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

[sprstdlyscottsmn]

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

Not until the AIM-9X can be ejector launched. As I understand it right now it has to be rail launched and unlike the F-22 side bays there is no trapeze for the F-35.

[squirrelshoes]

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

Latest word is "never"

[mixelflick]

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

Latest word is "never"

I'm not all that cracked up by it, if this is the case. I'm a firm believer that those 2 rail mounted 9x's are LO, no question in my mind. The overall RCS might increase a smidgen, but it'll be inconsequential IMO and they'll fly with them regularly..

[SpudmanWP]

The rail itself is already confirmed LO so it's just a matter of the 9x.

[aussiebloke]

The rail itself is already confirmed LO so it's just a matter of the 9x.

Can the AIM-9X Block II Plus, specifically designed for F-35 external carriage with the intention to improve platform "survivability", be anything other than a low observable version of the Block II?

[SpudmanWP]

Improved survivability is too vague term to attribute to just it's RCS, but hey, anything's possible

This is about the best info available:

Mark Justus, AIM-9X programme director at RMS told IHS Jane's that the Block II+ initiative comprises "minor hardware modifications to the external missile body which improve aerodynamics and [launch] platform survivability".

Justus said that for the Block II+, the missile's five main components - the guidance unit, AOTD, warhead, rocket motor, control actuator system, and internal circuitry - remain the same as Block II. "Software versions for AIM-9X are driven by the main processor unit [MPU]. Block II and II+ use the same MPU with identical software versions and associated capability," Justus added.

Justus said that Block II+ is interchangeable with a Block II missile "at any time and on any platform. As with Block II, the Block II+ will remain backward compatible with a Block I AIM-9X. Visually, the differences between a Block II and II+ are small, and difficult to discern, and the mass properties are identical."

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/thread ... sdm.26530/

[madrat]

How about an ASRAAM seeker on an AMRAAM body?

[steve2267]

How about an ASRAAM seeker on an AMRAAM body?

But... let's chop the AMRAAM in half lengthwise so we can double the number... and call it something kewl... like CUDA!

[aussiebloke]

Improved survivability is too vague term to attribute to just it's RCS, but hey, anything's possible
/

If "improved survivablity" was the only clue to the Block II Plus modifications I would be in agreement with you that anything's possible..
However there are several other clues that taken together point to RCS reduction as probable.

The modifications are specifically intended for the F-35.
These modifications only pertain to the external missile body.
These modifications don't change the guidance unit, Active Optical Target Detector laser proximity fuze, warhead, rocket motor, control actuator system, and internal circuitry - all remain the same as Block II
They don't alter the weight of the missile and only marginally change the visual appearance.
For me this is the clincher - "incorporates specialized external materials to enhance aircraft platform survivability." https://www.secnav.navy.mil/fmc/fmb/Doc ... s_book.pdf
Therefore these modifications don't enhance missile effectiveness or missile lethality but are intended to enhance aircraft platform survivability.
This appears to me to be strong circumstantial evidence for RCS reduction either to the missile body itself or to the fins and wings of the AIM-9X or to both. I am open to other suggestions though that fit these criteria!

[sprstdlyscottsmn]

I honestly expect the AIM-9X external will raise the front sector RCS to a whopping 0.0005-0.001m^2. Between these statements about improved survivability, the double canted pylon, and the fact that a clean F-35 with surface damage met/exceeded the RCS target of 0.0005m^2 (IIRC, to the F-22s 0.0001)... I just don't see the external carriage as an RCS issue.

[swiss]

I honestly expect the AIM-9X external will raise the front sector RCS to a whopping 0.0005-0.001m^2. Between these statements about improved survivability, the double canted pylon, and the fact that a clean F-35 with surface damage met/exceeded the RCS target of 0.0005m^2 (IIRC, to the F-22s 0.0001)... I just don't see the external carriage as an RCS issue.

I assume same applies also to drag.

[sprstdlyscottsmn]

I assume same applies also to drag.

Quite the opposite. The AIM-9X on the F-35 is going to generate significantly more drag than on an F-16 (remember, AIM-120s occupy the tip stations so Sidewinders are on pylons) because of the toed out canted pylons. That said, the F-35 has so much thrust that it won't matter too much. All variants have been TESTED to 1.5M with them. The F-35A has even been tested to 1.55M at 40,000ft.

[SpudmanWP]

For me this is the clincher - "incorporates specialized external materials to enhance aircraft platform survivability."

Thanks, I missed that.. and I agree.

[swiss]

I assume same applies also to drag.

Quite the opposite. The AIM-9X on the F-35 is going to generate significantly more drag than on an F-16 (remember, AIM-120s occupy the tip stations so Sidewinders are on pylons) because of the toed out canted pylons. That said, the F-35 has so much thrust that it won't matter too much. All variants have been TESTED to 1.5M with them. The F-35A has even been tested to 1.55M at 40,000ft.

How about fuel fraction?

[sprstdlyscottsmn]

What about fuel fraction? We are talking about two ~190lb missiles and two ~150lb pylons on a ~50,000lb plane. Why would that be expected to have a meaningful impact to fuel fraction? The six internal ~350lb missiles and two ~500lb adapters (?) didn't make you ask this question did they?