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

popcorn

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7707
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2008, 08:55

Unread post04 May 2019, 13:35

loke wrote:

I have not read much about the USMC and how they operate; how would they protect a forward airbase against a near-peer? The Chinese is rapidly developing and fielding quite a lot of potent stuff.


AFAIK the intent of these austere forward bases is to provide a temporary staging point from which to launch strikes. The USMC projected that it would have a 48-hour window to set up and operate in a location before detection by the enemy. They would be able to pull out within 24 hours if needed.

So the idea was to capitalize on speed and mobility to achieve tactical surprise, get a few punches in then withdraw before the enemy could respond.
Last edited by popcorn on 04 May 2019, 14:11, edited 1 time in total.
"When a fifth-generation fighter meets a fourth-generation fighter—the [latter] dies,”
CSAF Gen. Mark Welsh
Offline
User avatar

marsavian

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1332
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2018, 21:55

Unread post04 May 2019, 14:09

The real benefit of this modification is when either the A or C are carrying bombs, your missile self defense capability just doubled from 2 to 4. As for the B in the same scenario the real comparison is 2 vs 0 of another variant that can't be launched from the same platform. The F-35B has suffered remarkably little in being a STOVL variant of a conventional design.
Offline
User avatar

steve2267

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2238
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2016, 17:36

Unread post04 May 2019, 14:35

I thought the USMC, part of it anyway, was all about camouflage and stealth?

XanderCrews wrote:because Even though the F-35B is the "shortest range F-35" its still got a pretty damn impressive range comparatively. Its light years ahead of anything else we've ever had its (very loosely,) a Hornet that can STOVL with a Prowler packed into. it might also be the only option when known airfields get plastered, and the USN gets too antsy in situations where it won't risk the fleet (not that that has ever happened before in the pacific...)


You forgot your dollop of F-117 and gob of F-22. But I guess the gyrenes had to grudgingly accept that stelph fing the Air Force was all crazy about.
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
User avatar

steve2267

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2238
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2016, 17:36

Unread post04 May 2019, 14:45

[ deleted ] .... wrong thread
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
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6038
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post04 May 2019, 18:26

loke wrote:A war in the pacific will most likely be either very contained, or it will go nuclear. If it goes nuclear nobody will be sending much of anything. Because there will be not much to send, and there will be nowhere to send it.


I'm laughing at this under a mushroom cloud while listening to 99 Luftballoons

jokes aside Its more complicated than that. You can look at the massive conventional warfare build up in Europe in the 1980s, even in a nuclear war huge mass formations of troops, tanks, planes, arty etc-- Even in a war we thought would include tens of thousands of nuclear weapons

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. As early as the 1950s western strategists were already sounding the alarm that there needed to be middle grounds between Peace and the END OF ALL THE WORLD. (Americans are always so humble, did you know the end of America is the end of the World?I love us)

There may well be nuclear strikes, but it might be limited to tactical nukes against airfields or hardened military targets. Or relegated to Sea Warfare like depth charges or Torpedos. To destroy cities invites the same on your own cities, The notion of "hostage cities" and tit for tat are more current. by the late 1970s the US had abandoned MAD in fact. Both sides might work stringently to avoid Nukes, especially if one side feels the other side has an advantage. In which case they may steer well clear of it. If one can win on the battlefield but not against nukes, then one would press the battlefield and try to steer clear of nukes.

Even then, STOVL/VSTOL Harriers were going to be executing a kind of "Aerial guerilla warfare" against Russian aircraft in the 70s and 80s over Europe. The Harrier may be worthy of scorn and is considered by many to be a meme, but if one took out a bomber full of nukes it might have saved millions of people long after NATO airfields were radioactive craters.

Even in nuclear war conventional forces matter, which is what we saw in the 1980s.


There could still be pretty big and nasty wars in that region of course; as China is starting to increase their reach and influence and US is losing their influence. No doubt future US presidents will be very happy to have the USCM with a large number of F-35B. Although the price tag is quite hefty.


CVN is the most expensive way to put an airplane into the air. I think it was Horner's book that said Naval Aviation is comparably 10 times more costly. STOVL is relatively cheap. Theres a reason STOVL is more common than CVNs. Italy, spain, the UK these are all nations that aren't breaking the bank for defense. The USMC is saying their actually going to save 30 percent on their aviation costs by fielding an all F-35 force when all is said and done. would have saved even more if it was all F-35B, but not too much.

have not read much about the USMC and how they operate; how would they protect a forward airbase against a near-peer? The Chinese is rapidly developing and fielding quite a lot of potent stuff.


How would the Swedes do it?
Choose Crews
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6038
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post04 May 2019, 18:32

popcorn wrote:
loke wrote:

I have not read much about the USMC and how they operate; how would they protect a forward airbase against a near-peer? The Chinese is rapidly developing and fielding quite a lot of potent stuff.


AFAIK the intent of these austere forward bases is to provide a temporary staging point from which to launch strikes. The USMC projected that it would have a 48-hour window to set up and operate in a location before detection by the enemy. They would be able to pull out within 24 hours if needed.

So the idea was to capitalize on speed and mobility to achieve tactical surprise, get a few punches in then withdraw before the enemy could respond.


Its basically the artillery concept of shoot and scoot with more serious toys. And artillery is going to start getting worked over here very soon in terms of new systems and tactics.

madrat wrote:Zumwalts were castrated, not bad initial designs. Same for LCS. They offered huge bang for the buck if they actually followed through.



This sounds... familiar.
Choose Crews
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23565
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post04 May 2019, 18:40

:shock: :devil: :roll: 8) Look at this BEASTIE BOY! Some RACK eh. Heading for WRACK & RUIN!

https://sites.breakingmedia.com/uploads ... open..jpeg
Attachments
F-35AbeastModeWeaponBayOpen.jpg
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: 6038
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post04 May 2019, 18:45

spazsinbad wrote::shock: :devil: :roll: 8) Look at this BEASTIE BOY! Some RACK eh. Heading for WRACK & RUIN!

https://sites.breakingmedia.com/uploads ... open..jpeg



Image

Oldie but a goodie^
Choose Crews
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23565
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post04 May 2019, 19:08

Beastie Boys - (You Gotta) Fight For Your Right (To Party): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBShN8qT4lk

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

usnvo

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 186
  • Joined: 01 Jul 2015, 18:51

Unread post04 May 2019, 19:52

marsavian wrote:The real benefit of this modification is when either the A or C are carrying bombs, your missile self defense capability just doubled from 2 to 4. As for the B in the same scenario the real comparison is 2 vs 0 of another variant that can't be launched from the same platform. The F-35B has suffered remarkably little in being a STOVL variant of a conventional design.


I don't think so. From everything I have seen, I doubt the extra AMRAAM goes on the door mount, instead you are basically replacing a 2000lb bomb with 2 AMRAAMs instead of 1 in the weapons bay.
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6038
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post04 May 2019, 20:23

usnvo wrote:
marsavian wrote:The real benefit of this modification is when either the A or C are carrying bombs, your missile self defense capability just doubled from 2 to 4. As for the B in the same scenario the real comparison is 2 vs 0 of another variant that can't be launched from the same platform. The F-35B has suffered remarkably little in being a STOVL variant of a conventional design.


I don't think so. From everything I have seen, I doubt the extra AMRAAM goes on the door mount, instead you are basically replacing a 2000lb bomb with 2 AMRAAMs instead of 1 in the weapons bay.



one could go asymetrical with 4 total Amraam and 1 2000# bomb...
Choose Crews
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4547
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Phoenix, Az, USA

Unread post04 May 2019, 20:49

XanderCrews wrote:
usnvo wrote:
marsavian wrote:The real benefit of this modification is when either the A or C are carrying bombs, your missile self defense capability just doubled from 2 to 4. As for the B in the same scenario the real comparison is 2 vs 0 of another variant that can't be launched from the same platform. The F-35B has suffered remarkably little in being a STOVL variant of a conventional design.


I don't think so. From everything I have seen, I doubt the extra AMRAAM goes on the door mount, instead you are basically replacing a 2000lb bomb with 2 AMRAAMs instead of 1 in the weapons bay.



one could go asymetrical with 4 total Amraam and 1 2000# bomb...

Or 4 AMRAAM and 4 SDB if you don't need the heavy.
"Spurts"

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

steve2267

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2238
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2016, 17:36

Unread post04 May 2019, 21:04

Is a TEL available for any of the external stations, or only DEL's?
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

wolfpak

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 118
  • Joined: 12 Jan 2014, 19:26

Unread post04 May 2019, 22:46

Very Shrewd move on L-M's part to announce it while the discussion on the merits of the F-15X starts. With 2 external AIM-9X's and the now internal 6 AMRAAM's they have a fighter with the same nominal load-out of the F-15 but stealthy and with 5th generation avionics. The lobbyists and marketing guys should be able to take this and capitalize on it. Sure the external Aim-9's reduce the stealth of the aircraft but have to assume it will still be far better than the F-15. Bet they wish they had internally funded the design of external fuel tanks.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23565
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post04 May 2019, 23:06

I presume 'they' = LM? "... Bet they wish they had internally funded the design of external fuel tanks." There was an AvWEAK article recently of which one cannot read without subscription (wot I don't have) about Israeli F-35i external/ conformal fuel tanks wot they have been designing and abuildin' methinks. How does this jibe with the quote because LM helped an Israeli company do this work AFAIcanguess.

[Addition] Not finding the AvWeak article so far but here is an oldie (repeated a few times by others) about EFTs/CFTs.
Israel Seeks Greater Autonomy for F-35 Fighter Force
04 Apr 2016 Barbara Opall-Rome

"...Lockheed Martin is engaged with Cyclone Ltd., a wholly owned subsidiary of Elbit Systems, on external fuel tanks to augment range beyond the 18,500 pounds of fuel carried internally by the F-35. At a later phase, Israeli defense and industry sources say they hope to develop with Lockheed Martin — and with the consent of JSF partner nations — conformal fuel tanks to significantly extend the range while in stealth mode...."

Source: https://www.defensenews.com/home/2016/0 ... ter-force/

Weird to find it now so here goes:
"TEL AVIV—Israeli companies have completed the initial design of external fuel tanks for the Israeli Air Force’s (IAF) F-35 Adir stealth …" 08 Apr 2019 https://aviationweek.com/awindefense/wo ... fuel-tanks
Last edited by spazsinbad on 05 May 2019, 01:31, edited 2 times in total.
PreviousNext

Return to F-35 Armament, Stores and Tactics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests