Thread 64512175

How much should a good stealth fighter be able to carry in its internal weapons bays?
1. For a2a missions
2. For strike missions

>>64512175 (OP)
As much as possible

What a dumb question

>>64512175 (OP)
What a slut, showing off like that

She'll let you look, maybe even give you a radar return for juuust a second, but you're not allowed to touch

>>64512175 (OP)
Honestly just a few SDBs or HARMs are enough for A2G, the point of stealth is to clear the sky for much cheaper planes.
A2A it really depends on your budget, if you can only afford 1 strike fighter in service you want it to carry a heap and if you can afford to have a high speed missile truck aswell then it can mainly be forward AWACS for the missile trucks.

>>64512175 (OP)
The F-35's strike setup is great and about right for its size and endurance. Two AAMs with an option of either 2 GBU-31s or 8 GBU-53/B. However, it desperately needs the Sidekick upgrade for 6 AAMs on air superiority missions. Only 4 missiles makes me feel uneasy.
Also >>64512233

>>64512256
>Only 4 missiles makes me feel uneasy.
4 internally
even with all of its hardpoints maxed out with missiles, its still stealthier than a conventional fighter loadout

>>64512233
The point is that you have to make compromises to get bigger internal bays, so the ideal stealth fighter has exactly enough internal capacity to get the job done. Too little and you can't fulfill objectives, too much and your other capabilities are reduced

>>64512252
This. Knock out the AA network and finish it off with Rapid Dragon.

>>64512175 (OP)
Not that much, since the drones are going to be doing most of the work.

>>64512994
this is like the Walmart version of what the Chinese are planning with J36, J50, J20 and J35 + hi/lo drone mix

>>64512501
>Lowrider by war starts playing

>>64516282 How is the j20 re-engine program going?

>>64516407
NTA but they're finally cobbling enough together to make them for a little over 100 planes a year, problem is MTBOH is still in the 3 figure range so they're gonna be falling apart as quickly as they make them.

>>64516391
>this looks like the knockoff version of what the chinese are going to do with their knockoff aircraft
Where do you think they got the idea from?

>>64512175 (OP)
6

>>64512263
I think they should make a LO external hardpoint, maybe wingtip. They're already working on a stealth AIM-9X right?
4 AMRAAMs + 2 Sidewinders is a potent A2A loadout.

>>64516391
Fitting, since Walmart is their funding source.

>>64516602
>a LO external hardpoint, maybe wingtip
anon, I...

>>64516613
Thanks for the vaguepost. I know they already have external hardpoints, but they're RCS billboards, and I know any hardpoint will increase RCS, but ambush protection may be worth the slightly increased visibility for some missions.

>>64516635
"I would like to be under a glass of water when it is poured but I opt to not get wet"

>>64516676
And to that end, I employ a team of engineers to develop an affordable, non-toxic hydrophobic coating that can be safely sprayed on skin and clothes, or look for an off-the-shelf solution.
See, anon? That's what money is for.

>>64516750
a non engineer simply decides if under the water or dry has more value and moves on. Stupid fucking engineers...

>>64516676
>>64516635
>>64516613
Or an eject able pylon that detaches after the missiles are launched. This way the F-35 returns to a clean, stealthy config after expending it's ordinance.

>>64512985
I need to make a monspubis edit of this

>>64516783
you people are a disease on this board, and every time you post your insufferable force meme, its just one more reminder about the alien freak 'staff' paid to post here

>>64517580
you are literally the only anon who seethes about this. kys lmao.

>>64516635
>but they're RCS billboards, and I know any hardpoint will increase RCS, but ambush protection may be worth the slightly increased visibility for some missions.
the F-35 is so stealthy that even with all external hardpoints filled up, its still harder to spot than an F-15

and being able to carry 4 missiles in stealth mode is better than the 0 missiles any other plane can carry because they have no stealth mode at all

>>64517633
The F-15 is a low bar because it doesn't incorporate any stealth at all. It's closer to an clean F/A-18 SH, 0.5^2m RCS.

>>64517633
So? I'm not saying stealth is useless, far from it. I'm acknowledging its incredible usefulness by saying one should design for it. Stealthy pylons would also be useful for carrying JASSMs and LO external fuel tanks. A LO pylon is low-hanging fruit that could give the F-35 extra capability nearly for free when stealth is still needed but not as critical, such as long-range missions, standoff weapon deployment, and less AA-dense contexts.

>>64517740
because saying it has too few missiles in pure stealth mode is a weird thing to criticize it for, when most planes dont have an any stealth mode at all
and if you need more missiles, then it can carry external missiles anyways, and its still hard to spot with those loaded

>>64517763
4 AMRAAMs is good, that's already what most fourth gens carry for A2A. The possibility of 6 is even better, but Sidekick is a long ways off.
I'm arguing for two extra Sidewinders, a variant with a stealth profile to reduce the aircraft's RCS, to be mounted on external LO pylons to engage pop-up threats (e.g. missile interception) and provide insurance against ambushes by adversarial LO aircraft. I think the Navy also wanted extended-range AIM-9Xs for infrared BVR, which is a cool concept.

But you make a fair point by saying that the RCS reduction brought about by special pylons might be not enough difference to make a difference, as Paul Harrell used to say. IDK man, I just like Sidewinders.