Forum: F-35 Armament, Stores and Tactics

Here is a really good link showing the possible loadouts of the F-35:

<a href="http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/planes/q0163.shtml" target="_blank" rel="nofolow">http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/planes/q0163.shtml</a>

F-16.net Sponsor

Great link VPRGUY. Thumb

But my only question is what is this AIM-132 advanced short-range missile (ASRAAM), and is it better than the AIM-9X?

The Advanced Short Range Air-to-Air Missile (ASRAAM) is a state of the art, highly manoeuvrable and combat effective weapon. Many combat aircraft are currently equipped with radar-guided AIM-120 AMRAAM for long range engagements and the AIM-9 Sidewinder for close combat. The two missiles are an ill-matched pair, since nearly four decades separates their origins. construction. While AMRAAM is highly effective at ranges between 5-50 kilometers, its usefulness diminishes rapidly at a shorter ranges.

A rival to the American-built AIM-9X Sidewinder, ASRAAM is equipped with a Raytheon-Hughes infrared seeker which is the baseline for the company's AIM-9X seeker. The company developed an infrared seeker featuring a unique sapphire dome as part of an engineering-manufacturing-development and production effort valued at $215 million. This ASRAAM seeker played a part the company's competitive win of the AIM-9X missile contract that could lead to some $5 billion in business over the next 20 years.

ASRAAM was initiated in the 1980's by Germany and the United Kingdom, but the two countries were unable to agree on the details of the joint-venture. Germany left the ASRAAM project in the early 1990s, and in the spring of 1995 initiated an improved version of the Sidewinder, the IRIS-T (Infra Red Imagery Sidewinder-Tail controlled) built by Bodensee Geraetetechnik GmBH (BGT). This decision was largely motivated by new insights into the performance of the Russian AA- 11 Archer missile carried by the MiG-29s which Germany inherited during reunification. The Luftwaffe concluded that the AA-11's performance had been seriously underestimated -- the AA-11 turned out to be superior to the Sidewinder AIM-9L in all respects: homing head field of view, acquisition range, maneuverability, ease of designation, and target lock-on. The Germans concluded that the ASRAAM demonstrated a serious lack of agility compared to the Russian Archer.

The British Government has spent 636 million pounds (about one billion dollars) since 1992 developing and industrializing ASRAAM. The first ASRAAM was delivered to the RAF [Royal Air Force] in late 1998. It will be used to equip the RAF's Tornado F3 and Harrier GR-7 before the missile becomes the British Eurofighter standard short-range weapon.

In January 1995 British Aerospace Dynamics, Stevenage, Hertfordshire, England, was awarded a letter contract with a ceiling amount of $10,933,154 for foreign comparative testing [FCT] of the ASRAAM Missile. The purpose of the testing is to gather data to determine if the missile meets AIM-9X operational requirements. Work was performed in Stevenage, Hertfordshire, England (50%), Eglin Air Force Base, Florida (25%), and China Lake, California (25%), and was completed by June 1996. The tests focused on the risk areas of the ASRAAM: focal plane array effectiveness, seeker signal processing, warhead effectiveness, rocket motor testing, and kinematic/guidance ability to support the lethality requirements of the AIM-9X. After several modifications to the scope of the FCT, the program assessed four ground-to-air sorties, 19 air-to-air captive carry sorties, four programmed missile launches, eight static warhead tests, and four rocket motor case tests. The resulting assessment was that the ASRAAM (as is) could not meet the AIM-9X operational requirements in high off-boresight angle performance, infrared counter-countermeasures robustness, lethality, and interoperability. Subsequently, Hughes and BAe proposed an improved "P3I ASRAAM" using thrust-vectoring to provide increased agility and to carry a heavier warhead.

In February 1998 the British-French Matra British Aerospace consortium [formed in 1996] won a multi-million dollar contract to supply the ASRAAM missile to the Australian Air Force to be used on the F/A-18 Hornet. marking the first export sale. The first missiles should be delivered between 1999 and the year 2000.

Specifications:

Manufacturer British Aerospace
Date Deployed 1998 ?
Range 8 nm ( 300 m to 15 km )
Speed Mach 3+
Propulsion One dual-thrust solid-propellant rocket motor
Guidance strapdown inertial and Imaging Infrared
Warhead 22.05 lb ( 10 kg ) blast/fragmentation
Launch Weight 220.5 lb ( 100 kg )
Length 8 ft, 11.5 in ( 2.73 m )
Diameter 6.6 in ( 0.168 m )
Fin Span 17.7 inches ( 45 cm )

Source: <a href="http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/aim-132.htm" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/aim-132.htm</a>

I remember the testing of the ASRAAM going on at Eglin (on our F-16's) while I was there. It was a sharp looking missle, but I didn't learn anything about it though.

What do you think VPRGUY, which missile is better...the AIM-9X or the AIM-132?

Honestly, I don't have enough of a factual background on either missle to make a good judgment on that one. Based on my opinion, I would say AIM-9X, but that my be blind patriotism talking; I'll generally back something built in the USA before I do something coming from overseas. Usually.

To the credit of the AIM-9X, it is coming into the game with what, 40-something years of growth and developement? The ASRAAM (and I very well could be wrong in this one) is a relatively new missle, but I really don't know if it is an upgrade from a previous system like the 9X is. I'll be the first to admit that I know very little about what other countries have for weapons systems.

Also, I don't know if the ASRAAM has helmet-mounted aiming and cueing like the 9X does, or if it can be slaved to the radar to track a target- from what I've read Sidewinders have been able to do the radar thing for quite some time. I would imagine the -132 does have that capability, since the technology is there and it would seem foolish not to incorporate something like that.

Now, to the side of the ASRAAM, if it is an entirely new missle (not an upgrade, like the 9X), then there may not be any ingrained ideas about "this is how we've always done it, lets stick with that"; this may give it more flexibility in the long run. The flip side is it may not be supported on as many airframes; the AIM-9 has been around forever, and while jets will need upgraded software to use it, it is software and a system most countries will be familiar with, I think. Again, if the -132 is a new missle that means it'll need to build an all new support base and such everywhere it goes.

I wish I could give a good assesment of the capabilities of both missles, but like I said my experiance with the ASRAAM was pretty much limited to seeing it on the trailer, seeing it on the airplane, and keeping a wary eye on the contractors while they ran ground tests with it on the airplane. Ryan, it looks like you've got alot more info on the -132 than I could even make up (if I was the type to do that); sorry I can't help out more.

The UK incorporated the design of "Lift-body" to the ASRAAM, and although the off-boresight capability and the high-G maneuver capability (50G) of ASRAAM are a little worse than the NG western WVRAAM with TVC and / or complex aerodynamic designs such as AIM-9X, IRIS-T, and Pythoon IV, its extremely low-drag design and the larger 160 mm rocket make it to have the better speed performance (maximal speed: 3.5~4.2 mach), the longer effective (>25 km) range, and the bigger no-escape zone.

The ASRAAM's designers and the RAF pilots believe that the higher speed and the longer effective range are the main key points for the victory of future air-combat, and in order to make these two main key points to be perfect, they think it is acceptable to sacrifice some degrees of off-boresight capability and the high-G maneuvering ability.

The ASRAAM's designers also criticized the usefulness of TVC. They said that although TVC can make the WVRAAM to have the better off-boresight performance at the instance after firing, however, the TVC can only do its work before the rocket runs out off its fuel. When the missile is in the end-stage of interception, which means that the missile has run out off its fuel in the most condition, the TVC is totally useless and becomes the burden of the missile's maneuverability in the end-stage interception.

Another advantage for ASRAAM over the AIM-9X now is the capability of "Lock-after-Launch" ~ the main reason why ASRAAM can be used by F-35's internal weapon bay, while the AIM-9X today must be used outsides.

However, there is the main and determined advantage for the exportation of AIM-9X over ASRAAM: Price tag. The AIM-9X today is about 0.18 ~ 0.20 million USD per missile, while the ASRAAM is about 0.35 million USD per missile.

toan wrote:

The UK incorporated the design of "Lift-body" to the ASRAAM,

True, if I am remembering the right missle the ASRAAM has almost full-length 'fins'- very low profile, only about a couple inches tall, instead of the 8 larger fins of the AIM-9.

Some information about ASRAAM:

Hey all,

Quick question regarding the ARL - Aside from the Sidewinders (9-Ls and 9-Xs?) and the ASRAAM, what other weapons can be carried on the F-35's rail launcher?

Thanks,
Smithsguy

I don't think anything else will be carried on those outermost rails. Only the AIM-9M/X and the ASRAAM will be there.

Polaris,

Thanks for the reply. Is the AMRAAM rail-launcher from either the wing or bay A-A station? Or is that a pylon or A-G station weapon?

Curious,
Smithsguy

The only place I've seen AMRAAMs from internet photos of F-35 mockups is in the left and right bay, on the belly of the aircraft.

Last edited by kilo111 on Jun 15, 2005 - 04:16 PM; edited 1 time in total

Well, the F-35 is going to sustitute F-16, F/A-18, AV-8B Harrier II and A-10A, so it needs allweapons the USAF, US/NAVY, MARINES and RAF have.

1- The F-35 can use 2 internal points with 2 air to surface weapons and 2 air to air misiles (probably the future AIM-120D AMRAAM). But this plane can also use 6 external points. However, the STOL F-35 probably couldn´t use these 6 external points in vertical take off. But i think we consider the F-35A, (the viper sustitute).

2- In air to air. The F-35 can use AMRAAM AIM-120A/B/C and the future D, the AIM-9M and X Sidewinders and the English AIM-132 ASRAAM. Also is probably this plane is going to equipe the european Meteor. The F-35 can carry 10 air to air misiles, but the external tanks could reduce the air to air misiles to 8 (specially because the palne range is little).

3- In Air to ground. The F-35 can use all United States bombs, and misiles. The GPS and Laser bombs are the new and most probably bombs this plane colud carry. JDAM-500, JDAM-1000, JDAM-2000 and GBU-12, GBU-16, GBU-24... Also the fighter can use fragmentatoin or rockeyes bombs, and the english Brimstone (based on the Apache´s Hellfire). The F-35 can carry 2 bombs internal and 4 external (with 2 Sidewinder and 2 AMRAAM).

I have one question. A lot of A-10A Thunderbolt II is used in FAC misions, so if the F-35 is going to sustitute the Warthog, the F-35 is going to realized the same misions and is going to use phosphorus rockets?

kilo111 wrote:

2- In air to air. The F-35 can use AMRAAM AIM-120A/B/C and the future D, the AIM-9M and X Sidewinders and the English AIM-132 ASRAAM. Also is probably this plane is going to equipe the european Meteor. The F-35 can carry 10 air to air misiles, but the external tanks could reduce the air to air misiles to 8 (specially because the palne range is little).

Kilo111,

Thanks for the info. Regarding 2, I had heard the F-35 can mount 2 ARLs (each angled outward) on each pylon, allowing it to carry up to 14 air to air missiles. I heard somewhere the RAF was considering such a configuration.

Ciao,
Smithsguy

Forum: F-35 Armament, Stores and Tactics

F-35 weapons loadout (possible)