Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Fighters, Bombers and Recon Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: F-22 and F-35: What are the under-wing ordnance limits?
Satorian    9/24/2007 9:56:51 PM
This is something I've been wondering about for a while. Does anybody have some official statements at hand about what can be slung under the F-22's and F-35's wings? To me it seems like there is some potential, odd design conflict, depending on the expected mission profiles and load-outs. The idea that the two 5th gen jets could carry tanks and ordnance under their wings once the door is knocked down, to increase payload and range, often comes up, but are they really engineered towards it? Can anybody point me to some official sources stating the under-wing load that is to be cleared for the F-22 and the F-35 respectively?
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: 1 2
Nichevo       9/25/2007 7:38:48 PM

The F-22 offers a more difficult question.  What to put on those 2 5Klb pylons?  Would guess the Chair Force already has an idea, and the bad guys won't like it. 
 
How about an A-4 Skyhawk?!?

  • Empty weight: 10,450 lb (4,750 kg)
  • Loaded weight: 18,300 lb (8,318 kg)
  • Max takeoff weight: 24,500 lb (11,136 kg)

Well, I guess the Aussies won't have much problem with range, assuming LO tanks...

but seriously, parasite UAVs seem quite realistic.  That or like a hundred AAMs...LOL
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       9/25/2007 7:43:03 PM

Have always thought the external stores of these jets have been underrated in sense of their value.

A single F-35 could carry 4 harpoons while traveling on the deck, then climb to altitude for another mission.  The climb is almost the ideal stealth approach.  Then it can unload it's internal weapons.  A one aircraft approach to SEAD 

The F-22 offers a more difficult question.  What to put on those 2 5Klb pylons?  Would guess the Chair Force already has an idea, and the bad guys won't like it. 
If the AN/APG-77 is really as powerful as the USAF hints to and the F-22 starts getting the side looking arrays. Imagine an F-22 with such sharp vision controlling small pylon launched UAS that carry, IR/EO/SAR, SDB, AMRAAM or even a DEW. Also, don't forget about the new communications protocal that will really link platforms together so that the F-22/35 have a better view than ever.
 
I still wish we would buy 300 of the damned things but I can see how it was rationalized that 184 would suffice.
-DA

 
Quote    Reply

EW3       9/25/2007 8:17:10 PM
DA - don't write off the 300 unit build.  Found the curent build plan rather clever.  Slow and steady.  This allows for changes in attitude.  And the Dems are the ones pushing for two VA class every year. 
 
Nichevo that is really funny.  That idea would give DB a woody!
 
My personal guess is that it would be a very serious UAV package to do the low work, while the F-22 does the high work.  Kind of like I suggested for the F35.  
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

dwightlooi       9/25/2007 8:31:12 PM

Have always thought the external stores of these jets have been underrated in sense of their value.

A single F-35 could carry 4 harpoons while traveling on the deck, then climb to altitude for another mission.  The climb is almost the ideal stealth approach.  Then it can unload it's internal weapons.  A one aircraft approach to SEAD 

The F-22 offers a more difficult question.  What to put on those 2 5Klb pylons?  Would guess the Chair Force already has an idea, and the bad guys won't like it. 


It is actually possible to carry Harpoons internally if they create a version of the missile derived from the RGM-84 family -- that is the ship launched version. The internal bays are long enough for the 3.84m Harpoon and with the fins folded the missile is only 13.5" in diameter (much less than the 4.16 m JSOW and 18.4" JDAMs the internal bays handily swallows).

The F-22 does not eject external tanks from pylons. It ejects the pylons with the tanks attached from the aircraft. Hence, once the tanks are gone there are no pylons to mess up its stealthiness. The F-35 presumably does the same.

 
Quote    Reply

apoorexcuse    dwightlooi   9/25/2007 9:56:41 PM




Have always thought the external stores of these jets have been underrated in sense of their value.



A single F-35 could carry 4 harpoons while traveling on the deck, then climb to altitude for another mission.  The climb is almost the ideal stealth approach.  Then it can unload it's internal weapons.  A one aircraft approach to SEAD 



The F-22 offers a more difficult question.  What to put on those 2 5Klb pylons?  Would guess the Chair Force already has an idea, and the bad guys won't like it. 





It is actually possible to carry Harpoons internally if they create a version of the missile derived from the RGM-84 family -- that is the ship launched version. The internal bays are long enough for the 3.84m Harpoon and with the fins folded the missile is only 13.5" in diameter (much less than the 4.16 m JSOW and 18.4" JDAMs the internal bays handily swallows).

The F-22 does not eject external tanks from pylons. It ejects the pylons with the tanks attached from the aircraft. Hence, once the tanks are gone there are no pylons to mess up its stealthiness. The F-35 presumably does the same.

Is there any open source information on that?  It is something I have wondered for sometime.  A long range 1st strike stealth package is nice, but the tankers are not exactly hard to find.  So drop tanks are the logical solution.  Yet, even dropping them still leaves the connections exposed, so that would require a door...  Anyways, just my musings.

It does help address the the F22 crossing the pond to deal with the Rafale with remaining loiter time, should FS decide to return as pres. of France...

 
Quote    Reply

dwightlooi       9/25/2007 10:27:43 PM


Is there any open source information on that?  It is something I have wondered for sometime.  A long range 1st strike stealth package is nice, but the tankers are not exactly hard to find.  So drop tanks are the logical solution.  Yet, even dropping them still leaves the connections exposed, so that would require a door...  Anyways, just my musings.

It does help address the the F22 crossing the pond to deal with the Rafale with remaining loiter time, should FS decide to return as pres. of France...

Better... there is real footage of it... here this is the actual sequence of an F-22 jettisoning the external tank.

http://img225.imageshack.us/img225/9621/04e0038221jm1.jpg">

http://img213.imageshack.us/img213/4846/04e0130006qm0.jpg">

http://img213.imageshack.us/img213/1518/04e0130007pu4.jpg">
http://img213.imageshack.us/img213/9716/04e0130008uk8.jpg">
 
Quote    Reply
1 2



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics