The JSM missile for the F35

element1loop · by **element1loop** » 10 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.

pron · by **pron** » 11 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

squirrelshoes · by **squirrelshoes** » 12 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.

popcorn · by **popcorn** » 12 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

weasel1962 · by **weasel1962** » 12 Mar 2019, 10:47

Official confirmation from Kongsberg that Japan is buying the JSM.

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

krieger22 · by **krieger22** » 13 Nov 2019, 11:38

Kongsberg got a follow on contract from Japan for JSMs:

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

weasel1962 · by **weasel1962** » 13 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.

timmymagic · by **timmymagic** » 14 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.

squirrelshoes · by **squirrelshoes** » 14 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.

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 15 Nov 2019, 00:17

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

timmymagic · by **timmymagic** » 15 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.

krorvik · by **krorvik** » 20 Mar 2020, 18:14

First F-35 launch is, erm, coming up (translated norwegian article):

https://translate.google.com/translate? ... 5%2F487987

Original article is from Raytheon:

https://breakingdefense.com/2020/03/fir ... -raytheon/

WASHINGTON: Raytheon expects a new flight test of its Joint Strike Missile (JSM), being developed in partnership with Norwegian firm Kongsberg Defence & Aerospace, to happen later this year, says Kurt Neubauer, business development lead for Raytheon Air Warfare Systems.

loke · by **loke** » 20 Mar 2020, 18:37

timmymagic wrote:
spazsinbad wrote:
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.

None of those missiles were "5. gen" like the JSM...

timmymagic · by **timmymagic** » 20 Mar 2020, 20:10

[/quote]
None of those missiles were "5. gen" like the JSM...[/quote]

5th gen?

Thats a nonsense marketing term for fighter aircraft. No-one talks about generations for anti ship missiles...and if we were JSM would be a 3rd, or at most 4th generation missile. But we're not.

Has it occurred to you that an Exocet in 1982 was just as advanced in its day as a JSM/NSM is now? In the period between ships have LO features built in, with vastly more capable CMS, radars, sensors, co-operative engagement, countermeasures, ESM, ECM and hard kill in abundance.

Just as the missiles have improved, so have the the targets defences....and apart from manufacturers claims on both sides there is no evidence that missiles have, relative to defences, increased their chances of a hit. In fact given that they had pretty much a clear run in to targets in the 70's and early 80's there's a good chance that the possibility has decreased.

wrightwing · by **wrightwing** » 21 Mar 2020, 04:26

timmymagic wrote:

None of those missiles were "5. gen" like the JSM...[/quote]

5th gen?

Thats a nonsense marketing term for fighter aircraft. No-one talks about generations for anti ship missiles...and if we were JSM would be a 3rd, or at most 4th generation missile. But we're not.

Has it occurred to you that an Exocet in 1982 was just as advanced in its day as a JSM/NSM is now? In the period between ships have LO features built in, with vastly more capable CMS, radars, sensors, co-operative engagement, countermeasures, ESM, ECM and hard kill in abundance.

Just as the missiles have improved, so have the the targets defences....and apart from manufacturers claims on both sides there is no evidence that missiles have, relative to defences, increased their chances of a hit. In fact given that they had pretty much a clear run in to targets in the 70's and early 80's there's a good chance that the possibility has decreased.

A VLO missile launched from a VLO platform, with the ability to fly around threats (especially when it's likely to be hiding in an increased EM noise floor), is a whole different ball game than an Exocet in 1982