GAO Report on F-35 FoM (ie Block 4 and forward)

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

knowan

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 246
  • Joined: 24 Jul 2018, 10:39

Unread post22 Dec 2018, 17:31

spazsinbad wrote:the F-35 has had fit checks of LRASM externally and can probably carry the weapon internally


I didn't think the F-35 could hold JASSM or LRASM internally.
Offline
User avatar

steve2267

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2168
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2016, 17:36

Unread post22 Dec 2018, 19:25

knowan wrote:
spazsinbad wrote:the F-35 has had fit checks of LRASM externally and can probably carry the weapon internally


I didn't think the F-35 could hold JASSM or LRASM internally.


I have not seen, nor have I been able to find what the F-35 weapons bay “keep-out” dimensions are. Everything I have read has stated that LRASM is external-carry by the Lightning. Spaz post / reference is the first I’ve seen that internal carriage might be possible.

FWIW, LRASM is listed as 168 in. long. The AGM-154 JSOW, which is listed as an internal-carriage munition, is reportedly 162 in. long.

I’m sure LM is more than capable of redesigning LRASM to fit the Lightning bay should such a requirement emerge. Of course, all it takes is $$ and and possibly revising the LRASM-X specifications/requirements (possibly a little less range, or slightly smaller warhead).

There may also be “agreements” in place with the Norwegians (and Turks?) to NOT have an F-35-internal-version of LRASM to avoid competition with JSM etc. But this is purely speculative on my part.
Take an F-16, stir in A-7, dollop of F-117, gob of F-22, dash of F/A-18, sprinkle with AV-8B, stir well + bake. Whaddya get? F-35.
Offline

marauder2048

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

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

Unread post23 Dec 2018, 08:22

aussiebloke wrote:
marauder2048 wrote: B-52 will be assuming the B-1's role for
maritime strike with 46 LRASM in the Air Force inventory.


I can see that the 46 LRASM figure comes from FY2019 Budget Estimates:
https://www.saffm.hq.af.mil/Portals/84/ ... 190220-227 [85th page]

These figures though don't seem to tally with actual USAF orders placed which total 77 LRASM:

https://www.janes.com/article/84840/usa ... asm-stocks
https://dod.defense.gov/News/Contracts/ ... e/1257663/
https://dod.defense.gov/News/Contracts/ ... e/1691653/
https://dod.defense.gov/News/Contracts/ ... e/1492196/



Using the SAR (page 9).

https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/FOID/Reading%20Room/Selected_Acquisition_Reports/18-F-1016_DOC_73_Navy_OASUW_LRASM_SAR_Dec%202017.pdf
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3264
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post23 Dec 2018, 19:08

steve2267 wrote:
knowan wrote:
spazsinbad wrote:the F-35 has had fit checks of LRASM externally and can probably carry the weapon internally


I didn't think the F-35 could hold JASSM or LRASM internally.


I have not seen, nor have I been able to find what the F-35 weapons bay “keep-out” dimensions are. Everything I have read has stated that LRASM is external-carry by the Lightning. Spaz post / reference is the first I’ve seen that internal carriage might be possible.

FWIW, LRASM is listed as 168 in. long. The AGM-154 JSOW, which is listed as an internal-carriage munition, is reportedly 162 in. long.

I’m sure LM is more than capable of redesigning LRASM to fit the Lightning bay should such a requirement emerge. Of course, all it takes is $$ and and possibly revising the LRASM-X specifications/requirements (possibly a little less range, or slightly smaller warhead).

There may also be “agreements” in place with the Norwegians (and Turks?) to NOT have an F-35-internal-version of LRASM to avoid competition with JSM etc. But this is purely speculative on my part.


JASSM/LRASM do not fit in the F-35's weapon bays. They'd be carried externally. The JSOW (and JSOW-ER if it is purchased), JSM, AARGM-ER, and SOM-J all fit internally, though.
Offline

marauder2048

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

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

Unread post24 Dec 2018, 07:11

wrightwing wrote:
JASSM/LRASM do not fit in the F-35's weapon bays. They'd be carried externally. The JSOW (and JSOW-ER if it is purchased), JSM, AARGM-ER, and SOM-J all fit internally, though.


Lockheed was pitching a mini-JASSM (144 inch length) a decade ago.
Given that there are four JASSM variants funded (JASSM, JASSM-ER, JASSM-XR, LRASM) what's a fifth?
Offline
User avatar

element1loop

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1338
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2015, 05:35
  • Location: Australia

Unread post24 Dec 2018, 07:42

marauder2048 wrote:
wrightwing wrote:
JASSM/LRASM do not fit in the F-35's weapon bays. They'd be carried externally. The JSOW (and JSOW-ER if it is purchased), JSM, AARGM-ER, and SOM-J all fit internally, though.


Lockheed was pitching a mini-JASSM (144 inch length) a decade ago.
Given that there are four JASSM variants funded (JASSM, JASSM-ER, JASSM-XR, LRASM) what's a fifth?


But why even make an internal JASSM? Other than for drag-reduction and some range-stretching the only reason to have JASSM carried internally is (slightly) lower RCS but when you're dealing with a VLO missile with such a standoff range who needs lower RCS? In the end HF or 8 to 10 meter VHF band is probably going to see you first and not because you're carrying external VLO stores on pylons. Plus you can still use terrain and noise to mask VHF to launch even the vanilla JASSM in closer and not be tracked, nor raise an early warning. The IDF managed in Sept to attack multiple targets in Syria with dirty F16s without raising an early warning, and they still delivered weapons that were low-observable enough to get in and sustain their attack with no losses for over an hour against a fully alerted IADS. If F-35A and external JASSM-class weapons can't match this then we aren't using good technical or airmanship skill, proper planning, training, tactics, nor using our weapons and their options properly.

I just don't see how external carriage would be a prohibitive issue, even for DAY-1.
Accel + Alt + VLO + DAS + MDF + Radial Distance = LIFE . . . Always choose Stealth
Offline

marauder2048

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

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

Unread post24 Dec 2018, 09:55

The littorals are bad places for surface based VHF radars and the open ocean is only slightly better.

But why even make an internal JASSM?

Why even make an internally carried 1000-lb warhead class weapon with a terminal seeker, datalink,
RFS and good survivability against terminal defenses?!

The Israelis managed to destroy an unreinforced warehouse full of weapons that don't have any insensitive munition
properties and that were defended by S-200s. Color me unimpressed.
Offline
User avatar

element1loop

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1338
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2015, 05:35
  • Location: Australia

Unread post25 Dec 2018, 03:59

marauder2048 wrote:
But why even make an internal JASSM?

Why even make an internally carried 1000-lb warhead class weapon with a terminal seeker, datalink,
RFS and good survivability against terminal defenses?!


eh? You seem to be avoiding the point that there's no tactical need to make JASSM an internal cartridge weapon. Especially not JASSM-ER, LRASM or JASSM-X. Vanilla JSOW-C must be launched much closer to a target so it's appropriate it be carried internally,

marauder2048 wrote:Lockheed was pitching a mini-JASSM (144 inch length) a decade ago.


And it was not wanted. Why would you need it when external carry and standoff will get the same results?
Accel + Alt + VLO + DAS + MDF + Radial Distance = LIFE . . . Always choose Stealth
Offline

marauder2048

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

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

Unread post25 Dec 2018, 05:16

element1loop wrote:eh? You seem to be avoiding the point that there's no tactical need to make JASSM an internal cartridge weapon. Especially not JASSM-ER, LRASM or JASSM-X. Vanilla JSOW-C must be launched much closer to a target so it's appropriate it be carried internally,



The concept then as now has JASSM loitering, waiting to be tasked for a terminal engagement
by a man-in-the-loop datalink. The only realistic way to do that in a heavily comms degraded environment
is from a manned penetrating asset; you aren't going to want to penetrate with empty pylons and the concomitant
hit in loiter.

element1loop wrote:
marauder2048 wrote:Lockheed was pitching a mini-JASSM (144 inch length) a decade ago.


And it was not wanted.


Neither was JASSM-XR until it was. Neither was JASSM-MI (LRASM) until it was.
Offline
User avatar

element1loop

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1338
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2015, 05:35
  • Location: Australia

Unread post25 Dec 2018, 08:20

If penetrating use JSM, then you won't need JASSM at all.

Man in the loop is not essential to use JASSM, it depends what you want to go after, it's just another option. As far as I'm concerned the 2-way data link and terminal sensor RAAF specified is for man in the loop striking moving targets, especially ships, or else for re-targeting.
Accel + Alt + VLO + DAS + MDF + Radial Distance = LIFE . . . Always choose Stealth
Offline

marauder2048

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

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

Unread post26 Dec 2018, 04:11

JSM has a warhead only slightly larger than SDB I and less signature reduction than JASSM.

Battlefield obscurants + dynamic threat laydowns are going to require some form of rerouting,
loitering and aimpoint refinement. Along with the moving/relocatable targets you mentioned.
Offline

squirrelshoes

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 108
  • Joined: 08 Nov 2016, 23:53

Unread post26 Dec 2018, 04:27

element1loop wrote:The original JASSM was designed to be the 'Joint' attack weapon for navy as well, but not bought by USN. But that doesn't mean JASSM on F-35A can't kill a frigate.

JASSM designed to follow way points to a fixed geolocation using GPS/intertial, with terminal seeker coming on only 8 seconds before it reaches this location. That doesn't seem suitable for maritime strike. Sure they could have retargeting with a 2-way datalink but that's still a lot different than antiship missiles that are designed to use active/passive sensors to detect ships in a much wider area than JASSM's terminal seeker.


element1loop wrote:Add to this the fact that RAAF went for JASSM over the SLAM-ER, and that should be a clear enough indication that that JASSM is a ship-killer as well, particularly after RAAF mods were added to JASSM (on Classics no less not SH, and the Classics are not supposed to be the land-attack strike force, they're mostly continental air-defense and anti-shipping).
That's not really clear enough to me. Of all the testing on JASSM done by both USA and RAAF I've never heard of testing against a maritime target. Do we really believe that Australia is acquiring these missiles with an antiship role in mind without having confirmed they can hit a moving ship?


Previously there was talk of Australia pursuing the future maritime strike version of JASSM, which of course is now what we know as LRASM. Interest in a future maritime strike version doesn't imply satisfaction that JASSM they were already acquiring was considered suitable for that role. From http://www.australiandefence.com.au/arc ... -july-2012

The latter version is of great interest to Australia, as an anti-shipping weapon will be required to replace the Boeing AGM-84 Harpoon when it leaves service later in the decade. Harpoons are capable of being deployed on RAAF Hornets and AP-3C Orions and were also integrated with the F-111C. Defence has traditionally played its cards close to its chest on the matter though, telling the author in 2010 that, “Defence, as part of Project Air 5418, is investigating the ASuW variant of JASSM in collaboration with the USAF, although the timeframe for the variant is not known. Currently, the Commonwealth is not considering JASSM-ER”.


There are also statements by Air Commodore Kitchner in 2016 that imply they are not viewing JASSM as their maritime weapon, but rather a weapon employed by the F-35s that are replacing the F-18s. From https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news ... 35-choices

For maritime strike, the RAAF wants “a quality missile that can be carried internally,” Kitcher said. The two current options for the F-35 are the Norwegian Joint Strike Missile (JSM) or the Turkish Stand-Off Missile (SOM-J). They are slated for Block 4 F-35s, to which the RAAF also plans to add the GBU-54 laser JDAM. That weapon is already on the Super Hornets, and has been successfully employed during the RAAF’s current deployment to the Middle East for the air war over Iraq and Syria.
Offline
User avatar

element1loop

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1338
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2015, 05:35
  • Location: Australia

Unread post26 Dec 2018, 07:23

marauder2048 wrote:JSM has a warhead only slightly larger than SDB I and less signature reduction than JASSM.

Battlefield obscurants + dynamic threat laydowns are going to require some form of rerouting,
loitering and aimpoint refinement. Along with the moving/relocatable targets you mentioned.


Your information is incorrect.

JSM is firstly an anti-ship missile, LAM is secondary (which JSM Brochure text makes clear) and according to its developer JSM has a "500 lb class" warhead (by which they presumably refer to the effects).

Most GBU-39 SDB versions contain just 16.8 kg of explosives with one high energy version that has 62.1 kg of explosive (widely reported to approximate a 500lb GBU in energy). While JSM has a 120 kg warhead that contains 100 kg of explosive (an entire SDB weighs only 129 kg, btw) but with a light-weight but strong titanium tamper to maximize blast pressure before rupture/frag. Checkout the scale of the explosion within the JSM brochure if you doubt its energy level and effects.

Thus the JSM warhead actually has about 6 times the explosive power of a typical GBU-39 SDB

i.e. 100 kg / 16.8 kg = 5.95 times more explosives in the JSM warhead.

As you'd expect from an effective anti-ship missile with secondary land target attack capabilities (Same as NSM in that respect, but reportedly the JSM has a larger frag warhead than the NSM does).

“… Key JSM Missile Attributes Range >300 nm high, high, low profile >100 nm low, low, low profile Avionics 2-way datalink Thermal management system for F-35 internal bay conditions Propulsion Throttle modulates to achieve desired TOT > 1:1 thrust to wt in end-game Airframe Carrier suitable reqmt Lugs stow after launch Seeker Seeker stablized on horizon Dimensions Length 157 in Weight 887 lbs Fits inside F-35A/C weapons bay CVN recoverable load 13 March 2014 Page 1 …”


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


From Klonsberg itself though:


Lethality

The JSM warhead effect is given by three main elements; warhead size, warhead fuze and target hitpoint. The JSM has selectable aim point in the target and has proven to hit the target very precisely. This capability enables selection of controlled destruction effect, ranging from maximum damage to controlled/minimum damage. Terminal accuracy has been demonstrated to less than 2 feet (distance between aim point and actual hit point).

The JSM has a 500lbs class warhead with a gross weight of 120 kg and explosive weight of 100 kg (TNT equivalent). The warhead is a combined blast (primary effect) and fragmentation (secondary effect) warhead with insensitive High Explosive (HE) charge). The warhead casing is made of titanium alloy with a steel-grid for fragmentation effect.

The picture below shows the warhead effect from a test fring against a Norwegian frigate. The fuze is programmable with customdesigned fuze programs down-loaded prior to launch.

The warhead is insensitive munition Certified.

Targeting Selectivity
The JSM features sophisticated target acquisition with Autonomous Target Recognition (ATR) facilitated by an imaging infrared seeker. Advanced recognition algorithms provide capability to identify targets to ship class and prevent attack of white/neutral shipping. There is a 100% confidence in separation of “white” and “red” shipping.

The JSM mission planning system incorporates a national database with a library of potential targets. A sub-set of the target library is down-loaded to the JSM prior to launch.

For each target class in the database there will be a set of recognition characteristics, a default aim point position together with a corresponding warhead fuze profle, and default missile end-game tactics.

Prior to launch, the operator may inspect and modify the end-game tactics and aim point.

Kongsberg will provide customers with a software application package and training for target library development.

Platform integration
JSM fts into the internal weapons bay of the F-35 A and C versions. JSM can also be carried on external stations on F-35, F-16, F/A-18 and F-15.

Air system Integration
JSM accommodates modern standards for integration to fast jets. The datalink design provides for interoperability with current and future network concepts. JSM being based on a fire and forget concept is robust against variations in data link connectivity.

Logistics
The JSM is designed for a long operational life. An extensive blT test is easily performed at user level. The ILS concept is based on a minimum of maintenance and maximum use of standard equipment.

JSM Key Characteristics
Length : 4.00 m (157 in)
Height : 0.52 m (20.4 in)
Width : 0.48 m (18.9 in) (stowed)
Mass : 416kg (917 lbs)
Speed : High Subsonic
Agility : High

Guidance
Inertial Navigation, aided by GPS and TERCOM.
Imaging Infra-Red Target Seeker”


https://www.kongsberg.com/en/kds/produc ... kemissile/
https://www.kongsberg.com/~/media/KDS/F ... duced.ashx

I've seen nothing that suggests it will have lesser low-observable optimization than JASSM. That would seem to be a conjecture, and most probably incorrect, given the missile is firstly design optimized to deploy from a stealth-fighter and specifically to evade being shot down by layered missile and CIWS.
Accel + Alt + VLO + DAS + MDF + Radial Distance = LIFE . . . Always choose Stealth
Offline
User avatar

element1loop

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1338
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2015, 05:35
  • Location: Australia

Unread post26 Dec 2018, 07:35

squirrelshoes wrote:Previously there was talk of Australia pursuing the future maritime strike version of JASSM, which of course is now what we know as LRASM. Interest in a future maritime strike version doesn't imply satisfaction that JASSM they were already acquiring was considered suitable for that role. From http://www.australiandefence.com.au/arc ... -july-2012

The latter version is of great interest to Australia, as an anti-shipping weapon will be required to replace the Boeing AGM-84 Harpoon when it leaves service later in the decade. Harpoons are capable of being deployed on RAAF Hornets and AP-3C Orions and were also integrated with the F-111C. Defence has traditionally played its cards close to its chest on the matter though, telling the author in 2010 that, “Defence, as part of Project Air 5418, is investigating the ASuW variant of JASSM in collaboration with the USAF, although the timeframe for the variant is not known. Currently, the Commonwealth is not considering JASSM-ER”.


There are also statements by Air Commodore Kitchner in 2016 that imply they are not viewing JASSM as their maritime weapon, but rather a weapon employed by the F-35s that are replacing the F-18s. From https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news ... 35-choices

For maritime strike, the RAAF wants “a quality missile that can be carried internally,” Kitcher said. The two current options for the F-35 are the Norwegian Joint Strike Missile (JSM) or the Turkish Stand-Off Missile (SOM-J). They are slated for Block 4 F-35s, to which the RAAF also plans to add the GBU-54 laser JDAM. That weapon is already on the Super Hornets, and has been successfully employed during the RAAF’s current deployment to the Middle East for the air war over Iraq and Syria.


Good comment, cheers.

We can forget about getting LRASMs in VLS as there are simply are not enough strike length VLS on any of the ships we have, or those we will acquire by 2040. Almost certainly the current Harpoon BKII quad-packs and also the future "advanced anti-ship weapon" on the Hunters will be NSM in quad-packs (RAN's commitment to long-range strike is non-existent, verbal commitment to that effect only).

While the air equivalent missile will be to replace the air-launched Harpoon BKIIs with JSM, with a possible move to the longest-range new JASSM variant thereafter (which will most likely incorporate LRASM capabilities).

IMHO
Accel + Alt + VLO + DAS + MDF + Radial Distance = LIFE . . . Always choose Stealth
Offline

marauder2048

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

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

Unread post26 Dec 2018, 23:50

element1loop wrote:The [b][color=#FF0080]JSM has a 500lbs class warhead with a gross weight of 120 kg


They are claiming it's a "500 lbs class warhead" in terms of lethality.
But it's a 120 kg warhead of which 100 kg is high explosive. Really no different, in terms of size, than what was on Penguin.

element1loop wrote:
I've seen nothing that suggests it will have lesser low-observable optimization than JASSM. That would seem to be a conjecture, and most probably incorrect, given the missile is firstly design optimized to deploy from a stealth-fighter and specifically to evade being shot down by layered missile and CIWS.


Flush inlet vs. non-flush inlet. That's a huge contributor to RCS.
PreviousNext

Return to Program and politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests