The JSM missile for the F35

F-35 Armament, fuel tanks, internal and external hardpoints, loadouts, and other stores.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline
User avatar

element1loop

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1404
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2015, 05:35
  • Location: Australia

Unread post10 Feb 2019, 03:57

popcorn wrote:I speculate the anti-ship Tomahawk will have an active RF seeker in contrast to LRASM which has a passive RF sensor.


I get your reasoning for diversifying sensors pop but LRASM also has a terminal passive IR that's combined with that terminal passive radar, both of which negate ESM detection and EA risks, thus reducing early-warning probability. Those considerations are going to grow during the shelf-life of a zero-hour T/hawk.
Accel + Alt + VLO + DAS + MDF + Radial Distance = LIFE . . . Always choose Stealth
Offline

pron

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 113
  • Joined: 21 Jul 2014, 19:28

Unread post11 Mar 2019, 18:18

Japan have been looking at the JSM for some time, and now it's clear that Japan will buy JSM for the F-35.

Artikel in Norwegian.
https://www.tu.no/artikler/na-er-det-of ... ler/460109
Translated by Google
https://translate.google.com/translate? ... r%2F460109
Offline

squirrelshoes

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 111
  • Joined: 08 Nov 2016, 23:53

Unread post12 Mar 2019, 04:17

popcorn wrote:I speculate the anti-ship Tomahawk will have an active RF seeker in contrast to LRASM which has a passive RF sensor.

THe last I read was that it was a multi-mode seeker that used passive-RF to close then active on terminal. That was a couple years ago though who knows what they've got cooked up since.
Offline
User avatar

popcorn

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7707
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2008, 08:55

Unread post12 Mar 2019, 05:12

squirrelshoes wrote:
popcorn wrote:I speculate the anti-ship Tomahawk will have an active RF seeker in contrast to LRASM which has a passive RF sensor.

THe last I read was that it was a multi-mode seeker that used passive-RF to close then active on terminal. That was a couple years ago though who knows what they've got cooked up since.


Raytheon touts their new seeker will have "all.weather* capability implying an advantage over LRASM in adverse weather
"When a fifth-generation fighter meets a fourth-generation fighter—the [latter] dies,”
CSAF Gen. Mark Welsh
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1797
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore

Unread post12 Mar 2019, 10:47

Official confirmation from Kongsberg that Japan is buying the JSM.

https://www.kongsberg.com/en/kog/news/2 ... h%20japan/
Offline

krieger22

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 74
  • Joined: 10 Jul 2018, 22:02

Unread post13 Nov 2019, 11:38

Kongsberg got a follow on contract from Japan for JSMs:

https://www.kongsberg.com/kda/news-and- ... ith-japan/
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1797
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore

Unread post13 Nov 2019, 11:45

NOK 450m is less than US$50m. That's not a lot of missiles.

The Japanese budget was reported by defensenews as US$65m. That suggests the initial contract was ~US$15m.
Offline

timmymagic

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 23
  • Joined: 27 Apr 2019, 19:48

Unread post14 Nov 2019, 22:13

weasel1962 wrote:NOK 450m is less than US$50m. That's not a lot of missiles.

The Japanese budget was reported by defensenews as US$65m. That suggests the initial contract was ~US$15m.


That sounds like around 100 missiles max based on the usual unit price quoted. But the $15m sounds a little low. Thats not going to buy many missiles in a first tranche, test equipment and documentation alone will swallow a lot of that up.
Offline

squirrelshoes

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 111
  • Joined: 08 Nov 2016, 23:53

Unread post14 Nov 2019, 23:58

100 capable antiship missiles in no joke.

Didn't Argentina start the Falklands War with about six Exocets? If those 100 missiles disable/sink 20 ships it could completely change the face of any conflict at sea.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23589
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post15 Nov 2019, 00:17

Would you believe 5 Exocet Missiles? https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-17256975
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

timmymagic

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 23
  • Joined: 27 Apr 2019, 19:48

Unread post15 Nov 2019, 10:48

spazsinbad wrote:Would you believe 5 Exocet Missiles? https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-17256975


Thats correct. The RN actually had more Exocet on its ships in the TF than Argentina possessed in total (including their ship launched missiles). They also had a 40% pk. Only 2 of the 5 hit, one of them a merchantman. The other Exocet hit, on Glamorgan, was from a surface launched Exocet, from a trailer outside of Stanley.

The thing I always try and remind everyone is that an anti ship missile has a pk of 0% when fired at an alert, well equipped naval vessel based on 70+ years of AShM usage. There are no instances anywhere of an anti-ship missile hitting a warship when it is alert, in the right condition, with correct doctrine and appropriately armed/equipped. And there have been a lot more AShM's fired than most people assume.
Previous

Return to F-35 Armament, Stores and Tactics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests