Forum: F-35 Armament, Stores and Tactics

My understanding it that the SM-2/SM-6 already have secondary anti-ship capability, so there's no reason to adapt the much-smaller ESSM to the same purpose. As for the AQM-37, modifying target drones into missiles is hillbilly tech; it might work for the Iranians, but the systems are too fundamentally different to make an effective weapon.

F-16.net Sponsor

moon_light wrote:

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

The Navy wants to be able to out range as much as possible an adversary's A2/AD network. LRASM will be launched from both ships and planes.You want to make sure you get the job done efficiently and effectively for a wide range of targets very likely to include land-based hence the need for a large warhead.

Last edited by moon_light on Jun 03, 2012 - 11:40 PM; edited 1 time in total

1st503rdsgt wrote:

My understanding it that the SM-2/SM-6 already have secondary anti-ship capability, so there's no reason to adapt the much-smaller ESSM to the same purpose. As for the AQM-37, modifying target drones into missiles is hillbilly tech; it might work for the Iranians, but the systems are too fundamentally different to make an effective weapon.

for ship no Confused

as they already have sm-2 , sm-6 but how about for aircraft Rolling Eyes

popcorn wrote:

moon_light wrote:

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

The Navy wants to be able to out range as much as possible an adversary's A2/AD network. LRASM will be launched from both ships and planes.You want to make sure you get the job done efficiently and effectively for a wide range of targets very likely to include land-based hence the need for a large warhead.

the very long range doesn't mean any thing if we dont have the targeting system to detect or locate the enemy , to attack ground targets aircraft either using RWR , targeting pod , SAR radar ,but RWR doen't work against new AESA radar , targeting pod range is limited by their laser range Wink

( even the ATFLIR can only locate and designate targets day or night at ranges 40 nautical miles , i dont think the EOTS on F-35 can do much better than that ),if using SAR mode on APG-81 Question

from most source i have read SAR mode of fighter radar dont have range > 100 km Wink

,and they even make an air to ground version of AIM-9x so why not ESSM :faster , bigger warhead , 50 km range even when fired from ground mean when fired from aircraft they can even achieve 200 km(SLAMRAAM range is only 20 km but AIM-120c-7 can reach over 100 km )

moon_light wrote:

popcorn wrote:

moon_light wrote:

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

8The Navy wants to be able to out range as much as possible an adversary's A2/AD network. LRASM will be launched from both ships and planes.You want to make sure you get the job done efficiently and effectively for a wide range of targets very likely to include land-based hence the need for a large warhead.

the very long range doesn't mean any thing if we dont have the targeting system to detect or locate the enemy , to attack ground targets aircraft either using RWR , targeting pod , SAR radar ,but RWR doen't work against new AESA radar , targeting pod range is limited by their laser range Wink

( even the ATFLIR can only locate and designate targets day or night at ranges 40 nautical miles , i dont think the EOTS on F-35 can do much better than that ),if using SAR mode on APG-81 Question

from most source i have read SAR mode of fighter radar dont have range > 100 km Wink

,and they even make an air to ground version of AIM-9x so why not ESSM :faster , bigger warhead , 50 km range even when fired from ground mean when fired from aircraft they can even achieve 200 km(SLAMRAAM range is only 20 km but AIM-120D can reach over 150 km )

It would be a mistake to assume they don't have the capability to identify and target from long ranges or that the US is not continuing to invest heavily in advancing their capabilities in this area. LRASM, in particular is going to be capable of unprecedented levels of autonomous targeting to operate in even a harsh EW environment where external navigation and sensor feeds are compromised.

popcorn wrote:

moon_light wrote:

popcorn wrote:

moon_light wrote:

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

8The Navy wants to be able to out range as much as possible an adversary's A2/AD network. LRASM will be launched from both ships and planes.You want to make sure you get the job done efficiently and effectively for a wide range of targets very likely to include land-based hence the need for a large warhead.

the very long range doesn't mean any thing if we dont have the targeting system to detect or locate the enemy , to attack ground targets aircraft either using RWR , targeting pod , SAR radar ,but RWR doen't work against new AESA radar , targeting pod range is limited by their laser range Wink

( even the ATFLIR can only locate and designate targets day or night at ranges 40 nautical miles , i dont think the EOTS on F-35 can do much better than that ),if using SAR mode on APG-81 Question

from most source i have read SAR mode of fighter radar dont have range > 100 km Wink

,and they even make an air to ground version of AIM-9x so why not ESSM :faster , bigger warhead , 50 km range even when fired from ground mean when fired from aircraft they can even achieve 200 km(SLAMRAAM range is only 20 km but AIM-120D can reach over 150 km )

It would be a mistake to assume they don't have the capability to identify and target from long ranges or that the US is not continuing to invest heavily in advancing their capabilities in this area. LRASM, in particular is going to be capable of unprecedented levels of autonomous targeting to operate in even a harsh EW environment where external navigation and sensor feeds are compromised.

there is another way to identify and target from long range that is using satellite Very Happy

however it only work for stationary targets Confused

that why they need stealth aircrafts to come close to the targets ( if there is any other ways there will be no point in developing F-22 , F-35 and B-2 , an there is not much information on the LRASM-B yet ,may be will never be in production ( just like JDRADM , ramjet HSAD , SMACM , LOCAAS ...bla..bla )

ESSM is alrady getting upgrades in order to have a AShM role:

Quote:

ESSM Block 2 Risk Reduction: ESSM Block 2 upgrade is a cooperative effort between U.S Navy and NATO SEASPARROW Consortium Nations. ESSM Block 2 upgrade replaces the largely obsolete guidance section with a dual mode Active/Semi-Active X-Band seeker capable of defeating future threat capabilities within the existing envelope, including; smaller signatures, increased raid sizes, and adverse environments including countermeasures. Threat types include; advanced Anti-Ship Cruise Missile (ASCM)s, Anti-Ship Ballistic Missiles (ASBMs), surface and asymmetrical.

You have to keep in mind that missiles like the SM-series, and especially the ESSM, have small non-AP warheads and short range when compared to dedicated AShMs like Harpoon. For example the Harpoon has a 500lb warhead and the ESSM has an 86lb warhead.

SAMs adapted to AShM duties are more for last minute defense and for not wanting to add yet another weapon system to a crowded ship.

SpudmanWP wrote:

ESSM is alrady getting upgrades in order to have a AShM role:

Quote:

ESSM Block 2 Risk Reduction: ESSM Block 2 upgrade is a cooperative effort between U.S Navy and NATO SEASPARROW Consortium Nations. ESSM Block 2 upgrade replaces the largely obsolete guidance section with a dual mode Active/Semi-Active X-Band seeker capable of defeating future threat capabilities within the existing envelope, including; smaller signatures, increased raid sizes, and adverse environments including countermeasures. Threat types include; advanced Anti-Ship Cruise Missile (ASCM)s, Anti-Ship Ballistic Missiles (ASBMs), surface and asymmetrical.

You have to keep in mind that missiles like the SM-series, and especially the ESSM, have small non-AP warheads and short range when compared to dedicated AShMs like Harpoon. For example the Harpoon has a 500lb warhead and the ESSM has an 86lb warhead.

SAMs adapted to AShM duties are more for last minute defense and for not wanting to add yet another weapon system to a crowded ship.

nice info

but actually the range that 2 ships can detected , attack the other is limit by the horizon and often not longer than 30-40 km depend on how tall their radar is ( without heli , AWACs ), not to metion ESSM is faster , has lower RCS , and a ship can carry a lot of them compared to harpoon ( yeah they sure have smaller warhead but knock out the enemy radar is enough to make their ship use less Crying or Very sad

)
may be that the reason why the Arleigh Burke Flight IIA dont have the harpoon Rolling Eyes

SpudmanWP wrote:

You have to keep in mind that missiles like the SM-series, and especially the ESSM, have small non-AP warheads and short range when compared to dedicated AShMs like Harpoon. For example the Harpoon has a 500lb warhead and the ESSM has an 86lb warhead.

SAMs adapted to AShM duties are more for last minute defense and for not wanting to add yet another weapon system to a crowded ship.

Let's all back off for a minute and consider what the F-35 is most likely to be up against in the anti-ship role. Smaller missile boats (with limited air-defense) seem probable, which wouldn't require the largest or the most sophisticated systems available. Indeed, any number of guided munitions capable of hitting a moving target would work. During Operation Praying Mantis, the USN used Mavericks and CBUs to attack smaller Iranian surface assets from the air. In the near future, I can see SDB II or JAGM (still alive) filling the role.

