F-35C weapons carriage !!

Read the forum code of contact

Member for

19 years 9 months

Posts: 12,109

F-35C weapons carriage - Is this possible :confused: ( it was posted on another thread)

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/attachment.php?attachmentid=138882

Original post

Member for

18 years 11 months

Posts: 1,189

F-35C weapons carriage - Is this possible :confused: ( it was posted on another thread)

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/attachment.php?attachmentid=138882


What wonders me most is how reliable the internal bomb bay will be throughout years of service. No doubt, the hydraulics (opening, closing doors, ejecting mechanism) suffer when working during high G enviroment, despite of that it has to work flawlessy all the time. It might turn out to be a maintenance nightmare of the F-35. What you think, is that really worth reducing the aerodynamics drag but making the aircraft more complicated and maintenance unfriendly? The insufficient space of the internal bay is another serious problem, which will result in using classic pylons anyway.

Member for

17 years 11 months

Posts: 1,010

That schematic is someone's wishful thinking. Comparing it with official schematics one can see great discrepancies. I do believe we've talked bout bay issue before, and i did some calcuations depending on relative sizes of 2000 jdams and amraams. Conclusion is - in the space of the jdam itself - there is no room for more than one amraam. Only if the bay has extra 15-20 cm in length over the jdam (+ safety margin) could two amraams be put in its place, partially stacked. In the scheme given here, amraams and sidewinders are made much smaller than they are, relative to the jdam. While theoretically, IF bomb bay is designed from the outset to carry larger loads than 2000 jdam, it could carry 3 amraams per bomb bay - 4 plus 2 sidewinders is absolutely not possible.

Member for

19 years 10 months

Posts: 1,151

Ohh. it was first posted in "IMPRESSIVE WEAPON LOADS THREAD " :rolleyes: ;) :D

It is just a What-if.
He might have also drawn the F-22 "Missileer" with 12 AIM-120D's in the main weapon bay and 4 AIM-9X in the two side weapon bays. :rolleyes: :p :D

Member for

18 years 11 months

Posts: 9,683

What wonders me most is how reliable the internal bomb bay will be throughout years of service. No doubt, the hydraulics (opening, closing doors, ejecting mechanism) suffer when working during high G enviroment, despite of that it has to work flawlessy all the time. It might turn out to be a maintenance nightmare of the F-35. What you think, is that really worth reducing the aerodynamics drag but making the aircraft more complicated and maintenance unfriendly? The insufficient space of the internal bay is another serious problem, which will result in using classic pylons anyway.

They seem to work okay in B-52s, B-1s, B-2s, F-106s, F-102s, F-111s etc.

Member for

20 years 5 months

Posts: 4,674

As long as each type of ammo does not get its own unique type of mounting in the bay it's hardly possible. That would be like changing the whole pylon instead of just the launch shoes.

Btw, what's that nozzle depicted? TVC on F-35?

Member for

19 years 9 months

Posts: 12,109

What wonders me most is how reliable the internal bomb bay will be throughout years of service. No doubt, the hydraulics (opening, closing doors, ejecting mechanism) suffer when working during high G enviroment, despite of that it has to work flawlessy all the time. It might turn out to be a maintenance nightmare of the F-35. What you think, is that really worth reducing the aerodynamics drag but making the aircraft more complicated and maintenance unfriendly? The insufficient space of the internal bay is another serious problem, which will result in using classic pylons anyway.

This issue is even a non-starter , Internal bays arent a new invention into modern combat aircraft , and the AA-1 and consequent test aircraft will fully stress test every aspect of the weapon systems to see what the effect of fatigue is on it and will test to conditions and standards beyond those that the aircraft is most likely to see throughout its airframe lifetime . The F-35 has less of a logistical footprint then the F-16 even though it is much bigger in size , has greater range and attack capability and is a more capable striker anyways.

martinez the Purpose of internal carriage is not to only reduce drag , the primary purpose why the weapons are housed internally is for Stealth and the benefit of aerodyanmic eff. is ony a bi-product of internal carriage rather then the purpose of internal carriage . LMA and others have demonstrated the versatility and proven the concept of internal carriage through rigerous testing in aircrafts operational such as the F-22A and I have personally talked to atleast half a dozen F-22A maintaners and pilots who have had no problem with the internam weaponry or the bays .

Member for

18 years 11 months

Posts: 1,189

They seem to work okay in B-52s, B-1s, B-2s, F-106s, F-102s, F-111s etc.

...and did they experience loads up to 9 g when launching A2A missiles?

Member for

24 years 2 months

Posts: 12,009

...and did they experience loads up to 9 g when launching A2A missiles?

Uh, no, but the F-16 does, and while it may not have weapons bay doors to worry about its landing gear doors seem to have survived just fine. Why should a weapons bay door be any different?

Member for

19 years 9 months

Posts: 12,109

...and did they experience loads up to 9 g when launching A2A missiles?

And why do you think that the US defence industry with all its R and D and a constant aim to develop Internal bomb bays on 9g maneuvering fighters since early to mid 90's wont be able to match the specs ?? And how do you explain the raptor passing its weapons structural fatigue tests?? And the F-35 which has to undergo the same rigerous testing in addition to carrier ops ?? The internal weapon bays have absolutely no critics when it comes to fatigue , they the similar launchers with similar shelf lives which can be replaced after they finish their lives and so on and so forth , the raptor hsa umpteen times demonstrated launches of its missile at Hi G's and AOA as well as at supersonic and high supersonic ( its own speed limit) speeds and has passed all the tests of flight even with the bomb bays open to simulate a malfunction . The bays , launchers and racks continue to fly effortlessly even in the aircraft which were tested to conditions outside of the F-22A's operational capability .

Member for

24 years 2 months

Posts: 7,989

The F-22 will have problems with its bays too if the F-35 does, so I highly doubt that will be an issue.

Plus, you don't often launch AAM's while pulling 9 G as it severaly impacts the performance of the missile off the rail. You try to put as small of an amount of G's as possible when launching any AAM's.

Member for

18 years 11 months

Posts: 9,683

...and did they experience loads up to 9 g when launching A2A missiles?

You are aware there's a thing called "flight testing" right? In it they flew with weapons bay doors open at all areas of the flight envelope. They flew at high AOA with the doors open, they flew at high Gs with the doors open. They've even launched missiles while supersonic and in a 100 degree/sec roll. Or do you think they'd just cross their fingers and hope for the best? :rolleyes:

Member for

18 years 7 months

Posts: 719

If the Royal Australian Air Force is to get the F-35, I would hope that it Incorporate a non-hinged version of the carrier-based F-35C’s longer wingspan.
This would improve the designs air-to-air manoeuvrability, and range over that of the F-35A’s

Well we will see!

Regards
Pioneer

Member for

19 years 9 months

Posts: 12,109

or the depleted uranium Slipsters that are fired from the thrust vectoring nozzle at the back :)

Member for

17 years 10 months

Posts: 114

Picture is totally bogus, the F-35 bays are not that big. Neither are the wing tip rails qualified for AMRAAM.

Somebody's leg is being pulled.

Member for

24 years 2 months

Posts: 4,450

Uh, no, but the F-16 does, and while it may not have weapons bay doors to worry about its landing gear doors seem to have survived just fine. Why should a weapons bay door be any different?

Nah, the landing gear usually breaks beforehand :diablo:

Member for

17 years 7 months

Posts: 15

Umm that image is a photoshop of a "whatif"... the upper top left corner image showing a single A2A and a JDAM is the true configuration.

The current real loadout is 2 pylons inside each weapons bay; 1 being dedicated A2A.

On the each wing there are 3 pylons... 2 multirole and 1 A2A.

A good website showing the loadouts that are currently possible (remember the Aim-9x is not being cleared for internal carriage).
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/planes/q0163.shtml

Andy

Member for

18 years 11 months

Posts: 1,189

Gents, why you so jumpy? Kindly show me where I was saying the F-22/35 weapon bay doors/missile rails haven`t been tested or they are not able to launch a missile at 9G? Actually I believe they are working flawless, but what I am interested is at what maintenance costs when considering the aircraft(F-35) already goes for twice as much money as the F-16!!!. I frankly doubt whether the maintenance of a complex pneumatics/hydraulics system (stealthy weapons bay) might be as unassuming as the maintenance of classic pylons. Well, they`re claiming less "logistical footprint" then the F-16, but similar PR stunts we used to hear from BAE about their low-cost aircraft the Gripen. After a year of service in the CzechAF I`ve received informations about maintainance of the Gripen comparing them with aircrafts previously used with the CzechAF. Surprisingly the Gripen has got some interesting maintenance issues related to airframe, wings. e.g. flying with AIM-9 missiles attached at the wing tips, the vibrations induced shrink the lifetime of the wing considerably. So, they have to execute prescheduled maintenance in order to ensure whether or not the composite wing structure is intact. The outcome is clear, using underwing pylons instead of wingtip launch rails during the "peace time" otherwise you`ll end up in maintenance depot quickly. Not surprisingly the Gripen is in some aspect maintenance intense even more than the old Fishbed. :eek:


"US defence industry with all its R and D, raptor passing its weapons structural fatigue tests, had underwent the same rigerous testing in addition to carrier ops, The internal weapon bays have absolutely no critics when it comes to fatigue, there's a thing called "flight testing" right? "

blah blah blah.......and what this all stands for? The F-22 and F-35 being the first aircrafts which do not need to be maintenanced? Well, true is they are spending billions of dollars on R&D and then design a canopy which traps the pilot in the aircraft for five hours, uhhhh....what if he needed first aid or the aircraft was in flames, ironic isn`t it?
However, I would love to learn something about F-22 maintenace events describing what is serviced, how often, procedures, schedules, etc. I think should be not problem for you "Bring it on". ;) Thanks

Martinez

Member for

19 years 9 months

Posts: 12,109

Actually I believe they are working flawless, but what I am interested is at what maintenance costs when considering the aircraft(F-35) already goes for twice as much money as the F-16!!!. I frankly doubt whether the maintenance of a complex pneumatics/hydraulics system (stealthy weapons bay) might be as unassuming as the maintenance of classic pylons. Well, they`re claiming less "logistical footprint" then the F-16, but similar PR stunts we used to hear from BAE about their low-cost aircraft the Gripen. After a year of service in the CzechAF I`ve received informations about maintainance of the Gripen comparing them with aircrafts previously used with the CzechAF. Surprisingly the Gripen has got some interesting maintenance issues related to airframe, wings. e.g. flying with AIM-9 missiles attached at the wing tips, the vibrations induced shrink the lifetime of the wing considerably. So, they have to execute prescheduled maintenance in order to ensure whether or not the composite wing structure is intact. The outcome is clear, using underwing pylons instead of wingtip launch rails during the "peace time" otherwise you`ll end up in maintenance depot quickly. Not surprisingly the Gripen is in some aspect maintenance intense even more than the old Fishbed.

Again nothing has surfaced about the maintaince being a pain in the A$$ for the raptor other then maintaince integration issues which exist for almost all new jets . They have had trouble with certain areas where they have had to go towards the industry however this is because the maintaince staff and other technical people are being trained , other then that the F-22 costs less to maintain per hour then the F-15 it is supposed to replace even with the added stealth airframe .

blah blah blah.......and what this all stands for? The F-22 and F-35 being the first aircrafts which do not need to be maintenanced? Well, true is they are spending billions of dollars on R&D and then design a canopy which traps the pilot in the aircraft for five hours, uhhhh....what if he needed first aid or the aircraft was in flames, ironic isn`t it?
However, I would love to learn something about F-22 maintenace events describing what is serviced, how often, procedures, schedules, etc. I think should be not problem for you "Bring it on". Thanks

Again you are quoting early problems which existed with the F-15 , F-14 , F-16 and F-18 birds ( remeber the F-16 fleet being grounded) and they too exist with the F-22A however overall from the maintainance people i have talked to generally speak of it being much easier and cost effective to maintain then the F-15 . As far as real no.s are concerned there are some available at AFA and other websites but most by n large arent in the public domain ( not necc. classified) .

Member for

18 years 11 months

Posts: 9,683

Well, true is they are spending billions of dollars on R&D and then design a canopy which traps the pilot in the aircraft for five hours, uhhhh....what if he needed first aid or the aircraft was in flames, ironic isn`t it?

Then they'd have pulled the cable like any other fighter and blown the canopy off. I think you told us all you really needed to with that statement.

Member for

18 years 11 months

Posts: 1,189

I think you told us all you really needed to with that statement.

I`m sorry,but you've been doing the same...putting sarcasm.
Merely, I was pointing out the ball screw actuator which drives the canopy, do not understand why not using a simple pneumatic valve. They have a kind of six sense making things even more comlicated. When the canopy frame is damaged to blow it up might be risky for pilot anyway, so in case of emergency situation firemen should be able to cut it within a few minutes. I`m aware that the F-22 canopy incident was a special occasion, there was nothing to worry about, therefore they`ve taken time to open it. After they tried everything but failed ,they called for firemen.
Again nothing has surfaced about the maintaince being a pain in the A$$ for the raptor other then maintaince integration issues which exist for almost all new jets....other then that the F-22 costs less to maintain per hour then the F-15 it is supposed to replace even with the added stealth airframe .

I`m not expecting "pain in the A$$" kind of problem, who would dare to come out with one? :D
....other then that the F-22 costs less to maintain per hour then the F-15 it is supposed to replace even with the added stealth airframe .

How much is less? It takes some time to build up a operational wing, as I remember the first squadron reached IOC just couple of months ago, the second one is being retrained/implemented, so it is a bit early to judge cost per maintenance from a few operational Raptors do not you think?