F-35 semi-stealth to stealth transition in Air to Air fight?

F-35 Armament, fuel tanks, internal and external hardpoints, loadouts, and other stores.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

bigjku

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 378
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2012, 21:00

Unread post23 Jun 2012, 03:58

You don't see one aircraft company steal a name that is property of another. Mustang is a North American name so Lockheed would never use it.
Offline

redbird87

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 170
  • Joined: 11 Aug 2007, 20:00

Unread post23 Jun 2012, 04:12

That makes sense, although N.A. is long since gone. That would throw the Curtiss P-40 out too.
Offline

navy_airframer

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 51
  • Joined: 14 Nov 2011, 00:41

Unread post23 Jun 2012, 04:33

jeffb wrote:They'll have clearance issues with those big fins won't they?


That actually appears to be a AIM-9M. The 9X has smaller triangular shaped rear fins.

http://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/rt ... allery.swf
Offline

jeffb

Banned

  • Posts: 438
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2010, 08:00
  • Location: Australia

Unread post23 Jun 2012, 06:39

jeffb wrote:AIM-9X slides of the rail doesn't it? Inner door station is an ejector. Possibly they need to update/redesign the software on the AIM-9X to get it to perform a drop/engine fire sequence like AIM-120 or ASRAAM.

They'll have clearance issues with those big fins won't they?
wrightwing wrote:That's an AIM-9M. The 9X has much smaller fins.
navy_airframer wrote:That actually appears to be a AIM-9M. The 9X has smaller triangular shaped rear fins.


Really? What, like these ones I posted back on page 2?
jeffb wrote:Image

Image


Thanks guys :roll:

So does anyone know if the 9X is still rail launched only or not?

Global Security wrote:A buffer connector must be used on the mid-body umbilical connector when the AIM-9X is loaded on the LAU-127 launcher. The AIM-9X will use an internal cryogenic engine, called a cryoengine, for IR element cooling. The cryoengine does not require externally-supplied coolant, e.g., nitrogen, and thus does not use the nitrogen receiver assemblies contained in the LAU-7 and LAU-127 launchers, which provide IR element coolant for the AIM-9M.
.
.
.
For the USN and United States Marine Corps (USMC), two guided missile launchers are available to carry and launch the AIM-9X on the F/A-18 aircraft. The LAU-7 guided missile launcher can be used on all applicable Sidewinder weapons stations, however, it requires modification of the current power supply and the addition of digital and addressing lines to the forward umbilical to carry and launch the AIM-9X. With these modifications, it will be designated the LAU-7D/A. The LAU-127 guided missile launcher can be used on the F/A-18 aircraft wing stations only. F/A-18 aircraft wing stations require a LAU-115 guided missile launcher in order to attach the LAU-127.


Most of the stuff I could find suggests that the AIM-9X is still rail launched (LAU-7/127/128/129), it’s supposed to be backwardly compatible with existing launchers. However, it has the same lock on after launch capability as the AIM-120 so possibly it can be ejector launched as well but I haven’t found anything that states categorically that that is the case.

Diagrams from the F-35 program people only list AIM-9X as an external carry weapon (AIM-120 and AIM-132 are the only internal A2A missiles listed) which suggests that they don’t think it can be ejector launched either.
Offline

madrat

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1021
  • Joined: 03 Mar 2010, 03:12

Unread post23 Jun 2012, 07:02

count_to_10 wrote:On the topic of fighter names, I'm surprised they didn't name the F-35 the Warhawk II. More P-40s were built than P-38s, and I think more countries used them, too.


The second post from the top (in the link below) I set out a naming convention that divides the variants into their own designations. Why shouldn't they get their own designations?

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopi ... 5.html#top
Last edited by madrat on 23 Jun 2012, 13:31, edited 1 time in total.
Offline

m

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 651
  • Joined: 01 Jan 2011, 23:40
  • Location: NL

Unread post23 Jun 2012, 09:09

Raytheon (PDF)

AIM-9X is fully compatible with the LAU-12X series and the LAU-7 launchers

This weapon system design experience includes the AMRAAM; the AMRAAM/ AIM-9X compatible digital
launcher; the F-14D, F/A-18E/F and F-15 advanced radars; and the F-22 weapon system.

AIM-9X Sidewinder Specifications:
Weight: 118 lb (85 kg)
Length: 119 in (3 m)
Diameter: 5 in (12.7 cm)
Fin Span: 17.5 in (44.45 cm)
Wing Span: 13.9 in (35.31 cm)

http://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/pr ... 054518.pdf
Offline

weasel1962

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 261
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore

Unread post23 Jun 2012, 09:47

madrat wrote:
count_to_10 wrote:On the topic of fighter names, I'm surprised they didn't name the F-35 the Warhawk II. More P-40s were built than P-38s, and I think more countries used them, too.


Any British influence? The British lightning was designated the F.53...
Offline

jeffb

Banned

  • Posts: 438
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2010, 08:00
  • Location: Australia

Unread post23 Jun 2012, 10:03

m wrote:Raytheon (PDF)

AIM-9X is fully compatible with the LAU-12X series and the LAU-7 launchers

This weapon system design experience includes the AMRAAM; the AMRAAM/ AIM-9X compatible digital
launcher; the F-14D, F/A-18E/F and F-15 advanced radars; and the F-22 weapon system.

AIM-9X Sidewinder Specifications:
Weight: 118 lb (85 kg)
Length: 119 in (3 m)
Diameter: 5 in (12.7 cm)
Fin Span: 17.5 in (44.45 cm)
Wing Span: 13.9 in (35.31 cm)

http://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/pr ... 054518.pdf
...fully compatible with the LAU-12X series and the LAU-7 launchers....

All of those are rail launchers. If it were ejector capable you'd think they'd mention it in the sales blurb so I guess that's why no internal AIM-9X on the F-35.

Thanks M
Offline

m

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 651
  • Joined: 01 Jan 2011, 23:40
  • Location: NL

Unread post23 Jun 2012, 11:38

F35 Lightning … personally I do think a good name for this jet.

Interesting story of a P38 pilot:
DOGFIGHTS, P38 LIGHTNING VS ME 109
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ITRLk9b9 ... re=related


Red Bull P38 Lightning at Flying Legends 2011
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bLKiQ06z ... re=related
Offline

count_to_10

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2047
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2012, 15:38

Unread post23 Jun 2012, 18:29

m wrote:F35 Lightning … personally I do think a good name for this jet.

Interesting story of a P38 pilot:
DOGFIGHTS, P38 LIGHTNING VS ME 109
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ITRLk9b9 ... re=related


Red Bull P38 Lightning at Flying Legends 2011
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bLKiQ06z ... re=related

The main limitation on the P-38 seems to be that it was built to get up to near transonic speeds, but was a mess from an area ruling standpoint. If you look at it, the cockpit and both engines start at about the same front-to-back location, and the wings are at the same front-to-back location as the canopy.
Offline

johnwill

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1473
  • Joined: 24 Mar 2007, 21:06
  • Location: Fort Worth, Texas

Unread post23 Jun 2012, 19:42

Let's say the P-38 had good area ruling, so it could have gotten into the transonic range. That's when the really nasty stuff would have started - flutter, divergence, and control reversal. Be grateful the area ruling wasn't good.
Offline

m

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 651
  • Joined: 01 Jan 2011, 23:40
  • Location: NL

Unread post23 Jun 2012, 20:10

count_to_10 wrote:
m wrote:F35 Lightning … personally I do think a good name for this jet.

Interesting story of a P38 pilot:
DOGFIGHTS, P38 LIGHTNING VS ME 109
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ITRLk9b9 ... re=related


Red Bull P38 Lightning at Flying Legends 2011
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bLKiQ06z ... re=related

The main limitation on the P-38 seems to be that it was built to get up to near transonic speeds, but was a mess from an area ruling standpoint. If you look at it, the cockpit and both engines start at about the same front-to-back location, and the wings are at the same front-to-back location as the canopy.



Who knows, may be within 20 years no one talks about the Lightning, but in stead will use a name given by pilots? May be Viper 2 or ....
Offline

count_to_10

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2047
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2012, 15:38

Unread post23 Jun 2012, 20:14

Who knows, may be within 20 years no one talks about the Lightning, but in stead will use a name given by pilots? May be Viper 2 or ....


I already see "JSF" more often than "Lightening", and we see people using "Bees" and "Cees" for the variants.
Einstein got it backward: one cannot prevent a war without preparing for it.
Offline

m

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 651
  • Joined: 01 Jan 2011, 23:40
  • Location: NL

Unread post23 Jun 2012, 20:44

Much more of a problem than how many missiles or how good is a F35 in a dogfight is the problem of sams
Concerning this there is no 4th or 4.5th generation that can handle this against modern sams
The F35 has a much better change to survive this.

A good example of these dangers, in this case an old system, is the lost RF-4E Phantom above Syria.

Turkish RF-4E Phantom shot down by Syrian Air Defense battery. Known and unknown facts
The Aviationist, june 22

Quote: Then, if it was really shot down by a Syrian SAM (Surface to Air Missile) battery, which kind of missile hit the Phantom?

According to rumors, it was an SA-5 Gammon (S-200) a long range medium to high-altitude mobile SAM produced by the Soviets in the ’60s. Five SA-5 sites are known to be active in Syria.

The (aging) system (very well known to NATO in terms of capability, range, operating radio frequencies, signature, etc.) uses radio semi active guidance with terminal active radar homing. With a peak speed of around Mach 8 a single-shot kill probability is quoted as 0.85, presumably against a high altitude heavy bomber-type of target, should be less against a fast maneuvering combat plane.

Therefore, connecting the dots, the RF-4 was most probably flying outside the Syrian airspace at high altitude on a recce mission (still, there’s a residual chance it was a flight of F-4Es on a mission aimed at testing the Syrian air defense readiness). It was downed by an SA-5 shot that proved that this kind of missile can be lethal even if fired by accident by personnel believed to be not so very well trained (this being a serious issue should NATO eventually decide to establish a No-Fly Zone over Syria).
http://theaviationist.com/2012/06/22/tuaf-f4-shot-down/
Offline

haavarla

Banned

  • Posts: 873
  • Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 19:36

Unread post23 Jun 2012, 21:06

Lets not jump in the bed with bad press here.
The RF-4E Phantom was shot down by anti air guns.
I seen some charts of its flight path, i'm 95% certain it was gunned down by an Syrian navy asset. cause it was trailing along its economical sea border, and accidently swayed inside it on a low altitude level flight..

Anyway, the pilots survived, so the fact will get out sooner or later.
PreviousNext

Return to F-35 Armament, Stores and Tactics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: langbein and 0 guests