F-35 and a nuclear attack

Discuss the F-35 Lightning II

Can the F-35 carry AGM-69 or ASMP

yes (but only externally )
0
No votes
yes ( and it can even carry the AGM-69 internally )
1
9%
NO
10
91%
 
Total votes : 11

  • Author
  • Message
Offline

moon_light

Banned

  • Posts: 40
  • Joined: 28 May 2012, 00:31
  • Location: oxford

Unread post28 May 2012, 01:01

Apart from b61 bomb can the F-35 carry any other nuclear weapon such as AGM-69 or ASMP ( internal and external :twisted: ) in case the agm-69 have not retired ,and the ASMP is for export
AGM-69 have been carried by F-111 in the internal weapon bay can the F-35 do the same ? :? ( i think their weapon bay are pretty same size )

WIKI say that a nuclear explosion at high altitude can produce significantly EMP effect (nuclear bomb explodes at 30 miles high can produce EMP effect out to 480 miles :evil: )
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-altit ... _explosion
and also the ASM-135 ( anti satellite missile) did use the motor from AGM-69 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ASM-135_ASAT
So in theory can an aircraft carry the AGM-69 just goes to a zoom climb , fires the AGM-69 straight up to the sky , may be time the warhead of it so that it explode at high altitude and create huge EMP effect to destroy enemy radar , electronic equipment ( the russian KH-15 is pretty much the same size with AGM-69 and can climb to an altitude of about 40,000 m :shock: so i think this will not be a hard work :twisted: is it )
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kh-15_%28missile%29[/b]
:D sorry for bad english
Offline

southernphantom

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 825
  • Joined: 06 Aug 2011, 17:18
  • Location: Somewhere in Dixie

Unread post28 May 2012, 01:05

I...what??? We don't even have those in the inventory any more. It is also too long to fit in the F-35's bay, even if it was in service and safe to use.
Offline

moon_light

Banned

  • Posts: 40
  • Joined: 28 May 2012, 00:31
  • Location: oxford

Unread post28 May 2012, 01:16

oh yeah i have just check it too long ,but if we reproduce this missile i still think the F-35 can carry it
Offline

moon_light

Banned

  • Posts: 40
  • Joined: 28 May 2012, 00:31
  • Location: oxford

Unread post28 May 2012, 01:20

externally as the F-35 can even carry the Storm Shadow which is pretty much heavier , one more question , do anyone know why only the F-14 can carry the AIM-54 ,this missile isnot that heavy only 1000 pounds ( much lighter than many bombs , air to surface missile )
Offline

southernphantom

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 825
  • Joined: 06 Aug 2011, 17:18
  • Location: Somewhere in Dixie

Unread post28 May 2012, 01:36

Loading a missile onto a fighter is, sadly, not as simple as just locking it onto a hardpoint and adding the necessary ejection charges. It requires software and electrical systems to do so properly. To answer your question, it wouldn't surprise me if other aircraft could carry the AIM-54, but they can't launch it either because of software constraints or incompatibility with their systems. The AIM-54 is also not a particularly good missile in any parameters aside from range and sheer destructive power.
Offline
User avatar

That_Engine_Guy

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2271
  • Joined: 14 Dec 2005, 05:03
  • Location: Under an engine somewhere.

Unread post28 May 2012, 01:38

If the US wired the A-1 Skyraider to carry a weapon of this type, why wouldn't they plan on the Lightening II doing the same?

TEG
[Airplanes are] near perfect, all they lack is the ability to forgive.
— Richard Collins
Offline

moon_light

Banned

  • Posts: 40
  • Joined: 28 May 2012, 00:31
  • Location: oxford

Unread post28 May 2012, 01:50

southernphantom wrote:Loading a missile onto a fighter is, sadly, not as simple as just locking it onto a hardpoint and adding the necessary ejection charges. It requires software and electrical systems to do so properly. To answer your question, it wouldn't surprise me if other aircraft could carry the AIM-54, but they can't launch it either because of software constraints or incompatibility with their systems. The AIM-54 is also not a particularly good missile in any parameters aside from range and sheer destructive power.

how about the F-35 UAI :twisted:
There is a new feature called UAI (Universal Armament Interface) that is being build as part of the F-35. Think of it as a plug-n-play "driver" for weapons. Basically, it allows weapons to be added to the F-35's repertoire without having to do a Block Upgrade.
. The Universal Armaments Interface (UAI) program, run by the Aging Aircraft Systems Squadron, has the goal of developing common software that will allow the Air Force to incorporate new precision-guided munitions onto its aircraft without requiring major changes to each aircraft's operational-flight-program (OFP) software. This capability is expected to enable the integration of weapons independent of the block-upgrade process, cutting as much as five years from a given integration effort.
Offline

bjr1028

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 511
  • Joined: 07 Jul 2009, 03:34
  • Location: Dubuque, IA

Unread post28 May 2012, 06:35

AGM-69 has been out of service for 20 years, ASMP is french, and they are much far too larger for internal carriage.
Offline

1st503rdsgt

Banned

  • Posts: 1547
  • Joined: 23 Jan 2011, 01:23

Unread post28 May 2012, 07:15

AGM-69 is gone and obsolescent anyways. However, there's an ample stockpile of W-80/W84 warheads in the enduring stockpile that could be adapted easily enough to newer, LO delivery systems coming online. JASSM (external) and JSOW-ER (internal) both have the capacity to handle the weapon's physics package and wouldn't count under the New START treaty because their shorter ranges make them tactical in nature.

Although the W-80s/W-84s were designed for the Tomahawk, ALCM, ACM, and Griffon systems, JASSM and JSOW are both capable of carrying the same sized conventional payloads as Tomahawk and the AGM-86, so I see no reason why they can't be adapted as tactical nukes. I'm not sure what the development costs would be, but it would seem a prudent measure to take as deterrence against emerging 2nd tier nuclear powers without cutting into our strategic allowances under New START.
The sky is blue because God loves the Infantry.
Offline

moon_light

Banned

  • Posts: 40
  • Joined: 28 May 2012, 00:31
  • Location: oxford

Unread post28 May 2012, 14:16

bjr1028 wrote:AGM-69 has been out of service for 20 years, ASMP is french, and they are much far too larger for internal carriage.

How about externally ? The UAI of F-35 seem to allow it to add weapon to the inventory not so hard ,one more thing japan is also developing asm-3 and they also buying F-35 so it is very likely that the japan F-35 will carry ASM-3 :twisted: do you guy think so
Offline

southernphantom

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 825
  • Joined: 06 Aug 2011, 17:18
  • Location: Somewhere in Dixie

Unread post28 May 2012, 20:55

To quote SpudmanWP on another forum:

"Besides, UAI is not the same as legacy weapon integration. Japan can create their own UAI weapon profiles and keep them to themselves. It will not alter the block software so LM is happy either way. UAI is not a LM invention and includes all major US weapon manufactures, Boeing (first working UAI was in a F-15), and several European mfgs. LM cannot keep Japan from doing their own UAI work.

Integration via UAI has nothing to do with the frequencies, modes, etc used by the missiles. It contains basic flight information to let the computer know when to fire the missile and how to communicate with it in case of mid course updates."

I *suppose* ASMP could be fired, although there is absolutely zero chance of the French buying F-35s. ASM-3 wouldn't surprise me.
Offline
User avatar

That_Engine_Guy

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2271
  • Joined: 14 Dec 2005, 05:03
  • Location: Under an engine somewhere.

Unread post29 May 2012, 02:37

Two words - "Silver Bullet"....

:whistle: TEG
[Airplanes are] near perfect, all they lack is the ability to forgive.
— Richard Collins
Offline

sferrin

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1899
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post29 May 2012, 04:36

Hey newb, why not just ask if it can carry a Proton Torpedo.
"There I was. . ."
Offline
User avatar

That_Engine_Guy

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2271
  • Joined: 14 Dec 2005, 05:03
  • Location: Under an engine somewhere.

Unread post29 May 2012, 07:08

sferrin wrote:Hey newb, why not just ask if it can carry a Proton Torpedo.


:lmao: to go along with the Romulan cloaking device to achieve stealth?
[Airplanes are] near perfect, all they lack is the ability to forgive.
— Richard Collins
Offline

1st503rdsgt

Banned

  • Posts: 1547
  • Joined: 23 Jan 2011, 01:23

Unread post29 May 2012, 08:24

The elites' flippancy here is disappointing to say the least. Tactical nuclear weapons delivery is no joke; you guys should know better.

F-35's most likely weapon.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RlH7OuWi ... plpp_video

Methods of delivery to escape weapon effects.
http://www.criticalpast.com/video/65675 ... Angle-Loft
The sky is blue because God loves the Infantry.
Next

Return to General F-35 Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 1 guest