F-16.net

I guess this is a milestone of sorts however we have seen fully loaded variants in hangars before - did not HILL AFB do it?

F-35 Weapons Load
22 Jul 2016 Senior Airman Stormy Archer, 33rd Fighter Wing Public Affairs

"EGLIN AIR FORCE BASE, FL. -- Airmen from the 33rd Aircraft Maintenance Squadron load an AIM-9X missile on to a F-35A’s external weapons pylon July 20, 2016 here.

This milestone was the first time an F-35A here was loaded with internal and external weapons[?] and will help develop weapon-loading procedures for the F-35 program.

The F-35 is capable of carrying weapons both internally and externally to adapt to mission needs."

Photo: "An F-35A from the 58th Fighter Squadron is loaded with weapons in its internal weapons bays and on external pylons July 20, 2016, at Eglin Air Force Base, Fla. The F-35 is capable of carrying weapons both internally and externally in order to adapt to mission needs. (U.S. Air Force photo by Senior Airman Stormy Archer)" http://media.defense.gov/2016/Jul/22/20 ... 74-106.JPG

As crazy as it sounds, I don't think I've ever seen a non-SDD jet with external pylon.

External weapons on pylons come with Block 3F. I was thinking of this photo and another similar from years ago of an F-35B at Pax River loaded with gun pod & missiles / bombs. https://a855196877272cb14560-2a4fa819a6 ... arriage_(1)-2__main.jpg & from our very own: http://www.f-16.net/f-35-news-article3837.html / http://www.f-16.net/g3/var/resizes/f-35 ... 5B_005.jpg

This is my fave: http://i619.photobucket.com/albums/tt27 ... optest.jpg

18000+ lbs of internal fuel and all those weapons (internal AND external)... who ever says the F-35 doesn't have payload capability is either high as a U-2 or will fully stupid.

charlielima223 wrote:18000+ lbs of internal fuel and all those weapons (internal AND external)... who ever says the F-35 doesn't have payload capability is either high as a U-2 or will fully stupid.

People who attack the F-35 always point out how the F-35 will get shot down if you load it up with external stores, because then you lose your stealth!... and then advocate for their platform of choice, which NEVER has stealth.

How soon until we see the internal bays being upgraded to hold Six AIM120s and for which model? If and when that happens, should the F-35 ever be used for air superiority missions will the loadout be 4 AIM 120 + 2 Aim 9 internally?

duskysharp wrote:How soon until we see the internal bays being upgraded to hold Six AIM120s and for which model? If and when that happens, should the F-35 ever be used for air superiority missions will the loadout be 4 AIM 120 + 2 Aim 9 internally?

I believe that the 6x AMRAAM load will be incorporated as part of Block 4F, sometime in the early 20s. To my knowledge, as a rail-launched missile, the 9X is not really doable internally, so the aircraft would just carry 6 AMRAAMs unless the environment was sufficiently permissive to take the RCS penalty of using the wing stations for the 9Xs.

I thought the Aim-9X had a lock on after launch mode?
If the weapon can be fired from a submarine, a non rail launch is doable.

The earliest that 6x AMRAAM would arrive is Block 4.3 or 4.4, the latter of which was last scheduled for a 2025 release.

The AIM-9X does have LOAL, but that has nothing to do with the fact that it's a rail-launched missile. LOAL just means that it can be fired without its seeker being locked on to the enemy. It wouldn't be that difficult to add a remote fuse to the AIM-9X to make it capable of internal carriage, but it'd still be an upgrade program that requires funding, which is hard to come by at the moment.

Hello. Is there any official information about the (aerodynamic/structural) reason of the different configuration of pylons 2 and 10 that are tilted upwards in comparison with pylons 3 and 9 on A and B version? On the other hands on F-35C the 4 pylons seem to be exactly the same. Thank you.

There was a thread some months back that discussed angles / alignments of external weapons pylons etc. Search is your friend.

Suggest you try searching on "pylon" "external" "angle" "alignment" "aero" OR "aerodynamics" and various combinations.

Thank you Steve2267, but I didn't find it before my post and unfortunately I' don't find it now. For sure here and in other forums there are discussions about that question: for the moment I found some of them (for example here viewtopic.php?f=54&t=23216&hilit=external+pylon&start=15) , but not the answer...In any case it seams there are no articles or official comments about that.
Never mind. I'll go on in my serch.

You're welcome. But I can see where my suggestion was less than helpful. I have recalled, though, that the previous discussion of which I think involved the F-35B and was on a thread involving seat trials on the USS America. I managed to find the post / thread to which I was referring.

Hope this helps: viewtopic.php?p=357196#p357196

(Not sure it answers your questions, but FWIW...)

flaggy wrote:Hello. Is there any official information about the (aerodynamic/structural) reason of the different configuration of pylons 2 and 10 that are tilted upwards in comparison with pylons 3 and 9 on A and B version? On the other hands on F-35C the 4 pylons seem to be exactly the same. Thank you.

This is the best response for the different angles (in the thread suggested in the previous post):

viewtopic.php?p=357275#p357275

Thank you for the answers, guys.
That was exactly the discussion I read some weeks ago but I wasn’t able to find it again.
I also read that explanation but it left me with some doubts…
From my point of view I see a “normal” wing with a normal wing twist (bigger inner angles and lower outer angles) in order to have the correct stall response.

So what I expect is that Sidewinder missile on the external pylon is a little bit rotated down and it is normal that this effect is more evident on F-35A and B shorter wing.
The Sidewinder seems to be “parallel to its wing section” in order to cause a reduced drag to the airflow around it.
On C variant the Sidewinder pylon is farther away from the wingtip than on A and B and so it is also less rotated down.

In other words, more than with the angle of attack during the launch, I see a correlation between pylons and wing twist.
Or better…I see it for all pylons on C variant, but only for internal and external pylons on A e B variants.
The mid pylon on A and B variants is something that is not clear for me and if its “abnormal”angle (connected to the "spacer" highlighted in red in image below) is due to some reason about “safe separation”, it is not so evident for me how it exactly could solve the problem and why a bigger (but similar) wing on C version does not cause those separation problems or a so different air flow around the wing that requres that "spacer" on A and B.

Hello guys,
is there someone who knows why weapons bay doors on F-35A and C have not staight borders as in the first prototype? Thank you.







Below the first prototype.

The only reasons to add complexity to the F-35 are reduced cost, weight, or RCS. As changing the design does not seem to reduce cost or weight I would suspect RCS.

The key difference between AA-1 and production F-35s is the SWAT weight reduction measures taken in the early 2000's. Part of that resulted in changes to the OML underneath the F-35A/C. It looks like that area is a cut-out from one door in order to give an AMRAAM clearance for the forward fins as the door opens. I would need to see a pic from below with just the AMRAAM door open to see.

The F-35B still has a straight edge.

So it could be tangentially related to weight reduction. I stand corrected.

The cut-out for the forward AIM-120 fins was also my suspect, but the absence of the cut-out on the F-35B and on the prototype is the reason why I wasn’t sure about that.
Instead, the rear “tooth”on the internal door seems to cover the door locking system, but on the F-35B is also in the same position of the rear AIM-120 fins.



On the prototipe the rear and the frontal teeth are not present.
I’m not sure about that, but probably they decided to reduce as much as possible the dimension of the internal door in order to reduce the drag when it is open.

F-35B has a different bottom, different bay and also a particular function for the internal doors that are open during vertical landing. It coud be that a straigth border is better for F-35B.

Link to entire video has been posted here but just the 'F-35 BEAST MODE' snippet repeated down below:

viewtopic.php?f=58&t=13143&p=376713&hilit=screenie#p376713

spazsinbad wrote:Link to entire video has been posted here but just the 'F-35 BEAST MODE' snippet ]

...not to detract but what the heck is on that centerline??.....not the gun!

neptune wrote:

spazsinbad wrote:Link to entire video has been posted here but just the 'F-35 BEAST MODE' snippet ]

...not to detract but what the heck is on that centerline??.....not the gun!

Size wise it looks like a center line installation of small diameter bombs.

Zoom view of centerline.

Is there anything there?

It is a graphic / artist impression so the graphic may be a bit wonky. ZOOM zoom.

Zoom all you want, the centerline in empty

I laughed when I heard the "Beast Mode" too... Those must be some seriously heavyweight missiles

Yes it is curious if Babione is ONLY referring to the graphic however he is likely talking about some maximum Beast Mode configuration (not on show). Sure people make errors & misremember their talking points (seems like Babione was prewarned by interviewer Muradian about questions). Perhaps there will be later clarification? Dunno. We'll see eh.

"Beast mode" came out a while ago and yes, it's about full internal & external load-outs.

Here is the start of the 'beast mode' thread earlier: viewtopic.php?f=54&t=53327&hilit=Beast

"An F-35A flies the first external GBU-31, 2,000 pound Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM) in a loads/flutter test flight at Edwards AFB, California." https://a855196877272cb14560-2a4fa819a6 ... __main.jpg