The Joint Strike Fighter could be upgraded to carry up to six internal AIM-120 AMRAAM Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missiles, according to a Lockheed Martin executive. "Our spiral development program includes the ability to carry up to six internal AMRAAMs", G. Richard Cathers, senior manager of Lockheed Martin's strategic studies group, told the IQPC Fighter Conference in London on Wednesday. "It's a capability second only to the F-22."
Cathers added that the JSF's air-combat capability "has not been advertised as it could or should have been", partly because "at the same time as we are developing the F-35, we and the USAF have wanted to expand the F-22 program." Apparently, the USAF has not wanted to advertise the JSF's air-to-air capability, concerned that it would weaken the case for acquiring more than the 183 F-22s authorized today.
The four added internal AMRAAMs would be carried in place of internal bombs. It's not clear, however, whether the short-take-off, vertical landing F-35B variant, which has smaller weapon bays, would be able to carry the added weapons.
An executive for a competing fighter program, speaking at the conference, said that the six-missile capability would be a major improvement for the JSF. Until now, competitors have criticised the JSF because it carries only two AAMs - supporting only a single engagement - in stealth mode.
Even if this is not the case, then I would like to see how they intend to manage it the third round without going external or encapsulate. Stacking weapons goes against doctrine (one jam, two failures) and things like an expanded bay door system (to load weapons on both sides), as has been mooted for the FB-22, would almost certainly imply significant external moldline and resulting aerodynamic and signature changes that would effectively mean requalifying the airframe.
I also think that if the F-35 is what they imply as an effective air superiority fighter, it deserves to have it's profile method explained as being certainly different from that of the F-22 which can add 50% or more to it's weapons kinematics by superboosting in military thrust. Whereas the JSF has to use burner on the wrong end of a very long radius.
Obviously, the F-35 has some cockpit and spectrum advantages vs. the Raptor in areas like multisensor fusion and wide area netcentrics across multiple platforms.
But even with AIM-120D, I would have to see its performance vs. other modern aircraft (i.e. those with Gen-3 IRSTs and datalinks of their own) before I would necessarily accept the notion that another sub/transonic cruise platform with X-band only FQ stealth could truly dominate in a modern day threat environment where the principle threat will likely be S2A not A2A.
I have a feeling that the good folks at LM are ignoring a lot of lessons learned in both AIMVAL/ACEVAL and the later TAC Brawler simulations about how optical threats in particular really work.
LEG