Key.Aero Network
Register Free

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 61 to 90 of 107

Thread: JF-17 vs J-10 vs LCA

  1. #61
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    San Francisco, USA
    Posts
    873
    Manufacturers the world over have adopted ramjet & turbofan/turbojet propulsion for anti-ship missiles (aside from the Soviets/Russians who used it more for nuclear roles), and for good reason. A rocket-propelled AShM is essentially a glide-weapon. It follows a predictable ballistic trajectory making it vulnerable to interception by area-defences and since it can't be throttled its not very good at terminal stage jinxing (end-stage maneuvers would bleed much more energy than a cruise missile).

    It'll likely be effective against corvettes & smaller classes i.e. those equipped only with point-defence missiles & CIWS (read: RAM, Aster 15, Barak-1, etc.) but any ship equipped with longer ranged systems (read: ESSM, Aster 30, Barak-8) will engage it before it arrives at the 'dive-envelope'.
    End stage manuvering is important by also overstated. The most important factor is being able to overload the defender with as many missiles timed to arrive at the same time. No system today is going to reliably handle 20 simultaneous attacks.

    From the defender's point of view the best option is to down the aircrafts before they launch. Once those missiles are away whether those are jinxing at Mach 3 or diving at Mach 5 the defender is hard pressed.

    For a little jet like JF-17, the ability to carry two hypersonic weapons makes it a formidable threat. There aren't any other hypersonic AshM you can hang two of on a 6 ton jet. Weapons like the ASM-3 will be more common in time, but even Japan haven't put it into mass production yet.

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    992
    Quote Originally Posted by eagle
    Are we sure about that? It's a pretty large missile, like 50% more weight than the old ASM-1/2 missiles.
    only 2000 lbs similar weight to JASSM or PGM-2000
    F-16E with smaller wing can carry 4 of those

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Eastern Switzerland
    Posts
    2,240
    only 2000 lbs similar weight to JASSM or PGM-2000
    F-16E with smaller wing can carry 4 of those
    I should have added ...while carrying 2 600 gal fuel tanks.
    All the pics I've seen show the F-2 carrying 2 ASM-3 plus various other stuff, but never 4 ASM-3. 2 ASM-3 plus tank is about 4000 kg under one wing, that's a lot for an F-16 derivative.
    How can less be more? It's impossible. More is more.
    Yngwie Malmsteen

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    992
    All the pics I've seen show the F-2 carrying 2 ASM-3 plus various other stuff, but never 4 ASM-3. 2 ASM-3 plus tank is about 4000 kg under one wing, that's a lot for an F-16 derivative.
    F-2 has bigger wing so it can generate more lift.
    Even normal F-16 sometimes tested with very strange load

    Are you sure the fuel tank is 2000 kg ?
    Last edited by garryA; 13th October 2017 at 03:54.

  5. #65
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    2,834
    Quote Originally Posted by Multirole
    End stage manuvering is important by also overstated. The most important factor is being able to overload the defender with as many missiles timed to arrive at the same time. No system today is going to reliably handle 20 simultaneous attacks.
    That's not a factor insofar as the question of 'which missile' is concerned. Its like the pilot skill, important yes, but irrelevant to a comparison of aircraft.

    From the defender's point of view the best option is to down the aircrafts before they launch. Once those missiles are away whether those are jinxing at Mach 3 or diving at Mach 5 the defender is hard pressed.

    For a little jet like JF-17, the ability to carry two hypersonic weapons makes it a formidable threat. There aren't any other hypersonic AshM you can hang two of on a 6 ton jet. Weapons like the ASM-3 will be more common in time, but even Japan haven't put it into mass production yet.
    A JF-17 carrying two CM-400AKGs isn't necessarily anymore formidable than one equipped with two C-802s. The 'carrier-killer' thing is pretty much a myth, else it'd be the weapon of choice for the J-10 & J-11 as well.

    The CM-400AKG like I said in my previous post - is a boost-glide weapon that follows a predicable ballistic trajectory that makes it susceptible to interception by medium/long range SAMs, as compared to conventional i.e. air-breathing missiles.

    The actual USP of the missile is that its light enough to equip the JF-17's mid-board pylon (which is rated for Mk83s) - thus freeing up the inner-pylons for fuel tanks - while being a lot cheaper than something like the NSM.

    (All pictures show it on the JF-17's inner pylons but I'm assuming that's to preserve airframe life.)

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    London
    Posts
    563
    A JF-17 carrying two CM-400AKGs isn't necessarily anymore formidable than one equipped with two C-802s. The 'carrier-killer' thing is pretty much a myth, else it'd be the weapon of choice for the J-10 & J-11 as well.

    The CM-400AKG like I said in my previous post - is a boost-glide weapon that follows a predicable ballistic trajectory that makes it susceptible to interception by medium/long range SAMs, as compared to conventional i.e. air-breathing missiles.
    While it may be able to fly a boosted, ballistic trajectory with a terminal glide stage, there's no reason to assume this is the only way it will be employed. Given it's stated range, it's most likely to still be powered in the terminal stage allowing it to perform evasive manoeuvres, which is one of it's key capabilities, along with around Mach 5 terminal speed. The glided ballistic trajectory would only be used to extend its range beyond that of its rocket powered stage.

    In any case, although it may not be used by the PLAF, they do seem to be using traditional ballistic missiles as part of their "carrier killer" capability, with bona fide ballistic flight paths and gliding terminal warheads, but which they claim are capable of performing evasive manoeuvres, so there is some validity to this approach.

    Furthermore, how many ship based anti-air systems have actually been demonstrated to be effective against a ballistic threat, aside from say the US SM series?

  7. #67
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    San Francisco, USA
    Posts
    873
    AShM with ballistic trajectory plays a huge part in modern naval tactics today. If an Arleigh Burke destroyer fights a peer surface threat today guess which is its weapon of choice, Harpoon? Nope, short ranged, subsonic. The Burke's first choice is actually SM-6 which has a secondary ballistic anti-ship capability. It would spam the target with up to 30 missiles, overload its defences and either set that ship on fire or damage it's sensor arrays with those relatively light warheads.

    Harpoons are more powerful, but their slow speed and short range means they can't sync on target with simultaneous SM-6 strikes.

    Low altitude ramjet missiles like YJ-12, HF-3, ASM-3 are theoritically better, but don't discount hypersonic dive missiles in large numbers. The USN is betting on it.

  8. #68
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    2,834
    Quote Originally Posted by Alpha Bravo
    While it may be able to fly a boosted, ballistic trajectory with a terminal glide stage, there's no reason to assume this is the only way it will be employed. Given it's stated range, it's most likely to still be powered in the terminal stage allowing it to perform evasive manoeuvres, which is one of it's key capabilities, along with around Mach 5 terminal speed. The glided ballistic trajectory would only be used to extend its range beyond that of its rocket powered stage.
    That is the way it'll be employed because that is the way all missiles of the type work. It'll fire off into a climb to gain altitude before the motor burns out and then coast to the target. Some SAMs & AAMs feature a dual pulse rocket for greater terminal energy but its not something a diving ballistic missile needs.

    Nothing to do with the stated range of the system - the Phoenix & R-37 achieved similar ranges with a mono-pulse rocket motor.

    In any case, although it may not be used by the PLAF, they do seem to be using traditional ballistic missiles as part of their "carrier killer" capability, with bona fide ballistic flight paths and gliding terminal warheads, but which they claim are capable of performing evasive manoeuvres, so there is some validity to this approach.

    Furthermore, how many ship based anti-air systems have actually been demonstrated to be effective against a ballistic threat, aside from say the US SM series?
    The real world efficacy of the DF-21D aside, fact remains, it adopts an exo-atmospheric flight path - given its 1,500 km range, I'm guessing its apogee would be in excess of 300 km (the typical fighter jet cruises at an altitude of 10-15 km) - unlike the CM-400AKG which coasts well within the envelope of mid-ranged ship-borne SAM systems.

  9. #69
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    2,834
    Quote Originally Posted by Multirole
    AShM with ballistic trajectory plays a huge part in modern naval tactics today. If an Arleigh Burke destroyer fights a peer surface threat today guess which is its weapon of choice, Harpoon? Nope, short ranged, subsonic. The Burke's first choice is actually SM-6 which has a secondary ballistic anti-ship capability. It would spam the target with up to 30 missiles, overload its defences and either set that ship on fire or damage it's sensor arrays with those relatively light warheads.
    The operative word is 'secondary'. The primary anti-surface weapon for the USN remains SH-launched Harpoons.. to be eventually replaced by the LRASM & JSM - both powered by turbojet engines.

    Harpoons are more powerful, but their slow speed and short range means they can't sync on target with simultaneous SM-6 strikes.
    No such rule. If anything, the fact that they can be throttled allows for better coordination for arriving at the target zone.

    Low altitude ramjet missiles like YJ-12, HF-3, ASM-3 are theoritically better, but don't discount hypersonic dive missiles in large numbers. The USN is betting on it.
    At the moment, even the Chinese aren't taking that route. The go-to solutions for PLAAF & PLAN fighters are still the YJ-8 & YJ-12.

  10. #70
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    San Francisco, USA
    Posts
    873
    Secondary or not, until next generation missiles enter service. SM-6 is de facto top end USN anti surface weapon. Very doubtful they can sync with Harpoons in wartime conditions, and given its shorter range, highly inadvisable. More likely the enemy would be hit first by SM-6, then if necessary the Burke would close in to finish it off with Harpoons.

    China doesn't need CM-400AKG because it already has long range land based AShBMs, and heavy fighters to carry ramjet missiles.

  11. #71
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    London
    Posts
    563
    Originally Posted by Vnomad
    That is the way it'll be employed because that is the way all missiles of the type work. It'll fire off into a climb to gain altitude before the motor burns out and then coast to the target. Some SAMs & AAMs feature a dual pulse rocket for greater terminal energy but its not something a diving ballistic missile needs.
    No, not if the target is within range of the rocket motor powered flight range, it wouldn't need a boosted ballistic trajectory. Exocet missiles before the Block 3 MM40 version all used a rocket motor. Range would vary depending on altitude and speed of the launch aircraft.
    Last edited by Alpha Bravo; 13th October 2017 at 12:11.

  12. #72
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    2,834
    Quote Originally Posted by Multirole
    Secondary or not, until next generation missiles enter service. SM-6 is de facto top end USN anti surface weapon. Very doubtful they can sync with Harpoons in wartime conditions, and given its shorter range, highly inadvisable. More likely the enemy would be hit first by SM-6, then if necessary the Burke would close in to finish it off with Harpoons.
    I meant Harpoons syncing with other Harpoons, not with SM-6s. The SM-6 in an anti-ship role is purely a fall-back option (with the USN dispensing with silo-based Harpoons).

    USN doctrine calls for dealing with surface (and aerial) threats at ranges well exceeding that of ship-launched missiles. That's what the super-carrier and its fighter complement exist for. The de facto top-end USN anti-surface weapons consist of LRASMs & JSMs launched from SHs & F-35Cs.

    China doesn't need CM-400AKG because it already has long range land based AShBMs, and heavy fighters to carry ramjet missiles.
    And yet the default anti-shipping missile for the JH-7 & J-15 is the YJ-83K, and that for the Su-30MK2 is the Kh-59MK.

  13. #73
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Columbia, MD
    Posts
    12,128
    Neither are de-facto weapons for the USN. The USN has no POR for the JSM, and the LRASM purchase is interim and in quite small quantities (and that too split with the USAF) for very specific mission sets and threat scenarios largely in one AOR. The more prevalent missile going forward is likely going to be the standard and Extended Range Harpoon on the Super Hornet.

    On the Surface Navy side, the SM6 capability is secondary, and only available on the Baseline-9 vessels, but the mission will get an additional capability over the next few years with the TLAM upgrade path that would first introduce the Maritime Targeting Capability and ultimately the MST variant with a new multi-mode seeker early next decade. There are no plans to go back to the Harpoon as far as the VLS is concerned. Since the OASuW Increment 2 was transitioned to an air-launched weapon (from earlier plans to make it a VLC launched weapon) the surface navy plans to grow the TLAM until the NGLAW is fielded which will have dual (ship and land attack) from the start.

    OASuW Increment 2 remains a Navy program of record, and has since been transitioned to an air-launched concept but the funding stream is quite uncertain, and there does not seem to be much enthusiasm to really make cuts elsewhere to field this capability. Knowing this, Boeing has been quietly pouring in company funds to develop the Extended Range Harpoon knowing that the vast infrastructure and the Navy's investment in the networked Harpoon will give them an edge since fleet integration costs would practically be negligible. The Navy also intends to retain its investment in active-RF seekers and as such views the area that it must improve. None of the competitors on the increment-2 offer an active RF seeker option.
    Attached Images Attached Images  
    Last edited by bring_it_on; 13th October 2017 at 13:31.
    Old radar types never die; they just phased array

  14. #74
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    2,834
    No, not if the target is within range of the rocket motor powered flight range, it wouldn't need a boosted ballistic trajectory. Exocet missiles before the Block 3 MM40 version all used a rocket motor. Range would vary depending on altitude and speed of the launch aircraft.
    Assuming a burn time of 30 secs and average speed of Mach 5 (both generous assumptions) we're looking at a powered flight range of 0.34 x 5 x 30 ~ 50 km.

    The Exocet had a long burn rocket motor but it was designed to fly at subsonic speeds.

  15. #75
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    2,834
    Quote Originally Posted by bring_it_on
    Neither are de-facto weapons for the USN. The USN has no POR for the JSM, and the LRASM purchase is interim and in quite small quantities (and that too split with the USAF) for very specific mission sets and threat scenarios largely in one AOR.
    The USN barely has any F-35s as well. Its a figure of speech. As I said, two posts back - the LRASM & JSM will over the long term replace the Harpoon in the air-to-surface role.
    Last edited by Vnomad; 13th October 2017 at 13:55.

  16. #76
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Columbia, MD
    Posts
    12,128
    Where does the JSM come into the picture? It is not a part of any USN acquisition strategy. LRASM as per rules has to compete if it is to go beyond the "interim and urgent need" requirement for a few hundred missiles and there is no indication that the OASuW Increment 2 is geared towards buying LRASMS.

    The LRASM as things stand won't replace the Harpoon unless the USN gives up the need to maintain an Active seeker which it has held as close requirement over the years. It is also a larger weapon employing a different concept. As to the JSM there is no requirement for an IIR missile with the USN to replace the Harpoon. It will be quite unlikely that this variant ends up de-throning the Harpoon especially with the ER variant in flight testing.


    As far as the F-35C surface strike requirements, those have yet to emerge and may or may not influence OASuW Increment 2 which itself is on less than solid grounds. If there is a fresh look at surface attack capability (beyond the standard JSOW C-1 and AARGM profile) on the F-35C the lead time from a budgetary perspective will allow plenty of options to compete to both Boeing and Lockheed. If you do decide to entertain new form factors, then there are a number of programs that both Boeing, Lockheed and others can leverage to get you bay compatibility and RCS optimization. You don't need the stand-off range from an internal bay equipped weapon on a stealth aircraft as you do from a stand off platform so even using the ER-AARGM as a base and trading absolute range for seeker and warhead may be an option as well.

    I don't think Kongsberg/Raytheon will have it easy trying to steer the USN away from a concept of employment that it has so far preferred, and that it keeps investing as far asresearch into active RF seekers is concerned at its labs. Given the slow pace of USN acquisition of the F-35C, and the fact that the JSM is not F-35B bay compliant, I don't see this as a competitive advantage as say the NSM (even though what Raytheon offered was not networked) was vis-a-vis the up gunned LCS.
    Last edited by bring_it_on; 13th October 2017 at 14:45.
    Old radar types never die; they just phased array

  17. #77
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    London
    Posts
    563
    Originally Posted by Vnomad
    Assuming a burn time of 30 secs and average speed of Mach 5 (both generous assumptions) we're looking at a powered flight range of 0.34 x 5 x 30 ~ 50 km.
    The Exocet had a long burn rocket motor but it was designed to fly at subsonic speeds.
    The cruise speed would be lower, it's only the terminal top-attack speed which approaches mach 5.

  18. #78
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    2,834
    Where does the JSM come into the picture? It is not a part of any USN acquisition strategy. LRASM as per rules has to compete if it is to go beyond the "interim and urgent need" requirement for a few hundred missiles and there is no indication that the OASuW Increment 2 is geared towards buying LRASMS.

    The LRASM as things stand won't replace the Harpoon unless the USN gives up the need to maintain an Active seeker which it has held as close requirement over the years. It is also a larger weapon employing a different concept. As to the JSM there is no requirement for an IIR missile with the USN to replace the Harpoon. It will be quite unlikely that this variant ends up de-throning the Harpoon especially with the ER variant in flight testing.
    The Harpoon ER & MTS are upgrades/retrofits for existing missiles - they cannot soldier on ad infinitum. And the JSM & LRASM integration on the F-35 & SH respectively, is already funded, and they've also been shortlisted for the LCS/frigate OTH contract. Its pretty obvious which way this is going to go.

  19. #79
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    2,834
    Quote Originally Posted by Alpha Bravo
    The cruise speed would be lower, it's only the terminal top-attack speed which approaches mach 5.
    Basic point is - if the missile can cruise at high altitude, fast enough (high supersonic) to be a hard target for SAMs but still long ranged, and doing Mach 5 in the terminal stage with evasive maneuvering, all while weighing half as much as its subsonic peers and between a third & a fifth that of conventional ramjet types - the arguments for equipping the PLAAF & PLANAF with other missiles (YJ-8, YJ-83, YJ-12, etc.) sound rather hollow.

  20. #80
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Columbia, MD
    Posts
    12,128
    The Harpoon ER & MTS are upgrades/retrofits for existing missiles
    The Harpoon ER is a new build missile and is based on the networked Harpoon which is the most up to date version currently with the USN (Block II+ was brought to the fleet only this year). As per its obselence at the component level, there is a reason why the ONR has S&T and R&D investments to constantly look into seeker upgrades and incorporating emerging technologies into its missiles. If they want to upgrade components they will insert technology as appropriate. What they wan't is something that replaces the older missile, it need not change the concept of employment or what they value as far as capability is concerned.

    they cannot soldier on ad infinitum
    They won't. You will have newer variants and new missiles, plus perhaps emerging needs over and above NGLAW. But, I fail to see how this has anything to do with the JSM which has nothing as far as a USN roadmap is concerned.


    And the JSM & LRASM integration on the F-35 & SH respectively, is already funded
    There are many non US weapons being integrated on the F-35 for international customers as partners or export FMS cases. This does not mean that the US services will acquire those weapons. As far as the LRASM - it will not be politically acceptable to acquire extremely large quantities of LRASM since that wasn't how they promised it would go down since it was not a competitive source selection. Urgent needs programs are exempt from competition but neither the DOD nor the Congress will allow this to be made a mainstream weapon w/o inserting competition.

    US service requests is pegged with its funded PORs, and identified future needs. I have explained where some of the interests lie. For surface to surface attack from VLS, it is to develop the two TLAM variants (the latter is a multi-spectral system) and then transition to NGLAW. On the Air Launched portfolio, it is to acquire a small batch of interim/urgent needs capability via LRASM and move to the OASuW Increment 2 effort where they will look to replace their Harpoons. Harpoon-ER is being pitched under an MOU with the Navy as a stepping stone to that weapon. Having said that, many don't view OASuW Increment 2 as a very high priority effort for the Navy which is a good sign for Boeing because they have something that is going to be very cheap to put to the fleet given the infrastructure already exists there.

    nd they've also been shortlisted for the LCS/frigate OTH contract. Its pretty obvious which way this is going to go.
    The up gunned LCS integration is with NSM where others basically bailed out because the Navy wanted a stop gap quickly and didn't want something that was networked and weren't willing to pay extra for that. A networked NSM does not exist yet (at least as far as Kongsberg/Raytheon partnership is concerned) while the other competitors had missiles in that space. This is totally different from where they are on their air launched portfolio where they have invested over the last decade to network their surface attack weapons, and then acquire this capability.

    As far as OASuW Increment 2, if it goes anywhere, it will be a structured program where the Navy will look at its entire S&T and R&D portfolio where networking and active RF seekers will surely be at play since they have identified this in their S&T roadmaps. What it would not be is a "RUSHED", urgent needs, as was the case with the LCS requirement, since that requirement has been fulfilled already by the interim LRASM purchase by the USN and USAF.

    If the Navy finds cash to go all in into a new program and is willing to pay for designs that will change form factor and explore newer technology insertions then that will be a full fledged competition. I just do not see the Navy ditching its investment in active RF seekers since the primary SO surface attack platform will still be the SH while there are plenty of similar options on the F-35 (JSOW, ER-AARGM, and other PGMs).

    I would be extremely surprised if the Navy sunsets its active RF missile portfolio by going in with the LRASM/JSM combo. It would be a big departure from where most that I know expect the Navy to stress its future weapon and targeting requirements or where they have been investing in when it comes to their S&T and R&D efforts aimed at this mission set (Combined mmW/IIR seeker concepts across applications).

    If the OASuW Increment 2 is to be moved to the right then the stop gap already exists in the LRASM and latest block Harpoon..There is no need to set up a completely new NAVAIR weapons program with all the costs that it entails. It will not fly politically.
    Attached Images Attached Images  
    Last edited by bring_it_on; 13th October 2017 at 17:17.
    Old radar types never die; they just phased array

  21. #81
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    3,661
    If an Arleigh Burke destroyer fights a peer surface threat today guess which is its weapon of choice, Harpoon? Nope, short ranged, subsonic. The Burke's first choice is actually SM-6 which has a secondary ballistic anti-ship capability. It would spam the target with up to 30 missiles, overload its defences and either set that ship on fire or damage it's sensor arrays with those relatively light warheads.
    The main US Navy anti ship weapons are the MK48 ADCAP´s launched from their Nuclear Hunter Killer Submarines or JSOW/SLAM/SLAM-ER/Harpoon launched from Super Hornets, a force on force peer surface confrontation by an Arleigh Burke would be something that i would imagine the US Navy would strive to avoid, finaly, while you do have a point that the SM-6 brings a very interesting ashm capability i dont think that capability is available today across the fleet.

    Cheers
    Last edited by Sintra; 13th October 2017 at 17:54.

  22. #82
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Columbia, MD
    Posts
    12,128
    For the moment, the SM6s are heading to only those DDG-51s that have gone through the AEGIS baseline-9 upgrades.
    Old radar types never die; they just phased array

  23. #83
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    3,661
    For the moment, the SM6s are heading to only those DDG-51s that have gone through the AEGIS baseline-9 upgrades.
    Thanks for the update

  24. #84
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    2,834
    @BIO

    - The F-35C will equipped with an anti-ship missile in due course. Its pretty much inevitable - you don't need a immediate road-map to foresee that. The JSM can be carried internally and will face no integration costs, while the LRASM is already being integrated with the SH. The Harpoon has pretty much been sidelined, though probably not eliminated.

    - As far as surface fleet is concerned - again, LRASM for the Arleigh Burke & JSM for the LCS & frigates are almost a done deal.

    They can run a competition to formalize it, if sole-source is politically unacceptable, but the results will likely remain the same - an expanding order-book for the JSM & LRASM and a gradual draw-down of the Harpoon stocks.

  25. #85
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Columbia, MD
    Posts
    12,128
    - The F-35C will equipped with an anti-ship missile in due course.
    Of course it will over time acquire a weapon. Not disputing that.

    The JSM will be operationalized with the Blk 4 while the LRASM is already being integrated with the SH. The Harpoon has pretty much been sidelined, though probably not eliminated.
    Again, the JSM is being integrated by Norway for its needs. The LRASM with OASuW Inc. 1 under an immediate PACOM need and only on 2 platforms. Anyhow, the F-35C won't be able to support the LRASM in its bays and as a SO, the much larger SH fleet will be more than adequate for the few hundred missile inventory that is being split with the USAF.

    As far as surface fleet is concerned - again, LRASM for the Arleigh Burke & JSM for the LCS & frigates are almost a done deal.
    There is no program of record for the LRASM OASuW increment -1 (Air to Surface) weapon as far as the VLS use is concerned. There are two programs of record at this moment to field new surface attack capability - one being bringing the capability to the TLAM via multiple capability inserts (right down to introducing a new multi-spectral seeker), and long term via the NGLAW. There IS NO OTHER program currently being pursued. I don't know where you are pulling this assertion from but it is not an accurate representation of the USN acquisition strategy or weapon development roadmap. The USN likes the TLAM path because it maximizes the capability of their VLS load out on account of longer range and multiple missions that it can support.

    JSM for the LCS & frigates are almost a done deal.
    That's a small purchase. The Future frigate is still open in terms of what capability it will show up with.

    They can run a competition to formalize it, if sole-source is politically unacceptable, but the results will likely remain the same
    The USN in its future weapons targeting roadmap has been investing in multi spectral (Active RF and combined RF/IIR) seekers for the last 8-10 years, and has developed and demonstrated multiple iterations of these systems in its labs and right down to individual supplier that are currently flight testing their products. The service pursued a OASuW Inc 1 path because the urgent demand from PACOM was not compatible with the timeline for these technologies to end up in a new weapon.

    Why would they move from an interim capability, to a higher increment capability for a broader solution set by focusing investment on an inferior weapon? It makes no sense and as I said, it will be a significant deviation from the technology roadmap that the service has pursued for the last many years.

    Given budget dynamics, Increment-2 is not appear to be a very high priority for the service. The Harpoon II+ just entered service, and Boeing already has an extended range version of the same currently in flight testing. The JSOW-C-1 and the AARGM-ER both have or will have anti-surface capability and the Navy's F-35C fleet is small and being acquired over a decade if not more. The Navy has identified and pursued technologies for insertion in this mission set for multiple weapon types towards the late 2020s and early 2030s. The JSM solves none of those needs as it currently stands. It makes no sense..doesn't meet future threat types (as per the Navy's own analysis of what sort of guidance is required against them), and the only real advantage it offers is that it is F-35C internal bay compliant, a capability that will likely be much lower down their priority list than to replace older block Harpoons that will be sunsetting around the middle of the next decade.

    The NSM - LCS purchase made sense at a lot of levels. It provides a rapid acquisition of capability which has its own political mileage for that PO. Doing the same on the OASuW Inc. 2 will amount to acquisition malpractice as increment-1 has already addressed that and because the Navy has spent a fair amount of money to develop and test the Harpoon Block II+ and already have a weapon in flight testing under an MOU that enhances that capability by extending its range. If the OASuW Inc. 2 is to be moved to the right, then the path that makes the most sense is to buy interim capability that you already are incorporating into the fleet with Block II+s and II+ERs. This will push a clean sheet weapon to the right knowing that it still leaves some capability gaps.

    If you are to pursue OASuW Inc. 2 all in then you need a weapon that incorporates enough technologies that you have been developing in your labs, and through your contractors to make sure that it is capable enough for the next few decades. The JSM does not bring any of those capabilities that the USN has been investing in and as such its acquisition would be pointless beyond simply providing a few squadrons of F-35Cs the capability to fire a missile at a ship in case the 500+ fleet of SHs can't land a Harpoon or LRASM.

    Again, it addresses nothing that the Navy has identified as a need into the future while committing NAVIAR to introducing a new weapon to its fleet that circumvents the requirements they have themselves been asking industry to develop solutions around for the last decade.
    Last edited by bring_it_on; 13th October 2017 at 18:49.
    Old radar types never die; they just phased array

  26. #86
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Eastern Switzerland
    Posts
    2,240
    F-2 has bigger wing so it can generate more lift.
    Even normal F-16 sometimes tested with very strange load

    Are you sure the fuel tank is 2000 kg ?
    That is just for show. F-16 is not cleared for MERs on stations 3/7. Station limit is 2500 lbs I think.

    600 gal is about 1800 kg of fuel. Tank weighs about 400 lbs, pylon 300 lbs, more than 2100 kg total.
    ASM-3, if it's actually 900 kg, plus pylon is just about 1000 kg each. So with a couple of AAMs, you're looking at about 4200 kg under one wing.
    Wiki says maximum load is 8085 kg for what it's worth.
    How can less be more? It's impossible. More is more.
    Yngwie Malmsteen

  27. #87
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    4,916
    The F-35C will equipped with an anti-ship missile in due course.
    Since JASSM is UAI it makes sense that LRASM will be also.

    The F-35 gets UAI in Block4 so LRASM can be added anytime after that without the need for a separate Block upgrade.
    "The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

  28. #88
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Columbia, MD
    Posts
    12,128
    LRASM inventory is too small for its integration to make sense even more so since it won't fit the weapons bay. Unless the Navy inventory is increased they are unlikely to consider this. Current Navy program of record (as per the FY18 SAR) is 85 missiles, while that of the Air-Force is 50 missiles. Tough to justify a third platform's integration costs.
    Last edited by bring_it_on; 13th October 2017 at 23:48.
    Old radar types never die; they just phased array

  29. #89
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    2,834
    Quote Originally Posted by bring_it_on
    Of course it will over time acquire a weapon. Not disputing that.

    Again, the JSM is being integrated by Norway for its needs. The LRASM with OASuW Inc. 1 under an immediate PACOM need and only on 2 platforms. Anyhow, the F-35C won't be able to support the LRASM in its bays and as a SO, the much larger SH fleet will be more than adequate for the few hundred missile inventory that is being split with the USAF.
    The JSM will be operational with the F-35A, and the integration costs for operationalizing it use on the F-35C are negligible. LRASM doesn't need to be internal carry on the F-35 - it'll be operational on the SH and that's good enough for the ranges involved. Although, as the LRASM inventories expand (and other customers come onboard esp. F-35 & JASSM operators) its very likely to be cleared for the F-35 as well.
    Last edited by Vnomad; 14th October 2017 at 08:48.

  30. #90
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Columbia, MD
    Posts
    12,128
    The JSM will be operational with the F-35A, and the integration costs for operationalizing it use on the F-35C are negligible.
    There are costs involved when you decide to introduce a new weapon into your inventory. Logistical costs, costs of maintaining that weapon and the costs of actually making sure that it covers all your threats. This beyond first creating the requirements for such a weapon and conducting testing to see that it actually meets those requirements in the first place. You just don't put out an RFI and buy a few missiles for a long term program, you have to create all those things for a new weapon, for it to be effectively used by your combat forces. As explained already, the objective of the increment-2 program is to field a capability that you couldn't at a short time-line (hence LRASM). You won't go out and buy an inferior weapon for that program to the one you fielded as a GAP FILLER. That is not how these things work and that is not how the USN has been playing with its IB for the last decade through various S&T programs aimed at a future threat.

    LRASM doesn't need to be internal carry on the F-35 - it'll be operational on the SH and that's good enough for the ranges involved.Although, as the LRASM inventories expand (and other customers come onboard esp. F-35 & JASSM operators) its very likely to be cleared for the F-35 as well.
    Let me lay out a few things -

    The USN identified a need for a new weapon many years ago and embarked on a path of technology maturation and development while at the same time studying how the evolving threat will likely require capabilities out into the future. At the same time, PACOM introduced an UONS for a weapon based on certain threats and needs identified in that particular AOR. The Navy and the DOD could not develop the weapon that it knew it needed for the future threat on PACOM's time-lines hence they took something that was in research and packaged that as an interim "Gap Filler" for both the USAF and USN's identified, theater specific urgent need. This forced them to split their Offensive Anti-Surface Warfare program into two, with increment-1 being the "Gap Filler" weapon that met the urgent need as the increment-2 weapon, capable of handling the broader OASuW threat was developed.

    Hence the entire program of record for the LRASM is expected to close down in 2021 after delivering around 135-150 weapons split between the PACOM needs of the USN and USAF as that concludes the urgent needs requirement for a rushed weapon system. The Navy is currently working on the increment-2, which as the recent slide from the PO from the Navy's office that handles Offensive Anti-Surface Warfare portfolio explains is designed around a broader mission set and requirements.

    There is no long term "Expanded" LRASM inventory planned at this moment as the program was and is aimed at meeting an urgent requirement and then moving on to delivering something that the Navy has been supporting from an S&T perspective for many years. The Navy has already run and completed multiple seeker and networking programs for a future anti-surface weapon, and contractors are at this time flight testing their own seeker solutions for future applications across the mission set.

    As explained more than once now, on the surface navy side the ONLY programs of record are to equip the VLS with newer TLAM variants both in the short term via software upgrades to the weapons and through introducing a new multi-mode seeker before finally transitioning to the NGLAW sometime towards the end of the next decade. There is no other program of record in the Navy's acquisition plan to introduce a new weapon to the VLS for this mission between now and the late 2020s based on publicly released information.

    Although, as the LRASM inventories expand (and other customers come onboard esp. F-35 & JASSM operators) its very likely to be cleared for the F-35 as well.
    LRASM inventories will expand, from around 10 operational missiles with the Navy around the the end of 2018/early 2019, as it awaits for EOC with the F-18E/F, to around 85 Missiles around late 2021, early 2022 timeframe. This is how the program is structured and once similar deliveries to the AF conclude (AF EOC with B-1 is in 2018) around the same time, the urgent needs COCOM requirement would have been met under the appropriate 5000.02 AC (AAP).

    As far as Increment - 2 WS is concerned, as explained the Navy will need something that is more capable, against a wider threat type than the LRASM. They will look to package capabilities that they have been supporting that could not find their way into the LRASM as the program prioritized schedule as opposed to all out requirements. The JSM is obviously not that weapon. How that program shapes up, and how much money is with the Navy to actually support it remains to be seen. If it is moved to the right, perhaps 2-3 more batches of LRASM can be ordered under the existing AAP so you can add 3 years more of orders and around 75 more missiles, taking the Navy's inventory to 160. The Navy has also just this year introduced the Block II+ Networked Harpoon Mod into its inventory, expect more of them as well as the ER version of the same if they push their plans to the right on increment-2.


    What will be extremely surprising is that after years of leading their IB towards a certain solution set, the Navy abandons that line of reasoning and investment altogether, and buys a weapon system that fields capability they could have introduced to the fleet in even earlier than LRASM time-lines. If a subsonic, IIR+Radio was what the needed they could have fielded it years ago. But one look at some of the capability they have been funding over the last decade as far as seeker-concepts, propulsion, and networking is concerned tells us that they want something that is more capable - Hence we ended up with a GAP FILLER LRASM.

    From a capability, and acquisition stand point it makes sense to buy capability that you are already heavily invested in from a development+testing+logistical perspective especially if there is iterative development happening to that capability at no additional cost. Other anti-surface investments will under such a scenario will also be leveraged as more interim capability is brought up as increment-2 moves to the right.

    JSOW-C1 is obviously the logical choice here since it is already in the Navy's portfolio as a surface strike weapon and is compliant with their F-35 which will begin rotating with the carriers in an operational context in the early 2020s. Moreover, capability enhancements to the weapon are already funded by the USN and it is an important weapon in its portfolio, is networked and has a seeker. These things should take care of a 3-5 year "pause" to the increment-2 efforts on account of budget priorities (under a hypothetical scenario where Increment-2 is put on the back burner). As I had mentioned earlier, the PB18 request deferred Increment-2 funding by a year but that is obviously not the last we have heard of it since Congress has a say.

    U.S. Navy To Flight Test Quadruple-Range JSOW-ER


    The U.S. Navy has moved forward with plans to evaluate Raytheon’s jet-powered AGM-154 Joint Stand-Off Weapon-Extended Range (JSOW-ER) concept.
    The service has awarded Raytheon almost $9 million to complete a flight-test demonstration of the latest network-enabled JSOW C-1 configuration, to be powered by the Pratt & Whitney/Hamilton-Sundstrand TJ-150 turbojet engine.

    The contract announced on May 30 has been expected since late last year. It will be the first government-sponsored test.
    The goal is to more than quadruple the glide bomb’s range to 300 nm when powered, from 70 nm unpowered, without changing the outer mold line or mass properties. That kind of striking distance would allow Navy strike fighters to destroy targets over a 282,743-sq.-nm area with JSOW, compared to 15,393 sq. nm now.

    Raytheon has been developing the weapon concept internally since 2007. In October 2009, JSOW-ER flew 264 nm, launching from a BoeingF/A-18E Super Hornet.

    Raytheon already has completed production of new JSOW C-1 weapons for the U.S. military services at its plant in Tuscon, Arizona, and will soon close out the assembly line. But if the JSOW-ER demonstration is successful, the Navy could choose to launch a program of record for new JSOW-ERs.

    The latest datalink-equipped, GPS/INS-guided JSOW C-1 variant is designed to strike land and moving maritime targets from up to 70 nm away from 40,000 ft. By comparison, Boeing’s air-launched Harpoon has an advertised range of 67 nm, or more than 134 nm in the proposed extended-range configuration.

    U.S. Naval Air Systems Command (Navair) is now supporting demonstrations of longer-range variants of both the JSOW C-1 and Harpoon Block II+, the maritime service’s only two network-enabled air-to-surface weapons.

    Navair Program Manager Capt. John Dougherty says Raytheon has continued to mature the design performance of the JSOW-ER since the 2009 demonstration using its own funds. There have been no other free flight tests since 2009.
    Both the ER-Block II+, and the JSOW-C1 incorporate US Navy standard jam resistant GPS, and are networked into the Navy's IFC. Moreover, unlike a new weapon that comes with integration, procurement, support and logistical cost, the ER-Harpoon is designed as a MOD to existing 1C baseline rounds or upgraded 1C-Block II+ missiles, mods for which are currently being delivered to the USN. The inventory of baseline missile is extremely large and since you are just buying mods and not new AURs, it is an extremely cost effective solution which a gap filler should be in a scenario where increment-2 is moved to the right for budgetary or TMRR reasons.

    Regardless of what happens with budgets, it is EXTREMELY unlikely, given the nature of the Harpoon replacement program (a WS that has produced >5000 AURs) that the service will look to, or indeed be allowed to (by the OSD and Congress) back-door either a weapon that it itself classified as an interim Stepping_stone capability to Increment-2, or a weapon that is inferior in capability to the weapon that it classified as a gap filler for the ultimate OASuW mission set.
    Last edited by bring_it_on; 14th October 2017 at 15:05.
    Old radar types never die; they just phased array

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

 

- Part of the    Network -

KEY AERO AVIATION NEWS

MAGAZINES

AVIATION FORUM

SHOP

 

WEBSITES