1. Block 5’s plan for 6 internal AAMs was first shown in the Norway docs.

2. As to the Skunk Works doing a 6 internal AAM study.

Squeezing In Two More Shots: Lockheed Martin’s “Skunkworks” operation has figured out a way to increase the F-35’s air-to-air magazine by 50 percent, company officials told the Daily Report Thursday. With “very modest” changes to the weapon bay and “no changes to the outer mold line,” it will be possible for F-35s to carry up to six AIM-120 AMRAAMs internally instead of the four that it can now bear, one official said. (In this configuration, the F-35 would carry no internal bombs.) With six AMRAAMs inside, the F-35 would match the radar-missile capability of the F-22, but without the Raptor’s two infrared AIM-9 missiles. The company is briefing the Defense Department about the potential weapons bay refinement, which could be done as a product improvement in later lots. Limited internal carriage for air-to-air weapons has been one criticism of the F-35 in some circles.

http://www.airforce-magazine.com/DRArchive/Pages/2010/June%202010/June%2018%202010/SqueezingInTwoMoreShots.aspx

Any other questions?

Wrong again.

1. Block 5 clearly “plans” on 6 internal AMRAAMs.

2. The Skunk Works has already done a study to that effect. Do you think they did it out of the kindness of their hearts? Someone (the JPO) paid them.

What do you think 747 ABL program used to Search, detect and track distant test ballistic missile launches?

It uses SEVERAL IRST seekers, not just one as carried on any fighter. Also, the detection systems on the Abl were designed long before EODAS came around.

Flat out, an air launched ESSM would have superior engagement range and carry a heavier WH which itself could easily be further enhanced later in terms of point aiming, etc..

1. Where are you getting this superior range claim from? The ESSM is draggier than the JDRADM so once it’s motor burns out, it will decelerate faster than the JDRADM.

2. The heavier WH is offset by the JDRADM’s ability to FOCUS it’s blast at the target. Any change to the ESSM’s WH to allow focusing will also require a new seeker to enable that. Those two updates offset your claim of a simple 2 year solution.

3. What’s with all the “unproven” JDRADM language? Several aspects of the program, including seeker and warhead focusing have already been demonstrated.

4. The ESSM cannot be ejector launched, so no internal F-22 carriage or internal A2G station carriage for the F-35. Adding ejector launching would require strengthening the body and designing a new wiring harness, and more dev spending.

an air-launched ATACM (600-800km range at supersonic speeds), or an air-launched SM-2 derived round (300-400km range @ supersonic) with precision A2G capability —

Not only would carrying around external ATACMS be a massive waste of gas, they would mean no external fuel bags on the F-35 due to the ATACAM being too heavy for the outer A2G station on the wings. Also, the ATACM and SM-2 will cause massive collateral damage due to too large a WH, no loiter ability (in order to verify target), and no IIR terminal seeker.

You’re missing the point, the jassm hit the hospital 30 miles away from where the launcher once was when it fired, and the whole incident went to wikileaks.

ROE would never allow that kind of blind GPS based launch. The JSOW-ER would be a better choice of munition as it has IR terminal guidance.

It’s a matter of trigonometry, we can expect direction finding resolution of ~2-4 degree.
At 800 miles distance, two fighters flying a couple of miles apart couldn’t tell if the blip they saw was a missile fired in Pakistan or Iran.

In my original post, I specified F-35s from all corners of the battlefield. Or you think that only a few will be up to see the launch?

I’d still favor an ESSM-AIM in say the next 2 yrs, over a continued, expensive and unproven JDRADM R&D system to maybe be procured in 6-7 yrs if it works out? But sure, I’d say continue to fund JDRADM as long as it can be afforded in addition to a short-term, more cost-effective and more proven/reliable ESSM-AIM funding. Performance wise though, the ESSM-AIM would own JDRADM as a bonus – both in range and warhead at least (giving better potential A2G modifications in future too.)

Where do you see a need for a long range AAM in US service? Since the F-22 is getting the 120D (and D+ later with new, dual-pulse motor) and no other fighter has the radar that can really benift, who needs it?

As far as owning it in range and warhead, the JDRADM will be powered in the endgame (the ESSM is not) and it’s warhead can aim for specific areas of the target (which the ESSM cannot). The ESSM is also a lot draggier than the JDRADM will be. So, where is the advantage?

As far as Spotting a multi-hundred mile distant 2-stage TBM launch though, imho stick with a superior IRST such as the off the shelf 9.2″ aperture LW shadow pod and leave the truly revolutionary DAS type systems for valid MAWS and other WVR SA/cueing capacities.

An IRST has to be cued so it is useless in the launch detection role.

Or you could just change operational procedure so that existing satellite based detection systems can hand off launch coordinated in a timely manner.

Assuming that you have coverage and the sats are operational.

jessmo, why not then just put DAS on your B-1 (or equiv) then? Why insist on employing the $300 billion dollar middle man F-35 and Union/Military Industrial Complex dream machine, when you can cut costs, improve capability and Call it a day all in one shot?

Adding the BMD detection software to the F-35 will not takeaway from it’s other roles.

The EODAS does not have to determine range, just bearing. By comparing two or more F-35 tracks, the location (within a mile or so) can be determined.

EODAS is not “first and foremost” anything. It serves multiple functions and does not have to reduce sensitivity as that would be the worst thing to do.

Are you sure about the geo-location of the launch from hundreds of miles away? How is that accomplished? I’ll buy the launch detect, a vector, and a range estimate, but geo-location implies precision.

There will never be only 1 F-35 flying. Within 600nm of a Scud launch there will likely be at least a dozen or so F-35s flying, although only 2 are needed to triangulate the launch. For example, there is no spot in Iraq that is more than 200nm from a border.

1. Any reduction in the F-35 buy (so that the ANG could buy something else) would cause all the rest of the F-35s to cost more.

2. ANG units are also called up to serve in frontline status, not just 747 escorts, so they need the same capability as frontline USAF units.

3. Any other fighter purchased for ANG units would not get the benefits of volume purchases and would not be that cheap.

The EOTS is a generational improvement on the battle proven SniperXR ATP.

The only specific improvement that I can think of is a likely sensor upgrade.

The EODAS can also detect and track all airborne targets in the WVR range-band. For those of you who can remember “Top Gun”, the F-335 will never have a “I lost him” or a “I can’t get tone” moment.