The JSM missile for the F35

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).

Isn't the F-35B capable of carrying the JSM missile internally?
(probably someone already asked this but I can't remember for sure)

No, the Bee cannot carry the JSM internally.

I have been previously schooled on this point.

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).

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.

The capabilities of the Russians and Chinese to complete the kill chain are questionable, but it sounds risky to move to plan operations on the assumption they won’t work. They are also hardly static. The RN may be fine for now, but my understanding is that they don’t have a plan for upgrading from the older harpoons nor adding additional missiles.

The US Navy is also currently limited in their surface to surface capabilities, but that is changing. They are gaining the ability to load the VLS with the LRASM, adding a ASuW Tomahawk, and use the SM6 against ships gives it more options. They will also enjoy the extra capabilities of the F-35C over the B, as well has already wielding LRASM equipped SHs. The US’s tanking capabilities as well as the longer legs of the C mean their planes can strike out much further than the tanklerless RN Bs. The US would also enjoy greater SA thanks to the Hawkeyes.

That all being said, I almost forgot for a second that this was the JSM thread and not the one about the RN F-35s. Apologies for taking it on a tangent and I don’t want to take it further off topic. I appreciate the info and input.

The RN F-35B will almost certainly use the LRASM in the future as that is the intended anti-ship weapon of the to be built eight Type 26 Frigates (Australia is buying nine) with their Mk41 VLS so some are going to be purchased anyway for them so integration on the UK F-35B is virtually a certainty at the same time but they will be bought closer to the time the first frigate is commissioned in the 2020s. For internal delivery carriage the RN F-35B can use Paveway IV 500 lb LGBs followed by longer ranged winged 250lb Spear 3 at Block 4.

No, the Bee cannot carry the JSM internally.

I have been previously schooled on this point.

Thanks for the reply.

The capabilities of the Russians and Chinese to complete the kill chain are questionable, but it sounds risky to move to plan operations on the assumption they won’t work. They are also hardly static. The RN may be fine for now, but my understanding is that they don’t have a plan for upgrading from the older harpoons nor adding additional missiles.

In terms of future (or even near future) and like marsavian said there's nothing that would prevent the RN from purchasing LRASM missiles and fit them on the Mk41 VLS of the upcoming Type 26 frigates if the need arises.
And if the need arises this would be something that could be done very quickly (without the need of a "long though" plan). The same also applies to any Harpoon upgrades. For example, a couple of years ago the Canadian Navy purchased Harpoon Block II missiles (which gives land attack capabilities to the Harpoon missile) but apparently and if I'm not mistaken there was no publicly and previously known plan to purchase such missiles - it seemed to have been a quite quick decision, which is quite unusual regarding Canadian military procurement I must say!
So the same can also happen regarding the Royal Navy, I guess. (useful for the Type 45 destroyers in this case)

The US Navy is also currently limited in their surface to surface capabilities, but that is changing. They are gaining the ability to load the VLS with the LRASM, adding a ASuW Tomahawk, and use the SM6 against ships gives it more options.

It's funny that you mention an ASuW Tomahawk. Such Tomahawk already existed in the past, it was the TASM and it was retired somewhere in the 1990's. Therefore I have my doubts that such missile variant would make a "comeback". Other alternatives such as the LRASM or NSM/JSM for example should be much cheaper for starters.

They will also enjoy the extra capabilities of the F-35C over the B, as well has already wielding LRASM equipped SHs. The US’s tanking capabilities as well as the longer legs of the C mean their planes can strike out much further than the tanklerless RN Bs. The US would also enjoy greater SA thanks to the Hawkeyes.

One of the main reasons for this is that the US Navy operates conventional (CATOBAR) carriers while the RN does not (STOVL carriers only). So this isn't IMO a far comparison.
Anyway, a F-35B with external LRASM or JSM would work just fine in any anti-ship role.

That all being said, I almost forgot for a second that this was the JSM thread and not the one about the RN F-35s. Apologies for taking it on a tangent and I don’t want to take it further off topic. I appreciate the info and input.

I don't have any problems with this at all. Afterall, a RN F-35B carrying JSM (externally) could be a possibility for the future, no?

The RN F-35B will almost certainly use the LRASM in the future as that is the intended anti-ship weapon of the to be built eight Type 26 Frigates (Australia is buying nine) with their Mk41 VLS so some are going to be purchased anyway for them so integration on the UK F-35B is virtually a certainty at the same time but they will be bought closer to the time the first frigate is commissioned in the 2020s. For internal delivery carriage the RN F-35B can use Paveway IV 500 lb LGBs followed by longer ranged winged 250lb Spear 3 at Block 4.

Canada is looking to buy fifteen Type 26 frigates too as its preferred bidder.

https://navaltoday.com/2018/10/19/canad ... ombatants/

All three countries will customize the Type 26, primarily an anti-submarine frigate but also with anti-air and anti-surface missiles, with their own weapons.

Thanks for the info about the Canadian Surface Combatant project.

I'm also glad that for once this government managed to select the best choice when it comes to military procurement! (IMO, Type 26 was by far the best choice among the 3 finalist/contenders).


By the way and in the sequence of what was said before about the Type 26 not carrying the Harpoon missile, well at least the Canadian Type 26 will carry them.
So if the Canadian Type 26 can/will carry Harpoons there's also the possibility that UK's own Type 26's could carry Harpoons as well (this if it's UK's desire).
The video on marsavian's post clearly shows this as well as these mockup/model made by BAE showing its Canadian Surface Combatant entry:

Canadian Type 26 Frigate contract awarded after legal challenge dismissed

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/canadia ... dismissed/

Thanks marsavian.

More on the subject:
https://ottawacitizen.com/news/national ... -by-friday

https://navaltoday.com/2019/02/08/canad ... e-26-team/

It's funny that you mention an ASuW Tomahawk. Such Tomahawk already existed in the past, it was the TASM and it was retired somewhere in the 1990's. Therefore I have my doubts that such missile variant would make a "comeback". Other alternatives such as the LRASM or NSM/JSM for example should be much cheaper for starters.
[

In 2016 it was announced that the Block IV Tomahawk would have some examples modified with a new seeker to permit maritime attack. As far as I know this program is still going ahead.

https://news.usni.org/2016/02/18/west-u ... ng-in-2021

http://raytheon.mediaroom.com/2016-01-1 ... se-missile

There was this earlier in the week too.

New U.S. Defense Strategy Rekindles Demand For Anti-Ship Weapons

Feb 7, 2019 Steve Trimble | Aviation Week & Space Technology

Sea Strike Rebirth

A new era in U.S. Navy anti-ship firepower opened quietly at the end of last year. The AGM-158C Long-Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM) became operational on B-1Bs operated by the 28th Bomb Wing in South Dakota. The heavy bomber first demonstrated a maritime strike capability in 2005, sinking several small target vessels with guided anti-tank munitions dispensed from a CBU-105 cluster bomb. Fourteen years later, the Air Force now has a fleet carrying a dedicated anti-ship cruise missile.

Although originally designed for a supersonic nuclear strike mission, the B-1B’s evolution into a new role as a ship killer is at the vanguard of an intense, multiservice push to modernize the maritime strike mission. For most of three decades, U.S. military officials have focused on attacking targets on land from the sea. But a surge of Chinese investment in offensive naval capabilities has inspired a new priority: sinking ships.

- USAF bomber AND Navy fighters deploy new anti-ship missile
- The Navy is rushing multiple new anti-ship missiles to its surface fleet

The Navy has already invested in several quick fixes. Raytheon designed the SM-6 to intercept incoming threats such as ballistic missiles and sea-skimming, anti-ship cruise missiles but switched sides in a 2016 demonstration. The Navy used the SM-6 to sink a decommissioned frigate, giving the fleet an instant upgrade with a new ballistic anti-ship missile. Raytheon also adapted the land-attack Tomahawk cruise missile with a new sensor for launch against enemy ships, adding another immediate response to emerging, long-range threats.

But the Navy’s appetite for anti-ship missiles is only growing.

“We need advanced, long-range multimission weapons, much like the SM-6 and the Maritime Strike Tomahawk for our surface combatants,” Vice Adm. Richard Brown, commander of Naval Surface Forces, said at the Surface Navy Association’s annual convention in January.

The introduction of the LRASM and the demonstration of new roles for the SM-6 and Tomahawk add power and depth to an anti-ship arsenal that has been dominated since the 1970s by surface- and air-launched versions of the active radar homing-guided Boeing Harpoon cruise missile. The introduction of the Raytheon/Kongsberg Naval Strike Missile (NSM) on the Littoral Combat Ship fleet later this year will add a proven midrange anti-ship missile with an imaging-infrared seeker.

Now the Navy and Marine Corps are looking to expand the arsenal further. Within five years, the Navy’s anti-ship arsenal could expand more, with hypersonic, long-range missiles, new midrange cruise missiles and land-based anti-ship missiles fired from mobile launchers. As the Army is countering advances in Russian cannons and surface-to-surface missiles with a new portfolio of long-range precision fires, the Navy is pushing back against China’s YJ-12 and Russia’s 3M22 Zircon and 3M-14T Kalibr anti-ship weapons.

Airmen at Dyess AFB, Texas, load a B-1B bomber with an AGM-158C, the anti-ship variant of the JASSM-ER. Credit: U.S. Air Force

China’s military has boasted about developing a boost-glide hypersonic weapon that can hit a moving aircraft carrier at sea. Navy officials intend to respond with a similar capability.

“We need a [vertical launch system]-launched hypersonic weapon,” Brown said. Indeed, the Navy is leading the design of a maneuvering hypersonic glide vehicle for launch by submarines and surface vessels. Adaptations of the Navy’s Conventional Prompt Strike (CPS) glide vehicle will be launched by Air Force B-52s and Army ground launchers. In January, the Navy unveiled plans to upgrade the Launch Test Complex at China Lake, California, to support the hypersonic CPS program, including new air launch and underwater test facilities. The Navy’s glide vehicle is expected to follow into service the Air Force’s Hypersonic Conventional Strike Weapon and the Army’s Alternate Reentry System after 2021.

Another conventional option is Lockheed Martin’s anti-ship derivative of the land-attack AGM-58 Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile-Extended Range (JASSM-ER), which relies on an infrared homing seeker. The LRASM version adds a long-range radio-frequency receiver to passively detect moving targets and discriminate between vessels.

The stealthy LRASM is kicking off operational testing on the Navy’s F/A-18E/F fighters this month, with an early operational capability planned in the summer or fall. In the next decade, the Navy also plans to integrate the anti-ship cruise missile on the F-35C, adding to the maritime strike radar and sensor upgrades scheduled to arrive as part of the Block 4 modernization.

So far, the U.S. military’s interest in long-range anti-ship missiles has not translated into large orders for the LRASM. Lockheed delivered the first 10 AGM-158Cs to the Air Force to allow the 28th Bomb Wing to declare an early operational capability in December. The Navy ordered 50 more LRASMs in the second lot of low-rate initial-production missiles a year ago. Another three missiles were added to the order in October, but the reason is undisclosed. “There’s a specific purpose [for the additional three orders], which I can’t talk about,” says Scott Craig, Lockheed’s director of business development for Navy programs.


The guided missile cruiser USS Princeton fires an RGM-84 at a simulated target during a 2016 exercise in the Pacific Ocean. U.S. Navy

But demand for the LRASM and the original JASSM-ER is clearly growing. In December, the Air Force awarded Lockheed a $99.3 million undefinitized contract to pay for tooling to ramp up production. The Air Force ordered 360 AGM-158Bs for the land-attack mission. Meanwhile, the Navy continues to negotiate a third lot of low-rate initial-production missiles, with the possibility of increased production.

“We’re working with the Navy to provide some capability upgrades in future lots,” Craig says.

