The JSM missile for the F35

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

SpudmanWP

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8408
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post04 Oct 2011, 18:10

When they say that "integration" will take $200mil, they are obviously talking about more re-design and flight testing. Traditional integration takes about $25-$30 million.
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline

Robust

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 98
  • Joined: 17 Mar 2004, 21:23

Unread post04 Oct 2011, 18:42

There is also a Turkish designed stand-off missile that is proposed for F-35. They call it SOM( stand-off missile). It has been in the development since 2006 and recently conducted the first live firing test using F-4E/2020 as a launch aircraft. SOM will have three versions, A( INS/GPS and TERCOM), B1( same as A, but IIR seeker with datalink and ATA capability) and B2(same as B1 with tandem warhead for penetration). SOM is a 600kg( 1300lb) weapon with 230kg( 500lb) warhead. It uses a small turbojet engine that gives this weapon at least 100nm+ range...

Image

Image
This is a news article about this missile which has been shown to the international public at DSEi 2011.
Turkey’s Stand-Off Missile is revealed
David Donald
Wednesday, 14 September, 2011



Tübitak-SAGE, the defence industries research and development institute of Turkey’s scientific and technological research council, has unveiled the Stand-Off Missile (SOM) on its stand at DSEi (N7-168). Last month, this major weapon programme successfully conducted its first guided flight.

SOM has been in development by Tübitak- SAGE since 2006, and following extensive wind tunnel and systems tests – followed by captive-carry and release trials – made its first guided flight on 9 August. Flying over the Black Sea, the SOM covered more than 100 nautical miles using GPS/ INS guidance. A campaign of about 30 test flights is to be conducted to assess aspects of the missile’s design.

SOM is a 1,300 lb stealthy cruise missile offering a variety of programmable ingress and attack profiles. Midcourse guidance is accomplished by GPS/ INS, with terrain reference updates.

Furthermore, the missile’s imaging infrared seeker can also be used to provide image-based midcourse navigation by taking snapshots of waypoints and comparing them against predicted position to update the navigation system. Infrared and terrain updates allow the missile to navigate without GPS if that capability is denied or degraded.

The IR seeker provides terminal guidance using target auto-tracking, and the weapon can be programmed to attack at various angles to match the required effects.

The warhead weighs 500 lb. SOM has a two-way datalink that allows in-flight retasking, and it is networkenabled. With the exception of the French Microturbo engine, the major elements of SOM are of Turkish design, including the high-resolution imaging infrared seeker.

Tübitak-SAGE has also developed a mission planning system for the SOM. This is common with that required for the HGK, a GPS/INSguided bomb kit for Mk 84 bombs that the institute has also developed and tested for the Turkish air force. Both HGK and SOM are compatible with NATO’s universal armaments interface.
Image
Initial development work on SOM is being undertaken using the F-4E 2020 upgraded Phantom operated by the Turkish Air Force, but around the turn of the year work will begin on integrating the weapon onto the F-16, which is Turkey’s most numerous fighter.

SOM would also likely be included in any indigenous Turkish fighter development, but perhaps the big prize is the F-35 JSF that Turkey will operate. Tübitak-SAGE has sized the SOM to the internal bays of the Joint Strike Fighter, although the four rear fins will have to fold to fit the missile into the bay.

As befits its role as a design institute, Tübitak- SAGE produces only prototypes and development items, and does not have the capacity for mass production.

Turkey has not yet finalised production plans for the SOM, although an announcement is expected next year.

Offline

arkadyrenko

Senior member

Senior member

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

Unread post04 Oct 2011, 18:47

Well, with the NSM, they need to do some flight testing because of the constraints of an internal weapon bay. Or, the integration into the combat system won't be easy. That number, $200 mil, hopefully is high, because if true integration requires that much money, that might put a crimp on the benefit of a common weapon system for missile development. One of the bigger pluses of the F-35, I think.

As an aside, the F-35 bomb bay is going to drive a wide range of weapon development for the next 20 years. This will have many consequences, most of which are unknown today. Look at the development of a rocket boosted 2k lb bunker buster. That was necessitated by the F-35's design.

Back to the LRASM-B, according to the docs on the ASLAM missile, it was supposed to be SRAM sized. As a result, the F-35 will probably be only able to carry 2, which obviously reduces its viability on that aircraft. On the other hand...., the B-1B could carry 24 SRAMs, which translates roughly to 24 LRASMs. In this light, the US is recreating the Russian recon-strike complex, where the carriers will be probably tasked with escorting the missile equipped bombers into launch range of their targets. And, does anyone else get a slight thrill at the thought of 4 B-1Bs launching 96 supersonic anti-ship missiles? That'll probably gut any battle group.

Final request, does anyone have pictures of the B-1B carrying external weapons?
Offline

SpudmanWP

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8408
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post04 Oct 2011, 19:41

The $200mil is definitely more than just integration. It most likely has to do with design and testing of folding rear fins and some body mods to make it fit in the bay.

RE: LRASM-B, only its motor is based on ASLAM. It is being designed to be internal to the F-35. That means that it will be able to carry a total of 6 or 8 (2 internal + 4-6 external). The LRSAM-B is roughly JSOW sized which means 12 per B-1B (I think this is a widely used misprint as it only means 4 per rotary launcher).

Image

Image
"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 post04 Oct 2011, 20:37

Any quotes for the LRASM-B being internal to the F-35? Its supposed to be VLS capable, which suggests a larger body than the JSOW/NSM. Also, if it and the JASSM derived LRASM-A are rough equivalents, that suggest that the LRASM-B will be larger?

As a side question, how is the F-35 going to carry 8 JSOWs? That's some serious punch, but it should require a double ejector rack for guided weapons. Which I didn't think the military had.

For the JASSM and the B-1B, according to the following story it can carry up to 24 missiles:
http://www.acc.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123221086
Offline

SpudmanWP

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8408
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post04 Oct 2011, 21:20

It has been a while since I saw the quote about internal LRASM-B, so I will have to do some digging.

As to the 8 JSOWs, the current ejector rack that allows this is the BRU-55/57. This is being replaced by the a newer, pneumatically driven version (specs to follow while I dig them up).

As to the B-1B's JASSM(24) vs JSOW(12) capability, considering the JASSM is bigger I think the 12xJSOWs is a misprint.

--edit--

The new bomb rack is called the BRU-69/A MPBR (Multi Purpose Bomb Rack). Here are three sections from the specs.

Image

Image

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

lamoey

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1091
  • Joined: 25 Apr 2004, 17:44
  • Location: 77550

Unread post05 Oct 2011, 18:02

Here is a more inclusive YouTube of the JSM

http://youtu.be/BsGEvAHWagU
Former Flight Control Technican - We keep'em flying
Offline

SpudmanWP

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8408
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post05 Oct 2011, 18:15

btw, that vid confirms and reinforces my thoughts on the $200 million being much more than integration, but an extensive re-design instead. Check out the differences between the NSM and the JSM.

Image

Differences that I can see:

1. Two side intakes instead of one lower.

2. Smaller folding rear fins.

3. The body is deeper along its entire length.
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline

delvo

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

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

Unread post06 Oct 2011, 01:42

I've seen another illustration of the JSM which showed the same intake as the NSM, just with bent tail fins. And I know the picture in the post above is in accurate because it shows the NSM's wings too small and too high compared to what's in actual photographs.
Offline

SpudmanWP

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8408
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post06 Oct 2011, 01:55

The pic above is directly from the MFG, so blame them :)

There has obviously been some redesign needed for the JSM (hence the call for an additional $200 million)

http://www.kongsberg.com/en/KOG/Investo ... 10_HA.ashx

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

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 24490
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post09 Oct 2011, 06:37

Australia listens as Norway says JSM deal critical for F-35 order 07 Oct 2011

https://www.australiandefence.com.au/ne ... f-35-order [MORE]

"Norway’s Kongsberg has warned that the country needs a commitment from the US government within six months to integrate a national-specific missile on the Lockheed Martin F-35, or it could withdraw from the program.

So far, Norway has received no assurance that the Kongsberg Joint Strike Missile (JSM) will be integrated as part of the Block 4 software update on the F-35 in 2019....

...Tom Burbage, Lockheed’s executive vice president for the F-35, said that the JSM integration decision must be made by a committee of operational advisers to the F-35 joint program office....

...The air-launched Joint Strike Missile (JSM) variant is designed to be carried and launched internally from the F-35 Lightning II fighter’s internal bays (2 missiles), or external hardpoints...."

Jump at the MORE URL! :D
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

SpudmanWP

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8408
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post09 Oct 2011, 06:56

Called it
Norway has already invested $1 billion to adapt the Naval Strike Missile (NSM) into the air-launched JSM, and is planning to spend a further $200 million.

Norway wants the US Department of Defense to spend $20 million to integrate the JSM on the F-35 Block 4, with Norway to contribute an equal amount.
Looks like the $200 mil was for development and only $40 mill is needed for integration.
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline

stereospace

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 689
  • Joined: 21 Nov 2009, 17:35
  • Location: Columbia, Maryland, USA

Unread post10 Oct 2011, 02:26

I'd say of they're looking for a $250 million investment from the USA, that should be doable, especially if it keeps a partner on board.
Offline

SpudmanWP

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8408
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post10 Oct 2011, 03:31

They only want $20 mil from the US (1/2 of the integration cost).
"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 post17 Nov 2011, 10:30

bumtish wrote:
tieu wrote:Lightndattic: Don't think so. Based on the couple of frames of the wingtip tank, it is most likely an F-5. Norway used its retired F-5's in testing of both missile profiles and as chase jets for the NSM.


The test was done in California. This doesn't exclude the F-5 as the chase plane. Unlikely though.


I can now confirm that it indeed was one of the retired Norwegian F-5B’s that acted as chase aircraft for the NSM missile at the Pt. Mugu range. I got the confirmation through the Norwegian "Friends of the F-5" website, http://freedomfighter.no/. For the most part this association is made up of former and present personnel from the RNoAF.
Last edited by aceshigh on 17 Nov 2011, 12:12, edited 1 time in total.
PreviousNext

Return to F-35 Armament, Stores and Tactics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests