F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)

[AlexanderM]

I had thought that the F-35 would carry only 4 air to air missles internally, was originally intended to carry 6, but now I'm seeing people on forums talking about it being back up to 6 again.  If true, this would be great.  So, is it still 4, or is it 6?

 

[Haletown]

I had thought that the F-35 would carry only 4 air to air missles internally, was originally intended to carry 6, but now I'm seeing people on forums talking about it being back up to 6 again.  If true, this would be great.  So, is it still 4, or is it 6?

Four now.

Six maybe at Bloc five time

 

[AlexanderM]

I heard block 4, but whichever.  I hope we buy the ones with 6!

 

[Journeyman]

...So, is it still 4, or is it 6?

Four now.
Six maybe at Bloc five time

I heard block 4, but whichever.

So how did you hear that it may carry 6 only at Block 4.....while not knowing if it would currently carry 4 or 6?



It's a rhetorical question.

 

[AlexanderM]

I saw references to the F-35 being able to carry 6 missles internally, but none of those references were official, and there was also a reference to block 4, again, not official.  So, as the information was not official, I thought I would ask the question here.

 

[Journeyman]

Oh dopey me -- apparently misunderstanding the term "rhetorical."

 

[Good2Golf]

"So, as the information was not official, I thought I would ask the question here."



So was it an official response you were anticipating you would get here?

Just wondering what your thoughts are on why six SRAAMs are necessary instead of four?

 

[AlexanderM]

I find the question to be ridiculous.  Why would a multi-role stealth fighter aircraft be better off carrying a larger internal payload?  An answer to the question is not required, too obvious.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I had thought that the F-35 would carry only 4 air to air missles internally, was originally intended to carry 6, but now I'm seeing people on forums talking about it being back up to 6 again.  If true, this would be great.  So, is it still 4, or is it 6?

Internal temperatures in the bay seem to be a concern and may place limiting factors on weapon storage, until they resolve them.

 

[AlexanderM]

Thank you.  I didn't ever look into the original reason they went from 6 to 4.  I assumed they had to reduce the size of the bay for some reason.  I hope they are able to resolve the problem and that we purchase after this is complete.

 

[HB_Pencil]

Thank you.  I didn't ever look into the original reason they went from 6 to 4.  I assumed they had to reduce the size of the bay for some reason.  I hope they are able to resolve the problem and that we purchase after this is complete.

That's not the reason why. Internal bay temperatures are still within tolerances and has not created any limitations on weapons carriage. Its a relatively new issue and there hasn't been any effects imposed, thus far.

As far as I can remember (at least since 2008), the missile capacity was outlined as a two block release. I believe it requires a redesigned launcher that can hold three AMRAAMs per bay. Right now its one on the bay door (LAU-147)  and another on the main launcher (Lau-142). The F-35 reuses the F-22's LAU-142 which I believe they can only load one in each bay. To fit two, they will require a redesign.


Also these are medium to long range missiles AAM, not short ranged missiles.

 

[AlexanderM]

Thanks HB!  I would think a load of 4 120's and 2 sidewinder's would even be good, but if they can get 6 120's in that would be even better.  I'm hoping it's the 120D's with the extended range of just under 100 miles.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

You're correct it's within tolerance, however right near the limit and there is concerns on the long term effects on the weapons being carried at near their max temp range. it's entirely possible that they have built a heat model of the bay and determined that carrying a full load might place one weapon to close to the heat source for comfort and might restrict the carriage limits till further studies are done.

 

[HB_Pencil]

You're correct it's within tolerance, however right near the limit and there is concerns on the long term effects on the weapons being carried at near their max temp range. it's entirely possible that they have built a heat model of the bay and determined that carrying a full load might place one weapon to close to the heat source for comfort and might restrict the carriage limits till further studies are done.

Sure that might be a problem for long term carriage of weapons, which really only concerns the AIM-120  (I doubt that most A2G ordinance will remain inside the aircraft long enough to be affected.)

We'll see, however it does not have anything to do with why there are 4 vs 6 missiles

 

[Kirkhill]

The F-35 seems to be the type of aircraft of which William Lyon MacKenzie King would approve.

It seems to be Stealthy if Necessary but not Necessarily Stealthy.

It has an internal bay to permit stealthy (and economic) carriage of weapons if the mission requires that but equally it can still load out weapons externally.

External loading permits a higher weapons and/or fuel loading but it makes the aircraft more visible.  Visibility is not always a bad thing. Sometimes, in domestic skies, it might be appropriate to let intruders see that you are coming after them loaded for bear.

Other times you really might not want to be seen until the last minute in which case the stealthy carriage of a couple of AMRAAMs or a six pack of SDBs might come in handy.

A bigger advantage to the internal carriage of a couple of Sidewinders (let alone the AMRAAMs), at least as far as MacKenzie King's flinty Scots heart might see it, is that less drag means less fuel which means a skinnier operating budget.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Saturday afternoon F-35 porn.

B's & C's but still lovely.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=9ISpriu6HEA

OOOOOOOOOOOOHHHHHH!!!!

Me likes the STOVL rolling take offs.

Lets get some of those too and a big grey hull to use them on.

 

[Haletown]

Thanks HB!  I would think a load of 4 120's and 2 sidewinder's would even be good, but if they can get 6 120's in that would be even better.  I'm hoping it's the 120D's with the extended range of just under 100 miles.

Working from memory here but I think the  D model is the current production version of the AIM 120 . . .  not even sure if Raytheon still makes the C model.

Anyone know what we are flying on the CF 18's right now?

 

[AlexanderM]

If they are using the D it has a range of >97nm, which is very good. 

 

[HB_Pencil]

Working from memory here but I think the  D model is the current production version of the AIM 120 . . .  not even sure if Raytheon still makes the C model.

Anyone know what we are flying on the CF 18's right now?

According to the FY2013 USAF budget, they still produce the C7 for foreign customers and D model US military clients. That doesn't mean you will see the C7 go away anytime soon. F/A-18Es have been carrying AIM-7 Sparrows to balance stores over Afghanistan until recently.

 

[SupersonicMax]

If they are using the D it has a range of >97nm, which is very good. 

And you know this how?

What are the assumptions for a 97NM shot?  What kind of defeat criteria?

It is a rhetorical question...