The AARGM-ER RFI released specified internal carriage for F-35A and C –

https://www.scribd.com/doc/263052596/Aargm-Er-Rfi

And poof… another fanboy theory dies moments after its introduction.

An F-35 with internal AARGMs, enhanced with longer range/greater speed no less… it is the sort of thing that would take all the fun out of being a radar operator.

If you’re going to integrate a weapon, you might as well open all potential configs. Otherwise you’ll need extra flight campaigns to open each pylon with carry & drop tests. It’s more expensive in the long term.

It also makes for good marketing material.

Now in the real world, there are things like range (including reserves), flight handling with dissimilar loads under each wing (there’s a reason bring back weight (landing with heavy stores attached puts a lot of stress on the wing)… that severely limit the usefulness of such “brochure” configuration. Because every time you dispatch a plane for a mission, you need to plan for the worst case scenarios, if IFR isn’t available, if a load doesn’t fire and gets stuck, if the mission is called off…

For example, if a mission requires 6x2000lbs bombs on a target, no one is going to send a single F-35 to do the job. Why? Because you need a back up in case of unforeseen issue so now you’re sending 2xF-35 each with 6 bombs (if there is no bring back weight limit…). Then since such loaded F-35 have the maneuverability of overloaded trucks, you need to dispatch a couple of F-35 to escort them. So you now require four F-35 to drop 6 bombs. So the logical conclusion is to dispatch these 4 F-35 each with 2×2000 Lbs and some AAMs in a self escorting configuration.

More fiction than fact I’m afraid. In the case of 2000lbs loads, a F-35 can carry 6 of them while keeping a fuel fraction of 0.30 on internal fuel. A Rafale loaded with 4 and a centerline 2000L tanks will achieve a fuel fraction of 0.31.

So the ratio is more like 1.5x.

Not that anyone would actually use such configurations ever (well, to be honest the UAE has asked for configuration with 3xASM and other “heavy” configurations but their tactical situation vs Iran is rather unique).

Conceptually you are correct, but you still have look at the actual numbers. The F-35 is simply designed for much heavier loads than any of the Eurocanards.

An F-35 taking off with a full fuel load and 6 x 2,000lb bombs weighs… 29000(empty)+18500(fuel)+12000(bombs)+2000(AAMs, pylons, etc) = 61,500.

Its max take-off weight is 70,000. Without a doubt that is a heavy load, but hypothetically if it doesn’t drop its bombs it will be returning to base having burned or dumped 15,000+lbs worth of fuel, taking its weight back to the 45-46k range. (Less than an F-35 with full fuel and no weapons at all…)

Would be cheaper to rebuild the airfield completely than to destroy it :dev2:

If “airfield” in this case meant little more than a runway, maybe. On the other hand if the airfield in question was covered in multi-million dollar aircraft, weapons, radars, etc… no.

You’re right, it should be never-in-a-lifetime… sorry for the confusion..

The question remains: who needs that? Denmark? Norway? Netherlands? Belgium? Or any other country who likely will not procure more than few dozens of JSOWs in total? Will they hang 10 of them onto a single plane?

Please remind me what is the last time Danish or Dutch AF needed to smash an airfield. And if they need to smash one in the future, which airfield would that be?

Who said anything about Denmark, Norway, the Netherlands, or Belgium?

Do you think just because one small buyer or another might not use a capability that it shouldn’t exist? Is it really that hard for you to just admit when you are wrong?

There is only one reason to bash the F-35.. Because there is a lot on it which can be bashed. I have always respected the pig as a striker but you guys trumpet out its strike virtues in order to sell it as a standard NATO fighter which the thing just isn’t and never will be. It is an intended lightweight and affordable fighter which ended up a fvcking underpowered Strike Eagle..

This whole thing started with you claiming to know what capabilities the F-35 needed better than its actual designers and operators. Here we are again. :stupid:

and where is the 3000lbs and 5000lbs load out. 2000lbs is simply not sufficient against hardened structures or caves.

The F-35 is capable of carrying a 5,000lb bomb externally but …

20 May, 2015 BY: James Drew Washington DC

The US Air Force’s chief scientist says the high velocity penetrating weapon (HVPW) its research laboratory has designed for internal carriage on the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is ready to transfer to a development and production programme.

The air force research laboratory has been testing a 2,000lb-class, rocket-propelled bomb for attacking fortified targets like underground bunkers and tunnel networks, but unlike traditional gravity bombs, this new kinetic weapon is rammed into the ground like a pile driver instead of being accelerated naturally by gravity.

Very little has been said about the programme since its inception in 2011, but according to the air force’s Dr David Walker, HVPW has been “very successful” and is now part of a study into future “hard-target munitions” requirements, which includes an examination of Boeing’s 30,000lb Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP) as well as other traditional bunker-busting ordnance.

Walker says the laboratory has proven that the concept works, but the questions now is what to do with it, and how much is the air force is willing to spend to field such a capability.

“The idea is to get a heavy weapon effect with a much lighter weapon and a more compact weapon,” he told Flightglobal at a recent defence science and technology exposition at the Pentagon. “That technology, we’ve proven that the concept works.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/us-air-force-considering-new-2000lb-rocket-propelled-penetrating-412565/

Next time I want to know something, I ask a guy puting a “stupid” emoticon behind every entence he writes..

Not trying to argue on substance, probably one of your smarter posts recently.

Might want to tell these guys they are wasting their time.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]240775[/ATTACH]

If they did not envision a time that they would need to, they they would not have given it that capability.

Remember that one F-35 carrying 6 2k bombs replaced the need to send 3 F-16s to drop those same six bombs because the F-16 will almost always carry wing tanks due to low internal fuel load.

It does not have to be 6x2k bombs as it could be any combination of 6 pylons of heavy weapons like JASSM/StormShadow/LRASM, BRU-61 (x4SDB/SPEAR3), BRU-57 (2x1k bombs/JSOW), Torps, etc.

Indeed, aircraft like the Rafale have only 5 pylons rated for a heavy load, but will almost always devote 2-3 of them to drop tanks, leaving only 2-3 remaining for weapons.

An F-35 could carry 6 x 2,000lb bombs, but it could also carry 6 x JSOW, or 6 x JSM or SOM-J cruise missiles, or some combination of weapons… Perhaps, 8 x SDB and 4 x GBU-12, etc etc. (all while carrying 18,000lbs of fuel and a targeting pod)

There is no way around the fact that in the real world an F-35 can carry 2-3x as much ordnance as an aircraft like a Rafale. It doesn’t have to drop all of it on every mission either. Having 2-3 weapon types to choose from can be an advantage.

Far enough…

The F-35 has the capability to trade some range in return for a huge payload. Not every mission is some kind of max range deep-strike.

Even if we assume the effective combat radius was cut to 350NM (~650km), that would still allow an F-35 to reach any point in Syria from a base in Turkey, or any point in Afghanistan or Iraq from a base near the middle of the country, etc.

See: http://www.freemaptools.com/radius-around-point.htm?clat=37.48880799272727&clng=38.5400390625&r=650&lc=FFFFFF&lw=1&fc=00FF00

So if an F-35 needs to carry 24 SDBs, or up to 6 x 2,000lb weapons, or some combination of the above it can still comfortably reach every inch of the Islamic State’s territory from a Turkish (or Jordanian) base.

Of course a Rafale, Gripen, F-18, F-16, or Eurofighter isn’t even capable of taking off with that 6 x 2,000 load so a range comparison in that scenario isn’t really relevant…

Is that pretending to be an answer? Use words, if you have actually want to stand by your claim, and explain the fundamentals.

Boxy design doesn’t seem to be the only way to achieve stealth. After all YF-23 did have a similar tunnel as PAK FA, only it was on the upper side. Plenty of unevenness and bumps on F-35 as well.
S-duct is obviousy not the only way to solve the issue of engine face as shown by other designs. And if the Russians would not have developed an effective solution to that problem it would hardly make any sense to implement all the other RCS reduction measures that are clearly visible on the design. Even all the “doors” are shaped for RCS reduction which would be useless if there was a significant return from intake.

That was a test… to see whether a rational conversation was possible here, and you failed completely.