Sometimes you have to get into the weeds to deal with the threats.
It is a “Litoral” Combat Ship.
The blue navy has the advantage of a lot of time and space in which to react to a situation. The brown navy does not.
Speed is life.
There was a pdf, which I cannot find ATM, that showed a lot of work with underwater launched SAMs. It was quite old.
IIRC, the miniaturization and switch from rectangular circuit cards to circular ones (C7) freed up 6 inches that is still empty.
That and they could develop a gel based fuel (more energetic). That would help both the 9X and the 120.
Lets get on the ball ATK.
Thanks..
Actually, dual pulse motors have all the high impulse at the start to get it up to speed and a lower, cruise impulse later.
The AMRRAM datalink can be updated from much more than radar info. There is IRST, RwR, EODAS, AWACS, and off-board sensors that all can take a role.
The AIM-120D will get a GPS upgrade to it’s INS and allow it to find the mark much easier.
Still cheaper than the Rafale.
In my setup, the missiles are staggered, just like the F-22, and will not “bump wings” as they swivel.
The problem with a 2nd (outer door) mounted missile is that the 3rd missile hanging in the bay could not fire because it would hit this 2nd missile.
JDRADM.. IOC in 2020
Why not.. they are all the same weapon?
Rotary launchers have a firing sequence.
I did say “quick and dirty” btw. 😉
ridiculously complex
Have you seen what the main gear on a F-18 has to go through to get back in the bay??? This is child’s play compared to that.
Besides, I did not say this was the “Best” way, just “A” way to do it.
Here is a quick and dirty mock-up of how I think they could do it.

Firing sequence:
1. Doors open
2. Missile #1 launches
3. Missile #2 swings inboard to allow clearance for #3
4. #3 swings to vertical and launches
5. #2 swings outboard to vertical and launches
The ejection systems on current systems are removable… so I do not see a problem. Besides, the ejection systems on the F-35 are no longer pyrotechnic, but electromechanical.
Worst case you remove 6-8 bolts, disconnect a power-supply and control wires.. done.
There is plenty of room considering you are replacing a 2000lb JDAM with two AIM-120s that weigh a fraction of that.
I have tried never to say “Will happen” when it comes to ANY Block upgrade to ANY plane.
I usually say “likely” or “planned upgrade”.
My point is that there is room, it’s technically possible, they have done strudies, they have it in their Block 5 plan, and only time will tell what ends up making it into Blk5.
Sorry, wrong again. I never said hard-points, just missiles.
1. Each of the wing’s A2G/A2A stations can hold 2 AAMs each (8 total) and add the 2 A2A wingtip stations and you get a total 10 external.
2. Every presentation that shows the weapon breakdown verifies that external AIM-120s are part of SDD… that means Block 3, not Block 5
3. LM and JPO officials have gone on record (I will have to dig up the links) that at IOC, a total of 14 AAMs can be carried (with 4 internal).
4. The reason that it says 6 AIM-120s is that this is the only certified AAM that has a small enough wingspan to fit and that they are not going to waste space with AIM-9X or AIM-132 since clearly an Air Superiority config.
Here is an article quoting an LM exec confirming the plan for 6 internal AAMs.
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a4f04259d-8fca-4e42-8e17-44f5dca7edf4
Here is an email from the JPO
RE: A2A weapon load of the F-35
The F-35 will be able carry 4 missiles on internal stations and up to 10 additional missiles on external stations. To look at potential future increases in internal carriage capability, studies have been done to explore the use of advances in launcher technology, however, current mission analysis does not necessitate further exploration of these capabilities at this time.
Thanks,
CherylCheryl Limrick
F-35 Lightning II Program Office
Assistant Public Affairs Officer
200 12th S, Suite 600
Arlington,VA 22202
(o) 703-601-5503
(c) 703-608-8965
[email]cheryl.limrick@jsf.mil[/email]