|
F-35 헤드라인: F-35의 제한된 공대공 능력 F-35의 공대공 능력이 생각보다 제한적인 것으로 알려짐. AIM-9X 미사일은 탑재되지 않을 뿐만 아니라, ASRAAM과 같은 무기는 F-35에 탑재되기 힘들 것으로 보여지며, 따라서 탑재될 수 있는 무기량이 적을 것임. 록히드 마틴이 주장하는 F-35의 공대공 능력은 아직 구두에 그칠 뿐이며, 더 많은 양의 미사일을 탑재한 전투기가 F-35의 스텔스 효과를 큰 폭으로 최소화 시킬 수도 있음. F-35's air-to-air ability limited Elpdefense news June 28, 2013 Author: Eric Palmer The traveling game simulation by-any-other-name used to sell the F-35 to the gullible is unlikely to represent how the aircraft will face modern threats. That is if it ever gets fielded properly with working (not watered down) mission systems.
The F-35 will have no AIM-9X internal carry. The AIM-9X is a rail-launched missile.
Note how the F-22 deals with this AIM-9M rail mounted missile.
A blast shield (red arrow).
(click image to make larger)
How the weapon deploys into the F-22 air stream.
(click image to make larger)
The ASRAAM is bigger and longer ranged. It will have some trouble being integrated internally with the F-35. Developers had to back off the claim of 4 inside the F-35 and go for 2. Yet, it is also a rail mounted missile that would need a complex trapeze so as to get out of the internal bay from the air-to-ground station.
Door mounted? Good luck.
The ASRAAM is what the U.K. is counting on for its' main F-35 air-to-air missile. So far for the heaters it is outside only and thus, not very stealthy. The makers of the ASRAAM said they could conjure up a stealthy wing pylon but that is nothing more than spin.
The STOVL requirement for the F-35 is part of the problem. The only way to have a joint design (F-35A, B and C) was to have two weapons bays in an odd configuration to allow for the lift-fan to work on the F-35B. And, LM won the JSF competition in 2001 by not having to demonstrate a weapons bay function.  Bayless: LM's X-35 won the JSF competition without having to prove weapons bay function.
LM was allowed to con the DOD that their company's JSF weapons bay risk was reduced by already showing it with the F-22.
They are so similar aren't they?
 F-22 weapons bays (click image to make larger)  F-35 weapons bays. If that door-mounted (red-arrow) AMRAAM was a rail launched ASRAAM, how would it not be a burn hazard? (click image to make larger)
Weapons clearance with the F-35 will always be tricky with that odd bay arrangement.
So what gives? With the AMRAAM having a probability-of-kill of 50pc. vs easy targets, we can expect problems with the F-35 trying to do air-to-air as some of the fan-base hopes against, lets say, a true, high-performance jet with more missiles, cross-eyed jamming and, the ability to minimize the F-35's export-stealth requirement. And those are the non-stealthy threats.
If the F-35 gets to within-visual-range of a capable enemy fighter, below-parity is the best it can hope for with outside mounted ASRAAMs or AIM-9X. That assumes the helmet ever works.
LM is worried--in the blue-sky-marketing kind of way--and has this for its' followers.
Really...nothing. Because it does not exist.
Cuda? Well, we are currently parking combat capable flying squadrons. I doubt we will ever find the money for another clean-sheet air-to-air missile project that will likely not be affordable (assuming it works). By-the-way; the last budget buy of AMRAAMs was over $2M each.
Bargain!
The F-35's alleged air-to-air capability is nothing more than a faith-based argument. At some point, customers will discover they are being had.
Something to think about when a U.S. general or admiral lies before Congress when briefing about the F-35.
|
문의