What will be the USNs primary F-35 naval strike weapon?

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

popcorn

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 7645
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2008, 08:55

Unread post22 Jul 2016, 00:43

vanshilar wrote:


Well...the ship had been stripped of fuel and stuff, so they were basically firing at an empty can. A real target would have fuel, ammunition, etc., causing fires and other havoc internally once it was struck, making it sink much more quickly.

The article explained that. Still instructve which is the point of conducting a SINKEX.
"When a fifth-generation fighter meets a fourth-generation fighter—the [latter] dies,”
CSAF Gen. Mark Welsh
Offline

bring_it_on

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 929
  • Joined: 30 Apr 2014, 14:32

Unread post22 Jul 2016, 02:00

popcorn wrote:This.



The LRASM isn't being acquired in sufficient numbers to really be a multi-platform weapon for the USN unless the program is turned into a larger acquisition program which may raise objections from Boeing and Raytheon.. The current weapon provides a limited inventory for the F-18E/F, and the B-1B.

There really isn't a dedicated Anti Ship Naval Strike weapon besides the JSOW and the other PGM's in the inventory. Future GBU-X is going to have a 100+ Km range so that is an option as a weapon that could be lobbed from range. The Harpoon vs NSM debate is interesting with the latter clearly being the more modern weapon and the former's ER version not being made compliant with the weapons bays.

Ultimately whatever they decide it will come down to what sort of seeker they require for the main weapon. the LRASM has a passive RF+ IR seeker, the JSM an IR one while the Australian proposals for JSM actually look like a mini LRASM (With a passive RF Seeker). The Harpoon still provides a valuable capability in its active RF seeker and the ER version will still provide a good level of capability.

We are probably on the cusp of hypersonics so they may just wait for other strike options to open up, mature and become affordable so they may simply invest in current weapons and not have future requirements for a while.
Online

SpudmanWP

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 8109
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post22 Jul 2016, 02:17

zero-one wrote:Same goes for the . Sure it can carry the LRASM which lessens it's VLO properties, but with the range on that thing you can launch it off cheaper F/A-18Es which may have a lower operating cost.


If the target is within range of a SH carrying two LRASM..... then it's in range of the F-35C carrying FOUR.

In other words.. anything you want more than two missiles for, you have to put up a second SH or just add two more to the F-35C.

Then there is the issue of SA which the SH does not have.

p.s. The F-35C can do this all while also carrying it's own 2x MALD-Js along with the 2-4x LRASMs :mrgreen:
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline

zero-one

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1969
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 16:19
  • Location: New Jersey

Unread post22 Jul 2016, 05:49

SpudmanWP wrote:If the target is within range of a SH carrying two LRASM..... then it's in range of the F-35C carrying FOUR.

In other words.. anything you want more than two missiles for, you have to put up a second SH or just add two more to the F-35C.

Then there is the issue of SA which the SH does not have.

p.s. The F-35C can do this all while also carrying it's own 2x MALD-Js along with the 2-4x LRASMs :mrgreen:


I don't understand, isn't the payload of the SHornet quite similar to the F-35C? Also, the Rhino will have plenty of SA, while the F-35C will undoubtedly have more, this doesn't make the F/A-18E blind all of a sudden right?

since the LRASMs are fitted externally on the F-35, it will increase the RCS of the aircraft to a certain degree. And with only so much F-35s to go around, in the begining of a high end conflict, you'd like all your F-35s to take advantage of their VLO capabilities.

To me using LRASMs on an F-35 is much like using JSOW-ERs on a B-2 bomber, yes it can do it, but isn't the B-2 capable of striking high value highly protected targets with cheap, cost effective munitions in greater numbers anyway.

Thats probably why the JSOW is more commonly carried by non VLO platforms.

Just my 2 cents though.
Online

SpudmanWP

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 8109
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post22 Jul 2016, 06:34

To get anywhere near (but not quite to) the range of an C, the SH has to hang bags on the wings which limits it to 2xLRASM. The C does not have to remove any fuel to mount 4x LRASM and would still have the 2x MALD-J internal.

Even with 4xLRASM external, the C would still have a smaller RCS than a clean SH. The C would also have the APG-81 EW functions to boot.

SuperHornet Combat Radius - 390nm:
Interdiction with four 1,000 lb bombs, two Sidewinders, and two 1,818 liter (480 U.S. gallon: 400 Imp gallon) external tanks, navigation FLIR and targeting FLIR: Forward Looking Infra-Red hi-lo-lo-hi

http://web.archive.org/web/201110261821 ... r/f18.html

So what the C can do at 500+nm (2x external large weapons), the SH does at 390nm. If the SH ditches the tanks for 4xLRASM (if it can even do that), it's range would likely drop to the sub 300 range while the C can do 4xLRASM without losing fuel and only having to suffer a little drag.
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline

jessmo111

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 706
  • Joined: 16 Jul 2015, 02:49

Unread post22 Jul 2016, 10:12

SpudmanWP wrote:To get anywhere near (but not quite to) the range of an C, the SH has to hang bags on the wings which limits it to 2xLRASM. The C does not have to remove any fuel to mount 4x LRASM and would still have the 2x MALD-J internal.

Even with 4xLRASM external, the C would still have a smaller RCS than a clean SH. The C would also have the APG-81 EW functions to boot.

SuperHornet Combat Radius - 390nm:
Interdiction with four 1,000 lb bombs, two Sidewinders, and two 1,818 liter (480 U.S. gallon: 400 Imp gallon) external tanks, navigation FLIR and targeting FLIR: Forward Looking Infra-Red hi-lo-lo-hi

http://web.archive.org/web/201110261821 ... r/f18.html

So what the C can do at 500+nm (2x external large weapons), the SH does at 390nm. If the SH ditches the tanks for 4xLRASM (if it can even do that), it's range would likely drop to the sub 300 range while the C can do 4xLRASM without losing fuel and only having to suffer a little drag.


Its Ironic how people always give the F-35 a hard time over range. The Legacy and SH are pathetic by comparision.
Offline

bring_it_on

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 929
  • Joined: 30 Apr 2014, 14:32

Unread post22 Jul 2016, 10:47

jessmo111 wrote:
SpudmanWP wrote:To get anywhere near (but not quite to) the range of an C, the SH has to hang bags on the wings which limits it to 2xLRASM. The C does not have to remove any fuel to mount 4x LRASM and would still have the 2x MALD-J internal.

Even with 4xLRASM external, the C would still have a smaller RCS than a clean SH. The C would also have the APG-81 EW functions to boot.

SuperHornet Combat Radius - 390nm:
Interdiction with four 1,000 lb bombs, two Sidewinders, and two 1,818 liter (480 U.S. gallon: 400 Imp gallon) external tanks, navigation FLIR and targeting FLIR: Forward Looking Infra-Red hi-lo-lo-hi

http://web.archive.org/web/201110261821 ... r/f18.html

So what the C can do at 500+nm (2x external large weapons), the SH does at 390nm. If the SH ditches the tanks for 4xLRASM (if it can even do that), it's range would likely drop to the sub 300 range while the C can do 4xLRASM without losing fuel and only having to suffer a little drag.


Its Ironic how people always give the F-35 a hard time over range. The Legacy and SH are pathetic by comparision.


Both the Legacy and SH are designed around their respective requirements so they serve their roles, and extend combat range by carrying EFT's pretty much like most other western 4th generation aircraft. The F-35 carries a lot of fuel internally to deliver combat range requirements without loosing its LO advantage.

The SH's is the Navy's truck and they don't mind hanging stuff on it. That they don't care that they can't drop the centerline tank during air-air combat (because it has an IRST) speaks to the way they wish to use that platform.
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 5748
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post22 Jul 2016, 12:01

jessmo111 wrote:Its Ironic how people always give the F-35 a hard time over range. The Legacy and SH are pathetic by comparision.


For as far back as I can remember, maybe with the exception of the V-22, every aircraft the US has fielded, people have griped about the range not being enough. It's a classic go-to for basement dwellers.
Choose Crews
Offline

zero-one

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1969
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 16:19
  • Location: New Jersey

Unread post22 Jul 2016, 12:36

bring_it_on wrote:The SH's is the Navy's truck and they don't mind hanging stuff on it. That they don't care that they can't drop the centerline tank during air-air combat (because it has an IRST) speaks to the way they wish to use that platform.


Just a side question on this one. How far does an empty centerline affect the Kinematic performance of a SHornet.
I beleive that the F-16C is limited to 7Gs with a full centerline but retains full 9G capability once it's empty.

However the SHornet's strength was never in pulling high Gs. Would that centerline affect the AOA and pitch rates of the Shornet.
Offline

bigjku

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 679
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2012, 21:00

Unread post22 Jul 2016, 14:43

bring_it_on wrote:
popcorn wrote:This.



The LRASM isn't being acquired in sufficient numbers to really be a multi-platform weapon for the USN unless the program is turned into a larger acquisition program which may raise objections from Boeing and Raytheon.. The current weapon provides a limited inventory for the F-18E/F, and the B-1B.

There really isn't a dedicated Anti Ship Naval Strike weapon besides the JSOW and the other PGM's in the inventory. Future GBU-X is going to have a 100+ Km range so that is an option as a weapon that could be lobbed from range. The Harpoon vs NSM debate is interesting with the latter clearly being the more modern weapon and the former's ER version not being made compliant with the weapons bays.

Ultimately whatever they decide it will come down to what sort of seeker they require for the main weapon. the LRASM has a passive RF+ IR seeker, the JSM an IR one while the Australian proposals for JSM actually look like a mini LRASM (With a passive RF Seeker). The Harpoon still provides a valuable capability in its active RF seeker and the ER version will still provide a good level of capability.

We are probably on the cusp of hypersonics so they may just wait for other strike options to open up, mature and become affordable so they may simply invest in current weapons and not have future requirements for a while.


I am betting LRASM wins the contact for wider deployment in the next couple years.

As for hypersonics I am not sold just yet on them. I think that people vastly underestimate the lethality of what the US is building in the subsonic regime. With JASSM, LRASM, MALD-J and eventually CHAMP as well as existing weapons what I see against highly dense air defense systems is basically an ability to put up a self escorting package of weapons. They all share similar speeds and have generally similar ranges. MALD-J and eventually CHAMP will greatly complicate engaging the actual strike weapons coming in with them. If you throw AARGM-ER into the mix as well it gets even more interesting.

My issue with Hypersonics is they are almost assuredly going to be larger weapons. Brahmos vs LRASM in terms of size is illustrative here. If they can get the size and cost down then I am interested. But right now I am not sure blazing top speed gets you any more chance of success than simply slipping in a MALD-J or two among a strike package does.
Offline
User avatar

popcorn

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 7645
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2008, 08:55

Unread post22 Jul 2016, 15:17

IIRC the Navy has merged it's ASuW program with it's requirement for a new land-attack missile. The specs called for a solution that could out-range and out-punch Tomahawk. In the meantime the current crop of missile options is a definite step up in support of the Distributed Lethality concept.

Add edit: found it
http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/ ... px?ID=1821
Last edited by popcorn on 23 Jul 2016, 01:30, edited 1 time in total.
"When a fifth-generation fighter meets a fourth-generation fighter—the [latter] dies,”
CSAF Gen. Mark Welsh
Offline

bring_it_on

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 929
  • Joined: 30 Apr 2014, 14:32

Unread post22 Jul 2016, 15:54

I am betting LRASM wins the contact for wider deployment in the next couple years.


That's a possibility but it would be something that could raise objections from others that would have been denied competition. It makes a lot of sense however. Long term, the LRASM still doesnt satisfy the internal carriage issue and for that at least on the Air Force side there is the AGM-X.

The Increment 2 weapons where the LRASM is also a contender are for ship launched systems and the only other Increment-1 follow planned at the very start of the DARPA run program (that got rolled into the Inc. 1) was cancelled (LRASM-B).

As for hypersonics I am not sold just yet on them. I think that people vastly underestimate the lethality of what the US is building in the subsonic regime. With JASSM, LRASM, MALD-J and eventually CHAMP as well as existing weapons what I see against highly dense air defense systems is basically an ability to put up a self escorting package of weapons. They all share similar speeds and have generally similar ranges. MALD-J and eventually CHAMP will greatly complicate engaging the actual strike weapons coming in with them. If you throw AARGM-ER into the mix as well it gets even more interesting.


Subsonic weapons will obviously still be around and will get better and better but Hypersonics give you two other things over and above that in terms of survivability and time to target.

My issue with Hypersonics is they are almost assuredly going to be larger weapons. Brahmos vs LRASM in terms of size is illustrative here.


Brahmos isnt a hyper sonic weapon and its large because of its range, payload and its choice of propulsion (liquid ramjet). It depends upon which option you choose that really determines the size of the weapon and carriage. While the HSSW and HAAWC may or may not be internal bay compliant you could very easily carry 2 if not more externally on the F-35 or even the F-16C. It definitely won't be Brahmos size or weight and may even be smaller than the Hyfly.
Offline

arian

Banned

  • Posts: 1294
  • Joined: 23 Dec 2014, 09:25

Unread post24 Jul 2016, 03:45

bring_it_on wrote:The LRASM isn't being acquired in sufficient numbers to really be a multi-platform weapon for the USN unless the program is turned into a larger acquisition program which may raise objections from Boeing and Raytheon.. The current weapon provides a limited inventory for the F-18E/F, and the B-1B.

There really isn't a dedicated Anti Ship Naval Strike weapon besides the JSOW and the other PGM's in the inventory.


JASSM is actually being acquired in larger numbers than JSOW at this point.
Offline

bring_it_on

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 929
  • Joined: 30 Apr 2014, 14:32

Unread post24 Jul 2016, 03:50

arian wrote:
bring_it_on wrote:The LRASM isn't being acquired in sufficient numbers to really be a multi-platform weapon for the USN unless the program is turned into a larger acquisition program which may raise objections from Boeing and Raytheon.. The current weapon provides a limited inventory for the F-18E/F, and the B-1B.

There really isn't a dedicated Anti Ship Naval Strike weapon besides the JSOW and the other PGM's in the inventory.


JASSM is actually being acquired in larger numbers than JSOW at this point.


JASSM and LRASM aren't the same weapon as far as acquisition is concerned and are being procured separately. The LRASM acquisition program came out of the DARPA development program upon an urgent request by the USN and USAF for capability with the Pacific in mind. They were able to bypass competition (claiming that the DARPA contract was competitive) on account of the urgent need. The total planned acquisition is < 200 missiles under the Increment-1 effort the last I checked. Increment 2 and beyond are fully competitive programs and the only remaining air-launched development in the LRASM-B was terminated. Increment 2 does not have air-launch as a requirement.
Offline

arian

Banned

  • Posts: 1294
  • Joined: 23 Dec 2014, 09:25

Unread post24 Jul 2016, 03:56

bring_it_on wrote:
arian wrote:
bring_it_on wrote:The LRASM isn't being acquired in sufficient numbers to really be a multi-platform weapon for the USN unless the program is turned into a larger acquisition program which may raise objections from Boeing and Raytheon.. The current weapon provides a limited inventory for the F-18E/F, and the B-1B.

There really isn't a dedicated Anti Ship Naval Strike weapon besides the JSOW and the other PGM's in the inventory.


JASSM is actually being acquired in larger numbers than JSOW at this point.


JASSM and LRASM aren't the same weapon as far as acquisition is concerned and are being procured separately. The LRASM acquisition program came out of the DARPA development program upon an urgent request by the USN and USAF for capability with the Pacific in mind. They were able to bypass competition (claiming that the DARPA contract was competitive) on account of the urgent need. The total planned acquisition is < 200 missiles under the Increment-1 effort the last I checked. Increment 2 and beyond are fully competitive programs and the only remaining air-launched development in the LRASM-B was terminated. Increment 2 does not have air-launch as a requirement.


Yes I am aware but its rather early to be talking about numbers of procurement at this point, or to assume it won't be in large numbers. Initial acquisition numbers at this point don't mean much. My point was that JASSM, its cousin, is already the "standard" standoff weapon.
PreviousNext

Return to F-35 Armament, Stores and Tactics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest