And add 2 external AIM-9Xs and 1) the enemy plane can detect the F-35 from significantly further, 2) the extra drag of the missiles and pylons prevent the F-35 from supercruising at all and it needs to use its afterburner extensively to compete with its supercruise capable opponent. Let’s be honest, it is one hell of a smart design!

In the case of the US, but surely F35B is capable of carrying ASRAAM internally? Could be an interim solution for the US too.

The ASRAAM has no datalink and no thrust vectoring, so I am not sure it would be sufficiently good.

They had a lot of time during all those years to figure out a way to launch the 9X from inside the bays, and they didn’t do it.

I am still convinced that the original a2a specs were insufficient. The specs should have been 4 AMRAAMs + 2 internal 9Xs in side bays. The JSF was going to be the primary fighter of many air forces, so it needed really good a2a armaments. Originally the USAF was going to get a lot of F-22 so the it could afford the JSF to be a somewhat subpar, but as soon as F-22 production was stopped at the beginning of 2009, the F-35 a2a capabilities should immediately have been accelerated, with 6 internal AAMs including 2 9Xs.

The Block 1 upgrades rely partly on development work that P&W carried out for a demonstration in autumn 2013 for the navy’s XTE68-LF1 project. This focused on demonstrating a capability for higher operating temperatures in the F135’s turbine and introduced a variety of new technologies into the engine’s high-pressure turbine (HPT) module. These improvements, which Kenyon described as “advanced cooling technologies”, included new casting technologies for metal- alloy parts; new, highly temperature-resistant HPT materials; new thermal barrier coatings for HPT blades and vanes; more temperature- resistant oils for lubricating and cooling; and a new main shaft bearing. He said P&W’s XTE68-LF1 demonstration in autumn 2013 was “tremendously successful” – so successful that it recorded “the hottest-ever temperature in a production engine”.

They absolutely have to have this upgrade available if they build 450-500 planes in 3 years from 2018. Ugrading existing engines would cost a significant amount. What would be the point of lowering the cost with a massive production plan if some of the saving is almost immediately lost in upgrades.

It’s the same for some of the other upgrades. Ideally block 4 should only add new functionalities without modifiying existing systems, or add new software for new weapons and such.

I am sure they would like to accelerate the block 4 upgrades, but of course with LM patience is a virtue.. Money is a virtue too lol..

They need one that can capitalize on the MLD capabilities.

US air force considering new 2,000lb rocket-propelled penetrating weapon

Background Here

Could this weapon enable to have significantly smaller internal bays on the LRS-B? The B-2s could be reserved to use the GBU-28s/MOPs, etc… the LRS-B could be made smaller, lighter and cheaper.

Double kills are relatively rare in air combat, so maybe 3 missiles would be sufficient for most sorties to kill one or maybe 2 planes. A 9 tons plane with a 13 tons engine would probably be feasable. I take it such a plane would make use of advanced datalinks to attack in packs.

The missiles could be located in side bays like on the F-22, one missile per bay, plus maybe one extra missile behind the cockpit in a dorsal spine bay. Keep it small.