Enzo the Magnificent Posted October 27, 2019 Share Posted October 27, 2019 Really??? Either someone at the MoD is telling some really wild porkies to journalists, or those journalists don't understand the first thing about aviation. http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/rafs-new-£100m-f-35-stealth-fighter-jets-have-beast-mode-with-22000lbs-of-firepower/ar-AAJpqX3?li=AAnZ9Ug&ocid=HPCDHP 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stever219 Posted October 27, 2019 Share Posted October 27, 2019 I’d like to know how and where they’re going to hang that mass of ordnance on that nightmare contraption and, if they could, how many miles and what percentage of the fuel load it would take to get the whole shooting match into the air. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
junglierating Posted October 27, 2019 Share Posted October 27, 2019 Hmmm well it certainly would have to be from a shore side runway. Buccaneer had a full load of 16 or 18000lbs I think so hmmm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enzo the Magnificent Posted October 27, 2019 Author Share Posted October 27, 2019 But then the Bucc had external pylons. Despite all the talk of pylons for the F-35, I've never yet seen any. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
exdraken Posted October 27, 2019 Share Posted October 27, 2019 (edited) 6 Paveway IV at around 500 lb each plus 2 Amraams and 2 Asraams.... let's say 200 each... and NO gun... makes 3800 lb, or approx 1800 kg... and then you have the rest of the F-35 you could fly into something... easily 22000 lb... Edited October 27, 2019 by exdraken 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corsairfoxfouruncle Posted October 27, 2019 Share Posted October 27, 2019 6 hours ago, Enzo Matrix said: Really??? Either someone at the MoD is telling some really wild porkies to journalists, or those journalists don't understand the first thing about aviation. http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/rafs-new-£100m-f-35-stealth-fighter-jets-have-beast-mode-with-22000lbs-of-firepower/ar-AAJpqX3?li=AAnZ9Ug&ocid=HPCDHP Good god its not a A-6 Intruder ? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob G Posted October 27, 2019 Share Posted October 27, 2019 3 hours ago, exdraken said: then you have the rest of the F-35 you could fly into something... easily 22000 lb... You'd have to subtract the weight of pilot and ejection seat for that calculation, surely? 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corsairfoxfouruncle Posted October 27, 2019 Share Posted October 27, 2019 (edited) 4 hours ago, Enzo Matrix said: But then the Bucc had external pylons. Despite all the talk of pylons for the F-35, I've never yet seen any. http://www.airforce-technology.com/features/featuref-35-lightning-up-and-away-5851856/ first picture. Edited October 27, 2019 by Corsairfoxfouruncle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rabbit Leader Posted October 28, 2019 Share Posted October 28, 2019 .. mmm... 617 Squadron, 22,000 Ibs, Grandslam, I’ve heard all that before. Seems like some reporter is taking bits and pieces of information and concocting up their own story? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hairystick Posted October 28, 2019 Share Posted October 28, 2019 Chortle! IF that amount of "bang" could be bolted onto a DAVE-B, the fuel would only permit one circuit if the airfield before having to land. Then you'd need a place to dump ordnance to be able to perform that maneuvre! Classy reporting by another pretend journalist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jure Miljevic Posted October 28, 2019 Share Posted October 28, 2019 The reporter probably browsed the web and find one of the Lockheed Martin advertising pamphlets. In one of their earlier publications it had been claimed that F-35 can carry over 18000 lbs of ordnance but surely the aircraft (and PR claims) developed since 2010 ... Cheers Jure Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enzo the Magnificent Posted October 28, 2019 Author Share Posted October 28, 2019 5 hours ago, Corsairfoxfouruncle said: http://www.airforce-technology.com/features/featuref-35-lightning-up-and-away-5851856/ first picture. Thanks for that. However, even with those pylons, I can't see much more than 6000lb of ordnance. It also raises the question of why anyone would want to put pylons on an F-35 and compromise the stealth capability. You might as well just have a Tornado in that case. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corsairfoxfouruncle Posted October 28, 2019 Share Posted October 28, 2019 1 hour ago, Enzo Matrix said: Thanks for that. However, even with those pylons, I can't see much more than 6000lb of ordnance. It also raises the question of why anyone would want to put pylons on an F-35 and compromise the stealth capability. You might as well just have a Tornado in that case. Totally agree with you whats the point. I just don't understand how the USAF says this will replace the A-10’s ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EwenS Posted October 28, 2019 Share Posted October 28, 2019 Well as someone elsewhere pointed out, in a future air campaign Day 1 - stealthy (internal weapons only)to take out air defences (perhaps supported by Typhoon with Storm Shadow if available) Day 2 - load it up for ground support. Makes sense particularly when you are operating off a carrier with limited numbers, or where Typhoon support is not available for whatever reason (e.g. no nearby land base or insufficient tanker support) Outwardly stealth is the most notable feature of the F35B. Internally it is the sensor integration etc. It is the latter that all the pilots seem to rave about. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Giorgio N Posted October 28, 2019 Share Posted October 28, 2019 Similar wild claims have been made about pretty much every modern aircraft, I remember the figures that came out about the Tornado when the type entered service, made most WW2 bombers sound tiny in comparison... The matter is that too many different figures are put together in the same basket. If we add the weight that can be carried by each hardpoint on an F-35 then the total weight is IIRC around 18,000 lbs. That may or not actually be carried by an aircraft with a useful fuel load for a real mission. And that is most likely not a realistic war load anyway. But is a figure that can't be denied, as overall a, F-35 can indeed carry this kind of load under her pylons and within the bays. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawk Posted October 28, 2019 Share Posted October 28, 2019 Like Rabbit and Jure, I can see a plausible path to this claim. UK journo, who knows nothing about aircraft, is given PR handout aimed at US readership which says "The F-35 can carry the same bombload as a WW2 bomber". Journo then googles "highest bombload carried in WW2" and comes up with Lancaster, GRAND SLAM and 22000 lb. Journo, unencumbered by any understanding of what 22000 lb of ordnance looks like, assumes this must be what they mean. But wasn't the normal bombload of a B-17 (= "WW2 bomber" for US audience) around 6000 lb? The scarier possibility is that a MOD or RAF PR wonk has made the same mistakes. Anyway, I suggest that in modern air warfare, if you need 22000 lb of ordnance to achieve your desired effect, you might be doing something wrong. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XV107 Posted October 29, 2019 Share Posted October 29, 2019 On 10/28/2019 at 8:46 AM, Seahawk said: The scarier possibility is that a MOD or RAF PR wonk has made the same mistakes. It's the RN. Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear... Unfortunately, in a bid (justified) to overcome some of the press rubbish about the carriers and the F-35, 'we're getting some remarkably good demonstrations as to why sailors shouldn't talk about aeroplanes' (that's from a WAFU, who may be missing an element of self-awareness). Lockheed's open source figures suggest somewhere between an 18,000-19,000lb warload, but even this is pushing it - for the UK F-35, that'd be a couple of 1,000lb class weapons in the bays along with, a couple of AMRAAM, two Storm Shadows and two Paveway III under the wings, plus the outboard ASRAAMs and the gun pod. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Jones Posted October 30, 2019 Share Posted October 30, 2019 Who's going to be first to model a F35 carrying a Grand Slam ? 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vicarage Vee Posted October 30, 2019 Share Posted October 30, 2019 Perhaps that payload is unique to dealing with specific threats in King's Lynn? 2 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noelh Posted October 30, 2019 Share Posted October 30, 2019 (edited) Yes the newspaper is blameless. The boat's own twitter account also makes the claim. https://mobile.twitter.com/HMSQNLZ/status/1187077336669261824/photo/1 Bit of an informed discussion in comments though. Maybe it's true. Wasn't it also a fact though that the F14 could take off with a full load of of Phoenix missiles but would have had to fire off a few in order to land on again? Edited October 30, 2019 by noelh 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duncan B Posted October 30, 2019 Share Posted October 30, 2019 Hasn't this configuration been nicknamed the "Beast" mode? It should probably be called the "tractor" mode as I suspect they would only be able to taxi around from the bomb dump to the flight line carrying that much. Would save the cost of a few tractors and trailers though I suppose! Duncan B 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
exdraken Posted October 30, 2019 Share Posted October 30, 2019 (edited) On 10/27/2019 at 8:04 PM, exdraken said: 6 Paveway IV at around 500 lb each plus 2 Amraams and 2 Asraams.... let's say 200 each... and NO gun... makes 3800 lb, or approx 1800 kg... and then you have the rest of the F-35 you could fly into something... easily 22000 lb... again this current UK "beast" mode can only look like this! maybe add a gun if cleared in the UK Edited October 30, 2019 by exdraken Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Giorgio N Posted October 30, 2019 Share Posted October 30, 2019 1 hour ago, noelh said: Yes the newspaper is blameless. The boat's own twitter account also makes the claim. https://mobile.twitter.com/HMSQNLZ/status/1187077336669261824/photo/1 Bit of an informed discussion in comments though. Maybe it's true. Wasn't it also a fact though that the F14 could take off with a full load of of Phoenix missiles but would have had to fire off a few in order to land on again? A not uncommon problem. For carrier operations the maximum weight allowed at "landing" is generally lower than that allowed to land on a conventional runway and as a result a Tomcat with empty tanks but full armament was too heavy for a safe landing. I would have to go through a few references but I'm sure the Tomcat wasn't the only aircraft affected by the problem.. with the big difference that the dumb bombs that other types had to drop into the ocean for a safe landing didn't have the same price tag of a Phoenix missile... 😁 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enzo the Magnificent Posted October 30, 2019 Author Share Posted October 30, 2019 6 hours ago, noelh said: Yes the newspaper is blameless. The boat's own twitter account also makes the claim. https://mobile.twitter.com/HMSQNLZ/status/1187077336669261824/photo/1 There is a comment that states "Pride of Britain". I wonder just how much of it is actually British... The weapons certainly aren't. Paveway II was a British bomb with US guidance. All subseuqent Pavveways have been purely American. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corsairfoxfouruncle Posted October 30, 2019 Share Posted October 30, 2019 11 hours ago, Andrew Jones said: Who's going to be first to model a F35 carrying a Grand Slam ? Where do you mount it, maybe on the spine ? ... Otherwise it may be a bit adult themed for a forum like this. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now