ASRAAM Config Change For F-35

F-15 Eagle

New Member
Janes.com is reporting that the original UK intention was to clear four MBDA Advanced Short-Range Air-to-Air Missiles (ASRAAMs) for internal carriage but this has been revised where it will be two internal and two external weapons instead.

The external ASRAAM configuration will be common accross all F-35 variants. This may generate interest among other F-35 customers that were considering using the AIM-9X Sidewinder.

Included for the external configuration will be a low observable pylon to keep the radar signature of the aircraft to a minimum.

Quoting Janes: The new ASRAAM plan is a 'work swap' that does away with the requirement to clear the ASRAAM on the F-35's two internal air-to-ground weapon stations. The integration team now has the more straightforward task of providing underwing carriage on stations 1 and 11.

While this configuration change is being sold as some kind of advantage, one has to wonder if the goal is to save cost in weapons clearance efforts during the System Development and Demonstration (SDD) phase which finishes with the F-35 being in the Block III configuration, or if extra internal ASRAAMs were not workable because of engineering problems.

Changing the weapons configuration for the finished Block III F-35 has been done before when in 2006, funding was provided to remove the external fuel tank clearnace from the SDD program and push the Small Diameter Bomb (SDB) weapons clearance into F-35 Block III from it's original position in the F-35 Block IV plan. This 2006 funding also pulled the Wind Corrected Munitions Dispenser (CBU-105) from the SDD weapons chart.

Affordability has always been the goal of the F-35 program and it is critical that the SDD phase happen with minimal problems or cost annoyance. It is certain that other weapons clearances will be awarded throughout the life of the program as customer requirements merit. Which means it is possible to see an increased number of internal ASRAAMs and the external fuel tanks appear at a later date.

While traditionally thought of as a within-visual-range (WVR) air-to-air missile, with the ability to be cued to the target via the helmet system and radar, the ASRAAM missile has some beyond-visual-range (BVR) qualities.
 

F-15 Eagle

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #2
So whats does this mean for the AMRAAM? Will the F-35 still be able to carry 4 AMRAAMs internally? Why would they get rid of the external fuel tanks that would provide more range. Since they dropped the WCMD I guess we can say good bye to cluster bombs.:(

If they can put 2 ASRAAMs externally, then can't they put 4 more on the outside of the wings for a total of 6 external ASRAAMs?
 

harryriedl

Active Member
Verified Defense Pro
So whats does this mean for the AMRAAM? Will the F-35 still be able to carry 4 AMRAAMs internally? Why would they get rid of the external fuel tanks that would provide more range. Since they dropped the WCMD I guess we can say good bye to cluster bombs.:(

If they can put 2 ASRAAMs externally, then can't they put 4 more on the outside of the wings for a total of 6 external ASRAAMs?
i think its for speed rather than any consiverable problem which couldn't be achieved As 2 internal require much less testing compared with 4. less problem with air flow if your doing only two missiles compared with four
 

Ozzy Blizzard

New Member
So whats does this mean for the AMRAAM? Will the F-35 still be able to carry 4 AMRAAMs internally? Why would they get rid of the external fuel tanks that would provide more range. Since they dropped the WCMD I guess we can say good bye to cluster bombs.:(

If they can put 2 ASRAAMs externally, then can't they put 4 more on the outside of the wings for a total of 6 external ASRAAMs?
The platform could carry 14 AMRAAMs both internally and externally if you wanted it too, would loose its stealth though.

And yes i the F-35 will be able to carry 4 intermnal AMRAAM's probably 6.

IMO this has more to do with not wating to expend the time/effort on clearing ASRAAM for the A2G stations, they will probably never be carried there anyway, i.e. that station would be used by an A2G weapon or an AMRAAM. An RAF/RN F-35B is never going to deploy in A2A config without a BVR missile. Therefore why waste the money?
 

F-15 Eagle

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #5
The platform could carry 14 AMRAAMs both internally and externally if you wanted it too, would loose its stealth though.

And yes i the F-35 will be able to carry 4 intermnal AMRAAM's probably 6.

IMO this has more to do with not wating to expend the time/effort on clearing ASRAAM for the A2G stations, they will probably never be carried there anyway, i.e. that station would be used by an A2G weapon or an AMRAAM. An RAF/RN F-35B is never going to deploy in A2A config without a BVR missile. Therefore why waste the money?
True, I know the AIM-9 has to be in the air stream in order to get a lock onto an enemy aircraft so the AIM-9 will not be able to be carried in the internal bay, the AMRAAM could though. The AMRAAM can get a lock onto an enemy aircraft after it fires and that may be a reason why the RAF/RN will not put a AIM-132 in the ATG station as it has to be swung out by a missile rail. The AMRAAM does not have that problem, it can drop just like a bomb then get a lock on and fire. Thats how it works on the F-22, it does not have missile rails for the AMRAAM, only for the AIM-9X.

So obviously this has an impact on only RAF/RN F-35s and not American F-35s.

4 internal AMRAAMs is good but 6 is even better.:D By the way, how is LM doing on fitting 6 internal AMRAAMs?
 

rossfrb_1

Member
This has implications for the RAAF, whose current hornets carry asraam as their wvr missile. The supers weren't going to be cleared for asraam, only aim9x, and I imagine that RAAF JSFs were to have aim9x as well. It will be interesting to see which way the RAAF opts to go. Maybe one of each on stations 1 and 11.:D

rb
 

Ozzy Blizzard

New Member
This has implications for the RAAF, whose current hornets carry asraam as their wvr missile. The supers weren't going to be cleared for asraam, only aim9x, and I imagine that RAAF JSFs were to have aim9x as well. It will be interesting to see which way the RAAF opts to go. Maybe one of each on stations 1 and 11.:D

rb
They'lle be spoilt for choice. You may indeeed see both the AIM 9X and AIM 132 operational on te RAAF's F-35A fleet if the platfrom comes cleared to drop both missiles, because at the projected time of IOC we will have both in our armoury. So take your pick, the off the rail performance of the '9x or the near BVR performance of the ASRAAM? They both have excellent Hobbs Focal Plane Array IIR seekers so they should have near identicle IRCM capability and identicle seeker performance. Perhapse you'll see both on the same platform, one on the left bay and one on the right, then the pilot would get the best of both worlds!
 

swerve

Super Moderator
True, I know the AIM-9 has to be in the air stream in order to get a lock onto an enemy aircraft so the AIM-9 will not be able to be carried in the internal bay, the AMRAAM could though. The AMRAAM can get a lock onto an enemy aircraft after it fires and that may be a reason why the RAF/RN will not put a AIM-132 in the ATG station as it has to be swung out by a missile rail. The AMRAAM does not have that problem, it can drop just like a bomb then get a lock on and fire. Thats how it works on the F-22, it does not have missile rails for the AMRAAM, only for the AIM-9X.

So obviously this has an impact on only RAF/RN F-35s and not American F-35s.

4 internal AMRAAMs is good but 6 is even better.:D By the way, how is LM doing on fitting 6 internal AMRAAMs?
I thought AIM-9X was to get lock-on after launch? Asraam (AIM-132) certainly has LOAL.
 

beleg

New Member
There were plans for LOAL ability for Aim9-X for customers who wish this ability. It will get more interesting as F-35 enters service.
 

F-15 Eagle

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #11
Does the RAAF and RAN/RN both use the AMRAAM or something else? I know the ASRAAM has some BVR capability but it is not a true BVR missile like the AMRAAM.
 

rossfrb_1

Member
Does the RAAF and RAN/RN both use the AMRAAM or something else? I know the ASRAAM has some BVR capability but it is not a true BVR missile like the AMRAAM.
RAAF hornets have had AMRAAM since ~2001.
Australia does not have a naval fast jet air force.

rb
 
A

Aussie Digger

Guest
How would the IRIS-T work on the F35 (as this will be the primary WVR missile in Norway)?
It would have to be integrated on the aircraft, but that would be at a users own expense. You can't expect Countries which don't use a weapon to fund the integration for you...

It shouldn't be too difficult, given it is a development of Sidewinder based missiles...
 

kato

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
It shouldn't be too difficult, given it is a development of Sidewinder based missiles...
Officially, it's fully interoperable with AIM-9, same as ASRAAM.

I.e. it uses the same launch rail and software interface. You'd likely still need to fund aerodynamic, dry- and live-fire tests for your specific platform.
 

swerve

Super Moderator
It would have to be integrated on the aircraft, but that would be at a users own expense. You can't expect Countries which don't use a weapon to fund the integration for you...

It shouldn't be too difficult, given it is a development of Sidewinder based missiles...
The Italians & Spanish may fund integration. They've both bought IRIS-T, & both expect to operate F-35.
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Officially, it's fully interoperable with AIM-9, same as ASRAAM.

I.e. it uses the same launch rail and software interface. You'd likely still need to fund aerodynamic, dry- and live-fire tests for your specific platform.
If its internal then the aerodynamics become less of an issue at a signature amplification level, but there is still a need to measure things like fold out and release times, how much the RCS jumps when doors open and the missile is released, and captive/release trials to assess TBF etc....
 

Pingu

New Member
May I ask; what is the current situation with the AIM-9X? Is it yet in full operational service with F-15/16s etc?

If you ask me, the UK should have gone with the AIM-9X. AFAIK, lots of mind changing etc caused the ASRAAM to just become a missile with the same seeker as the AIM-9X but with an airframe that is less maneouverable. It may be faster and longer range than the AIM-9X but surely an AMRAAM already takes care of the speed and range requirement. I guess the best way I can describe it is that there is a bit of a capability overlap with the AMRAAM-ASRAAM combination. Also, if the UK and for that matter, the RAAF had procured the AIM-9X, there wouldn't be this integration situation.
 

RubiconNZ

The Wanderer
May I ask; what is the current situation with the AIM-9X? Is it yet in full operational service with F-15/16s etc?
There was an release recently (this week, I think) that the Aim 9X had just been deployed to Korea with one of the fighter squadrons, so that would be a pretty good sign it is, or at least close.

Edit: kato has the article below
 
Top