Forum: F-35 Armament, Stores and Tactics

It would have been nice to see the drop from a couple of angles and yeah, the down angle is quite pronounced isn't it. Although I notice that a lot of the F-18s show a similar 'droop' on their wingtip stations:

The F-35, the answer to the question nobody asked.

What crauled up your butt?

This morning I was just comparing the relative values of the F22@$180M for 450 units versus the F-35@$110M for 3000 units. If they don't build 3000 of these things they are going to turn out to be the worlds most expensive combat jet - ever - bar none. All to do a job that could be done by a block 50/60 F-16 or another platform which already exists. And to think they decided the F-35 was the way to go because the F22 was too expensive.

The Marines do need their STOVL jet though don't they. Or do they...
http://www.informationdissemination.net/2012/08/used-cars-and-f-35s.html

initially responding to geoffery, report button was less effort

Back on topic, Spudman is quite right and I image we all noticed that the store was deliberately pushed out nose down for entry into the slip stream. Do we know how sensitive the ‘porpoising’ effect is to stores weight? Will the same ejector force work equally as well for all the proposed stores or will the force need to be adjusted depending on the store.

Also, I imagine somewhere down the line they will have to test dropping the store and the ejector together in the case where the ejector fails. Has anyone seen a schedule for that stuff or is it all considered part of the current weapons drop testing?

Thanks for your (patient) reply Johnwill.

I mentioned the nose down push because at some point they will need to see what happens if that part of the release fails or sticks. I don't know how much testing they've done of or the reliability number they've attach to the (relatively) new BRU-67 pneumatically powered ejectors given the limited corporate knowledge of their functioning but you'd assume that they'd have to take a look at these things.

I had also assumed, given the implications of a partially suspended and possibly partially armed weapon in a closed bay that some sort of conventional pyro-powered backup might have been included to ensure that any hung store within one of the bays could be got rid of safely. I (again) assumed that dumping the ejector with the store would be the easiest way to do that. Obviously they are confident that that issue will never occur or that if it does that they will simply bring the store back or that the back up release is part of the existing rack.

Thanks for your (patient) reply Johnwill.

I mentioned the nose down push because at some point they will need to see what happens if that part of the release fails or sticks. I don't know how much testing they've done of or the reliability number they've attach to the (relatively) new BRU-67 pneumatically powered ejectors given the limited corporate knowledge of their functioning but you'd assume that they'd have to take a look at these things.

I had also assumed, given the implications of a partially suspended and possibly partially armed weapon in a closed bay that some sort of conventional pyro-powered backup might have been included to ensure that any hung store within one of the bays could be got rid of safely. I (again) assumed that dumping the ejector with the store would be the easiest way to do that. Obviously they are confident that that issue will never occur or that if it does that they will simply bring the store back or that the back up release is part of the existing rack.