@ scorpion82- there are a couple of major differences to carrying the loads internally:
the weapons are only exposed to inertial loads, none from airstream. Also, the launchers (not pylons) can be attached to the aircraft’s bulkhead internal structure and not to wings (ok, many aircraft have centerline pylons, and some have conformal hardpoints…..)

Hello FBW,

that’s ofcourse true. What actual impact this has on the load limits is beyond me. The basic principle of gravity forces remains, however. It’s not just about the structure itself. There are multiple load bearing interfaces. The first is between the weapon and the carrying device (launcher, pylon, rack you name it). The second interface is that between the carrying device and the attachment point(s) on the airframe and then there is the airframe structure itself. The weakest element in the chain dictates the limit. The accumulated weight of 6 AMRAAMs is about the same as that of a single 2000 lb bomb, but the aircraft carrying it might well be cleared for 9 g as the load forces are distributed and absorbed by multiple structural elements, whereas the 2000 lb bomb would induce the same load on just a single location. Replace the 2000 lb bomb with two 1000 lb bomb for reasons of symetry, the carrying device, attachment point(s) and surrounding local strcture still needs to cope with 3 times the load, other effects such as CG etc. not even accounted for.

Hope that clarifies my point of view.

Best part is when they train BFM with internal bombs…

It doesn’t matter what clean jets can do….

Most of the competition cant maneuver like F-35A and get to mach 1,6/9g and carry over 2t of weapons, 8t of fuel with this weight…

Internal carriage doesn’t magically eliminate the loads. Whether a bomb is carried internally or externally doesn’t change the fact that the rack is subjected the load factor. I doubt that the racks inside the weapon bays can cope with a load of 18000 lb, as that’s the force acting upon it when holding a 2000 lb bomb while pulling 9 g. Internal carriage will protect the weapon against the forces induced by airspeed not more, not less. Without details on the pylon ratings and the gross weight at which the airframe can be subjected to 9 g and without the relevant data of mach and AoA related lift generation capabilities comparisons are somewhat moot. No doubt the ability to go supersonic with such a load is a valueable capability to pass dangerous areas more quickly, this also depents on the time to get to that speed and the fuel consumed to do so.

Indeed. And for India to get this verified would be easy- to contact the weapons’ manufacturer and find out who the customer was for the missile with that serial number.

Doubtful that a company would respond to such a request from a foreign government. Such information would need to be requested from the US government. The company has no authority to pass such information to a 3rd state.

What are you talking about wrt turning your head? Afaik the F-35 caters for this with an HMD rearwards view which. The pilot looks forward while viewing the situation behind him selecting the rear view.

Thank you for clarification Stealhflanker. I suppose the “T” implies IR. Wonder why the Russians develope so many different equipments for the same purpose. Possibly to sustain a diverse industrial basis and keep up a healthy competition, at the expense of the costs incurred by logistic burden and standardisation.

Thanks. Wrt to LDP/HMD integration has there been any details?

Hello Panzerfeist,

I doubt anything became much cheaper, but with India not paying for its development or at best a fraction of that for customization and with Russia being slow following up with large orders and India lacking alternatives there are apparently arguments on both sides to proceed. India is falling behind its regional rival China by a fair margin and need to do something about it.

While the AMRAAM held an advantage in every way to the Sparrow, Meteor only holds a range advantage over the AMRAAM.

The Meteor started development in the early 2000’s and I have not seen any news about updates since then. In that same time-frame, the AMRAAM has gone through 2-3 major updates (C5, C7, and D) along with numerous software updates.

While most AMRAAM updates are shrouded in secrecy (eg ECCM, seeker performance, etc), others are clear like GPS and a two-way datalink.

Here is an early MBDA pic showing the AMRAAM initial acceleration performance vs the Meteor. Keep in mind that this is either the AIM-120B or C1 as that is what the U+K had at the time they started Meteor Dev. Also keep in mind that the AMRAAM C5 came win all new seeker, guidance, and a longer rocket motor which would make the initial performance of the AMRAAM in the below pic even better.

Meteor had come a long way and 2000 was just the project start. The presentation slide is certainly not from 2000 either, as the Phased Enhancements projects were initiated only in 2007. The RAF already had C5s by then and never operated any earlier C variant anyway.

At the end of the day the discussion is somewhat pointless as the critical data is missing. No doubt the AMRAAM has evolved quite a bit and the newer D is certainly a highly capable weapon, which may enjoy advantages on the technical sides of things or not. The GPS is oufcourse a quantifiable aspect, other than that there’s simply not much known.