Forum: F-35 Armament, Stores and Tactics

Last edited by moon_light on Jun 02, 2012 - 02:06 PM; edited 1 time in total

SpudmanWP wrote:

That is a thermal camera, not an IIR imager.

:roll:IIR seeker basically is a thermal camera Wink

SpudmanWP wrote:

all your missile has to do is aim for the center of the mass

what if the enemy ship is not at the center of the chaff-flare screen and because there are many stealth ship operate today ( eg : visby) i dont think the MMW seeker will work well

F-16.net Sponsor

How about LADAR seeker like in LOCAAS , i think i work quite good against target with low RCS or temperature Evil or Very Mad

Anti-ship combat (as in all combat) is an ever-evolving dance of measure vs countermeasure. Sometimes the missile comes out on top and sometimes, not so much.

btw, A high moisture content smoke screen could defeat LADAR... measure, meat countermeasure.

The key to future combat will be in multi-spectral seekers backed up by GPS terminal updates from a sensor AC.

SpudmanWP wrote:

Anti-ship combat (as in all combat) is an ever-evolving dance of measure vs countermeasure. Sometimes the missile comes out on top and sometimes, not so much.

btw, A high moisture content smoke screen could defeat LADAR... measure, meat countermeasure.

The key to future combat will be in multi-spectral seekers backed up by GPS terminal updates from a sensor AC.

It's interesting that one of the key requirements for LRASM is a high degree of autonomous targeting, anticipating that GPS and data links may be compromised in future operating scenarios.

1st503rdsgt wrote:

I would assume one or both versions of LRASM at some point (assuming they even get developed), but there's not much in the pipeline in that area. It's been a long time since anti-ship capability (surface or air launched) has been taken seriously in the West.

LRASM-B (the fast one) was cancelled back in January.

sferrin wrote:

1st503rdsgt wrote:

I would assume one or both versions of LRASM at some point (assuming they even get developed), but there's not much in the pipeline in that area. It's been a long time since anti-ship capability (surface or air launched) has been taken seriously in the West.

LRASM-B (the fast one) was cancelled back in January.

Interesting.. got a link?

popcorn wrote:

sferrin wrote:

1st503rdsgt wrote:

I would assume one or both versions of LRASM at some point (assuming they even get developed), but there's not much in the pipeline in that area. It's been a long time since anti-ship capability (surface or air launched) has been taken seriously in the West.

LRASM-B (the fast one) was cancelled back in January.

Interesting.. got a link?

Wouldn't surprise me in the least, but I can't find anything. In fact, it's hard to find anything on the LRASM at all, an indication of how low anti-ship capability is on the list of priorities. Maybe the USN will take it more seriously when the North Koreans tie up one of their fancy, new LCSs (toothless car-ferries) next to the USS Pueblo.

503- I'm actually of the other opinion. I think that the structure of the LRASM (Darpa run with very fast single source contracting) indicates that the Navy wants this capability as fast as possible.

Though, I think that the NSM and mods to the JSOW will be more appropriate for the F-35 strike. Given the size of the LRASM variants and its engagement ability, they'll probably be delivered either by AF bombers or VLS equipped units. The NSM and JSOW seem to match the capabilities of the carrier battle group more, in that the planes can conduct a better and cheaper strike because of their range and built in recon capabilities. (especially if the USN builds a stealth ELINT pod for the F-35C... That'd be a nasty addition for anti-shipping strikes).

NSM and JSOW would suit me just fine as the F-35's anti-ship weapons, but LRASM was also supposed to have a surface-launched component.

It's interesting that LRASM-B was cancelled. However, I guess it suits my belief that its better to have a low observable sea skimming missile than a high flying supersonic ASALM reiteration seeing as how an enemy ship could detect a high altitude supersonic not-so-stealthy missile from God knows how far away.

As far as air-launched goes, lower speed, lighter weight, and LO is the way to go. But speed and altitude are a little more important when it comes to being ship-launched. A surface-launched anti-ship missile needs to be faster because it will likely have less targeting data than an air-launched weapon; it needs to get to the target area before the situation changes too much, and it needs to be at higher altitude so it can acquire its target before starting its skimming run.

popcorn wrote:

sferrin wrote:

1st503rdsgt wrote:

I would assume one or both versions of LRASM at some point (assuming they even get developed), but there's not much in the pipeline in that area. It's been a long time since anti-ship capability (surface or air launched) has been taken seriously in the West.

LRASM-B (the fast one) was cancelled back in January.

Interesting.. got a link?

It's like one paragraph on the DARPA site.

http://www.darpa.mil/Our_Work/TTO/Progr ... RASM).aspx

"Working in close collaboration with the Navy to provide warfighters a capability that can make a difference at sea in the near term, DARPA decided in January 2012 to focus solely on technology development for LRASM-A, ceasing development of LRASM-B. By consolidating investments to focus solely on advancing LRASM-A technologies, DARPA aims to reduce risk and expedite delivery of cutting-edge capability to the fleet. "

arkadyrenko wrote:

503- I'm actually of the other opinion. I think that the structure of the LRASM (Darpa run with very fast single source contracting) indicates that the Navy wants this capability as fast as possible.

You might want to look at how far the average DARPA project actually gets and rethink that.

sferrin wrote:

popcorn wrote:

sferrin wrote:

1st503rdsgt wrote:

I would assume one or both versions of LRASM at some point (assuming they even get developed), but there's not much in the pipeline in that area. It's been a long time since anti-ship capability (surface or air launched) has been taken seriously in the West.

LRASM-B (the fast one) was cancelled back in January.

Interesting.. got a link?

It's like one paragraph on the DARPA site.

http://www.darpa.mil/Our_Work/TTO/Progr ... RASM).aspx

"Working in close collaboration with the Navy to provide warfighters a capability that can make a difference at sea in the near term, DARPA decided in January 2012 to focus solely on technology development for LRASM-A, ceasing development of LRASM-B. By consolidating investments to focus solely on advancing LRASM-A technologies, DARPA aims to reduce risk and expedite delivery of cutting-edge
capability to the fleet. "

Thanks,for the link.
Maybe DARPA, realizes thwt the Navy may not be inclined,to,fund development and production of 2 variants,which actually serve the same purpose and decided to go,with less risky,version.

why dont they just redesign some thing like AQM-37 or ESSM for anti ship mission , i think their small size , and high speed can make them a much harder target to intercept compared to harpoon or Exocet ( the short range will not be a problem as the aircraft can fly low to reduce the radar detection range ) , these missile are also smaller than harpoon so aircrafts can carry more of them , tri-mode seeker can be used on much smaller missile so i dont see why they can't be use on ESSM , the warhead may be not strong enough to sink a ship but they can effectively knock out the radar

Forum: F-35 Armament, Stores and Tactics

F-35 in anti ship mission