F-35 external AIM-9X don't make sense

F-35 Armament, fuel tanks, internal and external hardpoints, loadouts, and other stores.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline
User avatar

Dragon029

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1395
  • Joined: 22 Dec 2014, 07:13

Unread post22 Sep 2022, 22:34

jessmo112 wrote:
There is no need for that. Punch the Aim9 out of the bay the same way you launch an Amraam. Like we mentioned before this missile was launched from a submarine.
If you want to get really creative then put it in the same canister that you loaded the missile into before. Jettison, and aquire the target.

You're not going to be saving any money by designing a jettisoning launch adapter; at that point it'd just be easier to solve the core issue of redesigning the AIM-9X's motor ignition system, which as we've seen isn't a priority for services.
Offline

battleshipagincourt

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 349
  • Joined: 04 Jan 2011, 00:30

Unread post25 Sep 2022, 13:30

I've got another question regarding the design specs of a plane before it's actually built.

How much do you think politics influence design decisions? Say for the sake or argument that the F-35 could mount AMRAAM's onto those hard points, can you ensure enough demand for the Sidewinder? I keep hearing arguments that redesigning the Sidewinder fire internally won't happen because no one wants to substitute an AMRAAM for a Sidewinder.

So what if you design a fighter with hard points exclusively for a single type of weapon? You would essentially ensure each F-35 comes complete with at least two AMRAAM's and two Sidewinders. As it stands both the F-16 and F-15 can mount all AMRAAM's thus there's no assurance over the number of Sidewinders they'll want to procure. Maybe each F-15 would only carry one or two sidewinders? Meanwhile you've got F-18's and F-35's which very definitely must come with a fixed number of these and cannot be substituted for anything else.

With hard points 1 and 11 limited exclusively to AIM-9's you've ensured the military powers will procure a minimum number of Sidewinders and all the inert training units as well.
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4049
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post25 Sep 2022, 14:08

battleshipagincourt wrote:


With hard points 1 and 11 limited exclusively to AIM-9's you've ensured the military powers will procure a minimum number of Sidewinders and all the inert training units as well.

There will always be a finite number of missile types bought, regardless of hard points. The standard load on any jet (F-15/16/18 or F-22/35) is based on 2 short range missiles + 2-6 AIM-120s. Nobody is flying around with 6-8 AIM-9X (or ASRAAM, IRIS-T, Python 5, etc....).
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4300
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post25 Sep 2022, 14:20

battleshipagincourt wrote:How much do you think politics influence design decisions? Say for the sake or argument that the F-35 could mount AMRAAM's onto those hard points, can you ensure enough demand for the Sidewinder?


This is only my opinion, so take it for what's worth:
I would say that the (vast) majority of politicians don't even know what an Air-to-Air missile really is, let alone what's an AMRAAM or a Sidewinder and the diference between both.
So no, I don't think that politics influence such design decisions.


battleshipagincourt wrote:I keep hearing arguments that redesigning the Sidewinder fire internally won't happen because no one wants to substitute an AMRAAM for a Sidewinder.


If there's someone making such decisions then I pretty sure that would be by men in uniform and not by politicians.


battleshipagincourt wrote:So what if you design a fighter with hard points exclusively for a single type of weapon? You would essentially ensure each F-35 comes complete with at least two AMRAAM's and two Sidewinders. As it stands both the F-16 and F-15 can mount all AMRAAM's thus there's no assurance over the number of Sidewinders they'll want to procure. Maybe each F-15 would only carry one or two sidewinders? Meanwhile you've got F-18's and F-35's which very definitely must come with a fixed number of these and cannot be substituted for anything else.

With hard points 1 and 11 limited exclusively to AIM-9's you've ensured the military powers will procure a minimum number of Sidewinders and all the inert training units as well.


You have to understand one thing, the F-15 and F-16 are land based aircraft an thus they don't have folding wings which means that their entire wings are a "full piece/part" that for instance allows aircraft like the F-16 to mount heavier A2A missiles like the AMRAAM on its wingtip pylons.
The F/A-18 is a carrier based aircraft which means that the outer wings do and need to fold (their wings are composed by 2 parts, the inner wing and outer wing) which by its turn probably means that only very light loads - Sidewinders - can be carrier on the wingtips and anything heavier like an AMRAAM isn't feasible (too heavy and stressful for the outer wings).

And how does this apply to the F-35?
The F-35 was built in 3 variants including a carrier based variant, the F-35C. And one of the most important design decision behind the F-35 is that all three variants (F-35A, F-35B and F-35C) must have the highest level of commonality possible. I would say that perhaps the F-35C "dictated" that the outer wing ("wingtip") pylons for all F-35 variants would only carry Sidewinders (similar to happens with the F/A-18).
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline

battleshipagincourt

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 349
  • Joined: 04 Jan 2011, 00:30

Unread post25 Sep 2022, 21:02

wrightwing wrote:There will always be a finite number of missile types bought, regardless of hard points. The standard load on any jet (F-15/16/18 or F-22/35) is based on 2 short range missiles + 2-6 AIM-120s. Nobody is flying around with 6-8 AIM-9X (or ASRAAM, IRIS-T, Python 5, etc....).


Wasn't always the case. The F-16 used to carry four AIM-9's exclusively on its outer hard points. Then with AMRAAM this made it possible for the plane to load medium ranged missiles in addition to an A2G load, whereas the Sparrow required its 'heavy' hard points. F-15 likewise had four exclusively short-ranged missile hard points, but now it can equip up to eight AMRAAM's. You cannot deny that the Sidewinder's demand has shrunk with the introduction of AMRAAM.

Now the standard load of the F-35 is its internal weapons bays. 2 A2G weapons and 2 medium ranged missiles, or (eventually) six medium ranged missiles. External hard points are exclusively for 'low threat' environments.
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4300
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post25 Sep 2022, 21:30

battleshipagincourt wrote:Now the standard load of the F-35 is its internal weapons bays. 2 A2G weapons and 2 medium ranged missiles, or (eventually) six medium ranged missiles. External hard points are exclusively for 'low threat' environments.


Yes, the F-35 will eventually carry six medium ranged missiles all internally with the Sidekick rack.
Six (6) missiles is not a small A2A loadout by any means - That's the maximum A2A missile loadout that for example the F-16 can carry!
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline

basher54321

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2635
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2014, 15:43

Unread post25 Sep 2022, 22:35

battleshipagincourt wrote:I keep hearing arguments that redesigning the Sidewinder fire internally won't happen because no one wants to substitute an AMRAAM for a Sidewinder.



Even if the USAF/USN wanted to do that and it was viable - that doesn't mean they will be able to get the required funding to do it (from the politicians) or higher ups don't have other ideas (Internal politics).

Secondly there may be some looking at future missiles like Peregrine and thinking it might be easier to justify that instead - considering the given weight it could also go on 1/11.
Offline

battleshipagincourt

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 349
  • Joined: 04 Jan 2011, 00:30

Unread post25 Sep 2022, 23:03

basher54321 wrote:Even if the USAF/USN wanted to do that and it was viable - that doesn't mean they will be able to get the required funding to do it (from the politicians) or higher ups don't have other ideas (Internal politics).


Yeah that's exactly the point. No one wants the Aim-9 if a better option is open to them.
Offline

timmymagic

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 136
  • Joined: 27 Apr 2019, 19:48

Unread post26 Sep 2022, 10:44

wrightwing wrote:
battleshipagincourt wrote:
With hard points 1 and 11 limited exclusively to AIM-9's you've ensured the military powers will procure a minimum number of Sidewinders and all the inert training units as well.

There will always be a finite number of missile types bought, regardless of hard points. The standard load on any jet (F-15/16/18 or F-22/35) is based on 2 short range missiles + 2-6 AIM-120s. Nobody is flying around with 6-8 AIM-9X (or ASRAAM, IRIS-T, Python 5, etc....).


Standard loadout for UK QRA Typhoons from Lossiemouth or Coningsby is 4 x Asraam and 4 x Meteor.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 27780
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post26 Sep 2022, 13:57

timmymagic wrote:
wrightwing wrote:
battleshipagincourt wrote:
With hard points 1 and 11 limited exclusively to AIM-9's you've ensured the military powers will procure a minimum number of Sidewinders and all the inert training units as well.

There will always be a finite number of missile types bought, regardless of hard points. The standard load on any jet (F-15/16/18 or F-22/35) is based on 2 short range missiles + 2-6 AIM-120s. Nobody is flying around with 6-8 AIM-9X (or ASRAAM, IRIS-T, Python 5, etc....).


Standard loadout for UK QRA Typhoons from Lossiemouth or Coningsby is 4 x Asraam and 4 x Meteor.

Yeah but who is stealthy? No one seems to have shown the F-35 with a full missile (external) loadout - yes not so stealthy.
"USAF F-35A showing 12 AIM-120s [& two more with SideKick] and two AIM-9Xs in “Beast Mode” whereas the smaller USMC F-35B can carry eight AIM-120s and two AIM-9Xs in “Beast Mode”. Lockheed Martin image." https://www.navalnews.com/wp-content/up ... t-Mode.jpg

& earlier posted in this thread on page 3 : download/file.php?id=25935&mode=view
Attachments
F-35beastModeMissiles.jpg
F-35beastModeStealth.jpg
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline
User avatar

steve2267

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3332
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2016, 17:36

Unread post26 Sep 2022, 20:52

"... whereas the smaller F-35B ..."

:doh: :mrgreen:
Take an F-16, stir in A-7, dollop of F-117, gob of F-22, dash of F/A-18, sprinkle with AV-8B, stir well + bake. Whaddya get? F-35.
Offline

usafhk

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 9
  • Joined: 17 Dec 2021, 00:01

Unread post26 Sep 2022, 23:44

steve2267 wrote:"... whereas the smaller F-35B ..."

:doh: :mrgreen:


Poorly worded. The weapons bay is a bit smaller, not the aircraft.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 27780
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post27 Sep 2022, 00:17

Agree, but I have not reread the generally poorly worded 'we already know this generic vague stuff' sadly article. <sigh>
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Previous

Return to F-35 Armament, Stores and Tactics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests