Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tookatee

All variants of the American A-10, B-2, B-52, F-15E, F-16, F-35, and all other variants of the F/A-18 are missing the ability to load the Mk82 Snakeeye.
Also, the Mk 83 AIR and the Mk 84 AIR should also have all the aircraft included on their LDGB versions.

Image displaying the full armament of the F-35 as stated by Lockheed Martin (this also highlights the fact that it can't equip the LDGB Mk82/3/4 and their ballute versions as well.)



Sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_82_bomb, https://www.slideshare.net/robbinlaird/f-35-and-current-weapons, and CMANO (as all aircraft that can hold the Mk 82/3/4 can equip the Ballute or Snakeeye versions of those weapons as they are purely mechanical bolt-on modifications to the bomb itself.)

quote:

If the F-35 can load and equip the JDAM variants of the Mk series of weapons then it can equip the less advanced, purely mechanical AIR and Snakeeye versions of those weapons. Just like the JDAM kits they are just bolt-on modifications to the Mk series of bombs that allow for different delivery methods, except unlike the JDAM kits (that have on-board electronics) they don't require any sort of special connection or avionics on the aircraft.

quote:

And pilot training is irrelevant for the database, that's a factor for scenario authors to consider. Like I said before the database should have complete and accurate records of the capabilities for all the vehicles included in it so that they can be used in the most scenarios possible.

quote:

Finally here's yet another source I found that describes the F-35's ability to load the Mk82 and its associated versions http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/planes/q0163.shtml

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dragon029

The purpose of the database is to provide realistic loadouts and systems as used by respective operators - USMC F-35Bs could employ ASRAAMs for example, but they're not included in the USMC F-35B loadouts because they're not a weapon that's used by the USMC, even when they're co-located with RAF / RN units. If you want to add Snake Eyes to an F-35 for a specific scenario, you can do that right now using the aircraft weapons edit window.

quote:


The JDAM kits affect the range of the weapons and have impacts on the separation dynamics (more so for the high drag variants); that impacts the ability for pilots to employ the weapon (although for Snake Eyes, HUD guidance cues aren't really an issue).

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tookatee
That's a completely different case, unlike weapons like the ASRAAM the Mk series of weapons are employed all across the different branches of the armed forces as the general purpose bomb. The F-35 has provisions to equip these weapons externally, as proven by its ability to equip the JDAM variants of the Mk series of bombs. I understand that the unguided MK series of weapons aren't the primary loadout for a stealth aircraft, however at times when such weapons aren't available (such as after all the other ordinance have been expended) the database lacking the ability to let you equip these unguided variants can be frustrating. As it is now (in addition to all those other missing aircraft I stated) the database currently has an inaccurate portrayal of the MK series of bomb's weapons carriers.

quote:


I don't see how this is even relevant to what I said, JDAM weapons are simply bolt on guidance kits for the Mk series of bombs. The ability to equip JDAMs does not magically prohibit said aircraft from equipping the Mk series of bombs without a JDAM kit. The F-35 has a ballistic computer and can employ these weapons just like any other aircraft can.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dragon029

Hell, I haven't even heard of the US employing any unguided Mk-82/83/84s in actual combat this century.

quote:


ORIGINAL: Dragon0291
Hundreds of thousands of JDAM guidance kits have been delivered and similar amount of Paveway kits have also been delivered. Hell, I haven't even heard of the US employing any unguided Mk-82/83/84s in actual combat this century.

quote:


The F-35 does have a ballistic computer, but it's entirely possible that it's designed to factor in the drag qualities of weapons - a GBU-12 won't fall the same way as a GBU-31, which won't fall the same way as a Mk-84 unguided, which won't fall the same way as a Mk-84 Snake Eye.

quote:


Also as previously mentioned, the weapon ejector configurations are also going to be important; aircraft wakes require weapons to be ejected slightly different from different stations and aircraft, and so if an F-35 kicks out a Mk-82 the same way it does a GBU-12, it might get launched with (eg) serious negative alpha and lose a bunch of energy / range that the ballistic computer doesn't factor in.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dragon029

That page was written in 2004 and is out of date; here's an official Lockheed chart from 2018 on what loadouts that can be used on the F-35 today:

quote:

ORIGINAL: KLAB

Request to change target set and add new single ground mount:
#3157 Martlet [FASGW(L) / LMM] -- 2016

https://youtu.be/B8bX89VFLg8?t=42

LMM has an anti air capability. Footage on the link.

It currently is limited to surface targets in the Martlet LMM.

Plus there is a single missile mount / shoulder launched for ground operations being tested by the Royal Marines.
Royal Marines fire the new Lightweight Multirole Missile from a shoulder launcher (Image: MoD)

https://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/news/local-news/royal-navy-marines-kill-banshee-3055375

For consideration for future updates please?
K

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tookatee
That's poor logic to exclude those weapons, said weapons are still retained in large numbers across the country, on all aircraft carriers, and in other nations where they were exported/license to be produced. The aircraft can carry said munitions
so I see no reason why that should be limited, as Skyhawk88 and I have said it simply allows for more options with the aircraft.

quote:


You are literally talking about entirely different weapons than the JDAM series of bombs (also I don't know if you've seen the F-35 in the database or even the sources on your chart, but it can and DOES equip the GBU-31 already which makes that whole statement invalid), those weapons have drastically different flight characteristics than JDAMs (of which are nearly identical to the LDBG variants of the Mk series of bombs.) Also it's the 21st century, ballistic bomb computers can be and are programmed with a wide variety of munitions.

quote:


The exact same thing applies here, the F-35 is configured to release JDAMs (and therefore the normal Mk series of bombs) from it's external pylons in a safe manner. In fact, that line of reasoning is partly why I specifically stated in my original post to not include creating clones of the JDAM internal loadouts.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ARCNA442
This graphic posted by Dragon029 inspired me to look at the current F-35 database entries and I found several significant errors. Note that I only looked at the USA variants and not the foreign ones.

quote:


I'm generally in favour of giving players / designers more options (I'm one of the guys that was salty about database editing being 'fixed' years back), but frankly, where do you stop? I also don't see how you can say that but also argue that having the ASRAAM excluded from US, etc F-35s makes sense.

quote:


GBU-12s are just Mk82 bombs with a guidance kit, just like how GBU-38s are Mk82 bombs with a guidance kit. I also never said that the GBU-31 wasn't a weapon integrated, I was pointing out how different variants of the Mk82/83/84 bomb series are going to fall differently.

quote:


And yes you're absolutely correct that ballistic bomb computers can be programmed with a wide variety of munitions, but not by pilots - they can't just key in drag coefficients, etc at a whim; these things have to be added to the jet's software by engineers

quote:


and that simply just hasn't happened because no F-35 operator has plans to use unguided bombs on the F-35.

quote:


Another thing to note too is that the only external bombs that have undergone separation testing is the GBU-12 / GBU-49. GBU-31s and GBU-32s have been carried externally for flight sciences testing, but not dropped.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tookatee

The #4117 and #4118 B-52H are missing: x20 count loadouts for both the Mk84 bombs and the GBU-31 and a x51 count loadout for the Mk82 and GBU-38. The CRL added this additional weapons capacity to the aircraft.


Sources: https://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/b52/ , and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_B-52_Stratofortress

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tookatee
I never argued that in any way, I only pointed out that your example with the ASRAAM was different when compared to the Mk series. The Mk series of bombs are weapons that the United States currently operates and has LARGE stockpiles of, your attempt at using the ASRAAM's exclusivity to the Marine Corp as a reason why all F-35s shouldnt have the Mk82 was wrong because again unlike the ASRAAM the Mk82 is used by ALL branches of the United States armed air forces.

quote:


The GBU-12's guidance kit is significantly different than the JDAM on things like the GBU-38. The GBU-12 is based on the Paveway, which is a much more comprehensive system built from the ground up in the factory, while it is based on the Mk82 it's aerodynamics are much different as it follows a sinusoidal, direct flightpath, while the JDAM is more of a lofted glide. JDAM kits on the other hand are true bolt on conversion kits for the Mk series that are applied in the field.

quote:


One, I meant that the ballistic computers already have those munitions programmed into them by said engineers, computer technology has come a long way since the 1980's.
And two, this is a moot point as said coefficients are likely already programmed into the computer/able to be easily obtained and integrated at a moment's notice as it's software. But its much more likely that they're already programmed in.

quote:


False, just recently the Air Force dropped a JDAM from an F-35A against an ISIS tunnel network in Iraq.
https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a27334324/f-35a-combat/

quote:


ORIGINAL: Dragon029

I think it's highly unlikely they're programmed in; Lockheed didn't even program in lead-laser capability because it wasn't listed as a system requirement (despite being rather important to hit fast moving targets with GBU-12s). Programming the data in probably wouldn't take long (just probably a few days), but we're now talking about a hypothetical F-35 that doesn't exist.

quote:


If the JDAM takes on a lofted glide, doesn't that mean that the F-35's ballistic computers will be using that flight path as the assumed flight path vs a purely ballistic path of an unguided bomb

quote:


They're not actually used operationally though, which is my point

quote:

ORIGINAL: apache85

Can you guys take your arguments somewhere else and keep this thread for requests please.

quote:

ORIGINAL: apache85

Can you guys take your arguments somewhere else and keep this thread for requests please.