to just carry the 6 AIM-120s in most scenarios. You'd lost the off bore sight capability, but would be less likely to be detected. The AIM-9X miss by the SH also stands out in my mind.



AIM-120 has had HOBS capability for years now.


I was sure about the usefulness/effectiveness of HOBS for AIM-120s in a dogfight. Doesn't thrust vectoring give the 9x better agility in dogfights? You'd lose the ability to target a fighter with an IR missile if you carried only AMRAAMs. Minimum ranges appear similar with both missiles. But flares from an SU-22 can counter an AIM-9X then I am not sure it matters if you only carry ARAAMs, especially if it helps you reduce your RCS.

You can cue weapons with the EOTS. But I have read differing info on the DAS. Does it provide good enough info to cue an A/A weapon off bore sight? If it does can the DAS determine IFF? Or is the assumption that you are already maneuvering against the threat and you have already determined the aircraft is an adversary?


TVC definitely gives 9X better agility right after launch when the motor is running. So 9X has better ability to engage HOBS targets that are at close range. Smaller size also help in this and minimum range is also likely shorter than in AMRAAM. AMRAAM on the other hand is larger and has longer burning motor. So it can turn longer time and still have a lot of energy to maneuver and AMRAAM likely has better ability to engage HOBS targets at longer ranges. Which one is better depends on situation and I'd bet that AMRAAM is very capable HOBS missile in most engagement situations. Especially with F-35, which very likely dictates where and when the fight starts.
Offline

hornetfinn

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2818
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post07 May 2019, 09:06

One thing that makes external AIM-9X great for maneuvering close combat is that they launch very quickly when needed and can lock on before launch. Internal AMRAAMs take some time to launch as the bay doors take couple of seconds to open and launching also takes a bit longer. However I think most of the time internal AMRAAMs are good enough for all situations. Having the possibility of carrying couple of IR-missiles is very good and I doubt the RCS effect matters much in most missions where they might be carried.
Offline
User avatar

marsavian

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1268
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2018, 21:55

Unread post07 May 2019, 11:01

The other long term advantage of AIM-9X is that it will remain a true fire and forget weapon against VLO targets whereas the AMRAAM will need more target guidance with its small radar seeker. LMT have done really well in designing their small slanted wing missile pylons and RAM IIRC is also used on the pylons and missiles to accentuate the stealth.
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3450
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post07 May 2019, 14:31

Not convinced external 9x's add all that much to RCS. In fact, I think it's very, very little. We'll know soon enough, based on how many operational carries where and when..
Online
User avatar

steve2267

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2178
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2016, 17:36

Unread post07 May 2019, 16:00

Image


Just because it fits, doesn't mean it will separate cleanly in all flight regimes. Solomon musta forgotten about all those pesky gees, angular momentum and whatnot.
Take an F-16, stir in A-7, dollop of F-117, gob of F-22, dash of F/A-18, sprinkle with AV-8B, stir well + bake. Whaddya get? F-35.
Offline

hkultala

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 32
  • Joined: 11 Sep 2018, 08:02

Unread post07 May 2019, 16:36

steve2267 wrote:Image



This image is total bogus.

The internal dimensions of the bays are wrong here, the real bays are much smaller.
Also the sizes of the fins of the missiles and bombs may be also wrong here.

For example:

1) The bays are really not practically connected, like in this image. There are other things between them.

2) the air channel from the intakes into the engine make the bays less taller in the front.

2000 lb JDAM can fit into the bay because it's shorter than AMRAAM and the nose is narrower, the air channel comes mostly forward of the bomb, and partially above the nose of the bomb, but AMRAAMs which are longer cannot be installed "very near the ceiling of the bay" so that anything would fit below them because the ceiling is not straight.
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6003
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post08 May 2019, 18:07

hkultala wrote:
steve2267 wrote:Image



This image is total bogus.

The internal dimensions of the bays are wrong here, the real bays are much smaller.
Also the sizes of the fins of the missiles and bombs may be also wrong here.

For example:

1) The bays are really not practically connected, like in this image. There are other things between them.

2) the air channel from the intakes into the engine make the bays less taller in the front.

2000 lb JDAM can fit into the bay because it's shorter than AMRAAM and the nose is narrower, the air channel comes mostly forward of the bomb, and partially above the nose of the bomb, but AMRAAMs which are longer cannot be installed "very near the ceiling of the bay" so that anything would fit below them because the ceiling is not straight.



I admire their restraint in not giving it B-52 bays :mrgreen: :mrgreen:
Choose Crews
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2174
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post09 May 2019, 22:58

The wingtip pylons/missiles are also fun to watch.

BTW, I see that image above and I raise with this:

Image

(the pilot even carries two handheld Sidewinders)
:mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:
A 4th/4.5th gen fighter aircraft stands about as much chance against a F-35 as a guns-only Sabre has against a Viper.
Offline

squirrelshoes

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 108
  • Joined: 08 Nov 2016, 23:53

Unread post10 May 2019, 00:47

ricnunes that is seriously hilarious, cheers!
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3450
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post10 May 2019, 16:47

squirrelshoes wrote:ricnunes that is seriously hilarious, cheers!


Hand held sidewinders, awesome!

Boeing will take that and run with it on the Super Duper Hornet, featuring hand held (but capable of over the shoulder) AMRAAM's. Thus, much greater lethality. The Navy will be flying Hornets 100 years from now, especially since Shannahan has been appointed Sec of Defense!.
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2174
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post14 May 2019, 20:32

squirrelshoes wrote:ricnunes that is seriously hilarious, cheers!


Well, thanks :mrgreen:


mixelflick wrote:Hand held sidewinders, awesome!


Hehe. I would even propose that those handheld Sidewinder be of a new variant called the "AIM-9 Pilum", this as a homage to the well known javelin/throwing spear used by the Roman Legionaries of the past :mrgreen:
A 4th/4.5th gen fighter aircraft stands about as much chance against a F-35 as a guns-only Sabre has against a Viper.
Offline

falcon.16

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 82
  • Joined: 11 Sep 2018, 20:10
  • Location: Spain

Unread post31 May 2019, 17:55

When will be Aim 9X avalaible for to install inside weapons bay? Some new about it?
PreviousNext

Return to F-35 Armament, Stores and Tactics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests