Good luck toting that big pod around at 9G…. never mind. Just another instance to point out why F/A-18E/F should have used F100 or F110 rather than gold plated fuel hungry F414. The F100’s tend to be way cheaper to slightly cheaper dependent on version. The F110 in naval form was already flying at the cost of F414.

I think f110 and f100 is bigger than f414 so they won’t fit

The F-35 holds 4 missiles (for now). The F-35 carried 2 2K bombs plus 2 Aim-120 missiles..I don’t see what the issue is for this comparison

i was compared each F-35’s weapon bay with 1 EWP
1 weapon bay can only hold 2 aim-120 , or 1 aim-120 and 4 SDB while 1 EWP pod can hold 4 aim-120 or 2 aim-120 and 6 SDB , the question is why the EWP pod is quite the same size as F-35 weapon bay but can hold alot more weapon

You are incorrect in thinking that all RF-guided missiles had LOAL capability. If you think about this for a moment, if the seeker of a missile is going to operate in LOAL mode, what guides the missile in the earlier stages of flight? LOAL requires that the missile has two forms of guidance, one of which is used to steer the weapon to the point where the seeker can lock on. Early radar-guided weapons such as AIM-7 Sparrow did not have a second guidance system.

oh i see , but wasnt all the active radar guider missiles can do LOAL even the one without INS , while very few IR missiles can be used in LOAL mode , what the exact reason ?
EX : AGM-65 can only be used in LOBL mode while AGM-114 can be used both in LOAL and LOBL , both kind of missile dont have data link or anything other than their main seeker
AGM-122 can be used in LOAL while AIM-9 can only be used in LOBL

there are some reason ( i dont know what it is ) make it much harder for IR missile to do LOAL , this very very obvious especially with the air to ground missiles one
for example when you compared the AGM-84A/B/C/D vs AGM-84E
form same family of missile , both have INS , both are fire and forget, both can be used in LOAL mode , however :
the AGM-84 A/B/C/D can be guider to target location by INS and then it’s radar will lock on target automatically which mean aircraft can launch the missiles and then flee right away , while for the AGM-84E , after it have been guided to the target location by INS , it must be locked on to target manually by pilot through data link , which mean pilot must stay in danger zone much longer
radar guider Agm-84

The missile flies at a low cruise altitude, and at a predetermined distance from the expected target position, its AN/DSQ-28 J-band active radar seeker in the nose is activated to acquire and lock on the targe

vs
AGM-84E

the AGM-84E flies a complex path to its target using its inertial system, and during the final 60 seconds of the flight it is controlled through the data link (using an AN/AWW-13 pod on the launching aircraft) using imagery from the IIR seeker.

http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-84.html
.

The purpose of flares is to deceive a missile that has already locked onto the aircraft. The newly ejected flare makes the apparent IR target seem stronger. As an angular separation develops between the flare and the target, the idea is that the missile seeker will be fooled into tracking the flare rather than the target.

so basically the missile thought that the flares is the part of the aircraft it locked on to right ? ( i thought that the seeker see 2 target and choose the hotter one )

Laser moves through fiber optic 300,000x faster than electron through a conductor. It’s a laser fuse, not laser weapon.

I don’t really understand what you mean by laser fuse, can you explain it clearer, what it have to do what the defence system I listed

http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?124220-Laser-Shoots-Down-Missile

but it actually not laser ,laser weapon often need very big equipment , not to mount on a APC like that , also laser often take 1-2 sec to heat up and destroy target , but the system iam talking about here do it in like micro seconds , not to mention if it was laser weapon , we will see turret and lens of it was laser weapon but both Iron curtain , AMAP-ADS lack that, also in their demonstration we actually see some thing like a energy ball destroy the project and we all know laser dont do that

A Gripen carrying >10,000lb of stores wouldn’t have a very useful range.

sth like f-15E, F-111, su-27 or F-35 probably do it better

There might be a weight problem. BRU-55/57 racks are designed for 1000lbs class weapons… a BRU-61 with 4 SDBs weighs 1460lbs.

Those Gripen cgi loadouts are purely fictional at the moment.

but SDB II and SPEAR III weight alot less than SDB I
SDB I = 285 lb
SDB II = 204 lb
SPEAR III = 176.37 lb
so weight wouldnt be a big problem

BRU-61 is a four unit pyrotechnic ejector rack whereas BRU-55 (USN) and BRU-57 (USAF) are two unit pneumatic ejector racks. BRU-61 would be limited to a pair of AGM-65 due to the overall length of the LAU-117 rail. The real question is why do the F/A-18 and F-35 fighters support BRU-55/57 and not an equivalent of the USAF BRU-61? Their pylon looks like it could theoretically support such a rack using the third lug.

Gripen NG artwork shows both four and six SDB racks. The F-16 has demonstrated three Griffin per pylon. I’m surprised there isn’t an American six SDB rack. Does BRU-55 sport a centerline pair of lugs for a third ordnance? Even if they could only take smaller width ordnance like SDB or AIM-120, it saves drag versus more pylons.

actually F-35 can carry the equivalent of BRU-61 , allow it to have 8 SDB or SPEAR III per weapon station ( not sure about f-18 never seen it have anything like SDB , have no idea why ) the question here is that since BRU-55 (USN) and BRU-57 can carry 2 LAU-117 rail ( total 2 AGM-65 ) will they be able to carry 2 LAU-120 ( total 2 aim-120 ) or 2 BRU-61 ( total 8 SDB )

btw did you refer to this art work ?

the 6 sdb rack seem like a MER rack , sadly USA dont use them anymore
it seem that the Gripen NG can carry 2 NSM per station as well

BTW anyone know whether BRU-55 , BRU-57 able to carry 2 NSM as well ? i mean they can carry 2 JSOW obviously but it not quite the same as NSM