Can the Eurofighter carry more missiles than the JSF or F-22?

I was just wondering, can this really be true? I dont know much about aircraft but it looks to me that the Eurofighter does have a higher capacity for missiles. Heres the picture that made this come to mind.

www.geocities.com...

Those missles seem pretty large, I know there are smaller ones but the F-22 seems like it cant hold as many missiles with its internal missile bay.

[edit on 6-7-2006 by wildcat]

In basic configuration the Typhoon can carry 10 AAM's, 4 X AMRAAM/Meteor plus 6 X ASRAAM/AIM-9.

For the sake of pure numbers the most of a missile that Typhoon can carry is 16 x Brimstone ant armour missiles, in addition to 4x AMRAAM/Meteor making 20 overall.

I think the standard basic fit of ther F-22 is 8 missiles and the Su-30 basic fit is 10 like the Typhoon.

The Typhoon can be configured in various ways such as 8 X AMRAAM, or 6 X ALARM plus 4 X AMRAAM or 4x Storm Shadow stealth cruise missiles plus 4 X AMRAAM. Therefore the question of whether it can carry more missiles depends entrely on the mission.

the middle missiles are just normal amraams and the missiles on the wings are sidewinders. nothin unusual at all as far as i can see

the f-22 has internal weapons bays did u include these in you comparison?

justin

[edit on 6-7-2006 by justin_barton3]

Originally posted by justin_barton3
the middle missiles are just normal amraams and the missiles on the wings are sidewinders. nothin unusual at all as far as i can see

the f-22 has internal weapons bays did u include these in you comparison?

justin

[edit on 6-7-2006 by justin_barton3]

Oh I already knew that but I didnt know the name to call it.

In the heaviest layout, I believe a Raptor can only carry 10 missiles, 8 in the bays, 2 on the outside with fuel tanks.

The JSF, I don't know or the Eurofighter.

Shattered OUT...

Thought I saw a picture of a Super Hornet with 12 AAM's let me see if I can find it.

Edit: Here you go



Including the wingtip sidewinders thats 12 total

Edit-Edit. The possibility exist that the two outmost missiles on the main pylons are HARMS but AAM's could be placed on those pylons

[edit on 7/6/06 by FredT]

[edit on 7/6/06 by FredT]

While the standard A2A F-22 engagement is 8 internal missiles (6 x AIM-120 + 2 x AIM-9) to preserve stealth, it does have the ability to carry an additional 8 missiles, possibly more if configured for it, on its 4 external pylons, each is rated at 5,000 LB. Don't know about the F-35, and I believe currently the Typhoon can carry a more diverse array of missiles.

Lockheed exagerations.

The F-22's weapons bay is very shallow and the deployment system is four separate trapeze mounts. 4 missiles. No six about it - ever, unless they employ a system that was originally developed by Northop-Grumman for the F-23 that would stack the missles. However - this was a primary concern for the choice of the F-22 over the F-23 as it was feared that a weapon jam could prevent the release of the missiles above it. So if it's used - I'll find it highly insulting. The weapons bay is also too shallow for this to happen - unless they were to start hacking into the rest of the airframe - which will probably mean cutting into fuel stores.

There are two bays on either side of the engine intakes. These are each capable of housing 1 Aim-9 series air to air infra-red guided missles. Their range is aproximately 5 Nauticle Miles.

I'm not sure about the EFA - although modern avionics and hardpoint mounting schemes allow for almost any weapon to be mounted anywhere on the plane that can withstand the weight and extra G-pull during maneuvers. That - and the size of the components can't interfere with sensors, landing gear, etc.

[edit on 7-7-2006 by Aim64C]

Fred, is it me or do those pylons on the F-18 picture look incredibly thick and draggy?

Originally posted by Aim64C
Lockheed exagerations.

The F-22's weapons bay is very shallow and the deployment system is four separate trapeze mounts. 4 missiles. No six about it - ever, unless they employ a system that was originally developed by Northop-Grumman for the F-23 that would stack the missles. However - this was a primary concern for the choice of the F-22 over the F-23 as it was feared that a weapon jam could prevent the release of the missiles above it. So if it's used - I'll find it highly insulting. The weapons bay is also too shallow for this to happen - unless they were to start hacking into the rest of the airframe - which will probably mean cutting into fuel stores.

There are two bays on either side of the engine intakes. These are each capable of housing 1 Aim-9 series air to air infra-red guided missles. Their range is aproximately 5 Nauticle Miles.

The F-22 can carry six AMRAAMS in the main weapons bay. It carries the small fin AMRAAMs instead of the original ones which took up more space.

That picture does not really show how the missiles are held. The missiles are staggered in the bay so fins on adjacent missiles do not interfere with each other when they are launched. There are also six launchers in the main bay. That picture is misleading in that sense.

[edit on 8-7-2006 by JFrazier]

Originally posted by waynos
Fred, is it me or do those pylons on the F-18 picture look incredibly thick and draggy?

yeah they do indeed. Also note the lack of any external fuel. I suspect that in a combat role esp. off of a carrier you would never see an E/F flying with this weapons load out. However, off of land bases with an AESA radar, perhaps you might see them so equipped if they were going up for cruise missile defence.

With that load out id bet that there are sig. restrictions on G's, speed and range.....

Yes Fred. Maybe a more straightforward thing to compare is the standard clean configuration of each fighter, although this may be operationally unrealistic as it doesn't allow for external fuel etc.

For instance the standard clean config for the Typhoon is identical to the Raptors I believe with four AMRAAM and two ASRAAM (or equivalent), with the Typhoon carrying the 4 AMRAAM conformally and the two ASRAAM on outboard underwing rails (which are a standard fit not an option like other pylons), where of course the Raptors are all inside the fuselage.**

The F-18 used to have a standard clean fit of two Sparrow semi conformally and two wingtip sidewinders, apart from the Sparroe being replaced by AMRAAM, is the F-18E still the same in this regard?




** if an enemy could devise an electronic device that stopped the Raptors weapon bay doors from opening that would be a useful thing to carry

[edit on 9-7-2006 by waynos]

More than F-35 is ok, more than F-22, no way!

Originally posted by FredT
Thought I saw a picture of a Super Hornet with 12 AAM's let me see if I can find it.
Edit: Here you go

Including the wingtip sidewinders thats 12 total
Edit-Edit. The possibility exist that the two outmost missiles on the main pylons are HARMS but AAM's could be placed on those pylons

By the way, could you upload a S.H. really full load? Your posted pic show the SH lacking two missile beside airintake

[edit on 9-7-2006 by emile]

F-22 currently carries less misilles than Typhoon. I think those ones on external pylons cannot be even fired currently, those pylons are there just to ferry them. However they can be easily upgraded and then F-22 is much better in this aspect. It has much higher total payload than EF, it could teoretically carry 8 JASSM missiles. That said F-22 has much higher potencial concerning payload, primarily because its bigger than EF.

Originally posted by waynos

For instance the standard clean config for the Typhoon is identical to the Raptors I believe with four AMRAAM and two ASRAAM (or equivalent), with the Typhoon carrying the 4 AMRAAM conformally and the two ASRAAM on outboard underwing rails (which are a standard fit not an option like other pylons), where of course the Raptors are all inside the fuselage.**

Like I said before, the standard loadout for the F-22 is six AMRAAMs and two Sidewinders.

Yes you did JF, sorry I forgot about that. Point taken.

Wildcat,

>>
I was just wondering, can this really be true? I dont know much about aircraft but it looks to me that the Eurofighter does have a higher capacity for missiles. Heres the picture that made this come to mind.
>>

"It ain't how many you shoot, son, it's how many that hit..." or words to that effect (John Wayne, 'The Shootist').

>>
Those missles seem pretty large, I know there are smaller ones but the F-22 seems like it cant hold as many missiles with its internal missile bay.
>>

Though Waynos should know better in terms of total weapons load (we get two more tries, BVR, than the Flubber does and ours will come out of the bay upwards of 50% further downrange thanks to supercruise) what it comes down to is this-

0nm...................25nm..................40nm.................60nm.................80nm
Su-3X.................F-22A with AIM-120B
Su-3X..........................................F-22A with AIM-120C5
Su-3X....................................................................F-22A with AIM-120C7
Su-3X...........................................................................................'' AIM-120D

Where the threshold detection range of the Su-30 will depend greatly upon what's under the hood (radome) but will likely never be more than 40nm nor less than 15.

You also need to remember that so long as the Brits are stuck with B-warstock and mechanical scan CAPTOR radars, they probably lack the ability to do this-

0nm...................25nm..................40nm.................60nm.................80nm
Su-3X..........................................F-22A Shooter with AIM-120D
....................................................|.................................F-22 Illuminator
....................................................|........................................................
....................................................\/.......................................................

THIS IS IMPORTANT.

Because that big fat arrow means Junior Jet Jock is now driving AWAY FROM THE FIGHT a potentially as much as Mach 1.8. While the missiles, having been fired at half their theoretical maximum employment range, can now continue on to terminal engagement with twice the terminal smackdown energy and _still receive midcourse and terminal handoff guidance_ from the trailing section. Which is likely another 20-40nm to the rear and offset.

Given the R-77M is probably itself good for 60-80km, that means that even if the missile bait in the cockpit of the Sukhoi hears the rear illuminator (broadcasting like a Tomcat) he can't kill him. And if he doesn't _immediately_ turn about and run like a scalded cat, he will eat AMRAAM in about 60-80 seconds.

There is some question as to whether to crank (raise the AOA and throttle back to slow closure) or come off and extend (lateral RCS is higher and you are trailing an exposed jet plume). But either way, the likelihood is incredibly high that the so-called 'Super Flanker' will die before it can pass a final update to it's missiles.

At which point they cannot find either Raptor if they make a significant change in ground track or heighting (denying the seeker cube).

Now. Since lord knows I wouldn't want to be accused of 'being unfairly biased' against the Brits and their lovely little Gen-3++ flying mustache, let it herein be said that the Flubber, with two upgrades to the AMSAR and Meteor can do the same thing. At potentially twice the range. With half the fuel burn and half the closure rate towards enemy threats.

The difference being that they depend on the _threat_ to retain a 3-5m2 frontal signature so that they can or their cueing AWACS see them conventionally. Relying on your potential enemy to be your savior is generally, ahem, not the wisest thing in the world.

Target @ Z....................................S-300 @ Y............................Flubber @ X

More importantly, it also creates a scenario whereby you are at X you have double digit SAMs at Y and you have to 'escort' other jets into Z. And the typical telephone pole these days _against a conventional signature airframe_ is good for anywhere between 150 and 400km worth of range. This has the rather deleterious effect of making you just a vulnerable to the S2A threat as you thought you were to the A2A one. Which is ironic given S2A has traditionally downed about 70-80% of all aircraft, historically. More particularly, it drives off your AEW&C and Tanking and and and. Which means you are san-support missions. And unable to do the Shooter Illuminator trick.

Now, there are ways to get by this. MP-RTIP will take the AWACS mission out to a 400-600km initially and 'line of sight' eventually. Overhead Teal Ruby type systems will also go a long ways towards providing theater wide engagement. And tropobounce surface radars may also help. So long as _somebody_ has the track on the target, they can hand the data to the missiles in flight.

Which means that, with the impulse advantage of a ram weapon, you can come in underneath the horizon and loft weapons as indeed the Brits did in ODS with ALARM.

To me, it's all a bit too complicated. Not least because A2A is itself just another support mission and you have to kill the S2A threats before you can 'seriously' set to bombing the crap out of some poor idiot.

And the Brits apparently agree because they are humping our legs like scotts terriers begging for a taste at a barbecue. All over the JSF itself a rather pathetic jet to which our wondrous 'allies' have contributed little too but want the technology base /for/, rather desperately.

The ultimate question of course is suppression vs. targeting. If you can find a launch box and kill it, you have sanitized perhaps a 20 square mile area around it for your use. But right now, we can only achieve this through onboard systems which are reliant on cross-tagging RHAWS/ELS to a SAR or FLIR based geolocation fix (slant range vs. bearing known). And again, this is not possible or indeed /applicable/ for a lot of modern SAM systems because they have been doing 'netcentric' (separate cue, FCR and rail) since the late 60's at least.

Unfortunately, the UCAV system originally seen as a robotic weasel throwaway asset (sent in early and able to triangulate among multiple airframes) was quickly seen to be superior to all 'fighters' as a pure _bomber_ airframe. And thus we now have no true means with which to real-time EOB and launch-plume plot a dense threat matrix over a wide enough area to protect conventional, package based, airframes against the double-digit and even 'upgrade' (SA-2/3/6) systems as would be nice.

CONCLUSION:
Don't think about the ammo in the clip. Think about the sights on the gun and the nature of the shot and the shooter. 'More' only means better if you LIVE to put all your rounds into all targets. And right now, even with the Su-30, a 'by the numbers' approach just isn't possible for ANY of the 'threat' airforces of the world. Against even Gen-3+ like the upgraded F-15.


KPl.

Apart from the florid language, which I wouldn't have chosen to use, but which I have at least learned not to get annoyed by, that is pretty much right on the money KPI.

Who can tell me how many missiles F-35's bomb bay can carries at most? 4 mid-range-missiles plus 2 short-range missiles or 2 mid-range missiles plus 4 short-range missiles? I mean only internal bomb bay, no outside pylon.

Originally posted by emile
Who can tell me how many missiles F-35's bomb bay can carries at most? 4 mid-range-missiles plus 2 short-range missiles or 2 mid-range missiles plus 4 short-range missiles? I mean only internal bomb bay, no outside pylon.

According to Bill Sweetman's _Ultimate Fighter_ -

www.amazon.com...

Internally, the F-35 can carry TWO missiles. And only two.

This because the primary JDAM well is too deep to stuff a LAU-141/142 into and still clear the missile thru the boundary layer.

Now, the title has a 2004 copyright and so may be subject to 'historical error' inherent to the USAF desire to shield the Raptor from shared mission capability leveraging. But what you end up facing is the realization that this jet, far from being a 'superior A2G machine' has only one real choice when it comes to (at least symmetrical loadouts) 'do we bomb or do we duel' loadings.

I myself have other questions about the integration of the BRU-61 on the F-35 in terms of spacing and drop clearance of an even smaller munition system but...that's as official as it gets for the moment.


KPl.