The arrival of the LRASM in the Navy’s aviation branch coincides with questions about the future of investments in mid- and long-range subsonic cruise missiles for the surface fleet. The LRASM concept emerged as the first increment of the Offensive Surface Warfare Capability (OSuW). A concept for a follow-on second increment of the OSuW program once existed but now is almost never mentioned by Navy officials. Instead, a new concept is emerging, for a family of long-range missiles that are designed to perform several missions. Rear Adm. Ronald Boxall, director for Surface Warfare, displayed such a concept on a briefing slide at the Surface Navy Association event. It was called the Next-Generation Strike Weapon family of systems. “It’s all offensive, dual-mission, multimission and/or active [seekers],” Boxall said.

As that concept unfolds, the Navy still has requirements in the near term that could drive a three-way competition between the LRASM, NSM and Harpoon. For example, Regan Campbell, the Navy’s program manager for the FFG(X) frigate replacement program, showed a new requirement for the future ship class to carry at least four over-the-horizon anti-ship missiles. All three midrange weapons now in the Navy’s inventory could be considered. Although the LRASM and NSM offer the most modern seekers and airframes, Boeing salesmen are making the case that the venerable Harpoon still has a role in future naval combat. [Boeing again, with a retro product ... ]

The Long-Range Anti-Ship Missile adds a radio-frequency seeker to the AGM-158B for passive, long-range detection of moving surface vessels. Credit: U.S. Air Force

Last August, the RGM-84 Harpoon scored six hits in as many shots on a target vessel during the Rim of the Pacific Exercise (Rimpac). Jim Bryan, Boeing’s director for cruise missile systems, points to one shot in particular. Navy submarines have lacked an anti-ship cruise missile for about 20 years. The Navy took two weapons out of deep storage, which Boeing furnished and delivered for Rimpac. A refurbishment added a $250,000 kit that included a Global Positioning System receiver and an inertial measurement unit for improved guidance.

“Those exquisite fire-and-forget-type weapons are very expensive, so I don’t think we’ll have huge inventories. The Navy just can’t afford it,” Bryan says. “So if you look at something like Harpoon, it’s not necessarily one of those exquisite [weapons] with a multimode-type sensor and latest [electro-optical/infrared] technology, but we can put a lot in the inventory quickly at a low cost.” [oh yes, it lives!]

The need for such anti-ship weapons also has spread to the Marine Corps. A new acquisition program called the Navy Marine Expeditionary Ship Interdiction System (Nmesis) opened last year, seeking to establish land-based anti-ship batteries from mobile launching systems such as the M142 High-Mobility Artillery Rocket System. After completing the first phase of an Other Transaction Authority acquisition process for Nmesis last year, the Marines have requested a rough estimate from contractors to proceed to phase two, Craig says.

“You could think of the Marines—they’re already in the [Pacific theater],” Craig says. “They would array themselves in the first island chain and . . . really be able to establish a large-area sea-control capability.”

http://aviationweek.com/defense/new-us- ... ip-weapons

Deleted.

It's funny that you mention an ASuW Tomahawk. Such Tomahawk already existed in the past, it was the TASM and it was retired somewhere in the 1990's. Therefore I have my doubts that such missile variant would make a "comeback". Other alternatives such as the LRASM or NSM/JSM for example should be much cheaper for starters.
[

In 2016 it was announced that the Block IV Tomahawk would have some examples modified with a new seeker to permit maritime attack. As far as I know this program is still going ahead.

https://news.usni.org/2016/02/18/west-u ... ng-in-2021

http://raytheon.mediaroom.com/2016-01-1 ... se-missile

Interesting indeed. Thanks for the links.
If such program/capabilities are to be successfully completed then this could give back the Tomahawk operators - The US Navy (mainly) and the Royal Navy - a very long range Anti-Ship capability.
Nevertheless I still think that missiles such as the LRASM or NSM/JSM would be much cheaper alternatives (and likely more survivable as well) which would be even more important for smaller Navies such as the navies of Australia, Canada, etc...

But yeah, adding a seeker to the Tomahawk in order to enable it to engage sea targets on top of the existing land attack capabilities is IMO a very smart move. This would IMO be a major boost in terms of capability for naval assets such as for example, the Virginia class SSN's which carries lots of Tomahawk missiles in VLS launchers.

I speculate the anti-ship Tomahawk will have an active RF seeker in contrast to LRASM which has a passive RF sensor.