The JSM missile for the F35

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

weasel1962

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1092
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore

Unread post17 Jun 2018, 09:40

The F-35 could benefit from a faster missile though.
Offline

garrya

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 578
  • Joined: 25 Dec 2015, 12:43

Unread post17 Jun 2018, 13:12

weasel1962 wrote:The F-35 could benefit from a faster missile though.

You mean like this
Image
Online

weasel1962

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1092
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore

Unread post18 Jun 2018, 02:25

AARGM Blk 2 is a step in the right direction...
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 21560
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -1

Unread post17 Jul 2018, 22:23

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/
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline

akelafreedom

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 10
  • Joined: 13 Sep 2018, 20:52

Unread post14 Sep 2018, 06:50

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
Offline

tjh8402

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 6
  • Joined: 23 Sep 2017, 21:36

Unread post23 Sep 2018, 01:52

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.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 21560
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -1

Unread post23 Sep 2018, 10:03

No news means there is NOSE KNEWs. Can't say without information - no new information - nobodies nose knows. CAPICE?
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline

squirrelshoes

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

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

Unread post23 Sep 2018, 11:35

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.
Offline

marsavian

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 542
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2018, 21:55

Unread post25 Sep 2018, 16:26

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.
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1487
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post25 Sep 2018, 19:32

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.
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 4671
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post26 Sep 2018, 00:38

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
Offline

tjh8402

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 6
  • Joined: 23 Sep 2017, 21:36

Unread post28 Sep 2018, 03:17

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.
Offline

hythelday

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 392
  • Joined: 25 Jul 2016, 12:43

Unread post28 Sep 2018, 05:34

Have you concidered Royal Navy may not be interested in employing carrier group as an anti-surface asset at all?
Offline
User avatar

element1loop

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 870
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2015, 05:35
  • Location: Australia

Unread post28 Sep 2018, 10:17

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).
Accel + Alt + VLO + DAS + MDF + Radial Distance = LIFE . . . Always choose Stealth
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1487
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post28 Sep 2018, 15:29

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.
PreviousNext

Return to F-35 Armament, Stores and Tactics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests