The JSM missile for the F35

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

aceshigh

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 256
  • Joined: 27 Mar 2011, 19:26
  • Location: Norway

Unread post02 Oct 2011, 14:57

Anyways, a sexy jet for sure..
Offline

arkadyrenko

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 313
  • Joined: 19 Sep 2011, 19:40

Unread post02 Oct 2011, 18:32

For the US, the NSM would go up against the JSOW-C1 antiship missile. In this case, the NSM should be considered a complimentary weapon for the JSOW and LRASM. NSM, unlike the JSOW, is insensitive to launching altitude, ie the F-35 can come in off the deck and still achieve the necessary range, and the NSM is small enough to fit inside the F-35, unlike the Harpoon and the supposed LRASM.

Really, the NSM should replace the Harpoon class weapon for the US. It doesn't require a new development process, we can just license build it and let the aerospace companies work on the much more challenging LRASM / replacement for the ALCM.

And, Norway's threat about the F-35 and the NSM shows the downside of an excessively international program, each country wants to get something from it.
Offline

aceshigh

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 256
  • Joined: 27 Mar 2011, 19:26
  • Location: Norway

Unread post02 Oct 2011, 19:13

arkadyrenko wrote:Norway's threat about the F-35 and the NSM shows the downside of an excessively international program, each country wants to get something from it.


It is common practice to expect some sort of industrial participation, or other offsets in return for a huge investment like this in every big military or industrial purchase. International program or not.

If an otherwise competitive product like the NSM was not be integrated in the program because of possible protectionism, well that just wouldn't be fair. If the missile wasn't up to par, that would be a different matter all together.
Online

SpudmanWP

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 7833
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post02 Oct 2011, 21:42

JSOW will alleviate the low-altitude shortcomings with the planned JSOW-ER upgrades which includes the turbine engine from the MALD program. The JSOW-ER program makes NO changes to the size of the JSOW weapon so it will still fit internally in a F-35.

There are two different missiles in the LRASM program, A and B. LRASM-A is a subsonic, very stealthy version of the JASSM-ER missile. LRASM-B is a supersonic missile based on the ASALM project (yes the old Superman missile) and is being designed to be internal to the F-35. Both missiles will be able to be launched from ships (VL) and from aircraft.

"Jassm-ER was selected as the basis for the 'super-stealthy' LRASM-A because it is “a mature missile with mature propulsion,” says Kuller. The Asalm-based propulsion system for the LRASM-B 'is as mature as we could get for a high-speed missile,' he says." A 40 year old design, "yep, that's the best we can do". This is what happens when you let your industrial base go to hell.

"Plans call for two air launches of the LRASM-A from a U.S. Air Force bomber and four surface launches of the LRASM-B from the Mk29 vertical-launch canister using the Aerojet Mk72 booster from the Standard SM-3 surface-to-air missile. For the demonstration flights, LRASM-B will use integrated rocket/ramjets originally built for the Asalm-derived Supersonic Low-Altitude Target (SLAT) and stored at China Lake, Calif., since the program was cancelled in 1991, Kuller says."
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline

arkadyrenko

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 313
  • Joined: 19 Sep 2011, 19:40

Unread post03 Oct 2011, 03:33

To Aceshigh, yes, that's how these programs work. But what'll happen if Norway backs out because of the NSM? That could precipitate an exodus of countries looking for someone to take the lead.

Spudman, I know about the JSOW-ER and both legs of the LRASM. With regards to the JSOW-ER, I thought that program was purely speculative on Boeing's part? In that they were going to develop it, but it was uncertain if the Navy was going to buy it? The reason I'd take the NSM over the JSOW is that the NSM has been designed to do the low altitude attack, whereas I don't know if the JSOW + MALD engine will deliver a similarly energetic weapon. Also, the NSM has a much better chance of integration into warships, thus allowing the Navy to have common medium range anti-ship missiles, reducing costs.

As to the LRASM-B, what happened to RATTLRS? And, that explains why the proposed ramjet HARM never got off the ground. It appears that the US is just behind in that realm, which is crucial because the need for stand-off weapons + power will be necessary in the Pacific.
Online

SpudmanWP

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 7833
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post03 Oct 2011, 05:01

Currently JSOW-ER is a Raytheon funded program and has no guarantees of government contacts. That being said, I think it's a no-brainer for being picked up.

I do not see JSM and JSOW-ER as being direct competitors as their target-set and capabilities are a bit different. While the JSOW-ER flies slower and higher than the JSM, it has over twice the range and twice the warhead size. The JSOW-ER's warhead is also of the BROACH type which plays a big part in land attack profiles. Since JSOW is already integrated into the US fleet, the ER variant will also be a no-brainer to get done, especially with UAI.

As to RATTLRS, it got cancelled.
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 21726
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -1

Unread post03 Oct 2011, 05:31

'Lightndattic' asked: "Was that an F-104 chase plane in the video?"

NeptunusLex used to be USN Captain - Hornet Pilot - TOPGUN instructor - now flying for ATAC in an F-21 KFIR (currently at Point Mugu) thinks the NSM chase is an L-39:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bret_ ... e_-58_.jpg

http://www.neptunuslex.com/2011/10/01/c ... ent-762998
Attachments
Bret_Cox_L-39_-_Reno_Race_-58_.jpg
NSMtestL39chaseSept2011.png
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Online

SpudmanWP

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 7833
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post03 Oct 2011, 07:15

My money is on a F-5. The picture of the tank has two distinctions different from what I have seen of L-39 tanks. It is "wasp-shaped" as opposed the the L-39's cylindrical shape. It also has a solid nose cone where L-39's are landing lights. Here is a pic of the F-5's "wasp-shaped" tank.

Image
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 21726
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -1

Unread post03 Oct 2011, 08:20

Fair enough, I see the 'coke bottle' shape.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_F-5

"The U.S. Navy F-5 fleet continues to be modernized with 36 low-hour F-5E/Fs purchased from Switzerland in 2006. These were updated as F-5N/Fs with modernized avionics and other improved systems. Currently, the only U.S. Navy units flying the F-5 are VFC-13 at NAS Fallon, Nevada and VFC-111 at NAS Key West, Florida.[4]

According to the FAA, there are 18 privately owned F-5s in the US, including Canadair CF-5Ds.[28][29]"
Attachments
NSMtestF5chaseSept2011.png
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline

aceshigh

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 256
  • Joined: 27 Mar 2011, 19:26
  • Location: Norway

Unread post03 Oct 2011, 09:30

arkadyrenko wrote:To Aceshigh, yes, that's how these programs work. But what'll happen if Norway backs out because of the NSM? That could precipitate an exodus of countries looking for someone to take the lead.

Also, the NSM has a much better chance of integration into warships, thus allowing the Navy to have common medium range anti-ship missiles, reducing costs.


Well, if Norway decides to pull out of the program (which I personally do not hope for), then the U.S eventually must share much of the responsibility. I have a strong feeling that the administration here in Norway has accepted few contracts this far only because they knew they had the NSM/JSM. The disappointment will be great if this bet fail to materialize, and the administration will have a hard time defending the purchase from the opposition.

As I am sure you know the ship borne variant NSM is soon to be deployed onboard our frigates for operational testing.
Offline

delvo

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 690
  • Joined: 15 Aug 2011, 04:06

Unread post03 Oct 2011, 14:28

How do you attach an engine to a JSOW without affecting its size?
Online

SpudmanWP

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 7833
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post03 Oct 2011, 17:36

"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline

arkadyrenko

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 313
  • Joined: 19 Sep 2011, 19:40

Unread post03 Oct 2011, 18:17

I guess the biggest question for JSOW-ER and to a lesser extent JASSM is if they have enough terminal speed / maneuvering ability to survive ship's point defense weapons. This could be a big problem with the JSOW, which is less stealthy than the JASSM and doesn't appear to be as fast as the JASSM.

If that is the case, than the JSOW-ER will be useful as a mass launch weapon against warships or as a single weapon to 'mop-up' ships that had already been damaged by another missile. But I don't think that two JSOW-ERs, per F-35C, will give a small to medium size strike group enough of a chance to hit their target. In that case, the stealthy NSM will give the F-35 a better internal ASM for the stealthy strike missions, then the plane can shift down to the JSOW to destroy easier targets.
Online

SpudmanWP

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 7833
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post03 Oct 2011, 18:53

The JSOW also has LO features such as plainer alignment and sawtooth edges for the panels.

Image

But as I said, their respective targets sets are a little different. We should be using them both, at least until LRASM comes online.
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline

aceshigh

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 256
  • Joined: 27 Mar 2011, 19:26
  • Location: Norway

Unread post04 Oct 2011, 17:43

Update from Norway on the JSM development.

LO leader Roar Flåthen says the Government must make "hard requirements" to ensure the Norwegian-made missiles on the F35 aircraft.

(Edit: The Norwegian Confederation of Trade Unions (LO) is decidedly the largest and most influential workers' organization in Norway, Aceshigh)

Sky high games of a New Norwegian fighter

Now the former Kongsberg-worker asks the government to bring out the powerful ammunition in the negotiations with the United States.

- Getting the Norwegian equipment on board the fighter planes are an important part of the negotiations the Government is now in, says Flåthen to Aftenposten.no.

- Norway has set tough standards to achieve this, and we must continue, he said.

Next year, the Parliament makes the biggest investment decision ever made for mainland Norway. According to the Defense Ministry's latest estimates, 56 new combat aircraft costing 72 billion in purchases.

- Needs to sell

The Norwegian parliament says it is a requirement that the Norwegian defense industry contracts are similar to the purchase price of the aircraft. A very important part of this is the Joint Strike Missile (JSM), manufactured by Kongsberg Defense Systems.

Kongsberg estimates that if the missile will be integrated into the F-35 program could mean contracts with a value of 25 billion.

But as Aftenposten reported Saturday, the U.S. refuses to provide Norwegian authorities with an answer of whether this will actually happen. In the worst case, Kongsberg must give up on the dream of joining the lucrative F-35 program. If that happens the Parliament's demand for repurchase agreements with a value equivalent to the Norwegian fighter purchase will not be met.

The financial crisis and demands for cutbacks in the U.S. defense budget has led to a requirement that U.S. companies must be given priority.

Tight budget

The outcome of the negotiations now under way, could mean billions for Norwegian industry.

- Having the Norwegian equipment on board the fighters, is of course an important part of the negotiations the Government is now in, say Flåthen.

Roar Flåthen will not say that the missile contracts are a prerequisite for the Norwegian fighter purchase. He responds, however, so questions about the savings in the United States can thwart the Norwegian missiles:

- Americans are also dependent on the aircraft to be sold, says Flåthen.

No guarantees

In 2007, before Norway had announced its decision to buy JSF aircraft, Flåthen told Dagbladet that it was a condition that Norway's future fighter aircraft would fly with Norwegian missiles.

Norway has already supported the development of the missile with over 600 million. The integration of the F35 aircraft will cost $ 200 million, and Norway has offered to share the cost with the United States.

When Norway in 2008 chose the F-35 over the Swedish JAS Gripen, the Government considered that the Swedish promises of industrial contracts were better than the U.S. The F-35 was chosen because of the better technology.

The big carrot for Norwegian industry lays in the opportunity to compete to supply equipment to over 3000 aircraft. However, there are no guarantees.

http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/iriks/article4245413.ece
PreviousNext

Return to F-35 Armament, Stores and Tactics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests