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

Gums

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2276
  • Joined: 16 Dec 2003, 17:26

Unread post02 May 2019, 15:25

Salute!

Woke up today and going thru morning briefing on my AvWeek subscription and WHOA NELLIE!

My heart soars like an eagle..... errrr, Falcon.

As some here know, my second career was for a weapons integration company. As a small business and working with the Armament Lab folks here at Eglin, they developed and testes the prototype hardare/software for the F-16 Stores Management System. When I left they still had one of the original store station interface units. They were influential contributors to the hardare and software in the MIL-STD-1760 weapon station interface. They were on the SAE AE-9 cmte that dealt with such, and I got to contribute as an ex-user, but very current one - abput 15 months after I had my last flight in the Viper at Hill.

The sfwe is actually not a big deal unless they use a separate remote interface unit for each missile or weapon. But at least two iupgrades I worked on for JDAM and other things ( heh he ) used a local RF network in the bay ( think B-1 and B-2 and B-52 rotary launchers/racks). Kinda like a bluetooth system and one main unit with individual interface units for each rack. That meant the 1553 bus limit of 32 remote addresses could be overcome by using a sub-address to only one piece of hardware in the bay. Recall that the Spirit and Bone have up to 8 stations on each launcher. The biggie is the wiring. 'cause you need a slew of signal lines and power lines to meet 1760 standards. Slammer is the easiest due to minimal power lines and mux bus for store control. Then one line for release consent!

If they can mix Slammers with the new 'winders for a 6 missile loadout, potential enemies should be really scared.

Gums sends...
Gums
Viper pilot '79
"God in your guts, good men at your back, wings that stay on - and Tally Ho!"
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2110
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post02 May 2019, 15:52

Corsair1963 wrote:
old_rn wrote:Given the performance of the APG-81and the range of AMRAAM (never mind Meteor) doesn't this make the F35A/C a "14 shooter", with two AIM9X just for luck? Even in this configuration the F35 would detect its targets and shoot well before it was detected itself in a head on approach. The idea that 4th gen aircraft (F15 and F18) have value as a missile truck in support of F35s only works if the 4th gen a/c are much cheaper. If you really want a cheap "missile truck" the logic would be a converted airliner?



The simple fact is you can't make a case for the F-15EX based on merit. As the numbers just don't support it. :shock:


Lets face it, the only reason why 4th gen fighter aircraft like the F-15 (namely that F-15EX) and F/A-18 (namely the Block 3 Super Hornet) are going to be built and will be kept in service in the USA for an unknown timeframe into the future is:
- Corporate Welfare whose beneficiary is The Boeing Company :roll:

Anyway, I want to thank spaz for the info/article and link. Great news indeed about this new rack being developed for the F-35!
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
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23181
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post02 May 2019, 17:01

spazsinbad wrote:https://defense-update.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Meteor-JSF_580-696x489.jpg To show this JPG here NOT ONLY is the image URL required (as seen before this text) but IT MUST BE ENCLOSED by IMG tags thusly: some websites DO NOT ALLOW this HOT linking however it works as shown for THIS website. Always BEST to attach the JPG to the post.

[img]https://defense-update.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Meteor-JSF_580-696x489.jpg[/img (then close bracket)

Image

HA! Graphic is now attached to this message - I think it is the same as the 'unabletobehotlinkedone'.
"Error 1011 Ray ID: 4d0b3398b905cc00 • 2019-05-02 15:59:17 UTC
Access denied - What happened?
The owner of this website (defense-update.com) does not allow hotlinking to that resource
(/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Meteor-JSF_580-696x489.jpg)."
Attachments
METEOR+F-35B.jpg
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline

crosshairs

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 103
  • Joined: 18 Dec 2018, 19:03

Unread post02 May 2019, 18:49

spazsinbad wrote:
spazsinbad wrote:https://defense-update.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Meteor-JSF_580-696x489.jpg To show this JPG here NOT ONLY is the image URL required (as seen before this text) but IT MUST BE ENCLOSED by IMG tags thusly: some websites DO NOT ALLOW this HOT linking however it works as shown for THIS website. Always BEST to attach the JPG to the post.

[img]https://defense-update.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Meteor-JSF_580-696x489.jpg[/img (then close bracket)

Image

HA! Graphic is now attached to this message - I think it is the same as the 'unabletobehotlinkedone'.
"Error 1011 Ray ID: 4d0b3398b905cc00 • 2019-05-02 15:59:17 UTC
Access denied - What happened?
The owner of this website (defense-update.com) does not allow hotlinking to that resource
(/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Meteor-JSF_580-696x489.jpg)."


Yes, Meteor will be integrated, but the ramjets take up space. Would be the greatest news if 6 could not be fit inside. Why do we need an F-15X?
Offline

SpudmanWP

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8388
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post02 May 2019, 19:58

Listening to today's House Subcommittee on Tactical Air, they were stressing the cost from a perspective of being able to replace F-15C sqdns with the F-15X without having to replace everything in the Sqdn from the support side. Most of the tooling, simulators, training, depots, etc from the F-15C can be reused for the F-15EX.
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4434
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Phoenix, Az, USA

Unread post02 May 2019, 20:06

replace them now or replace them later. eventually it will need to be replaced.
"Spurts"

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

blain

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 139
  • Joined: 04 Apr 2017, 22:52

Unread post02 May 2019, 20:21

Too bad Marines. As I have been saying you guys are buying too many Bs. Instead of a lift fan you could be carrying more fuel, payload, and AMRAAMs.
Offline

blain

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 139
  • Joined: 04 Apr 2017, 22:52

Unread post02 May 2019, 20:37

old_rn wrote:Given the performance of the APG-81and the range of AMRAAM (never mind Meteor) doesn't this make the F35A/C a "14 shooter", with two AIM9X just for luck? Even in this configuration the F35 would detect its targets and shoot well before it was detected itself in a head on approach. The idea that 4th gen aircraft (F15 and F18) have value as a missile truck in support of F35s only works if the 4th gen a/c are much cheaper. If you really want a cheap "missile truck" the logic would be a converted airliner?


Yeah, no kidding. I love the rationale for purchasing Super Hornets and F-15EXs. We have a lot of Super Hornets and F-15s which are getting old and they need to be replaced? Do they have to be the same type of aircraft?
Offline

blain

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 139
  • Joined: 04 Apr 2017, 22:52

Unread post02 May 2019, 20:39

Corsair1963 wrote:
old_rn wrote:Given the performance of the APG-81and the range of AMRAAM (never mind Meteor) doesn't this make the F35A/C a "14 shooter", with two AIM9X just for luck? Even in this configuration the F35 would detect its targets and shoot well before it was detected itself in a head on approach. The idea that 4th gen aircraft (F15 and F18) have value as a missile truck in support of F35s only works if the 4th gen a/c are much cheaper. If you really want a cheap "missile truck" the logic would be a converted airliner?



The simple fact is you can't make a case for the F-15EX based on merit. As the numbers just don't support it. :shock:


The only case the F-15EX can make is that it is slightly cheaper to operate. If that's the criteria then why doesn't the AF purchase F-16s?
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5380
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post02 May 2019, 21:12

blain wrote:Too bad Marines. As I have been saying you guys are buying too many Bs. Instead of a lift fan you could be carrying more fuel, payload, and AMRAAMs.


Assuming the USMC intends to replace all the Harriers there are 8 Wasp class and 3 America class that will need them, as well as replacing a bunch of legacy Hornets.

wasp7.jpg


1920px-USS_America_(LHA-6)_F-35B_loaded.jpg
"There I was. . ."
Offline

SpudmanWP

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8388
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post02 May 2019, 21:21

blain wrote:Too bad Marines. As I have been saying you guys are buying too many Bs. Instead of a lift fan you could be carrying more fuel, payload, and AMRAAMs.


For LHD/A basing they need STOVL.

For Carrier use they have the F-35C.

Where would they use the F-35C that is not a carrier?
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4434
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Phoenix, Az, USA

Unread post02 May 2019, 21:40

by all means correct me if I miss something. There are a handful of DoN purchased F-35Cs that only operate from Carriers, which means is under the direct control of the CVNs CAG, but just happen to have USMC on the side and Jarheads in the pit, because the USN doesn't want STOVL opps on big decks (could do pure STOL using SRVL) but doesn't want to just increase their own "direct" overhead for USN personnel even though it all comes from the same budget. That is the only reason for USMC F-35Cs isn't it?
"Spurts"

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

talkitron

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 410
  • Joined: 07 Nov 2007, 10:55

Unread post02 May 2019, 21:53

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:by all means correct me if I miss something. There are a handful of DoN purchased F-35Cs that only operate from Carriers, which means is under the direct control of the CVNs CAG, but just happen to have USMC on the side and Jarheads in the pit, because the USN doesn't want STOVL opps on big decks (could do pure STOL using SRVL) but doesn't want to just increase their own "direct" overhead for USN personnel even though it all comes from the same budget. That is the only reason for USMC F-35Cs isn't it?


I don't particularly get it either. Maybe it is easier to recruit Marine maintenance personnel as the Marines are seen as a more exciting service?
Offline

loke

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 763
  • Joined: 14 Nov 2008, 19:07

Unread post02 May 2019, 22:19

blain wrote:The only case the F-15EX can make is that it is slightly cheaper to operate. If that's the criteria then why doesn't the AF purchase F-16s?


Because one important driver for ordering F-15EX is to keep Boing in the game -- in an alternate reality where F-16 had been produced by Boing not LockMart, my guess is that they would have ordered F-16 instead -- oops, sorry, I mean F-21... ;)
Offline

blain

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 139
  • Joined: 04 Apr 2017, 22:52

Unread post02 May 2019, 22:36

SpudmanWP wrote:
blain wrote:Too bad Marines. As I have been saying you guys are buying too many Bs. Instead of a lift fan you could be carrying more fuel, payload, and AMRAAMs.


For LHD/A basing they need STOVL.

For Carrier use they have the F-35C.

Where would they use the F-35C that is not a carrier?


1. Do the Marines really need to 340 F-35Bs for large deck amphibs? If you assume that there are 10. A few could not deploy in the short term because they are in overhaul. If there is a war in the Pacific more will carry MEUs with a traditional ACE that only includes 6 F-35Bs than will be outfitted as light carriers. The maximum number of F-35Bs an LHA/LHD can carry is 20. If you are able to deploy ALL the large decks amphibs not in overhaul you are looking at less than 100 Bs. Add on to that austere locations - which are difficult to support and defend. The also B has less range than the C or A and will be dependent on AR. You might not even need to operate off of a highway or small air field but are you really going to have another 100 Bs operating from these locations? An Air University study by an F-22 pilot identified over 250 air fields capable of supporting FARPs for F-22s between the first and second island chains.

https://www.airuniversity.af.edu/Portal ... -Davis.pdf

2. Carriers have excess deck capacity as CVWs are smaller than in the past. You will need to augment CVWs with non deployed squadrons but at some point you are going to have attrition if the war goes long. Marine air can both add capacity and act as a reserve. What's going to be more important in a near peer conflict? Large carriers or light carriers? If its the former perhaps you should buy more fighters capable of operating out of those ships?

3. Where are the Marine Cs going to operate from? As mentioned, carriers. But the same place where they operated from in Vietnam and the wars in the Middle East. From land bases. Which platforms dropped more payload and conduct more sorties in the ME? Intruders/Hornets or Harriers?
PreviousNext

Return to F-35 Armament, Stores and Tactics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests