RAAF F-35 Weapons

[gf0012-aust]

Is this how you got your almost seven thousand post, "we gave them critical stuff but cannot discuss". I have heard other countries chipping in dollars and others providing some finished parts/products but never heard of any critial technology or material being provided by other countries let alone Australia.

In fact Britain is always pushing us to use some of their parts/products but we have always turned them down until recently, even then it will be installed in their F-35 not ours.

I wonder what kind of Australian fifth generation stealth and critical avionics technology we have incorporated . I guess we will never know.nfloorl:

Huh? It's common knowledge that CSIRO have provided the ceramic and titanium diboride coating for some components. We also share that tech with the UK and Germany

You'd hardly expect those components to be detailed.

In fact the annual US team (Dept State, Dept Commerce, USN, NAVSEA, DARPA and USMC) is in Aust again negotiating on access to further tech - they time it for every LWC held in Australia.

But of course, you already knew this.

As for non std tech that we share with the US, you do realise that you're sharing australian hypersonic technology and ceramic coating for cavitating platforms in kinetic weapons tests. Lockmart have a team based out at UQ for 2 x hypersonic projects.

But of course, you already knew this.

It would pay for you to learn some respect even if you disagree with posters opinions.

 

[highnndry]

Huh? It's common knowledge that CSIRO have provided the ceramic and titanium diboride coating for some components. We also share that tech with the UK and Germany

You'd hardly expect those components to be detailed.

In fact the annual US team (Dept State, Dept Commerce, USN, NAVSEA, DARPA and USMC) is in Aust again negotiating on access to further tech - they time it for every LWC held in Australia.

But of course, you already knew this.

As for non std tech that we share with the US, you do realise that you're sharing australian hypersonic technology and ceramic coating for cavitating platforms in kinetic weapons tests. Lockmart have a team based out at UQ for 2 x hypersonic projects.

But of course, you already knew this.

It would pay for you to learn some respect even if you disagree with posters opinions.

I hate to be the one liner poster now.... Thanks for little bit of info so we can at least look into or cross referrence with other information out there. I would definitely look into what hypersonic technology we have received from Australia. I know we import most of our Titanium's so it would make sense to import the compound/product.

 

[gf0012-aust]

I hate to be the one liner poster now.... Thanks for little bit of info so we can at least look into or cross referrence with other information out there. I would definitely look into what hypersonic technology we have received from Australia. I know we import most of our Titanium's so it would make sense to import the compound/product.

If I came off as snippy before I apologise. However I get a bit cranky if people infer that I'm crapping on.

I will give as much detail as appropriate, I won't go beyond that for obvious reasons - and its not to pretend about non existent capability.

further to my prev.

• the US and Aust have approached identified problems from opposing research perspectives. the CSIRO solution has been applied to various projects over the last 3 years. It's been provided to 3 NATO allies
• the US is directly involved with 2 x Hypersponics projects in Oz. Again, the US has taken a different approach to Aust scientists. At this stage the Aust managed projects are on time and under budget and have done successful shoots
• Australia also has a Hypersonics project relationship in play with 2 x Japanese teams.
• Australia is project sharing 2 UCAV stealth projects - 2 x NATO partners

If I could say more, then obviously I would. However, every year a USG assessment team comes out and reviews a minimum of 2 dozen disparate technologies from a short list provided by DSTO (Aust version of DARPA without the funding advantages). This has been in play since 911. The USG also runs a similar process with specific NATO partners.

The last meet I attended the USG officials made it patently clear that they are more than willing to use technologies and solutions generated by partners where approp. They cannot and do not see a need to make every technical solution US sourced. The climate and attitude has changed considerably since 911. They have and do offer to co-fund or take majority funding positions without an expectation of majority ownership. In fact, as an example, Metalstorm critical software elements are still with-held from US partners - and the USG was absolutely fine with the position insisted upon by AustGovt. OTOH, we're quite happy to share CBASS data and info as it was critical in both of our interests (dealing with small conventional subs in the littorals) and the USN reciprocated by giving RAN access to critical hardware and fluid dynamics solutions for Collins.

Similarly we have active US interest in Aust tech such as Acoustic Daylight, ADS2 and integration of ADB sensor tech into combat sensors.


Its quid pro quo.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

AMRAAMs on wingtip rails? Now, what is that about?

Anyhow, followed the link, but it is in some language I don't understand... Can you fill me out?

Well F16's deploys AMRAAM's on the wingtips all the time, allthough they do require a longer rail. Im not sure here but perhaps when the F35 is in non stealth mode longer wingtip hardpoints can be installed in the same manner as the underwing hardpoints, allowing a AMRAAM to be carted on the wingtip. All the other outboard hardpoints are removable so perhaps the wingips rail is too???

Anyways, the real question remains as to wether hardpoints on the door can be installed and wether the door can hold 300kgs of cargo???? If so then the F35 will carry a devistating internal A2A payload. 8 100NM ranged AMRAAMS and 4 ASRAAM/AIM9X, all in a stealthy package anyone?????

As far as the site, i didnt actually read it. I was searching for images of the F35 and this turned up. I posted the URL so everyone didnt think i drew it .

@ELP.

I'm not sure were this graphic actually came from, it does look pretty good/legitimate but i wouldnt vouch for it coming from official USG sources because its the only one of its kind i've seen. It may be old though, noting the internal gun. I doubt this configuration has been cleared yet, however i didn think LM was doing much work on different internal weapons loadouts as yet. What this does show is that there is plenty of room internally for a huge payload. And one the platform is alot further down the track, as long as the space is there and the door is strong enough, a weapons load of this nature shouldn't too difficult. I mean after all the massive challenges of this project that have allready been overcome, how difficult can unconventional launch techneques be? But even if the door hardpoints are just fantasy, 2x double rails would give the platform 8 internal AAM's which is comperable to most platforms flying today.

Anyways, for those who dont know this is what i mean about the F16:

 

[Grand Danois]

Was hoping you knew some more of the context of the drawing, but thanks anyway.

Re the AMRAAMs on wingtip rails - it seems from yours and ELPs replies that I worded that wrong. I meant that wingtip rails on the F-35 was all new to me, regardless of the missile type. Was aware that F-16 uses the AMRAAM on the wingtip because it has lesser drag than the rails alone. Didn't know that it applied to the Hornets as well.

I think the biggest issue here is not how much weight the doors can hold as if the missiles can clear the airframe. I figured the missiles in the original layout had to be ejected or levered out of the bay to do that. Not much room for that in this config.

Well F16's deploys AMRAAM's on the wingtips all the time, allthough they do require a longer rail. Im not sure here but perhaps when the F35 is in non stealth mode longer wingtip hardpoints can be installed in the same manner as the underwing hardpoints, allowing a AMRAAM to be carted on the wingtip. All the other outboard hardpoints are removable so perhaps the wingips rail is too???

Anyways, the real question remains as to wether hardpoints on the door can be installed and wether the door can hold 300kgs of cargo???? If so then the F35 will carry a devistating internal A2A payload. 8 100NM ranged AMRAAMS and 4 ASRAAM/AIM9X, all in a stealthy package anyone?????

As far as the site, i didnt actually read it. I was searching for images of the F35 and this turned up. I posted the URL so everyone didnt think i drew it .

@ELP.

I'm not sure were this graphic actually came from, it does look pretty good/legitimate but i wouldnt vouch for it coming from official USG sources because its the only one of its kind i've seen. It may be old though, noting the internal gun. I doubt this configuration has been cleared yet, however i didn think LM was doing much work on different internal weapons loadouts as yet. What this does show is that there is plenty of room internally for a huge payload. And one the platform is alot further down the track, as long as the space is there and the door is strong enough, a weapons load of this nature shouldn't too difficult. I mean after all the massive challenges of this project that have allready been overcome, how difficult can unconventional launch techneques be? But even if the door hardpoints are just fantasy, 2x double rails would give the platform 8 internal AAM's which is comperable to most platforms flying today.

Anyways, for those who dont know this is what i mean about the F16:

 

[Aussie Digger]

Anyways, the real question remains as to wether hardpoints on the door can be installed and wether the door can hold 300kgs of cargo???? If so then the F35 will carry a devistating internal A2A payload. 8 100NM ranged AMRAAMS and 4 ASRAAM/AIM9X, all in a stealthy package anyone?????

The F-35 will most certainly have a rail on each door. Whether or not a "dual rail launcher" can be carried in time remains to be seen. I expect clearannces within the internal bays will be the deciding factor as opposed to the strength of the door itself.

With a dual AMRAAM launcher almost certain to be fitted on each internal hardpoint in due course, a loadout of 4x WVR missiles and 4x BVR missiles will be very useful indeed.

I doubt the loadouts displayed on this diagram will be available immediately however...

 

[barra]

I expect clearannces within the internal bays will be the deciding factor as opposed to the strength of the door itself.

I would expect the strength of the door and clearances within the bay to be equally important factors. Extending the bay door into the airstream of a maneuvering aircraft, at high speed and with the weight of one or two AMRAAMs attached exposes it to extreme forces. As gf says, I can see why special high strength materials would be needed.

Is this an official drawing anyway?

Hooroo

 

[Grand Danois]

Is this an official drawing anyway?
Hooroo

Nope, it turns out that it is a homemade illustration. It has apparently been discussed on other boards. The wingtip rails; the TVC; the assumptions wrt space and layout of the weapon bays; as you mention, the forces involved in the door configuration would be horrendous.

It is amateur speculation.

 

[Aussie Digger]

I would expect the strength of the door and clearances within the bay to be equally important factors. Extending the bay door into the airstream of a maneuvering aircraft, at high speed and with the weight of one or two AMRAAMs attached exposes it to extreme forces. As gf says, I can see why special high strength materials would be needed.

Is this an official drawing anyway?

Hooroo

Go back to here:

http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6089&page=3

I've quoted LM directly. All 3 variants will only carry 4 AAMs internally to start with.

LM has conducted studies which show it might be possible to carry 6x AAM's internally on the F-35, but it's not a priority as yet.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Go pack to here:

http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6089&page=3

I've quoted LM directly. All 3 variants will only carry 4 AAMs internally to start with.

LM has conducted studies which show it might be possible to carry 6x AAM's internally on the F-35, but it's not a priority as yet.

Thats on the two existing hardpoints???? IIRC it was with a double rail launcher on the 2000lb "belly" hardpoint, and a single missile on the "inbord" movable hardpont. You have to wonder whether thast inbord movable hardpoint can accomidate a double rail launcher, allowing for 8 AAM's to be carted internally.

As far as the graphic i posted earlier, i agree its far from official, however assumbing its to scale it does illistrate exactly how much room is in the internal bay. Now (i know its all speculation) given the space in there 4 AAM's seems like an awfull waste of space and capability. And just because LM arent dealing with this just yet, doesnt mean it cant be done.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Thats on the two existing hardpoints???? IIRC it was with a double rail launcher on the 2000lb "belly" hardpoint, and a single missile on the "inbord" movable hardpont. You have to wonder whether thast inbord movable hardpoint can accomidate a double rail launcher, allowing for 8 AAM's to be carted internally.

As far as the graphic i posted earlier, i agree its far from official, however assumbing its to scale it does illistrate exactly how much room is in the internal bay. Now (i know its all speculation) given the space in there 4 AAM's seems like an awfull waste of space and capability. And just because LM arent dealing with this just yet, doesnt mean it cant be done.

True. What it means is that L-M has been given a requirement to meet and they have more than enough to do to get there first. Options such as 6 or 8 internal AAM's are beyond this requirement and will probably be looked at later.

How many F-16's carried BVR missiles when they were first deployed? None.

How many F/A-18's carried dual rail launchers when they were first deployed? None.

All of this is development work to improve the combat capability of the respective aircraft over time. F-35 won't be any different...