Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

F-35C weapons carriage !!

Collapse
X
Collapse
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • bring_it_on
    2005-year of the RAPTOR!!
    • Jun 2004
    • 12300

    F-35C weapons carriage !!

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

    Old radar types never die; they just phased array
  • martinez
    Rank 5 Registered User
    • Mar 2005
    • 1209

    #2
    Originally posted by bring_it_on
    F-35C weapons carriage - Is this possible ( it was posted on another thread)

    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.
    <Find a job you like doing, and you'll never have to work a day in your life>

    Comment

    • totoro
      Rank 5 Registered User
      • Apr 2006
      • 1014

      #3
      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.

      Comment

      • fightingirish
        Rank 5 Registered User
        • May 2004
        • 1184

        #4
        Ohh. it was first posted in "IMPRESSIVE WEAPON LOADS THREAD "

        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.
        Last edited by fightingirish; 21st August 2006, 10:20.
        Sln, fightingirish
        Avatar: Ho-Yeol Ryu, Flughafen (Airport), Hannover [HAJ / EDDV] 2005

        Comment

        • sferrin
          Rank 5 Registered User
          • Apr 2005
          • 9981

          #5
          Originally posted by martinez
          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.
          A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul. - George Bernard Shaw

          flag@whitehouse.gov

          Comment

          • Distiller
            Talent on Loan from God
            • Oct 2003
            • 4763

            #6
            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?
            "Distiller ... arrogant, ruthless, and by all reports (including his own) utterly charming"

            Comment

            • bring_it_on
              2005-year of the RAPTOR!!
              • Jun 2004
              • 12300

              #7
              Originally posted by martinez
              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 .
              Old radar types never die; they just phased array

              Comment

              • martinez
                Rank 5 Registered User
                • Mar 2005
                • 1209

                #8
                Originally posted by sferrin
                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?
                <Find a job you like doing, and you'll never have to work a day in your life>

                Comment

                • SOC
                  SOC
                  Registered User
                  • Jan 2000
                  • 13191

                  #9
                  Originally posted by martinez
                  ...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?
                  Sean O'Connor

                  Sean's Blog, now with forum
                  ACIG.org Team
                  Airliners.net

                  Comment

                  • bring_it_on
                    2005-year of the RAPTOR!!
                    • Jun 2004
                    • 12300

                    #10
                    Originally posted by martinez
                    ...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 .
                    Old radar types never die; they just phased array

                    Comment

                    • PhantomII
                      Phantoms Phorever
                      • Jan 2000
                      • 8291

                      #11
                      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.
                      Fox-4!

                      Comment

                      • sferrin
                        Rank 5 Registered User
                        • Apr 2005
                        • 9981

                        #12
                        Originally posted by martinez
                        ...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?
                        Last edited by sferrin; 21st August 2006, 14:21.
                        A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul. - George Bernard Shaw

                        flag@whitehouse.gov

                        Comment

                        • Pioneer
                          Rank 5 Registered User
                          • Aug 2005
                          • 720

                          #13
                          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-35Cs longer wingspan.
                          This would improve the designs air-to-air manoeuvrability, and range over that of the F-35As

                          Well we will see!

                          Regards
                          Pioneer

                          Comment

                          • bring_it_on
                            2005-year of the RAPTOR!!
                            • Jun 2004
                            • 12300

                            #14
                            or the depleted uranium Slipsters that are fired from the thrust vectoring nozzle at the back
                            Old radar types never die; they just phased array

                            Comment

                            • RonOO
                              Senior Member
                              • May 2006
                              • 118

                              #15
                              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.

                              Comment

                              • frankvw
                                Moderator
                                • Jan 2000
                                • 6341

                                #16
                                Originally posted by SOC
                                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:
                                Regards,

                                Frank

                                Comment

                                • boff180fc
                                  Junior Member
                                  • Aug 2006
                                  • 15

                                  #17
                                  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

                                  Comment

                                  • martinez
                                    Rank 5 Registered User
                                    • Mar 2005
                                    • 1209

                                    #18
                                    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.
                                    "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
                                    <Find a job you like doing, and you'll never have to work a day in your life>

                                    Comment

                                    • bring_it_on
                                      2005-year of the RAPTOR!!
                                      • Jun 2004
                                      • 12300

                                      #19
                                      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) .
                                      Old radar types never die; they just phased array

                                      Comment

                                      • sferrin
                                        Rank 5 Registered User
                                        • Apr 2005
                                        • 9981

                                        #20
                                        Originally posted by martinez
                                        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.
                                        A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul. - George Bernard Shaw

                                        flag@whitehouse.gov

                                        Comment

                                        Unconfigured Ad Widget

                                        Collapse

                                         

                                        Working...
                                        X