HotshotThey should look at what’s possible. All the test planes will be available for weapons and avionics integration after the SDD ends in 2016 I believe. If they need to hire more engineers they should.
The production ramp up may not be affected much. 1 billion dollars is equivalent to about 7 planes ( with spares and all ). I guess than if they slowed down the production ramp up by just 7 planes per year for like 4 years after 2016, that would be enough to accelerate block 4 and 5 a lot. After that the following blocks would be funded at the normal pace.
They have to find a way to catch up with the delay, otherwise the F-35 will always be late with its capabilities.
HotshotThe AMRAAM would be enabled in block 2B that IOC’s later this year.
With only 2 missiles, it can’t do air to air missions with that.
That would happen in the next software block. It would have been unwise to create a room in the integration phase of the program for a weapon that was for most of that time itself in development. While raytheon had been producing its components the D program was delayed due to a lack of a motor and it gets really tough to test a2a missiles for integration purposes without a motor :). In the next 5 years they’ll focus on fielding the missile on the F-18E/F, F-15, F-16 and finally the F-22. By the early 2020’s they would have it on the F-35.
They are working on fielding the missile on the other planes, so there is no reason they couldn’t have started ASAP on the F-35.
I may be wrong, but I think they had been able to test the 120D for years even before the motor issue appeared. I believe the problem with the motor was for high altitude launch ( problem of temperature or something like that ).
Which it would get with the D, and I am sure anything that happens beyond the D would also find its way into the F-35 especially if the future missiles are designed with UAI in mind. Although I may be wrong but the F-35 would from 3F be able to launch the Aim-120D missile but would still have to wait for block iV capability to fully utilize the added benefits. The computers would treat the D as if it were a C or something like that.
The F-22 had received a ‘basic’ AIM-120D capability in 2013 2 years before the full capability. They should definitely do that on the F-35. The plane would probably be able to exploit the range of the missile and the missile is also more jam resistant. That would be the minimum for block 3F to compete with advanced threats if you want a good kill ratio.
That statement would require definitive proof that the F-35 at the moment CANNOT launch an Aim-120C7 without first being detected. And if true, it could launch the D version without being detected 😉
You want a ‘definite proof’ that the F-35 would not lose its first shot advantage. I’d rather have the D to be sure. And even if the F-35 launches first with Ds instead of Cs, it has more time to guide the missile in mid course to increase the pk.
Even F-22 pilots have said that the 120D would be a good improvement over the C, and the F-22 is even more stealthy, and can launch with more speed and altitude to give more range to their missiles.
At the end of the day integrating the D on the F-16 would open a far larger percentage of your deployed fleet to the missile. The F-35 would take a few years even post IOC to build some decent numbers and really deploy like the F-16’s and F-15’s do today.
A lot of F-16s could carry it but could not use it to their full capabilities, so…
The US services will have quite a lot of F-35s available within a few years. They would obviously be much better than F-16s if properly armed.
We are talking about a 4-5 year period out of which a considerable time would be taken to actually ramp up production and get a decent number of F-35A’s up to standard (3F and beyond). So its not like there is a decade worth of gap between when the F-16 gets the Aim-120D and deploys vs when the F-35A gets it. As mentioned earlier, the DOD has continued to invest in the Aim-120C7 and upgrades would continue all the till 2017 or so. Meanwhile I am sure they would finally bring back ATK into the game and up the production of the D version. There is nothing “game changing” happening in the time period between 2016-17 and 2022 (3-5 years) where the USAF would all of a sudden find its F-35’s grossly outclassed because it carries the C(3,5,7) and not the D.
The Su-35 will be fielded in significant numbers in the coming years, and you don’t want to fight those with F-16s.
There was no developed missile to launch of the F-35 from what i make (D version) so why leave a huge gap in testing and integration to accommodate a missile that itself doesn’t get delivered for active service till 2015? Block 2b is currently flying and being tested and it would have been foolish for them to delay just to sneak in the Aim-120D at IOC with either 3I or 2B. They could I guess introduce a block upgrade over 3F that just deals with the Aim-120D integration but there is really no need to rush something when you would be just as fine if you deliver the earlier versions of block 4A within 6 months of schedule (2021 planned).
Why would there be a huge gap in testing? It could have both the C and the 120D well before 2021.
They are mutually exclusive. You would have to pay a premium on cost for an increase in the rate of upgrades and software development and integration. In addition to that you would have to make sure that the quality of the software build and the debugging activity does not suffer as a result. This assumes obviously that the services have not prepared themselves around the capability delivery time-lines for block 3F and Block 4A and 4B which is a fairly significant assumption given the fact that the services knew of this when the program was restructured some 5 years ago.
To find the money to accelerate the block 4 and 5 you slow down the production ramp up. The F-35 development has to be accelerated, otherwise the 6-7 years delay of capabilities will always continue to exist.
BTW, Aim-120 production for the USN and USAF between 2014 and 2020 stands at 2712. However there is no way to confirm whether all of this is just one version (or includes backlogs from earlier due to the motor issues) and whether the recent issues with ATK and Namo would impact deliveries (2712 is the amount ordered in the 7 year period).
That’s plenty of missiles.
HotshotAt the end of the day it is those that have total system information on the weapons systems and the missile, its capability (whether it is average, or good, or poor) that get to decide what the integration schedule is for each carrier of the missile. Based on what’s publicly known of the D there is little to form an opinion on how superior it is compared to its peers. As of now it is F-18E/F’s and F-15’s for 2015, F-16’s post 2015, F-22’s around 2017-2018 and F-35’s in the early 2020’s. The program was better off integrating in service weapons in the block 2b or 3f software builds, and leaving new weapons for the next block. In addition to claiming an increased range the Aim-120D also claims a better Pk to the C. As djc mentioned that would benefit the legacy fleet quite a bit.
I am not against integrating the 120C at block 3F, I say that the D should be integrated ASAP. The F-35 is not in the same class as an F-22 ( pilots and generals have repeated that at nauseum ), it needs the best AAMs possible to compensate for its relative lack of speed and maneuvrability.
What is the point of a stealth fighter if it can’t launch regularily with a good missile before it is detected? It makes no sense whatsoever.
The F-35 would make a much better use of the 120D than the F-16. First of all, thanks to its stealth, it has better chances of guiding the missile in mid-course, which would increase its pk and not be forced to disengage, which would cause the waste of a good missile most of the time. Second of all its radar its much more resistant to jamming, which is important for long range engagement. Third of all in a high intensity scenario, the F-35s would be deployed first, not the F-16s.
The D is scheduled for Block 4. I do not think integrating it to the software itself is going to be a very time-consuming challenging but it still has to be tested and that means its integration has to be prioritized. Additionally, there would be activity post the D on both the AMRAAM front and on whatever ultimately becomes of the T-3 project in terms of a program spinoff so the cycle keeps on going.
Well in case you haven’t noticed, everything with the F-35 takes a loong time. And see how hard it was to integrate it on the F-22.
As for the AMRAAM’s successor, who knows when it will be available. One bird in the hand is better than two in the bush.
Got an idea of what the deliveries for the Aim-120D would look like by 2022 or so?
I don’t have the exact number but probably several thousands ( I’d say 2000-3000 ). The planes can also carry a mix of Ds and Cs. They open fire with their Ds at long range and use the Cs for the following attacks. Although, in the case of the F-35, given that it has only 4 missiles, only Ds would be best.
Anyways the upgrades will be coming very slowly, and not just for the AMRAAM. Slowing down the production ramp up and accelerating the upgrades would make sense to catch up with the important delays that have happened.
HotshotThe F-16C will have 120D capability soon, well before the F-35. That doesn’t make much sense given that the F-16’s radar doesn’t have enough range to exploit the missile’s range. In a high intensity scenario it would make no sense for the USAF to send the F-35s with 120Cs when there is a stock pile of 120Ds. The AIM-120D is in full production now. And by the way it is not a phenomenal missile, it is average.
The capabilities of the F-35 will be 7 years late when block 3F enters service, if they don’t accelerate the following blocks it will continue to be 7 years late compared to what it should have been, and won’t be that much better than its opponents.
I don’t know how much doubling development funding would affect the production ramp up, but maybe it wouldn’t be that much. And that money will have to be spend for these upgrades anyways.
HotshotThe configuration the contractor is contracted for (and struggling to achieve) is the 2002 RFP requirements. This predates ROVER or any other capability resulting from OIF and OEF.
From the USG perspective, don’t give the struggling contractor an excuse by dumping new requirements on him. Force him to finish the original contract, then open negotiations for new capabilities.
The F-35 has been so delayed that its avionics has become a bit outdated. Now it’s playing catchup while other systems CONTINUE to become better.
The air to air capabilities are also not up to par. The F-35 will have only 4 AIM-120C at block 3F and it will take 4-5 more years to have 120Ds. In other words it will have 10+ years old missiles. The IRST capability won’t be fielded before block 4.
I wonder if it wouldn’t be better to accelerate the R&D of the F-35 instead of ramping up the production.
HotshotFor this idea of slow missile hybrid, I think you’d want the whole missile to have an aerodynamics close to that of a slow drone like the predator with a slow speed of M 0.3-0.4 to have as much loitering time as possible, say 12-24h.
The missile needs to be recoverable because it is very expensive and the probability of intercepting a plane is rather low. That requirements would also add to the complexity and cost but you can’t skip it I think.
The missile needs an IFF and datalink to reduce fratricide.
I would imagine using these missiles for instance to loiter close to an enemy airbase in an initial phase of a conflict. They could be launched from long range platforms in advanced of the strike planes.
Question is, how many of these missiles hybrids would be needed to cover a given area vs regular fighter. A fighter can engage with an AAM from up to 100km whereas this one would engage at around 10-20km. What has to be taken into account is that the operating cost would be very low versus a fighter.
It might be worth looking into it.
HotshotThe F-15 was built with a different idea of what the critical performance perimeters of a fighter were- 1960’s ideas of an energy fighter. The Su-27, and subsequent fighters have accentuated high alpha, ability to transition from one maneuver to another quickly through the use of high lift devices such as the LERX, slats, and relaxed stability that were not practical at the time the F-X project was started. Saying that the F-15 is not good at turning is not accurate, it’s sustained turning ability is still competitive. It is still an excellent energy fighter with equality or advantage in the vertical over more recent designs.
The F-35 is not an energy fighter such as the F-15, or even the 16. It’s acceleration is good, despite what LO and some doctored L-M charts posted say. It’s not what it was supposed to be- comparable with a block 50 with two amraams, but good. It WILL have excellent roll rate and bank to 90* into a turn due to it’s twin tail design with massive horizontal stabs set far back on the airframe. It would be instructive for some to look at the YF-22 wing design and compare it with the F-35. The US prefers the trapezoidal wing over delta-canard due to sig and good performance at high aoa and speeds, it’s not optimized for any but good at most speed regimes. It gives up some maneuverability, but then again, how long is a missile fight going to last in the era of all aspect missiles?
The Mig-29 and Su-27 were designed to use thrust vectored missiles. With TV missiles energy maneuvring is probably less important. Pulling hard and taking a quick HOBS shot is the way to go.
Hotshotfound it in that thread
Ok the F-35A accelerates significantly more slowly than a clean F-16 in transsonic. This is a bit puzzling however because both are said to be able to fly without AB at about mach 1.1-1.2.
The F-35 may have a very high peak of drag around M1, which must decrease quickly at M1.1. Also maybe the inertia could explain part of the discrepency. The F-35 is heavier so it is easier for it to keep the same speed ( at equal T/W ratio ).
Mmh.
HotshotI think the range would be around 50km. The missile would have a higher fuel fraction than regular missile, but basically that is the question. If the range is relatively 50km-ish, then it might be Worth it to trade a long range missile with 4 short ones. If the range is like 20km, I agree it is not worth it, the F-35 should try as much as possible to kill its oponents before they can detect it.
As for the US buying meteors, maybe they could just adapt the meteor’s ramjet motor to the AMRAAM. BVR AAMs is a big international market, I doubt the US would not try to stay competitive.
HotshotIf you like estimated comparison, what about this chart:
[ATTACH=CONFIG]234201[/ATTACH]
From the flight tests the acceleration of the F-35A is roughly the same as that of a clean block 52. The block 52 is said to be capable of mach 1.1 supercruise clean, and the F-35A is said to be capable of supercruising at mach 1.2 or almost. So the F-35A accelerates about as fast as a clean F-16 up to mach 1.2. After mach 1.2 the F-35A begins to accelerate like an air-to-air loaded F-16. They both top out at around Mach 1.6.
Besides I doubt there is so much difference between an F-16 block 52 and an F-18C with GE-402, especially in subsonic.
HotshotMeteor already have Ramjet, so i think it would be cheaper for USAF to just buy it if they want a ramjet missile.
I doubt the US will buy a foreign missile. They have a new propulsion motor in the works for the T-3, don’t know if it is ramjet.
if iam not wrong, the T-3 missiles programme also have Ramjet as well, that being said CUDA turn by using mini rocket pulse thus it will be more maneuver than normal missiles that turn using fin at high altitude so may be it worth develop a ramjet version of it
i think it better for F-35 to carry 3 long range missile on station 5, 7, 8 and 4 short range missiles on station 4
Yeah but on station 8 you can replace 1 missile with 4. Granted the 4 missiles have a shorter range, but wouldn’t you chose 4 missiles instead of 1?
One advantage of a stretched CUDA vs a long range AMRAAM or meteor is its very high terminal maneuvrability.
HotshotConcerning the CUDA, the idea has merit but it should be complementary to a long range missile.
Maybe they could make a stretched variant of it with a ramjet or whatnot, to replace the AMRAAM. The F-35 could carry 1 long range variant on stations 5 and 7 each and 4 short range variants on stations 4 and 8 each. The stratched variant would have the regular attachement points for regular launchers and ejectors so could be used on legacy places.
2 variants would reduce the cost greatly versus 2 different missiles. The disadvantage is that it couldn’t carry the tri-mode seeker that was intented for the NGM.
HotshotThe gun pods have so few of rounds they could easily justify cutting back on fire rates and opting for guided bullets. Maybe even move to 3-6 round bursts with multiple types of sensor combinations to enable multi-target engagement in the same burst. Imagine a UV-based laser to mark a tank and 2-3 meters over a second vehicle is lazed with a second invisible laser frequency for half the rounds in a six round burst 15 degrees off the barrel’s pip angle.
Yeah but I don’t know if it would be possible to miniaturize the electronics/control surfaces enough to make a guided 25mm round. Is the firepower of the 25mm round sufficient to justify spending quite a lot on the round?
I was thinking, instead of the gun pod, why not a stealthy pod containing like 10 laser guided rockets. The rockets would be launched close to the plane so I don’t know it if would work. The brimstones are launched close the airframe on the tornado so maybe it would work. Or they could be launched a bit downward.
HotshotNo, it would increase drag too much. You need the pylon plus the pod, which must also hide the wings of the missile. The F-35 doesn’t have a margin in terms of speed, so there is no room for more drag.
Stealthy pods would be good however for bombs.
HotshotThey’re talking probably about the cuda. Maybe that study about the CUDA initially was a request of the USAF.
An alternative might be to look at more compact weapons, or even external weapon pods. One issue with a double internal launcher on stations 4 & 8 might be ensuring that one hung missile would not impede the launch of the other one.
External pods would add too much drag for the air to air configuration.
The missiles on station 5 and 7 rotate with their launchers so they wouldn’t get in the way of the missile in the middle I guess. Stations 4 and 8 are good for a 2000lbs JDAM which is wide weapon ( 24” ) so 2 AMRAAMs may well fit.
The problem is more with the ejection, the missiles may need to be ejected toward the center of the bay opening.
Sign In