As for high-end anti-ship capability, one requires something a lot heavier than the ESSM. JSOW-ER or NSM might suffice in the air-launched role, but we still need something to replace Harpoon for our surface combatants and submarines.

NSM can replace the Harpoon for the surface combatants and submarines, if you want a like / like replacement.

LRASM-A is necessary because the Harpoon / Harpoon class weapons are no longer sufficient for the general needs of the USN.

What about the future Chinese carrier battle group? They're allegedly building two carriers, in addition to the current Varyag. How will a F-35 strike look like in 10 - 15 years? By that time, we can expect the Chinese to have seriously thought about defeating stealthy aircraft strikes, but how would that manifest itself? Also, the point defense around the carrier group is going to be silly dense, and at that range the JSF"s stealth won't be as important. (ie within 10 - 15 nm)

I'm thinking combination strikes. F-35's clearing the road by blasting enemy AWACs and escorting fighters, than the USAF next generation bombers dumping a whole wave of LRASM missiles into the battle group. After the initial strike, follow up waves of F-35C's engage the ships at close range and blast them with stand-off weapons.

moon_light wrote:

may be that the reason why the Arleigh Burke Flight IIA dont have the harpoon Rolling Eyes

Nope, here is the reason.

Quote:

As a result of the increased elevation of the after section of the ship, the aft facing AN/SPY-1D arrays were raised 8 feet to provide visibility over the hangar. The modifications require removal of Harpoon missile capability. Modifications were also made for additional crew required for a helicopter detachment to deploy with the ship.

Harpoon missiles were eliminated to reduce costs, but there is provision to reinstall them later between the stacks; without them, the ships will have no dedicated on-board antiship missile system.

So basically because of the modification to the radar, the harpoons have to be moved. To save money, their AShM mission is fulfilled from the helos and can be added between the stacks at a later date as funding allows.

Because a 688i is no good at anti-shipping...

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:

Because a 688i is no good at anti-shipping...

..only the best on "Worthy" targets. It's a long way to paddle to replace consumables! Smile

The 35-Sea on the other hand can trot back to the local bird farm and reload for the next dance. Wink

arkadyrenko wrote:

What about the future Chinese carrier battle group? They're allegedly building two carriers, in addition to the current Varyag. How will a F-35 strike look like in 10 - 15 years? By that time, we can expect the Chinese to have seriously thought about defeating stealthy aircraft strikes, but how would that manifest itself? Also, the point defense around the carrier group is going to be silly dense, and at that range the JSF"s stealth won't be as important. (ie within 10 - 15 nm)

I'm thinking combination strikes. F-35's clearing the road by blasting enemy AWACs and escorting fighters, than the USAF next generation bombers dumping a whole wave of LRASM missiles into the battle group. After the initial strike, follow up waves of F-35C's engage the ships at close range and blast them with stand-off weapons.

All of which arrive on site to find a mass of foam/fuel/debris after the sub has killed it. I guarantee you the first American military forces to be put in play in a Chinese conflict will be subs. Those skippers will be salivating at the thought of a carrier sortieing out into open water.

moon_light wrote:

the very long range doesn't mean any thing if we dont have the targeting system to detect or locate the enemy , to attack ground targets aircraft either using RWR , targeting pod , SAR radar ,but RWR doen't work against new AESA radar , targeting pod range is limited by their laser range Wink

( even the ATFLIR can only locate and designate targets day or night at ranges 40 nautical miles , i dont think the EOTS on F-35 can do much better than that ),if using SAR mode on APG-81 Question

from most source i have read SAR mode of fighter radar dont have range > 100 km Wink

,and they even make an air to ground version of AIM-9x so why not ESSM :faster , bigger warhead , 50 km range even when fired from ground mean when fired from aircraft they can even achieve 200 km(SLAMRAAM range is only 20 km but AIM-120c-7 can reach over 100 km )

You may have heard about the E-2D, and/or SH-60s, that provide over the horizon targeting. As for the SAR mode on the F-35, you can expect a detection range of well over 100nm(depending on the altitude). ESM/ELINT is another means of location, to go along with the other sensors.

Forum: F-35 Armament, Stores and Tactics

F-35 in anti ship mission