Page 2 of 4

Re: F-35A/C to carry heavier weapons internally?

Unread postPosted: 22 Jul 2019, 10:08
by squirrelshoes
Corsair1963 wrote:According to the current information, the BLU-136/B is a 2,000 lb.-class bomb designed to rain down metal fragments on enemy forces as a replacement for cluster munitions, without leaving behind unexploded ordnance. This weapon is four-times the size of the BLU-134/B Improved Lethality Warhead, which is now being put into production. The BLU-134 and BLU-136 are different designs.
I wonder if they could make an SDB size version with a RF/MWR seeker? It would be a nice fit for F-35 in DEAD role.

Re: F-35A/C to carry heavier weapons internally?

Unread postPosted: 22 Jul 2019, 10:49
by taog
FS425 modification allows the F-35 Ac to carry "aft heavy" weaponry.

Not a heavier weapon.

Image

Re: F-35A/C to carry heavier weapons internally?

Unread postPosted: 22 Jul 2019, 11:54
by steve2267
A booster stage for a hypersonic munition would put a lot of mass towards the rear of said munition.

Re: F-35A/C to carry heavier weapons internally?

Unread postPosted: 22 Jul 2019, 18:38
by marauder2048
steve2267 wrote:A booster stage for a hypersonic munition would put a lot of mass towards the rear of said munition.


I was thinking about boosted penetrator designs a la HVPW.

Re: F-35A/C to carry heavier weapons internally?

Unread postPosted: 22 Jul 2019, 20:52
by steve2267
marauder2048 wrote:
steve2267 wrote:A booster stage for a hypersonic munition would put a lot of mass towards the rear of said munition.


I was thinking about boosted penetrator designs a la HVPW.


Good call.

While it might be possible to create a hypersonic weapon that fits internally inside the F-35 weapons bay, the resulting fineness ratio would probably not be optimal.

Digging up some old links regarding the HVPW... am not sure how much additional mass is towards the rear compared to a Mk84. The HVPW still appears to have a lot of mass concentrated at the nose of the weapon (obviously, as it is designed for penetration.)

Here are some links:

F-16.net thread: Another Weapons for F-35 - HVPW

Meet America's New 'Bunker-Buster' Super Bomb @ National Interest (Oh, vey :roll: )

Re: F-35A/C to carry heavier weapons internally?

Unread postPosted: 22 Jul 2019, 22:32
by kimjongnumbaun
squirrelshoes wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:According to the current information, the BLU-136/B is a 2,000 lb.-class bomb designed to rain down metal fragments on enemy forces as a replacement for cluster munitions, without leaving behind unexploded ordnance. This weapon is four-times the size of the BLU-134/B Improved Lethality Warhead, which is now being put into production. The BLU-134 and BLU-136 are different designs.
I wonder if they could make an SDB size version with a RF/MWR seeker? It would be a nice fit for F-35 in DEAD role.


SDB II has a RF seeker head so it already fills that role.

Re: F-35A/C to carry heavier weapons internally?

Unread postPosted: 22 Jul 2019, 23:32
by marauder2048
steve2267 wrote:
marauder2048 wrote:
steve2267 wrote:A booster stage for a hypersonic munition would put a lot of mass towards the rear of said munition.


I was thinking about boosted penetrator designs a la HVPW.


Digging up some old links regarding the HVPW... am not sure how much additional mass is towards the rear compared to a Mk84. The HVPW still appears to have a lot of mass concentrated at the nose of the weapon (obviously, as it is designed for penetration.)


Depends on the final configuration; a wrap-around booster motor (slide 17) rather than a tandem booster motor
might be preferable since you could get closer to the optimal penetrator L/D ratio given bay constraints.

Re: F-35A/C to carry heavier weapons internally?

Unread postPosted: 24 Jul 2019, 12:14
by taog
https://aviationweek.com/defense/f-35-m ... eapons-bay

https://twitter.com/TheDEWLine/status/1 ... 7231978499

According to Steve Trimble's report, a source close to program tells him this modification is aimed to make the AARGM-ER and SiAW can be carried internally by F-35 A/C. Also, this is a necessary modification to implement the Sidekick concept.

Re: F-35A/C to carry heavier weapons internally?

Unread postPosted: 24 Jul 2019, 16:16
by wrightwing
eloise wrote:
Lockheed Martin Corp., Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co., Fort Worth, Texas, is awarded a $34,670,000 undefinitized cost-plus-incentive-fee contract to develop and deliver an engineering change proposal to enable the production cut-in of the Fuselage Station 425 Bulkhead structural modification required for F-35A and F-35C to allow full-envelope internal carriage of aft heavy weaponry.

does that mean current heavy weapon can't be carried in full envelope?

No. It means that they want to carry heavier weapons, with full envelope available. It already has full envelope with the current full internal payload weight. Heavier weapons would require modifications, though.

Re: F-35A/C to carry heavier weapons internally?

Unread postPosted: 24 Jul 2019, 16:20
by sferrin
wrightwing wrote:
eloise wrote:
Lockheed Martin Corp., Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co., Fort Worth, Texas, is awarded a $34,670,000 undefinitized cost-plus-incentive-fee contract to develop and deliver an engineering change proposal to enable the production cut-in of the Fuselage Station 425 Bulkhead structural modification required for F-35A and F-35C to allow full-envelope internal carriage of aft heavy weaponry.

does that mean current heavy weapon can't be carried in full envelope?

No. It means that they want to carry heavier weapons, with full envelope available. It already has full envelope with the current full internal payload weight. Heavier weapons would require modifications, though.


Not heavier. Just different weight distribution. JDAMs/JSOWs are relatively nose-heavy. AARGM-ER has a more even weight distribution, meaning more weight towards the rear. That's what they're modifying for.

Re: F-35A/C to carry heavier weapons internally?

Unread postPosted: 24 Jul 2019, 17:39
by marauder2048
sferrin wrote:Not heavier. Just different weight distribution. JDAMs/JSOWs are relatively nose-heavy. AARGM-ER has a more even weight distribution, meaning more weight towards the rear. That's what they're modifying for.


JSOW-ER is likely to change that too.

Re: F-35A/C to carry heavier weapons internally?

Unread postPosted: 24 Jul 2019, 17:45
by sprstdlyscottsmn
sferrin wrote:Not heavier. Just different weight distribution. JDAMs/JSOWs are relatively nose-heavy. AARGM-ER has a more even weight distribution, meaning more weight towards the rear. That's what they're modifying for.

Internal carriage of AARGM-ER whose approach can be masked by the Barracuda sure sounds like a death knell for IADS hubs

Re: F-35A/C to carry heavier weapons internally?

Unread postPosted: 24 Jul 2019, 19:05
by sferrin
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:
sferrin wrote:Not heavier. Just different weight distribution. JDAMs/JSOWs are relatively nose-heavy. AARGM-ER has a more even weight distribution, meaning more weight towards the rear. That's what they're modifying for.

Internal carriage of AARGM-ER whose approach can be masked by the Barracuda sure sounds like a death knell for IADS hubs


Barracuda?

Re: F-35A/C to carry heavier weapons internally?

Unread postPosted: 24 Jul 2019, 19:18
by sprstdlyscottsmn
The ECM suite of the F-35 which is stated to "create wormholes" through IADS radar networks that 4th gen strike aircraft can pass through. If it can do that they it should easily mask an AARGM-ER until it is too late.

Re: F-35A/C to carry heavier weapons internally?

Unread postPosted: 24 Jul 2019, 19:19
by aussiebloke
sferrin wrote:
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:
Internal carriage of AARGM-ER whose approach can be masked by the Barracuda sure sounds like a death knell for IADS hubs


Barracuda?


AN/ASQ-239 Barracuda

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... -f-448795/