F-16.net

viper12 wrote:To be fair, if I'm not mistaken, the loadout with 12x something would be 500kg each, so 6,000kg. The 6x 2,000lb loadout on the F-35A/C would be around 6x 907kg = 5,442kg, so slightly lighter, nominally.

The AB-500 is not a bomb itself but a "Munitions dispenser carrying SD-2 antipersonnel fragmentation bombs or SD-4 hollow-charge antitank munitions." If the total weight of each munition is indeed 500kg as the same suggests, then I agree the weight is high.

F-15 with 2 5000-pounders.

viper12 wrote:To be fair, if I'm not mistaken, the loadout with 12x something would be 500kg each, so 6,000kg. The 6x 2,000lb loadout on the F-35A/C would be around 6x 907kg = 5,442kg, so slightly lighter, nominally.

But that's very very impressive to have about the same maximum loadout with the F-35A/C as the Su-34, especially when one considers the F-35A's loaded weight is a bit lighter than the Su-34's...empty weight !

GBU-31 is 2115# 959kg, so even closer to 6,000kg nominal.

I've tried to explain it to others on the interwebs, in that configuration it is already out hauling pretty much any westerns fighter aircraft out there in terms of munitions payload and fuel capacity... and they still don't believe me and claim that I work for Lockheed Martin.

Congrats - I work for LM too - NOT!

sferrin wrote:F-15 with 2 5000-pounders.

In theory F-35 could carry 2x 5000 lb weapons on station 3 and 9, with addition of 4x 2000 lb weapons on remaining A/G hardpoints;

Big bombs are cool, but really how often do you need six of them? I would be much more pleased to see F-35 with Triple Ejector Racks carrying a mix of: 2x3 GBU-12 500 lb Paveways on stations 2 and 10, 2x3 GBU-32 1000 lb JDAMs on stations 3 and 9, 2x4 SDBs in the bays - now that would be a formidable CAS setup!

BTW, Marvin Engineering's Smart Triple Advanced Rack (http://www.marvingroup.com/images/uploa ... _Draft.pdf) brochure says "compatible with SDB I & II". Since it wouldn't make sense to put three individual SDBs instead of four carried on BRU-61 rack, does it mean they can put 12(or 8?) SDBs on a single hardpoint? I couldn't find any precise info on the net.

hythelday wrote:

sferrin wrote:F-15 with 2 5000-pounders.

In theory F-35 could carry 2x 5000 lb weapons on station 3 and 9, with addition of 4x 2000 lb weapons on remaining A/G hardpoints;

Big bombs are cool, but really how often do you need six of them? I would be much more pleased to see F-35 with Triple Ejector Racks carrying a mix of: 2x3 GBU-12 500 lb Paveways on stations 2 and 10, 2x3 GBU-32 1000 lb JDAMs on stations 3 and 9, 2x4 SDBs in the bays - now that would be a formidable CAS setup!

BTW, Marvin Engineering's Smart Triple Advanced Rack (http://www.marvingroup.com/images/uploa ... _Draft.pdf) brochure says "compatible with SDB I & II". Since it wouldn't make sense to put three individual SDBs instead of four carried on BRU-61 rack, does it mean they can put 12(or 8?) SDBs on a single hardpoint? I couldn't find any precise info on the net.

I'm going to go with "no": that triple rack only has the three sets of attachment points, not pairs set forward and aft, so it will only be able to hold three SDB.

Given that the USMC uses the Zuni and currently uses the Smart TER.... I wonder how long it will be before they start caring multiple LZuni pods (Block4.2 or further out, maybe using UAI)?

Cheap, laser guided (1m CEP), and packs TWICE the punch of a Hellfire.

It should prove to be quite the CAS weapon.

While there are certainly many, many occasions where they have been used in "CAS", when weapon size goes above 500# the potential for collateral damage and proximity to friendlies get really restrictive. That's why we see the re-emergence of smaller class weapons for fast movers.

sferrin wrote:

ricnunes wrote:And in that configuration the F-15E carries 5 x 2000lb bombs (GBU-10) in the image seen above while the F-35 can carry 6 x 2000lb bombs (GBU-31) as seen on the photo above - It's still one more 2000lb bomb than the F-15E

This also serves for the critics who often claim that the F-35 cannot carry a big weapons loadout

Well, so far I'm yet to see any fighter aircraft able to carry 6 x 2000lb bombs.

How about a Typhoon?

Like SpudmanWP correctly said, the Typhoon could carry 6 x 1000lb bomb but not 2000lb bombs (which was what I posted).

In theory the Typhoon could even carry a seventh (7th) 1000 x bomb on the fuselage centerline station as you can see in the image that I'll post below, however that fuselage centerline station is always used to carry a Targeting Pod (TGP) in order for the Typhoon to have any meaningful Air-to-Ground capability, which in practical terms "limits" the Typhoon to those 6 (six) 1000lb bombs.

popcorn wrote:The Typhoon carries Storm Shadow which weighs 1300Kg. Unknown if all pylons are similarly rated.

In theory the Typhoon can carry 5 x Storm Shadow cruise missile as you can see in the image below, so that's still one less 2000lb weapon compared to the F-35.
Moreover and as a side note in terms of destructive power, the Storm Shadow although it weight about 1300kg (2000lb class) its warhead weight is about 450kg which puts it in a category of 1000lb. So the F-35 carries one more big 2000lb weapon while each of the F-35's "2000lb big weapons" (2000lb JDAM) is much more destructive than each of the Typhoon's 2000lb big weapon (Storm Shadow ).

Here's the image with the Typhoon loadout capabilities:

talkitron wrote:

ricnunes wrote:Well, so far I'm yet to see any fighter aircraft able to carry 6 x 2000lb bombs.

The F-35's load is impressive. The Su-34 is a large fighter class aircraft with a focus on ground attack. The chart below says it can carry three 1500kg (3307 lbs) bombs, which at 9921 lbs is less weight than the 12,000 lbs from six 2000 lb bombs.

http://airrecognition.com/index.php?id=1721

First, we are talking about number of weapons carried an not full/total weight "per se". If we look at the max loadout weight capability specs of some (many?) fighter aircraft we could image that some (many?) of those fighter aircraft could in theory also carry 6 x 2000lb bombs. However max loadout weight isn't actually the spec that dictate how many weapons of a certain kind a certain fighter/combat aircraft can carry or at least the max loadout weight isn't the main spec that dictates this. What actually dictates this (or dictates the most) is the number and capability of the fighter/combat aircraft's pylons.
For example, if we look at the max loadout weight of the F-16 in theory it would be possible for the F-16 to carry 10 (ten) AMRAAMs like a legacy Hornet however in real and practical terms the F-16 can only carry 6 AMRAAMs - This is a limitation on the aircraft's (F-16) pylons.
The same happens when we're talking about 2000lb bombs/weapons or any other kind of weapon.

Secondly, it's interesting that you mention that Su-34 - This is probably the Russian combat aircraft that I probably respect the most. However this is NOT a fighter aircraft. This is a Bomber! Yes, it can carry and launch the AA-12 and it was developed from a fighter aircraft (Su-27) but nevertheless this is still a Bomber. For "Christ Sake" that thing (Su-34) has even a bathroom and a kitchen and even a small corridor for any of the two crewmen to laydown and stretch his/hers own legs.
But even thou the Su-34 is in fact a bomber look how it cannot carry 6 (SIX) 2000lb class bombs! And again I'm not talking about total weight - I'm talking about sheer numbers of heavy weight weapons!

quicksilver wrote:While there are certainly many, many occasions where they have been used in "CAS", when weapon size goes above 500# the potential for collateral damage and proximity to friendlies get really restrictive. That's why we see the re-emergence of smaller class weapons for fast movers.

A Zuni is WAY less than 500lbs. A 4-round launcher with four rounds is less than 500lbs I'd bet.

Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System
Specifications[edit]
Length: 73.8 in (1.87 m)[9]
Diameter: 2.75 in (70 mm)[10]
Wingspan: 9.55 in (24.3 cm)[10]
Weight: 32 lb (15 kg)Speed: 1,000 m/s (3,600 km/h; 2,200 mph; Mach 2.9) at max[10]
Range: 1,100–5,000 m (0.68–3.11 mi) (rotary wing); 2–11 km (1.2–6.8 mi) (fixed wing)[7][9]
Guidance: Semi-active laser homing
CEP: <0.5 meters[9]
Motor: Existing Hydra 70 motors
Warhead: Existing Hydra 70 warheads
Unit cost: ~ $30,000
APKWS is a “plug and play,” “point and shoot” weapon, and is fired like the unguided 2.75-inch rocket. The weapon is easily assembled and can be shot with minimal instruction, as if it were an unguided rocket.

block 2 could get a upgraded motor giving a range of 8-10 miles.



comparing the typhoon's storm shadows to the F-35's 2,000lbs bomb isn't exactly fair. While the punch is smaller the range difference is massive, storm shadow is 350nmi range weapon JDAM is 30nmi range weapon. But the F-35 can carry 6 of the JSM so it has some reach to it if needed .

sferrin wrote:

quicksilver wrote:While there are certainly many, many occasions where they have been used in "CAS", when weapon size goes above 500# the potential for collateral damage and proximity to friendlies get really restrictive. That's why we see the re-emergence of smaller class weapons for fast movers.

A Zuni is WAY less than 500lbs. A 4-round launcher with four rounds is less than 500lbs I'd bet.

The point I was making was in reference to someone above liking the idea of loading up on 1000# class weapons for CAS. With an explosive weight at ~45% of the weight of the weapon, the concussive effects are such that one has to be really wary of where they are being delivered ref friendly location. Similarly, the bugsplat is really large and absent "we dont care what else gets cratered/rubblized" their utility can be very limited in urban locales.

I always liked zunis but rockets make people on ships nervous...for very good reasons.

ricnunes wrote:Secondly, it's interesting that you mention that Su-34 - This is probably the Russian combat aircraft that I probably respect the most. However this is NOT a fighter aircraft. This is a Bomber! Yes, it can carry and launch the AA-12 and it was developed from a fighter aircraft (Su-27) but nevertheless this is still a Bomber. ...

The Su-34 is an aircraft designed and purchased for ground attack but it is capable of self protection when flying such missions. In the BVR realm it might be a fourth generation beast as it carries a huge radar! It's just too expensive to waste on BVR air defense when Russia also has Mig-31s specifically for BVR air defense.