Yes, SDB1 is IOC with SDB2, JAGM, JSM, and a whole host of additional weapons will be Blk4.

re: Spear, here is what the linked article says

The basis of the concept is now in an assessment phase study for the UK Ministry of Defence’s Spear Capability 3 requirement. This activity is due to conclude in 2014 with an airframe and propulsion system demonstration using a representative weapon design.

No official name given.

1) When your confined to as little as 2 surface munitions, you are not a force multiplier.
2) When you are barely capable of self-defence in the face of sophisticated opposition, you are not a force multiplier.
3) When you lack the speed to cover significant ranges quickly, you are not a force multiplier.
4) When your all-aspect-stealth©™® is actually frontal quadrant VLO only, you are not a force multiplier.
5) The F-35 is utterly incapable of deep strike as it will be incapable of dealing with the opfor fighter intercepts sent its way.
6) It is not large enough to evade long wavelength radar to guide them, it is not quick enough to out-run them, it doesn’t carry enough munitions to suppress them and it is not maneuverable enough to fight them.
7) In a major conflict, the USMC wouldn’t be able to take a p**s without the help of the USN. Don’t delude yourself otherwise.
8) You missed the memo? The USN is not downsizing its carrier fleet! There are already 10 CVN21s on the order books… and Nimitz is going nowhere till post 2022.

1: You are only limited to 2 bombs when you are going against the heaviest targets in the most restricted environments. Normal targets only require a SDB (of which you can carry 6-8) or the new cruise SDB-sized missile from MBDA. In a less restrictive environment you can carry 15k lbs of munitions internal & external.

2: The F-35 is only 2nd to the F-22 in A2A as has been shown in multinational manned simulations. How is carrying 4 AMRAAMs internally “barely capable of self-defence”?

3: The F-35B can go M1.6+ armed. The F-18 cannot even do that and it’s a great deal faster than the AV-8B.

4: All VLO aircraft have the best RCS to the front followed by the rear then the sides. This applies to the F-22, B-2, and X-47 as well. While the rear and sides of the F-35 are not as good as its front, they are still orders-of-magnitude lower than the front, rear, and sides of any 4th gen asset.

5: What do you think deep strike is? The F-35B has the range to hit Baghdad from 200+nm out in the gulf or strike 100nm inland of China from 200nm East of Taiwan. That is without IFR or buddy tanking. As far as OPFOR, see #2

6: The F-35 is designed to reduce the detection range of any radar, including long waves. Publicly available patents even show that its RAM is specifically designed this way. Nothing can outrun radar, so that is a bogus argument (as well as out maneuvering radar). It can carry 6-8 SDBs (or SDB2 & MBDA’s new SDB-sized cruise missile). How many HARMs can the typical fighter carry? When NGM gets done it will give it an even better capability.

7: Why would the USMC even try? Another bogus argument.

Keep certain items common – such as engine architecture, sensors, mission software and cockpit layout.

The airframes should be markedly different; the requirements are so disparate that one common fuselage simply doesn’t work.

Who gets to decide on what the specs will be? Each service will want their needs to be the top priority.

For instance, the naval fighter should have 2 engines and be significantly larger. The airforce can use it (a la F-4).

The USAF (and it’s partners) are building the vastly numerous A version. Why straddle them with the extra cost burden of a naval version? You are talking about a per plane $15-$20 million increase in procurement costs alone plus the extra lifetime costs of supporting two engines & the extra naval equipment.

The STOVL version can use one engine. Since its supposedly operating as CAS from FOB it doesn’t need the range so can take the payload hit. But I think STOVL/VTOL is a delusion using current propulsive technologies.

Ever hear of the Harrier? 😉 STOVL works just fine.

VSTOL is also good for forward basing. The USMC used their AV-8Bs from parking lots in GW1. They were able to provide quicker CAS support than A-10s & F-16s from Saudi Arabian bases. They were also able to have higher sortie rates due to the short time in flight. This is reflected in that the F-35B has the highest sortie rate.

RAF, but what about the RN. Omnirole means every role. The simple fact that the Typhoon isn’t carrier capable means it’s not suitable to replace all the UK’s fighter aircrafts. Period.

Using that logic, the Rafale is not even omnirole as it cannot perform STOVL ops.

I guess that leaves just the F-35 as the only true (by your def) omnirole fighter in the world.

😉

Or maybe all those flares and chaff are not as effective as you think.

IR management has one drawback… Where are you going to dump the heat that is generated by not only the vehicle itself, but the cooling system as well?

There is also the issue of what IR signature you are tying to emulate… The empty sky behind you as seen by a sea-skimming missile or the cold ocean below you as seen by a missile doing a plunging attack? You cannot emulate both so you will show up on something. There is also the issue of newer seekers evolving into Multi-Spectral in nature to defeat this type of single-mode seeker defeat camo.

Last, but not least, movement. How would you compensate quick enough for wave action and its effect on the background heat signature depending on what angle the seeker is looking from.

Given all of that you will soon realize that hiding one’s IR signature based on unmoving land background vs the ever-changing seascape means this will not be put to sea nay time soon.