Why isn't ________ weapon on the F-35?

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

weasel1962

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2912
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore

Unread post17 Sep 2022, 02:08

Buying the F-35 means buying into the US military industrial complex. It's actually a shared inventory. US buys enough munitions for several wars. So the F-35 enjoys another cost advantage for export sales ie no need to buy munitions. That also is a smart control mechanism

The issue for Ukraine is that they dont use planes that can tap into the MIC...at least not yet.
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4300
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post17 Sep 2022, 11:54

jessmo112 wrote:But you missed a critical point. If a client wants JSM then they have to buy them. They harpoon is in the armory of nearly every U.S. ally.


And I think you're missing the point that the Harpoon is currently in the process of being replaced by more modern weapons such as the JSM or NSM (the later for ship launched operations). Actually many of the US allies are in the process of doing this.
For example, Australia, Canada, Germany, Spain and Poland are currently replacing or in the process of replacing their ship-based Harpoon missiles with the NSM (ship/surface launched version of the JSM). Even the USA is also doing this (replacing the Harpoon with NSM) in their LCS ships and the NSM will also equip the US future frigate.
Other countries such as the UK and Netherlands are also planning to do this.

If you notice the 'pattern' above, all countries above operate or will operate the F-35 so, if any of of those countries wants to equip their F-35s with a long-range anti-ship (and land attack) cruise missile then they will likely chose the JSM (the air launched variant of the NSM).
Another reason why the JSM will be integrated in the F-35 and the Harpoon will not.
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline

neverpray2crom

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 1
  • Joined: 17 Sep 2022, 22:16

Unread post17 Sep 2022, 22:30

Do all variants of AIM 120 need to be certified like C-8/D? I see on the image that only C-5 was listed.
If block 4 ever comes with the new sidekick weapons rack would that mean all the currents weapons already certified in block 3 would need re certification?

Also is it a for sure thing that block4 will come with sidekick? And is that something that previous blocks can be retrofitted to?
Offline
User avatar

steve2267

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3332
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2016, 17:36

Unread post18 Sep 2022, 17:50

I believe it is the UK that is presently without an anti-ship missile. All their Harpoons (and they had quite a few) "timed out" -- they exceeded their use-by date. It is unclear to me if their shelf lives could have been extended, whether that was a paper work change by the contractor, or re-furbishing the rocket motors, I do not know. But UK either did not have the money, was not willing to spend the money, or it was not technically feasible to re-certify / refurbish the weapons.

The notion that "old" stores of missiles can simply be re-purposed or re-used or added to platform X, Y, or Z because one has a lot of them, is clearly misplaced, if not outright false.
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
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4300
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post18 Sep 2022, 18:44

steve2267 wrote:I believe it is the UK that is presently without an anti-ship missile. All their Harpoons (and they had quite a few) "timed out" -- they exceeded their use-by date. It is unclear to me if their shelf lives could have been extended, whether that was a paper work change by the contractor, or re-furbishing the rocket motors, I do not know. But UK either did not have the money, was not willing to spend the money, or it was not technically feasible to re-certify / refurbish the weapons.

The notion that "old" stores of missiles can simply be re-purposed or re-used or added to platform X, Y, or Z because one has a lot of them, is clearly misplaced, if not outright false.


As far as I know the Harpoon is still in service with the UK but its shelf life is expected to end somewhere during the next year (2023), at least according to this site:
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/britain ... e-project/

Harpoon is going out of service in 2023. We have a capability conversation: do we bring in a relatively modest surface-to-surface weapon—it does not have a very long range and it is not hypersonic—and, if so, how much does it cost? It might be as much as £250 million, just to allow us to have five sets for three ships. When would that be able to come in? It looks like the earliest would be 2026 or 2027. We have paused what we call the interim surface-to-surface guided weapon programme to force us to say: we accept that there will be a gap as Harpoon comes to the end of its life, but we should reach out to hypersonic weapons and weapons that have plus-1,000 km range. Do we do that with our international partners? That is when you start to look at the future”


Also according to the site above the UK is looking for an "interim" anti-ship missile that could fill the "gap" between the current Harpoon and the next generation anti-ship missile (whatever that might be).
By money's on UK will select as its "interim" anti-ship missile (if they go ahead with this intent, that is), the NSM.
Last edited by ricnunes on 18 Sep 2022, 21:43, edited 1 time in total.
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline
User avatar

steve2267

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3332
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2016, 17:36

Unread post18 Sep 2022, 20:32

I could not recall if Harpoon was out of service or not. Thank you for that clarification Ric. But the point stands -- with the possible exception of dumb iron bombs -- things with solid rocket propellant, batteries etc. have a shelf life -- an EOL date attached to them. It is foolhardy to simply expect a nation to expend a LOT of precious funds flight testing & certifying an OLD weapon for a new aircraft.
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
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4300
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post18 Sep 2022, 21:52

steve2267 wrote:I could not recall if Harpoon was out of service or not. Thank you for that clarification Ric.


You're welcome.

steve2267 wrote:But the point stands -- with the possible exception of dumb iron bombs -- things with solid rocket propellant, batteries etc. have a shelf life -- an EOL date attached to them. It is foolhardy to simply expect a nation to expend a LOT of precious funds flight testing & certifying an OLD weapon for a new aircraft.


Yes, I fully agree!
Harpoons are not being manufactured anymore (at least as far as I know) and many navies are already replacing, in the process of replacing or planning to replace their Harpoons with other missiles such as the NSM/JSM.
As such and since it doesn't make sense to expand the shelf life of current Harpoon missile stocks (it's simply much better to buy a new missile) then it also doesn't make any sense to integrate it with the F-35 or any new upcoming or existing aircraft.

Moreover, the F-35C (and by association the F-35A) is already integrated with the JSOW-C1 which performs the same and more roles than the Harpoon missile.
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8899
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post19 Sep 2022, 00:44

ricnunes wrote:
steve2267 wrote:I could not recall if Harpoon was out of service or not. Thank you for that clarification Ric.


You're welcome.

steve2267 wrote:But the point stands -- with the possible exception of dumb iron bombs -- things with solid rocket propellant, batteries etc. have a shelf life -- an EOL date attached to them. It is foolhardy to simply expect a nation to expend a LOT of precious funds flight testing & certifying an OLD weapon for a new aircraft.


Yes, I fully agree!
Harpoons are not being manufactured anymore (at least as far as I know) and many navies are already replacing, in the process of replacing or planning to replace their Harpoons with other missiles such as the NSM/JSM.
As such and since it doesn't make sense to expand the shelf life of current Harpoon missile stocks (it's simply much better to buy a new missile) then it also doesn't make any sense to integrate it with the F-35 or any new upcoming or existing aircraft.

Moreover, the F-35C (and by association the F-35A) is already integrated with the JSOW-C1 which performs the same and more roles than the Harpoon missile.



In the Anti Ship Role the F-35 will use the JSM (NSM) internally and externally. While, the larger LRASM will only be able to be carried externally.
Offline
User avatar

edpop

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 948
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2008, 20:43
  • Location: Macomb, Michigan

Unread post19 Sep 2022, 05:24

Check out this info on aircraft "stores".

The Air Force SEEK EAGLE Office (AFSEO) is a named Air Force unit and, by special order, the single point of expertise for aircraft-store compatibility.

In the early stages of air warfare, aircraft-store compatibility was not a significant consideration except to ensure that weapons would fit onto and function with a carrier aircraft. During the Vietnam War, aircraft entered the inventory that were large and powerful enough to carry significant tonnage of weapons. Also, many new weapons were being developed. The management of the resulting marriage of the aircraft and weapons provided a bewildering matrix of combinations that had to be identified, prioritized, analyzed and certified in a timely manner.

At the end of the war, the McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom was the USAF mainstay tactical combat aircraft. Virtually every store in existence was certified for use on the F-4. In the late 1970s, the USAF decided to replace the F-4 with the General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon. The F-16 exhibited many more incompatibilities with weapons than the F-4 did. As the F-4 was phased out, the F-16 combat users found they were not getting the quantity and quality of combat capability they were expecting. Their mounting frustration culminated in 1986 when the Commander of the Tactical Air Command challenged HQ USAF to fix the problem. HQ USAF directed the SEEK EAGLE revitalization study. That study resulted in the establishment of the AFSEO in December 1987, when the office was chartered by the Secretary of the Air Force.
Attachments
IMG_20220919_0001.jpg
Vietnam veteran (70th Combat Engineer Battalion)(AnKhe & Pleiku) 1967
Retired from Chrysler Engineering
Offline

jessmo112

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 902
  • Joined: 16 Mar 2020, 02:09

Unread post19 Sep 2022, 05:54

Do you think if there is a major conflict, you will have jet jockeys pushing for faster and more varied certification?
Offline

hornetfinn

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4167
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post19 Sep 2022, 06:43

steve2267 wrote:I could not recall if Harpoon was out of service or not. Thank you for that clarification Ric. But the point stands -- with the possible exception of dumb iron bombs -- things with solid rocket propellant, batteries etc. have a shelf life -- an EOL date attached to them. It is foolhardy to simply expect a nation to expend a LOT of precious funds flight testing & certifying an OLD weapon for a new aircraft.


Even dumb iron bombs have shelf life, although it could be very long one depending on how the bombs have been stored, inspected and maintained. Explosive filling has stabilizers (just like propellants have), which are kind of like preservatives. They significantly extend the shelf life of explosives and also make those explosives much safer due to making them more stable. But they do deteriorate with time even in best conditions but environmental effects can speed up that degradation process a lot. Even dumb iron bombs need to be inspected with regular intervals to check the if the explosive filling and stabilizers are still good. If not, they need to be refilled or discarded. So basically they can have very long shelf life with maintenance if the casing is good to go (stored properly).
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4300
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post19 Sep 2022, 15:46

Corsair1963 wrote:In the Anti Ship Role the F-35 will use the JSM (NSM) internally and externally. While, the larger LRASM will only be able to be carried externally.


In the (near) future, yes definitely!

Currently (as we speak) the F-35 uses the JSOW-C1 for Anti-Ship role.
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline
User avatar

steve2267

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3332
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2016, 17:36

Unread post20 Sep 2022, 05:18

It was not my intent to steer the conversation to what anti-ship weapons are available to the F-35. Rather, the Harpoon was merely an example that missiles have shelf lives. Mavericks have shelf lives too. They *have* been around "forever"... how long will Mavericks remain viable? It makes little sense to expend lots and lots and lots of dollars to attempt to certify a "short range" IR / TV-imaging missile, that cannot be carried & launched internally. This goes for any other "old" munition with a rocket motor. Just 'cuz you have a lot of X, does not mean it is smart to spend a lot of $$ to certify X on F-35 (or any other modern or new platform.)

JDAM is game changing, because with the addition of a strap-on strake kit + sensor / guidance package... you change a dumb bomb into a smart weapon, and for relatively little dollars.

WRT to the Finn's note about bombs having a shelf life. Yes, that is true. But I think that life must be an order of magnitude longer than weps with solid rocket motors? I note that the US was dropping WWII bombs over Vietnam. So that was at least a 20+ year shelf life.

People do not seem to appreciate the enormous complexity involved in the dynamics (including aero) of stores separations. It is hard enough when dropping a store from an external rack. Now open some bay doors, drop the munition, and certify said munition is not going to do something funky and impact your very precious stealth jet.
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

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5433
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Nashua NH USA

Unread post20 Sep 2022, 11:07

steve2267 wrote: Now open some bay doors, drop the munition, and certify said munition is not going to do something funky and impact your very precious stealth jet.

Like the first GBU-32 drop from a supercruising F-22 that dropped, then climbed.
"Spurts"

-Pilot
-Aerospace Engineer
-Army Medic
-FMS Systems Engineer
-PFD Systems Engineer
-PATRIOT Systems Engineer
Previous

Return to F-35 Armament, Stores and Tactics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests