F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Scorpion82 · by **Scorpion82** » 22 Oct 2007, 08:56

@Ozzy,
check the link I provided to check the weapons which are supposed to be internal only and external.

boff180 · by **boff180** » 22 Oct 2007, 12:28

Like what? And i do mean that have been cleared for use on the F35. Strom shadow is annother i can think of. Everything else is in the 2000lb class range AFAIK and CAN be carried internally.

On annother note i wonder if there is any chance of a double rail for WVRAAM's on the inboard weapons station, allowing 8????

Point 1.
The following weapons are being cleared for external carriage only at the present time, many won't actually fit the bay; others no funding or need has arisen:
- GBU-10
- GBU-24A/B
- GBU-16
- Mk-83
- Mk-84
- CBU-100
- GBU-32
- Aim-9X
- JASSM
- Storm Shadow
- External fuel
- baggage pods
- Training LGB rounds.

Internal and external carriage:
- Aim-120C
- Meteor
- Asraam
- Brimstone/JCM
- SDB
- CBU-105
- GBU-12
- GBU-31
- GBU-32
- GBU-38
- JSOW

Point 2. The way the missile rail works, there is no way of practically fitting a double rail to it. The trapeze system is being developed to take 2x Aim-120C but thats all.

Andy

dwightlooi · by **dwightlooi** » 22 Oct 2007, 22:12

boff180 wrote:Point 2. The way the missile rail works, there is no way of practically fitting a double rail to it. The trapeze system is being developed to take 2x Aim-120C but thats all.

Andy

Actually, the F-35 has NO INTERNAL RAILs. Period.

The door mounted AMRAAM/ASRAAM station is an ejector which launches the missiles downwards with motor ignition occuring after release. This is the reason the current AIM-9X cannot be used in that position -- the AIM-9X as it is currently designed is rail launch only.

Ozzy_Blizzard · by **Ozzy_Blizzard** » 23 Oct 2007, 07:04

boff180 wrote:
Like what? And i do mean that have been cleared for use on the F35. Strom shadow is annother i can think of. Everything else is in the 2000lb class range AFAIK and CAN be carried internally.

On annother note i wonder if there is any chance of a double rail for WVRAAM's on the inboard weapons station, allowing 8????

Point 1.
The following weapons are being cleared for external carriage only at the present time, many won't actually fit the bay; others no funding or need has arisen:
- GBU-10
- GBU-24A/B
- GBU-16
- Mk-83
- Mk-84
- CBU-100
- GBU-32
- Aim-9X
- JASSM
- Storm Shadow
- External fuel
- baggage pods
- Training LGB rounds.

Internal and external carriage:
- Aim-120C
- Meteor
- Asraam
- Brimstone/JCM
- SDB
- CBU-105
- GBU-12
- GBU-31
- GBU-32
- GBU-38
- JSOW

Point 2. The way the missile rail works, there is no way of practically fitting a double rail to it. The trapeze system is being developed to take 2x Aim-120C but thats all.

Andy

A few suprises there. Thanks.

Ozzy_Blizzard · by **Ozzy_Blizzard** » 23 Oct 2007, 07:07

dwightlooi wrote:
boff180 wrote:Point 2. The way the missile rail works, there is no way of practically fitting a double rail to it. The trapeze system is being developed to take 2x Aim-120C but thats all.

Andy

Actually, the F-35 has NO INTERNAL RAILs. Period.

The door mounted AMRAAM/ASRAAM station is an ejector which launches the missiles downwards with motor ignition occuring after release. This is the reason the current AIM-9X cannot be used in that position -- the AIM-9X as it is currently designed is rail launch only.

That is a huge problem and a ridiculous one! What exactly is the USAF doing about it? At the moment they face the fact of going into battle with an unballanced warload in stealth configuration. A new version of the Aim 9 perhaps???

Ozzy_Blizzard · by **Ozzy_Blizzard** » 23 Oct 2007, 07:08

duplicate post

dwightlooi · by **dwightlooi** » 23 Oct 2007, 23:09

Ozzy_Blizzard wrote:
That is a huge problem and a ridiculous one! What exactly is the USAF doing about it? At the moment they face the fact of going into battle with an unballanced warload in stealth configuration. A new version of the Aim 9 perhaps???

Well, 2012 is 5 years away, thats plenty of time to develop a new AIM-9X "block" if needed. Right now, the WVR AAM is a low priority. Even on the F-16 and F-18 it has become popular to carry the AMRAAM on the wing tips in lieu of the sidewinder. And in a typical penetration mission two or eight internal bombs with 2 AMRAAMs will be the typical load out. The same bomb load with two AIM-9Xes won't be carried much.

That is the baseline. Also, at IOC there won't be a 6 AAM internal loadout option. Studies have been done to allow the F-35A to carry 6 AAMs internally, but there is no schedule to develop a twin ejector for the internal 2,500 lb stations by IOC (2012). Hence, at IOC, the F-35A/B/C will carrying 4 AMRAAMs internally on air superiority missions.

Thumper3181 · by **Thumper3181** » 24 Oct 2007, 05:45

Right now, the WVR AAM is a low priority. Even on the F-16 and F-18 it has become popular to carry the AMRAAM on the wing tips in lieu of the sidewinder.

Why would you even want/need to go WVR in a F-35 or F-22 anyway. You negate some (not all) of your advantages that way.

Parkeran · by **Parkeran** » 24 Oct 2007, 07:02

Fair fight? Hardly. F-35 wins before they even takeoff.

dwightlooi · by **dwightlooi** » 25 Oct 2007, 01:23

Thumper3181 wrote:
Right now, the WVR AAM is a low priority. Even on the F-16 and F-18 it has become popular to carry the AMRAAM on the wing tips in lieu of the sidewinder.

Why would you even want/need to go WVR in a F-35 or F-22 anyway. You negate some (not all) of your advantages that way.

I think that the answer you will get from the Rafale crowd is that the AMRAAM sucks and it always misses because the Rafale's internal jammer always works and the French bird will usually dodge AMRAAMs anyway. LOL!

That's rubbish of course, but it is possible that a BVR shot will miss for whatever reason and due to certain tactical conditions a fight can merge into a WVR brawl. One thing to consider in this case is that basically the F-35 will have the first shot BVR, and even if it does miss, the target is probably just coming out of a series of frantic evasive maneuvers. The prey will hence tend to enter a WVR fight in an energy, vector and situational awareness mess. The F-35 will on the other hand have tend to enter the fight in its chosen set of conditions. Regardless of the maneuverability, equipment and other factors of both aircrafts, that counts for A LOT!

Thumper3181 · by **Thumper3181** » 25 Oct 2007, 05:06

I think that the answer you will get from the Rafale crowd is that the AMRAAM sucks and it always misses because the Rafale's internal jammer always works and the French bird will usually dodge AMRAAMs anyway. LOL!

Now now DL. This isn't that other talk site with Herald's poseur.

Pilotasso · by **Pilotasso** » 25 Oct 2007, 08:56

dwightlooi wrote:
Well, 2012 is 5 years away, thats plenty of time to develop a new AIM-9X "block" if needed. Right now, the WVR AAM is a low priority. Even on the F-16 and F-18 it has become popular to carry the AMRAAM on the wing tips in lieu of the sidewinder.

Thats not exactly the reason why. The reason is because a weapon as heavy and big as the AMRAAM is simply easier to manuever into the rails outwards of the aircrafts contours with no obstacles. like the wings and other external stores. Note that the sidwinder is frequently mixed with the AMRAAM and this last missile is still mounted on the tips regardless of the missile combo. Thats because the groud crew can load the sidwinder easely anywhere but not as such with the AIM-120. Technicaly theres no reason for this because the AIM-120 makes the tips bounce with the load and the tips are better for IR seeker lock before launch, but just barely. Its simply due to the easiness and time saving of loading it up.

Similarly you can see AMRAAMs loaded in the F-15's outer underwing side pylons as opposed to the sidwinder mounted inwards.

ACMIguy · by **ACMIguy** » 25 Oct 2007, 20:50

Pilotasso

Where did you get the idea Sta 1/9 is better for loading the 120? We load them where ever OPS calls for it. And to be honest it's just as easy to load on any station, maybe easier on 2/8.
The key is training with the Jammer and OSLO.
Load out is based on priority, if your 120 is your primary weapon you want that on 1/9 with 9's on 2/8.
Yes the bounce is greater with the 120, after all it's hanging out there about 4 extra feet than the 9. And yes the jet pays a price for the extra G load and twisting. Just talk to any fuels or CC guy/gal about leaks.
And there is no time savings for any loading operation, no matter what station you put what on.
Give me a good crew and I'll turn the jet anytime anyplace just as fast with any load out you want. Been doing it for years.

Okay so now for the loading on the F-35 and what it can or can not carry. Remember folks LM is still working out where all the nuts and bolts go first.
This thing is going to be changing for a long time, first they got to get it off the ground then work on the side view mirrors and chrome spinners for the wheels.
:wink:

So just sit back chill and watch

checksixx · by **checksixx** » 25 Oct 2007, 22:16

dwightlooi wrote:Even on the F-16 and F-18 it has become popular to carry the AMRAAM on the wing tips in lieu of the sidewinder.

F/A-18? Please link a pic with F/A-18's carrying slammers on the wingtips, Thanks. Never, EVER, seen that before so I'm curious!

Scorpion82 · by **Scorpion82** » 26 Oct 2007, 00:48

I think the AMRAAMs on F/A-18 was just a mixing up of things. I recently heared from a F/A-18 guy that its not possible to load the AMRAAM to the Hornets wing tips, because of some structural wing problems.