BAE Systems and MBDA have secured additional funding to complete the development and integration of new weapons capabilities on the UK and Italian F-35 fleets.
The firm say that this builds on the successful integration work that commenced in 2019 by BAE Systems, Lockheed Martin and MBDA to upgrade the UK F-35 weapon systems.
“The award will see industry teams complete integration activities for the SPEAR precision surface attack weapon onto the UK F-35s, with the next-generation missile enhancing the UK’s future combat air capability through its network-enabled, high load-out, multi-effect capabilities with extended stand-off range. This will further enhance the UK Lightning Force’s capability to defeat challenging targets such as mobile long-range air defence systems at over-the-horizon ranges in all weathers and in highly contested environments.
The funding will also see the remainder of the integration of MBDA’s Meteor beyond visual range air-to-air missile completed on both the F-35A and F-35B jets for the UK and Italian armed forces. Meteor’s networking and range capability is ideally suited to the F-35’s sensor suite to provide unrivalled capabilities in the battlespace.”
A team of engineers from BAE Systems, MBDA and Lockheed Martin will now commence the testing, simulation and integration activities in the UK and US, to achieve initial operating capability of both weapons.
Tom Fillingham, Senior Vice President, US Programmes, BAE Systems’ Air Sector, said:
“Advanced weapons systems, such as Meteor and SPEAR, will provide the UK and Italian armed forces with an operational advantage. Our highly skilled engineers have a crucial role across the entire F-35 programme and as part of this integration activity, and we look forward to continuing to work alongside our partners as it progresses.”
Paul Mead, Group Business Development Director, MBDA said:
“We are delighted that work continues at pace to deliver Meteor and SPEAR capability to the F-35; it is also a positive step for the wider F-35 enterprise as it adds additional capability choice for all international customers across multiple variants of the aircraft. MBDA’s integration team has worked well with our BAE Systems and Lockheed Martin colleagues to date and we plan to build on this excellent foundation into the future on this key follow-on modernisation work.”
Does that include Spear3?,
Yes.
Does anyone know what weapons will be fitted (and how many) to an operating F-35?
Depends on the threat environment and even the role / tasking of the specific F35.
There is soon going to be a very good range of weapons to choose from.
Meteor, Spear 3, Paveway IV, anything else?
ASRAAM, AMRAAM – although that will be dropped I imagine when we have Meteor up and running.
Theoretically the F35 can carry anything thats been integrated with it, but as we havent purchased any of the US weapons our selection is somewhat limited to those 5 choices, or indeed until we purchase additional munitions.
ASRAAM and AMRAAM, latter to be replaced by Meteor.
AMRAAM won’t be replaced. We’ve bought an additional c200 AMRAAM D for delivery next year. They’ll be on F-35 and Tranche 1 Typhoon for the remainder of their service life. But they’ll have another 20 years in service.
Thats interesting, wasnt aware of the purchase. Typhoon Tr1 are on their way out shortly, and Tr2/3 are all cleared to carry and use Meteor, arguably a better missile then Amraam, depending on what you read.
Just wonder if its got anything to do with costs, as Meteor is a expensive bit of kit? I know we are developing ‘son of Meteor’ in conjunction with the Japanese, or at least exploring this option. If as expected, Meteor is integrated with our F35b’s, not entirely sure why we bought additional Amraams, other then we obviously need them!!!!
Meteor won’t arrive on F-35 until 2027. Our Amraam C-5’s had reached their OSD unless they got a re-life programme. That re-life would cost serious money,and only get them another 10 years as a competitive missile. Buying Amraam D to replace them means we get 20 years+. It also meant that Tranche 1 Typhoon would continue to have a medium range missile until their OSD as they cannot use Meteor.
Cheers, suspected that there would be a good reason for the buy, just wasnt sure what it might be.
Asraam is made by MBDA so will probably just be updated and modified
Asraam will be replaced by Asraam CSP (also known as Block VI). It’s got a new UK built seeker (ITAR free) and other CAMM enhancements. Should arrive on Typhoon in 2022/23. It won’t go on F-35 until 2027 with the F-25 block IV enhancements.
It’s totally new production, the old Asraam will be removed from service. The reason why is that hte MoD realised it would cost almost as much to re-life and update the old missiles as build new.
I don’t think ASRAAM will be replaced, it’s the main short range AAM. In the air intercept role an F-35 would carry a mixture of Meteor BVR and ASRAAM.
Asraam is getting replaced by a new Asramm version (CSP, also known as Block VI).
Yes I think it uses technology from Sea Ceptor/Land Ceptor. I think it may get the active RF seeker. As ASRAAM was the base design for Sea ceptor there will probably little to change.
Definitely won’t get the RF seeker. It’s a newly developed UK IR seeker, its in test at the moment (and was having some performance issues). However, there’s nothing really to stop MBDA from marketing an air launched RF ASRAAM alongside the IR one (like they do with MICA).
There’s also nothing to stop MBDA from doing an air-launched CAMM-ER….
LRASM. The RN needs to get its interim ASM sorted, pick LRASM then integrate on to the F35B and P8 Posiedon. Lockheed Martin is already integrating LRASM on to the ‘ F35 ‘ but have not formally clarified if that includes external carriage on the B.
They’re also integrating LRASM on P-8 for 2027.
JSM was going to get integrated on P-8, the Australian’s were going to pay, but its gone quiet…and they’re also buying LRASM.
JSM might also get integrated on F-35B, but we don’t know yet. All the trials to date have been on internal carriage, but it won’t fit in the B’s weapons bay. Unless it was agreed as part of the deal with Norway, or someone stumps up the cash it might not happen for F-35B.
The Aussies appreciate the capability LRASM provides and have opted to go with it. The USMC is known to be considering LRASM for its F35Bs (external carriage only) but have yet to make a formal announcement. Lets hope the RN goes down the same road, mounting it on our Frigates, P8s and F35B – a perfect all round solution to a glaring capability gap……
Let’s hope they don’t….
Because LRASM is a direct competitor to the FCASW…we don’t want to give our politicians any excuse to cancel it…
A limited buy of JSM for F-35B (and potentially P-8), in conjunction with i-SSGM going for NSM would make perfect sense and not compromise FCASW.
LRASM is mot a direct competitor for FCASW as such, which is why its being looked at as an interim measure for the RN. But….given the fact that France is currently throwing its toys out of the pram and cancelled a scheduled meeting with us that had FCASW on the agenda, you can’t help wondering if that missile will actually appear??
Where LRASM leads, JASSM-ER follows…and they’re both definite rivals for FCASW.
Regardless of the current spat FCASW will be fine. MBDA needs it for exports, otherwise the French factories are rather bare of competitive products going forward.
Unless FC/ASW outranges Kalibr, Oniks, YJ-18 (and Zircon) as a ship-launched weapon then it’s pointless.
“But….given the fact that France is currently throwing its toys out of the pram…”
Let’s have it right, the US, UK and Australia totally screwed France over re the diesel-electric subs that Aus was going to buy, but has now cancelled. I can’t blame France for being pissed off. That said, the price of the proposed subs was an absolute piss-take and I’m astounded that Aus agreed to that price in the first place for diesel-electric subs.
There is more to all this than meets the eye. The new Diesel Electric boats were based on a French Nuclear boat design, did the Aussies approach the French about supplying Nuclear powered boats with all that would entail including the sharing of technology?
I’m not sure what point, you’re making. If Australia wanted nuclear-powered subs, why not order nuclear-powered subs in the first place?
The point is whether or not the French were willing to share the Nuclear Technology with the Aussies? Essential in order to build Nuclear subs in Australia. It may well be the Aussies never asked , or were told its a no go?
I still don’t know what point you’re making. If the Aussies approached the French for nuclear-powered subs and told it was a no-go, they could have approached us (the UK) or the US instead. France isn’t the only country that makes nuclear-powered subs.
The problem with LRASM and NSM (as well as RBS-15) is that as ship-launched anti-ship missiles they all lack range compared to Kalibr, Oniks and YJ-18.
We need a ship-launched anti-ship missile that outranges all of them and that ideally has the guidance sophistication of LRASM, the ability to accelerate in its terminal phase to make a hit more likely, that’s manoeuvrable and that like Perseus can carry mini-missiles internally. A dedicated EW variant would also make hits more likely.
We also need an anti-ship missile that the F-35B can carry internally and one that Astutes can fire from torpedo tubes.
Yeah, I really don’t understand why our F-35Bs won’t be getting LRASM. It makes no sense at all. I’m no fan of the F-35, but since we’ve bought it, the very least we can do is give it the best capability available. That said, LRASM could be improved by making it high supersonic or at the very least by giving it the ability to accelerate in its terminal phase.
There also needs to be a sub-launched version of LRASM that can be fired from VL cells and torpedo tubes.
I’ve read that an F-35B could carry 8 SPEAR-3s internally as well as 2 Meteors internally at the same time. Both weapons depend on Block 4 though and I’ve read dates for Block 4 ranging from 2024 to 2027. It could possibly be even later.
Why standard interfaces making plug-and-play missiles possible don’t exist boggles my mind.
The F-35B can obviously carry other weapons, but it can’t carry AIM-9X, standard HARM, JASSM/JASSM-ER/JASSM-XR or LRASM internally. Personally I’d replace AIM-9X with a new variant of IRIS-T that can be carried internally because IRIS-T is capable of shooting down AAMs and SAMs. I’d also fit BriteCloud.
Better missiles need to be developed that the F-35B can carry internally to make it a more effective and survivable aircraft.
I would still like to see UK F-35B get some 1000lb JDAMs as an interim heavy weapon. I still think the F-35 needs the drop tanks that were in all the illustrations for F-35 some years ago.
Will they be required if the RN looks into Drone refuelling
The MQ-25 refuelling drone requires cats & traps. Even if the QE and PoW are fitted with cats & traps to launch drones, the MQ-25 can’t carry a meaningful amount of fuel. It’s a totally pointless aircraft.
Another ,1 for the “should of thought about that first idea” Bin those Bins are forever overflowing with those Hugh
I think we should start buying and/or building aircraft capable of landing on water to refuel our F-35Bs. These aircraft, unlike the MQ-25, should be able to carry a decent amount of fuel to be able to refuel several F-35Bs. Obviously the sea state would prevent seaplanes, flying boats and amphibious aircraft from taking off in bad sea states, but a variant of the Bell aircraft in this link that’s able to land on water could take off in bad sea states I’d have thought: https://www.popsci.com/technology/aircraft-maker-bell-releases-futuristic-aircraft-concepts/
Another option would be to build long-range refuelling aircraft that are capable of landing on and taking off from roads. Then they could fly from islands located near China to refuel F-35Bs and they’d be far more survivable than aircraft that require a runway to take off, since runways will be targeted in the first hours of a war.
Obviously these aircraft could also be armed and could fire long-range stand-off missiles to take out ships and land targets. If accompanied by a couple of F-35Bs they’d be more survivable than as if they flew alone and they could also act as missile trucks for the F-35Bs.
Ambhibious aircraft would be especially useful since they could land on lakes and rivers (as well as at sea, sea state permitting), which again would make them hard to target, and if they could land on and take off from roads even better still.
I’d also buy and/or build airships for ISTAR since they’d have far superior endurance to most other aircraft and these should be used to locate and target mobile anti-ship missile launchers and mobile SAM launchers. Taking out these launchers would make ships and F-35Bs more survivable.
Obviously the hybrid Bell aircraft could take off from the QE or PoW as is, but a variant able to land on water too would make it even more useful and survivable.
I’ll get that Idea out of the bin then ,Auto inflatable flotation device is next Idea Hugh
Standard flotation devices would work, but I suppose auto-inflatable devices would be a good idea since they’d be inflated only when they’re need and not cause the drag that standard floation devices would when the aircraft is flying. I think you’ve hit on a good idea here.
Thanks Hugh, hope the Back room boys at the MOD have read your Post same principle As Automatic lifejackets and liferafts
Well it was your idea, not mine! Take care.
50 50 can’t be fairer than that I’m allergic tòo Limelight Hugh
50 /50 can’t be fairer than that I’m allergic tòo Limelight someone at Whitehall would get the award anyway
Hugh
I was referring to the self-inflating idea Tommo, but OK let’s call it 50/50.
Found this article the other day: https://www.flightglobal.com/fixed-wing/us-special-operations-command-explores-amphibious-mc-130-transport-concept/143848.article
This might be a way to refuel our F-35Bs, especially if we developed and built loads of USVs, UUVs and drone airships to refuel the MC-130s as well. The MC-130s could also land on lakes and rivers to get refuelled. They’d be much more survivable than aircraft that need a runway to take off, since runways will be targeted in the first hours of a war.
An MC-130 can carry just over 37,000kg of fuel according to Wikipedia, which is enough to refuel 6 F-35Bs. An MQ-25 on the other hand could only refuel 1 F-35B. The MC-130 is also much longer ranged.
Another option would be tiltrotors flying from the carriers that could also refuel using USVs, UUVs and drone airships. They could also refuel on land and wouldn’t need a runway. Neither would drone airships.
Neither solution would require the carriers to be fitted with cats & traps and could be implemented pretty quickly if the MoD pulled its finger out.
Whitehall probably think Cats and Traps is something the RSPCA should be involved with , Hugh it seems that by the time they get round tòo looking into the Best and easiest way of Doing a job with ease and efficiency, the said article in question has long been Classed as obsolete, there doesn’t seem too be Forward thinking in Whitehall when it comes to Procurement I just hope someone, has read your Post Hugh very informative indeed thanks
Also we could fill these MC-130s with anti-ship missiles to take out ships from beyond the range of their defences. They could also carry loads of air-to-air missiles and act as missile trucks for the F-35Bs It would also make sense to develop a dedicated EW variant of the MC-130 as well.
As like the old 130 gunships (planes) ?
Spectres Hugh
Kinda like the AC-130 gunship, yeah, but instead of heavy-duty guns and Howitzers, they’d be arsenal ships able to carry far more ordnance than an F-35 and so able to overwhelm enemy defences. If they carried Tomahawk Block Va anti-ship missiles and/or JASSM-ER/JASSM-XR for ground attack then these missiles could be fired from beyond the range of enemy defences whether they’re ship-based SAMs or ground-based SAMs.
Throw some MALDs or SPEAR EWs into the mix and these missiles would be even more likely to hit their targets.
Gottacha Sorry , just had that picture in my head of the Spectre Gunships see what you mean now Hugh
Not needed – a new bunker buster version of Paveway IV is entering service.
Its only 500lb
Thermabaric ?
Been saying this for an age.
We need some cheap munitions.
Currently we’re dropping £75,000 Paveway IV’s on everything as we have no choice. Much as I’d like to support UK industry, MBDA and BAE do not make a cheap GPS only guided munition at present (and to be honest are unlikely to be able to match the US due to their massive production runs).
Buying some JDAM and Laser JDAM at less than £20,000 a bomb makes a lot of sense. Even SDB1 at £28,000 makes sense (Spear will cost around 10X that figure, but is a very different beast).
A limited buy of 2,000 1000lb JDAM, 1,000 of LJDAM and 1,000 SDB1 could be done for under £200m. It would massively increase our air launched munition stockpile and save money in the long run (practically all of the 100’s of targets we’ve engaged in Iraq/Syria could have used JDAM at a 1/3rd of the cost of PWIV). By all means tender it out to MBDA to see if they can match the price but I doubt they could.
We need to stop gold plating everything.
I agree about cheap ordnance, but even £20,000 isn’t cheap, it’s just less expensive than the alternatives. I’d love to know what the mark-up is on these weapons.
Very little is the answer.
You’re talking about a half tonne of complex electronics, explosives and a cast steel case built to the highest tolerances. I’m surprised they can do it that cheap. A basic 155mm artillery shell is c£1000.
“Very little is the answer.”
Source? These companies aren’t charities. They’re in the business of making money.
“A basic 155mm artillery shell is c£1000”
Why? What does it cost in raw materials?
1000 pound a 155mm shell is it fixed ammunition or is it Shell and Cordite?
Because I’m afraid its a monopoly in the UK ,I don’t think an Aldi version of Armament production would be feasible dud mentions would be back as the Norm I’m afraid Hugh
I’d like to know what the mark-up is on the ordnance we use.
“Because I’m afraid its a monopoly in the UK”
Well surely that implies that the prices are far higher than they should be.
As for your reference to Aldi, it’s just as good as another other supermarkets in my experience. It’s cheap, but the food is good (and no I don’t work for them).
What I meant With the Aldi reference was you can shop around but you can’t With munitions How many Factories in the UK specialise in the production of munitions for the Armed forces if there was as many as Aldi then the price would be lower Compertition would be greater Law of Economics would prevail it seems that the UK procurement is Forton and Mason not Tesco,Lidl, Aldi, Sainsbury Hugh
Oh OK, I get what you meant now. I totally agree we need some real competition in the arms industry as opposed to the current situation where a few big names dominate the markets.
That’s where the big money is and the door should be open too competiton but alas until that happens we’ll keep on paying through the Nose (school ties ,and odd handshakes still prevail ) Hugh
Rude boy , costs and budgets , We had a WEO weapons engineering officer , wherever we were in the Western Approaches High Seas Firing Ranch Ready for either Ikara or Seadart firing ,He would say “Hope the NHS aren’t watching here goes another Dyalasis Machine ” funny at the time but true
I remember seeing the cost of a SeaWolf missile back in the day…it was more expensive than our house…
Precisely at least you’ve got insurance if it catches fire ,Never happened when they left the launcher couldn’t imaging 3rd party fire or theft either
I’ve posted this before…so apologies, its a long post. Some thoughts on F-35 weapons and payloads options that I hope the MoD are considering…
Here’s the current position (updated since last time), with some speculation and gaps that need to be closed.
UK F-35B armament is a little confused at present as a number of capabilities are being developed concurrent with F-35B development and deployment. The truth is that the UK’s F-35B must be regarded as under-armed for anything but air to air or SEAD/DEAD unless more munitions are integrated/purchased and fielded.
The obvious point is that the UK’s F-35B won’t have ‘full’ combat capability until Blk.4 arrives c2026-28. That is now a little beyond the Carrier programmes goals though (That is the time frame when both carriers will be ready and worked up with Crowsnest AEW deployed, F-35B Blk.IV delays have meant it falling out of sync).
The second obvious point is that it is clear that the UK will now only buy US air weapons to fill small gaps or where no alternative exists. This is for partly national sovereignty, industrial and political reasons. Security of supply, ITAR and export opportunities also come in to play. But a big reason is everyone remembers the US shafting the UK over ASRAAM and doesn’t want to be in that position again.
It’s easiest to split the F-35 weapons position into time periods:
Present
ASRAAM – AIM-132 – Cleared for outer pylon, one of the best WVR missiles out there, far faster and longer ranged than other WVR missiles (60km+ range). AIM-9X uses the same seeker head. Asraam isn’t in wide NATO service. Currently used by UK, Saudi, Australia and India. Expensive…
AMRAAM C-5 – Currently in UK service, main UK medium range missile, being superceded on T2 and T3 Typhoon by Meteor at the moment. T1 Typhoons will not get Meteor however so need AMRAAM until they retire. C-5 will need a re-life if they’re to continue in service beyond c2023, this was being discussed recently.
Paveway IV – UK built. Advanced LGB with GPS/INS onboard (can use satellite guidance only like JDAM). 500lb only. Standard UK air to ground munition. Not cheap by any stretch.
And errr…that’s it…
c2021
AMRAAM D – A limited number of AMRAAM D (c120-200) have been procured to cover the arrival of Meteor on F-35 and for Tranche 1 Typhoon’s (which cannot carry Meteor). It’s unclear if these will replace the C-5’s, which need a re-life, or be in addition to them.
c2026-28
With F-35 Blk.4 arriving the following weapons get added:
ASRAAM CSP – New production ASRAAM with new seeker and other upgrades from the CAMM programme (now known as Sea/Land Ceptor). The UK MoD was looking to re-life the ASRAAM stockpile but realised it would be just as cheap to buy new, upgraded missiles. This should be the most capable WVR missile out there, bar none. (n.b. CSP stands for Capability Sustainment Programme)
Meteor – Long Range AAM, already in active service on T2 and T3 Typhoons. Same as standard Meteor missile but with different fins to fit into F-35B weapon bay. Fins are fitted by armourers when loading the missile, so the main part of the missile remains the same. At least 500 are being procured.
Paveway IV Penetrator – Looks the same as a standard Paveway IV but has a penetrating warhead to deal with hardened and buried targets.
MBDA Spear – Mini-cruise missile >120m range. US equivalent is the unpowered, shorter ranged (but larger warhead) SBD2 Stormbreaker. Spear is not called SPEAR 3, that is the MoD programme name.
Beyond 2026-28
Meteor AESA – The UK is working with Japan on the JNAAM programme to add an AESA radar (and possibly IIR) onto Meteor. This could arrive at the same time as Blk.4 so could actually be the variant on the F-35 fleet.
Spear EW – Under development at present, could be available in 2026, easy integration as same form factor as Spear. Will provide a similar capability as MALD-J, but with potentially longer range. A gamechanger.
SpearGlide – Under development at present. Un-powered Spear with larger warhead, competitor to SBD 2 StormBreaker, easy integration as exactly the same shape, sensors and weight as Spear.
FCASW – UK/France replacement for Storm Shadow/SCALP, Harpoon and Exocet. Expected c2030-2035. Will likely be 2 types of missiles. A subsonic stealthy missile and a supersonic long range missile (which will also be able to engage high value air targets like AAR and AWACS at extreme range i.e. 500 miles+).
Closing the obvious gaps…(not just for F-35B either, Typhoon could do with some of them..)
Gun Pod – As confirmed here, the UK is not getting the 25mm external gun pod. This is a mistake. The stealthy pod, made by TERMA in Denmark, also has the potential to be developed for other payloads e.g. EW, E/O recon etc. which they have been pushing.
‘Cheap’ Munitions – The US has JDAM and SDB1, both comparatively inexpensive at £20k-£25k. They have also integrated US ‘dumb’ bombs. In contrast the UK’s cheapest munition is the Paveway IV at >£65k per bomb. We could really do with some cheaper precision guided munitions. A ‘cheap’ Spear variant, just GPS/INS/SAL guidance and no jet could be one solution, this would be similar to the US SDB1. A guided bomb ‘kit’ to convert ‘dumb’ munitions like JDAM would also be very useful. MBDA could knock one up in a heartbeat…but would it compete with US products on price…suspect not, volume production alone is a massive advantage.
Longer Range Munitions – With the cancellation of Storm Shadow integration 10 years ago the UK F-35B lost any semblance of long range strike. FCASW could eventually plug this gap. As could JSM or LRASM (to a degree) but like FCASW at a very high cost. But there are some other solutions, some a lot cheaper. Gliding wing kits when allied to precision guided munitions can seriously extend range. A JDAM like weapon can get out to 60 miles+. But add a small jet to the wingkit and 160 miles is possible (see JDAM-ER) also see the Heavyweight Munitions below…
Heavyweight Munitions – Paveway IV at 500lb’s is the current heaviest munition for UK F-35B. On Typhoon we have Enhanced PWII and EPWIII. Neither will be used on F-35B. Both are also getting old. A simple solution is the MBDA SmartGlider Heavy, a 2,000lb class weapon. With a engine attached it could go to 300 miles like JSOW-ER. Comparatively cheap as well.
Novel Payloads – The US has JSOW which has the ability to carry other payloads, the above mentioned SmartGlider Heavy has modularity built in. The HE payload can be switched for other payloads.
Baggage Pod – Not a weapon, but a gap for sustainment. A new carbon-fibre baggage pod has been developed for F-35 by a US company for internal carriage. Currently being trialled by the USAF. Should be an easy, relatively cheap buy. Great for sustainment and deployments. Much larger than the existing US baggage pod.
External Fuel Tanks – Lockheed Martin are developing a 660 Gal. External Tank, so far its gone through several sizes and iterations. Hopefully will become a reality in due course. A pretty straightforward and sensible but. Have a large ‘shape’ qualified for external carriage opens up (like the TERMA gun pod) all sorts of possibilities for other payloads (like Reconnaissance sensors etc.)
Conformal Tanks/Pods – These have been talked about for an age, with the Israeli’s apparently studying them. Nothing has been seen and is very quiet. Current F-35 are not built with attachment points and any conformal would affect the aircraft flight control system and LO characteristics. Should be discounted as a real possibility at present.
Jamming Pods – The US and LM have shown models of the F-35 equipped with the Next Generation Jamming Pod (NGJ) which will be used on the EA-18G. It’s unclear how this will be operated without the backseater of the EA-18G. It’s unlikely the UK will have enough F-35B to justify a purchase or training pipeline for it however.
High Speed Anti-Radiation Munitions – The UK is not looking to buy AARGM-ER or the related SiAW. But there could be a solution…Meteor ARM – Mentioned at this DSEI 2019, not sure if this is a new variant or just taking advantage of the potential of the proposed AESA seeker. Used in conjunction with Spear and Spear-EW. V. Interesting.
Anti-Ship Missiles – Interim buy of AShM – Frequently posited. If the UK did it would be the Kongsberg JSM. LRASM is unlikely to be available until later and would compete with FCASW. JSM could also work on the UK’s P-8 Poseidon fleet (if the Australian’s pay for the integration as they once were) and the UK has very close ties with Norway. Any buy would be limited in quantity. If it happened, I wouldn’t expect more than 100 to be procured. Would need to be carried externally as will not fit in the bays of an F-35B. But with a range of >300 miles in Hi-Hi-Lo that’s not a massive problem. Could also help close the longer range munition gap.
Future Weapons – Some of these have been proposed for Tempest
Remote Carriers – MBDA proposal for FCAS and Tempest programmes, comes in 2 sizes. Could also be adapted as medium sized cruise missiles.
Other WVR missiles – MBDA recently showed off a dual mode, smaller, ASRAAM style missile and an even smaller IR WVR missile that could be mounted 2 to a rail and be dropped from an internal bay rather than rail launched like ASRAAM.
Mini- Missiles – Another MBDA proposal principally focused on Tempest. Consists of a tiny Hit-To-Kill missile to engage enemy missiles and a ground attack variant of the same for lower collateral strikes.
CAMM/Brimstone Hybrid – Has been exhibited by MBDA for the UK MoD. Would bring Brimstone capability to the outer wing pylon of F-35B very easily. Could also have an E/O seeker rather than MMW. Very interesting for the UK as it would also be surface launched from ships, Land Ceptor systems and Boxer AFV’s…also very interesting for the Navy’s who are buying Sea Ceptor.
Other Spear Variants – MBDA and the MoD have confirmed that they are looking at other variants beyond the ‘standard’, EW and Glide. A cheap, value-engineered version should be a priority, beyond that a disposable recon version with E/O payload would be useful. The ability to ‘look over the hill’ 300+ miles away could be very useful.
“UK F-35B armament is a little confused at present”
No kidding. Very little joined-up thinking involved.
An aircraft is only as good as the ordnance it carries and currently the F-35B doesn’t carry the best ordnance available by any means.
New missiles also need to be developed that the F-35B can carry internally. Either new variants of existing missiles or brand new missiles.
“The truth is that the UK’s F-35B must be regarded as under-armed for anything but air to air or SEAD/DEAD unless more munitions are integrated/purchased and fielded.”
I’d say the F-35B is under-armed (and under-defended) period, i.e. it’s pretty much useless for ALL missions at present.
AIM-120 can be easily thwarted BVR and AIM-9X can be thwarted by old Soviet flares. The F-35B lacks range against countries the size of Russia and China and it can’t carry much ordnance internally at all. None of the air-to-ground ordnance it can currently use is high supersonic or hypersonic, which means the ordnance could be easily shot down. And probably the F-35 itself too.
The F-35 was designed to work hand-in-hand with the F-22. But since the US won’t export the F-22, then the usefulness of the F-35 is greatly reduced from the get-go. (Not that the F-22 is perfect either, but that’s another issue.)
Anyway, whatever, we need to make the best of a bad job. Our F-35Bs would be far more effective and survivable in the air-to-air role if they had:
As for SEAD/DEAD, if a RN carrier group is staying out of the reach of DF-26 or Kinzhal then it’s completely impotent, since the F-35Bs can’t reach land. And even if they could, they can’t carry much ordnance internally anyway. Also F-35s can’t carry any of the following ordnance internally: standard HARM, JASSM, JASSM-ER, JASSM-XR. The F-35 also can’t carry LRASM internally to take out ships. This inability to carry ordnance internally obviously affects an F-35’s RCS.
I agree that SPEAR-EW would make missiles more likely to hit their targets, but EO/IR sensors would be immune to it. Therefore it would make sense to fit missiles with lasers to blind EO/IR sensors.
As for FC/ASW, is it ever going to get built???? I have my doubts.
Not sure how useful 1,000lb JDAMs would be considering that F-35s would have to get within range of enemy defences to use them, but conformal fuel tanks and drop tanks for the F-35B definitely make sense imo.
If a carrier group is staying out of the range of DF-26 or Kinzhal then our F-35Bs wouldn’t have the range to reach land. Conformal fuel tanks and drop tanks alone wouldn’t solve the problem, but they’d be a good start.
It would also make sense for us to start looking into flying boats, seaplanes and amphibious aircraft to refuel our F-35Bs. These boats/aircraft could refuel using USVs, UUVs, drone airships, drone tenders and manned tanker ships like the Tide class, which in turn could refuel the F-35Bs. This would greatly extend the range of the F-35Bs and the refuelling assets wouldn’t be confined to fixed military airbases where they’d be vulnerable to attack. Amphibious aircraft could also land on and take off from roads, civilian airports and even from grass airstrips if designed to be rugged enough for that. Flying boats and seaplanes could land on and take off from lakes, lagoons, rivers and even the open ocean, sea state permitting.
Lots of good news in defence at the moment. I almost expect HMG to increase overall spending to 2.5%, the bare minimum needed IMO.
That would be very difficult at the moment while the NHS is struggling, education denied extra funding, and welfare reduced after the extra £20 pw was removed from Universal Credit. Defence has already received a budget boost so will need to work with what it has IMO. Headlines about poor performing programs like Ajax do not help.
I have never really understood the desire to express the budget in terms of % of GDP, which seems somewhat arbitrary.
% of GDP for defence , is an enigma ,I thought it had been incorporated into Buget spending for monetary differences between NATO members so % of GDP levels the field for poorer members
Because “real terms” (or worse yet “absolute terms”) doesn’t account for defence inflation running at a different rate to fridge-freezers or loaves of bread. We defend against other countries, and if their spending rises with their GDP, ours needs to as well.
The assumption is of course that your enemy is publishing accurate figures. If we are talking about China, Russia, Iran and North Korea they aren’t exactly known for their openness.
Also % of GDP is no benchmark at all for the likes of ISIS and Al Qaeda.
Its more for allies isn’t it? Particularly comparisons within NATO. Although even that can be a distraction from assessing true capability in mutually beneficial areas.
The thing about defence spending when it comes to European countries is that there’s far too much overlap. There are loads of different types of ships, aircraft and tanks used in Europe. If this money was pooled, then we’d get more bang for our buck/pound/euro and benefit from economies of scale. I’m not talking about creating a European army (although I’m not averse to that idea), I’m talking out making each country’s money go further.
Is this good news or is it code for a project that has gone overbudget and needs a top up of funds to complete the work. I’m pleased it’s being completed but they haven’t just decided to finish integration!
Defence News reported that it will likely cost around $400 million. UK is paying for most of it.
Once they have Meteor, ASRAAM, Paveway lV and Spear 3 the only glaring admission will be a heavyweight, stand-off cruise missile in the Storm Shadow mould. I’d like to think integrating whatever FASCW produces in the late 2020’s or early 2030’s will be a no-brainer.
Storm shadow, wasn’t that going too be for the V force , if so God I’m showing my age
I know what you mean, but no storm shadow is a joint uk/france cruise missile current in service by MBDA
Thanks Robert In this present climate Anglo/French
I hope they can squeeze 4-8 Meteors, maybe even 8 in beast mode plus 2-4 AMRAAM with this update.
Sorry I meant ASRAAM.
Would you ever use ASRAAM with F35 being that F35 is supposed to be focused at a medium range engagement with all the new wizz-bang sensors it has. I presume last defense insurance with a couple carried just in case?
Possibly, but not in the normal dogfighting sense. The beauty of ASRAAM is that it outranges all other short range IR missiles that are used for dogfighting. This means by using the F35s AAQ-40 Electro-Optical Targets System (EOTS) or the Block 4s Advanced EOTS. An aircraft can be detected and tracked well beyond visual and within range. When this is paired with ASRAAM, it means a F35 can engage a target before the F35 is even visually seen. Allowing the F35 to Foxtrot Oscar a lot sooner, but also means that the threat aircraft is engaged long before it can use its short range missiles.
What is surprising to me, is that a lot of other F35 operators are sticking with Sidewinder. This has about half the range of an ASRAAM. But perhaps just as importantly, has a lot bigger radar signature. Thus making a F35 with an outer pylon mounted Sidewinder detectable earlier compared to a ASRAAM equipped one (Sidewinder has more and larger flight controls)!
To my mind, the RAF/FAA F35B will be the most deadly fighter aircraft for the foreseeable future, as it will have both Meteor and ASRAAM that perfectly match and make best use of the F35’s stealth and avionics attributes.
I’m sure there’s those that think it would still get out fought by an F16.
Not according to last 5 Red Flags.
Red Flag uses simulated kills. It doesn’t (and can’t) take evasive manoeuvres, an EW suite, chaff, flares, BriteCloud, a DIRCM system and a towed decoy into account. Pilot skill and experience also counts for a lot and F-35 pilots don’t get enough hours flying them to become the best they could be.
If an F-35 with AIM-120 and AIM-9X went up against an aircraft with a state-of-the-art EW suite and IRST system, a towed decoy, BriteCloud, a DIRCM system, Meteor and IRIS-T, my money wouldn’t be on the F-35.
There’s a lot of pilots who would disagree.
And there’s a lot of pilots who would agree. And probably F-35 pilots too, except they’re unlikely to say it on record.
AIM-120 doesn’t have a throttleable engine like Meteor and so can be easily thwarted BVR.
AIM-9X can be thwarted by old Soviet flares: https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/news/a27094/su-22-dodge-aim-9x-sidewinder/
The F-35 needs better air-to-air missiles.
Our F-35Bs won’t be getting Meteor until Block 4, which could be any time between 2024 and 2027 or even later. Many F-35s in other countries will stick with AIM-120.
AIM-9X can only be carried externally, so negatively affecting an F-35’s RCS. Ideally our F-35Bs would have a new variant of IRIS-T and/or ASRAAM that can be carried internally.
Yes agree it is a great choice to defend the fleet. Also a mix of stealth mode and beast mode can be used to match the threat.
Beast mode means carrying ordnance externally which means an F-35 would be easily detected, engaged and shot down.
Plus if a carrier group is staying out of the range of DF-26 or Kinzhal then the F-35Bs don’t have the range to reach land (same goes for F-35Cs, Super Hornets and Rafale Ms). Type 45s don’t even carry TLAMs, but even if they did, TLAMs wouldn’t have the range to reach land either. No Western ships have anti-ship missiles that outrange Kalibr, Oniks and YJ-18. VL-ASROC (which RN ships don’t carry anyway) lacks range against the Russian Type 65 torpedo.
A Western carrier group is totally pointless against Russia or China.
The use of Beast mode would depend on the threat environment as always.
The RN are currently looking at drones to refuel planes and extend their range.
I am sure ABMs, lasers and rail guns will be added to ships to counter the threat.
also you have to find a ship to target it.
I think like the tank people keep saying they are obsolete but they are still being built. Interesting that China is building more carriers. They do not appear to think they have had their day…
“The use of Beast mode would depend on the threat environment as always.”
I can’t think of any environment where flying a stealth aircraft carrying ordnance externally makes any sense. It totally defeats the point of having a stealth aircraft in the first place. (Not that the F-35 is especially stealthy, but whatever.)
Flying F-35Bs in beast mode (ridiculous name btw) would reduce their already limited range due to weight and drag, drastically increase their RCS and result in them getting shot down by SAMs or aircraft. They wouldn’t get anywhere near the Chinese or Russian coast, let alone be able to penetrate their airspace. Flying them in beast mode when performing CAP missions would be idiotic.
“The RN are currently looking at drones to refuel planes and extend their range.”
The MQ-25 refuelling drone lacks range and a meaningful amount of fuel.
According to https://www.naval-technology.com/projects/mq-25-stingray-unmanned-aerial-refuelling-aircraft/ “The MQ-25A will be capable of delivering up to 6,800kg (15,000lb) of fuel to a distance of 926km (500nm).”
The F-35B can carry just over 6,000kg of fuel, so one MQ-25 can only refuel one F-35B. DF-26 has a range of 3,000km to 5,000km, depending on which source you read. If a carrier group is staying out of the range of DF-26 (and Kinzhal), which it would if it has any sense, even if an MQ-25 refuelled an F-35B, it still wouldn’t have the range to reach the Chinese or Russian coast.
Plus we currently have no way of launching MQ-25s anyway since the carriers don’t have cats & traps. Even if the QE and PoW were fitted with cats & traps to launch drones, the MQ-25 won’t give the F-35Bs sufficient range against Russia or China. Did no-one consider this probmen when the carriers were being built? Because that is a serious lack of joined-up thinking.
“I am sure ABMs, lasers and rail guns will be added to ships to counter the threat.”
SM-3 and SM-6 have been around for a while. Why aren’t they on our Type 45 destroyers? They’re meant to be dedicated AAW ships, yet they carry a relatively small number of missiles that aren’t designed to take out ballistic anti-ship missiles anyway. Adding CAMM missiles won’t change that and the guns on board are totally useless against ballistic anti-ship missiles.
Dragonfire already exists, why isn’t it on our ships? They may not be currently powerful enough to shoot down anti-ship missiles (although that may well change in the future), but they could blind and/or burn out the sensors on missiles. Hell, even laser dazzlers would be better than nothing to blind IR and TV-guided missiles (weather permitting).
1+ megawatt chemical lasers were developed years ago (YAL-1, MIRACL). We should be spending a lot on R&D to get such lasers working, which would be powerful enough to shoot down anti-ship missiles, weather permitting. They’d have far more uses than just ship defence.
We should also be looking into microwave weapons to burn out the electronics in anti-ship missiles: https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/17796/bae-systems-wants-its-new-microwave-close-in-weapon-system-concept-on-us-navy-ships
5″ naval guns firing HVPs may also be capable of shooting down anti-ship missiles, especially if they use airburst rounds sending out hundreds of tungsten projectiles. Why aren’t we looking into that and carrying out tests to see if they’re a viable defence?
As for railguns, I can’t see them being fitted to ships any time soon because of the power generation and power storage requirements.
But what we desperately need is a way to take out mobile land-based anti-ship missile launchers. That would enable ships to get closer to land. And taking out mobile SAM launchers would make F-35Bs safer too.
We also need:
– Ship-launched anti-ship missiles that outrange Kalibr, Oniks and YJ-18 to keep enemy ships at arm’s length
– SM-6 to keep enemy fighters at arm’s length with its max range of 460km
– A long-range anti-sub missile (100+ km) to keep subs at arm’s length to prevent them firing torpedoes
– Anti-torpedo torpedoes. I know of 4: SSTD CAT, Sea Spider, MU90 Hard Kill and Tork. There may be others. Why aren’t we testing them to see if they work as advertised?
Basically anything that makes ships more effective and survivable would make sense.
That said, we could go to all this trouble of trying to make ships more survivable and trying to give F-35s enough range or we could just buy long-range aircraft instead and fire long-range missiles from beyond the range of enemy defences. Unlike carrier aircraft, such aircraft would have sufficient range and could carry enough ordnance to overwhelm enemy defences. It would be much cheaper and far more effective than using a carrier group. We could buy commercial long-range aircraft and convert them into military aircraft.
“also you have to find a ship to target it.”
Well, obviously. How do you think OUR over-the-horizon missiles work?
“I think like the tank people keep saying they are obsolete but they are still being built.”
Tanks, like surface ships, are ridiculously vulnerable in this day and age. There are too many ways to take them out.
“Interesting that China is building more carriers.”
Meaning what?
You’re comparing apples to oranges. China wants to re-take Taiwan and other islands. To do that you need carriers for air support and you need amphibious ships and landing craft to get troops ashore in large numbers (as did we in the Falklands).
The West on the other hand isn’t going to be invading China or Russia, is it?
But if China or Russia tried to attack the mainland US for example, then all their ships would be taken out by aircraft firing anti-ship missiles and subs firing torpedoes, which is exactly what will happen to Western ships in a war with Russia or China.
Long-range aircraft firing long-range missiles make far more sense. As well as subs, which are the only Western assets which would be any use against Russia or China. We might as well tow all our ships into the Atlantic and sink them, because that’s what will happen in a war. But at least this way no lives will be lost.
“What is surprising to me, is that a lot of other F35 operators are sticking with Sidewinder.”
Probably because they have them already and they’re widely available, but AIM-9X can be fooled by old Soviet flares: https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/news/a27094/su-22-dodge-aim-9x-sidewinder/
AIM-120 can be easily thwarted BVR because unlike Meteor it doesn’t have a throttleable engine, so WVR engagements would be very likely I’d have thought. Plus the ROEs may require visual identification of the enemy anyway (whether they have Meteor or not), which would also result in WVR engagements.
And in any case I’d choose IRIS-T over ASRAAM since it can shoot down AAMs and SAMs.
What you say about AMRAAM is quite true, by the time it reaches a target 100km or more away its speed has dropped drastically probably below Mach 2, whilst Meteor will still be above Mach 3 when it reaches the target. Meteor is one of the few missiles that has the energy to attempt a second attack if the first one has been dodged. Requires the controlling aircraft to keep the missile updated to where the target is located though! As the missile’s radar will have lost the target after passing it.
However, if the aircraft does need to get a confirmed visual identification of a “unidentified threat” before firing. The F35, like Typhoon, can do this beyond the pilot’s visual range using the F35’s electro-optical targeting system (EOTS). However this is getting further improved during the Block 4 upgrade, with the advanced EOTS. This introduces short wave along with the existing long wave infrared, higher definition video, an infrared marker/tracker and improved image detector resolution. This is very similar to the Typhoon’s Pirate 2 update. This means the pilot can zoom in to an unidentified threat and confirm its identity whilst staying outside the threat envelop of a short range IR missile.
The problem with Iris-T, is it has an even shorter range than SIdewinder, which means the F35 has to get much closer to fire. With ASRAAM getting a new higher resolution imaging infrared (IIR) sensor. I wonder if it will also be capable of doing the same as Iris-T regarding an anti-missile capability?
“What you say about AMRAAM is quite true, by the time it reaches a target 100km or more away its speed has dropped drastically probably below Mach 2, whilst Meteor will still be above Mach 3 when it reaches the target. Meteor is one of the few missiles that has the energy to attempt a second attack if the first one has been dodged.”
Yep, plus Meteor can not only speed up, it can also slow down, meaning it can perform high G turns and not overshoot an enemy aircraft performing evasive manoeuvres.
“Requires the controlling aircraft to keep the missile updated to where the target is located though! As the missile’s radar will have lost the target after passing it.”
True, although that applies to ANY missile. Plus Meteor can receive targeting information from other aircraft, not just the one that fired it.
“However, if the aircraft does need to get a confirmed visual identification of a “unidentified threat” before firing. The F35, like Typhoon, can do this beyond the pilot’s visual range using the F35’s electro-optical targeting system (EOTS).”
Well in theory, but weather conditions may not make this possible. Plus AIUI EOTS is optimised for ground attack, not air-to-air missions, which is why it’s located underneath the F-35, not located by the cockpit canopy as with the PIRATE IRST system for example.
“However this is getting further improved during the Block 4 upgrade, with the advanced EOTS.”
AIUI that’ll improve the sharpness of images, but weather will still potentially be a problem.
“The problem with Iris-T, is it has an even shorter range than SIdewinder”
True, but AIM-9X can be fooled by old Soviet flares: https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/news/a27094/su-22-dodge-aim-9x-sidewinder/
Not much point having better range if the missile can be fooled.
I wouldn’t feel comfortable as a pilot in an F-35 with AIM-120 that can be thwarted using evasive manoeuvres and AIM-9X that can be thwarted by old flares. They spent a fortune developing this thing then gave it garbage missiles. The mind boggles.
“which means the F35 has to get much closer to fire.”
Well it depends on the minimum range of AIM-120 (and Meteor). As the article I linked to above says: “According to CNN, the Navy Super Hornet locked onto the Su-22 Fitter at a range of 1.5 miles. The Super Hornet launched an AIM-9X, and the Syrian pilot loosed flares to lure the infrared guided missile away from his fighter. The trick worked, and the American missile missed. The Super Hornet then launched an AMRAAM missile which, using radar guidance, is unaffected by flares. This time the Fitter went down.”
“With ASRAAM getting a new higher resolution imaging infrared (IIR) sensor. I wonder if it will also be capable of doing the same as Iris-T regarding an anti-missile capability?”
I suppose so. I expect many missile will be given this capability in the future, but for now I’m not aware of any other missile that can shoot down AAMs and SAMs.
Just the 4 in the bays I’m afraid for the foreseeable. The US Sidekick system to get 6 AMRAAM in the bays won’t fit in the smaller weapons bays of the F-35B.
There has also been little interest in adding missiles to external pylons, with the exception of ASRAAM and AIM-9X on the outer wing pylon.
The most glaring omission is the inability to refuel our F-35Bs.
If a carrier group is staying out of reach of DF-26 or Kinzhal then the F-35s can’t reach land, rendering a carrier group completely impotent (the same goes for any carrier group btw whether it uses F-35Bs, F-35Cs, Super Hornets or Rafale Ms). DF-26 has a range of 3,000 to 5,000km depending on which source you read. Even if the QE and PoW had MQ-25 refuelling drones (and the cats & traps to launch them), which they don’t, the MQ-25 lacks range and can’t carry a meaningful amount of fuel. It’s a totally useless aircraft against China or Russia.
A possible solution would be the Bell hybrid tilt-rotor/jet aircraft, the largest of the 3 variants shown here: https://www.popsci.com/technology/aircraft-maker-bell-releases-futuristic-aircraft-concepts/
Since it can hover it could presumably refuel from Tide-class tankers as well as specially built USVs, UUVs and drone airships. It could also land on roads or grass airstrips to refuel. Whatever method is used, this aircraft wouldn’t require a runway, making it more survivable than aircraft that do. Any tilt-rotor aircraft could be used in this fashion, but what sets the Bell aircraft apart is the fact it can fly much faster once it switches to its jets.
Other options would be seaplanes, flying boats and amphibious aircraft to refuel F-35Bs (as well as the Bell aircraft). Again, these aircraft wouldn’t require runways and could take off from rivers, lakes, lagoons, reservoirs and even the open sea, sea state permitting. These aircraft could also carry ordnance and act as missile trucks for the F-35Bs.
Other problems:
1) Meteor won’t be fitted until Block 4. I’ve read dates ranging from 2024 to 2027. The fact it takes years to fit a missile that already exists to an aircraft that already exists is bonkers. We need a universal interface for plug-and-play missiles so new missiles can be integrated the moment they’re ready.
2) ASRAAM: Presumably only two could be carried on the wingtips as with AIM-9X? This would negatively affect the F-35’s RCS. Ideally a new variant of ASRAAM will be built that F-35Bs can carry internally. And let’s hope ASRAAM can’t be fooled by old Soviet flares like AIM-9X can: https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/news/a27094/su-22-dodge-aim-9x-sidewinder/
(IRIS-T would be another useful option because it can shoot down AAMs and SAMs, although as with ASRAAM it would make sense to develop a new variant that the F-35B can carry internally.)
3) Paveway IV: F-35Bs would have to get uncomfortably close to enemy defeces to use this weapon, meaning they could potentially get shot down by SAMs and/or enemy fighters with IRST. Long-range stand-off ordnance makes more sense, but the F-35 can’t carry standard HARM, JASSM/JASSM-ER/JASSM-XR or LRASM internally.
4) SPEAR 3: Again this requires Block 4, so it’s years off and until then the F-35B will have no anti-ship capability (and this problem is compounded by the the fact that the Type 23 frigates and Type 45 destroyers don’t have an anti-ship missile that outranges Kalibr, Oniks and YJ-18). Although an F-35B will be able to carry 8 SPEAR 3s internally (as well as 2 Meteors), it’s a relatively lightweight weapon and it’s subsonic, making it easy to shoot down I’d have thought. SPEAR EW would probably make it harder to detect and engage, but EO/IR sensors on ships and ground-based SAMs would be immune to SPEAR EW and so the missile could still be engaged. It would make sense imo to make a stealthy variant of SPEAR 3 that’s also able to accelerate in its terminal phase to make a hit more likely. If it can be fitted with a laser to blind EO/IR sensors all the better.
5) Storm Shadow is yet another subsonic missile. Why does the West keep building subsonic missiles? They’re too easy to shoot down. Storm Shadow may be stealthy, but it can still be detected by radar at close range and it can be detected by EO/IR sensors period.
6) As for FASCW, as a ship-launched weapon it will need to outrange Kalibr, Oniks, YJ-18 and Zircon and will need to be considerably longer ranged than TLAM. It will need to be able to be fired from torpedo tubes since Astutes don’t have VL cells. And ideally it will need to be able to be carried internally by the F-35B. Like the proposed Perseus missile, it would benefit from two mini missiles it can carry internally, making a hit more likely. It will need to be stealthy and high supersonic or low hypersonic or at the very least able to accelerate in its terminal phase. As with SPEAR 3, it (and its mini missiles) would benefit from a laser to blind EO/IR sensors. Lastly they need to pull their fingers out. It shouldn’t take a decade to build a damn missile.
Wow Hugh, that’s a lot to break down. But I’ll start with the MQ-25 Stingray. The US Navy’s requirement was for the aircraft to carry at least 15,000lbs of fuel, so it can refuel 4 to 6 aircraft at 500nm distance from the carrier, especially when looking at the pretty poor combat radius of the F18. This ability isn’t something to be sniffed at, as one of the other options was to convert mothballed S3 Vikings as tankers, but they could only carry just over 10,000lbs of fuel. The Stingray is the best available option for increasing the combat radius of our F35Bs. It can double this from 833km (517.6 miles) to 1666km (1035 miles). The Stingray according to Boeing can carry more than 16,000lbs of fuel. Which means the operating radius can be pushed out a lot further, especially if you’re only going to refuel 2 jets being used for a very long-range task.
The problem with the Bell proposal as much as I like the engineering behind the design, is that they are purely draft designs, it will take at least another 10 years to get one flying, can we wait that long? The MQ-25 is steadily going through the motions and ticking off what is necessary to get it to initial operating capability (IOC) carrier qualified. This is still going to take another 2 years before it can be qualified at full operating capability (FOC). This will mean the US Navy irons out all the bugs leaving an aircraft we can purchase, that will be easier to integrate on to our carriers. The MoD RFI for the EMALS and recovery system seems to be written for the Stingray or is that a happy coincidence?
The A2D missiles you quoted will heavily rely on a succession of intelligence, observation and tracking to allow them to target a ship out at sea. Disrupt any part of this kill chain and the missile is useless. Therefore, the combat radius of the combat air patrol becomes crucial. The further it can operate away from the carrier, makes it harder for the enemy to find it then target it.
I will expect some form of Dragonfire laser to be fitted to ship within the next 5 years, most likely a T45 to begin with. It may have a CIWS role, but I believe it will likely have another role in dazzling the optics of surveillance satellites. Thus, making it hard for someone to find and track a ship out at sea. The T45 is having the Aster 30 missiles upgraded with a new radar, ECU and booster. MBDA have also said that some of these will be the Block 1NT version. This means they will have a short to intermediate range anti-ballistic missile capability. So, they can then be used against very high-flying hypersonic cruise missiles/glide vehicles, but also missiles like the purported anti-ship ballistic missiles the DF21D and DF26. PIty the SM3 or BMD version of Aster is off the cards, as that would give us an anti-satellite capability as well.
I wholeheartedly agree that integration times of weapons are stupidly long on the F35. It’s almost like Lockheed Martin are stalling and ramping up the costs so that only US products are available. But I’m sure this is not the case, as it would hardly be fair? Typhoon has had similar problems in the past, as it required ll partners to agree on an upgrade, which significantly delayed their introduction, Captor-E is a very good example that was held up by Germany. This is perhaps one of the reasons Tempest is being designed with a more open architecture scheme, where weapons and other avionic system upgrades are more easily integrated.
The weapons’ pylons used on the F35 use the embedded RAM as used on the rest of the airframe. They do raise the aircraft’s RCS slightly, but not enough to cause concern. The RCS of ASRAAM is lower than Sidewinder, which is lower still than Iris-T, but again with the outer pylon fitted with an ASRAAM, the aircraft’s RCS is still only raised marginally from the side or rear, there’s next to none from the front.
You would be absolutely bonkers to use a Paveway against a ship with modern sensors and weapons from a medium altitude. You could I suppose use it by toss bombing from a low-level approach, but again you will still need to keep the ship illuminated by a designating laser, unless it stops moving and then the GPS positioning guides it, which is unlikely to happen at sea.
With the F35’s Block 4 upgrade a few weapons that meet the stand-off requirement will be introduced. These include LRASM, JSM, SDB2, JSOW-C1, AARGM-ER and SPEAR-3. The Turkish SOM cruise missile was supposed to be part of the program, but this has now been dropped after Turkey’s expulsion. From this list the majority are US made missiles. The SDB2, JSOW-C1 and Spear 3 have a similar profile and targeting set. However, only Spear-3 has a loitering capability at the moment, as the others are just glide bombs, though JSOW is being tested with a turbojet engine to extend its range. Both LRASM and JSM can engage both ship and land-based targets, though JSM has attacked moving land-based targets in trials as well. The AAGM-ER was original designed to counter radar-based air defences, though it has morphed into the land attack stand in attack weapon (SIAW). This still keeps the capabilities of the anti-radiation HARM, but also means it can attack targets of opportunity during a mission.
The cost of integrating Brimstone and Storm Shadow were apparently exorbitant, so these got dropped from the program, which may bite us in the arse in the near future, as it means Typhoon will have to get a lot closer to air defences, to launch these weapons. It is likely that NSM will be picked by the RN to fulfil the interim ASM role. If that’s the case, then JSM on the F35 would be a no brainer as they use pretty much the same sensors, warhead, avionics and engine, thereby keep maintenance costs/training down.
Regarding a low stealth airframe option for Spear 3. It already has a very low RCS mostly due to its size. It could be made a lot stealthier, much like the NSM/JSM, but does it need to be? Until it is tested in a conflict, we can only make assumptions as to its performance. However, if using a low sea skimming profile and swarming attack of 8 or more Spearfish. A ship’s defences will have to be at the top of its game to intercept them all, especially when you throw in a couple of the EW variants as well. There’s a lot that can be targeted on a ship to achieve a mission kill. The helicopter and primary radar being two priority targets.
There are very good reasons for using subsonic missiles. For starters, range is top of the list. To have a missile travel a very long distance say 300km plus, you have a number of options. Either you go low and slow due to the thicker air resistance, or you fly high and fast where the air is thinner. To travel at supersonic plus speeds at low level means you will need lots of fuel to overcome the drag and therefore a much larger missile to house it all. Which then would make it difficult for aircraft to carry in numbers. As an example, the Russian P800 Oniks is nearly 9m long. At low level it has a published max speed of Mach 2 with only 120km of range. Whilst at height it can do Mach 2.6 and travel 300km.
By flying much higher, say above 80,000ft, the air is really thin, but there’s still enough oxygen to use with the fuel. So, you can push your missile to hypersonic speeds. The problem here is that the missile becomes a lot easier to find using radar or IR sensors. Therefore, your opponent will have more time to react and plan a countermeasure. By flying low and slow you can use the Earth’s curvature and local topography to hide the missile’s approach, but also have a missile with a decent stand-off range and size so it’s easier to carry in numbers by an aircraft.
Storm Shadow was built with a rudimentary lowering of its RCS purely through the airframe size and shape, It doesn’t use embedded RAM to help lower its RCS. However, it has a much lower RCS than the Tomahawk TLAM missile. Both missiles have shown they can still get through modern air defences (Libya and Syria), which was mostly down to the very low flight profile they used. This is the reason why the UK are still favouring the replacement for Storm Shadow the FC/ASW as a stealthy subsonic cruise missile, as apposed to the French, who favour a supersonic/hypersonic one. Though following the Australian submarine issue, France might pull out of the deal in spite.
There is absolutely no way a very long ranged cruise missile such as FC/ASW will fit in the weapons bay of the F35. It would be very doubtful that such a missile could fit in the bay of the A or C variants either. Much like the LRASM/JASSM they will have to be carried externally. The F35Bs bays are the same length as the other variants but a lot shallower in depth. This is the reasons why the B can’t use the “Sidekick” upgrade (coming via Block 4) to give it an additional internal air to air missile. However, the USAF have paid for the expanded integration of using double rail wing pylons for beyond visual range air to air missiles (BVRAAM), thus giving the A version the ability to carry 14 BVRAAM (including Sidekick) and 2 outer pylon WVRAAM. This is also being rolled on to the C version. The B version, however, is only going to carry 8 BVRAAMs plus the 2 WVRAAMs in “beast mode”. I’m not sure why, as it should be able to carry at least 12 BVRAAMs, if the pylons use the double rail system, as this would still be within the weight limits of the middle pylon and its bring back weight limits.
A missile carrying an optical dazzler, I don’t think has been used before, so I can’t really comment on it. In theory it should be doable, but it depends on how you search for, recognize and then lock onto a optical/IR sensor. Their may also be an issue trying to package and power a laser with sufficient power to blind a sensor. Missiles like Brimstone, use a combined mmW radar and laser guidance receiver as a dual mode sensor. So, if the receiver could also be a laser transmitter perhaps it could work. Though the sensor would have to use a conical scan to make sure the radar kept the target within view.
“Wow Hugh, that’s a lot to break down. But I’ll start with the MQ-25 Stingray. The US Navy’s requirement was for the aircraft to carry at least 15,000lbs of fuel, so it can refuel 4 to 6 aircraft at 500nm distance from the carrier”
500 nautical miles is 926km.
The F-35B has a range of 935km and can carry 6,123kg of fuel internally (according to Wikipedia).
According to https://www.naval-technology.com/projects/mq-25-stingray-unmanned-aerial-refuelling-aircraft/ “The MQ-25A will be capable of delivering up to 6,800kg (15,000lb) of fuel to a distance of 926km (500nm)”, so one MQ-25 will be able to fully refuel just 1 F-35B, not 4 to 6.
And in any case, if a carrier group is staying out of the range of DF-26 (which has a range of 3,000 to 5,000km depending on which sources you read) or Kinzhal (with a range of 2,000 to 3,000km depending on the launch aircraft), an F-35B still wouldn’t have enough range to reach China or Russia, let alone penetrate its airspace. As far as Russia or China is concerned, both the F-35B and the MQ-25 are useless (not that we currently have any way to launch the MQ-25 anyway and if we DID fit cats & traps to launch drones, the F-35Bs still couldn’t reach land, so I don’t see the point).
“especially when looking at the pretty poor combat radius of the F18”
ANY Western carrier aircraft lacks range when it comes to Russia and China: F-35B, F-35C, Super Hornet or Rafale M. They ALL lack sufficient range.
“The Stingray is the best available option for increasing the combat radius of our F35Bs.”
Firstly it’s the ONLY current option and secondly against Russia or China the MQ-25 won’t give the F-35B (or F-35C) sufficient range to reach either country.
“It can double this from 833km (517.6 miles) to 1666km (1035 miles).”
Which is less than the range of DF-26 and Kinzhal.
Did no-one think this through when the carriers were being built? And to make things worse, the Type 45s don’t carry SM-3 or SM-6 to shoot down such missiles (and I’m not entirely sure they’re up to shooting down Kinzhal anyway since it’s not a ballistic missile and since it can supposedly perform evasive manoeuvres at every stage of its flight).
“The Stingray according to Boeing can carry more than 16,000lbs of fuel. Which means the operating radius can be pushed out a lot further”
Not a LOT further, a little bit further and still not far enough when it comes to Russia and China.
“especially if you’re only going to refuel 2 jets being used for a very long-range task.”
The MQ-25 is only capable of fully refuelling 1 F-35B, not 2.
“The problem with the Bell proposal as much as I like the engineering behind the design, is that they are purely draft designs, it will take at least another 10 years to get one flying, can we wait that long?”
I don’t know, my infallible crystal ball is in the repair shop at the moment.
But more to the point, why did no-one think up a solution while the carriers were being built? Instead we’ve built them and now everyone’s going “Oops, our carrier aircraft don’t have enough range.” The so-called “tyranny of distance” isn’t a new phenomenon, it’s something that affects ALL aircraft, some more than others, and especially carrier aircraft.
Considering the F-35 (and F-22) were built specifically to penetrate well-defended airspace (which primarily means Russia and China, and to a lesser extent Iran and North Korea), it’s staggering no-one addressed and sorted out the refuelling problem YEARS ago.
Another option would be to buy currently available tilt-rotors and then build USVs/UUVs/drone airships to refuel them. They could also refuel using existing tankers (e.g. the Tide class) as well as by using land-based fuel dumps in austere locations. Tilt-rotors would be more survivable than aircraft that require a runway to take off since runways will be targeted in the first hours of a war.
“The MQ-25 is steadily going through the motions and ticking off what is necessary to get it to initial operating capability (IOC) carrier qualified. This is still going to take another 2 years before it can be qualified at full operating capability (FOC). This will mean the US Navy irons out all the bugs leaving an aircraft we can purchase, that will be easier to integrate on to our carriers. The MoD RFI for the EMALS and recovery system seems to be written for the Stingray or is that a happy coincidence?”
It’s not a coincidence, it’s by design (as well as wanting to fly other types of drone off the carriers as well like the long-ranged Valkyrie which would be ideal for AEW say). But fitting the cats & traps won’t give the F-35Bs enough range, so it’s largely pointless fitting them. MQ-25s will give F-35s more range when flying CAP missions and allow them to attack ships at greater range (once they get SPEAR-3), but when it comes to land attack (which the F-35 was primarily built for) the MQ-25 won’t make a bit of difference. A different solution is needed to give our F-35Bs enough range. In addition to tilt-rotors we could also look at flying boats, seaplanes and amphibious aircraft. These too could refuel using USVs, UUVs and drone airships, and in the case of amphibious aircraft land-based fuel dumps as well.
“The A2D missiles you quoted will heavily rely on a succession of intelligence, observation and tracking to allow them to target a ship out at sea.”
Obviously. How do you think OUR over-the-horizon anti-ship missiles work? Or do ours not work either?
“Disrupt any part of this kill chain and the missile is useless.”
China and Russia can detect a carrier group at sea using various methods:
– Geostationary satellites using telescopes, radar, IR sensors and ELINT/COMINT sensors
– OTH radars
– Land-based ELINT/COMINT installations
– Long-range fighters
– Long-range ISTAR drones
– Long-range MPAs
– Subs
– SOSUS-type networks
– Commercial vessels equipped with towed array sonars
– Commercial aircraft with human spotters on board
– And maybe in the future ship-based OTH radar: https://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/china/oth-b.htm
“Therefore, the combat radius of the combat air patrol becomes crucial. The further it can operate away from the carrier, makes it harder for the enemy to find it then target it.”
I don’t see why, considering all the methods I listed above for finding ships at sea and also considering how few F-35Bs we have. And in any case, I expect carrier groups are tracked from the moment they leave port. I doubt there’s any time when their location ISN’T known.
“I will expect some form of Dragonfire laser to be fitted to ship within the next 5 years, most likely a T45 to begin with.”
Who knows. I’m all for Dragonfire getting fitted to ships to deal with drones, fast attack craft and to blind/burn out missiles’ sensors, but at present it’s not powerful enough to shoot down missiles.
1+ megawatt chemical lasers would be though (weather permitting). Why aren’t we fitting them to our ships (and to protect airbases as well)? They were tested years ago (YAL-1, MIRACL). I’m sure that scared the life out of the missile manufacturers who I’m guessing started throwing around bribes left, right and centre to stop their development, because effective lasers would have put a HUGE dent in their bottom line.
“It may have a CIWS role, but I believe it will likely have another role in dazzling the optics of surveillance satellites.”
Possibly, although (a) weather conditions will affect the effectiveness of lasers in this role, (b) satellites can detect ships using other methods that lasers wouldn’t affect and (c) there are a LOT of satellites up there. Even if ships could blind EVERY satellite, weather permitting, then see (b) again.
“Thus, making it hard for someone to find and track a ship out at sea.”
As I said, I doubt there’s a time when the location of a carrier group ISN’T known.
“The T45 is having the Aster 30 missiles upgraded with a new radar, ECU and booster.”
Source? I’d like to read up on this, but Aster 30 Block 0 isn’t designed to shoot down ballistic missiles.
What does ECU stand for btw?
“MBDA have also said that some of these will be the Block 1NT version.”
Source?
Aster 30 Block 1NT can deal with SOME ballistic missiles, but I doubt it could deal with DF-26. That’s what SM-3 is for, which is designed to take out ballistic missiles at very high altitude. The trouble is it costs a fortune and there’s no guarantee it will take out every DF-26 fired at a carrier group. DF-26 can afford to miss, SM-3 can’t. This is why we should be focusing much more on taking out land-based mobile launchers – take out the archers rather than the arrows – as well as the locations where these launchers refuel, rearm, get maintained and get repaired. We could also target roads, bridges and firing sites that these launchers regularly use, as well as the factories that build all the elements that make up a missile launcher system (trucks, radars, missiles, command post, etc).
I’d be very surprised if the T45s ever get fitted with SM-3, SM-6 or Aster 30 Block 1NT. As for the T45 replacements, they may get those weapons, although TWISTER may well be ready by then: https://www.airforce-technology.com/news/twister-missile-european-approval/ and I expect that will be fitted instead.
“This means they will have a short to intermediate range anti-ballistic missile capability.”
(a) If fitted, (b) if they work perfectly 100% of the time (which no missile does), (c) saturation attacks will still be a massive problem and (d) this still won’t provide a counter to DF-26 (or Kinzhal).
RN ships will be woefully under-defended in a war with Russia or China.
“So, they can then be used against very high-flying hypersonic cruise missiles/glide vehicles”
You’re talking about two different types of missile.
A ballistic missile that releases an HGV is very different to a hypersonic cruise missile (which flies much lower).
And Kinzhal is said to be manoeuvrable at every stage of its flight. If true, this would make it especially hard to shoot down. This is where chemical lasers (weather permitting), microwave weapons and 5″ guns firing airburst ammo that explodes sending out hundreds of tungsten projectiles would be ideal. SM-3 isn’t designed to deal with missiles like Kinzhal. Not sure about SM-6 or Aster 30 Block 1NT, but as I said being highly manoeuvrable Kinzhal wouldn’t be easy to shoot down by any means. And in any case, it would make more sense to shoot down the aircraft carrying Kinzhal before they get a chance to fire it, but currently F-35Bs don’t have the range to do that, even with MQ-25, since Kinzhal has a range of 2,000 to 3,000km. Aircraft can fire Kinzhal from beyond the range of F-35Bs.
“but also missiles like the purported anti-ship ballistic missiles the DF21D and DF26.”
Purported? The ARE anti-ship ballisitic missiles. I presume you’re doubting their effectiveness, but I look at it this way: it’s better to assume they work as advertised and plan accordingly rather than assume they don’t work and then get ships sunk and mission-killed in a war. We weren’t exactly well prepared for the Falklands, were we?
“PIty the SM3 or BMD version of Aster is off the cards, as that would give us an anti-satellite capability as well.”
Who says SM-3 is off the cards? If we fitted the Mk41 VLS to the T45s, we could buy and fit SM-3. And SM-6 too.
As for Aster 30 Block 2 BMD, I’ve read mixed reports about it, but some say that it’s been suspended and TWISTER will replace it.
As for shooting satellites with missiles, that’s an idiotic idea because of the Kessler syndrome: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome
If we want to take out satellites, we should use methods that don’t cause space debris that could damage or take out OUR satellites.
“I wholeheartedly agree that integration times of weapons are stupidly long on the F35. It’s almost like Lockheed Martin are stalling and ramping up the costs so that only US products are available.”
Yep, it’s utterly ridiculous. It shouldn’t take years to fit a missile to an aircraft. The US generally likes to buy equipment made in the US (with some exceptions), but this doesn’t make sense when better weapons are available. I’d choose Meteor over AIM-120 any day of the week and ASRAAM, IRIS-T or A-Darter over AIM-9X. (I’d also fit BriteCloud to the F-35.)
“But I’m sure this is not the case, as it would hardly be fair?”
I don’t think LM gives a damn about what’s fair.
“Typhoon has had similar problems in the past, as it required ll partners to agree on an upgrade, which significantly delayed their introduction”
What we need are plug-and-play interfaces, not just for missiles, but also for bombs, radars, EW suites, IRST systems, decoys, engines, everything. Modular aircraft that can be easily upgraded and easily kept up to date simply by pulling out an outdated component and inserting a new one.
“Captor-E is a very good example that was held up by Germany.”
Not sure what exactly you’re referring to here. Got a source so I can read up on it?
But the sooner Typhoons get AESA radar the better. Will it be a GaN AESA radar btw?
“This is perhaps one of the reasons Tempest is being designed with a more open architecture scheme, where weapons and other avionic system upgrades are more easily integrated.”
Makes total sense. This is how all aircraft (and ships too) should be built.
“The weapons’ pylons used on the F35 use the embedded RAM as used on the rest of the airframe. They do raise the aircraft’s RCS slightly, but not enough to cause concern.”
Well by how much exactly? Got a source?
The F-35 is mainly stealthy from the front, less so from other angles, so it’s not a proper 5th gen fighter as far as I’m concerned. It’s kinda sorta stealthy, but not really and hanging ANY ordnance off it externally is going to make it easier to detect at longer ranges and especially from angles other than the front.
Since any aircraft benefits from dedicated EW support, it makes no sense that a dedicated EW variant of the F-35 was never developed. That F-117 was shot down on the only occasion when no dedicated EW support was available.
“The RCS of ASRAAM is lower than Sidewinder, which is lower still than Iris-T, but again with the outer pylon fitted with an ASRAAM, the aircraft’s RCS is still only raised marginally from the side or rear, there’s next to none from the front.”
Define “marginally”.
And again do you have a source to back up this claim?
“You would be absolutely bonkers to use a Paveway against a ship with modern sensors and weapons from a medium altitude.”
Er, yeah, I agree, but I never suggested doing so. I think you’re mixing me up with another commenter.
“With the F35’s Block 4 upgrade a few weapons that meet the stand-off requirement will be introduced. These include LRASM, JSM, SDB2, JSOW-C1, AARGM-ER and SPEAR-3.”
AIUI LRASM can’t be carried internally and I thought our F-35Bs weren’t getting LRASM anyway and were going to use SPEAR-3 as their anti-ship missile?
SPEAR-3 is subonic and unstealthy, so I can imagine it getting easily shot down.
OK an F-35 will be able to carry 8 SPEAR-3s internally (which is getting into saturation attack territory I suppose), but it lacks punch and won’t be able to sink the larger warships. It may be able to mission-kill larger ships by accurately targeting radars, bridges and CIWSes (as well as aircraft on carriers), but again it’s subsonic.
At least if it were stealthy and had the ability to accelerate in its terminal phase, a successful hit would be far more likely. SPEAR-EW will also make it harder to detect and engage by radar, but EO/IR sensors would be immune to it. If SPEAR-3 and/or SPEAR-EW could be fitted with a laser to blind EO/IR sensors that would make it even more likely that SPEAR-3 will successfully hit its targets.
As for JSM, are our F-35Bs going to get it? And can the B variant carry it internally? I know the A and C variants can, but I’m not sure about the B variant.
As for SDBs and JSOWs, glide bombs aren’t especially long ranged and would be pretty easy to shoot down I’d have thought. AARGM-ER also isn’t especially long ranged (although admittedly an improvement on standard HARM both in terms of range and AIUI it can be carried internally, unlike standard HARM).
That said, I’d prefer JASSM-ER and JASSM-XR that can be fired from beyond the range of enemy SAMs, but neither can be carried internally. But they’re yet another subsonic missile. Why does the West build so many subsonic missiles? It makes no sense to me at all. The faster the better to make a hit more likely and to reduce an enemy’s response time. At the very least make missiles able to accelerate in their terminal phase.
“The Turkish SOM cruise missile was supposed to be part of the program”
Not especially long ranged and could it be carried internally by an F-35B anyway?
“However, only Spear-3 has a loitering capability at the moment”
I don’t understand. How can a missile have loitering capability? They’re launched, fly to their target and explode. How can they loiter?
“Both LRASM and JSM can engage both ship and land-based targets”
LRASM can’t be carried internally, which will make (non-UK) F-35Bs carrying them easier to detect by carrier AEW aircraft and carrier fighter aircraft. As well as long-range land-based fighters, MPAs and recon drones if any are in the area. And as I said, I’m not sure if the F-35B can carry JSM internally or whether UK F-35Bs will even get it.
As for using either weapon for ground attack, again the LRASM can’t be carried internally, so that doesn’t make much sense. And it doesn’t make sense for the JSM either if the F-35B can’t carry it internally.
That said, one of my main concerns with the F-35B flying in well-defended airspace is that even if it DID have enough range to reach China or Russia (which it doesn’t currently), (a) it’s not an all-aspect stealth aircraft and (b) if it’s flying low to try to avoid radar then it could fly over a hill, wood or built-up area and if there’s a SHORAD SAM system the other side then the F-35B is getting an IR-guided SAM up its backside at short range and it will get shot down.
Flying at higher altitudes F-35Bs will get detected by low-frequency early warning radars and then aircraft with IRST will be sent up to look for them. Considering how poor AIM-120 is, I can envisage an F-35 using all its AIM-120s (where “all” means just two in the case of an F-35B carrying bombs) and then it’s a sitting duck.
I simply don’t consider the F-35B survivable in Russian or Chinese airspace (even though it’s supposed to be), so the best solution is long-range, stand-off weapons that can be fired from beyond the range of enemy defences. Ideally these missiles would be stealthy, accompanied by an EW variant and at the very least able to accelerate in their terminal phase.
Considering though that very long-range aircraft like the Airbus A350 for example have far greater range than an F-35 and can carry far more ordnance than an F-35 to overwhelm enemy defences, then why are F-35s (and carrier groups) even needed against China or Russia?
“The cost of integrating Brimstone and Storm Shadow were apparently exorbitant, so these got dropped from the program”
Despite what I said earlier, I’m less concerned about cost than effectiveness. If missiles are effective AND cheap, then all the better, but effectiveness has to be the priority. Whether expensive or cheap, there’s no point in having ineffective ordnance. Brimstone lacks range and F-35Bs would have to get uncomfortably close to enemy defences to fire it, so I don’t consider it an effective missile against Russia or China.
As for Storm Shadow, it has decent range, but is yet another subsonic missile. And at 5.1 metres long, it won’t fit inside an F-35, since as far as I can tell 4 metres seems to be the cut-off point for internal carry of missiles.
All this talk of missiles and glide bombs though is all moot when the F-35 doesn’t even have the range to reach China or Russia from a carrier and MQ-25 won’t change that.
“which may bite us in the arse in the near future, as it means Typhoon will have to get a lot closer to air defences, to launch these weapons.”
Typhoons wouldn’t last two seconds in Russian or Chinese airspace unless we’ve significantly degraded their IADS first, disabled their runways and the Typhoons are accompanied by dedicated EW aircraft. And as I said earlier, why bother when we could use long-range aircraft firing long-range missiles from beyond the range of enemy defences instead.
“It is likely that NSM will be picked by the RN to fulfil the interim ASM role.”
Which woud be outranged by ships carrying Kalibr, Oniks or YJ-18, so what’s the point? Yet another missile that’s unfit for purpose. It’s not rocket science (well actually it pretty much is), but we need missiles that OUTRANGE enemy missiles. Why is so hard for Western navies to understand that and to build missiles that are fit for purpose?
“If that’s the case, then JSM on the F35 would be a no brainer…”
If it can be carried internally by the F-35B then I agree. Or else develop a new variant that the F-35B can carry internally.
“Regarding a low stealth airframe option for Spear 3. It already has a very low RCS mostly due to its size.”
True.
“It could be made a lot stealthier, much like the NSM/JSM, but does it need to be?”
Well it seems to me that anything that makes a missile more likely to hit its target should be taken advantage of (especially considering how expensive they are). Things like:
– Making a missile stealthy
– Making a missile out of composite materials/RAM that reduce its RCS even further (I’ve read that IR sensors can’t see through Perspex/Plexiglass. If that’s true, if missiles were made out of Perspex, or had a Perspex coating, then presumably they’d be invisible to IR sensors?)
– Use counter-illumination to make missiles harder to detect by daytime TV cameras (AIUI this was used in WWII and drastically reduced the range at which torpedo aircraft could be detected by the naked eye)
– Making a missile high supersonic or low hypersonic (or at the very least able to accelerate in its terminal phase)
– Build missiles that like the proposed Perseus can carry smaller missiles internally that are released close to the target making a hit more likely and complicating the situation for the defender
– Build a dedicated EW variant of the missile to make it harder to detect and engage by radar
– Fit lasers to missiles to blind EO/IR sensors
“Until it is tested in a conflict, we can only make assumptions as to its performance.”
Well, no, we should accurately and stringently test missiles before they’re mass-produced. That way we’d have a much better idea how they’d perform in a war. And if this requires us building equivalents of enemy missiles, then that’s what we should do.
“However, if using a low sea skimming profile and swarming attack of 8 or more Spearfish. A ship’s defences will have to be at the top of its game to intercept them all…”
I presume you meant SPEAR-3 (Spearfish is a torpedo used by the Astute subs).
I agree that 8 missiles aren’t going to be easy to deal with (and if there are 2 F-35Bs that would mean 16 missiles), but I’ve mentioned several ways above that would make them even more likely to hit their targets.
I especially don’t like the fact that SPEAR-3 is subsonic and I don’t like its lack of punch. If SPEAR-3 was twice as long (meaning an F-35B could carry 4 internally instead of 8), then they could presumably carry a larger warhead and carry more fuel to accelerate in their terminal phase, which would make them more likely to hit their targets.
“especially when you throw in a couple of the EW variants as well.”
Agreed.
“There’s a lot that can be targeted on a ship to achieve a mission kill. The helicopter and primary radar being two priority targets.”
Yes, as well as other radars, the bridge, CIWSes, EO/IR sensors* and aircraft on a carrier. If SPEAR-3 could do a pop-up in its terminal phase and then drop down on a ship’s VLS missile cells all the better.
*If a variant of SPEAR-3 was developed that exploded just above a ship sending out hundreds of tungsten projectiles in all directions these could do a lot of damage to EO/IR sensors as well as radars, the bridge, fighters and these projectiles could possibly also damage a carrier’s flight deck enough to prevent aircraft from taking off, especially if they get embedded in the deck.
“There are very good reasons for using subsonic missiles…”
Yeah I’m aware of the reasons, but subsonic missiles are easier to shoot down than faster ones. So at the very least it would make sense for subsonic missiles to have the ability to accelerate in their terminal phase.
“By flying much higher, say above 80,000ft, the air is really thin, but there’s still enough oxygen to use with the fuel. So, you can push your missile to hypersonic speeds. The problem here is that the missile becomes a lot easier to find using radar or IR sensors.”
True, but if you don’t have missiles capable of shooting the missile down, what difference does it make? The T45s currently have no way of shooting down DF-26 and Kinzhal, which for supposed AAW ships is ludicrous.
“Storm Shadow was built with a rudimentary lowering of its RCS purely through the airframe size and shape, It doesn’t use embedded RAM to help lower its RCS. However, it has a much lower RCS than the Tomahawk TLAM missile. Both missiles have shown they can still get through modern air defences (Libya and Syria), which was mostly down to the very low flight profile they used. This is the reason why the UK are still favouring the replacement for Storm Shadow the FC/ASW as a stealthy subsonic cruise missile, as apposed to the French, who favour a supersonic/hypersonic one.”
As I said, it’s all moot since the F-35B doesn’t have the range to reach China or Russia anyway.
“There is absolutely no way a very long ranged cruise missile such as FC/ASW will fit in the weapons bay of the F35.”
I was thinking in the anti-ship role where the missile wouldn’t need to be anywhere near as large or long-ranged as the land-attack variant. At what sort of range would a ship detect an F-35B? Around 40km? More? Less? Either way, it’s certainly not going to be much more or much less, so an anti-ship missile variant of FC/ASW fired by an F-35B wouldn’t need to be especially long ranged and so I’d have thought it perfectly possible that such a variant could be carried internally by an F-35B.
“A missile carrying an optical dazzler, I don’t think has been used before, so I can’t really comment on it.”
I’m not aware of any such method being used before, I was just thinking out loud and wondering if such a thing were possible. If so, it would make missiles more likely to hit their target.
“In theory it should be doable, but it depends on how you search for, recognize and then lock onto a optical/IR sensor.”
Exactly. I never said it would be easy, but then again I doubt it would be impossible either.
“Their may also be an issue trying to package and power a laser with sufficient power to blind a sensor.”
Yeah, I have no idea how much power would be required and what sort of range the laser would have (weather permitting).
“Missiles like Brimstone, use a combined mmW radar and laser guidance receiver as a dual mode sensor. So, if the receiver could also be a laser transmitter perhaps it could work. Though the sensor would have to use a conical scan to make sure the radar kept the target within view.”
I have no idea. Like Dougal said in an episode of “Father Ted” (I’m probably misquoting a bit) “I didn’t know that when you come up with an idea you have to come up with loads of smaller ideas to make it work.” But if this could be made to work, it would make missiles more likely to hit their targets.
Why can’t we just upscale the spear 3 to be twice as big that way commonality of parts and also a missle that will carry a punch. Is it really that hard to do that.
generally lots of small bangs are better than a smaller number of big ones.
But we’re looking for a replacement for harpoon as a stand alone antiship missle. Surly a spear 3 twice the size could be container launched with a booster pack. And used from a fix wing aircraft. The technology is sound and available and production line would need modest change to produce it. It wouldnt cost millions to develope. The spear 3 is a good missle with excellent senors. You could take 3 motors 1 sensor kit and just fit in a larger body with a larger warhead and wing system. With 3 motors synced to fire one after the other should easily be able to go 300km and maybe have a loiter abilities.
I agree. SPEAR 3 is subsonic, unstealthy and lacks punch. I suppose it could mission-kill the larger ships by targeting radars, the bridge and CIWSes (as well as the aircraft on carriers), but SPEAR 3 isn’t powerful enough to sink large ships. If SPEAR 3 was stealthy and twice the length (meaning an F-35B could carry 4 instead of 8), it could carry more fuel to accelerate in its terminal phase making a hit more likely and it could carry a larger warhead.
Same with brimstone proven tech just put in a bigger tube for more space for fuel and warhead. That’s how the Russians go about things. Design 1 platform and expand it.
Yeah, totally agree.