Forum: Program and politics

SpudmanWP wrote:

Yes, that is what I said, 12xAMRAAM and 2xSidewinder (plus a centerline).

Just for the fun of it, can the F-18E/F carry AAMs on the centerline?

No idea. But I remember wondering if it would be possible to develop a four-round rack for AIM-120s. Think about it, on an F-4E AUP 2000: 4 AMRAAM on fuselage stations, 2 each on 2 LAU-128s on the inboard stations, and 4 on a center mega-rack. Total capacity would be 12 missiles, as well as outboard external tanks. In other words, an old strike plane just turned into the missile truck from hell Laughing

F-16.net Sponsor

How many enemy aircraft are likely to be within range of one blue aircraft during the course of a mission?

Not that many.. which is why I think 4-6 is just fine.

The unknown is how effective jamming will be and how it will lower PK which would require multiple AAMs per target.

wrightwing wrote:

SpudmanWP wrote:

Check out: F-15e.info

The most it carried was 6 AMRAAMs and 2 AIM-9s (and even then only rarely), never 8 BVRs.

On the WVR front, the 120D is especially designed to extend the 120's WVR/HOBS capability.

The F-15 is capable of carrrying 8 AMRAAMS, but the 6+2, is the typical configuration, giving a good mix of BVR/WVR capability.

Capable and what is actually going to do in the real world are two different things.

The four internal AAM carriage on the F-35 did not come about by accident. Even before the air force decided to cut the F-22 buy from 750 jets, the F-35 was expected to be able to perform A2A better than any other jet save the F-22. All with just 4 missiles.

Clearly the F-35 can and will be able to carry more. Two more internally and at least 6 externally if you want to turn it into a missile carrier ala F-18 where you have one or two stealthy shooters and the rest of the planes are carriers.

At any rate, southernphantom's claim that the F-35 does not carry enough A2A missiles is proven wrong by the facts.

SpudmanWP wrote:

Just for the fun of it, can the F-18E/F carry AAMs on the centerline?

No it cant.

btw, the F-35 can Wink

The only reference that i saw pointing to this was a 5th missile in the centerline position on a flight simulator display a few years back.

SpudmanWP wrote:

Yes, that is what I said, 12xAMRAAM and 2xSidewinder (plus a centerline).

Just for the fun of it, can the F-18E/F carry AAMs on the centerline?

6 on each wing, plus 2 on the fuselage adds up to 14 AMRAAMs, plus 2 Sidewinders on the wing tips, for a total of 16 missiles. Obviously not a realistic load out, but possible nevertheless.

If you use that stealthy weapons pod for the super hornet then it is indeed possible to carry 2-4 AMRAAMs on the centerline.

@WW:

The outboard wing pylon on the F-18E/F cannot carry the LAU-115 (with the LAU-127 on each side), at least I have never seen it and it looks like it will not have the clearance needed (see the photos that I posted a few days ago). So that means only 12 AMRAAMs and 2 AIM-9s.

@tacf-x:

I think that currently the centerline F-18E/F station is not wired for A2A and would likely need changing before the centerline LO pod can be used.

SpudmanWP wrote:

@WW:

The outboard wing pylon on the F-18E/F cannot carry the LAU-115 (with the LAU-127 on each side), at least I have never seen it and it looks like it will not have the clearance needed (see the photos that I posted a few days ago). So that means only 12 AMRAAMs and 2 AIM-9s.

I've got the 6 per wing(12) limit. You can also carry 2 more on the fuselage though, which adds up to 14. Again, not a realistic combat load out, but in theory you could do that, if you like doing things like that. Cool

Back to F-35 and Japan, wouldn't it cure the overweight and nose heavy issues with the F-35B, if the USMC simply recruited Japanese schoolgirls to pilot them? Razz

hcobb wrote:

Back to F-35 and Japan, wouldn't it cure the overweight and nose heavy issues with the F-35B, if the USMC simply recruited Japanese schoolgirls to pilot them? Razz

Where did you get that from? Who says it's over weight and nose heavy, Eric L Palmer?

Thumper3181 wrote:

hcobb wrote:

Back to F-35 and Japan, wouldn't it cure the overweight and nose heavy issues with the F-35B, if the USMC simply recruited Japanese schoolgirls to pilot them? Razz

Where did you get that from? Who says it's over weight and nose heavy, Eric L Palmer?

I think this would be a simple function of fuel transfer to maintain CG.

With weapons I'm sure the CG will change fore/aft just a bit anyhow. Unless that is all the weapons for the F-35B are reconfigured for equal weight distribution depending on installation.

In an emergency, I'm sure a lead block in the tail would help. Isn't pretty but that's how we did it in the 'old days' before all these fancy flight computers. Some aircraft scales, a personal hand-held graphite tipped inscription unit (aka pencil), AF Form 2 (blank paper), a calculator (or slide rule going further back), and the Technical Order; Oh, don't forget the empty aircraft in question. Weigh the aircraft, do the math, install/remove lead ballast as required. I remember having to inform crew-chiefs and supervision if we installed an engine, into an aircraft, that had any modifications done to it that varied the basic weight more than a specific amount. Change the motor's weight too much and the CG of the aircraft would be upset. Now before anyone starts about adding lots of lead to an aircraft, note this; it wasn't much, mostly to keep the jet handling in it's best trim configuration.

Besides it didn't seem like the recent videos from the USS Hornet indicated the F-35Bs weren't hovering or climbing out properly due to CG issues. Looked pretty stable to me, but I'm just an engine guy.

Keep 'em flyin' Thumb

TEG

How redundant are the Flight control systems on the F-35 anyway? If they're triple redundant there's really nothing to worry about regarding stability. All fighters are meant to be statically unstable and a good fly by wire control system should provide the appropriate trim to keep the F-35 under control even if the first system is knocked out of commission.

In hover the flight control system controls the LiftFan, Engine, and RollPosts to provide a stable balanced hover as provided by the thrust of each component.

For the F-35B to hover, completely still and level, it must be completely stable and balanced on the 2 main posts of thrust. No 'instability' in this flight mode. The propulsion system as a whole will need to make constant compensations to maintain proper attitude for a given situation. I'm sure, as in the case of the Harrier, specific flight surfaces on the aircraft augment/assist thrust near/around the aircraft as well to aid in overall control.

TEG

Forum: Program and politics

Japan F-35 Decision Genuinely Based Upon Capability