It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Incredible payload on F-35!

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 18 2006 @ 11:56 PM
link   
img.villagephotos.com...
Factually, I don't believe what payload showed in picture above. If you know where the picture orininally come from, I think we can identified whether it is true!

[edit on 18-8-2006 by emile]

[edit on 18-8-2006 by emile]




posted on Aug, 19 2006 @ 12:07 AM
link   
The low signiture exhaust seems speculative also.



posted on Aug, 19 2006 @ 01:19 AM
link   
Planeman,

>>
The low signiture exhaust seems speculative also.
>>

There hasn't been a tiprail on the F-35 in YEARS because the USN doesn't want men lifting even 200lb weapons above their shoulders anymore and they don't allow jammers ondeck. There being no other means to put a missile on a shoulder mounted monoplane that is a good 7-8 feet off the deck. There is an outboard underwing rail, configured much like the up-and-in tiprail of the Su-27. But even that's iffy for AMRAAM, IMO, because of the wingfold.

The nose is pure F-22 (way too long and not enough bump for deflecting the supersonic 'bow wave' over the canopy. Nor sufficiently short-sloped for a carrier fighter approach view).

None of the services allow nested weapons where one has to clear before the other can fall.

None of the weapon diagrams are accurate because they show parent mounting of the GBU-39 ('250lb JDAM') rather than the extended mount of the BRU-61 which will greatly increase the size of the carriage box.

The AIM-120 are not capable of loading in the JDAM well because the LAU-142 can't extend far enough to push them through the boundary layer (don't believe me, believe Spick) they were furthermore ALWAYS designed to be that way to conserve the mission of the F-22.

You need only look at the headon view of the inlets to see that the side-by-side loading of dual GBU-32 ('1,000lb JDAM') and even AMRAAM/GBU-39 is completely bogus because they block the inlet duct.

Lastly, while the JSF does indeed have RCS reduction elements in it's nozzle, these are similar to the crenellated diamond shapes of the LOAN, not the TVC plates of the F-22, the F-35 in fact HAVING NO thrust vector because, courtesy of the engine access doors and twin boom extended tails, it lacks the heavyweight anchoring structure to keep the rear fuselage frames from warping at under high speed maneuver nozzle deflection. If it DID have such a device, you can bet that it would be axis symmetric which also makes the extended nozzle section worthless because it would either bump the stab booms or direct hot flow over them.

The JSF is a Lunchmeat/Congressional Prize Sow with the PR Label 'Stealth' clipped in it's ear as if that alone will be enough to justify it's existence.

As for sourcing, I think Emile should have to do that since he is the one who came up with this one. I will say it looks a lot like the top planview from one of the Lunchmeat or JSF.mil 3-view diagrams. With some crude photoshopping to add the very superficial looking AMRAAM and tip rails and the 'blended' (Stretched? The EOTS fairing is also too long) nose.


KPl.



posted on Aug, 19 2006 @ 02:48 AM
link   
Spectacular.


I had no idea it could carry that much weapons internally. One question though, how much less can the A and the B model carry, because I believe the C is the biggest model.



posted on Aug, 19 2006 @ 03:55 AM
link   
Fin, its not spectacular, its B/S. How is the F-35 supposed to carry EIGHT AMRAAMs internally?. I'm in full agreement with planeman and ch1466 on this occasion, look at the tail and the nose, they're both completely wrong. In my opinion this three view is just some fanboys 'fantasy upgrade' of the F-35C and not to be taken seriously.



posted on Aug, 19 2006 @ 06:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
Fin, its not spectacular, its B/S. How is the F-35 supposed to carry EIGHT AMRAAMs internally?. I'm in full agreement with planeman and ch1466 on this occasion, look at the tail and the nose, they're both completely wrong. In my opinion this three view is just some fanboys 'fantasy upgrade' of the F-35C and not to be taken seriously.


Well, I have to believe you won't I.



posted on Aug, 19 2006 @ 06:57 AM
link   
img.villagephotos.com...
I am sorry, I didn't identify this pic carefully. Now I strongly suspect the area I draw the outline of. If this is orininal picture there must be no white area as the background of weapon. But this is olny a suspicion. In terms of calculation of weapon load, this picture show each bomb loading is reasonable. So I think we must find where this picture come from? I am scared, what's the capability of integration of US weapon.


[edit on 19-8-2006 by emile]



posted on Aug, 19 2006 @ 11:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by emile
img.villagephotos.com...
I am sorry, I didn't identify this pic carefully. Now I strongly suspect the area I draw the outline of. If this is orininal picture there must be no white area as the background of weapon. But this is olny a suspicion. In terms of calculation of weapon load, this picture show each bomb loading is reasonable. So I think we must find where this picture come from? I am scared, what's the capability of integration of US weapon.


[edit on 19-8-2006 by emile]


We can start by you telling how you find it.



posted on Aug, 19 2006 @ 02:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
Fin, its not spectacular, its B/S. How is the F-35 supposed to carry EIGHT AMRAAMs internally?.


