mig-31bmI 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.
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?
if i remember correctly USA used to buy some python-5 and AGM-119 that are not made or designed by them
i think it would be less risky if the F-35 engage target from long distance, that why i think it betterto carry 3 long range and 4 short range, ( of course that will also depends on the range of CUDA, if it can reach 50-60 km at high altitude ( long burn motor) then may be it worth carry more but if it range is only 10 km then it would be better to carry only 4 as a last resort in case BVR missile fail
mig-31bmThe 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.
there are laser guide 0.5 BMG rounds already so i think they obviously can scale up for a 25 mm rounds but still bullet dont really do much damage and their range are too short so may be using that pod to carry missiles, bomb will be better ( like the EWP pod on the new f-18)
mig-31bmConcerning 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.
Meteor already have Ramjet, so i think it would be cheaper for USAF to just buy it if they want a ramjet missile.
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
mig-31bmThe analysis goes off the rails on slide 6 where stability is judged by the apparent position of the horizontal stabilizer, leading to a totally bogus “effective lift area”. Everything else falls apart from there, not that the fankiddies at f-16.net know or care. The problem is that claimed aerospace engineer “Spurts” is confusing incidence with alpha. The H-stab is in intense downwash from the wing and is in negative alpha even with positive incidence. Find out what company he works for and don’t ever fly on their airplanes.
honestly i have no idea whether you are right or he is so iam not going to argue here :confused::confused::confused::confused: may be someone like Andraxxus or lukos may know better . it could be great to see their opinion
mig-31bmalso an aerospace engineer. have made a comparison of f-35 kinetics performance vs F-16I , F-16C , F-15E here (iamnot sure how accurate is it but you guy should have a look )
http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?uid=42273&f=55&t=25735&start=51
mig-31bmFBW, your simplifying this to much…..
YES prototypes have been built, it is still in D and D / testing…..in fact the test firings have shown significant issues with cracking in the recoil tracks and numerous other problems…..sure the gun has been around for decades.granted…and it shouldn;t have to be so difficult, but it apparently is………but getting it into the pod, balancing the system, ironing out recoil and firing issues etc. still haven;t been solved…it will be lucky to be ready before 2019 – 2020…and to be honest,
haven’t heard about that , can you give link show that f-35 gun pod have these problems ?
it is a ridiculous concept…the “Need” to have a super stealthy plane with internal weapons bays is totally nullified by this horrid pod thing dangling under the plane. Personally, if the Marines think they needed this thing, then they didn;t need a Stealth plane….
?…
the pod was designed to be stealthy (shaping +material ) thus dont increase f-35 rcs significantly
mig-31bmMig 31,
Your doing it again…….
Listen, I know you looked it up beyond a Lockheed Martin brochure, so I would assume that you READ all over every thing on the Internet, that the HTK CUDA is a “CONCEPT”…as in unapproved by the USAF, unfunded and NOT even in existence, it has only been presented to the USAF for consideration…. Please stop confusing the issue with speculative and developmental weapon systems.
CUDA is candidates for SACM and launch hit to kill missiles on US Air Force road map on future , even if CUDA not go into production in future , a similar missiles will ,the fact that future fighter carry weapon inside their weapons bay have create the trend to produce and developed smaller weapon that fit inside weapon bay , multi seeker , multi role weapon such as JSM , GBU-39 , clipped fin Meteor ,GBU-53/B , SPEAR , CUDA …etc , it the trend for future weapon just like stealth , think of it like a trend rather than a kind of weapon
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2011/05/graphic-beyond-amraam-aim-9x/
The General Dynamics Gun System is also nothing more than a DEVELOPMENTAL and DEMONSTRATION Contract between Lockheed Martin and General Dynamics, it will be years before it is integrated and ready to go…IF it works to that stage…..
.
the pod exist ,have been test fired
mig-31bm
can they put missile inside this pod ?
mig-31bmare you asking a question or providing answers to a question NO ONE had asked?…..by the way, it is because a bullet or artillery shell is confined within an enclosed tube, the expansion of the gasses released in extremely short times by the combusting propellant locks the base of the projectile into the rifling or the sabot into the barrel wall….with this move the gases have no way to escape except to force the bullet or shell out the end of the TAPERED barrel…so as the projectile travels down the tapering to a smaller diameter of the barrel, it is further compressed increasing the velocity the round exits the barrel at………now any bullet or shell suffers from a degradation of it;s velocity as the distance traveled increases, so it actually slows down and eventually drops to the ground…it’s maximum velocity is found directly at the point of exit from the barrel…from there it declines……
A missile or rocket relies on the shear energy of the rocket or missile motor to push the munition through the atmosphere, as such there is a huge waste of available energy that is dissipated into the surrounding atmosphere , out to the sides etc that don;t correlate to the rocket / missile actually getting going any faster..ICBM type rockets / missiles also have to overcome the direct effects of it’s own weight AND gravity on the launch of the munition, which also slows the process and reduces the acceleration….now Rockets / missiles however INCREASE in velocity as it’s flight time increases, this is because the munition’s THRUST is overcoming the physics ( weight, gravity, aerodynamics, drag, friction etc) that hamper it’s launch initially……that increase however is governed directly by the availability of fuel being burned to produce the thrust…as soon as the fuel is depleted, the munition begins to slow…. .that is a pretty simplified explanation , but it covers the basics…..
Also…would this NOT have fit in the “MISSILES and MUNITIONS” sub thread better?……this has nothing to do with Military aviation does it?..
i know that bullet and shell waste less energy compared to missile due to the barrels , however 190,000 G is so significantly bigger than 3 G thus i was thinking there may be another reason
and it doesn’t really explained how thing like Ball get hit by a bat ( waste energy to environmenttoo ) can still have 12,740 times the acceleration due to gravity http://www.acs.psu.edu/drussell/bats/impulse.htm
mig-31bmalso can the missiles such as Sprint , THAAD attack aircraft ?
mig-31bmIt’s the other way around.
Rafale with 6 AAM: Supercruise at M1.4
F35 with 4 AAM: can stay supersonic (M1.2) for 150 miles without ab, unclear if it’s level flight etc. After all, even O’Bryan calls it “technically not supercruising”…Either way, if we are really nice and prop up the F35 as much as possible it still is slower than the Rafale with similar loadout on dry thrust.
we dont actually know how long can rafale supercruise without EFT , given the fact that it quite small , the range may not be that impressive
mig-31bmHopsalot,
T
And I can agree with you as well in people trashing the F35…but for the reverse reason. Yesterday I found myself in an increasingly stupid argument with M31 who was INSISTING that the F35 DID use weapon types that don;t even exist OR are in development for another Nation, all while denying that simple facts of aeronautics didn;t effect the F35 at all……and he just kept on going about it…which sets people ( me ) to counter post right?….
you read my post wrong ! read carefully again
1) since the article isnot an official interview , how would you know that it just someone make that interview up? like they always do, all the time?, that why i question the valid of it
2) as i have explained before : legacy fighter rely mainly on agility to survive again high level of threat, thus they also carry very little weapons if the threat is high because carry alot of weapon reduce their agility, they wouldn’t carry more weapon than F-35 when there alot of enemy fighter flying around, or alot of enemy SAM sites, when there is little threat then they can carry maximums load of weapons,F-35 rely mainly on stealth and situation awareness to survive high level of threat, when the threat is high then you will need stealth and you have to carry weapon internally so only limited amount of weapon , when the threat is low you can carry weapon externally so can carry alot of bomb and missiles , do you understand now? , also the reason why F-35 can carry that much weapon is due to the fact that future weapon are very small, so can be carry on double rack such as BRU-57, BRU-69/A or quart rack such as BRU-61 hence 1 pylon can carry 4 weapons
iam not saying that F-35 not going slower, less maneuver with weapons externally, yes it does, every fighter does, but it will only do that when the threat is very low, the same as every other fighters will only carry their maximum load when the threat is not high and they dont need high agility!
the main different is when the threat is high f-35 will carry weapon internally while other legacy fighter still have to carry weapon externally , thus they will suffered drag penalty while f-35 wont
mig-31bmHolly crap…again YES, I totally understand that WW2 Bombing was inaccurate….but that was also due to the fact that bomb sights where still under development…You do know that the RAF Vulcans used WW2 technology Bomb sighting systems right?. And they where designed to drop Nuclear weapons!….they also fly from the UK all the way to Ascension Island and then to Falklands to bomb the Stanley Airport…longest bomb mission in history….so, what is your point?…..that near on 100 years since aerial bombing was first invented it is more accurate?…….
I am sorry, how can a 250 lb. bomb have “really good penetration performance”, didn;t everyone cover this with you in the Steel bunker roof fiasco thread?….. 250 lb bomb, does NOT have the weight to provide penetration and being so small, it doesn;t have a penetrator included now does it?…..
So your view is that dropping EIGHT little 250 Lb. SDB’s, no matter how accurately its dropped is sufficient for a Deep penetration raid into say Russia?…That would be a justifiable weapons load out?. And exactly just how good a job is that mission going to be with an outdated EOTS?…just pathetic that this was allowed to even happen, yet alone not been fixed …….just a farse..
Sorry man, but for a $130 Million Dollar PLUS plane, and $30,000 per hour to fly etc…this “Brick” better be more capable than dropping 8 crappy little 250 lb. SDB’s, after flying into some heavily defended Country with it’s stealthiness……
And sorry, for a plane that was supposed to “replace” the F 16, they will still be in USAF service, the F 18’s…yep still in service, at least for a while.. likely well after 2025 for Canada and Switzerland, and this THING in no way shape or century will EVER replace the capabilities that the A 10 brought to the field….sorry….no linger time, doesn;t / can;t carry the ordnance the A 10 could, to fast…and most definately not designed to break up armour formations or defended positions
Please stop using SPEAR..it is not even out of development yet…and it is NOT just a SDB with a engine…and guess what?…it will be operational on the Typhoon and Tornados long before the RAF get a Squadron of F35’s operational. SO , NO it is NOT just designed for the F35…but for ALL RAF, EF’s and GR.4’s as well as the F35 if and when it gets there…..
1) weapon more accurate = less explosive required
2) you dont really need a lot of accuracy when you drop a nuke
3) GBU-39 have the same penetration capabilities as the 2000 lbs BLU-109, is that good enough for you?
4) F-35 may only able to drop 8 bombs on a deep penetration raid but at least it wouldn’t get shot down, if you use legacy aircraft they may get shot down and deliver nothing
5) yes SPEAR was designed to used by F-35, MBDA even make a video of the F-35 drop it, iam not saying other aircraft cant carry it, but it was designed to fit f-35 weapon bay
mig-31bmMsphere…. Good point.
Hey, M31, how about learning to spell or use punctuation and capitals before you slag off someone’s journalism? Also, you are wrong in stating that the EOTS can be easily upgraded to match current pods. The issue is stealth and multi-spectral EO.
EOTS is stealth and multi spectral so what is your point?
mig-31bmBecause the OTHER planes are already operational, their upgrades only make them better…WHILE they are in service….as for weapons?…the EF was designed as a FIGHTER, not a jack of all trades…yet it is coming along with introduction to their A2G roles with more an more weapons being accepted and tested…in the mean time, the RAF have the Tornado still…
The EOTS in a pod are plug and play……they are separate units……the EOTS that got slapped into the BUILT IN Fuselage of the F35, well, it isn;t quite so easy to get out and redesign for ONE type of aircraft alone…where as pods can be carried by everything….the big question is WHY did LM allow the EOTS in the F35 to become so outdated, even while THEY designed and built the new SNIPER ES’s?…….pretty stupid eh?…OR they will now turn around and say…sure we can upgrade it…it will be another two years and 50 billion dollars…..by the time the FIRST F35 Squadrons actually get Operational, I am convinced that the RAF fleet of Typhoon II’s will be upgraded with AESA and will still be OPERATIONAL……
The F 35 has a long way to go. Then again, LM produced some other “Really Great” ( Roll eyes) planes in the past too… ones that got NATO Nations pressured into buying…dandies like the F-104 Starfighters…..likely killed more pilots than most other types world wide….and NOT exactly a stellarly useful type neither…
1) how come other planes upgrade make them better but F-35 upgrade doesmt make it better??? or by your logic if something is in testing phases then upgrade it will make it worse? do you even read what you written?
2) EOTS is basically an upgrade of sniper-XR but instead of staying outside the aircraft it is inside! , they take it out just like they can take the radar out, to say it cant be upgraded because it is inside the aircraft is ridiculous
3) EOTS is not out dated! i have already explained it consists of LRU, like the sniper-XR, if the sniper-XR can be upgraded by replacing these LRU then EOTS can be upgraded ! if sniper-xr can be upgraded by replacing the lens and image processing chip, what make you think they cant do the same for f-35 EOTS ?
4) f-35 can upgrade it’s EOTS, and radar as much as other aircraft, but these Rafale, EF-2000, gripen cant be upgraded to have Stealth
Sign In
