British weapons for the F-35

Did the F-14 even routinely fly with six AIM-54s? That would have been a hell of a load for an AA role.

Did F-14 even routinely fly with six AIM-54s? That would have been a hell of a load for an AA role.

Only on land based operations. They could not trap with full fuel reserves and 6 Phoenix. Jettisoning perfectly good weapons cost a lot.

Only on land based operations. They could not trap with full fuel reserves and 6 Phoenix. Jettisoning perfectly good weapons cost a lot.

Thanks. So how would they usually fly on a CAP, was there a standard mix of Phoenix/Sparrow or depend on era and region?

Also = do you know if Iran flew with six AIM-54 since land based ops?

Wake me up when you can make a cogent contribution on matters technical.

Snickering at how that poster waded through your bluster and sliced you to pieces until you withered and fled was beyond anything cogent... funny would be the better word.

He regurgitated and misrepresented scholarly sources that I had posted in another thread.
I'm sorry that you can only appreciate technically involved discussions on a superficial and risible level.

Again, let us know when you have something to contribute on the technical front.

Thanks. So how would they usually fly on a CAP, was there a standard mix of Phoenix/Sparrow or depend on era and region?

Also = do you know if Iran flew with six AIM-54 since land based ops?

Era specific no doubt

According to David Parsons, during the 1980s during the many Libyan confrontations his squadron flew with AIM-9/AIM-7 only because they expected to merge. Some other squadrons though, he said, did do a AIM-54/9/7 with 2 AIM-54 despite the extra weight penalty.

What has come from Iran in the 80s would suggest they felt 2 x AIM-54A was the max they could load and still retain some agility if they had to merge. They also had to conserve the far more limited supply.

6 x AIM-54s not only significantly reduces performance but also range/endurance and Iranians give an Rmin of about 4 miles for the A model which if anywhere near would mean it was useless close in compared to even the AIM-7E-2.

Era specific no doubt

According to David Parsons, during the 1980s during the many Libyan confrontations his squadron flew with AIM-9/AIM-7 only because they expected to merge. Some other squadrons though, he said, did do a AIM-54/9/7 with 2 AIM-54 despite the extra weight penalty.

What has come from Iran in the 80s would suggest they felt 2 x AIM-54A was the max they could load and still retain some agility if they had to merge. They also had to conserve the far more limited supply.

6 x AIM-54s not only significantly reduces performance but also range/endurance and Iranians give an Rmin of about 4 miles for the A model which if anywhere near would mean it was useless close in compared to even the AIM-7E-2.

Thanks for the info, makes sense. I imagine ROE would often steer away from usefulness of AIM-54 for many operations.

It's a big plus for F-22 (and now F-35) how much farther they can take identifying contacts from BVR passively via RF signature.

That's your ego talking, he flayed you. I can assure you many others on here also enjoyed watching that happen to a thin-skinned forum bully who enters discussions mainly to "win" by marathon BS shoveling than anything else. That dude had the patience to call you out on everything you threw until you faded and quit. Funny stuff.

At some point, I can't continue to explain what a "gas generator" is. I can't continue to hold hands on radome
fineness ratios. I can't kepp handhold on why seeker sensitivity is cubic in aperture size.
I can't continue finding/referencing actual scholarly sources that are then misrepresented and mischaracterized.

If you have anything to contribute technically to enhance the discussion please do so. But you don't.

At some point, I can't continue to explain what a "gas generator" is

At a certain point, it is more honorable to just admit that you are wrong than to keep digging yourself into a hole.
You don't have to explain what a "gas generator" is because that isn't what you brought up initially.
This is your exact words:

I said GQM-163, HSAD and T-3 aren't the same because they don't have the same length, they don't have the same diameter, they don't have the same weight, they don't have the same number of inlet, they don't have the same combustor, they don't carry the same amount of propellant. Even the name of the ramjet stage is different
If you want to claim that the motor of GQM-163, HSAD and T-3 are the same, then you need to prove it with evidences, and that evidences better be something else rather than "Aerojet made all three of them, therefore they are the same".
I have repeated this many times but if you want to claim that the gas generator and EM valve/plunger arrangement on the three missiles are the same then you also need to provide some evidences to support that claim. You can either provide an official statement from Aerojet saying that they stick the same EM valve and gas generator on all three missile or some photographic evidences. However, you haven't provide anything to back up your claim, so how can anyone take that serious?

I can't continue to hold hands on radome fineness ratios.

You don't need to hold anyone hand. Fineness ratio is actually just the ratio of length over diameter. It is actually that simple.
Of course, fineness ratio isn't the only factor that can affect Cd. The actual shape of the radome and missile fuselage also play a vital role.

However, to truly analyze that, we need some sort of CFD study of Meteor and AIM-54, which you can't provide. I mean you didn't provide any evidence to prove that the radome cone of AIM-54 will be superior to Meteor despite inferior fineness ratio either

Nevertheless, your claim is only that AIM-54 has much better radome fineness then Meteor. Hence, a simple length/diameter calculation shows that claim to be wrong.

I can't kepp handhold on why seeker sensitivity is cubic in aperture size.

That doesn't apply when the two seekers don't have the same operating frequency

I can't continue finding/referencing actual scholarly sources that are then misrepresented and mischaracterized.

If I only summarized and paraphrased your source with my own words then maybe you can claim that I misrepresented and mischaracterized your source. However, your argument doesn't fly because I didn't do that. I merely screenshot and put vital paragraph in red box so that others has easier time to follow. Those weren't my words, those were paragraphs and charts directly cited from your scholarly source.

At some point, I can't continue to explain what a "gas generator" is

At a certain point, it is more honorable to just admit that you are wrong than to keep digging yourself into a hole.
You don't have to explain what a "gas generator" is because that isn't what you brought up initially.
This is your exact words:

And passing familiarity with VFDR should indicate to you that the gas generator/em-valve is the dominant contributor
to motor performance since that determines turndown ratio. You focused on inlets which aren't significant.

The actual shape of the radome and missile fuselage also

Which is exactly what I pointed out. You disregarded it. I can't handhold through
different ogives.

That doesn't apply when the two seekers don't have the same operating frequency

You pointed out that the seeker frequencies are close enough such that prop loss
and atmospheric attenuation won't matter between them. Hence the cubic aperture term will dominate
over the gain.

If I only summarized and paraphrased your source with my own words then maybe you can claim that I misrepresented and mischaracterized your source. However, your argument doesn't fly because I didn't do that. I merely screenshot and put vital paragraph in red box so that others has easier time to follow. Those weren't my words, those were paragraphs and charts directly cited from your scholarly source.

You claimed minutes of powered flight when the source clearly indicated that that was not the case.
You claim high altitude launch when the source clearly indicates mid-altitude i.e. there are bounds provided and
turn-down reasons why this is so. You were shotgunning to distract.

And passing familiarity with VFDR should indicate to you that the gas generator/em-valve is the dominant contributor
to motor performance since that determines turndown ratio. You focused on inlets which aren't significant.

I would say that the amount of propellant play a vital role, and that amount is a limited by the mass and size of the missile. The number of inlets and their volume dictate how much air it take in and the air drag, both affect range.
Besides, you haven't present a single piece of evidence to prove that the gas generator and EM valve/plunger arrangement are the same between GQM-163, HSAD and T-3. Without any evidences how can anyone take your claims serious?

Which is exactly what I pointed out. You disregarded it. I can't handhold through
different ogives.

No, your original claim is: "AIM-54 has much better radome fineness ratio than Meteor" . When I pointed out that claim is wrong by a simple length/diameter calculation. Your excuse is that Meteor and AIM-54 nose has different ogives. However, the shape of the nose doesn't change the fineness ratio. The fineness ratio is length/diameter, nothing more, nothing less. If you said AIM-54 has better Cd than Meteor, then maybe you can use that excuse. Unfortunately, that wasn't what you said, you just shifted your goal post
Furthermore, as you can see from the diagram I posted earlier, with the same fineness ratio, the different in Cd even between an ogives and a cone is tiny. Keep in mind that Meteor has superior fineness ratio compared to AIM-54. Thus, if you want to say that AIM-54 has better Cd than Meteor then you not only have to prove that AIM-54 radome ogives is superior to Meteor radome ogives, but you also have to prove that the superiority is significant enough to counter the much inferior fineness ratio of AIM-54. That why I asked for a CFD comparison between Meteor and AIM-54 which you can't provide either

You pointed out that the seeker frequencies are close enough such that prop loss
and atmospheric attenuation won't matter between them. Hence the cubic aperture term will dominate
over the gain.

No, I pointed out that the atmospheric attenuation from 8-20 GHz is negligible and that not because the frequencies are close but because atmospheric attenuation is only a significant factor at higher frequency regime

You claimed minutes of powered flight when the source clearly indicated that that was not the case.

I told you before, it is clearly indicated in your source that they simulated a missile launch from 6 km altitude and they also indicated that fuel consumption at 6km is much higher than at high altitude such as 15-20 km. The time of powered flight for a ramjet missile isn't a constant like for a solid rocket motor missile, it depends on the fuel consumption rate. Which clearly indicated in your source to be altitude dependence

Moreover, as indicated in your source, the booster size is dictated by the minimum altitude/speed requirement, lower minimum altitude and speed require bigger booster stage,and as a result there is less propellant for the ramjet sustain stage. The minimum altitude and speed of the missile in your source is Mach 0.5, sea level whereas the minimum altitude and speed requirement for A3M is Mach 0.9, 3 km.

What's more, Indian currently trying to reverse engineering Meteor to make their own indigenous ramjet air to air missile and these are the specifications:
action time 120-200 seconds depending on conditions

You claim high altitude launch when the source clearly indicates mid-altitude i.e. there are bounds provided and
turn-down reasons why this is so. You were shotgunning to distract.

I didn't shotgunning to distract anyone. I explained to you why your claim is wrong by using information from your source
This is your claim:

Then the source:

The source indicates that the operating envelope is dictated by 3 elements:
- Minimum altitude and speed requirement: the lower the minimum altitude, the bigger the booster has to be and it also increases the maximum flow requirement since low altitude air is thicker
- Radome heating effect: although the propulsion system might be able to keep the missile at Mach 4, the missile must be slow down to a slower speed so that the radome stagnation temperature is lower than 800K (526°C)
- Turn down ratio: lower altitude require higher max fuel flow (to fight the air resistance) while higher altitude require lower minimum fuel flow (to keep the missile slower and reduce radome stagnation temperature). Thus, a bigger turn down ratio means the operating envelope can be expanded in both ways.
In their simulation, they estimated that for their simulated ramjet missile if the minimum launch altitude requirement is: sea level from Mach 0.5 and the turndown ratio is 1:5 then the maximum altitude that it can cruise is 15 km (49kft).
If the turndown ratio is increased to 10 then the maximum cruising altitude is 20 km (65kft).
On the other hand, if they relaxed the minimum altitude requirement to be 5 km instead of sea level then even with a turndown ratio of 1:7.5 then the missile can still cruise at an altitude beyond 20 km (65kft)
-------------------------
For comparison, the minimum launch altitude requirement for A3M (later become Meteor) is 3 km height from Mach 0.9 and the demonstrated turn down ratio is 1:9 .Thus, not only the mininum altitude requirement of A3M is not as low as the missile in the scholarly study, the turndown ratio ratio is also higher than 5. Both factors clearly indicate a much higher maximum crusing altitude than 15 km (49kft) so your claim is wrong.

I'm surprised they cannot create the missile's radome with some kind of single-crystal ceramic or carbon-carbon with an inert gap insulated by some aerogel on both surfaces to handle significantly higher speeds in transit. Exotic solutions are justified.

It's easier to revamp the booster than re-engineering the whole missile if they ever decided to get an ER-version. Attaching a booster really adds its value as a ground-based solution, too. If Mach 3.5 is your constant limit then you really are handicapped with what you can do for the boost phase. In today's budget environment the multipurpose solution has an edge.

Contract mentioned earlier by 'krieger22': viewtopic.php?f=58&t=15969&p=448185&hilit=contract#p448185

JSF/MBDA missiles DATA sheet: https://www.mbda-systems.com/?action=fo ... t_id=12671 (PDF 1.4Mb)
SPEAR DATA sheet: https://www.mbda-systems.com/?action=fo ... t_id=16351 (PDF 5Mb)

£550m F-35 missile contract signed
06 Jan 2021 UK Gov

"A £550 million contract for new surface-attack missiles will secure hundreds of UK jobs and provide unrivalled lethality for the UK’s F-35B Lightning jets, Defence Minister Jeremy Quin announced today. Known as SPEAR3, the next-generation missile can travel long distances at high-subsonic speed and over the next decade will become the F-35’s primary air-to-ground weapon.

At 1.8 metres long, the missile system has a range of more than 140-kilometres and, powered by a turbojet engine, can operate across land and sea, day or night, to overpower enemy air defence systems, while the pilot and aircraft remains a safe distance away....

...With its unique combination of stealth, cutting-edge radar, sensor technology, and armed with SPEAR3, the F-35 will protect aircraft carriers from enemy ships, submarines, aircraft and missiles.

The UK currently has 21 fifth-generation F-35Bs, having received three new jets on 30 November. The platform’s Initial Operating Capability (Maritime) was recently declared and, later this year, F-35 jets will sail with HMS Queen Elizabeth on her maiden Global Carrier Strike Group ‘21 deployment.

The initial demonstration phase will assess the weapon system against the UK military’s requirement through, testing, simulation and trials, which will include controlled firings from a Typhoon aircraft.

The contract forms part of the Complex Weapons portfolio with MBDA, which is on track to deliver £1.2 billion saving to UK defence. It also allows the MOD and MBDA to maximise the export potential of complex weapons, including the first-in-class SPEAR3, which supports UK prosperity and the international agenda."

Source: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/550m ... act-signed

Graphic: “SPEAR3 and F-35B on the deck of a Royal Navy Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carrier. MBDA picture.” https://g7a6v6x7.rocketcdn.me/wp-conten ... -F-35B.jpg

The British pick MBDA’s Spear 3 cruise missile for their F-35s
06 Jan 2021 Andrew Chuter

"...The deal [see above] should see the Spear 3 missile achieve initial operation capability on the aircraft in 2025, making it the primary air-to-ground weapon for the Lockheed Martin-built jets now coming into service with the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force.

For the moment, the weapon, which has a range in excess of 140 kilometers, is destined to be fitted solely to the F-35B models. But that could change, with Ministry of Defence officials admitting there is a possibility Spear 3 might also eventually be installed on the Royal Air Force’s fleet of Eurofighter Typhoon fighters....

...A joint team of MBDA, BAE Systems and the MoD have previously undertaken ground trials and fit checks on a Typhoon launcher carrying three missiles. MBDA’s U.K. arm has already test fired Spear 3 from a Typhoon as far back as 2016. According to the company, guided firings of the weapon from a Typhoon in support of the Spear 3 development for the F-35B will start within 18 months.

Among the Spear variants thought to be interesting the MoD is an electronic warfare weapon. MBDA was awarded a technology demonstration contract in 2019 to investigate such an application. That deal has been extended, and work is currently ongoing in association with partner company Leonardo.

The new demonstration and production contract announced today follows the successful implementation of the £150 million weapon development contract placed in 2016 and a £411 million deal in 2019 for integrating Spear 3 onto the F-35....

...The seven-year demonstration and production contract will see missile and launcher manufacturing slated to begin in 2023. The acronym Spear stands for “selective precision effects at range”. Spear variants 1 and 2 are the Raytheon Paveway IV precision-guided bomb and MBDA Brimstone missile, respectively.

The F-35B can carry up to eight Spear 3 missiles in its internal weapons bay and further missiles on the wing. Like the Brimstone, it uses both millimeter-wave and semi-active laser seekers.

Photo: "A delegate looks at the MBDA Spear network-enabled, high-precision, surface-attack system, left, a "Future Low Observable Subsonic Cruise Missile Concept," center, and a Spear EW network-enabled, electronic warfare decoy and jammer, right, at the DSEI arms fair in September 2019 in London. (Leon Neal/Getty Images)" https://www.armytimes.com/resizer/vHJEb ... uality(100)/cloudfront-us-east-1.images.arcpublishing.com/mco/LUMUQJKIVVAGBPFVHAHYIHP4JQ.jpg

Source: https://www.defensenews.com/global/euro ... eir-f-35s/

Anti-ship with F-35B...!?
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/20 ... ish-f-35b/

SPEAR3 Mini-Cruise Missiles To Provide ASUW Capability To British F-35B
F-35B Strike fighters flying from Royal Navy Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers will be armed with the next-generation SPEAR3 missiles following a £550m deal.
Xavier Vavasseur 06 Jan 2021
Royal Navy press release
SPEAR3 will become the principal strike weapon of the F-35 Lightning jets operating from the decks of HMS Queen Elizabeth and Prince of Wales.
Designed to knock out warships, tanks and armoured vehicles, missile launchers, bunkers, radar posts and air defence batteries, the new missile can be fired at such long range – more than 140 kilometres (nearly 90 miles) – it should keep the Navy and RAF pilots out of harm’s way from enemy ground defences.
Defence firm MBDA has been awarded £550m to equip the Lightning Force – based at RAF Marham – with the new weapon, which has been developed over the past decade and will be introduced to the front line over the next seven years.
Weighing under 90kg and just 1.8 metres long, SPEAR3 – Select Precision Effects At Range missile No.3 – is powered at high subsonic speeds by a turbojet engine, can operate across land and sea, day or night, and strike at moving and stationary targets.
It will support 700 jobs in the UK – 190 of them highly-skilled technology jobs in system design, guidance control and navigation and software engineering – at sites around the country including Bristol, Stevenage and Bolton.
Testing, simulation and trials will include controlled firings from a Typhoon aircraft before the missile is delivered to Marham and the Portsmouth-based carriers for front-line operations.
-End-

Naval News comments: SPEAR3 for ASUW
In the absence of a true anti-ship missile for British F-35Bs, MBDA’s SPEAR will be the only option available for the Royal Navy to fly anti-surface warfare (ASUW) missions from the Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers. Each F-35Bs can carry up to 8x SPEAR missiles internally (in the weapons bay) meaning they remain low observable. Despite its subsonic speed and relatively small warhead (for anti-ship role) a single F-35 could theoretically launch a saturating attack of 8 missiles against a surface vessel. This is probably enough to disable or put out of combat most vessels, of frigate size and below.
Meanwhile, the UK Ministry of Defence announced that the Carrier Strike Group (CSG) has reached Initial Operating Capability (IOC). An operational deployment later this year will see the Royal Navy HMS Queen Elizabeth Carrier Strike Group sail in the Mediterranean Sea, the Persian Gulf and end up in the Pacific (in waters near Japan). The ship will carry 24 F-35B jets, including US Marine Corps aircraft, in addition to a number of helicopters.