Why not? F-22 can carry six, and JSF has bigger bomb bay. I didn't see the pic (link doesn't work for me), but I think 8 AMRAAMs is possible.



posted on Aug, 19 2006 @ 05:31 PM
link   
It just doesn't seem possible to me, but I admit thats just my gut feeling. Is the weapons bay of the F-35 really bigger than that of the F-22? If that is the case then something is wrong with the design of the F-22 surely?


I believe the picture posted by emile has been crudely adapted from this one on aerospaceweb and I stand by my earlier post.

[edit on 19-8-2006 by waynos]



posted on Aug, 19 2006 @ 06:27 PM
link   
Waynos, I agree with you but I want to think logic. The F-22A was designed to have smaller weapon bay based on two things, it is pure dog-fighter jet and bigger fuel tanks in order to ensure long range for supercruise flight to carry out their missions. Partially, I'm surprise that F-35 can carry plenty of bombs and missiles considering the size of that jet. Its maybe half the size smaller than F-22. I'm impressed with Lockheed and Skunk Works for doing good job with F-35. I can't wait for its first flight coming soon and see how fast it can go with F-135 engine along with 40,000 lbs of thrust and how long it can stay up in air. We should wait until it prove us what it can be capable of.



posted on Aug, 20 2006 @ 12:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Figher Master FIN
We can start by you telling how you find it.

You ought to know very clearly that a fighter produced by US carrying so many weapons are not Chinese weapon fans really want to see, so they have no motivation to PS such picture, also no interesting to draw this kind of picture. So this picture I taken by Chinese Forum must originally taken from occident website. This is your responsibility to find where produced it and who made it


[edit on 20-8-2006 by emile]



posted on Aug, 20 2006 @ 03:38 PM
link   
That's not the F-35C...

That's just some guy's wetdream of the plane.

Shattered OUT...



posted on Aug, 23 2006 @ 10:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by ch1466
You need only look at the headon view of the inlets to see that the side-by-side loading of dual GBU-32 ('1,000lb JDAM') and even AMRAAM/GBU-39 is completely bogus because they block the inlet duct.

The location and orientation of the weapons bays, as depicted in the head-on view is accurate. The F-35 is a single engine design and the inlet ducting converges shortly after the cockpit/lift fan bay.

The exact design is classified, but rest assured that it is much more compact and complex a flow path than the standard Y shape, in order to ensure that the compressor face is obscured and that the inlets can accommodate a number of performance profiles (including supersonic maneuvering and high-alpha carrier approach) without the need for control vanes.



posted on Aug, 23 2006 @ 09:11 PM
link   
Shattered is right. That picture is BS. It was pointed to a guy who works on the F-35 and he laughed at it. I believe there is a possibility of carrying 6 AAMs internally, but that would be somewhere in the future. Not now, but it may come about several years after the thing's been out.

The F-22 was designed to carry AAM internally, bomb carriage there was an afterthought. It's internal bay was made to accomodate the missiles and nothing else. The F-35 is designed to carry bombs and one missile in each bay. It was designed with the SDB in mind. That drawing is an unrealistic joke. Maybe an upgrade model where they expanded the bay A LOT.



posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 03:04 AM
link   
Correct me If I am wrong (and I have no doubt some one will),
but the only varient which is even close to a definite version is the F-35A. The B + C models are havenot even had an offical roll out yet. As I believe the C version has greater wing area and has none of the STOVL equipment that the B version has and as such could perhaps be cpaable of taking a greater payload.

Jensy



posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 04:27 AM
link   
but if those weapon bays were for real, allowing for the pilot, undercarriage and engine, where is the fuel supposed to go, (not to mention the internal structure) in the pilots pocket?


The weapons bays illustrated just take up too much of the internal volume to be realistic. I may also be wrong on this one but the weapons shown appear to be a little undersized in order to allow them to fit.

The point someone made earlier about the F-35 bay being bigger than the F-22's 'because the latter was not designed to carry bombs' doesn't wash with me. The F-22 is designed to be an air dominance fighter, not an interceptor, having a fighter bomber that can carry more missiles makes no sense whatsoever and if it was the case the F-22 should be scrapped. I am confident that it is not the case however.



posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 05:30 PM
link   
Look just because an aircraft can carry more missiles does not nessicarily make it an airsuperioty fighter. The Russians have considered a variation of the TU-160 as a long range interceptor with its entire weapons bay full of A-A missiles, however it would be lucky to out manouver most other craft.

Jensy



posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 06:02 PM
link   
As shattered skies posted before me,that is not the F-35C.


(Below) Line diagram's of the Lockheed Martin F-35B STOVL and F-35C CV JSF "Preferred Weapon System Concept" configuration 240-4 (dating to about June 2006), reflecting weight reduction and other design changes made since 2002.


Here is a page with recent F-35B models and concepts,and updated artist drawings of the F-35C. The C-version isnt in production yet.

F-35 Page



posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 06:10 PM
link   
Or should any "official" drawing spell "JDAM" correctly? There's no "S" in JDAM...



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join