probably not now , but in future they may

And in the future the F-35 will get better ESM systems.

then you carry less missiles i think

Right. 2 per bay instead of 4 normal SDBs. That’s the price to pay to launch at long range and be survivable against lots of enemy fighters and advanced SAMs and VHF radars. Many targets would be less than 300km inside enemy territory, so the F-35 would not even have to enter in enemy airspace to launch if the missile has a range of 300km.

The F-35s would attack quickly in supercruise and would mount 3+ sorties the first day. 100 F-35s would launch 1200 missiles in one day, enough to destroy most aircraft shelters, enemy planes on the tarmacs etc, and the VHF radars.

still it doesnt have rocket like AASM , i think the range likely to be very small , without engine and at low altitude may be it will just fall down like MK-80 series bomb
also low weight mean less moment tum thus go shorter range

The SDB’s wing kit would help to increase the range, double or triple it. The plane would launch at Mach 0.95 with a loft trajectory.

the benefit mainly is when you try to attack destroyer with very good anti air capability Ex : Type-52c , and can detect F-35 from long range , then it still have the option to fly low and then when come close launch a bunch of missiles at the destroyer

This tactic of nap of the earth attack could well work against ground targets, radars or other.

If you keep a couple F-35s at high altitude close to the enemy line, they can designate targets for other F-35s coming at low altitude with external payloads. The spear III would have enough range to hit up to 40km behind enemy lines.

but not only 1 missiles , we have 24 SPEAR per F-35 , each SPEAR have 60 warhead => each F-35 thow total 1440 warheads over target area , even with hit rate of only 2 percent then 28 warhead will hit target

24 spears would cost a lot! Each would cost probably like 200k, so your attack would cost 4.8 million. Just launch like 8 regular spears straight to the target, one of them will surely hit. Possibly even the spears ( or any other missile ) could attack from different angle to have a better saturation effect. For instance 4 missiles attack from one side at 5 sec interval and at the same time 4 from the opposite direction at 180 degrees. The CIW will be unable to catch them all.

AESA , PESA radar have almost every thing inside the antenna so if you destroy it it pretty much over
solid state Pulse-Doppler radar often have low performer so no needd to worry about

I admit you have a point here if the antenna contains all the electronics.

f-35 detection and targeting range again ground target is pretty much limited to about 80-100 km what why i dont really like long range missile ( unless you try to attack a ship )

The missile would attack fixed targets whose coordinated are known from other sources ( satellites etc… ). The SDB1 missile would be good to attack fixed targets. Against radars, the F-35s can triangulate from 300km to have the approximate location of the target. These radars are very powerful so the F-35’s ESM would have no trouble datecting them at long range. The SDB2 missile with its tri-mode seeker would be sent in the killing zone and would find the target by itself.

Both the SDB1 and SDB2 missiles would be able to attack ships. They have much larger warheads than the spear 3.

Another advantage of the missile is that the F-35 would be able to launch from much further, so it would have more fuel reserves. That extra fuel could be used by the F-35 to attack in supercruise at mach 1.2, which would be usefull for initial strikes.

Nap of the earth is more for anti ship mission , because ship often have really strong radar EX spy-1D , Smart-L , they also have very strong defense , not to mention modern ship even have stealth so harder to detect them from long range
SPEAR have so many different sensor making jamming them almost impossible , engine mean they are lest affected by altitude droping , one f-35 can carry 24 of them
24 stealth SPEAR will have better chance to penetrate the defense due to number alone , they will not sink the ship obviously , but if they managed to damage the Radar then it pretty much a mission kill , make the ship useless

Nap of the Earth could be used against ground targets too, armored convoys etc in depth… If the F-35 carries spears externally its RCS would not allow an attack from altitude if the target is deep in enemy airspace.

Against ships it depends whether the F-35 are attacking a carrier group or not. In that case the enemy fighters would detect the F-35s if they have external weapons at low altitude.

I wonder what the SDB2 range would be if launched from very low altitude with a loft trajectory. Perhaps 20km. That may be enough to attack say a convoy. Some F-35s at high altitude in stealth mode would be needed to guide the weapons.

what i think idea is SPEAR with stealth airframe but a different warhead , instead of a single warhead like now , it can have warhead that contain many flechette that it will release when going close to the target kind of like Hydra 70 or 35mm AHEAD shell , that would be impossible for CIWS to intercept , although that not sink the ship it will damage all the radar , optic equipment , destroy the skin make the ship no longer stealth , and then when the ship is defenseless a GBU-12 can sink it

That could be a good idea, but for the Hydra or AHEAD shell, the speed is much higher than for the subsonic spear 3, so the kinetic energy of the flechette would be much lower. They wouldn’t have much penetration capability, would they even be able of going through the radar cover? Maybe, I don’t know.

Also, at what range does the hydra or AHEAD shell release its flechettes. I would say probably at close range in order to avoid too much dispersion. Would a spear release its flechettes beyond the range of a CIWS?

i disagree with this , you really dont need a big warhead to destroy radar , in fact if you get close enough a RPG could destroy a radar too , it will mess up the electric and everything , SPEAR 3 warhead is about the same as Brimstone , more than enough to destroy any radar ( except the SBX may be )

Right, but those radars are high value targets, you want to make sure they are completely destroyed. If the SPEAR 3 misses probably the antenna would be destroyed, but maybe not the vehicle. They can change the antenna. But I agree it would already be good.

A mini cruise missile like an SDB missile woud have the ability to be launched at long range and to loiter to find its target. I like that capability also to search and destroy aircraft in the open. To attack an airbase, send SDB1 missiles against the aircraft shelters and SDB2 missiles against aircraft in the open.

A fleet of 50 F-35s could launch 200 SDB missiles per strike, or 600 in one day with 3 sorties per day. Enough to make a lot of damage to a near peer opponent.

the reason why i like the SPEAR III is also the amount of weapon that f-35 can carry , 8 internal , and if you decide to use Nap of the earth tactic you can carry 24 , that very high potential to by pass enemy defense , even more if we can make them stealth

Sending planes in non stealth mode on the initial strikes doesn’t seem to be a good idea to me. For later part of an air war ok. You can send one or 2 F-35s in stealth mode at altitude to find targets for other F-35s or non stealth planes coming at low altitute with SPEAR IIIs. But the SPEAR III costs more than the SDB2, probably twice as much or something, you have to take that into account.

Apart from that, would the SDB2, whose primary role is to attack tactical targets, have needed a 100lb class payload? They could have done a much smaller weapon, about half the length, it would have been enough to kill any most targets including tanks with a direct hit, and the F-35 would have been capable of carrying 16 inside. Basically a gliding LOCAAS type weapon.

Possibly, hard to tell…

Or maybe an AESA on the meteor ( or AMRAAM ) would get the same recognition capability as the AARGM’s MMW seeker? The missile would retain its air-to-air role. Perhaps the japanese meteor with its AESA antenna would work for that?

SDBII is the start and the emphasis no doubt is on affordability given that they requirement would likely be for a very large purchase over the years. How hard would it be for Raytheon to add the TJ-150 to the SDBII for a future iteration of the munition? The advantage raytheon will have going forward with the SDB2 is that there would be a customer base already for the weapon and the economies of scale would kick in, where they go from there obviously depends upon the market study and what they think will sell.

The idea of keeping the airframe in the 6′ length size for the BRU-61 ( or BRU-69 whatever ) integration may not be that good for a motorized SDB. That limits the fuel capacity and the warhead too much. Perhaps a 12′ missile on double launcher would be better. Range would be much longer, 300km or something like that.

Given the JASSM and LRASM’s range it would be much better for the Non stealthy birds to deploy these weapons from stand off distance while freeing the F-35’s, B-2’s, LRS-B’s and F-22’s for more important missions that require the stealth. The JSM, JSOW, SOM and the eventual NG missile would fill the role here in addition to whatever comes out in the hypersonic domain in the next decade.

That makes sense if the F-35 has its own internal cruise missile ( which it should ). However the JASSM will probably be integrated externally later when the F-35 replaces the F-16.

http://aviationweek.com/awin/high-speed-strike-weapon-build-x-51-flight

Hypersonic are impressive but the cost is likely to be prohibitive. Maybe against very high value targets like ships they would be cost effective. For everything else glide bombs and stealthy cruise missiles are the way to go.

There was a project a few years ago of a ramjet HARM with twice the speed and twice the range, that could be more cost effective than a hypersonic, all the more that the improved AARGM electronics is available. That variant didn’t have wings so possibly it could to fit inside the F-35.

It’s too bad if SMACM has been cancelled, it would have been a game changer.

The F-35 can also get close to those radars ( those against which it has a larger RCS ) flying nap of the earth. It should be very stealthy against small shorter range radars so it should be able to get through the first line of short range defenses. Then it can launch its missiles below the horizon of the target. Once the VHF radars have been destroyed, it’s easier to take out the other ones from high altitude.