Commander Naval Air Forces wants more F/A-18s

Program progress, politics, orders, and speculation
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

SpudmanWP

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8390
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post30 May 2019, 07:04

I have not seen for certain what their STOVL max load is for an LHD.
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline

hythelday

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 551
  • Joined: 25 Jul 2016, 12:43
  • Location: Estonia

Unread post30 May 2019, 07:12

SpudmanWP wrote:LRASM is not just about big targets, it's about long-range targets that are well protected in an EM denied environment. A JSM would not make it in that environment.


Why wouldn't it?
Offline

SpudmanWP

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8390
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post30 May 2019, 07:32

Because it has no ESM or SATCOM on board.

LRASM can automatically reroute based on detected threats.

The reason why the LRASM range/payload is less than the JASSM that it came from is all the added ESM gear that it carries.

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

weasel1962

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1707
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore

Unread post30 May 2019, 08:28

JSM has a 2 way network datalink. Not sure definition of what "highly protected" means but its been sold as "designed to take on high-value, heavily defended targets". Sure LRASM is better but JSM's technically capable enough for most targets.

https://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/products/jsm

Don't see any constraints with F-35B STOVL ops with JSMs, except external carriage.
Offline

SpudmanWP

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8390
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post30 May 2019, 08:56

JSM's datalink is LOS, so no over-the-horizon comms or comms in a jammed environment.

You are right that JSM can handle "most" targets, but LRASM is for the "worst of the worst". That is why LRASM is not being bought in large numbers. The same logic applies to MOAB/MOP as a 2k JDAM can handle "most" targets.
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23272
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post30 May 2019, 09:14

SpudmanWP wrote:I have not seen for certain what their STOVL max load is for an LHD.

Same here. Somehow there may be a way to guesstimate from the QE class ski jump MTOW from 800 feet with unknown WOD and temperature claim. Also claim IIRC that the ski jump takes away 150 feet of flat deck? So perhaps 950 flat deck required? Again I would have to find the minus 150 feet flat deck with ski jump to be sure of my guesstimate then....

Throw in just how good the STO engine is after the tests (did not the latest SAR reduce the KPP for flat deck STO?). I have just had my flu shot and tetanus booster and I don't think I'm remembering to well at moment....
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1707
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore

Unread post30 May 2019, 09:53

The constraint for anti-ship missions is the need for target ID. At JSM range, that's a good fit for F-35's sensor capability. The need for autonomous target detection (even if JSM can do that with ATR capability) is lessened. Its more if suddenly a DDG pops up when the original target was a patrol boat, then I can see how datalink or ATR could work to change the target.

At longer ranges, SATCOM is needed for datalink to take into account target movement. However, I'm still not sold on LRASM's "worst of the worst" capability. Capable hard-kill defenses like PLAN's HQ-10 are standard, from corvette size upwards. May need to take down the escorts before CV can be targeted. Still think saturation attacks (mix of MALD+JSMs) is the way to go.

Ps1 Storm shadow might have been an alternative. Too bad that was ditched in favor of Spear Cap 5.

Ps2 Who knows, maybe we'll get to see F-35 takeoff distance charts shortly after Turkish removal from the F-35 program.
Offline
User avatar

doge

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 293
  • Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 16:07

Unread post30 May 2019, 10:07

This photo is F-35B Max Payload STO I have ever seen... 8)
Attachments
F-35B wing paveway x4 STO (1).jpg
F-35B wing paveway x4 STO (2).jpg
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23272
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post30 May 2019, 10:43

Yeah but NO but YEAH BUT what is inside? Aye there's the rub. They'll keep us guessing until apparently TURKEY squawks.
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline

madrat

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2290
  • Joined: 03 Mar 2010, 03:12

Unread post30 May 2019, 13:13

Wouldn't maximum internalized fuel with heavy external weapons and an empty internal bay be kind of pointless?
Offline
User avatar

Dragon029

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1349
  • Joined: 22 Dec 2014, 07:13

Unread post30 May 2019, 14:07

SpudmanWP wrote:Because it has no ESM or SATCOM on board.

LRASM can automatically reroute based on detected threats.

The reason why the LRASM range/payload is less than the JASSM that it came from is all the added ESM gear that it carries.

Minor note, but Australia teamed up to add an ESM system to the JSM - I don't know if it's going to be a standard addition though (might just be an Australian-unique variant), or if it'll use it for re-routing (or if it'll instead just be for SEAD / DEAD radar seeking).

madrat wrote:Wouldn't maximum internalized fuel with heavy external weapons and an empty internal bay be kind of pointless?


Pretty much; only reason you could have for not having internal bombs as well is if you were instead carrying 4x AMRAAMs internally (AMRAAMs haven't been separation tested / integrated onto wing hardpoints).
Offline
User avatar

marsavian

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1258
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2018, 21:55

Unread post30 May 2019, 14:21

madrat wrote:Wouldn't maximum internalized fuel with heavy external weapons and an empty internal bay be kind of pointless?


Not if your particular external hardware could not fit into a F-35B bay.
Offline
User avatar

Dragon029

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1349
  • Joined: 22 Dec 2014, 07:13

Unread post30 May 2019, 15:12

We know for a fact however that GBU-12s / GBU-49s fit internally on the F-35B.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23272
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post30 May 2019, 15:27

madrat wrote:Wouldn't maximum internalized fuel with heavy external weapons and an empty internal bay be kind of pointless?

Was this NOT a test STO? Perhaps the picture poster can tell us? Test flights test lots of weird & wonderful combinations.
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline

marauder2048

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 787
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post01 Jun 2019, 10:04

weasel1962 wrote:The constraint for anti-ship missions is the need for target ID. At JSM range, that's a good fit for F-35's sensor capability. The need for autonomous target detection (even if JSM can do that with ATR capability) is lessened. Its more if suddenly a DDG pops up when the original target was a patrol boat, then I can see how datalink or ATR could work to change the target.


At typical LRASM/JSM/JSOW-ER ranges, fighter radar maritime ISAR is only likely to ID a destroyer-sized target.
ESM could detect and potentially ID a warship at longer range but typically only AAW destroyers have
emitters in that power class.


weasel1962 wrote:Capable hard-kill defenses like PLAN's HQ-10 are standard, from corvette size upwards.


The radiance of a subsonic, turbojet powered ASCM is such against in most sea backgrounds
there is practically no contrast and the attacker has some say in the choice of backgrounds.
And then you have the very small frontal projected area of JSM/JSOW/LRASM.

RAM-type CIWS do really well against very high contrast and/or emitting targets.
PreviousNext

Return to Program and politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: XanderCrews and 10 guests