Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)

Josh_TN said:
It seems likely that AARGM-ER is small enough for an AIM-120 to also be carried in each bay. As for bombs va ARMs, some F-16CJ units did indeed carry both, split between aircraft pairs, in 2003 (source: the book Vioer Pilot, an excellent read for anyone interested in SEAD). The lead aircraft carried guided weapons, typically CBU-87 WCMs, and later the brand new (at the time) IIR Maverick (AGM-65F?). Lead ship was the killer; wingman suppressed as called for. I believe the use of other guided weapons rather than AGM-88B/C was adopted after the rather dismal performance of the latter over Serbia, though the author never mentions it. They certainly had little faith in ARMs and mainly used them to distract, along with copious false MAGNUM calls on clear channels.

SBD II paired with an AARGM-ER wingman would give a pretty deep magazine with some stand off and a wealth of engagement modes while still retaining a high speed emergency option.
Click to expand...
My question in that case is weight. An AARGM-ER is still a 1000lb weapon, while the internal AAM rack is designed for ~400lbs or so.

Oops, misunderstood. Thought you were saying that the AARGM-ER could fit on the AAM rack, not the bomb rack. Obviously time for me to stop foruming for the day.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Maybe you missed the memo that the F-35 should really have a A-for-Attack number series, as it's basically a stealthy, fast A-7?
Click to expand...
You mean a type that would often carry a self defence Sidewinder? F-35 not being able to carry a SRAAM internally - especially when on a strike mission is a major shortcoming in my view. You don't carry BVR missiles to shoot your way in if you want to sneak in.
 
timmymagic said:
Oddly the user, who you think would know, had this as a key capability...the US had AIM-9X as an internal carriage item as well...presumably internal carriage on F-22 makes no sense either...

That must be why the US are looking to re-introduce AIM-9X internal carriage again.... and why the air superiority oriented F-22 has dedicated AIM-9X carriage....
Click to expand...
Ok, tell me: are you disappointed that the F-35 cannot carry a GBU-57 internally?

Because, if you are, that would explain to me why you want it to be able to carry the AIM-9 internally as well.
Is the F-35 a B-52? No, that's why it doesn't carry a GBU-57.
Is the F-35 a F-22? Neither, that's why it doesn't carry an AIM-9 internally.

The F-22 was developed following a completely different philosophy, with a different mission set where maneuverability and the ability to dogfight played a key role in the design of the aircraft. Some of those requirements drove costs up to the point at which we find ourselves now, where only 187 production aircraft rolled off the line.

Do you think the F-35 followed the same line of thought when it was drawn up? Is it meant to be able to close in on air targets and dogfight? Or is it meant to network with other aircraft and keep its distance?

Also, care to share the source for your claim that the US is looking to get AIM-9X carried internally? I can't find it anywhere.

You might want to ask the users who originally specced this, or the manufacturer who regularly pumps out material labelling it 'Beast Mode'....
Click to expand...
No, I want to ask it to you so that I can understand why you think the way you do.
What use case do you have in mind for internal AIM-9s? What use case do you have in mind for external AIM-120s?

I see no future for a "beast-mode" F-35. It will never get that capability because if you want to keep the aircraft survivable, you don't want to increase its RCS with external carriage. The F-35 will get a "deeper magazine" either through the introduction of CUDA or CCA.

BLACK_MAMBA said:
You mean a type that would often carry a self defence Sidewinder? F-35 not being able to carry a SRAAM internally - especially when on a strike mission is a major shortcoming in my view. You don't carry BVR missiles to shoot your way in if you want to sneak in.
Click to expand...
Are you aware that the F-35 is meant to be a stealth aircraft?
If you need to use an AIM-9 for self defense, something extremely wrong has happened in 1) your mission planning and 2) your sensors' inability to pick up the threat for which that AIM-9 should be used for.
Or do you think the F-117s needed to carry Sidewinders as well?

Almost the totality of the criticism I'm hearing so far comes from the fact that people don't understand how air warfare and technology have changed in the last 30 years and how much will keep changing and in which directions.

A lot of you are still stuck in the 80s and 90s. If you want to stay mad and complain for the sake of complaining, have fun with that. But if you want to understand why things work the way they do, you should start reading more and keep an open mind rather than continue saying that things suck because they are not what you want them to be.

I can't wait to hear how disappointed you will be when NGAD rolls-out...
 
Last edited:
CiTrus90 said:
Ok, tell me: are you disappointed that the F-35 cannot carry a GBU-57 internally?

Because, if you are, that would explain to me why you want it to be able to carry the AIM-9 internally as well.
Is the F-35 a B-52? No, that's why it doesn't carry a GBU-57.
Is the F-35 a F-22? Neither, that's why it doesn't carry an AIM-9 internally.

The F-22 was developed following a completely different philosophy, with a different mission set where maneuverability and the ability to dogfight played a key role in the design of the aircraft. Some of those requirements drove costs up to the point at which we find ourselves now, where only 187 production aircraft rolled off the line.

Do you think the F-35 followed the same line of thought when it was drawn up? Is it meant to be able to close in on air targets and dogfight? Or is it meant to network with other aircraft and keep its distance?

Also, care to share the source for your claim that the US is looking to get AIM-9X carried internally? I can't find it anywhere.


No, I want to ask it to you so that I can understand why you think the way you do.
What use case do you have in mind for internal AIM-9s? What use case do you have in mind for external AIM-120s?

I see no future for a "beast-mode" F-35. It will never get that capability because if you want to keep the aircraft survivable, you don't want to increase its RCS with external carriage. The F-35 will get a "deeper magazine" either through the introduction of CUDA or CCA.


Are you aware that the F-35 is meant to be a stealth aircraft?
If you need to use an AIM-9 for self defense, something extremely wrong has happened in 1) your mission planning and 2) your sensors' inability to pick up the threat for which that AIM-9 should be used for.

Almost the totality of the criticism I'm hearing so far comes from the fact that people don't understand how air warfare and technology have changed in the last 30 years and how much will keep changing and in which directions.

A lot of you are still stuck in the 80s and 90s. If you want to stay mad and complain for the sake of complaining, have fun with that. But if you want to understand why things work the way they do, you should start reading more and keep an open mind rather than continue saying that things suck because they are not what you want them to be.

I can't wait to hear how disappointed you will be when NGAD rolls-out...
Click to expand...
By the logic in this post why bother fitting external SRAAM's to the F-35 if it is never intended to even be in a position to use them? Clearly Air Forces feel the need to equip them as such but that ruins the aircraft's VLO design which sounds to me like a no-no yet it is still done. So either Air Forces around the world along with "a lot of us" are still stuck in the 80's and 90's wanting to use SRAAM missiles (I can see a lot of savings in doing away with them especially with those Forces retiring their 4th gen types), or they quite clearly have their place on the modern battlefield. If the UK had the money, or the ability to do their own integration work I am pretty confident we would be seeing ASRAAM carried internally as they intended untill recently. Even the USAF has internal AIM-9X integration part of the Block 4 abilities if I am not mistaken.

Ironically F-35 apart from pure performance has exceeded the F-22 in complexity in almost every area yet are being produced in huge numbers so I don't think that argument is valid either.
 
BLACK_MAMBA said:
By the logic in this post why bother fitting external SRAAM's to the F-35 if it is never intended to even be in a position to use them? Clearly Air Forces feel the need to equip them as such but that ruins the aircraft's VLO design which sounds to me like a no-no yet it is still done. So either Air Forces around the world along with "a lot of us" are still stuck in the 80's and 90's wanting to use SRAAM missiles (I can see a lot of savings in doing away with them especially with those Forces retiring their 4th gen types), or they quite clearly have their place on the modern battlefield. If the UK had the money, or the ability to do their own integration work I am pretty confident we would be seeing ASRAAM carried internally as they intended untill recently. Even the USAF has internal AIM-9X integration part of the Block 4 abilities if I am not mistaken.
Click to expand...
Because you don't understand that there are 2 scenarios in which the F-35s can be used:
1 - peace-time/non-peer conflict, where the aircraft doesn't need its maximum LO characteristics, thus short range heat seeking missiles that are way less expensive than long range radar guidance missiles are more than fine to conduct air policing, interception, escort, etc. (which are all missions where you also want to be seen)
and
2 - peer-conflict, where VLO is needed until the enemy air force and A2/AD are still in play. Here you do not want to use short range missiles, because you want to stay hidden. If you are close enough to use an AIM-9X, the enemy sees you and you don't want that.

In the first case, carrying heat seeking missile on pylons is fine because it saves money, in the second case you don't want to do it because you want to survive.

You might also want to look at examples of air combat in the last 50+ years. How many shoot-downs were carried out with radar guided missiles? How many kills were obtained with heat seeking missiles?
Confront those numbers with engagements prior to the Gulf War and following the Gulf War.

Do you notice any trend?

Because what I see is that AIM-9s have been used way less than AMRAAMs, and that should tell you all you need to know about why spending money to carry AIM-9s internally is not something people should be interested into.

You don't need to get rid of them, because it's a nice option to have to do things like shooting down a balloon for example, but we do not live anymore in the Vietnam War where engagements were mostly conducted WVR.

Ironically F-35 apart from pure performance has exceeded the F-22 in complexity in almost every area yet are being produced in huge numbers so I don't think that argument is valid either.
Click to expand...
Exceeded in complexity =/= exceeded in price.

Does a F-35 cost more than a F-22?
No.
That's because it's not the same aircraft and it's not called on performing the same mission set.

There is your answer on why it's produced in bigger numbers.
 
CiTrus90 said:
That's because it's not the same aircraft and it's not called on performing the same mission set.
Click to expand...
Ehhh... I'd argue it differently.
The JSF has much more force pushing it forward, so costs fell down. The F-22 wouldve been cheaper had the USAF procure the desired amount instead of cutting it halfway during the peace dividend, like the B-2, Zumwalt and Seawolfs.

Inital production units would always cost more than mass-produced ones, so it takes determination to push through all the R&D, testing and budget screwups/mud-splashing, the latter the most important. F-35 managed that just fine, so it survived. It's rarely a matter of soft/hardwares and materials, and more of bribery and politics, unless the actual design is so outlandish or just downright bad like the XFV-12 tbh.
 
As mentioned. The F-22 would be a diffetent story had the planned production run gone through. JSF with multiple partner nations behind it pushing up the initial order numbers already helped drive costs down. With planned production run from the start being 3000+ compared to 800+ there is already a huge factor driving costs lower.

Ironically, besided for the US, the F-35 is set to become the frontline fighter for most customer nations replacing legacy 4th gen types so it will serve in exactly the role the F-22 does for the US... Only those customer nations have less power to drive weapon integration besides Israel maybe so are at tge whim of others choices. Don't confuse the US' priority list with that of the rest who do not have the ability to influence it.
 
CiTrus90 said:
Because you don't understand that there are 2 scenarios in which the F-35s can be used:
1 - peace-time/non-peer conflict, where the aircraft doesn't need its maximum LO characteristics, thus short range heat seeking missiles that are way less expensive than long range radar guidance missiles are more than fine to conduct air policing, interception, escort, etc. (which are all missions where you also want to be seen)
Click to expand...
If that is the case then why do they bother to make stealth pylon for F-35?. It is completely different from the average wing tip pylon.
AA796425-6A31-452B-86AF-219413A1C723.png

CiTrus90 said:
Because, if you are, that would explain to me why you want it to be able to carry the AIM-9 internally as well.
Is the F-35 a B-52? No, that's why it doesn't carry a GBU-57.
Is the F-35 a F-22? Neither, that's why it doesn't carry an AIM-9 internally.
Click to expand...
They will intergrate AIM-9X in internal bay in block 4. Could be very useful when adversary have strong jamming capability
D7A5D686-F5F5-422A-A542-452D7D7E4917.png
 
Last edited:
Ronny said:
Could be very useful when adversary have strong jamming capability
Click to expand...
Not just jamming. If the enemy is anything like the current PLAAF, A2A engagement range will drop hard, because you are looking at F-35 and friends vs J-20 and friends. There is no "AWACS OTH targeting" for that kind of combat.

WVRAAM are still need because they are smaller, can maneuver harder for close quarter shots, and is cheaper than super BVRAAMs, so you can use them to shoot down cruise missiles or drones while tasked with DCA. WVRAAMs and BVRAAMs are different capabilities that complement, not replace, each other.
 
Real things tends to be a tad more complicated:
- the no engagement zone of AMRAAM tends to match the minimal engagement zone of the AIM-9
- The AIM-9X max range would make shy an AIM-7

Fact is that in the last 20 years, many AMRAAMs shot down aircraft at a very close range. Lately we had a Su-24.
But If you are not yet convinced, that includes also a Mig-25.

Video here: https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/th...-a-xx-f-x-ngad-pca-asfs-news.3536/post-591681

(seems we have to discuss this every other month)
 
Last edited:
BLACK_MAMBA said:
You mean a type that would often carry a self defence Sidewinder? F-35 not being able to carry a SRAAM internally - especially when on a strike mission is a major shortcoming in my view. You don't carry BVR missiles to shoot your way in if you want to sneak in.
Click to expand...
If your stealthy attack aircraft is getting WVR of opposing aircraft, something has gone horribly wrong. Either your mission planning utterly failed you, or your onboard sensors failed to detect the opposing aircraft at ranges where you could throw an AMRAAM at them and they couldn't get a lock on you.

AMRAAMs are good dogfighting missiles in a small fight where you and your wingman are still together.
 
I am seeing a lot of arguments that things have gone horribly wrong so internal SRAAM missiles should not be used. But they do go wrong and then exactly you need a very manuverable high-off bore weapon to get out. I actually forsee the likelyhood of the merge increasing in a peer conflict where you have LO and VLO types opposing each other each trying to sneak in undetected and accidently finding each other.

Again, internal SRAAM carriage is slated for inclusion in Block 4 - so the arguments aired that the armchair folks "don't understand modern warfare" clearly doesn't add up. AMRAAM only internal and a SRAAM external only made sense for the very early Blocks trying to obtain initial operating capability, not for where this program is supposed to be now.

Frankly, deleting the internal gun on the A model is a far more sensible thing to argue about, than trying to argue if internal SRAAMs are needed or not. Bunch of weight and space saved for a weapon which is not very useful on the modern battlefield or on peacetime ops.
 
Last edited:
Given both bomb racks are occupied by A/G weaponry which A/A load would one choose?
2 x LRAAM, 2 x SRAAM, or 1 of each? (talking about internal load of course).
 
Last edited:
VTOLicious said:
Given both bomb racks are occupied by A/G weaponry which A/A load would one choose?
2 x LRAAM, 2 x SRAAM, or 1 of each? (talking about internal load of course).
Click to expand...
AIM9X eats up more space than what it's worth so I'd have the 2 LRAAM.
Until MSDM matures enough that somebody can put a Sidewinder replacement service, that is.
Or buys MTHK off-the-sheff, modified for drop launch.
 
Same thoughts here asVAL, the AIM-9X takes up more space than it is worth I am surprised that they never removed the fins when they designed the AIM-9X considering they added thrust vectoring nozzles.
 
FighterJock said:
Same thoughts here asVAL, the AIM-9X takes up more space than it is worth I am surprised that they never removed the fins when they designed the AIM-9X considering they added thrust vectoring nozzles.
Click to expand...
Thrust vectoring is useless once the motor burns out. The missile then needs aerodynamic control.

Generally a SRAAM is caaried as self defence on a strike mission - highly manuverable and high off bore capability. You don't go in looking fo trouble with long range shots on strike missions. Even more so when you go in dark and stealthy. You certainly don't want to shoot your way in or out.
 
I did not know that about thrust vectored missiles, so in that case why did they install Thrust Vectoring in missiles. Especially the Russians with the R-73, which I remember first seeing after my first visit to the Leuchars Airshow back in 1991.
 
FighterJock said:
I did not know that about thrust vectored missiles, so in that case why did they install Thrust Vectoring in missiles. Especially the Russians with the R-73, which I remember first seeing after my first visit to the Leuchars Airshow back in 1991.
Click to expand...
1- Much faster turn rate
2- Missile can turn right after launch without needing to gain some speed
3- Not affected by air density like turning by wing/fin because it not rely on lift to turn, so give missile unmatched agility at high altitude
 
BLACK_MAMBA said:
I am seeing a lot of arguments that things have gone horribly wrong so internal SRAAM missiles should not be used. But they do go wrong and then exactly you need a very manuverable high-off bore weapon to get out. I actually forsee the likelyhood of the merge increasing in a peer conflict where you have LO and VLO types opposing each other each trying to sneak in undetected and accidently finding each other.

Again, internal SRAAM carriage is slated for inclusion in Block 4 - so the arguments aired that the armchair folks "don't understand modern warfare" clearly doesn't add up. AMRAAM only internal and a SRAAM external only made sense for the very early Blocks trying to obtain initial operating capability, not for where this program is supposed to be now.

Frankly, deleting the internal gun on the A model is a far more sensible thing to argue about, than trying to argue if internal SRAAMs are needed or not. Bunch of weight and space saved for a weapon which is not very useful on the modern battlefield or on peacetime ops.
Click to expand...
Guns actually make a very effective way to shout "hey stupid" when someone is ignoring radio calls in peacetime, a stream of tracers is impossible to ignore. The problem is the absurdly small ammunition capacity.



VTOLicious said:
Given both bomb racks are occupied by A/G weaponry which A/A load would one choose?
2 x LRAAM, 2 x SRAAM, or 1 of each? (talking about internal load of course).
Click to expand...
4x halfraam if I can get it. 2x BVRAAM if not. AIM9X takes up a LOT of room, even with the smaller wings it has. Rocket is too long and skinny.

I'd really like those halfraams to come in IR guided and radar guided versions, so I can pack 2x IR AAMs and 2x radar AAMs.
 
That is exactly what I was wanting with the AIM-9X NMaude, same with the AIM-132 ASRAAM. I wonder why no one has thought about doing it with both missiles?
 
LaPlante said in written remarks that Israel has 35 of its 39 F-35s operating and carrying out missions, with the help of a surge in sustainment support to maximize the nation’s aircraft readiness.

The subcommittee’s chairman, Rep. Rob Wittman, R-Va., said at Tuesday’s hearing the F-35 Joint Program Office “moved at a breakneck speed” to support Israel by accelerating its jets’ weapons capabilities and increasing the flow of spare parts.

Schmidt told lawmakers Israel’s F-35s have performed “absolutely outstanding” in its war to eliminate Hamas, with high rates of aircraft able to carry out their missions.

“We have added some capabilities to that airplane in a very short period of time,” he said. “Our team is doing everything we can to continue to move the ball forward there.”
Click to expand...

www.defensenews.com

US quickly updated Israeli F-35s after Hamas attack, officials say

Rep. Rob Wittman, R-Va., said the F-35 program has moved at "breakneck speed" to get capabilities and spare parts to Israel's fighter jets.
www.defensenews.com www.defensenews.com
 
CiTrus90 said:
Some of those requirements drove costs up to the point at which we find ourselves now, where only 187 production aircraft rolled off the line.
Click to expand...
That is much more a result of the export ban (there were multiple buyers lining up despite the cost) and for having the wrong capabilities for the then ongoing war on terror.
 
images
 
NMaude said:
The total export ban was fucking idiotic as there were several countries that were trustworthy enough for the F-22 - Canada, Australia, the UK, Japan, South Korea and Israel.
Click to expand...
UK wasn't interested, they had Typhoon.
Canada couldn't afford it.
Australia couldn't afford it, and it's not the kind of plane Oz really wants. Oz wants strike heavy multirole, not a pure fighter.
Japan really wanted them bad, but was seen as a leak risk in terms of competition with the US on other things.
South Korea was seen as a leak risk to the North and to China.
Israel was seen as a leak risk to China.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Still looks oddly chunky, even though I know it's area-ruled.
Click to expand...
USMC requirement for gator freighter elevator drove the length requirement. So F-35 is chunky.
ETA: It definitely doesn't follow the area rule as much as it should/could; see above. A real case could be made for the Marines ruining the kinematics of the design.
 
Last edited:
Trident said:
Nice angle that I've not seen very often, actually not bad looking at all:

Click to expand...

I feel that 5th gen aircraft like the F-35, but also the F-22, YF-23, even the X-32 and Boramae.. look nicest from the front, or at the front with an angle. but usually looks worse on the sides.
4th gen aircraft look nice at most angles.

on related news, this via the USAF.. an F-35 being salvaged by combining parts from two severely damaged F-35s
www.businessinsider.com

The Air Force is trying to save 2 severely damaged F-35s by merging them into a single 'Franken-bird' aircraft

The "Franken-bird" project is the first for the F-35 program, and could pave the way for the Air Force to salvage other damaged jets in the future.
www.businessinsider.com www.businessinsider.com
656d3e9e0ec98e92f74b86eb
 
helmutkohl said:
on related news, this via the USAF.. an F-35 being salvaged by combining parts from two severely damaged F-35s
www.businessinsider.com

The Air Force is trying to save 2 severely damaged F-35s by merging them into a single 'Franken-bird' aircraft

The "Franken-bird" project is the first for the F-35 program, and could pave the way for the Air Force to salvage other damaged jets in the future.
www.businessinsider.com www.businessinsider.com
656d3e9e0ec98e92f74b86eb
Click to expand...
That isn't really all that unusual for planes. Replacing wings damaged in ground strike or bird strike with good wings from a different wrecked plane.

Even my A&P school ended up doing that when one of the wings we were working on got wrecked due to building contractor incompetence. Idiots didn't properly anchor the pallet of roofing materials to the top of the hangar, so it slid down the side and tried to take out the paint booth. Dropped the fluorescent lights onto the wing and totalled it. Building contractors bought two new wings because of that. At rather horrifying prices.
 
Any ideas as to the serial numbers of the F-35s that were two separate planes before getting put together as one?
 
Interesting. I would not like to be the test pilot who flies the Franken-bird for the first time especially if anything goes wrong with the airframe during the test flight.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom