The JSM missile for the F35

Unread postPosted: 25 Mar 2011, 07:09
by falnorcon16
The JSM missile for the F35A.

The missile is developed by Norway and Norwegian F35 will have to be modified to carie it in it's bay.

Anyone else gonna order this for their F35. Anyone know of any other countries ?


NSM / JSM:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naval_Strike_Missile

RE: The JSM missile for the F35

Unread postPosted: 25 Mar 2011, 08:11
by spazsinbad
See also: http://www.f-16.net/news_article3431.html

Kongsberg’s Naval Strike Missile

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/nor ... ile-03417/

"...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. The prospect of stealth-enhancing internal carriage, plus out of the gate integration with the F-35 Lightning II, could also give the JSM an entry hook for F-35 customers; Kongsberg adds that the adaptation study is being funded by Norway and Australia. Other potential JSF-linked buyers may include Denmark, The Netherlands, Turkey, et. al...."

http://media.defenseindustrydaily.com/i ... est_lg.jpg

Image

RE: The JSM missile for the F35

Unread postPosted: 25 Mar 2011, 08:39
by 1st503rdsgt
Fits in the internal bays? This is exactly the sort of thing I was hoping would be developed for the F-35. I hope the U.S. doesn't turn up its nose and spend another ten years developing the same thing with an American contractor. Although I'm not sure how much yield can be packed into a 125kg/275lb payload, it does appear to be big enough to mount a 10kt or so tactical nuke like the W-44s that were on ASROC system until 1989 (I'll bet there's still a few left in storage).

RE: The JSM missile for the F35

Unread postPosted: 25 Mar 2011, 08:39
by spazsinbad
PDF not worth downloading except for graphic page JSM timeline as shown (date 11 Nov 2010): [BAD URL corrected to GOOD URL below now - fanks SWP] Graphic URL corrected also....

http://www.kongsberg.com/en/KOG/Investo ... 10_HA.ashx (1.7Mb)

RE: The JSM missile for the F35

Unread postPosted: 25 Mar 2011, 08:47
by spazsinbad
Kongsberg gets JSM development contract | ADM Sept 2009 Gregor Ferguson | Sydney

https://www.australiandefence.com.au/8F ... 50568C22C9

"Norwegian firm Kongsberg has signed the initial development contract for the Joint Strike Missile.
This anti-ship weapon is designed to be carried internally by the Joint Strike Fighter and Australia has been watching the program closely.

The 2009 DCP reveals Phases 3 and 5 of Air 6000 - New Air Combat Capability (NACC) which will deliver training and war stocks of air-ground and air-air weapons for the RAAF's F-35A Lightning IIs.

It also foreshadows another phase, due for 1st Pass approval post-2016, which will deliver a maritime strike weapon.

The current SDD Phase of the JSF program covers development of the Phase 3 software and integration of the so-called ‘Threshold' weapons family for the JSF which will provide the baseline combat capability for the RAAF.

The Threshold weapons include the AIM-120C AMRAAM, AIM-9X Sidewinder, GBU-31/32 Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM), Small Diameter Bomb (SDB), GBU-12 and -12 Paveway 2 laser-guided bomb and larger stand-off weapons such as the JSOW which will also arm the RAAF's Super Hornets.

There is no dedicated anti-ship, or Anti Surface Warfare (ASuW), missile on the Threshold list and there are no plans at present to integrate such a missile with the JSF family until the Block 5 avionics software emerges, in around 2018.

The RAAF's fast jet anti-ship missile capability will be provided up to this point by its Hornets and Super Hornets, carrying the Harpoon.

Development horizon
There are very few dedicated anti-ship missiles under development at present, and the only one with the potential to be carried internally by the F-35A and -C (the internal weapons bay on the STOVL F-35B may be too small) is Kongsberg's Joint Strike Missile (JSM).

The JSM is based on the Norwegian company's Naval Strike Missile, a ship-launched strike and anti-shipping weapon which will arm Norway's Nansen-class frigates and Skjold-class corvettes.

After a nine-year development program, including several successful test firings, the NSM production contract was signed in 2007 with deliveries due next year; Operational Test & Evaluation (OT&E) will take place during 2011-12.

Norway, a JSF partner nation, spotted the ASuW capability gap with the JSF and is developing the JSM to fill it.

Kongsberg signed the US$35 million JSM Increment 1 development contract with the Norwegian Ministry of Defence in April this year; Increment 1 runs to June 2010.

Although the DMO has been supporting JSM integration studies since about 2005 (including low-speed wind tunnel testing by DSTO last year), it hasn't contributed to Increment 1 and won't consider any further support for the JSM program until after 2nd pass approval for Air 6000 Ph.2A/B, which is tentatively scheduled for this month.

Australia's involvement with the JSM program is enabled by the existing MoU with Norway.

The basic design goals for the JSM are internal carriage on the JSF; high survivability; and a high kill probability.

It is designed as a fire and forget weapon for use against both ships and land targets.

It employs INS, GPS and terrain correlation for mid-course guidance, is designed to fly at low altitude over land and sea to minimise the chances of early detection and has selectable end-game attack profiles. The missile also incorporates a datalink for man in the loop targeting.

Business development Vice President Bjorn Bjune told ADM that the seeker is a smart Infra Red (IR) sensor manufactured by Kongsberg and Norway's Defence Research Establishment, with a wide field of view.

It is a passive, day/night system designed to recognise and identify specific target classes, discriminate between multiple targets and allow aimpoint selection by the operator.

Importantly, it is highly resistant to both Electronic and IR counter-measures.

A passive seeker head is part of an overall approach to survivability that includes stand-off range, low-altitude flight profile, high speed, complex flight profiles over land and sea, low-observable design, and the ability to saturate a target's defences by specifying the direction of attack and time on target (TOT) through missile speed control.

It is also designed for high maximum and sustained ‘g' endgame manoeuvres to evade defensive fire.

Kongsberg says the F-35A and -C will be able to carry two JSMs and two AMRAAMs internally and a further four JSMs externally if required.

A US Navy ASuW capability gap analysis of the F-35C has identified a requirement for a weapon with "JSM-like" qualities and endorsed the JSM's platform configuration and design, Bjune told ADM.

In June this year Kongsberg signed a two-year cooperative agreement with Lockheed Martin to enable integration of the JSM with the F-35A and -C.

It is also currently preparing for Increment 2 funding from the Norwegian MoD for the next phase of development from 2010-14.

Meanwhile, Kongsberg is also preparing for the JSF Block 5 RFP in the final quarter of 2010.

If selected for JSF Block 5 Norway is willing to fund the development of the weapon, Bjune says, but seeks partners to share the cost of integration.

The current schedule will see the Critical Design Review in late-2011 and the first flight test at the end of 2014.

Defence acknowledges the JSM has the potential to provide a good solution for maritime and some land strike roles, enhancing strike range and weapon and aircraft survivability, but with JASSM already on order and other weapons such as JDAM-ER and SDB potentially available, it stops short of an unqualified endorsement at this stage: "Although the JSM has the potential to meet Defence's standoff maritime strike capability for our future F-35 fleet, it remains one of a number of options for our future maritime strike requirements," ADM was told."

Re: RE: The JSM missile for the F35

Unread postPosted: 25 Mar 2011, 13:44
by wrightwing
1st503rdsgt wrote:Fits in the internal bays? This is exactly the sort of thing I was hoping would be developed for the F-35. I hope the U.S. doesn't turn up its nose and spend another ten years developing the same thing with an American contractor. Although I'm not sure how much yield can be packed into a 125kg/275lb payload, it does appear to be big enough to mount a 10kt or so tactical nuke like the W-44s that were on ASROC system until 1989 (I'll bet there's still a few left in storage).


The JSOW/JSOW-ER also fits in the internal bays, so the F-35 has several options with regards to stand off munitions available, while maintaining a VLO profile.

Unread postPosted: 25 Mar 2011, 17:52
by falnorcon16
Just thought I add pictures of the marine vessels that will use the NSM Navy version of the JSM:

Skjold Class MTP ( Worlds fastest warship - 60+ knots )

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skjold_class


Image

Image

Image



Fridtjof Nansen class frigate:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fridtjof_N ... ss_frigate


Image

Image

Image

Re: RE: The JSM missile for the F35

Unread postPosted: 25 Mar 2011, 19:58
by 1st503rdsgt
wrightwing wrote:
1st503rdsgt wrote:Fits in the internal bays? This is exactly the sort of thing I was hoping would be developed for the F-35. I hope the U.S. doesn't turn up its nose and spend another ten years developing the same thing with an American contractor. Although I'm not sure how much yield can be packed into a 125kg/275lb payload, it does appear to be big enough to mount a 10kt or so tactical nuke like the W-44s that were on ASROC system until 1989 (I'll bet there's still a few left in storage).


The JSOW/JSOW-ER also fits in the internal bays, so the F-35 has several options with regards to stand off munitions available, while maintaining a VLO profile.


Which new standoff weapons will actually materialize is still up in the air. Current JSOW is not a missile; it's a glide bomb.

JSOW: 14-70 miles (un-powered)
JSM: 115+ miles (flight testing)
JSOW-ER: 300 miles estimated (engine testing)

RE: Re: RE: The JSM missile for the F35

Unread postPosted: 25 Mar 2011, 20:09
by SpudmanWP
Considering the flexibility in JSOW warheads and it's greater range compared to the JSM, I see it going operational as a no-brainer.

Re: RE: Re: RE: The JSM missile for the F35

Unread postPosted: 25 Mar 2011, 20:24
by falnorcon16
SpudmanWP wrote:Considering the flexibility in JSOW warheads and it's greater range compared to the JSM, I see it going operational as a no-brainer.


So does this missile have stealth capabilities like the JSM / NSM ?

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: The JSM missile for the F35

Unread postPosted: 25 Mar 2011, 23:29
by SpudmanWP
Yes, the JSOW has LO features like basic faceting (nose section) and sawtooth edges on access panels.

From a 2006 Raytheon Press Release
Block II continues to maintain JSOW's low radar cross section and infrared signature. These are key stealth features and ensure a high probability of JSOW survival en route to highly defended targets.


It says the same in the JSOW Factsheet PDF

Spaz, do you have a local copy of the JSM PDF? The link went 404.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: The JSM missile for the F35

Unread postPosted: 26 Mar 2011, 00:00
by spazsinbad
OOPs. I missed the '...' in the JSM/JSF PDF URL - scusi. This URL should work:

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

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: The JSM missile for the F35

Unread postPosted: 26 Mar 2011, 00:39
by bjr1028
We bought Penguins from Kongsberg, so a JSM buy wouldn't be out of the realm of possibility.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: The JSM missile for the F35

Unread postPosted: 26 Mar 2011, 08:19
by falnorcon16
bjr1028 wrote:We bought Penguins from Kongsberg, so a JSM buy wouldn't be out of the realm of possibility.


Image

Unread postPosted: 26 Mar 2011, 14:11
by falnorcon16
Here is an artist skectch of the JSM with the F35:

Image

Unread postPosted: 26 Mar 2011, 15:08
by g3143
Is not the U.S. developing a long range anti ship missile(LRASM) which could be designed to fit in the f-35 weapons bay?

Unread postPosted: 26 Mar 2011, 16:44
by SpudmanWP
If it's long range then it does not need to be small enough to be internal to the F-35.

Unread postPosted: 26 Mar 2011, 19:35
by spazsinbad
ASuW recent info here: F-35C ASuW Capabilities?

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-14737.html

Unread postPosted: 27 Sep 2011, 09:38
by spazsinbad
Chasing Norway’s New Stealth Cruise Missile VIDEO

http://gizmodo.com/5843982/chasing-down ... se-missile
&
VIDEO: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AMowaZ3I ... r_embedded

"This is the Naval Strike Missile, Kongsberg's latest and greatest cruise missile, as it skims over the Pacific Ocean before tearing into its target on the far side of an island....

...The state-of-the-art missile weighs about 400 kg (880 lb) and has a range of 100 nautical miles, both along the coast and in the open ocean. It uses GPS, inertial and terrain reference systems to maintain its bearings....

...It's being developed as the basis for the Joint Strike Missile program to be carried aboard Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II "Joint Strike Fighters" when they enter service."

NSM at target (screengrab from video)

Unread postPosted: 27 Sep 2011, 14:36
by Lightndattic
Was that an F-104 chase plane in the video?

Unread postPosted: 28 Sep 2011, 22:03
by spazsinbad
Norway May Pull Out of JSF If No Missile Deal By Carlo Munoz : September 27, 2011

http://defense.aol.com/2011/09/27/norwa ... stry-says/

"Washington: Norway is threatening to delay its buy of F-35 Joint Strike Fighters if DoD decides not to support a new missile system built by one of the country's top defense firms.

Norwegian defense giant Kongsberg is pressuring the Pentagon to integrate its Joint Strike Missile for use on the F-35, indicating that Norway is ready to delay the fighter entirely if the weapon is not brought in....

...But before Norway, or any other country can field the missile, DoD must agree to partially finance the integration work needed to get the weapon to work with the fighter....

...With six months to go before the Norwegian Parliament decides whether to fully commit to the JSF buy, Kongsberg claims that time is running out for DoD to make a decision on the JSM.

If Norway's F-35s are delivered without a viable weapon to counter the surface warfare threats..."

MORE AT THE JUMP! :D

Unread postPosted: 02 Oct 2011, 01:24
by aceshigh
Tried my best to translate this Norwegian article for you guys. A lot is at stake from a Norwegian point of view.

Hi stake game on F-35 aircraft


Will they or won't they? The voltage is high, both with Norwegian authorities and the Kongsberg weapons manufacturer. Kongsberg has a hypermodern weapon, a weapon that can ensure staggering revenues and hundreds of jobs.


And the United States is nowhere near to say whether they intend to buy it or not.


The weapon they are talking about, is a long-range missile that essentially is intended to terminate an enemy naval vessel. Norway wants the US to buy this missile, called the Joint Strike Missile (JSM) in order to use it on the new fighter aircraft — F-35 Lightning — that is under development by Lockheed Martin.


The Norwegian Government has decided that Norway will buy 56 such aircraft to replace the aging
F-16 aircraft. Four training jets are already ordered.


The question of whether the other 52 aircraft is to be ordered is left to until next year, in which the the Norwegian Parliament have to say a final "Yes" or "no" to the F-35.


Response deadline in March


Frustration on the Norwegian side is getting large. A prerequisite to buy American aircraft is that the purchase price will be covered by industrial agreements for Norwegian companies that can supply the equipment for aircraft. An agreement on purchase of JSM will stand for as much as one-third of the purchase price for the new fighter aircraft — around 25 billion dollars.


Bjorn Bjune, a Deputy Director of Kongsberg, has in the recent weeks gone far in requiring a rapid response from the United States, according to US Department of Defense media. If the U.SD does not answer, Norway has to postpone the desicion of whether to buy the F-35 – and perhaps start looking at other options.


– Bjune is misquoted, "said the Executive Vice President Harald Ånnestad, Kongsberg Defence Systems.


If this is the case, he (Bjone) is misquoted in various interviews, including one in the magazine "Inside the Air Force, where he set March 2012 as the deadline for a reply that Norway should be able to make an informed decision about buying the F-35.



Intense lobbying


There is no doubt that Kongsberg has stepped up the fight against the U.S defense companies to deliver this type of missiles to the new fighter plane. In the United States, the company has now three or four employees plus an unknown number of hired American consultants whose main task is to sell the JSM to US authorities.


"We are a small company in the American context, and there are powerful forces who want the Americans to buy American. But I am convinced that we have the best product. No one else can produce something better and cheaper, "says Ånnestad.


The American company Raytheon have developed a similar product which is also applicable for F-35, but say that this is Ånnestad "like comparing a Ferrari with a truck."

No sneakers


In the Norwegian Defense Ministry Secretary Roger Ingebrigtsen follow the development with excitement. The Norwegian Government recently gave in excess of one billion dollars to help develop the missile.


"It's very important to us that Kongsberg is selling this missile. Missiles must have customers. Someone needs to buy them, "he said.


He admits that the high unemployment rates in the United States can affect how easy or difficult it is for the U.S to buy equipment that is not "Made in the UNITED STATES."


– They have a lot of domestic political considerations. But I hope and believe that the technology will be critical. And there is where the JSM is best Ingebrigtsen says. And because it is the best, it will also end up on the US aircraft.


-Buy a proper suit, you will also have good shoes. And JSM are no sneakers, to put it that way.

http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/iriks/article4243524.ece

Unread postPosted: 02 Oct 2011, 03:46
by delvo
I agree with Norway on this. The USA definitely should buy the Norwegian missile without hesitation. Our other aircraft-launched anti-ship missiles are older and just not as good. The only current one that is small enough and light enough for a Lightning to carry internally is the Harpoon (which might even be able to fit two per bay instead of one, with a custom adapter, although that hasn't been invented yet), but it doesn't have the Norwegian missile's guidance & control, range, or independent stealth. Some others might have a bigger warhead and/or longer range than a Harpoon, but none have the guidance & control or stealth, and any but Harpoons can't be carried internally, which not only limits quantity but also increases radar signature and drag. With the Norwegian one it isn't a much of a sacrifice to carry some on the outside, which, combined with the internal ones, increases the reduced-observability load limit to six instead of just the two of an ordinary missile on the inside.

An American company probably could come up with something comparable, but if an ally has already done it for us, why bother? I've been saying for years we should back off from some aspects of this business and let/make allies do more of the work and pick up more of the tab. In this case we've got one that not only has the ability but also actually wants to, which often isn't the case. It would be idiotic of us to fail to take them up on it just so we can either waste money & time working on an alternative or end up with no modern air-to-ship weapons.

Unread postPosted: 02 Oct 2011, 04:00
by bumtish
This is not a reliable report from Aftenposten. The US would require the production line to be on US soil regardless.

It is the integration Kongsberg is seeking assurances for. That would provide a base of customers, licensing production to some (e.g. USA) and exporting to others (Spain, Italy, UK, Australia, etc.). Huge market over a long period.

Unread postPosted: 02 Oct 2011, 09:56
by aceshigh
The U.S has said all along that the partners have to earn work on the F-35 program to get in. Well, now there is a niche open, where Norway has a superior product to offer. The current administration here in Norway has taken a lot of criticism from the opposition regarding lack of offset deals in this program, and not to talk about the heat they took for dishing the Gripen from our brothers over the border. If the U.S does not let Norway into the program on this, I fear that this warning is not a bluff. The deal could be in real danger.

Unread postPosted: 02 Oct 2011, 11:26
by tieu
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.

Unread postPosted: 02 Oct 2011, 11:53
by bumtish
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.

Unread postPosted: 02 Oct 2011, 12:07
by aceshigh
Tieu is most likely right. The Norwegian F-5's were taken out of service in 1990, but some of the planes were later used in connection with the naval strike missile Naval Strike Missile program (NSM).

Unread postPosted: 02 Oct 2011, 13:04
by bumtish
OK, I'll buy it. :D

Unread postPosted: 02 Oct 2011, 14:51
by tieu
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.


Not sure if it was a Norwegian F-5, but here are som pictures of a couple Freedom Fighters:

http://flydb.net/northrop/F-5.gallery/pages/208f.html
http://flydb.net/northrop/F-5.gallery/pages/g.html

Take a look at the shape of the wing tanks and the placement of the fuel filler cap, and also the layout of the cocpit. Looks pretty much the same to me.

A little bit off topic, but Norway has two or three F-5's standing in a hangar at Fort Worth Alliance. They were supposed to be sold to an American flight school of some sort, but the Capitol would not approve the sale...

Unread postPosted: 02 Oct 2011, 14:57
by aceshigh
Anyways, a sexy jet for sure..

Unread postPosted: 02 Oct 2011, 18:32
by arkadyrenko
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.

Unread postPosted: 02 Oct 2011, 19:13
by aceshigh
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.

Unread postPosted: 02 Oct 2011, 21:42
by SpudmanWP
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."

Unread postPosted: 03 Oct 2011, 03:33
by arkadyrenko
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.

Unread postPosted: 03 Oct 2011, 05:01
by SpudmanWP
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.

Unread postPosted: 03 Oct 2011, 05:31
by spazsinbad
'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

Unread postPosted: 03 Oct 2011, 07:15
by SpudmanWP
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

Unread postPosted: 03 Oct 2011, 08:20
by spazsinbad
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]"

Unread postPosted: 03 Oct 2011, 09:30
by aceshigh
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.

Unread postPosted: 03 Oct 2011, 14:28
by delvo
How do you attach an engine to a JSOW without affecting its size?

Unread postPosted: 03 Oct 2011, 17:36
by SpudmanWP

Unread postPosted: 03 Oct 2011, 18:17
by arkadyrenko
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.

Unread postPosted: 03 Oct 2011, 18:53
by SpudmanWP
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.

Unread postPosted: 04 Oct 2011, 17:43
by aceshigh
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

Unread postPosted: 04 Oct 2011, 18:10
by SpudmanWP
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.

Unread postPosted: 04 Oct 2011, 18:42
by Robust
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.


Unread postPosted: 04 Oct 2011, 18:47
by arkadyrenko
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?

Unread postPosted: 04 Oct 2011, 19:41
by SpudmanWP
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

Unread postPosted: 04 Oct 2011, 20:37
by arkadyrenko
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

Unread postPosted: 04 Oct 2011, 21:20
by SpudmanWP
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

Unread postPosted: 05 Oct 2011, 18:02
by lamoey
Here is a more inclusive YouTube of the JSM

http://youtu.be/BsGEvAHWagU

Unread postPosted: 05 Oct 2011, 18:15
by SpudmanWP
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.

Unread postPosted: 06 Oct 2011, 01:42
by delvo
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.

Unread postPosted: 06 Oct 2011, 01:55
by SpudmanWP
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

Unread postPosted: 09 Oct 2011, 06:37
by spazsinbad
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

Unread postPosted: 09 Oct 2011, 06:56
by SpudmanWP
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.

Unread postPosted: 10 Oct 2011, 02:26
by stereospace
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.

Unread postPosted: 10 Oct 2011, 03:31
by SpudmanWP
They only want $20 mil from the US (1/2 of the integration cost).

Unread postPosted: 17 Nov 2011, 10:30
by aceshigh
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.

Unread postPosted: 17 Nov 2011, 11:51
by bumtish
Nice! Cool that there are these kind of sources.

I can add that Raytheon has thrown in their pitch for a (short-term) solution to ASuW. Perhaps in anticipation of competition from JSM and maybe to disrupt Kongsbergs pitch for integration? Just a thought...

http://raytheon.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=1960

Joint Strike Fighter Can Carry Raytheon Joint Standoff Weapon Internally

JSOW C-1 combined with JSF gives warfighter a powerful new capability

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates, Nov. 13, 2011 /PRNewswire/ -- Raytheon Company (NYSE: RTN) has completed a fit check of the Joint Standoff Weapon in the internal carriage bay of the Joint Strike Fighter aircraft.

"The capabilities of the JSF combined with JSOW C-1's ability to precisely engage moving ships at sea from standoff ranges would give the U.S. and coalition warfighter a powerful capability," said Cmdr. Samuel Hanaki, U.S. Navy JSOW deputy program manager.

During the fit check, Raytheon technicians loaded a JSOW shape in the JSF's internal carriage bay and conducted a series of tests to prove the bay door could close properly without damaging the aircraft or the weapon.

"JSOW C-1 is the world's first net-enabled standoff weapon that can engage a moving maritime target," said Phyllis McEnroe, JSOW program director for Raytheon Missile Systems. "With its more than 110 kilometer range (68 statute miles) and tunnel defeat capability, JSOW C-1 will give members of the JSF a critical capability no other weapon can provide."

About the Joint Standoff Weapon

JSOW is a family of low-cost, air-to-ground weapons that employs an integrated GPS- inertial navigation system and terminal imaging infrared seeker, guiding the weapon to the target. JSOW C-1 adds moving maritime target capability and the two-way strike common weapon datalink to the combat-proven weapon.

JSOW C-1 is the world's first networked weapon, and has a range of more than 110 kilometers (60 nautical miles).
The U.S. Navy completed the first free-flight test of JSOW C-1 on July 26, 2011.

Unread postPosted: 17 Nov 2011, 19:58
by spazsinbad
Same information above here:

F-35 JSOW Internal Fit OK http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-16369.html

Unread postPosted: 01 Jun 2012, 09:46
by spazsinbad
Lockheed Martin awarded $19.8 million contract to study JSM integration onto F-35 By Dave Majumdar 31 May 2012

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... 35-372546/

"The US Navy has awarded Lockheed Martin a $19.8 million modification to a previously awarded fixed-price-incentive-fee F-35 Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) IV contract.

The contract modification is for a Kongsberg Joint Strike Missile (JSM) risk reduction study for the Norwegian Ministry of Defence. Lockheed says that Norway is paying for the study with its own funds. No US monies are being put towards the JSM effort, the company emphasizes.

The study will include physical fit checks, wind tunnel tests, engineering analysis, and designing and building of an emulator and adapter "to determine next steps in integrating the JSM into the F-35" according to the US Department of Defense.

The study should be completed by May 2014."

Unread postPosted: 01 Jun 2012, 12:53
by aceshigh
spazsinbad wrote:"The US Navy has awarded Lockheed Martin a $19.8 million modification to a previously awarded fixed-price-incentive-fee F-35 Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) IV contract.

The contract modification is for a Kongsberg Joint Strike Missile (JSM) risk reduction study for the Norwegian Ministry of Defence. Lockheed says that Norway is paying for the study with its own funds. No US monies are being put towards the JSM effort, the company emphasizes"


Hey Spaz, sorry if I'm slow here, but how do you translate this? What is it that the US Navy is paying for actually, when Norway is paying for the study? :?

Unread postPosted: 01 Jun 2012, 14:27
by spazsinbad
USN has awarded a contract and pays no money. Just a formality I guess.

Unread postPosted: 01 Jun 2012, 18:01
by neptune
spazsinbad wrote:USN has awarded a contract and pays no money. Just a formality I guess.


http://www.defense.gov/contracts/contra ... actid=4802

31MAY2012..Lockheed Martin... awarded a $19,805,300 modification ...Joint Strike Fighter LRIP IV...contract (N00019-09-C-0010) for the Joint Strike Missile (JSM) Risk Reduction Study for the Norway Ministry of Defence. Efforts include physical fit checks, wind tunnel tests, engineering analysis, and designing and building of an emulator and adapter to determine next steps in integrating the JSM into the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. Work ..in Fort Worth, Texas (70 percent); Arnold Air Force Base, Tullahoma, Tenn. (20 percent); and Kongsberg, Norway (10 percent). Work is expected to be completed in May 2014. ...

Good News for the JSM fans. :)

Unread postPosted: 06 Jun 2012, 07:56
by norseman
http://translate.google.com/translate?s ... 71&act=url


If the translation does not work, please use google translate to translate this link. http://e24.no/boers-og-finans/usa-teste ... l/20238371

U.S. tests Norwegian F-35 missile

The chances increase that can sell Kongsberg JSM missile to the F-35.


The U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) has entered into an agreement with Lockheed Martin for the testing of the Joint Strike Missile (JSM) from Kongsberg.

- This is a very important step in getting secured JSM-integration on the F-35, says Harald Ånnestad who is CEO of Kongsberg Defence Systems.

See also: F-35 chief praises Norwegian missile
Norwegian money

The contract is worth $ 20 million (120 million), the DoD report .

This is the Norwegian money stemming from last summer when the Defence Logistics Organisation (Flo) signed a contract with Kongsberg for the further development of JSM, worth 535 million.

Read more about this deal here: JSM-development provides NSM contracts

These funds finance the development of the JSM 2013, referred to as step two.

Integration with the fighter and the construction of pilots / prototypes are in step three.
Preparing integration

According to the contract should be most of the work, 70 percent, made on the Lockheed Martin plant in Fort Worth, Texas, 20 percent of the air base Arnold in Tullahoma, Tennessee and 10 percent in Kongsberg in Norway.

- We will check the physical models of the missile on a real F-35. It is further advanced wind tunnel tests and analyzes and emulator testing. This will ensure that when the real integration starts, so this goes as smoothly as possible, explains Ånnestad.

But it's almost two years. The work is expected to close in May 2014, according to Department of Defense.

Read also: The industry requires Norwegian F-35 missile
Norwegian industry's chance

The Lockheed Martin F-35-Director Tom Burbage visited Norway four months ago, he spoke of JSM as follows:

- It is obvious that the JSM fills a need for performance F-35. The missile has a capacity of several countries called for, not only Norway and the USA. Much good work is done, while much work remains. Among other things, systems integration. But here are several milestones in the years to come.

JSM has a projected export potential of over 20 billion, according to Kongsberg Gruppen the only way to ensure that the F-35 procurement is a Norwegian industrial success.


Re: The JSM missile for the F35

Unread postPosted: 05 Sep 2016, 18:20
by lamoey
Norway apparently have signed an intention to buy the P-8 Poseidon from Boeing. I wonder if there could also be a chapter about JSM integration included in the discussions.

Link to news google translated news article about the P-8: https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=no&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=no&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.klassekampen.no%2Farticle%2F20160811%2FARTICLE%2F160819993&edit-text=

Re: The JSM missile for the F35

Unread postPosted: 05 Sep 2016, 20:56
by count_to_10
lamoey wrote:Norway apparently have signed an intention to buy the P-8 Poseidon from Boeing. I wonder if there could also be a chapter about JSM integration included in the discussions.

Link to news google translated news article about the P-8: https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=no&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=no&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.klassekampen.no%2Farticle%2F20160811%2FARTICLE%2F160819993&edit-text=

Well, I suppose it would be kind of odd if they armed it with Harpoons when they have the NSM/JSM available locally.

Re: The JSM missile for the F35

Unread postPosted: 13 Oct 2016, 08:03
by spazsinbad
JAPAN AEROSPACE: Kongsberg pitches JSM to Tokyo
13 Oct 2016 Greg Waldron

"Kongsberg has made its show debut at Japan Aerospace, promoting its Joint Strike Missile (JSM) for use by the Japan Air Self Defense Force (JASDF) and Japan Maritime Self Defense Force (JMSDF).

Hans Kongelf, vice president of missile systems at the Norwegian company, says Kongsberg is pitching the JSM to all partner nations and buyers of the Lockheed Martin F-35, which can accommodate two JSMs internally.

Tokyo has orders for 42 F-35s, with the type to replace its McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantoms.

Kongelf also sees a secondary opportunity for the JSM aboard Tokyo’s fleet of Kawasaki P-1 maritime patrol/anti-submarine warfare aircraft.

Kongelf did not discuss Japanese requirements specifically, but says the Kongsberg is well suited to attacking modern warships, which feature three layers of defensive systems: long-range missiles, short-range missiles, and rapid fire cannons.

To evade the first two threats, the IR-homing, high subsonic JSM features low-observable characteristics and a sea-skimming flight profile. To defeat the last obstacle, it flies an erratic flight profile in the seconds before impact, throwing off guns’ ability to lead the missile effectively.

He adds that the weapon’s 120kg warhead all but guarantees a mission kill."

Source: https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... yo-430339/

Re: The JSM missile for the F35

Unread postPosted: 14 Oct 2016, 14:53
by Smithsguy
count_to_10 wrote:
lamoey wrote:Norway apparently have signed an intention to buy the P-8 Poseidon from Boeing. I wonder if there could also be a chapter about JSM integration included in the discussions.

Link to news google translated news article about the P-8: https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=no&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=no&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.klassekampen.no%2Farticle%2F20160811%2FARTICLE%2F160819993&edit-text=

Well, I suppose it would be kind of odd if they armed it with Harpoons when they have the NSM/JSM available locally.


Is the JSM a 1760 standard interface to the aircraft? Haven't heard any noise about putting JSMs on the P-8A ... yet.

Re: The JSM missile for the F35

Unread postPosted: 14 Oct 2016, 15:02
by krorvik
Smithsguy wrote:Is the JSM a 1760 standard interface to the aircraft? Haven't heard any noise about putting JSMs on the P-8A ... yet.


There is no formal decision yet (well, an intention) to go for the P-8. Even so, I'm not sure there is any need to arm .no P-8s with JSMs, surface vessels will be carrying NSMs, and the F-35s will be carrying the JSM. Never say never though.

Re: The JSM missile for the F35

Unread postPosted: 06 Nov 2016, 01:59
by spazsinbad
Edwards AFB squadron tests missile for European ally’s F-35
04 Nov 2016 Kenji Thuloweit, 412th Test Wing Public Affairs

"EDWARDS AIR FORCE BASE, Calif. (AFNS) -- From Norway to Australia, members from a number of allied and partner nations have come to Edwards Air Force Base to team with base units to test systems, enhance international cooperation and advance their own air force’s capabilities.

At the 416th Flight Test Squadron, a team of U.S. Air Force engineers and pilots are working with Norwegian government and industry personnel in testing the Joint Strike Missile. The JSM is designed to be carried in the F-35A’s internal weapons bay and is the only powered, anti-surface warfare missile to do so according to Norwegian officials, said James Cook, the 416th FLTS JSM program manager....

...Before it can be integrated with the F-35A, it is being tested on F-16 Fighting Falcons from the 416th FLTS. The F-16 provides an excellent platform to initially test the missile before it’s transferred to the fifth-generation fighter, test managers said.

“What we’re doing is conducting risk-mitigation testing with the F-16 before the JSM is integrated on the F-35,” Cook said. All tests are conducted over the Utah Test and Training Range....

...Along with Cook, the JSM team consists of test pilots Maj. John Trombetta and Maj. Jameel Janjua (Royal Canadian Air Force), flight test engineers Eric Biesen and Tom Smeeks and Collin Drake, project engineer.

The JSM program at the 416th is one project that falls under the squadron’s European Participating Air Force Program, which Cook manages. The squadron conducts tests for European customers when requested."

Source: http://www.af.mil/News/ArticleDisplay/t ... -f-35.aspx

Re: The JSM missile for the F35

Unread postPosted: 07 Feb 2017, 02:53
by steve2267
Has the UK shown any interest in the JSM for it's F-35's?

I know that the Brits re-designed the SPEAR to fit the F-35B which resulted in (I think) a 6-9 month schedule slip. They had to shorten the SPEAR to fit the slightly smaller F-35B weapons bay, and apparently that shortening took a bit of work as regards the guidance, seeker, and possibly warhead sections.

If the Brits wanted the JSM, would the JSM also have to be further shortened to fit the -B?

Re: The JSM missile for the F35

Unread postPosted: 07 Feb 2017, 03:42
by spazsinbad
There is a long Joint Strike Missile thread where it has been made clear that the JSM will fit only internally in F-35A/Cs. Otherwise the JSM can be carried externally on all variants: viewtopic.php?f=54&t=23247&p=308896&hilit=Internal+Joint+Strike+Missile#p308896

Re: The JSM missile for the F35

Unread postPosted: 07 Feb 2017, 03:48
by steve2267
spazsinbad wrote:There is a long Joint Strike Missile thread where it has been made clear that the JSM will fit only internally in F-35A/Cs. Otherwise the JSM can be carried externally on all variants: viewtopic.php?f=54&t=23247&p=308896&hilit=Internal+Joint+Strike+Missile#p308896

Spaz, I'm aware of that thread. Perhaps I posted in the wrong JSM thread? This one is the most recent JSM thread my search revealed.

May I infer from your reply that
  1. The UK has not expressed any real interest in the JSM?
  2. There has been no publicly announced intent to further refine the JSM to fit the Killer Bee?

To one of my original questions... has anyone any idea how much further the JSM would have to be shortened to fit the Bee? Round numbers are fine. Are we talking a couple inches? (e.g. 5cm) A foot? (0.3m) More?

Re: The JSM missile for the F35

Unread postPosted: 07 Feb 2017, 03:55
by spazsinbad
Questions that cannot be answered can linger forever. Good luck. AFAIK no intent to internalize JSM for F-35Bs so why bother? Big Market already known for the F-35A (& perhaps C is incidental) so why bother for smaller market? There is also the SOM-J competitor - look that up in your funk&wagnall :mrgreen:

Re: The JSM missile for the F35

Unread postPosted: 09 Feb 2017, 02:29
by squirrelshoes
If using hunter/killer teams I'm not sure how much we should care whether JSM/LRASM fits internally since your killer is plinking from outside reasonable detection range anyway.

Re: The JSM missile for the F35

Unread postPosted: 07 Apr 2017, 13:54
by steve2267
BAE Systems locks in F-35 JSF missile deal
By Paul Cleary April 7, 2017

Australia is on track to acquire the high-stealth Joint Strike Missile for its fleet of 72 F-35 fighter-bombers with the federal government set to announce a further $23 million investment in the program with Norway.

The Australian understands the Defence department has signed a contract with Norway’s Kongsberg Defence Systems to continue development of the missile ­together with BAE Systems ­Australia.

Under the terms of the contract, Kongsberg will work towards integrating BAE’s passive radio frequency (PRF) sensor into the missile system.

The deal positions BAE to sell its missile guidance technology globally. With as many as 3000 F-35 Joint Strike Fighters to be produced over the next decade, the market for Australia’s technology could be very big. The missile can also be deployed externally on the F-16, F/A-18 and F-15 aircraft.

The PRF would be made at BAE’s Edinburgh Park facility in South Australia.

Kongsberg’s vice-president for missile systems, Pal Bratlie, told The Australian how the idea of converting its naval strike missile (NSM) into the JSM came from an Australian missile expert. Subsequently, the Australian government funded BAE Systems to develop an advanced sensor system for the JSM. Mr Bratlie says the Australian support for the project goes back to 2004.

“All through the development of the JSM we’ve had close dialogue with Australia,” Mr Bratlie said. BAE brought “certain unique capabilities” to the project.

The missile is designed to address a serious capability gap in that Western powers, the US especially, have been so focused on ground wars in Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan that they have not been looking at air-to-sea capability, Mr Bratlie said.

The JSM is the only fifth-generation strike missile that is designed to fit inside the bomb bay of the F-35, which means it does not impair the aircraft’s stealth.

The JSM has twice the range than the original NSM, which can reach only 100 nautical miles, and it is a very accurate missile.

While its speed of 1000km/h and range are not as great as Russian competitors, the JSM makes up for this with very low detection. The missile minimises enemy detection and protects the launch aircraft by using a so-called stand-off range at the time of being launched. Further, it flies close to sea level when launched over sea and tracks the terrain when launched over land.

Existing missile capability would detract from the JSF’s performance given that they would hang beneath the wings, and they do not have the stealth qualities of the JSM.

“There’s been very little done since the Harpoon — they have a lot of catching up to do,” Mr Bratlie said. “The JSM has seeker capability including an imaging infra-red seeker providing target selection technology for detection, recognition and discrimination of targets which ensures we are not hitting the wrong target.”

BAE Systems’ aerospace director Steve Drury said the contract between Defence and Kongsberg would position the company’s technology “a step closer to being used in the JSM”.

“The contract will enable Kongsberg to continue the integration and qualification of BAE Systems’ passive radio frequency sensor into the system,” he said.

To this end, BAE Systems will supply qualified and low-rate initial production sensors to Kongsberg for use in its qualification activities.

Together with the PRF, Mr Drury said BAE would supply a highly sensitive electronic support measure (ESM) receiver for incorporation on the JSM.

Asked how the BAE technology would enhance the effectiveness of the missile, he said: “The combination of this PRF sensor with Kongsberg’s existing Imaging Infra-Red seeker provides a significant enhancement enabling the platform to detect, identify and geolocate all radio frequency emitters in the environment at long range. These identifications when fused with the data from the Imaging Infra-Red seeker will provide an increase in operational capability.”

BAE’s work on the JSM since 2009 has been supported by other federal government programs.

The company obtained support from the now-defunct Priority Industry Capability Inno­vation Program (PICIP).

Under this Defence-funded program, BAE Systems received a grant in 2013 to help commercialise the PRF technology.

The JSM is on track for final qualification next year. The US carried out a test firing last year at its Utah range. The test completed another “milestone towards full integration on the F-35”, said Eirik Lie, acting president Kongsberg Defence Systems.

BAE Systems is Australia’s specialist manufacturer of missile control and guidance systems.

Kongsberg, founded in 1814, has also partnered with Raytheon to develop and market the JSM in the US.

Defence department did not respond to questions.

Source: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/busines ... b73bcf5a93


This PRF may give the JSM a home-on-emissions capability similar to the AGM-158 JASSM.

Re: The JSM missile for the F35

Unread postPosted: 28 Jun 2017, 05:58
by spazsinbad
The next follow on link at ALERT 5 is FLUMMOXED to a J-15 story so do not bother clicking on it - I guess link may be fixed.
Japan may equip its F-35 with JSM
28 Jun 2017 ALERT5

"A report by Yomiuri Shimbun on Jun. 26 says Tokyo mulls giving its F-35A fleet a air-to-surface missile strike capability.

One of the options being considered is to buy the Norwegian Joint Strike Missile (JSM) that is being developed for the F-35. Japan’s current fighters are only equipped with anti-ship missiles and this will be a leap in capability for the Self-Defense Force.

Source: http://alert5.com/2017/06/28/japan-may- ... more-63555

Re: The JSM missile for the F35

Unread postPosted: 30 Jun 2017, 16:09
by spazsinbad
Amongst things already known (repeats by SLDinfo are LEG END ARY) at the end there is info about Japanese interest JSM.

Allies, Missiles and the F-35: The Case of the Joint Strike Missile 29 Jun 2017 SLDinfo

http://www.sldinfo.com/allies-missiles- ... e-missile/

Re: The JSM missile for the F35

Unread postPosted: 05 Oct 2017, 10:39
by spazsinbad
Kongsberg prepares to qualify the Joint Strike Missile
04 Oct 2017 Robin Hughes

"Kongsberg Defence & Aerospace is set to conduct the final flight test (FTM-5) of the Joint Strike Missile (JSM) in early 2018, in preparation for the weapon’s integration with the Royal Norwegian Air Force’s (RNoAF) F-35A Lightning II multirole stealth fighter.

FTM-5 is the culmination of a two-year flight-test campaign to qualify the missile for integration with the F-35A. In a first end-to-end flight test for the missile, a JSM equipped with a live warhead will be launched from a legacy F-16C/D Fighting Falcon from the US Air Force’s 445th Flight Test Group against a ‘realistic’ land target at the Utah Test and Training Range in the United States.

A Norwegian Ministry of Defence (MoD) spokesperson told Jane’s, “The ongoing effort of qualifying the JSM missile includes a small number of test-firings using a legacy F-16 as launch platform. The objective is to prepare and qualify the weapon for the subsequent integration on the F-35A. We have so far completed five events and have one remaining test-firing in the qualification programme, planned for March 2018. These activities are funded as part of the JSM Development Phase 3 as approved by Parliament in 2014.”

Kongsberg conducted the first flight test (FTM-1) of JSM in October 2015. In October 2016 the company conducted the first long-range powered flight test (FMT-2) of the missile over the Utah Test and Training Range – although FMT-2 was a re-run of an earlier failed flight test. In the May–June period of 2017, the company conducted the FTM-3/FTM-4 trials, with the missile flown without a seeker capability in both tests. “The tests were designed to measure the missile flight in real life and compare it to simulations to check that both correspond, and to measure fuel consumption at different altitudes. Actually, the fuel consumption measured a little better than in the modelling,” Hans Kongelf, vice-president of Kongsberg's Missile Systems division told Jane’s...."

Photo: "An F-16C/D Fighting Falcon from the USAF 445th Flight Test Group prepares to launch the JSM during FTM-2 over the Utah Test and Training Range on 29 October 2016. (Kongsberg Defence & Aerospace)" http://alert5.com/wp-content/uploads/20 ... e-F-16.jpg


Source: http://www.janes.com/article/74609/kong ... ke-missile

Re: The JSM missile for the F35

Unread postPosted: 05 Oct 2017, 13:12
by sunstersun
nordic countries are insanely impressive given their size.

Re: The JSM missile for the F35

Unread postPosted: 18 Nov 2017, 12:51
by pron
In a new article about the JSM in tu.no they also tell about the work to stack more AMRAAMS inside the F-35.
Here the actual text translated:

It is also about other ways of utilizing the bombroom. One example is the aircraft manufacturer's own project "Sidekick", which is about stacking Amraam missiles on top of each other so that F-35 is able to fly with six such air-to-air missiles internally instead of four as today. Lockheed Martin has a prototype that will soon be over in operational testing.

The article in norwegian can be found here - https://www.tu.no/artikler/kun-ett-krys ... erg/412047

Re: The JSM missile for the F35

Unread postPosted: 18 Nov 2017, 13:05
by krorvik
Thanks pron, hadn't seen that article tu.no is a great source :)

Re: The JSM missile for the F35

Unread postPosted: 18 Nov 2017, 18:00
by spazsinbad
GOOGLE TRANSLATE: https://translate.google.com.au/transla ... g%2F412047
F-35 JOINT STRIKE MISSILE Only one cross missile fits the abdomen on the F-35 - it is made on Kongsberg
18 Nov 2017 Av: Per Erlien Dalløkken

"This is more than a Norwegian weapon," emphasizes Locheed Martins F-35 boss.

ØRLAND: One of the fighter's best-in- flight F-35s is the so-called "stealth" capability, that is, the snowiness that makes it difficult to detect.

However, the radar signature should be kept intact, it does not make it a pleasure to fly around like a Christmas tree with missiles, bombs, sensors and fuel hanging on the wings and under the abdomen, as is the case today when the F-16 is flying with full warfare. The equipment must fit into the body.

Still, there is only one cross-missile that is adapted to the F-35 weapon room. It's called Joint Strike Missile (JSM) and is designed by Kongsberg.

Soon exam
It's been 15 years since the work on a F-35 customized version of Naval Strike Missile (NSM) started. The biggest developments in development have been done in recent years:

The first major milestone in the third and final stages of development was passed on October 28, 2015. Then the first JSM slip was conducted, aiming to demonstrate safe separation from the aircraft. The missile is equipped with a separate control system that lasts for a few seconds, ensuring that it does not collide with the plane after it is released.

About the day one year later, 29 October 2016, a motorized missile was released for the first time. It flew far over 200 kilometers while performing a lot of demanding maneuvers and varied height and speed, and demonstrated that Kongsberg calls extreme benefits for this type of missile.

In June this year, No. 3 and 4 were completed, also this Utah Test and Training Range (UTTR) off Salt Lake City. This shooting field is the only place in the United States to test cross-missiles across land.

"Here JSM flew very advanced tracks with different levels of altitude and speed at which the missile's flight characteristics were tested to the extremes. The tests were conducted as planned and included complex maneuvers with simulated attacks. The result was very successful and all exit criteria were met, says Øyvind Kolset, director of the miss division in Kongsberg Defense & Aerospace.

With this, the flow test approaches. What remains is the exam itself - a sharp missile demonstration fire that is scheduled for the first half of 2018.

New ability for Norway
Tekniske Ukeblad hits Kolset in Ørland where he participates in the official reception ceremony for the first three Norwegian F-35A aircraft with the rest of the Norwegian defense industry. Here both defense and political leadership argued that the new combat aircraft give Norway a defense capability we have never had before.

Central to the new impact is the five-generation missile JSM. Like the plane, the long-range missile is designed to be difficult to detect, and to have very good maneuverability. It can be used both against sea and hill targets.

In addition to deterring any opponents, the combination of F-35 and JSM will enable the Armed Forces to find and defeat well-defended targets over long distances.

Until last autumn all pieces of the missile were completely developed. That is, all subsystems and components have been through qualification, electronics and hardware are now production standard. The coal says that the design is as good as finished and that they are on track to complete the qualifying program for the Norwegian defense for summer 2018.

In parallel, integration work on F-35 is in progress with aircraft manufacturer Lockheed Martin. We are talking about both logical and physical integration. This is part of the first major upgrade on F-35, which is called Block 4, and will be performed on the Norwegian aircraft in the period 2022-2024. All missiles must be delivered and integrated so that the Air Force achieves so-called full operational ability (FOC) by 2025.

Australian applicant
This is of course more nations than Norway demands. One of them is Australia, which over the past two years has collaborated to add search capacity to the missile.

Specifically, BAE Australia is to integrate an RF searcher in addition to the existing image-forming infrared viewer (IR).

The coal says that they are very interested in JSM from all F-35 countries. But it is still important to win concrete contracts. That it will come, there is no doubt, according to Jeff Babione, who heads the F-35 program in Lockheed Martin.

This is incredibly advanced technology that contributes to a massive increase in capacity on an already highly capable aircraft. This will give their air force and defense a huge boost to any opponent, "said Babione, adding:

"I see no limit on how many F-35 countries want this ability. That way, I do not consider JSM only as a Norwegian weapon, although developed by Kongsberg, "said Babione to Teknisk Ukeblad.

He says that the opportunity to sell this missile to many, many customers poses a huge potential for Norwegian industry. At the same time, he remembers that at least three thousand aircraft are planned for eight other partner countries, three US weapons grenades and three other foreign customers.

In the abdomen or on the wings
For still, JSM is the only cross missile that fits internally in the F-35 weapon room. Other similar missiles, such as Lockheed Martin's own AGM-158 JASSM, do not fit into the abdomen and must therefore stay under the wings.

In addition to JSM becoming the first and second generation "Small Diameter Bomb" (SDB) and the King Mountain Partner Raytheon's AGM-154 «Joint Standoff Weapon», internally integrated into the F-35 in the combat aircraft's early operational life, it appears that (JSOW). It is this sliding bomb that forms the template for the bomb room of the F-35. It is thus not motorized and consequently has less range and maneuverability.

Babione emphasizes that it is a major arsenal that will be integrated when F-35 development is completed in 2018 and in Block 4 in about five years. All partner countries have weapons they want to integrate on the plane.

It is also about other ways of utilizing the bombroom. One example is the aircraft manufacturer's own project "Sidekick", which is about stacking Amraam missiles on top of each other so that F-35 is able to fly with six such air-to-air missiles internally instead of four as today. Lockheed Martin has a prototype that will soon be over in operational testing.

Kongsberg looks most likely that a 2xAmraam installation must use the JSM drive. In that case, four Amraam will not be possible next to two JSM.

Turkish competitor
Inside the bombroom, there is potentially a cross-missile competitor for JSM, from Turkish Roketsan.

- Yes, they also have ambitions to integrate their SOM-J missile internally in F-35, but they are still very early in development. Our sister company Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control helps them with the integration. They would like to do this for the time around Block 4, but there is still a lot of testing," emphasizes Babione.

With regard to the development of JSM, there has been a mood in public in the last year. Such Technical Weeklies understand this, largely because the information flow is government-controlled, from Norway and the United States, and they do not necessarily have an interest in minute-to-minute dissemination of such weapons programs.

Silence does not necessarily mean trouble. Perhaps on the contrary in certain cases:

- In my job, I will usually be notified when problems arise. Because I have not heard anything about the JSM integration, it should be sure that everything goes according to plan, says the F-35 boss."

Source: https://www.tu.no/artikler/kun-ett-krys ... erg/412047

Re: The JSM missile for the F35

Unread postPosted: 18 Nov 2017, 18:19
by krorvik
"snowiness"?

Ørland certainy can be snowy, but - in this case the right words are "ability to sneak up on".

Re: The JSM missile for the F35

Unread postPosted: 11 Dec 2017, 17:50
by steve2267
I stumbled across the pdf attached below. It is from 2014, but seems to show some details I have not seen on this thread, and my searches have not shown this posted before... so... here is is.


Re: The JSM missile for the F35

Unread postPosted: 11 Dec 2017, 22:45
by popcorn
steve2267 wrote:I stumbled across the pdf attached below. It is from 2014, but seems to show some details I have not seen on this thread, and my searches have not shown this posted before... so... here is is.

Kongsberg Naval and Joint Strike Missiles Update Precision Strike Annual Review (PSAR-14).pdf

Good stuff. Thanks.

Re: The JSM missile for the F35

Unread postPosted: 11 Dec 2017, 23:22
by lamoey
Looks like it is official that Japan will acquire the JSM for their F-35 fleet.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/08/asia/japan-missiles-purchase-intl/index.html

Re: The JSM missile for the F35

Unread postPosted: 01 Jun 2018, 01:26
by spazsinbad
Given the crap with Turkish Delight SOM-J looks like NSM will be a runner fore the JSM in da future? TIME WILL TELL. :roll:
Raytheon Awarded LCS Over-the-Horizon Anti-Surface Weapon Contract; Deal Could be Worth $848M
31 May 2018 Sam LaGrone

"The Norwegian-designed Naval Strike Missile has been officially selected to serve as the Littoral Combat Ship’s over-the-horizon anti-ship weapon, according to a Thursday Pentagon contract announcement.

The $14.8 million contract awarded to Raytheon will purchase the first round of missiles that will be incorporated on to the Freedom and Independence variants of the Littoral Combat Ships as part of Fiscal Year 2018 funds for OTH weapon research and development. The value could grow to $847.6 million if all contract options are exercised....

...The subsonic NSM has been in service with the Royal Norwegian Navy since 2012. The weapon has a range of about 100 nautical miles with a cost of slightly less than the Raytheon Tomahawk Block IV cruise missile (the Navy quotes the price per round of the TLAMs at $569,000 per round in FY 1999 dollars (about $868,000 in 2018, adjusted for inflation)).

The companies announced they would pair together to compete for new U.S. anti-ship missile contracts in 2015. In 2016 Raytheon and Kongsberg agreed to assemble and test the Norwegian missile’s components in Raytheon’s Tucson, Ariz. facility and the launchers at Raytheon’s plant in Louisville, Ky. The award to the Raytheon-Kongsberg team comes as little surprise as the Naval Strike Missile was the only competitor for the OTH contract…."

Photo: "An undated photo of a Kongsberg Naval Strike Missile in flight. Kongsberg Photo" https://news.usni.org/wp-content/upload ... ground.jpg (9.5Mb)


Source: https://news.usni.org/2018/05/31/raythe ... worth-848m

Re: The JSM missile for the F35

Unread postPosted: 01 Jun 2018, 02:42
by Corsair1963
Not unexpected....

Re: The JSM missile for the F35

Unread postPosted: 15 Jun 2018, 10:31
by spazsinbad
Edwards test squadron completes Joint Strike Missile test program [best read at source for all the details]
14 Jun 2018 Kenji Thuloweit, 412th Test Wing Public Affairs

"EDWARDS AIR FORCE BASE, Calif. --
A team of U.S. Air Force engineers, test pilots and Norwegian government and industry personnel recently completed a large phase of testing for the Joint Strike Missile. The JSM is Norway’s advanced anti-surface warfare missile designed to be carried in the new F-35A’s internal weapons bay. The missile can be employed against sea- and land-based targets. Norway is a partner nation in the development of the fifth-generation Joint Strike Fighter. Before proceeding with integration testing on the F-35A, the JSM was tested at Edwards AFB on F-16 Fighting Falcons from the 416th Flight Test Squadron....

...All variants of the JSM were inert until the final flight test events where it actually hit a target with full mission systems software and guidance. Throughout the test program, numerous software and hardware changes and updates were made. All live releases of the weapon were conducted at the Utah Test and Training Range. “The multi-national test team, including the 416th, was able to work with the weapon developer over the course of the program to improve the JSM in an incremental fashion, which has resulted in a reliable and high-performance missile system,” Drake said. “It was an enormous milestone to release the final, all-up-round weapon.”

Edwards AFB’s airspace, personnel, assets and the American-Norway alliance make it the ideal situation to test the JSM.... The next step is for the Norwegians to integrate the JSM on to the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter and then on to further weapons and integration testing...."

Photo: "A U.S. Air Force F-16 Fighting Falcon carries a developmental test version of Norway’s Joint Strike Missile. The 416th Flight Test Squadron recently wrapped up JSM testing. (U.S. Air Force photo by Christian Turner)" https://media.defense.gov/2018/Jun/14/2 ... 78-206.JPG (1.5Mb)


Source: http://www.edwards.af.mil/News/Article/ ... t-program/

Re: The JSM missile for the F35

Unread postPosted: 15 Jun 2018, 14:07
by lamoey
Video to go with the tests

https://youtu.be/OjsRNjk9ahY

Re: The JSM missile for the F35

Unread postPosted: 15 Jun 2018, 15:26
by spazsinbad
Great video thanks - it is in a foreign language however. Is anyone able to give the HIGHlites please? TAH.

Re: The JSM missile for the F35

Unread postPosted: 15 Jun 2018, 17:19
by magitsu
Launched from air. Follows planned route for about 200 km, then finds, identifies and attacks target. There's a false target (the container on the ground) 100 meters from the intended target vehicle.

Cooperation between Kongsberg, RNoAF and Norwegian defense research institute.

After 9 seconds, air intake is enabled, wings fold out. The missile gets on its predermined path. When the missile reaches the target area it identifies a correct target. The missile will automatically disable itself if it doesn't identify one.

Re: The JSM missile for the F35

Unread postPosted: 15 Jun 2018, 17:22
by spazsinbad
Thanks for that - good to know. :applause:

Re: The JSM missile for the F35

Unread postPosted: 16 Jun 2018, 00:59
by elvis1
Hard to tell, but it looks like they could have tested a high-high-low profile?

This is reported to have a >300 nm range with that profile (page 10 in link). Could really extend the effective range of the F-35 while maintaining stealth carry.

http://docplayer.net/30928877-Kongsberg ... ar-14.html

Re: The JSM missile for the F35

Unread postPosted: 16 Jun 2018, 08:18
by krorvik
tu.no (tech journal) has an article, in viking:

https://www.tu.no/artikler/her-er-et-sk ... mal/440021

Giggle Translation:

https://translate.google.com/translate? ... edit-text=

I love norwegian defence policy - we'll BAKE the ru... the enemy to death. (correct translation for "baking goal" is ground target...)

Re: The JSM missile for the F35

Unread postPosted: 16 Jun 2018, 14:00
by viper12
That's a...

Klever joke ! :twisted:

Re: The JSM missile for the F35

Unread postPosted: 16 Jun 2018, 17:34
by elvis1
It looks like they may have been using a High-High-Low flight profile in the test.

I understand the JSM has has a >300 nm range with this profile--would really add to the reach of the F-35 while maintaining stealth.

Does it appear likely the US will use this on the F-35?

Re: The JSM missile for the F35

Unread postPosted: 16 Jun 2018, 20:45
by spazsinbad
The LM NorskMen Briefing has the graphic of the profile & it is in several places on this forum. Meanwhile.... PDF was at this 'no longer working URL and why would it' shitty WWW: http://norway.usembassy.gov/root/pdfs/v ... _dista.pdf


Re: The JSM missile for the F35

Unread postPosted: 17 Jun 2018, 02:13
by elvis1
I think the JSM flight profile you have above is a High-Low-Low profile with a range of 150 nm.

The link below (page 10) shows that with a Low-Low-Low profile for the JSM flight, the range is 100 nm; however, with a High-High-Low profile for the flight of the missile itself, the range is extended to >300 nm--I am guessing more travel distance in thinner air (and I get the impression the High-High-Low profile is most applicable to hitting ground based targets??).

I have seen the 300 nm figure in a few sources, but they could be just referencing the same presentation in the link. Adding 300+ nm to the impressive operational range of the F35, plus factoring in the fact that with this type of stand-off distance, not much fuel would need to be kept in reserved for any type of skirmishing at the point of weapons release (plus improved fuel efficiency with new engines). . . . .this combination is looking to have a very long reach while maintaining stealth.

https://ndiastorage.blob.core.usgovclou ... bright.pdf

I was just wondering how likely it would be for the US to use the JSM with the F-35--so far it seems like there is more JSM/F35 interest with Norway, Australia, and Japan (not sure if the US tends to stay away from non US technology??). I haven't come across much on this with the search tool--but I am still getting used to it.

Re: The JSM missile for the F35

Unread postPosted: 17 Jun 2018, 03:23
by weasel1962
With the USN adopting the NSM for the LCS and future frigate, and the USAF testing the JSM with a recent firing of the missile from the F-16, its just a matter of time before adoption.

Re: The JSM missile for the F35

Unread postPosted: 17 Jun 2018, 04:30
by spazsinbad
At the BTM of a long complicated 'gta4' post the JSM PDF is mentioned: viewtopic.php?f=55&t=52510&p=356602&hilit=albright#p356602 WHILST 'uclass' highlighted here in 2014 same page as now attached below: viewtopic.php?f=54&t=23247&p=280307&hilit=albright#p280307

Re: The JSM missile for the F35

Unread postPosted: 17 Jun 2018, 09:40
by weasel1962
The F-35 could benefit from a faster missile though.

Re: The JSM missile for the F35

Unread postPosted: 17 Jun 2018, 13:12
by garrya
weasel1962 wrote:The F-35 could benefit from a faster missile though.

You mean like this
Image

Re: The JSM missile for the F35

Unread postPosted: 18 Jun 2018, 02:25
by weasel1962
AARGM Blk 2 is a step in the right direction...

Re: The JSM missile for the F35

Unread postPosted: 17 Jul 2018, 22:23
by spazsinbad
OLD news with some extra details.
Joint Strike Missile shoots, maneuvers and scores in latest test
17 Jul 2018 Daniel Cebul

"WASHINGTON — A Joint Strike Missile, fired from an F-16 Fighting Falcon, successfully struck its target during a July 16 test at the Utah Test and Training Range. According to Norway’s Ministry of Defence, the missile changed its course in flight to avoid a decoy target before scoring the hit….

...“JSM demonstrated its remarkable ability to recognize and destroy specific targets in challenging flight conditions,” said Mike Jarrett, Raytheon air warfare systems vice president. “This test signaled the completion of an important phase of development, and showed promising progress for this missile to outpace some of today’s toughest defense systems.”..."

Source: https://www.defensenews.com/air/2018/07 ... test-test/

Re: The JSM missile for the F35

Unread postPosted: 14 Sep 2018, 06:50
by akelafreedom
May be somebody will be interest in this. 3D model of the JSM
Full set is here - https://www.artstation.com/artwork/GrKX3

Image

Image

Re: The JSM missile for the F35

Unread postPosted: 23 Sep 2018, 01:52
by tjh8402
steve2267 wrote:
spazsinbad wrote:There is a long Joint Strike Missile thread where it has been made clear that the JSM will fit only internally in F-35A/Cs. Otherwise the JSM can be carried externally on all variants: viewtopic.php?f=54&t=23247&p=308896&hilit=Internal+Joint+Strike+Missile#p308896

Spaz, I'm aware of that thread. Perhaps I posted in the wrong JSM thread? This one is the most recent JSM thread my search revealed.

May I infer from your reply that
  1. The UK has not expressed any real interest in the JSM?
  2. There has been no publicly announced intent to further refine the JSM to fit the Killer Bee?

To one of my original questions... has anyone any idea how much further the JSM would have to be shortened to fit the Bee? Round numbers are fine. Are we talking a couple inches? (e.g. 5cm) A foot? (0.3m) More?


sorry to bring this old quote back up but I never noticed an answer. Considering that UK warships don't carry a heavy anti shipping armament, the B will be the UK's only carrier aircraft, and it has somewhat shorter legs than the A and C, the Royal Navy (and any other relying on the B for carrier aviation) would really benefit in maximizing the plane's maritime strike capabilities and how far out the fleet can reach without compromising LO.

Re: The JSM missile for the F35

Unread postPosted: 23 Sep 2018, 10:03
by spazsinbad
No news means there is NOSE KNEWs. Can't say without information - no new information - nobodies nose knows. CAPICE?

Re: The JSM missile for the F35

Unread postPosted: 23 Sep 2018, 11:35
by squirrelshoes
tjh8402 wrote:
steve2267 wrote:the Royal Navy (and any other relying on the B for carrier aviation) would really benefit in maximizing the plane's maritime strike capabilities and how far out the fleet can reach without compromising LO.

Both JSM and LRASM have a hell of a reach, and either could be launched from well outside sensor detection range of a maritime target and well before a maritime target could deploy anti-ship missiles at the carrier.

25 years from now it might be far more critical to have legs for weapons in the AA role, assuming China realizes some of their blue water navy goals related to naval aviation.

Re: The JSM missile for the F35

Unread postPosted: 25 Sep 2018, 16:26
by marsavian
UK F-35B future standoff weapon is the Spear 3 at Block 4, eight of which can fit in the internal bay. Obviously it's a small weapon ~250lb but it will have a >60nm range so can be delivered stealthily. The UK has not really decided on a future specific anti-ship weapon for Typhoon/F-35B apart from the 2030s FC/ASM even though the Marte ER is going to be certified earlier for a later generic Typhoon enhancement phase.

https://world.eurofighter.com/articles/ ... ilityboost
https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/the-pu ... apability/

Introducing and maintaining a mixed inventory of Naval Strike missile, Harpoon and Marte ER seems likely to be uneconomic, particularly given longer term development plans for the Anglo-French Future Cruise/ Anti-Ship Weapon (FC/ASM). Provisionally to be known as Perseus, FC/ASM is intended to be the Royal Navy long term replacement for Harpoon on UK warships, and for Storm Shadow on RAF aircraft, but will not enter service until 2030. Other available options include the RBS15 Mk3 – a comparison of key characteristics of in-service and future missiles is set out below.

Re: The JSM missile for the F35

Unread postPosted: 25 Sep 2018, 19:32
by ricnunes
tjh8402 wrote:Considering that UK warships don't carry a heavy anti shipping armament, the B will be the UK's only carrier aircraft, and it has somewhat shorter legs than the A and C, the Royal Navy (and any other relying on the B for carrier aviation) would really benefit in maximizing the plane's maritime strike capabilities and how far out the fleet can reach without compromising LO.


For what's worth the UK warships do and still carry the Harpoon missile ("your" heavy anti shipping armament). They (Harpoons) are carried by the new Type 45 Destroyers as well as by the older Type 23 frigates.
There was a plan by the U.K. Ministry of Defense to retire the Harpoon missile this year (2018) but this plan was postponed/delayed to at least to 2020 but likely even further down the road and the possibility of upgrading the Harpoons is apparently not out of the question which would extend the Harpoon's life/service until a definitive replacement can be procured.
Here:
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-b ... ship-22399

Regarding the rest, namely about mounting "heavy" Anti-ship weapons on the F-35B, I believe that other's have covered this up pretty well.
Moreover, even a F-35B armed with internal Paveway IV bombs and together with its Stealth Capabilities would still be a major/huge threat to be reckoned with even against well armed warships.

Re: The JSM missile for the F35

Unread postPosted: 26 Sep 2018, 00:38
by Corsair1963
Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if the UK acquired the JSM for it's F-35B's. Yet, you can't rule out the LRASM but I would consider that less likely.......IMHO

Re: The JSM missile for the F35

Unread postPosted: 28 Sep 2018, 03:17
by tjh8402
ricnunes wrote:
tjh8402 wrote:Considering that UK warships don't carry a heavy anti shipping armament, the B will be the UK's only carrier aircraft, and it has somewhat shorter legs than the A and C, the Royal Navy (and any other relying on the B for carrier aviation) would really benefit in maximizing the plane's maritime strike capabilities and how far out the fleet can reach without compromising LO.


For what's worth the UK warships do and still carry the Harpoon missile ("your" heavy anti shipping armament). They (Harpoons) are carried by the new Type 45 Destroyers as well as by the older Type 23 frigates.
There was a plan by the U.K. Ministry of Defense to retire the Harpoon missile this year (2018) but this plan was postponed/delayed to at least to 2020 but likely even further down the road and the possibility of upgrading the Harpoons is apparently not out of the question which would extend the Harpoon's life/service until a definitive replacement can be procured.
Here:
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-b ... ship-22399

Regarding the rest, namely about mounting "heavy" Anti-ship weapons on the F-35B, I believe that other's have covered this up pretty well.
Moreover, even a F-35B armed with internal Paveway IV bombs and together with its Stealth Capabilities would still be a major/huge threat to be reckoned with even against well armed warships.


Yes, I knew about the Harpoon. I didn't mean to suggest they had no anti surface capability, just that it's limited. I believe they only carry 8, and it's the older shorter range version. The Russians and Chinese are obviously far ahead, and the USN is quickly moving forward with the LRASM, NSM, and SM-6, along with having newer Harpoons.

I agree that the B has heavy hitting available anti shipping options, it's just that you have to choose between hitting long range targets and LO. You can have one or the other, but not both.

Re: The JSM missile for the F35

Unread postPosted: 28 Sep 2018, 05:34
by hythelday
Have you concidered Royal Navy may not be interested in employing carrier group as an anti-surface asset at all?

Re: The JSM missile for the F35

Unread postPosted: 28 Sep 2018, 10:17
by element1loop
tjh8402 wrote: ... it's just that you have to choose between hitting long range targets and LO. You can have one or the other, but not both.


Disagree.

A long-range or even medium-range standoff aircraft with external missiles in anti-surface role means the launch aircraft and the launch itself can remain NLOS and undetected. Are you presuming that an F-35B with a long or medium-range VLO missile will be detectable at such a launch range? Even if they were LOS profiled, I doubt it. A JASSM missile remains a VLO missile when attached to the pylon, and if the Jet it's attached to is an F-35B the package remains VLO with the possible exception of the pylon. And there is some question as to the pylon's LO qualities, but this does not mean they will be giving away the F-35 to tracking. It just means its detection radius in that config will be a larger bubble, but hardly an easy RCS target to detect and track at medium strike range.

The Royal Navy funding is a bit broke at present, and quite a bit of political and economic uncertainty. They're no doubt waiting until that changes before moving to a more capable strike weapon but they do have other means of delivery of things like Tomahawk to kill ships. And NSM is a likely candidate during the next decade, in just about every allied navy, plus JSM could be carried externally by then, as well as LRASM, and it's hardly going to give away the location of an F-35B launching below radar horizon(s).

Re: The JSM missile for the F35

Unread postPosted: 28 Sep 2018, 15:29
by ricnunes
tjh8402 wrote:Yes, I knew about the Harpoon. I didn't mean to suggest they had no anti surface capability, just that it's limited. I believe they only carry 8, and it's the older shorter range version.


If you find the fact that carrying 8 Harpoons is "limited" than this "limitations" is not exclusive to the Royal Navy, it's inclusive to most if not all NATO countries. Or putting this into better words, 8 Harpoons are basically the standard Anti-Ship loadout for most NATO warships.
For example:
Spanish Navy Álvaro de Bazán-class frigates Anti-Ship missile loadout: 8 Harpoons
Canadian Navy Halifax Class frigates Anti-Ship missile loadout: 8 Harpoons
Portuguese Navy Bartolomeu Dias-class frigates (ex-Karel Doorman-class) and Vasco da Gama-class frigates Anti-Ship missile loadout: 8 Harpoons
Dutch Navy De Zeven Provinciën-class and Karel Doorman-class frigates Anti-Ship missile loadout: 8 Harpoons
Danish Navy Iver Huitfeldt-class frigates Anti-Ship missile loadout: 8 Harpoons (could be expanded to 16 Harpoons)
and I could go and on...

Even The US Navy's Arleigh Burke-class destroyers and Ticonderoga-class cruisers Anti-Ship missile loadout is composed by 8 Harpoons.
Although the US Navy seems to be developing new anti-ship weapons namely the LRASM which fits on the Mk41 VLS launchers but for now the standard Anti-Ship missile loadout is still the same: 8 Harpoons. And even the US Navy's Arleigh Burke-class Flight IIA destroyers don't carry Harpoons at all (although they can be fitted if/when required).


tjh8402 wrote:The Russians and Chinese are obviously far ahead, and the USN is quickly moving forward with the LRASM, NSM, and SM-6, along with having newer Harpoons.


Just because an opposing ship (Russian or Chinese for example) has more Anti-Ship missiles with better range doesn't mean that they are in advantage. You know long range missiles fired from ships have a very big problem/obstacle which is line-of-sight. Ships own radar/sensors cannot detect other ships at long ranges because of the Earth's curvature (which prevents line-of-sight) so warships are fully dependent on other platforms such and namely has helicopters or other patrol aircraft in order to properly employ their long-range anti-ship missiles. And in these terms - helicopters, patrol aircraft, etc... NATO, including the Royal Navy has the clear advantage so what does this mean?
It means that NATO ships are likely to have a better chance to (indirectly) detect enemy ships first and thus fire their (shorter ranged and less quantity) Harpoons than the enemy has to fire their longer ranged (and more numerous) missiles first which would give a better effective range on the NATO's ship/Harpoon part.

Of course that I admit that the Russians and specially the Chinese are improving these longer range detection capabilities (thru helicopters, patrol aircraft, etc...) but how good are they compared to NATO is yet to be seen.

Re: The JSM missile for the F35

Unread postPosted: 28 Sep 2018, 15:31
by ricnunes
element1loop wrote:And NSM is a likely candidate during the next decade, in just about every allied navy, plus JSM could be carried externally by then, as well as LRASM, and it's hardly going to give away the location of an F-35B launching below radar horizon(s).


Isn't the F-35B capable of carrying the JSM missile internally?
(probably someone already asked this but I can't remember for sure)

Re: The JSM missile for the F35

Unread postPosted: 28 Sep 2018, 15:58
by steve2267
No, the Bee cannot carry the JSM internally.

I have been previously schooled on this point.

Re: The JSM missile for the F35

Unread postPosted: 28 Sep 2018, 17:40
by tjh8402
ricnunes wrote:
tjh8402 wrote:Yes, I knew about the Harpoon. I didn't mean to suggest they had no anti surface capability, just that it's limited. I believe they only carry 8, and it's the older shorter range version.


If you find the fact that carrying 8 Harpoons is "limited" than this "limitations" is not exclusive to the Royal Navy, it's inclusive to most if not all NATO countries. Or putting this into better words, 8 Harpoons are basically the standard Anti-Ship loadout for most NATO warships.
For example:
Spanish Navy Álvaro de Bazán-class frigates Anti-Ship missile loadout: 8 Harpoons
Canadian Navy Halifax Class frigates Anti-Ship missile loadout: 8 Harpoons
Portuguese Navy Bartolomeu Dias-class frigates (ex-Karel Doorman-class) and Vasco da Gama-class frigates Anti-Ship missile loadout: 8 Harpoons
Dutch Navy De Zeven Provinciën-class and Karel Doorman-class frigates Anti-Ship missile loadout: 8 Harpoons
Danish Navy Iver Huitfeldt-class frigates Anti-Ship missile loadout: 8 Harpoons (could be expanded to 16 Harpoons)
and I could go and on...

Even The US Navy's Arleigh Burke-class destroyers and Ticonderoga-class cruisers Anti-Ship missile loadout is composed by 8 Harpoons.
Although the US Navy seems to be developing new anti-ship weapons namely the LRASM which fits on the Mk41 VLS launchers but for now the standard Anti-Ship missile loadout is still the same: 8 Harpoons. And even the US Navy's Arleigh Burke-class Flight IIA destroyers don't carry Harpoons at all (although they can be fitted if/when required).


tjh8402 wrote:The Russians and Chinese are obviously far ahead, and the USN is quickly moving forward with the LRASM, NSM, and SM-6, along with having newer Harpoons.


Just because an opposing ship (Russian or Chinese for example) has more Anti-Ship missiles with better range doesn't mean that they are in advantage. You know long range missiles fired from ships have a very big problem/obstacle which is line-of-sight. Ships own radar/sensors cannot detect other ships at long ranges because of the Earth's curvature (which prevents line-of-sight) so warships are fully dependent on other platforms such and namely has helicopters or other patrol aircraft in order to properly employ their long-range anti-ship missiles. And in these terms - helicopters, patrol aircraft, etc... NATO, including the Royal Navy has the clear advantage so what does this mean?
It means that NATO ships are likely to have a better chance to (indirectly) detect enemy ships first and thus fire their (shorter ranged and less quantity) Harpoons than the enemy has to fire their longer ranged (and more numerous) missiles first which would give a better effective range on the NATO's ship/Harpoon part.

Of course that I admit that the Russians and specially the Chinese are improving these longer range detection capabilities (thru helicopters, patrol aircraft, etc...) but how good are they compared to NATO is yet to be seen.


The capabilities of the Russians and Chinese to complete the kill chain are questionable, but it sounds risky to move to plan operations on the assumption they won’t work. They are also hardly static. The RN may be fine for now, but my understanding is that they don’t have a plan for upgrading from the older harpoons nor adding additional missiles.

The US Navy is also currently limited in their surface to surface capabilities, but that is changing. They are gaining the ability to load the VLS with the LRASM, adding a ASuW Tomahawk, and use the SM6 against ships gives it more options. They will also enjoy the extra capabilities of the F-35C over the B, as well has already wielding LRASM equipped SHs. The US’s tanking capabilities as well as the longer legs of the C mean their planes can strike out much further than the tanklerless RN Bs. The US would also enjoy greater SA thanks to the Hawkeyes.

That all being said, I almost forgot for a second that this was the JSM thread and not the one about the RN F-35s. Apologies for taking it on a tangent and I don’t want to take it further off topic. I appreciate the info and input.

Re: The JSM missile for the F35

Unread postPosted: 28 Sep 2018, 18:10
by marsavian
The RN F-35B will almost certainly use the LRASM in the future as that is the intended anti-ship weapon of the to be built eight Type 26 Frigates (Australia is buying nine) with their Mk41 VLS so some are going to be purchased anyway for them so integration on the UK F-35B is virtually a certainty at the same time but they will be bought closer to the time the first frigate is commissioned in the 2020s. For internal delivery carriage the RN F-35B can use Paveway IV 500 lb LGBs followed by longer ranged winged 250lb Spear 3 at Block 4.

Re: The JSM missile for the F35

Unread postPosted: 28 Sep 2018, 19:25
by ricnunes
steve2267 wrote:No, the Bee cannot carry the JSM internally.

I have been previously schooled on this point.


Thanks for the reply.

Re: The JSM missile for the F35

Unread postPosted: 28 Sep 2018, 19:56
by ricnunes
tjh8402 wrote:The capabilities of the Russians and Chinese to complete the kill chain are questionable, but it sounds risky to move to plan operations on the assumption they won’t work. They are also hardly static. The RN may be fine for now, but my understanding is that they don’t have a plan for upgrading from the older harpoons nor adding additional missiles.


In terms of future (or even near future) and like marsavian said there's nothing that would prevent the RN from purchasing LRASM missiles and fit them on the Mk41 VLS of the upcoming Type 26 frigates if the need arises.
And if the need arises this would be something that could be done very quickly (without the need of a "long though" plan). The same also applies to any Harpoon upgrades. For example, a couple of years ago the Canadian Navy purchased Harpoon Block II missiles (which gives land attack capabilities to the Harpoon missile) but apparently and if I'm not mistaken there was no publicly and previously known plan to purchase such missiles - it seemed to have been a quite quick decision, which is quite unusual regarding Canadian military procurement I must say!
So the same can also happen regarding the Royal Navy, I guess. (useful for the Type 45 destroyers in this case)


tjh8402 wrote:The US Navy is also currently limited in their surface to surface capabilities, but that is changing. They are gaining the ability to load the VLS with the LRASM, adding a ASuW Tomahawk, and use the SM6 against ships gives it more options.


It's funny that you mention an ASuW Tomahawk. Such Tomahawk already existed in the past, it was the TASM and it was retired somewhere in the 1990's. Therefore I have my doubts that such missile variant would make a "comeback". Other alternatives such as the LRASM or NSM/JSM for example should be much cheaper for starters.


tjh8402 wrote:They will also enjoy the extra capabilities of the F-35C over the B, as well has already wielding LRASM equipped SHs. The US’s tanking capabilities as well as the longer legs of the C mean their planes can strike out much further than the tanklerless RN Bs. The US would also enjoy greater SA thanks to the Hawkeyes.


One of the main reasons for this is that the US Navy operates conventional (CATOBAR) carriers while the RN does not (STOVL carriers only). So this isn't IMO a far comparison.
Anyway, a F-35B with external LRASM or JSM would work just fine in any anti-ship role.


tjh8402 wrote:That all being said, I almost forgot for a second that this was the JSM thread and not the one about the RN F-35s. Apologies for taking it on a tangent and I don’t want to take it further off topic. I appreciate the info and input.


I don't have any problems with this at all. Afterall, a RN F-35B carrying JSM (externally) could be a possibility for the future, no?

Re: The JSM missile for the F35

Unread postPosted: 20 Oct 2018, 16:49
by marsavian
marsavian wrote:The RN F-35B will almost certainly use the LRASM in the future as that is the intended anti-ship weapon of the to be built eight Type 26 Frigates (Australia is buying nine) with their Mk41 VLS so some are going to be purchased anyway for them so integration on the UK F-35B is virtually a certainty at the same time but they will be bought closer to the time the first frigate is commissioned in the 2020s. For internal delivery carriage the RN F-35B can use Paveway IV 500 lb LGBs followed by longer ranged winged 250lb Spear 3 at Block 4.


Canada is looking to buy fifteen Type 26 frigates too as its preferred bidder.

https://navaltoday.com/2018/10/19/canad ... ombatants/

All three countries will customize the Type 26, primarily an anti-submarine frigate but also with anti-air and anti-surface missiles, with their own weapons.


Re: The JSM missile for the F35

Unread postPosted: 20 Oct 2018, 18:20
by ricnunes
Thanks for the info about the Canadian Surface Combatant project.

I'm also glad that for once this government managed to select the best choice when it comes to military procurement! (IMO, Type 26 was by far the best choice among the 3 finalist/contenders).


By the way and in the sequence of what was said before about the Type 26 not carrying the Harpoon missile, well at least the Canadian Type 26 will carry them.
So if the Canadian Type 26 can/will carry Harpoons there's also the possibility that UK's own Type 26's could carry Harpoons as well (this if it's UK's desire).
The video on marsavian's post clearly shows this as well as these mockup/model made by BAE showing its Canadian Surface Combatant entry:

Image

Image

Image

Re: The JSM missile for the F35

Unread postPosted: 08 Feb 2019, 19:27
by marsavian
Canadian Type 26 Frigate contract awarded after legal challenge dismissed

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/canadia ... dismissed/

Re: The JSM missile for the F35

Unread postPosted: 08 Feb 2019, 22:05
by ricnunes

Re: The JSM missile for the F35

Unread postPosted: 09 Feb 2019, 01:24
by aussiebloke
ricnunes wrote:It's funny that you mention an ASuW Tomahawk. Such Tomahawk already existed in the past, it was the TASM and it was retired somewhere in the 1990's. Therefore I have my doubts that such missile variant would make a "comeback". Other alternatives such as the LRASM or NSM/JSM for example should be much cheaper for starters.
[


In 2016 it was announced that the Block IV Tomahawk would have some examples modified with a new seeker to permit maritime attack. As far as I know this program is still going ahead.

https://news.usni.org/2016/02/18/west-u ... ng-in-2021

http://raytheon.mediaroom.com/2016-01-1 ... se-missile

Re: The JSM missile for the F35

Unread postPosted: 09 Feb 2019, 04:32
by element1loop
There was this earlier in the week too.

New U.S. Defense Strategy Rekindles Demand For Anti-Ship Weapons

Feb 7, 2019 Steve Trimble | Aviation Week & Space Technology

Sea Strike Rebirth

A new era in U.S. Navy anti-ship firepower opened quietly at the end of last year. The AGM-158C Long-Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM) became operational on B-1Bs operated by the 28th Bomb Wing in South Dakota. The heavy bomber first demonstrated a maritime strike capability in 2005, sinking several small target vessels with guided anti-tank munitions dispensed from a CBU-105 cluster bomb. Fourteen years later, the Air Force now has a fleet carrying a dedicated anti-ship cruise missile.

Although originally designed for a supersonic nuclear strike mission, the B-1B’s evolution into a new role as a ship killer is at the vanguard of an intense, multiservice push to modernize the maritime strike mission. For most of three decades, U.S. military officials have focused on attacking targets on land from the sea. But a surge of Chinese investment in offensive naval capabilities has inspired a new priority: sinking ships.

- USAF bomber AND Navy fighters deploy new anti-ship missile
- The Navy is rushing multiple new anti-ship missiles to its surface fleet

The Navy has already invested in several quick fixes. Raytheon designed the SM-6 to intercept incoming threats such as ballistic missiles and sea-skimming, anti-ship cruise missiles but switched sides in a 2016 demonstration. The Navy used the SM-6 to sink a decommissioned frigate, giving the fleet an instant upgrade with a new ballistic anti-ship missile. Raytheon also adapted the land-attack Tomahawk cruise missile with a new sensor for launch against enemy ships, adding another immediate response to emerging, long-range threats.

But the Navy’s appetite for anti-ship missiles is only growing.

“We need advanced, long-range multimission weapons, much like the SM-6 and the Maritime Strike Tomahawk for our surface combatants,” Vice Adm. Richard Brown, commander of Naval Surface Forces, said at the Surface Navy Association’s annual convention in January.

The introduction of the LRASM and the demonstration of new roles for the SM-6 and Tomahawk add power and depth to an anti-ship arsenal that has been dominated since the 1970s by surface- and air-launched versions of the active radar homing-guided Boeing Harpoon cruise missile. The introduction of the Raytheon/Kongsberg Naval Strike Missile (NSM) on the Littoral Combat Ship fleet later this year will add a proven midrange anti-ship missile with an imaging-infrared seeker.

Now the Navy and Marine Corps are looking to expand the arsenal further. Within five years, the Navy’s anti-ship arsenal could expand more, with hypersonic, long-range missiles, new midrange cruise missiles and land-based anti-ship missiles fired from mobile launchers. As the Army is countering advances in Russian cannons and surface-to-surface missiles with a new portfolio of long-range precision fires, the Navy is pushing back against China’s YJ-12 and Russia’s 3M22 Zircon and 3M-14T Kalibr anti-ship weapons.

Airmen at Dyess AFB, Texas, load a B-1B bomber with an AGM-158C, the anti-ship variant of the JASSM-ER. Credit: U.S. Air Force

China’s military has boasted about developing a boost-glide hypersonic weapon that can hit a moving aircraft carrier at sea. Navy officials intend to respond with a similar capability.

“We need a [vertical launch system]-launched hypersonic weapon,” Brown said. Indeed, the Navy is leading the design of a maneuvering hypersonic glide vehicle for launch by submarines and surface vessels. Adaptations of the Navy’s Conventional Prompt Strike (CPS) glide vehicle will be launched by Air Force B-52s and Army ground launchers. In January, the Navy unveiled plans to upgrade the Launch Test Complex at China Lake, California, to support the hypersonic CPS program, including new air launch and underwater test facilities. The Navy’s glide vehicle is expected to follow into service the Air Force’s Hypersonic Conventional Strike Weapon and the Army’s Alternate Reentry System after 2021.

Another conventional option is Lockheed Martin’s anti-ship derivative of the land-attack AGM-58 Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile-Extended Range (JASSM-ER), which relies on an infrared homing seeker. The LRASM version adds a long-range radio-frequency receiver to passively detect moving targets and discriminate between vessels.

The stealthy LRASM is kicking off operational testing on the Navy’s F/A-18E/F fighters this month, with an early operational capability planned in the summer or fall. In the next decade, the Navy also plans to integrate the anti-ship cruise missile on the F-35C, adding to the maritime strike radar and sensor upgrades scheduled to arrive as part of the Block 4 modernization.

So far, the U.S. military’s interest in long-range anti-ship missiles has not translated into large orders for the LRASM. Lockheed delivered the first 10 AGM-158Cs to the Air Force to allow the 28th Bomb Wing to declare an early operational capability in December. The Navy ordered 50 more LRASMs in the second lot of low-rate initial-production missiles a year ago. Another three missiles were added to the order in October, but the reason is undisclosed. “There’s a specific purpose [for the additional three orders], which I can’t talk about,” says Scott Craig, Lockheed’s director of business development for Navy programs.


The guided missile cruiser USS Princeton fires an RGM-84 at a simulated target during a 2016 exercise in the Pacific Ocean. U.S. Navy

But demand for the LRASM and the original JASSM-ER is clearly growing. In December, the Air Force awarded Lockheed a $99.3 million undefinitized contract to pay for tooling to ramp up production. The Air Force ordered 360 AGM-158Bs for the land-attack mission. Meanwhile, the Navy continues to negotiate a third lot of low-rate initial-production missiles, with the possibility of increased production.

“We’re working with the Navy to provide some capability upgrades in future lots,” Craig says.

The arrival of the LRASM in the Navy’s aviation branch coincides with questions about the future of investments in mid- and long-range subsonic cruise missiles for the surface fleet. The LRASM concept emerged as the first increment of the Offensive Surface Warfare Capability (OSuW). A concept for a follow-on second increment of the OSuW program once existed but now is almost never mentioned by Navy officials. Instead, a new concept is emerging, for a family of long-range missiles that are designed to perform several missions. Rear Adm. Ronald Boxall, director for Surface Warfare, displayed such a concept on a briefing slide at the Surface Navy Association event. It was called the Next-Generation Strike Weapon family of systems. “It’s all offensive, dual-mission, multimission and/or active [seekers],” Boxall said.

As that concept unfolds, the Navy still has requirements in the near term that could drive a three-way competition between the LRASM, NSM and Harpoon. For example, Regan Campbell, the Navy’s program manager for the FFG(X) frigate replacement program, showed a new requirement for the future ship class to carry at least four over-the-horizon anti-ship missiles. All three midrange weapons now in the Navy’s inventory could be considered. Although the LRASM and NSM offer the most modern seekers and airframes, Boeing salesmen are making the case that the venerable Harpoon still has a role in future naval combat. [Boeing again, with a retro product ... :doh: ]

The Long-Range Anti-Ship Missile adds a radio-frequency seeker to the AGM-158B for passive, long-range detection of moving surface vessels. Credit: U.S. Air Force

Last August, the RGM-84 Harpoon scored six hits in as many shots on a target vessel during the Rim of the Pacific Exercise (Rimpac). Jim Bryan, Boeing’s director for cruise missile systems, points to one shot in particular. Navy submarines have lacked an anti-ship cruise missile for about 20 years. The Navy took two weapons out of deep storage, which Boeing furnished and delivered for Rimpac. A refurbishment added a $250,000 kit that included a Global Positioning System receiver and an inertial measurement unit for improved guidance.

“Those exquisite fire-and-forget-type weapons are very expensive, so I don’t think we’ll have huge inventories. The Navy just can’t afford it,” Bryan says. “So if you look at something like Harpoon, it’s not necessarily one of those exquisite [weapons] with a multimode-type sensor and latest [electro-optical/infrared] technology, but we can put a lot in the inventory quickly at a low cost.”
[oh yes, it lives!]

The need for such anti-ship weapons also has spread to the Marine Corps. A new acquisition program called the Navy Marine Expeditionary Ship Interdiction System (Nmesis) opened last year, seeking to establish land-based anti-ship batteries from mobile launching systems such as the M142 High-Mobility Artillery Rocket System. After completing the first phase of an Other Transaction Authority acquisition process for Nmesis last year, the Marines have requested a rough estimate from contractors to proceed to phase two, Craig says.

“You could think of the Marines—they’re already in the [Pacific theater],” Craig says. “They would array themselves in the first island chain and . . . really be able to establish a large-area sea-control capability.”

http://aviationweek.com/defense/new-us- ... ip-weapons

Re: The JSM missile for the F35

Unread postPosted: 09 Feb 2019, 11:56
by popcorn
Deleted.

Re: The JSM missile for the F35

Unread postPosted: 09 Feb 2019, 17:36
by ricnunes
aussiebloke wrote:
ricnunes wrote:It's funny that you mention an ASuW Tomahawk. Such Tomahawk already existed in the past, it was the TASM and it was retired somewhere in the 1990's. Therefore I have my doubts that such missile variant would make a "comeback". Other alternatives such as the LRASM or NSM/JSM for example should be much cheaper for starters.
[


In 2016 it was announced that the Block IV Tomahawk would have some examples modified with a new seeker to permit maritime attack. As far as I know this program is still going ahead.

https://news.usni.org/2016/02/18/west-u ... ng-in-2021

http://raytheon.mediaroom.com/2016-01-1 ... se-missile


Interesting indeed. Thanks for the links.
If such program/capabilities are to be successfully completed then this could give back the Tomahawk operators - The US Navy (mainly) and the Royal Navy - a very long range Anti-Ship capability.
Nevertheless I still think that missiles such as the LRASM or NSM/JSM would be much cheaper alternatives (and likely more survivable as well) which would be even more important for smaller Navies such as the navies of Australia, Canada, etc...

But yeah, adding a seeker to the Tomahawk in order to enable it to engage sea targets on top of the existing land attack capabilities is IMO a very smart move. This would IMO be a major boost in terms of capability for naval assets such as for example, the Virginia class SSN's which carries lots of Tomahawk missiles in VLS launchers.

Re: The JSM missile for the F35

Unread postPosted: 10 Feb 2019, 02:27
by popcorn
I speculate the anti-ship Tomahawk will have an active RF seeker in contrast to LRASM which has a passive RF sensor.

Re: The JSM missile for the F35

Unread postPosted: 10 Feb 2019, 03:57
by element1loop
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.

Re: The JSM missile for the F35

Unread postPosted: 11 Mar 2019, 18:18
by pron
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

Re: The JSM missile for the F35

Unread postPosted: 12 Mar 2019, 04:17
by squirrelshoes
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.

Re: The JSM missile for the F35

Unread postPosted: 12 Mar 2019, 05:12
by popcorn
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

Re: The JSM missile for the F35

Unread postPosted: 12 Mar 2019, 10:47
by weasel1962
Official confirmation from Kongsberg that Japan is buying the JSM.

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

Re: The JSM missile for the F35

Unread postPosted: 13 Nov 2019, 11:38
by krieger22
Kongsberg got a follow on contract from Japan for JSMs:

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

Re: The JSM missile for the F35

Unread postPosted: 13 Nov 2019, 11:45
by weasel1962
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.

Re: The JSM missile for the F35

Unread postPosted: 14 Nov 2019, 22:13
by timmymagic
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.

Re: The JSM missile for the F35

Unread postPosted: 14 Nov 2019, 23:58
by squirrelshoes
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.

Re: The JSM missile for the F35

Unread postPosted: 15 Nov 2019, 00:17
by spazsinbad
Would you believe 5 Exocet Missiles? https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-17256975

Re: The JSM missile for the F35

Unread postPosted: 15 Nov 2019, 10:48
by timmymagic
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.