A question regarding weapons integration

[ManteoRed]

I havent posted here in a while, but the discussions regarding the war in Ukraine over on twitter has had me wondering lately.

In the hypothetical where something along the lines of an F-16 just for example was provided to Ukraine, how difficult is the integration process of new weapons onto an air frame?

I understand that during peace time operations its an often several years long, and very expensive process. Months of aerodynamic testing to make sure theres no induced funny business. Lines of code are picked through with a fine tooth comb, every I is dotted and T crossed, and an army of lawyers triple checks every signature.

But if the proverbial schit ever hit the fan and the peacetime red tape was cut, could the US for example throw a pile of cash at Euro manufacturers and buy Meteors or Storm Shadows etc to supplement stocks and get them hung under American aircraft in a rush, weeks or a month or two?

I understand there are NATO standard data buses but Im not sure if the "language" over those links between the missiles and the aircraft systems is also standardized. Is it Windows software on a Mac operating system, or is there a standardization so they can understand each other if need be?

Just whatever your thoughts are on it. I know theres a lot of technical former service guys lurking around here.

 

[ngatimozart]

IF Ukraine was supplied with F-16s then they would most likely go with weapons already integrated on to the F-16. Integration is a time consuming,risky, and expensive process. Risky because of the >0.5 probability that problems will arise during the process resulting in delays and higher expenditure than budgeted. The longer the delay the higher the cost overruns.

 

[SABRE]

I havent posted here in a while, but the discussions regarding the war in Ukraine over on twitter has had me wondering lately.

In the hypothetical where something along the lines of an F-16 just for example was provided to Ukraine, how difficult is the integration process of new weapons onto an air frame?

I understand that during peace time operations its an often several years long, and very expensive process. Months of aerodynamic testing to make sure theres no induced funny business. Lines of code are picked through with a fine tooth comb, every I is dotted and T crossed, and an army of lawyers triple checks every signature.

But if the proverbial schit ever hit the fan and the peacetime red tape was cut, could the US for example throw a pile of cash at Euro manufacturers and buy Meteors or Storm Shadows etc to supplement stocks and get them hung under American aircraft in a rush, weeks or a month or two?

I understand there are NATO standard data buses but Im not sure if the "language" over those links between the missiles and the aircraft systems is also standardized. Is it Windows software on a Mac operating system, or is there a standardization so they can understand each other if need be?

Just whatever your thoughts are on it. I know theres a lot of technical former service guys lurking around here.

In addition to what ngatimozart has said, although there have been exceptions, I do not think the US would be keen on integrating non-US weapon systems and/or avionics on their war machines. It would prefer Ukraine to acquire US origin weapon systems along with F-16s. In other words, the US would rather prefer throwing that supposed pile of cash at its own venders instead of the Europeans'.

 

[Big_Zucchini]

In the west, particularly NATO (but not entirely limited to it), there is a great deal of standardization, and a culture of redundancy. New items can be added without certification as long as they have sufficient fall-back features. For example the AGM-88 HARM sold to Ukraine were not properly integrated to their fleet of aircraft, but they did quickly develop a physical interface so munitions could be released with a button in the cockpit, and the HARM had sufficient fall-back features to allow a limited use without all the necessary equipment. It was a significantly dumbed-down weapon, but it does occasionally show an effect.
Take for example a JDAM. It can do GPS navigation, has INS, and some versions also have laser guidance. Ukraine could not use them on real-time targets because they don't have the laser designators for them, or they have to be modified somehow for JDAMs, but they can provide GPS data before take-off. Maybe Ukraine doesn't have the know-how and equipment to calibrate INS, so they'll rely (hypothetically) on GPS alone, decreasing their accuracy by several meters.

Weapons like the Storm Shadow typically have mission data loaded into the missile before flight, so integration is very easy. It just may not provide a real-time datalink to the aircraft.

 

[koxinga]

but they did quickly develop a physical interface so munitions could be released with a button in the cockpit

Philippine Airforce OV-10s had a laser guided munition capability (using Raytheon's Wipak) for a number of years and it is via separate, standalone interface. This was the only reason why an old platform could drop Paveways. Same technology can be adapted to other munitions, as @Big_Zucchini mentioned.

Raytheon develops WiPak for Paveway integration - Airforce Technology

Raytheon has completed the development and testing of WiPak, a new method for the wireless integration of its Paveway family of laser-guided bombs (LGB) onto an aircraft.

www.airforce-technology.com

 

[StobieWan]

I havent posted here in a while, but the discussions regarding the war in Ukraine over on twitter has had me wondering lately.

In the hypothetical where something along the lines of an F-16 just for example was provided to Ukraine, how difficult is the integration process of new weapons onto an air frame?

I understand that during peace time operations its an often several years long, and very expensive process. Months of aerodynamic testing to make sure theres no induced funny business. Lines of code are picked through with a fine tooth comb, every I is dotted and T crossed, and an army of lawyers triple checks every signature.

But if the proverbial schit ever hit the fan and the peacetime red tape was cut, could the US for example throw a pile of cash at Euro manufacturers and buy Meteors or Storm Shadows etc to supplement stocks and get them hung under American aircraft in a rush, weeks or a month or two?

I understand there are NATO standard data buses but Im not sure if the "language" over those links between the missiles and the aircraft systems is also standardized. Is it Windows software on a Mac operating system, or is there a standardization so they can understand each other if need be?

Just whatever your thoughts are on it. I know theres a lot of technical former service guys lurking around here.

The F16 uses the universal armaments interface - as does, I believe, almost all of the current inventory of strike and fighter aircraft. What that means is that any time one weapon has been cleared for one type of aircraft, all the electrical and data interfaces are gold, and all that remains for other aircraft types is the carriage and separation testing.

Way more detail here:

https://www.iqpc.com/media/6729/4428.pdf

So, if the US say, integrated Brimstone with F35, then the interface can be distributed with a software drop.

It's rare that the US ever does buy foreign made weapons however -the Norwegian Naval Strike missile is one of the few examples I can think of.

 

[swerve]

Usually adapts them, too. FREMM, Harrier, Canberra, Hawk - all heavily modified, & I think the M777 was, too. Carl Gustaf & AT4 seem to have been bought as they were, though.