HotshotI kind of agree with Mig31bm that the F-35 was supposed to be a strike FIGHTER. Being a fighter, it should have been designed with speed in mind, that is with a narrow fuselage. The GBU-31 being a very wide weapon, it forced the designers to have a wide fuselage.
The GBU-31 could have been carried externally when needed and the bays could have carried 1000lbs JDAMs instead. How much narrower would the fuselage have been and how much faster would the F-35 have been, it is hard to tell.
Anyways the good news with the fact that the F-35 can carry GBU-31s is that it has enough room to carry 6 internal missiles, so frankly it’s not that bad of a compromise.
The relatively large bays should also be used if possible to carry more SDBs ( didn’t LM mention this a few years ago? ), and possibly a larger cruise missile ( larger than JSOW/NSM/SOM ) if funds allow it.
HotshotI am all for adopting weapons developed by close allies. JSM for the F-35 is an excellent option that is going to be dirt cheap given that Norway is paying for it to be cleared . Acquire a small number of LRASM’s and then switch over to JSM/NSM. Where i feel the meteor is not the best option is that the R&D train for BVR capability enhancement has been ongoing for many years and it would be stupid to stop it now when you have 2 competitors that have delivered products, the data on which DARPA has handed over to the USAF. But for lockheed this would make sense (teaming with MBDA) as it could effectivly compete with a low risk, highly capable solution in an environment where overall program cost and risk means a lot to the decision makers. Certainly better than competing with a clean sheet while raytheon and boeing show up with a design they have validated through the T-3 program.
I was not sure, I thought the NGM had been cancelled 1-2 years ago. I had heard about T-3 but I wasn’t sure whether it was still active or not. Apparently it is. In any case they can still start integrating 6 internal missiles sooner than 2025, unless maybe if they think they can pack 4 T-3s per bay with foldable fins… A design that can be carried by the F-22 would be an advantage for sure.
But the setup of the SH’s weapon pod is pretty good actually. The missiles are carried vertically inside. Possibly they could have done the same thing on the F-35 by adding ejectors on the second bay door ( same as the A/A station ).
I am all for adopting weapons developed by close allies. JSM for the F-35 is an excellent option that is going to be dirt cheap given that Norway is paying for it to be cleared . Acquire a small number of LRASM’s and then switch over to JSM/NSM. Where i feel the meteor is not the best option is that the R&D train for BVR capability enhancement has been ongoing for many years and it would be stupid to stop it now when you have 2 competitors that have delivered products, the data on which DARPA has handed over to the USAF. But for lockheed this would make sense (teaming with MBDA) as it could effectivly compete with a low risk, highly capable solution in an environment where overall program cost and risk means a lot to the decision makers. Certainly better than competing with a clean sheet while raytheon and boeing show up with a design they have validated through the T-3 program.
Yes but from looking at the dimensions of the bay, the F-35 should be able of carrying a larger missile than the NSM. It could make sense to make a new missile for internal carriage, around 1750lbs, with several variants. That missile could be based on existing technology ( possibly from JASSM-ER using sensor, warhead, motor… ).
In a world where many now claim that the capability at IOC should have been further watered down so as to not stress the schedule. The fighter will be in service for decades, capability will be added accordingly.
That’s right but if the engineers have the specs sooner they can ensure that the design will be able to accomodate the uprade easily later . Right now, we can only cross our fingers that 6 internal missile capability will work, the dimensions are ok but the design of the bay is not really made for that.
HotshotIt would be much quicker (and possibly cheaper) to make the MICA IR UAI compatible as compared to running a full integration and test program on an F-35 that involves multiple services and corporations.
I was wondering whether the US DOD could put restrictions on weapon integration. And if the F-35 is sold with french missiles, US missiles are not sold instead, they might want to protect US manufacturers.
Raytheon would not need to do any such thing, they work with aerojet and it seems they have done the same with the T-3 effort. Aerojet has the program in place having supplied a solid fueled ramjet for the Coyote while successfully demonstrating the next generation AGen solid fuel for a future BVR missile. There is no reason to believe that the T-3 did not utilize this since the goal behind the T-3 program was to test air breathing technology.
Thanks for the link. Well anyways there are a number of possibilities. Now they should accelerate those missile programs and field the 6 internal missiles. Then people will stop whining that the F-35 doesn’t carry much.
Mig-31bm is right in his original post concerning air to air missiles at least. The 6 internal missile capability should have been part of the original JSF specifications because it is sure that 6 missiles would fit because the GBU-31 is equivalent in size to 2 AMRAAM class missiles.
Btw, from looking as the drawing he posted, I think that 6 internal SDBs+2 AMRAAMs is BS because the AMRAMs control surfaces get in the way for the SDB ejection. AFAIK boeing has only said the pod could carry 4 SDBs +2 AMRAAMs.
HotshotWhy would the french not be allowed to do so? If their is some commercial sense for them (profitability) to either become UAI compliant or try to pay for integration of the MICA into the system than more options only mean better capability to future customers.
I don’t know, does Lockheed have the right to integrate any weapon on the plane or isn’t there some FMS issue?
The MICA-IR could be an interesting weapon for the F-35 indeed, although its dimensions would probably prevent 6 missiles from being carried internally.
The USAF, USN won’t probably be ready for such a weapon since they are working on the Block 3 9x which would meet their MRAAM requirement for a non RF weapon but others around the world may want such a choice. When the Aim9x block 3 is operational it would make absolute sense to try to integrate it into the internal bays either as such or through a modification. When the F-35 gets the capability to carry 6 missiles (in the future) it would make perfect sense to give the tactical flexibility to choose 4 RF and 2 IR missiles if the mission so requires. This is a project that will go on for decades (IOC is a year or so away) and rest assured capability would be added along the way.
No doubt that being able of carrying the 9x bl3 internally would make sense, but AFAIK there is no indication so far that it will be ejectable. It may be a secret capability who knows.
The extendable rail launcher for the F-35 has been cancelled AFAIK, and anyways only one missile could be carried on it. Carrying 2 missiles on a double extendable rail launcher would probably weight too much for high Gs.
The problem is that Boeing itself tested the next generation technologies (future BVR weapon) under the T-3 program. Then it comes to the money to procure weapons, with the USN firmly committed to the Aim-120D and funding the Block 3 Aim-9x. Beyond this there is no immediate need at the moment. The T-3 program will be transferred onto the USAF and whatever comes out of it will be driven by future capability requirements. The only company that can team up with MBDA and introduce a long range BVR weapon is Lockheed since from what is known publicly they shifted their internal research onto H2K missiles following Boeing and Raytheon’s selection for the T-3 program. If they wish to cover that aspect of their portfolio then they can join up with MBDA and develop a US specific version of the meteor for a future program. I would however think that given the secrecy that has surrounded the T-3 program (No news on launch and no pictures, with the only information on the program and events coming from the budgetary documents) a clean sheet missile is more likely in the 2025+ timeframe (program).
We will see how it turns out for that. Having a dual role missiles (SEAD + Air to air) would be a very desirable feature.
Mating the meteor’s motor with the AMRAAM might make sense because the motor is already in production. But the F-35 wouldn’t be able of carrying 6 of those internally. Possible 2 could be carried on the A-A stations, plus 2 AMRAAMs/2 9Xbl3 on dual ejector launchers on the A/G stations. A problem however in that the the F-22 could not carry that meteor-AMRAAM hybrid.
Anyways they have to come up with a sensible plan relatively quickly, possible for block 4. The F-16s and F-18s will probably not be replaced one for one by most air forces so the F-35 needs to be as lethal as possible. And the F-35 is not very fast so it had better be able to kill its opponents because escaping might be a problem.
HotshotA problem with the MICA is the wingspan of the control surfaces. You’d have to cut them if you want 6 internal missiles, which I think, is going to be the goal in the future.
A few years ago Boeing wanted to integrate the meteor on the SH, but they have not done it. If LM sees the lack of internal WVR missile they might want to integrate the MICA, but it is unlikely.
HotshotBut would the French be allowed to integrate their weapons on the F-35? If yes and if they pay for the integration maybe some customers could be interested. The Brits can integrate their weapons beecause they are part of the program.
And the US will certainly field a ejectable missile with WVR capability at some point ( Next generation missile probably ).
Imo block 4 should emphasize air-to-air capabilities, like 6 internal missiles including WVR missiles. We’ll see how it goes…
HotshotMica NG could be a good move there (half kidding) :very_drunk:
The MICA is ejectable but the integration cost would probably be higher than modifying other missiles ( like making the 9X block 3 ejectable or making an IR AMRAAM). And I doubt the US would go for a foreign missile, all the more that the MICA is quite expensive.
HotshotThere is no proof so far that the AIM-9X block 3 will be ejectable, which in unfortunate. From what I understand, the block 3 is more of a low cost upgrade done by the USN to give more bvr range to the super hornet wingtips missiles, the SH being limited in AMRAAM capability in strike mode when its wing pylons are used for bombs/tanks. Its weight will probably be termined by the wingtips ordnance capability.
The block 3 will also be usable by other planes of course but only with rail launchers.
Sign In
