UK Defence Forum

Never before noticed that the weapon stations have such different carry angles.
The bay door missile launch angles look like they have very shallow clearance from the airframe.

Edit: what are those bay door missiles?

Phil R

S M H wrote: That makes our procurement of enough aircraft to cover basic operational carrier operations sensible. Procuring the later is finantualy prudent. As the later aircraft will not require expensive upgrades and with full rate production cheaper than the present

Also, the new engine is 'just around the corner' - why buy two engines for the same planes?

Phil R wrote:Never before noticed that the weapon stations have such different carry angles.
The bay door missile launch angles look like they have very shallow clearance from the airframe.

Edit: what are those bay door missiles?

Phil R

Amraam I believe

I wonder if the close-to-wingtip stations being so strongly angled downwards has to do
- with ASRAAM launch method and its fairly big tail
- or, with the alleged stealth (the tail fins being the angled surfaces, basically hiding them from more radar angles)
or with both. Anyone know about this?

ArmChairCivvy wrote:I wonder if the close-to-wingtip stations being so strongly angled downwards has to do
- with ASRAAM launch method and its fairly big tail
- or, with the alleged stealth (the tail fins being the angled surfaces, basically hiding them from more radar angles)
or with both. Anyone know about this?

Same pylon with AIM-9X, believe it was for aerodynamic purposes relating to that pylon location. The pylon itself has a reduced RCS allegedly. But latest versions of AIM-9X are treated with radar absorbent material, have to wonder if a similar treatment is being applied to Asraam CSP.

Has the Lockheed Martin marketing department now taken over the carrier twitter pages. 22K lbs of ordnance on a f35 whilst showing a configuration with less than 4K lbs mind you if they did somehow load it with 22klbs of bombs and missiles I’d love to time the length of that sortie and views it’s post landing maintenance checks..

ArmChairCivvy wrote:I wonder if the close-to-wingtip stations being so strongly angled downwards has to do
- with ASRAAM launch method and its fairly big tail
- or, with the alleged stealth (the tail fins being the angled surfaces, basically hiding them from more radar angles)
or with both. Anyone know about this?

Most likely inflight wing tip bending and the aero interaction for a/c control surface response will have be the considerations.

SW1 wrote:inflight wing tip bending and the aero interaction for a/c control surface response

... and the launch method?

Someone already mentioned the fairly narrow clearing for AMRAAMs when the internally mounted ones are dropped... doing that while the a/c has the belly up is a no mean feat and having some Asraams/ Sidewinders will come in handy

ArmChairCivvy wrote:

SW1 wrote:inflight wing tip bending and the aero interaction for a/c control surface response

... and the launch method?

Someone already mentioned the fairly narrow clearing for AMRAAMs when the internally mounted ones are dropped... doing that while the a/c has the belly up is a no mean feat and having some Asraams/ Sidewinders will come in handy

No sure what you mean? Asraam is rail launched, the tips are asraam/sidewinder only I think

[quote="SW1"]Has the Lockheed Martin marketing department now taken over the carrier twitter pages[

A F35A can carry six 2000lb bombs, 2 on each wing and one in each bomb bay, that equates to 12000lbs plus wingtip missiles, and the rest must be fuel to get a total of 22000lbs. the B version would not be able to carry the 2000 pounders internally.

Are the AMRAMMs actually dropped or are they physically ejected at launch like the F-22 does from its internal bay.

Lord Jim wrote:Are the AMRAMMs actually dropped or are they physically ejected at launch like the F-22 does from its internal bay.

AMRAAM is ejected by way of a 5,000 psi actuator so that the ordnance will safely clear the aircraft structure before firing the motor. But it can be dropped from a wing station before firing the motor.

Lord Jim wrote:Are the AMRAMMs actually dropped or are they physically ejected at launch like the F-22 does from its internal bay.

AMRAAM is ejected by way of a 5,000 psi actuator so that the ordnance will safely clear the aircraft structure before firing the motor. But it can be dropped from a wing station before firing the motor.

Lord Jim wrote:Are the AMRAMMs actually dropped or are they physically ejected at launch like the F-22 does from its internal bay.

AMRAAM is ejected by way of a 5,000 psi actuator so that the ordnance will safely clear the aircraft structure before firing the motor. But it can be dropped from a wing station before firing the motor.

Lord Jim wrote:Are the AMRAMMs actually dropped or are they physically ejected at launch like the F-22 does from its internal bay.

AMRAAM is ejected by way of a 5,000 psi actuator so that the ordnance will safely clear the aircraft structure before firing the motor. But it can be dropped from a wing station before firing the motor.

Sorry for posting a reply four times something screwed up when I pressed submit. I tried to delete the posts but was not able to do that

bobp wrote: AMRAAM is ejected by way of a 5,000 psi actuator so that the ordnance will safely clear the aircraft structure before firing the motor.

This is what I meant by my reference to launch method: the trapeze needed for integrating ASRAAM with the F-35 for internal carriage never saw the light of day.

Whether the 5,000 psi is enough for a safe launch during hard manuevering and the the bomb bay momentarily pointing up is beyond me to say

ArmChairCivvy wrote:Whether the 5,000 psi is enough for a safe launch during hard manuevering and the the bomb bay momentarily pointing up is beyond me to say

Not sure if I would wand to try it in the first place especially as the bomb bays can carry two AMRAAM's each. Block 4 is supposed to increase this to 3.

ArmChairCivvy wrote:

bobp wrote: AMRAAM is ejected by way of a 5,000 psi actuator so that the ordnance will safely clear the aircraft structure before firing the motor.

This is what I meant by my reference to launch method: the trapeze needed for integrating ASRAAM with the F-35 for internal carriage never saw the light of day.

Whether the 5,000 psi is enough for a safe launch during hard manuevering and the the bomb bay momentarily pointing up is beyond me to say

Like all air-launched munitions, there will be g-limits for release. I would expect that the F35 incorporates interlocks that prevents launch if the ejected munition presents a risk to the aircraft.

Quite why you’d want to launch a medium range missile while pulling severe negative g is another question.

ArmChairCivvy wrote:having some Asraams/ Sidewinders will come in handy

in case you've ended up WVR

mr.fred wrote: Quite why you’d want to launch a medium range missile while pulling severe negative g is another question.

and a very valid one. Maybe you haven't expended all 4 pre-merge, but have already fired the two Asraams that you carry, in addition
... a good thing that internal Amraan carry will go from 4 to 6

bobp wrote:

ArmChairCivvy wrote:Whether the 5,000 psi is enough for a safe launch during hard manuevering and the the bomb bay momentarily pointing up is beyond me to say

Not sure if I would wand to try it in the first place especially as the bomb bays can carry two AMRAAM's each. Block 4 is supposed to increase this to 3.

An option to do that maybe included in block 4. But will unlikely to be available on the f35b

ArmChairCivvy wrote:

bobp wrote: AMRAAM is ejected by way of a 5,000 psi actuator so that the ordnance will safely clear the aircraft structure before firing the motor.

This is what I meant by my reference to launch method: the trapeze needed for integrating ASRAAM with the F-35 for internal carriage never saw the light of day.

Whether the 5,000 psi is enough for a safe launch during hard manuevering and the the bomb bay momentarily pointing up is beyond me to say

I thought the reason for the external mounting was to enable lock before launch. Sidewinders are externally mounted too.

ArmChairCivvy wrote:

mr.fred wrote: Quite why you’d want to launch a medium range missile while pulling severe negative g is another question.

and a very valid one. Maybe you haven't expended all 4 pre-merge, but have already fired the two Asraams that you carry, in addition
... a good thing that internal Amraan carry will go from 4 to 6

“What-ifs” are problematic because those who posit them often don’t see the whole cost.
Are you willing to make the missile heavier so you can throw it harder, thus compromising range and agility? Beef up the throwing mechanism and reduce range and payload of the aircraft? Mount externally and compromise your low observable properties? All for the one in a million situation where you’ve already messed up a dozen times.

ASRAMM has the capability for lock on after launch, this being one of the benefits of its greater range compared to most IIR missiles carried. It can be launched in the direction of the enemy and acquire it when it comes into range. When working with an IRST it gives a useful option at the beginning of an engagement.

Lord Jim wrote: It can be launched in the direction of the enemy and acquire it when it comes into range.

It is better than that: the missile employs a mid-course inertial guidance package similar to that in the AMRAAM, but uses a mid-infrared 128 x 128 imaging Focal Plane Array seeker. This allows the missile to be fired at targets beyond visual range, or targets which are not in the Field Of View of the seeker at launch.

The use of those two guidance methods together means that ASRAAM has the unique capability to engage a target in the forward and aft hemispheres of the launch aircraft, ie. the launch does not need to be in the direction...