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

Unread postPosted: 01 May 2019, 23:01
by spazsinbad
Lockheed Develops Rack to Make F-35A/C a Six-Shooter
01 May 2019 SEApower

"ARLINGTON, Va. — The builder of the F-35 Lightning II joint strike fighter has designed a new weapons rack to enable the aircraft to carry two more missiles internally.

The new rack, called Sidekick, enables each of the two weapons bays of the Air Force F-35A and Navy carrier-capable F-35C to carry three AIM-120 Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile (AMRAAM) instead of the current two, for a total of six internally carried AMRAAMs.

Speaking May 1 to reporters at a Lockheed Martin media briefing, a company F-35 test pilot, Tony ‘Brick’ Wilson, said the rack was developed entirely with company internal research and development funds. “The extra missiles add a little weight but are not adding extra drag.”

The rack is not compatible with the vertical lift Marine Corps F-35B version, which has smaller weapons bay.

The F-35 can carry more AMRAAMs on external pylons, but Wilson pointed out that carrying two more internally preserves the stealth characteristics of the F-35. “The extra missiles add a little weight but are not adding extra drag,” Wilson said.

Wilson also said the company is working on integrating hypersonic weapons capability on the F-35.

He also said the company, working with the Air Force Research Lab, has developed and installed on the F-35A — six years ahead of schedule — the Auto Ground Collision Avoidance System (AGCAS). The AGCAS has “saved eight pilots’ lives,” Wilson said. He said the AGCAS will be installed later on the F-35B and on the F-35C in 2021."

Source: https://seapowermagazine.org/lockheed-d ... x-shooter/

Re: Lockheed Develops Rack to Make F-35A/C a Six-Shooter

Unread postPosted: 02 May 2019, 01:40
by crosshairs
Would be good if compatible with Meteor.

Re: Lockheed Develops Rack to Make F-35A/C a Six-Shooter

Unread postPosted: 02 May 2019, 01:41
by Corsair1963
GREAT NEWS and can't wait for further details.................. :D

Re: Lockheed Develops Rack to Make F-35A/C a Six-Shooter

Unread postPosted: 02 May 2019, 01:43
by Corsair1963
crosshairs wrote:Would be good if compatible with Meteor.



Why wouldn't it??? As the Meteor will be integrated on at least some F-35's and it is similar in size and weight to the Amraam.

Re: Lockheed Develops Rack to Make F-35A/C a Six-Shooter

Unread postPosted: 02 May 2019, 01:45
by Corsair1963
So, does this mean the F-35A/C could carry 12 Cuda Type Air to Air Missiles internally also???

Re: Lockheed Develops Rack to Make F-35A/C a Six-Shooter

Unread postPosted: 02 May 2019, 02:52
by popcorn
Many moons ago LM Skunk Works announced that integrating 6 X Slammers wasn't a problem.

Re: Lockheed Develops Rack to Make F-35A/C a Six-Shooter

Unread postPosted: 02 May 2019, 02:52
by eloise
Corsair1963 wrote:Why wouldn't it??? As the Meteor will be integrated on at least some F-35's and it is similar in size and weight to the Amraam.

Meteor without clipped fin is slightly bigger than AIM-120
Image

Re: Lockheed Develops Rack to Make F-35A/C a Six-Shooter

Unread postPosted: 02 May 2019, 02:59
by spazsinbad
https://defense-update.com/wp-content/u ... 96x489.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

Re: Lockheed Develops Rack to Make F-35A/C a Six-Shooter

Unread postPosted: 02 May 2019, 03:11
by Corsair1963
popcorn wrote:Many moons ago LM Skunk Works announced that integrating 6 X Slammers wasn't a problem.




Sure but still nice to know it actually has happen.... :mrgreen:

Re: Lockheed Develops Rack to Make F-35A/C a Six-Shooter

Unread postPosted: 02 May 2019, 09:57
by old_rn
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?

Re: Lockheed Develops Rack to Make F-35A/C a Six-Shooter

Unread postPosted: 02 May 2019, 10:28
by Corsair1963
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:

Re: Lockheed Develops Rack to Make F-35A/C a Six-Shooter

Unread postPosted: 02 May 2019, 10:33
by optimist
crosshairs wrote:Would be good if compatible with Meteor.

I think MBDA through the UK, is paying for Meteor to fit and test the existing 5 and 7 stations on the F-35B. I wouldn't be sure of the Meteor fitting the 2 on the 4 and 8 station until you see someone funding it. The same with the F-35A

MBDA is making a play to Australia
https://www.defenceconnect.com.au/strik ... -platforms
"The UK has been working with Australia for some time on the F-35 and we have seen success between Canada, Aus and the UK on the reprogramming facility in the US, which can be expanded to include weapons systems.........
....METEOR represents the next-generation of air-to-air missiles, focusing on an active seeker, a two-way data link and the heart of the step change, a change in the propulsion, from a solid rocket to a ramjet engine. The ramjet technology METEOR is able to redefine the ‘no escape’ zone of an air-to-air missile, increasing previous ‘no escape’ zones by a factor of three at least. METEOR from a joint UK/Australian perspective is available on the F-35B and the F-35A and is a truly fifth-generation weapon for a fifth-generation platform," Martin added.

Re: Lockheed Develops Rack to Make F-35A/C a Six-Shooter

Unread postPosted: 02 May 2019, 11:59
by mixelflick
crosshairs wrote:Would be good if compatible with Meteor.


Meteor would be a nice bridge to whatever hypersonic missile they're working on. AMRAAM's are really showing their age, even the 120D IMO...

WRT this 6 AMRAAM internal loadout, my next question for LM/USAF would be... when?

Re: Lockheed Develops Rack to Make F-35A/C a Six-Shooter

Unread postPosted: 02 May 2019, 12:49
by spazsinbad
Lockheed ‘Sidekick’ Will Raise F-35 Missile Capacity
01 May 2019 Steve Trimble

"...“What we’ve done is essentially completed trade studies, design and development” of Sidekick, a Lockheed spokesman added. “What is left to be fielded would be things like software integration, weapons separation testing, flight testing and airworthiness testing.”

Lockheed hasn’t released details of the design of the Sidekick mechanism. The F-35A and F-35C are equipped with two internal bays, with each carrying two AIM-120s or a single AIM-120 and a large bomb such as a 2,000-lb. GBU-32 Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM). The lift fan aboard the F-35B limits each internal bay to carrying either two AIM-120s or one missile and a 1,000-lb. JDAM.

It’s possible the Sidekick replaces the AIM-120 launch adapter in the high section of the internal bay with a mechanism that can store two of the Raytheon-built, radar-guided missiles in the same space as one now.

The idea of equipping the F-35A and F-35C with a six-missile load-out in the weapons bay has been around for over a decade. Until Wilson’s comments during a scheduled media briefing, Lockheed hadn’t discussed the idea publicly in several years.

“Lockheed Martin has gone out on its own and developed this capability,” Wilson said. “And now we’ve let the [joint program office] know that it’s out there. It will be over to [business development] and other people to decide how and when it gets implemented. Lockheed Martin stands ready to help the customer implement it when they want it.”..."

Source: https://aviationweek.com/defense/lockhe ... e-capacity

Re: Lockheed Develops Rack to Make F-35A/C a Six-Shooter

Unread postPosted: 02 May 2019, 14:49
by lamoey
old_rn wrote: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?


Unless the missile truck can offer missiles of much longer range than the enemy, it is unlikely to survive a mission, sinse it will be very visible on all enemy radar screens. As they say at the ground artillary:
If the enemy is within range, so are you.

Re: Lockheed Develops Rack to Make F-35A/C a Six-Shooter

Unread postPosted: 02 May 2019, 15:25
by Gums
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...

Re: Lockheed Develops Rack to Make F-35A/C a Six-Shooter

Unread postPosted: 02 May 2019, 15:52
by ricnunes
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!

Re: Lockheed Develops Rack to Make F-35A/C a Six-Shooter

Unread postPosted: 02 May 2019, 17:01
by spazsinbad
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)."

Re: Lockheed Develops Rack to Make F-35A/C a Six-Shooter

Unread postPosted: 02 May 2019, 18:49
by crosshairs
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?

Re: Lockheed Develops Rack to Make F-35A/C a Six-Shooter

Unread postPosted: 02 May 2019, 19:58
by SpudmanWP
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.

Re: Lockheed Develops Rack to Make F-35A/C a Six-Shooter

Unread postPosted: 02 May 2019, 20:06
by sprstdlyscottsmn
replace them now or replace them later. eventually it will need to be replaced.

Re: Lockheed Develops Rack to Make F-35A/C a Six-Shooter

Unread postPosted: 02 May 2019, 20:21
by blain
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.

Re: Lockheed Develops Rack to Make F-35A/C a Six-Shooter

Unread postPosted: 02 May 2019, 20:37
by blain
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?

Re: Lockheed Develops Rack to Make F-35A/C a Six-Shooter

Unread postPosted: 02 May 2019, 20:39
by blain
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?

Re: Lockheed Develops Rack to Make F-35A/C a Six-Shooter

Unread postPosted: 02 May 2019, 21:12
by sferrin
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

Re: Lockheed Develops Rack to Make F-35A/C a Six-Shooter

Unread postPosted: 02 May 2019, 21:21
by SpudmanWP
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?

Re: Lockheed Develops Rack to Make F-35A/C a Six-Shooter

Unread postPosted: 02 May 2019, 21:40
by sprstdlyscottsmn
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?

Re: Lockheed Develops Rack to Make F-35A/C a Six-Shooter

Unread postPosted: 02 May 2019, 21:53
by talkitron
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?

Re: Lockheed Develops Rack to Make F-35A/C a Six-Shooter

Unread postPosted: 02 May 2019, 22:19
by loke
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... ;)

Re: Lockheed Develops Rack to Make F-35A/C a Six-Shooter

Unread postPosted: 02 May 2019, 22:36
by blain
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?

Re: Lockheed Develops Rack to Make F-35A/C a Six-Shooter

Unread postPosted: 02 May 2019, 22:38
by blain
loke wrote:
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... ;)


Boeing needs to kept in the game so they can compete for the PCA with that version of the X-32.

Re: Lockheed Develops Rack to Make F-35A/C a Six-Shooter

Unread postPosted: 02 May 2019, 22:46
by SpudmanWP
blain wrote:1. Do the Marines really need to 340 F-35Bs for large deck amphibs?

No, they want them for austere basing. In fact, they wanted an ALL F-35B force in the event of a war where ALL of them could be used for austere basing. Remember that reaction time and sortie rate is highest for the B due to austere basing.

uVGJhnI[1].jpg

Re: Lockheed Develops Rack to Make F-35A/C a Six-Shooter

Unread postPosted: 02 May 2019, 22:50
by loke
So when will F-35A get the six-shooter rolled out to customers?

Re: Lockheed Develops Rack to Make F-35A/C a Six-Shooter

Unread postPosted: 02 May 2019, 23:04
by SpudmanWP
Block 4 (don't know which one)

Re: Lockheed Develops Rack to Make F-35A/C a Six-Shooter

Unread postPosted: 02 May 2019, 23:35
by blain
SpudmanWP wrote:
blain wrote:1. Do the Marines really need to 340 F-35Bs for large deck amphibs?

No, they want them for austere basing. In fact, they wanted an ALL F-35B force in the event of a war where ALL of them could be used for austere basing. Remember that reaction time and sortie rate is highest for the B due to austere basing.

uVGJhnI[1].jpg


If you want a high sortie generation rate you do not go the austere basing route.

Why?
Less aircraft
Difficult to support logistically with fuel, parts, and munitions
You maybe a lot closer to the enemy. The enemy is a lot closer to you.

Or you could be based at larger air field farther away which is easier to defend or a carrier.

Re: Lockheed Develops Rack to Make F-35A/C a Six-Shooter

Unread postPosted: 03 May 2019, 00:13
by quicksilver
Blain, you are at least a decade late to the “fight.” Go argue w HQMC (which, unlike their US partners has been very consistent in their position).

You should also do a little study/search on how procurement objective numbers are calculated. If you already know, then stop playing stoopid for effect.

Re: Lockheed Develops Rack to Make F-35A/C a Six-Shooter

Unread postPosted: 03 May 2019, 00:19
by Dragon029
Less aircraft

Sortie rate per aircraft is what's being talked about; the idea with austere airstrips is to have a more distributed force.
Difficult to support logistically with fuel, parts, and munitions

Correct, but it's assumed that there's an LHD or whatever nearby supplying those; it's also generally assumed that the max surge rates being talked about are for a short period where you can probably build up a stockpile of weapons, fuel, etc for a few days before executing (have them start arriving while you're still laying down AM-2 matting, etc).
You maybe a lot closer to the enemy. The enemy is a lot closer to you.

That increases sortie rate (so long as your base isn't overrun), because it means you reach your enemy faster and can perform shorter sorties.

Re: Lockheed Develops Rack to Make F-35A/C a Six-Shooter

Unread postPosted: 03 May 2019, 00:45
by blain
quicksilver wrote:Blain, you are at least a decade late to the “fight.” Go argue w HQMC (which, unlike their US partners has been very consistent in their position).

You should also do a little study/search on how procurement objective numbers are calculated. If you already know, then stop playing stoopid for effect.


I wasn't aware that this forum had any impact on HQMC? We are also a decade too late with addressing the long range penetrating strike strike. It seems the Navy got that wrong, along with the Zumwalts and the Littoral Combat Ships.

Maybe the Marines got the mix on the F-35 wrong too. Maybe its more important for Marines to do things the way they want to do them because they have alway done it that way. Isn't that how they went down the wrong road with the EFV? The cost of the program made them reevaluate the threat and whether the concept was a good idea. The requirement disappeared over night. Now they are only going to assault lightly defended beaches with the ACV and do vertical envelopment?

Re: Lockheed Develops Rack to Make F-35A/C a Six-Shooter

Unread postPosted: 03 May 2019, 01:48
by spazsinbad
For a start there is no longer any thought of the USMC 'frontal assaulting beaches'. There is lots of info in this forum about USMC thinking including Distributed STOVL Ops DSO and getting ashore where the defenders are not or light on. To me it seems the USMC are 'light on their feet' thinking of new ways to use the F-35B compared to even LAST YEAR let alone LAST DECADE or even LAST CENTURY. And good on 'em. They are NOT a second land army (as categoriesed for years in desert).

BUT a good 'thread hijack' considering it is about weapons and the F-35A/C 'six shooter' SIDEKICK. Plenty of forum threads otherwise to argue your case that the USMC are numnuts for going ALMOST all out with the F-35B for near peer conflicts.

Basic instincts: Resetting USMC core operational mindset viewtopic.php?f=61&t=54445

F-35B USMC 2017 "not going to stay the same" viewtopic.php?f=61&t=52650

Plus Marine Aviation Plan threads also in the sub-forum: F-35 Variants and Missions

Re: Lockheed Develops Rack to Make F-35A/C a Six-Shooter

Unread postPosted: 03 May 2019, 08:15
by doge
(I reduce greed...) 8) I think that [Meteor x4 + AMRAAM x2] or [Meteor x2 + AMRAAM x4] is also good. (My mediocre idea.)

Re: Lockheed Develops Rack to Make F-35A/C a Six-Shooter

Unread postPosted: 03 May 2019, 11:47
by hornetfinn
Sidekick... The name for the new rack should've been SIX-PACK... :P

Re: Lockheed Develops Rack to Make F-35A/C a Six-Shooter

Unread postPosted: 03 May 2019, 13:27
by swiss
SpudmanWP wrote:Block 4 (don't know which one)


bevor 2025 would be nice. :)

Re: Lockheed Develops Rack to Make F-35A/C a Six-Shooter

Unread postPosted: 03 May 2019, 13:33
by mixelflick
spazsinbad wrote:For a start there is no longer any thought of the USMC 'frontal assaulting beaches'. There is lots of info in this forum about USMC thinking including Distributed STOVL Ops DSO and getting ashore where the defenders are not or light on. To me it seems the USMC are 'light on their feet' thinking of new ways to use the F-35B compared to even LAST YEAR let alone LAST DECADE or even LAST CENTURY. And good on 'em. They are NOT a second land army (as categoriesed for years in desert).

BUT a good 'thread hijack' considering it is about weapons and the F-35A/C 'six shooter' SIDEKICK. Plenty of forum threads otherwise to argue your case that the USMC are numnuts for going ALMOST all out with the F-35B for near peer conflicts.

Basic instincts: Resetting USMC core operational mindset viewtopic.php?f=61&t=54445

F-35B USMC 2017 "not going to stay the same" viewtopic.php?f=61&t=52650

Plus Marine Aviation Plan threads also in the sub-forum: F-35 Variants and Missions


Never understood the Marines fondness for STOVL birds. I get the concept - be close to the grunts to help. But in practice? How many allied airfields have been so pulverized we couldn't get conventional CTOL aircraft in and out of them? In recent memory anyway, can't think of 1.

But then again they're Marines and know what they need. I just never saw the Harrier (in US service) being indispensable, at least for reasons of forward basing. The Marines may be thinking worst case scenario though, China taking out our airfields with hypersonics in the SCS.

They're either going to look like hacks or geniuses by procuring so many B's. But I'm happy to hear about 6 AMRAAM's for everyone :)

Re: Lockheed Develops Rack to Make F-35A/C a Six-Shooter

Unread postPosted: 03 May 2019, 13:47
by hkultala
mixelflick wrote:
spazsinbad wrote:Never understood the Marines fondness for STOVL birds. I get the concept - be close to the grunts to help. But in practice? How many allied airfields have been so pulverized we couldn't get conventional CTOL aircraft in and out of them? In recent memory anyway, can't think of 1.


When the fighting was active at Guadalcanal, Henderson Field would have been unable to operate most jet planes, but it might have been able to operate F-35B.

Also, when the marines are approaching an enemy shore before the invasion, there might not be any allied land bases in range of any fighter or CAS planes.

Ability to use same plane from CVAs and land bases is also very practical.

Re: Lockheed Develops Rack to Make F-35A/C a Six-Shooter

Unread postPosted: 03 May 2019, 15:42
by steve2267
If it wasn’t for the USMC and their penchant/fondness/requirement for STOVL... there wouldn’t be an F-35. Have a beer and be happy.

Re: Lockheed Develops Rack to Make F-35A/C a Six-Shooter

Unread postPosted: 03 May 2019, 17:38
by spazsinbad
Lockheed Says It Can Fit 2 More Missiles In F-35 Bay
02 May 2019 Colin Clark

"Adding extra firepower to the F-35 shows how loudly Lockheed hears the footsteps of Boeing's F-15X approaching.

WASHINGTON: Critics have long pointed at the F-35’s weapons load of four missiles in stealth mode and said it’s just not enough. That argument seemed to gain weight when the F-15X was recently praised by senior defense officials for its ability to carry many bombs and missiles and work with the F-35’s targeting sensors to rain death and destruction on the enemy.

Now I’ve confirmed with Lockheed that they’ve proven out a way for the F-35 to carry two more missiles in its internal bay. “With internal research and development over the last several years, Lockheed Martin has matured design concepts to integrate 6 air-to-air missiles within the internal weapons bays of the F-35A and F-35C variants,” spokesman Michael Friedman says in an email. “This effort allows further enhancement of the F-35’s lethality and survivability by increasing internal weapons capacity by two additional missiles while remaining in Very Low Observable stealth configuration.”

How do they fit more missiles in? A rack adaptor allows them to add a second missile onto each of the outer stations of the internal weapons bays. So rather than carrying two missiles on the two stations in each bay, they can carry three each.

The news from Lockheed about the two more missiles was greeted by veteran aerospace analyst Richard Aboulafia as proof that Lockheed is feeling the heat from Boeing’s F-15. “The one place they are going to get hit on is payload,” the Teal Group analyst noted. Lockheed usually replies to comments about the plane’s relatively light payload with the response that they’ve got a stealthy aircraft which can get inside the enemy’s kill chain and use fewer weapons because they aren’t detected. But Aboulafia notes: “Every bit helps. If you’re talking abut the kind of numbers you’re talking about in Asia those two missiles could make the difference.”

A pilot familiar with the F-35 offered a nuanced view of the boosted firepower. “Increasing the number and range of weapons on our 5th gen platforms is incredibly important to maximizing their advantage. With 5th Gen platforms able to gain access virtually anywhere and anytime, you don’t want them to be limited in effect due to a lack of firepower,” the pilot says. “While the F-22 and F-35 can cue or ‘quarterback’ for other platforms in less contested environments, having sufficient organic capability is an absolute must in the most contested threat environments where stealth is critical and internal weapons are all we have.”..."

Source: https://breakingdefense.com/2019/05/loc ... -f-35-bay/

Re: Lockheed Develops Rack to Make F-35A/C a Six-Shooter

Unread postPosted: 03 May 2019, 19:40
by SpudmanWP
swiss wrote:
SpudmanWP wrote:Block 4 (don't know which one)


bevor 2025 would be nice. :)

Given that it does not require bay mods, that is doable.. if someone wants to pay for it.

"Adding extra firepower to the F-35 shows how loudly Lockheed hears the footsteps of Boeing's F-15X approaching.
Someone obviously has NOT been following the program since.. ever. 3-Per bay was been in the works for MANY years, long before the F-15EX or F-15SE were even a glint in Boeing's eye.

Re: Lockheed Develops Rack to Make F-35A/C a Six-Shooter

Unread postPosted: 03 May 2019, 19:41
by steve2267
That’s another retarded article by Mr. Clark. He’s working hard to give Majumbles a run for his money...

Re: Lockheed Develops Rack to Make F-35A/C a Six-Shooter

Unread postPosted: 03 May 2019, 20:10
by spazsinbad
AGREE. BrakeDaFence does not have a grasp of 'nuances' of the F-35, except when OTHERs write for them, stop Clark now.
:drool: :shock: :doh: Also I blame the 'go to guy' nitwit for comment: "I'm about to fool ya" Aboulafia - STOP IT NOW! :doh: :shock: :drool:

Re: Lockheed Develops Rack to Make F-35A/C a Six-Shooter

Unread postPosted: 03 May 2019, 22:30
by charlielima223
They write some decent articles from time to time, but yes; they could definitely hire better writers and analysts from time to time. The worse thing about Breakingthefence is their comment section. Its over run by Russian trolls and other fanboy chest thumpers.

Re: Lockheed Develops Rack to Make F-35A/C a Six-Shooter

Unread postPosted: 03 May 2019, 23:31
by quicksilver
LM has been working on Sidekick for many years (like 10ish) because it was a desirement of the international participants. IIRC, no one would throw any money at it so maturation of the design has jogged along slowly on internal funds.

So, while I would say Lockheed IS “feeling the pressure”, the Sidekick announcement is, IMHO, coincidental. Probably has as much to do with opportunities to move Block 4 things to the left (and save costs) as it does anything else.

Re: Lockheed Develops Rack to Make F-35A/C a Six-Shooter

Unread postPosted: 03 May 2019, 23:32
by quicksilver
charlielima223 wrote:They write some decent articles from time to time, but yes; they could definitely hire better writers and analysts from time to time. The worse thing about Breakingthefence is their comment section. Its over run by Russian trolls and other fanboy chest thumpers.


X2

Re: Lockheed Develops Rack to Make F-35A/C a Six-Shooter

Unread postPosted: 04 May 2019, 05:54
by XanderCrews
blain wrote:Too bad Marines.


no thanks, we're very happy.

one of the reasons we have different services is to avoid duplication of effort. If you want it done like the Navy go to the Navy, want it done like the USAF, go the USAF

As I have been saying you guys are buying too many Bs.


We don't care what you think, Even if you knew what you were talking about.

Instead of a lift fan you could be carrying more fuel, payload, and AMRAAMs.


Golly, you'd almost get the impression the Marines think other things are more important...

up until very recently, US Harriers didn't even have AMRAAMS at all.

1. Do the Marines really need to 340 F-35Bs for large deck amphibs?


No we need even more than that but we had to buy some C's :doh:

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.


A war in the pacific is going to be "all in" we aren't just going to be sending just 100 of anything. It would only be the largest war in human history after all


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.


No.

in 1991 Harriers being able to be based close actually relieved hard press Aerial refueling units as Harriers didn't require them, freeing them up to take care of the airplanes you think are more important and effective.

Win-win.

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 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?


Yes.

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.


Are these FARPS "hard to defend and difficult to supply" and more "vulnerable" or does that only happen when the planes say "Marines" on the side with their wacky ideas and backwards thinking?

No worry about not having enough AMRAAM though! 8) Welcome aboard F-22

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.


You sure will!

Marine air can both add capacity and act as a reserve.


its not going to be reserve, that was the point of the F-35B.

What's going to be more important in a near peer conflict?
Large carriers or light carriers?


both or Whatever is left/on hand I'm betting.

By this logic, why does the navy even bother with L-class, Marines, or the Gator Navy at all?

Youre looking at it backwards. L-class ships aren't going anywhere, The Gator navy is still going to be required especially in the pacific. So if youre going to have them there anyway, why not augment them with something more than helicopters, while increasing net firepower for the entire fleet and having unbeatable support during amphibious landings??

Is the Navy not going to bring its L-class ships, and Gator Navy Against China? Im pretty sure the MEU(SOC) has been a verified and successful tool Hasn't it?

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?


Harriers in 91 were doing 6- 8 sorties a day IIRC correctly.

Hornets going to Afghanistan had a helluva long trip and had to tank 4-6 times. Iraq in 2007 was 4 tanker hits I know.

Operation Desert Storm in 1991 was highlighted by expeditionary air operations performed by the AV-8B. The Harrier II was the first Marine Corps tactical strike platform to arrive in theater, and subsequently operated from various basing postures. Three squadrons, totaling 60 aircraft, and one six-aircraft detachment operated ashore from an expeditionary airfield, while one squadron of 20 aircraft operated from a sea platform. During the ground war, AV-8Bs were based as close as 35 nautical miles (40.22 miles) from the Kuwait border, making them the most forward deployed tactical strike aircraft in theater. The AV-8B flew 3,380 sorties for a total of 4,083 flight hours while maintaining a mission capable rate in excess of 90%. Average turnaround time during the ground war surge rate flight operations was 23 minutes.



blain wrote:Boeing needs to kept in the game so they can compete for the PCA with that version of the X-32.


OUCH :mrgreen: Now thats funny.

blain wrote:
If you want a high sortie generation rate you do not go the austere basing route.


False

Why?
Less aircraft
Difficult to support logistically with fuel, parts, and munitions


And yet those thickheaded Marines manage to do it even now. Spellbinding. They should be studied.

I guess its proof that if you train enough with something you can teach a monkey to do anything

You maybe a lot closer to the enemy. The enemy is a lot closer to you.


That the whole idea, champ :wink:

Or you could be based at larger air field farther away which is easier to defend or a carrier.
[/quote]

You mean the Chinese Bullseyes?

I don't mean to be terse, but frankly youre not the first person to complain about this. I think its only been covered again and again since about roughly the start of the JSF program. Even before that if you want to include the entire notion of the Harrier pre and post falklands. So basically over 40 years. As long as we have been using STOVL/VSTOL in an expeditionary capacity. (in other words, other than defensive counter air over Europe)


I'm wiling to play this game, but please don't complain we are too close to the action while also complaining we will need AR (I thought we were super close?) Or that we will be harder to supply while also complaining that the F-35B actually has less weapons, fuel, etc. (Should be easier to supply then no?) or that the F-22 can play the improvisation game with no danger or consequence, or wargaming big scenarios while thinking no one else is going to take big hits. (You think Kadina or Okinawa are yokota are going to be operating at full capacity and sortie generation 72 hours in? China just "forgot" to waste every airbase in the region?) "safety" is going to be very relative. Difficult to sustain and support is going to be everyone.


Its late and I'm tired, but I actually have some Deja vu? have we talked about this before in another thread? I know somewhere on this forum I've gone on at length about it, because again everyone accuses the USMC of "ruining" the JSF program and has questioned its need from the beginning.

The F-35B is lightyears ahead of what its going to be replacing. Youre complaining about "problems" we've never had the joy of having before. We didn't worry about not having enough AMRAAMs, because we didn't have any --so 4 is very nice. We didn't worry about payload-- because the harrier had less, and often had to dump it in order to land back on the boat. The B is "slower" on the back end, and yet is fastest at the start and goes mach 1.6 (harriers couldn't break mach 1) We aren't as worried about supply because we have more in common now with USN and USAF F-35s which will be around. We are actually in that "we need a new matress because this one is has too much money stuffed in it" happy problem phase. Its not that there aren't challenges, and its not like bad things won't happen. But this is the method in which Marines make war. F-35B fits that method better.

How many aircraft do you consider superior to a harrier? (might have to take your shoes off to count) How many are superior to an F-35B? (shouldn't need more than 1 hand, F-22 and then its trading places depending on metrics with the other 2 F-35 variants)

For as bad and problematic as harriers are, for all the trade offs and compromises theres nothing else that can do what it can. The Hornet was never able to. And we operate both, for decades now in a lotta wars.

There is about zero things I can think of that the F-35B doesn't make vastly better compared to what we were using. Does it come up 3rd place in a lot of things the C and A do better? absolutely However the other aircraft have trade offs too, and of course can't do things the F-35B can do.

What Marines want is available firepower to seize and defend advanced naval bases and in amphibious operations. Theyre more concerned about an F-35B being close to the action to support ground forces (flying artillery, think A-10) and dropping dozens of bombs a day very quickly on a rapidly changing battlefield, Rathn than having more fuel and AMRAAMS and hours away.

The mission and the need isn't going away. The USMC could switch to all F-35C tomorrow and just leave a massive gaping hole when the Harrier retires, and theres no amount of F-35C that can fill it.

Re: Lockheed Develops Rack to Make F-35A/C a Six-Shooter

Unread postPosted: 04 May 2019, 06:10
by spazsinbad
:mrgreen: Jeepers, IF this is what you can argue when you are tired PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE hang around when you are NOT! :mrgreen: :roll:

Re: Lockheed Develops Rack to Make F-35A/C a Six-Shooter

Unread postPosted: 04 May 2019, 06:26
by XanderCrews
blain wrote:
I wasn't aware that this forum had any impact on HQMC?



Nobody does.


We are also a decade too late with addressing the long range penetrating strike strike. It seems the Navy got that wrong, along with the Zumwalts and the Littoral Combat Ships.


Maybe their wrong on CVNs and F-35C too? I can play this game all day.

We walked away from the F-14. No one seems to be regretting that. We all know the F-14 blew a lot of Hornet capabilities out of the water, Range, speed, firepower. Marines decided it was better to be stronger in other areas. And that was controversial. People forget the Hornet was slower than the Phantom and didn't have the range of the A-7. It was yet another maligned bastard child. And those dumb gyrenes picked it over the mighty Tomcat and Aim-54...

"The Blueberry camo crew botched this up, so the Marines by extension maybe got this wrong too."

There is nothing the navy can't screw up. even camouflage. I'm still amazed when I see a sailor's girl pregnant. "how did he not screw that up?" and then I realize babies can happen from screw ups too


Maybe the Marines got the mix on the F-35 wrong too. Maybe its more important for Marines to do things the way they want to do them because they have alway done it that way.


Maybe the Marines saw the navy screwing things up and wanted even less to do with them.


Isn't that how they went down the wrong road with the EFV? The cost of the program made them reevaluate the threat and whether the concept was a good idea.


It was perfectly fine idea, Fast over the horizon, attacking deep, Albeit an expensive one.

It wasn't amphibious assaults that killed that program, its that it wasn't ideal for rolling around waiting to get blowed up by an IED or EFP in countries we may or may not be still not winning 10 years down the road. That was the final nail in the coffin

Vehicles meant to get blowed up were all the rage in the late 2000s.

We kicked the can down the road. Well now we are back at the can, and realizing we lost 10 years.

Hell people have said many times that IRaqistan killed the F-22. MRAPs baby. MRAPS got the nod. And here we are 10 years later in this very thread talking about needing F-15EX, which is because we got MRAPs instead of F-22.

Gap didn't leave. mission didn't disappear. People then as now said "youre gonna regret this" well they were right.

We put aside systems we had spent many years and lots of money developing that would secure the future in that area for decades to come. At the time people who had some brains were pointing out that "RPG and IEDs" wouldn't last forever, and systems like F-22 that were going to secure air dominance into the 2050s would be more important. it was short term gains in a losing effort vs short term loss in a winning effort.

but at least we won in well... would anyone like to buy some used MRAPs?

The requirement disappeared over night.


NO. but lets pretend that it did. F-35B is even more crucial to service targets quickly on hostile beaches with more exposed and vulnerable ACVs under threat.

Now they are only going to assault lightly defended beaches with the ACV and do vertical envelopment?


The ACV is still badly in need of replacement. Luckily for us the V-22 can still get Marines and things from ship to shore very quickly, which is the only reason its not a huge terrible, crippling problem.

The purpose of the EFV wasn't just beach assault either, it was so you could move inland in something with some armor, speed and firepower and that also wasn't the size of a barn and vulnerable out of the water:

Image

Maneuver warfare embraces hurling strength at enemy weakness, "hit em where they aint" Hopefully most beach landings are uncontested, then you drive up behind them and shoot them in the back.

Like F-22, EFV was an expensive concept that wasn't made for Iraqistans, it was made for wars that have real consequences and thus was basically going to be cut. The CMC probably should have resigned over it honestly. It wouldn't have changed anything, but oh well. Credit to the USAF Leadership which impaled itself trying to get more F-22s.

Is there any other service in the entire world right now, that has both the experience of operating fighter aircraft off US Navy Super Carriers and Also L-Class ships? Is there any other service in the world that could better evaluate the operational and every other trade off of the differences between those two operating systems and see the effects they have tactically than the US Marines?

This was NOT "well lets do it this way because thats the way its always been done" It was "everything we know about operating from both types of ships all over the world for decades including combat says this is the way to go, so we pick a STOVL airplane we think makes the best method even better." The Marines are not the Borg. You will find Marines who think the tradeoffs of STOVL are not worth the squeeze, or that the ratios should be different tilting toward CVN. You'll find Marines who thin Super Hornet is the way to go. or even A-1 skyraiders. But again i don't think big picture there is a more experienced bunch you could ask to evaluate and make this decision based on what they need. Marines do both and are thus uniquely positioned to evaluate the best decision regarding operations.

Re: Lockheed Develops Rack to Make F-35A/C a Six-Shooter

Unread postPosted: 04 May 2019, 06:48
by lbk000
Good news I guess, but I'm not really fond of it because it tends to feed relapses of "ownship firepower" paradigm when we still haven't fully gotten everyone to the idea of organic networked combat.

Okay so what if the F-35 carried 2 more shots? You can have as many shots as you want when every other aircraft in the area is just as much part of your own weapon store as your ownship. In fact, if I was a sneaky snot, I'd always prefer to hand off the shooting to someone else such that, as they say, let the cold foods stay cold and hot foods stay hot. Less glory, more profit.

There's more to it than that though. While it's easy to appreciate the concept that "more missiles offers more saturation", that's only the commencement of the art. When you want to overwhelm the enemy, you need to think about overloading them from every possible vector, and that includes attack doctrine. When you limit yourself to one single doctrine, your "optimal" doctrine suddenly becomes one-dimensional. The enemy only needs to focus their efforts in countering your one doctrine. The more avenues of attack you create though, the more you force the enemy to split their efforts, and when you know you have better capability to manage it than the enemy, then you know you've already won.

And that's how the F-35 is a magnificent implement of war. It allows 3 (actually more than that but let's keep it simple) different avenues of attack so the enemy must outlay costs in order to cover them all: it must foot costs for sufficient power projection capabilities to attack fixed Airforce airbases, it must foot costs for ISR capabilities sufficient to pin down Navy carriers, and it must pay for agile response capability to deal with the Marines' insurgent maneuvering. Many countries have the budget (laying aside the far more critical human capital of expertise and experience) to pay to be good at one or even two of those, but to be good at all three -- and then toss in having to be good at EW -- suddenly you are confronting a type of overwhelming force of far greater magnitude than simply "more missiles". Beyond even just the ability to mesh these varied capabilities into a coherent response, adversaries finally have to contend with the ultimate question of the logistical cost of doing so. And there's where the F-35 really makes its coup; the initiative acquired from being the first common platform multiservice aircraft allows it to force everyone else's counterresponse designs in disparate, inefficient directions such that they are unable to create a similarly common platform and achieve parity in costs. The F-35 is already as optimal as any nation around is able to make a multiservice multirole, so if an adversary wants to overmatch each different F-35 flavor at their respective jobs, good luck, because they're going to have to design and pay for 3 different wunderwaffe and suffer the costs for doing so. If they run themselves into the red trying to overmatch, you just sit back and wait for them to choke out, and then it's 1989 all over again.

Compared to such tapping into the fundamental powers of economy, what are two extra piddling missile rails?
Think big, guys.

Re: Lockheed Develops Rack to Make F-35A/C a Six-Shooter

Unread postPosted: 04 May 2019, 07:23
by XanderCrews
quicksilver wrote:LM has been working on Sidekick for many years (like 10ish) because it was a desirement of the international participants. IIRC, no one would throw any money at it so maturation of the design has jogged along slowly on internal funds.

So, while I would say Lockheed IS “feeling the pressure”, the Sidekick announcement is, IMHO, coincidental. Probably has as much to do with opportunities to move Block 4 things to the left (and save costs) as it does anything else.



Yup

Re: Lockheed Develops Rack to Make F-35A/C a Six-Shooter

Unread postPosted: 04 May 2019, 07:36
by loke
The F-35 is awesome and for sure it seems to me that the USMC know what they are doing.

However I disagree with this one:

XanderCrews wrote:A war in the pacific is going to be "all in" we aren't just going to be sending just 100 of anything. It would only be the largest war in human history after all


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.

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.

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.

Re: Lockheed Develops Rack to Make F-35A/C a Six-Shooter

Unread postPosted: 04 May 2019, 08:49
by spazsinbad
'loke' said: "...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."

On previous page there is a post with links 'for reading': viewtopic.php?f=54&t=55440&p=418295&hilit=frontal#p418295

Then there is: 2019 Pentagon Report to Congress on Chinese Military Development

https://news.usni.org/2019/05/03/2019-p ... evelopment
&/OR:
https://news.usni.org/2019/05/03/report ... -on-taiwan

PDF of report: https://assets.documentcloud.org/docume ... REPORT.pdf (17.6Mb)

Another precis: https://seapowermagazine.org/report-cit ... nese-navy/

& anotherie: https://www.defenseone.com/threats/2019 ... ns/156726/

Re: Lockheed Develops Rack to Make F-35A/C a Six-Shooter

Unread postPosted: 04 May 2019, 12:51
by madrat
Zumwalts were castrated, not bad initial designs. Same for LCS. They offered huge bang for the buck if they actually followed through.

Re: Lockheed Develops Rack to Make F-35A/C a Six-Shooter

Unread postPosted: 04 May 2019, 13:35
by popcorn
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.

Re: Lockheed Develops Rack to Make F-35A/C a Six-Shooter

Unread postPosted: 04 May 2019, 14:09
by marsavian
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.

Re: Lockheed Develops Rack to Make F-35A/C a Six-Shooter

Unread postPosted: 04 May 2019, 14:35
by steve2267
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.

Re: Lockheed Develops Rack to Make F-35A/C a Six-Shooter

Unread postPosted: 04 May 2019, 14:45
by steve2267
[ deleted ] .... wrong thread

Re: Lockheed Develops Rack to Make F-35A/C a Six-Shooter

Unread postPosted: 04 May 2019, 18:26
by XanderCrews
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?

Re: Lockheed Develops Rack to Make F-35A/C a Six-Shooter

Unread postPosted: 04 May 2019, 18:32
by XanderCrews
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.

Re: Lockheed Develops Rack to Make F-35A/C a Six-Shooter

Unread postPosted: 04 May 2019, 18:40
by spazsinbad
:shock: :devil: :roll: 8) Look at this BEASTIE BOY! Some RACK eh. Heading for WRACK & RUIN!

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

Re: Lockheed Develops Rack to Make F-35A/C a Six-Shooter

Unread postPosted: 04 May 2019, 18:45
by XanderCrews
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^

Re: Lockheed Develops Rack to Make F-35A/C a Six-Shooter

Unread postPosted: 04 May 2019, 19:08
by spazsinbad
Beastie Boys - (You Gotta) Fight For Your Right (To Party): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBShN8qT4lk


Re: Lockheed Develops Rack to Make F-35A/C a Six-Shooter

Unread postPosted: 04 May 2019, 19:52
by usnvo
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.

Re: Lockheed Develops Rack to Make F-35A/C a Six-Shooter

Unread postPosted: 04 May 2019, 20:23
by XanderCrews
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...

Re: Lockheed Develops Rack to Make F-35A/C a Six-Shooter

Unread postPosted: 04 May 2019, 20:49
by sprstdlyscottsmn
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.

Re: Lockheed Develops Rack to Make F-35A/C a Six-Shooter

Unread postPosted: 04 May 2019, 21:04
by steve2267
Is a TEL available for any of the external stations, or only DEL's?

Re: Lockheed Develops Rack to Make F-35A/C a Six-Shooter

Unread postPosted: 04 May 2019, 22:46
by wolfpak
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.

Re: Lockheed Develops Rack to Make F-35A/C a Six-Shooter

Unread postPosted: 04 May 2019, 23:06
by spazsinbad
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

Re: Lockheed Develops Rack to Make F-35A/C a Six-Shooter

Unread postPosted: 04 May 2019, 23:26
by krorvik
wolfpak wrote: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


And stealthy. And well ahead of any realistic load of the legacy F-16 (not counting the upcoming truck version). Nice to see this announced.

Re: Lockheed Develops Rack to Make F-35A/C a Six-Shooter

Unread postPosted: 05 May 2019, 17:15
by loke

Thanks, much appreciated!

Re: Lockheed Develops Rack to Make F-35A/C a Six-Shooter

Unread postPosted: 05 May 2019, 17:33
by loke
XanderCrews wrote:
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.

MAD means "Mutually Assured Destruction" -- not "Agreed"

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...

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?

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...

Re: Lockheed Develops Rack to Make F-35A/C a Six-Shooter

Unread postPosted: 05 May 2019, 17:51
by mixelflick
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


Am I the only one who thinks the F-35 looks better (much better) with external stores?

The AIM-9x carriage looks awesome, like canine teeth. Even when you start adding LGB's, JDAM's etc it looks fantastic. I can only imagine how external AMRAAM's are going to look! And perhaps it's time LM rolls that out - air to air beast mode. It'll be able to carry just as many (perhaps more) AAM's as the F-15X, and do so cheaper and be much more survivable.

Pictures may not be an objective criteria to evaluate aircraft/aircraft buy rates. But perception is reality, and many of these US Senators and Reps are highly visual. An F-35 armed to the teeth with external loadouts may spell the difference between bigger F-35 block buys, vs. building F-15x's...

Re: Lockheed Develops Rack to Make F-35A/C a Six-Shooter

Unread postPosted: 05 May 2019, 19:08
by lbk000
I've been thinking about this matter recently as well. Effective communication is always a higher form of conflict resolution than expenditure of force, and history is rife with examples where warfare took a turn for ritual and display.

It is important to be able to impress upon the receiving end the force they have to contend with, in order that they understand the consequences of their action. The F-35 in its 5thgen VLO capacity may well be too advanced, too alien a concept for the opposition to understand. This is great when the goal is kill them with minimal risk, but when you want them to change their minds, you need something comprehensible and therefore, convincing.

On the home front, I think this is a major reason why the A-10 maintains such traction amongst the greater public -- the aircraft, its purpose and capabilities are obvious and comprehensible. They can see what their tax dollars buy: a big fricking gun. The F-35 appears inscrutably and incongruously benign, and so for the Average Joe, seems completely irrelevant ("Just what are we paying 300gorillion for, it doesn't even have a gun").

Re: Lockheed Develops Rack to Make F-35A/C a Six-Shooter

Unread postPosted: 05 May 2019, 19:44
by marsavian
Don't know if it's an optical illusion but the F-35 appears slimmer and sleeker with external stores to me, almost futuristic looking. It's not a bad look and I suspect its EW will protect it even in those states.

Re: Lockheed Develops Rack to Make F-35A/C a Six-Shooter

Unread postPosted: 05 May 2019, 22:54
by marauder2048
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.

Re: Lockheed Develops Rack to Make F-35A/C a Six-Shooter

Unread postPosted: 06 May 2019, 01:36
by spazsinbad
BACK to the RACK. Has anyone seen this old graphic before (purportedly from LM of olde) at SNAFU F-35 FLOGspot: ???????

F-35 News. You're impressed with 3 AMRAAMs per bay? We were once promised so much more!!! 05 May 2019
https://www.snafu-solomon.com/2019/05/f ... ith-3.html

https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-vbB2P4lPHU8/ ... ing-ii.jpg

:doh: OOPS! 'SWP' found it (I should read more and do less IGNORE of SNAFUman comments) :doh: 20 Aug 2006 F-16.net

viewtopic.php?p=73691#p73691 :doh: ASLO :doh: yep :doh: the graphic is not proportioned correctly :drool: amaturdish :devil: .

Re: Lockheed Develops Rack to Make F-35A/C a Six-Shooter

Unread postPosted: 06 May 2019, 02:10
by southernphantom
Why anyone takes Solomon seriously is beyond me.

Re: Lockheed Develops Rack to Make F-35A/C a Six-Shooter

Unread postPosted: 06 May 2019, 03:45
by spazsinbad
Well that is known however our SPUDMAN retorts some good stuff and this is one example: 'SWP' pointed to this URL:

https://www.tu.no/artikler/kun-ett-krys ... erg/412047 18 Nov 2017
"...Babione emphasizes that there is a large arsenal that will be integrated when the F-35 development is completed in 2018 and in Block 4 in just over five years. All partner countries have weapons they want to integrate on the plane.

It is also about other ways to utilize the bomb room. One example is the aircraft manufacturer's own project "Sidekick" which is about stacking Amraam missiles on top of each other, allowing the F-35 to fly with six such air-to-air missiles internally instead of four as today. Lockheed Martin has a prototype that will soon be transferred to operational testing...."

Re: Lockheed Develops Rack to Make F-35A/C a Six-Shooter

Unread postPosted: 06 May 2019, 22:18
by blain
wolfpak wrote: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.


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 lose 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.

Re: Lockheed Develops Rack to Make F-35A/C a Six-Shooter

Unread postPosted: 06 May 2019, 23:04
by marauder2048
blain wrote:
wolfpak wrote: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.


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.

Re: Lockheed Develops Rack to Make F-35A/C a Six-Shooter

Unread postPosted: 07 May 2019, 01:01
by jetblast16
8 slammers

Re: Lockheed Develops Rack to Make F-35A/C a Six-Shooter

Unread postPosted: 07 May 2019, 01:31
by blain
marauder2048 wrote:
blain wrote:
wolfpak wrote: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.


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?

Re: Lockheed Develops Rack to Make F-35A/C a Six-Shooter

Unread postPosted: 07 May 2019, 02:08
by SpudmanWP
If an ASRAAM is a viable HOBS missile with no TVC and only small tail fins then the AMRAAM can certainly be one.

The F-35 can vector a weapon based on the fused data from any sensor. No single sensor is required for any certain weapon.

As far as if the EODAS can provide a weapon's quality track:

bMPiZs7[1].jpg

Re: Lockheed Develops Rack to Make F-35A/C a Six-Shooter

Unread postPosted: 07 May 2019, 03:29
by spazsinbad
'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


Re: Lockheed Develops Rack to Make F-35A/C a Six-Shooter

Unread postPosted: 07 May 2019, 03:58
by XanderCrews
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.

Re: Lockheed Develops Rack to Make F-35A/C a Six-Shooter

Unread postPosted: 07 May 2019, 04:01
by XanderCrews
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

Re: Lockheed Develops Rack to Make F-35A/C a Six-Shooter

Unread postPosted: 07 May 2019, 06:57
by hornetfinn
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.

Re: Lockheed Develops Rack to Make F-35A/C a Six-Shooter

Unread postPosted: 07 May 2019, 09:06
by hornetfinn
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.

Re: Lockheed Develops Rack to Make F-35A/C a Six-Shooter

Unread postPosted: 07 May 2019, 11:01
by marsavian
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.

Re: Lockheed Develops Rack to Make F-35A/C a Six-Shooter

Unread postPosted: 07 May 2019, 14:31
by mixelflick
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..

Re: Lockheed Develops Rack to Make F-35A/C a Six-Shooter

Unread postPosted: 07 May 2019, 16:00
by steve2267
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.

Re: Lockheed Develops Rack to Make F-35A/C a Six-Shooter

Unread postPosted: 07 May 2019, 16:36
by hkultala
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.

Re: Lockheed Develops Rack to Make F-35A/C a Six-Shooter

Unread postPosted: 08 May 2019, 18:07
by XanderCrews
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:

Re: Lockheed Develops Rack to Make F-35A/C a Six-Shooter

Unread postPosted: 09 May 2019, 22:58
by ricnunes
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:

Re: Lockheed Develops Rack to Make F-35A/C a Six-Shooter

Unread postPosted: 10 May 2019, 00:47
by squirrelshoes
ricnunes that is seriously hilarious, cheers!

Re: Lockheed Develops Rack to Make F-35A/C a Six-Shooter

Unread postPosted: 10 May 2019, 16:47
by mixelflick
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!.

Re: Lockheed Develops Rack to Make F-35A/C a Six-Shooter

Unread postPosted: 14 May 2019, 20:32
by ricnunes
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:

Re: Lockheed Develops Rack to Make F-35A/C a Six-Shooter

Unread postPosted: 31 May 2019, 17:55
by falcon.16
When will be Aim 9X avalaible for to install inside weapons bay? Some new about it?

Re: Lockheed Develops Rack to Make F-35A/C a Six-Shooter

Unread postPosted: 31 May 2019, 18:50
by sprstdlyscottsmn
falcon.16 wrote: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.

Re: Lockheed Develops Rack to Make F-35A/C a Six-Shooter

Unread postPosted: 31 May 2019, 20:15
by squirrelshoes
falcon.16 wrote:When will be Aim 9X avalaible for to install inside weapons bay? Some new about it?

Latest word is "never"

Re: Lockheed Develops Rack to Make F-35A/C a Six-Shooter

Unread postPosted: 03 Jun 2019, 13:48
by mixelflick
squirrelshoes wrote:
falcon.16 wrote: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..

Re: Lockheed Develops Rack to Make F-35A/C a Six-Shooter

Unread postPosted: 03 Jun 2019, 14:07
by SpudmanWP
The rail itself is already confirmed LO so it's just a matter of the 9x.

Re: Lockheed Develops Rack to Make F-35A/C a Six-Shooter

Unread postPosted: 03 Jun 2019, 15:03
by aussiebloke
SpudmanWP wrote: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?

Re: Lockheed Develops Rack to Make F-35A/C a Six-Shooter

Unread postPosted: 03 Jun 2019, 15:24
by SpudmanWP
Improved survivability is too vague term to attribute to just it's RCS, but hey, anything's possible :roll:

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/

Re: Lockheed Develops Rack to Make F-35A/C a Six-Shooter

Unread postPosted: 04 Jun 2019, 00:16
by madrat
How about an ASRAAM seeker on an AMRAAM body?

Re: Lockheed Develops Rack to Make F-35A/C a Six-Shooter

Unread postPosted: 04 Jun 2019, 03:08
by steve2267
madrat wrote: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!

:D

Re: Lockheed Develops Rack to Make F-35A/C a Six-Shooter

Unread postPosted: 04 Jun 2019, 11:29
by aussiebloke
SpudmanWP wrote:Improved survivability is too vague term to attribute to just it's RCS, but hey, anything's possible :roll:
/


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! :D

Re: Lockheed Develops Rack to Make F-35A/C a Six-Shooter

Unread postPosted: 04 Jun 2019, 15:06
by 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.

Re: Lockheed Develops Rack to Make F-35A/C a Six-Shooter

Unread postPosted: 04 Jun 2019, 15:17
by swiss
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote: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.

Re: Lockheed Develops Rack to Make F-35A/C a Six-Shooter

Unread postPosted: 04 Jun 2019, 16:10
by sprstdlyscottsmn
swiss wrote: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.

Re: Lockheed Develops Rack to Make F-35A/C a Six-Shooter

Unread postPosted: 04 Jun 2019, 16:23
by SpudmanWP
aussiebloke wrote:For me this is the clincher - "incorporates specialized external materials to enhance aircraft platform survivability."
Thanks, I missed that.. and I agree.

Re: Lockheed Develops Rack to Make F-35A/C a Six-Shooter

Unread postPosted: 04 Jun 2019, 16:26
by swiss
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:
swiss wrote: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?

Re: Lockheed Develops Rack to Make F-35A/C a Six-Shooter

Unread postPosted: 04 Jun 2019, 16:35
by 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?

Re: Lockheed Develops Rack to Make F-35A/C a Six-Shooter

Unread postPosted: 04 Jun 2019, 16:40
by swiss
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote: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?


I mean will have the additional drag from the 2 missiles and pylons increase the fuel consumption. Sorry spurts English is not my mother tongue.

Re: Lockheed Develops Rack to Make F-35A/C a Six-Shooter

Unread postPosted: 04 Jun 2019, 16:45
by SpudmanWP
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote: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.


IIRC the 9x pylons on the F-35 are canted to the side and not toed-out like on the F-18E/F.

The pylon itself looks to be actually better aerodynamically than the F-16s.

Here is the original 9x pylon for the F-35, note the blunt nose.

F-35wingtipLAU-148AextRailLauncherAIM-9Xsidewinder.jpg


Now, here is the new F-35 9x pylon. Note that the leading edges are knife-like instead of blunt. Next to it is an F-16 pylon for comparison.

capture3.png

Re: Lockheed Develops Rack to Make F-35A/C a Six-Shooter

Unread postPosted: 04 Jun 2019, 17:33
by sprstdlyscottsmn
swiss wrote:
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote: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?


I mean will have the additional drag from the 2 missiles and pylons increase the fuel consumption. Sorry spurts English is not my mother tongue.

Okay, that makes more sense. No the impact to fuel consumption should not be too great. Fuel fraction is the ratio of fuel to gross weight. And don't worry, your English is better than my anything else, you just used the wrong term for the question you had. It happens.

Re: Lockheed Develops Rack to Make F-35A/C a Six-Shooter

Unread postPosted: 04 Jun 2019, 17:37
by disconnectedradical
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote: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 think not. AIM-9X itself has no LO shaping and will have bigger RCS than clean F-35. It doesn't matter if the pylon is canted, look at those perpendicular angles. And look at how perpendicular the control surface of the AIM-9 is. That's NOT good for stealth, and especially at lower frequencies those pylons will be bigger problem for RCS. At certain frequencies small protrusions can make big RCS impacts. Sure, RCS will still be better than Super Hornet or 4.5 gen fighters but it's not ideal.

They really need to fund an ejector launched version of AIM-9X so it can take them internally. That shouldn't be hard. What is the hold up?

Re: Lockheed Develops Rack to Make F-35A/C a Six-Shooter

Unread postPosted: 04 Jun 2019, 17:41
by sprstdlyscottsmn
SpudmanWP wrote:
IIRC the 9x pylons on the F-35 are canted to the side and not toed-out like on the F-18E/F.

Alright Spud, I was pretty sure about it but your post made me double check.

I see pictures like below and it seems "obvious" that even with perspective the pylons are toed out.

5c65c522598e235da94d31d3-750-375.jpg


To be sure, I looked for shots from below. What do you know? You are right.

2012 Feb F-35A External Weapons Carriage 2.jpg


They are canted down, but not toed-out. The drag penalty will not be as bad as I figured.

Re: Lockheed Develops Rack to Make F-35A/C a Six-Shooter

Unread postPosted: 04 Jun 2019, 18:01
by swiss
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:
swiss wrote:
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote: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?


I mean will have the additional drag from the 2 missiles and pylons increase the fuel consumption. Sorry spurts English is not my mother tongue.

Okay, that makes more sense. No the impact to fuel consumption should not be too great. Fuel fraction is the ratio of fuel to gross weight. And don't worry, your English is better than my anything else, you just used the wrong term for the question you had. It happens.


Thanks for your answer. So two external 9x should have a small impact on Drag, fuel consumption and frontal RCS for the F-35.

Problem is, here are many technical words and shortcuts i have to google first. :wink:

Re: Lockheed Develops Rack to Make F-35A/C a Six-Shooter

Unread postPosted: 04 Jun 2019, 19:40
by blain
disconnectedradical wrote:
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote: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 think not. AIM-9X itself has no LO shaping and will have bigger RCS than clean F-35. It doesn't matter if the pylon is canted, look at those perpendicular angles. And look at how perpendicular the control surface of the AIM-9 is. That's NOT good for stealth, and especially at lower frequencies those pylons will be bigger problem for RCS. At certain frequencies small protrusions can make big RCS impacts. Sure, RCS will still be better than Super Hornet or 4.5 gen fighters but it's not ideal.

They really need to fund an ejector launched version of AIM-9X so it can take them internally. That shouldn't be hard. What is the hold up?


What's the hold up? They don't think they need it now. The experience at Red Flag indicates that stealth, enhanced situational awareness, and an AMRAAM only combat load is more than adequate to deal with the current threat.

I really think if it was a priority that the AF could develop the F-35 into an air superiority platform that is only outmatched by the F-22. Once the F-35 is able to carry six AAMs internally it might make sense to integrate a rail launched HOBS AAM as well options for AMRAAMs on the external pylons.

Re: Lockheed Develops Rack to Make F-35A/C a Six-Shooter

Unread postPosted: 04 Jun 2019, 19:46
by SpudmanWP
blain wrote:if it was a priority that the AF could develop the F-35 into an air superiority platform that is only outmatched by the F-22
The JPO has already said that it is.

Re: Lockheed Develops Rack to Make F-35A/C a Six-Shooter

Unread postPosted: 04 Jun 2019, 22:15
by blain
SpudmanWP wrote:
blain wrote:if it was a priority that the AF could develop the F-35 into an air superiority platform that is only outmatched by the F-22
The JPO has already said that it is.


What a priority? Carrying six AAMs internally? Internal launched AIM-9X? Or using the F-35 to replace legacy air superiority planforms?

Re: Lockheed Develops Rack to Make F-35A/C a Six-Shooter

Unread postPosted: 04 Jun 2019, 22:20
by sprstdlyscottsmn
blain wrote:
What a priority? Carrying six AAMs internally? Internal launched AIM-9X? Or using the F-35 to replace legacy air superiority planforms?

That it is already only second to the F-22 in Air to Air.

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

Unread postPosted: 05 Jun 2019, 00:52
by wolfpak
If AIM-9X carriage is important it's surprising to me that they haven't tried to modify the AIM-9X to make it or its carriage more stealthy. Setting the fins at 60, 120, 180, 240 degree spacing, a truncated pyramid cross-section for the body and RAM. For carriage options either carrying them semi-submerged on a pylon mounted rail or within a faceted stealthy pod. Would assume the pod would have a fly-thru nose section that could be replaced if used.

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

Unread postPosted: 05 Jun 2019, 01:14
by optimist
The NATOPS for the f-16 has a good drag Index. If anyone wants to do a aim9 on a station, other than the wingtip and how that compares. I don't know if the FA-18 NATOPS is as good.

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

Unread postPosted: 05 Jun 2019, 01:34
by Corsair1963
wolfpak wrote:If AIM-9X carriage is important it's surprising to me that they haven't tried to modify the AIM-9X to make it or its carriage more stealthy. Setting the fins at 60, 120, 180, 240 degree spacing, a truncated pyramid cross-section for the body and RAM. For carriage options either carrying them semi-submerged on a pylon mounted rail or within a faceted stealthy pod. Would assume the pod would have a fly-thru nose section that could be replaced if used.



My guess is short them the external AIM-9X's have a small impact on the F-35's overall RCS. While, long-term more capable and advanced Air to Air Missiles are in development. Which, will allow the F-35 both greater reach and in larger numbers. (internally)

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

Unread postPosted: 05 Jun 2019, 06:37
by popcorn
It's safe to assume that the JPO and armed services have a pretty. good idea of how extefnal AIM-9X..carriage impacts the F-35's RCS. They also have the latest intelligence on enemy radar capabilities. While nothing is certain, the decision on whether to carry external Sidewinders will be an informed one. Perhaps this played a part in the shelving of plans to develop a mechanism for internal carriage as not being ' worth the squeeze'.

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

Unread postPosted: 05 Jun 2019, 07:36
by marauder2048
Between LREW, MSDM, ErWn and SACM, I can't see the Air Force spending the time and effort
to integrate AIM-9X, a missile at the limits of its growth potential, internally.

Since it's unclear if the other efforts with be exportable, that would leave it up to the partners.

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

Unread postPosted: 05 Jun 2019, 09:58
by hornetfinn
Corsair1963 wrote:
wolfpak wrote:If AIM-9X carriage is important it's surprising to me that they haven't tried to modify the AIM-9X to make it or its carriage more stealthy. Setting the fins at 60, 120, 180, 240 degree spacing, a truncated pyramid cross-section for the body and RAM. For carriage options either carrying them semi-submerged on a pylon mounted rail or within a faceted stealthy pod. Would assume the pod would have a fly-thru nose section that could be replaced if used.



My guess is short them the external AIM-9X's have a small impact on the F-35's overall RCS. While, long-term more capable and advanced Air to Air Missiles are in development. Which, will allow the F-35 both greater reach and in larger numbers. (internally)


I'd bet so also. While external AIM-9X's will likely slightly increase the RCS of F-35, it will still have far lower RCS than almost anything currently flying. Also most of the increased RCS come from close to directly perpendicular to the aircraft and missile which makes it easy to manage. Returns from frontal sector are likely very small with AIM-9X as they are rather small even with older AIM-9 class weapons with much higher amount and area of reflective surfaces.

It's also a choice that is made according to mission needs. I'd bet that in attack missions against fully functioning IADS, F-35s would not carry them. On the other hand when they are tasked for OCA or DCA, they might well carry them. There slightly increased RCS is not going to matter much especially when it most likely has low impact on front sector RCS.

ASRAAM is another weapon for external carriage and I'd bet it has even lower RCS than AIM-9X with very small fins.

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

Unread postPosted: 06 Jun 2019, 19:50
by squirrelshoes
The money they'd use to develop it might as well just spend it developing a dual mode seeker for AMRAAM. Same tech could go towards next gen missiles.

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

Unread postPosted: 06 Jun 2019, 20:08
by disconnectedradical
hornetfinn wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:
wolfpak wrote:If AIM-9X carriage is important it's surprising to me that they haven't tried to modify the AIM-9X to make it or its carriage more stealthy. Setting the fins at 60, 120, 180, 240 degree spacing, a truncated pyramid cross-section for the body and RAM. For carriage options either carrying them semi-submerged on a pylon mounted rail or within a faceted stealthy pod. Would assume the pod would have a fly-thru nose section that could be replaced if used.



My guess is short them the external AIM-9X's have a small impact on the F-35's overall RCS. While, long-term more capable and advanced Air to Air Missiles are in development. Which, will allow the F-35 both greater reach and in larger numbers. (internally)


I'd bet so also. While external AIM-9X's will likely slightly increase the RCS of F-35, it will still have far lower RCS than almost anything currently flying. Also most of the increased RCS come from close to directly perpendicular to the aircraft and missile which makes it easy to manage. Returns from frontal sector are likely very small with AIM-9X as they are rather small even with older AIM-9 class weapons with much higher amount and area of reflective surfaces.

It's also a choice that is made according to mission needs. I'd bet that in attack missions against fully functioning IADS, F-35s would not carry them. On the other hand when they are tasked for OCA or DCA, they might well carry them. There slightly increased RCS is not going to matter much especially when it most likely has low impact on front sector RCS.

ASRAAM is another weapon for external carriage and I'd bet it has even lower RCS than AIM-9X with very small fins.


I don't really buy that. We give Su-57 so much sh*t for RCS shaping such as round nacelles and perpendicular angles, but with these pylons it's the same thing. AIM-9X has no LO shaping, and especially at lower frequencies it's going to be worse.

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

Unread postPosted: 06 Jun 2019, 20:19
by sprstdlyscottsmn
Go ahead and think whatever you want. When an AIM-9L (big fins) was looked at for RCS with a RAM coat it was only 0.001 from the front sector. Now take into account the smaller (by a lot) fins of the AIM-9X, and that the PYLON has RAM and shaping so some energy reflected from the missile will be absorbed or redirected by the pylon. Some of the energy will be further absorbed and reflected by the aircraft itself. They knew what they were doing when they made the bent pylon design.

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

Unread postPosted: 06 Jun 2019, 20:26
by disconnectedradical
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:Go ahead and think whatever you want. When an AIM-9L (big fins) was looked at for RCS with a RAM coat it was only 0.001 from the front sector. Now take into account the smaller (by a lot) fins of the AIM-9X, and that the PYLON has RAM and shaping so some energy reflected from the missile will be absorbed or redirected by the pylon. Some of the energy will be further absorbed and reflected by the aircraft itself. They knew what they were doing when they made the bent pylon design.


Physically smaller doesn't always been lower RCS. Smaller fins can resonate more with X-band radar frequencies. I'm not saying it will totally kill F-35 stealth and even with external AIM-9X it will still be stealthier than a clean Super Hornet, but it just seem unnecessary compromise since there's space for 6 missiles in the bays.

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

Unread postPosted: 06 Jun 2019, 21:28
by wrightwing
If the EW systems on the F-35 can hide F-16s loaded with A2G ordnance, how difficult do you suppose it'd be to hide F-35s with AIM-9X?

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

Unread postPosted: 17 Jun 2019, 17:17
by taog
"...By the time of Lot 15 production, Lockheed aims to increase the internal weapons bay capacity from four to six missiles and integrate new weapons into the aircraft. ..."

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/ ... s-for-f-35