Update: USAF seeks information maritime strike weapon [F-35]

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

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 24633
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post14 Aug 2020, 22:53

Update: US Air Force seeks information on maritime strike weapon
14 Aug 2020 Pat Host

"The US Air Force (USAF) is conducting market research into kinetic weapons capable of engaging and defeating maritime surface vessels, according to a 24 July request for information (RFI) posted on the federal contracting website beta.sam.gov.

No further details were available with the public version of the RFI, which had a version classified secret by the Air Force Life Cycle Management Center (AFLCMC) armament systems development division. USAF spokesperson Ilka Cole said on 10 August that while the specific capabilities sought are classified, the service seeks information on any kinetic weapon capable of engaging and defeating maritime surface vessels.

An expert believes that this RFI is the USAF’s effort to capture weapons compatible with the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) that are not the Lockheed Martin AGM-158C Long Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM) nor the Raytheon-Kongsberg Defense Systems Joint Strike Missile (JSM) air-launched anti-ship weapon being developed for the F-35. Bryan Clark, senior fellow at the Hudson Institute think tank in Washington, DC, told Janes on 31 July that the LRASM will probably not be compatible with the F-35 as the stakeholders have not been able to integrate it on to the aircraft for internal carriage due to the weapon’s large size.

Lockheed Martin spokesman Brett Ashworth said on 12 August that the company is investing in F-35 integration efforts for LRASM and the AGM-158B Joint Air to Surface Standoff Missile-Extended Range (JASSM-ER). He said there is operator interest in both weapons and the company is working to ensure outstanding weapon stand-off and effects."

Source: https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news ... ike-weapon
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

boogieman

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 325
  • Joined: 19 Aug 2019, 03:26

Unread post15 Aug 2020, 04:28

I imagine this will be music to the ears of the RAAF. Hopefully both JSM and LRASM are still integrated soon (with UAI?) as they strike me as valuable weapons in their own right, especially in the Pacific.
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3601
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post15 Aug 2020, 17:15

I'm curious to which specific capabilities are being sought, that JSM and LRASM don't address. Unit cost, magazine depth, range, speed, etc....
Offline

jessmo112

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 201
  • Joined: 16 Mar 2020, 02:09

Unread post15 Aug 2020, 21:05

Personally I would build somthing that looks like this.

1. SDB type frame but no explosives

2. Install a small booster and Ram jet.

3. Put some kind of DU or Tungsten penetrator inside.

4. Gps/ins mm wave and Imaging seeker.

A 100 lb DU rod traveling at mach 5 would do amazing damage to a ship. It might just go all the way through it.

Next problem on the list to solve, the presidency, world hunger, and Toilet paper price gouging.
Offline
User avatar

element1loop

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1537
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2015, 05:35
  • Location: Australia

Unread post16 Aug 2020, 07:48

My read is this is not about LRASM or JSM being insufficient, I don't see anything which suggests that with either. It takes a long time to build up or expand the war stock of either missile. But not long to expend. Doing this means missiles, most probably with significantly lower capabilities, delivering higher numbers, with more active production lines and more potential to accelerate them to build and replace war stock faster. If AF can use something to get the job done on most "surface vessels", without expending the slowest to rebuild top-end weapons it really wants, then other missile options is what USAF needs, to not end up depleted.
Accel + Alt + VLO + DAS + MDF + Radial Distance = LIFE . . . Always choose Stealth
Offline

boogieman

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 325
  • Joined: 19 Aug 2019, 03:26

Unread post16 Aug 2020, 09:35

I guess it's a balancing act between having a weapon capable enough to take down the needed target set (looking at you Type-055/052) while still having enough of them to last the full duration of any projected hostilities. LRASM is clearly your weapon of choice for larger vessels, while JSM would ideally supplement it to make up the numbers with enough of its own punch to ruin the day of anything destroyer sized or smaller. Very keen to see both weapons in RAAF service so that our ASCM/LACM arsenal is not confined to a single squadron of Rhinos.
Offline
User avatar

element1loop

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1537
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2015, 05:35
  • Location: Australia

Unread post16 Aug 2020, 09:52

I'd like to see LRASM and JSM on 4 RAAF platforms, SH, P-8, F-35 and JSM on MQ-9. That could clear a very large area of the reachable Indo-Pacific, and keep it clear. Then it's all ASW, all of the time.
Accel + Alt + VLO + DAS + MDF + Radial Distance = LIFE . . . Always choose Stealth
Offline

boogieman

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 325
  • Joined: 19 Aug 2019, 03:26

Unread post16 Aug 2020, 10:00

Agreed, with SiAW, JASSM-ER/XR, HAWC and a partridge in a pear tree please! :wink:
Offline

marauder2048

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1307
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post16 Aug 2020, 22:22

boogieman wrote:I guess it's a balancing act between having a weapon capable enough to take down the needed target set (looking at you Type-055/052) while still having enough of them to last the full duration of any projected hostilities. LRASM is clearly your weapon of choice for larger vessels, while JSM would ideally supplement it to make up the numbers with enough of its own punch to ruin the day of anything destroyer sized or smaller. Very keen to see both weapons in RAAF service so that our ASCM/LACM arsenal is not confined to a single squadron of Rhinos.


Except no one has ever found a price for JSM.

If anything, they'll see one of the F-35 compatible variants of JASSM Lockheed has pitched over the years
or JSOW-ER.
Last edited by marauder2048 on 16 Aug 2020, 22:33, edited 1 time in total.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 24633
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post16 Aug 2020, 22:32

Perhaps a price for JSM may be inferred from the NSM price predicated on the Tomahawk Block IV? https://sldinfo.com/2018/06/the-allied- ... e-missile/
from:
https://news.usni.org/2018/05/31/raythe ... worth-848m
"...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))...."

GRAPHIC: https://sldinfo.com/wp-content/uploads/ ... .40-AM.png
Attachments
NSM-JSMkeyDifferences.gif
Last edited by spazsinbad on 16 Aug 2020, 22:44, edited 1 time in total.
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

marauder2048

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1307
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post16 Aug 2020, 22:38

spazsinbad wrote:Perhaps a price for JSM may be inferred from the NSM price predicated on the Tomahawk Block IV? https://sldinfo.com/2018/06/the-allied- ... e-missile/
from:
https://news.usni.org/2018/05/31/raythe ... worth-848m
"...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))...."



Why would they would use Block IV cruise missile costs from FY99...
TACTOM was $1.2 million in FY2013. The modern ones are more expensive and JSM is going to
be more expensive than NSM just by virtue of the two-way datalink and the RWR.
Offline

jessmo112

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 201
  • Joined: 16 Mar 2020, 02:09

Unread post17 Aug 2020, 06:18

I thought the USAF was working on a low cost cruise missile. Either grey wolf or some strap on kit for dumb bombs.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/3 ... progresses
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4122
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post17 Aug 2020, 13:36

It's a smart move, particularly in light of the threats... both current and developing.

I'm not terribly familiar with all of our air to sea munitions, but understand the Harpoon is still relied on in many instances. If that's true, we are way behind and need to catch up fast. The Chinese and even North Koreans have some truly scary air to ship weapons, and I for one wouldn't want to be on a carrier anywhere near those things.

Whatever it is, it'll need to be stealth too. No sense putting a conventional, non stealthy missile on a stealth platform. Sure, they fly low and perhaps under some radars. But this has been known for years, and surely today's surface ships have ways of combating these missiles. Problem being, it just takes one to get throuugh...
Offline

aussiebloke

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 139
  • Joined: 07 Dec 2017, 22:29

Unread post17 Aug 2020, 15:03

The gross/weapon system unit cost for the Naval Strike Missile (NSM) that is going to equip LCSs is $2.194 million in FY21.
https://apps.dtic.mil/procurement/Y2021 ... B_2021.pdf

By comparison the unit cost of LRASM IN FY21 is $3.96 million.
https://apps.dtic.mil/procurement/Y2021 ... B_2021.pdf
Offline

marauder2048

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1307
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post17 Aug 2020, 16:21

aussiebloke wrote:The gross/weapon system unit cost for the Naval Strike Missile (NSM) that is going to equip LCSs is $2.194 million in FY21.
https://apps.dtic.mil/procurement/Y2021 ... B_2021.pdf

By comparison the unit cost of LRASM IN FY21 is $3.96 million.
https://apps.dtic.mil/procurement/Y2021 ... B_2021.pdf


That's NSM not JSM; the cost drivers for LRASM over JASSM-ER are the datalink and the ESM package i.e.
exactly what distinguishes JSM from NSM (along with a totally different airframe).
Next

Return to F-35 Armament, Stores and Tactics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: noth and 5 guests