jessmo24That would have to be done in any case. The average international anti-ship missile now tends towards being twice as heavy, twice as fast, with twice the warhead weight of the Harpoon. The new anti-ship Tomahawk upgrade is still a while away (if ever), is neither terribly LO nor terribly fast, and a stop-gap in any case. Fast anti-ship and fast land attack are different sides of the same coin.
Why is it so difficult to make a Anti-ship tommy? Just take out some of the ordnance load and put a IR + radar seeker in there.
jessmo24DARPA’s New Missile Goes To Next Stage
Posted by Bill Sweetman at 11/12/2010 8:19 AM CST
Lockheed Martin has been awarded a $157 million Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency contract for a full-up demonstration of a Long Range Anti Ship Missile (LRASM), to be fired from Navy warships (known as LRASM-B). It also expects a similar contract for an air-launched system, LRASM-A, according to Reuters: until now, two Lockheed Martin groups had been viewed as competitors for a single demonstration contract.
On the surface, LRASM does not look like a DARPA program. It may not involve radical airframe and propulsion technology (the air-launched version may be a modified JASSM) and it is a mainstream mission. However, what makes LRASM “DARPA-hard” – the catchphrase for a challenge on the verge of impossibility – may reside in the guidance and navigation system.
The LRASM-B will be sized for a vertical launch. Contract language suggests that it will have a ramjet sustainer from Pratt & Whitney, based on “residual” assets from an unidentified program. (Here is a fascinating history of Navy ramjet missiles.)
jessmo24Could you imagine being in a Gunners site, firing away at the 8 SDB coming in at you? I cant imagine they are drifting slowly like gliders. Maybe your last thought would be did you just mess your pants.
jessmo24Sens I didn’t say that the F-35 didn’t use tankers. Stop trying to flip flop the argument. I said that The F-35 Has more range than the F-16. More range is better for tanker assets On a mission that’s 400 miles from base the F-18C might have to refuel while a F-35C might not. Why is that so difficult to under stand? How is it marketing to say that the F-35 will hit multiple targets in 1 pass? So if I have 2 LGB on my plane I can still only hit 1 target rather than 2? your not making sense. You peoples hatred for anything American is making you Lose your sense of reason.
jessmo24I feel like I’m talking to a brick!
1. I’m talking about long range missions where free transit might be denied be friend or ally. Think of max range missions like Libya or Afghanistan. In this type of scenario the extra 150-200 miles of range means less refueling somewhere along the way.
2. T lams are not perfect and can be engaged by air defense artillery and other point defense weapons.
3. The point that I was making was that stealth platforms and miniaturized weapons are serious force multipliers. I showed you 1 force with over 35 aircraft needed to hit 300 aim points. Then I compared that to using 17 stealth platforms and hitting over 400 aim points. 15 of the 17 need far less tanking and the last 2 assets need 0 tanking. If you doubled the number to 30 F-35s you could hit about the same amount of targets and probably use 1/2 the tanker assets. ( remember no EF-111 or F-18G support). Thats why I can say 1 F-35 is worth 2 F-16 block 60s.
jessmo24I’m looking for the price tag on the Uae block 60 F-16 and cant find it. anyone know where i can find it?
jessmo24The Navy – unlike the USAF – has a pretty good track record developing jets. And 20+ year development cycles are no longer sustainable – one of the major reasons why the JSF’s price has skyrocketed. Leverage the technology that we have now and get the jet into the fleet. It can be done.
Directly attacking the bogeyman armed with S-300 with TacAir is not the only way to suppress them. And the Marines aren’t going to be storming any beach off the Baltic or South China Sea.
err… did you miss the cheap Chinese knock off part? what about Iran, Taiwan, NK, Venezuela, what about if Argentina ever gets there hands on a cheap s-300 copy? What tech are you talking about leveraging? are we going back to 30 year designs? what 6th generation tech will be so much cheaper than the F-35? do tell. Step one Buy cheap S-300 Chinese copies. Step 2 buy point defenses. Step 3 behave like a Moronic dictator and mock the U.S. because its 2025 and since the F-35 was canceled all the U.S. has are a less than 200 F-22s and 400 ancient F-15s and F-16s. BTW The Air guard has a requirement for a air craft to replace aging legacy platforms. The requirement says they need Aesa for cruise missile defense. Do you think The USAF will buy super hornet? what about the 100Mill F-15?
jessmo24F-18E/F’s can be had for <50M a copy (but you need to add 9m for the engines.) The -C is going to be >100m a copy (and you need to add 11m for the engine.) And the Supers have plenty of room for further development. The Navy should bail from from the F-35 program and get on with developing a reasonable (longer range, 2 crew, 2 engined, moderately stealthy) NGAD, and use the Supers to replace the legacy Hornets.
The Marines don’t need a stealthy CAS aircraft, and forward basing is still slightly better than a fantasy in practice. And you can’t float more than 6 on an amphip anyway, so they should go with Supers that operate off of real carriers.
And what happens when the Ngad isn’t cheaper than either the F-35 or the super hornet? will you bail on that too? In fact with only 1 or 2 users its almost a guarantee that the NGAD will be expensive.
As far as marines on the beach are concerned all you need to do is buy cheap Chinese S-300 Knock offs or Russian S-300s and you can keep Marines off your beach forever. With a F-35 at least you have a chance. with a hornet your sending fighter jockeys to there deaths.
jessmo24Mod Edit: No embedded video, please. You’ve been around here long enough to know this, jessmo24!
jessmo24Not if the bomb is traveling at mach one. The reason you want to launch at or near mach is to increase weapon range and speed. besides that i cant imagine being a gun operator and tryign to track and shoot a near mach 1 projectile that’s as small as 250 pounds. The bombs is pretty small as far as bombs go.
jessmo24I think i missed something too.
You made an assumption that F-35 can and will engage S-300 with bombs,
but why ?
Also, the last estimate was $133 million a pop for F-35, while (F-15K) $100 million [2006$].
because you can Push up to mach Number and launch SDB from 70+ miles away with a far greater war load. This would also help against point defenses systems.
jessmo24If you did the same mission in 2017. you could use 15 F-35s and 2 B-2s
opposed to using legacy. if your using nearly all SBD.
Thats 120 aim points hit by F-35s and over 200 ( it could easily be as high as 400) aim points Hit by B-2. Thats Nearly twice the aim points hit with a fraction of the assets.
4x EF-111A jammers
18X F-111
15X A-7,A-6 and F-18
jessmo24None will cancel the F-35 program in total. It is about a realistic approach, which even you missed to show. See your claims of the fly away prices for export examples. Japan is something special even.
Non F-35 is worth 2 F-16s in general. We can agree that a F-35 has some advantages over a F-16 in a full scale war-time situation, but there only.
I do not care about European exports as I do about US ones the related weapons-race in mind. Fighters are not ordinary exports and the USA has still the advantage of the related political support, see the last F-15s exports about that. The countries not intrested in political support or related strings will buy neither American nor European fighters with the exception of Russia. From 2020 the world may look different and the F-35 is a dated design already. 😎
1. I stand by my point that a strike package consisting of on F-16 would need twice the only aircraft that a strike package of F-35s
Lets use and example.
The United States bombing of Libya (code-named Operation El Dorado Canyon)
U.S. forces and targets
Operation results[6] Target Planned Actual
Aircraft Bombing Aircraft Hit Miss
Azizyah barracks 9× F-111F 36× GBU-10 2,000 lb (910 kg) LGB 3× bombed
1× missed
4× aborts, 1× lost 13 3
Murat Sidi Bilal camp 3× F-111F 12× GBU-10 2,000 lb LGB all bombed 12 –
Tripoli airfield
(fmr. Wheelus Air Base) 6× F-111F 72× Mk 82 500 lb (230 kg) RDB 5× bombed
1× abort 60 –
Jamahiriyah (Benghazi) barracks 7× A-6E 84× Mk 82 500 lb RDB 6× bombed
1× abort on deck 70 2
Benina airfield 8× A-6E 72× Mk 20 500 lb CBU
24× Mk 82 500 lb RDB 6× bombed
2× aborts 60× Mk 20
12× Mk 82 –
Air defense
networks Tripoli 6× A-7E 8× Shrike
16× HARM all aircraft fired 8× Shrike
16× HARM
Benghazi 6× F/A-18 4× Shrike
20× HARM all aircraft fired 4× Shrike
20× HARM
Totals 45 aircraft 300 bombs
48 missiles 35 bombed
1 missed
1 lost
8 aborts 227 hits
5 misses
48 homing missiles
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Lets focus in on the F-16 and the F-18 since they are closer to the F-35 than a F-111 The baseline F-18 and F16 range is
Combat radius: 340 mi (295 nm, 550 km) on a hi-lo-hi mission with six 1,000 lb (450 kg) For the F-16 and the original hornets was
Combat radius: 400 nmi (460 mi, 740 km) on air-air mission I can safely assume its legs are shorter with Bombs slung.
The F-35A is Combat radius: over 590 nmi[nb 7] (1,090 km) on internal fuel[1
and for the F-35C 640 nmi (1,185 km)
fully combat loaded and with No external tanks. So already you save on tanking missions. Then you don’t need
*Fighter escorts, they can self escort*
* you don’t need jamming assets ( note I didn’t say you wouldn’t use jamming I said its not needed)*
*You can bypass some air defenses that would take multiple assets tankers and sorties with a legacy aircraft*
*A legacy platform would need long range stand off weapons to hit a S-300. which limits it to about 2-4 weapons at the most. The F-35 could do the same mission with 8 SBD* Please explain to me how the F-35 is dated when a F-15E costs the same but does far less?
jessmo24If your justification is facing the Pak/FA, then what you are looking for is more F-22s.
As for the latest white house proposal to kill the B model, well, it looks like some in DOD now have the go-ahead to speak their mind on the topic; via Friday’s Inside Defense (subscription).
There is an old saying, that quantity has a quality of its own. I’m sure that if the odds are 4 F-35s to 2 T-50s the F-35s will make out ok.
Sign In
