If they want a long range strike CM, just buy JASSM/JASSM-ER/LRASM/etc
F-35 - International Participation
- Thread starter OPSSG
- Start date
The UK has 'Team Complex Weapons' which is a directive set up to maintain weapon design & manufacture skills, so that ain't gunna happen.
Useful when selling Euro fighters, offers a capability with less political involvement with the US. It's useful to have with the GCC states.
Indeed. An interesting quote I saw recently was that putting Storm Shadow onto F-35B will significantly compromise the F-35's LO...
Which doesn't speak highly to Storm Shadow's overall capability...
Depends what you're comparing it to.
In a UK context, as a 'first strike' weapon Storm Shadow offers greater LO characteristics than TLAM does.
Suspect as a capability, hanging a pair of them + external tank on the centreline of Typhoon probably offers a greater strike range than an F-35B with a pair of them taking in performance/drag considerations.
But, but, the F35B will be based on a mobile airfield. Strikes on Libya?
IMHO comparing land based strike fighter range to a carrier based fighter are chalk and cheese however I do understand the purely academic point you make.
It's very rare that there would be a naval operation with no Typhoon involvement bar something Falklands round 2.
In terms of precision fires from a naval environment, we'll have F35B with Paveway IV, Spear 3 (100nautical mile range), 4.5in, sub-TLAM and potentially surface launched TLAM.
I'd argue that a purely naval operation these days is pretty academic.
Last edited:
We have our own missile with a similar range to JASSM. It was developed faster & cheaper, price is similar, & last I heard was still achieving higher hit probability. We have quite a lot in stock. So I don't think we'll buy JASSM.
It was only a suggestion if they run out of Storm Shadow units
In a European theatre you're probably correct.
Original order was for 900 units, when you consider that TLAM is circa 60 units it's laughable IMO.
Yeah but the Stormshadow order had to be a single production run to get them made to a price whereas the TLAM order piggy backed onto US production and we can draw from their warstocks so there's that.
If we wanted more Stormshadow, we'd have to commission another run of a few hundred, more TLAM or most of the other US missiles will be in serial production.
Comparing it to other air launched weapons...
Interesting feedback from the 4 Dutch test pilots assigned to the JSF Program. Notable are their favorable impressions on how the F-35 compares vs the F-16.
Dutch Lightning testers: Royal Netherlands Air Force and the F-35
DUTCH LIGHTNING TESTERS – PART 1
The future of Dutch air warfare is shaped in all of the vast airspace around Edwards Air Force Base, California. The two tools of the trade have clocked up over 500 flight hours since first delivery in 2013. They are two stealthy and somewhat secretive F-35A Lightning II fighter jets, flown and tested by Royal Netherlands Air Force (RNLAF) 323 squadron. Edwards is their home away from home and will be so for some time to come. Testing done right takes time.
Edwards is the ‘home of the right stuff’ and the perfect place for Operational Test and Evaluation (OT&E) of any fighter aircraft let alone the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II, the fifth generation fighter aircraft that sparked so much debate over the last decade. Edwards is the place where supporters try to prove the critics wrong, where flight limits are pushed, the latest threats simulated, tactics designed and validated and fighter jets eventually become the weapon platforms they are designed to be.
“And we are moving along nicely”, says Marten Hendriksma, chief of RNLAF fighter operations. “Our four pilots are now involved in weapons employment following the successful systems integration tests in 2015. Those tests proved two F-35s can work jointly using both aircraft’s sensors, AN/APG-81active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar and Multifunction Advanced Data Link (MADL), and share this information with accompanying F-16s using Link-16.”
Air combat manoeuvring
But did the Dutch F-35 pilots perhaps have a hard time ‘killing’ Dutch F-16s in simulated air combat manoeuvring (ACM) over Edwards? After all, the inability of a US F-35 to finish off a F-16 – either because it lacks sufficient maneuverability or thrust from its Pratt & Whitney F-135 engine – was much reported.
“The F-35 will have a large advantage going into the visual arena against fourth generation or aircraft like the Su-35, due to its advanced sensors, stealth and datalink capability and resulting increased situational awareness. We have already seen this during testing at Edwards”, says ‘Gladys’, one of the RNLAF pilots at Edwards.
The visual fight will most likely already be decided before the adversary knows it’s in a dogfight, continues Gladys. “Even so, slow-speed and high angle-of-attack performance is much better than many fourth generation fighters like the F-16. High angle of attack testing has been an eye-opener for previous F-16 pilots, who are not used to very good slow speed performance. Straight line acceleration is also much better. At higher speeds, the F-16 has the sustained turning advantage (as it does over many aircraft like the F-18), but only when fighting in training configurations without any missiles or bombs. When flying in combat configs, even the high speeds sustained fight becomes much closer.”
More at the link.
Dutch Lightning testers: Royal Netherlands Air Force and the F-35
DUTCH LIGHTNING TESTERS – PART 1
The future of Dutch air warfare is shaped in all of the vast airspace around Edwards Air Force Base, California. The two tools of the trade have clocked up over 500 flight hours since first delivery in 2013. They are two stealthy and somewhat secretive F-35A Lightning II fighter jets, flown and tested by Royal Netherlands Air Force (RNLAF) 323 squadron. Edwards is their home away from home and will be so for some time to come. Testing done right takes time.
Edwards is the ‘home of the right stuff’ and the perfect place for Operational Test and Evaluation (OT&E) of any fighter aircraft let alone the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II, the fifth generation fighter aircraft that sparked so much debate over the last decade. Edwards is the place where supporters try to prove the critics wrong, where flight limits are pushed, the latest threats simulated, tactics designed and validated and fighter jets eventually become the weapon platforms they are designed to be.
“And we are moving along nicely”, says Marten Hendriksma, chief of RNLAF fighter operations. “Our four pilots are now involved in weapons employment following the successful systems integration tests in 2015. Those tests proved two F-35s can work jointly using both aircraft’s sensors, AN/APG-81active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar and Multifunction Advanced Data Link (MADL), and share this information with accompanying F-16s using Link-16.”
Air combat manoeuvring
But did the Dutch F-35 pilots perhaps have a hard time ‘killing’ Dutch F-16s in simulated air combat manoeuvring (ACM) over Edwards? After all, the inability of a US F-35 to finish off a F-16 – either because it lacks sufficient maneuverability or thrust from its Pratt & Whitney F-135 engine – was much reported.
“The F-35 will have a large advantage going into the visual arena against fourth generation or aircraft like the Su-35, due to its advanced sensors, stealth and datalink capability and resulting increased situational awareness. We have already seen this during testing at Edwards”, says ‘Gladys’, one of the RNLAF pilots at Edwards.
The visual fight will most likely already be decided before the adversary knows it’s in a dogfight, continues Gladys. “Even so, slow-speed and high angle-of-attack performance is much better than many fourth generation fighters like the F-16. High angle of attack testing has been an eye-opener for previous F-16 pilots, who are not used to very good slow speed performance. Straight line acceleration is also much better. At higher speeds, the F-16 has the sustained turning advantage (as it does over many aircraft like the F-18), but only when fighting in training configurations without any missiles or bombs. When flying in combat configs, even the high speeds sustained fight becomes much closer.”
More at the link.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
See my post on the RCAF thread for the latest stupidity on a fighter replacement idea?
And the Middle East, SEA, Africa.
Hanging any external stores on the F-35 by definition compromises it's LO characteristics. Storm Shadow does the job the UK requires of it in that aspect than TLAM.
Besides which, if that's the case, it ain't the only issue at hand.
The original comparison was comparing a land based fighter (Typhoon ) to an F35 based on a mobile airfield/CVN/
You contend that there will be no pure naval ops and that ground based airforces will always play there part in the maritime environment.
In reply to your above, unless there is a secure ground base suitable for fast jet use within the radius of operation of the Typhoon it will always be at a disadvantage to a mobile based F 35.
Further, there will always be pure naval operations as stand off weapons become the delivery system of choice, as task groups remain further off shore, as developing navies gain aviation expertise and as littoral states become more inhospitable places to remotely deploy airforces.
Actually, no. My original comparison was that a Typhoon with a centreline external fuel tank with Storm Shadow would provide a greater strike capability at range than an F-35B with a pair of Storm Shadows. I said nothing about a land/air comparison because in UK service that definite split is not the case in RAF service.
In theory, you are correct. In practice, you are not. I understand the issues behind basing access and how it can be denied, I also understand the merits of carrier based air. However as we are seeing within Africa and the Middle East basing rights for land based air in counter terrorism operations has been granted freely and more often than not with the host nation providing support for those operations militarily.
I get that this is not a guarantee, but in practice it seems as though getting an air-base within a decent operational range is fairly simple outside of Europe (which you contend) in two important areas.
Absolutely, areas in deep blue operations are 100% the domain of naval air, but that's not the nature of the conflicts which we are involved in or are developing. China is the boogeyman on the horizon, SEA is a little more tricky but even the US isn't considering the USAF to not be involved in that hypothetical conflict.
Disagree. Land based air has a significantly greater range of stand off weapons, so by your words of them becoming 'the delivery system of choice' why does that characteristic lend advantage to the naval domain?
List the military operations conducted in the last 3 decades which have only involved naval forces and have not had land based air power involved in a significant way.
Alternatively list any potential future conflict hot spots which may erupt which will not involve land based air power in a major way.
EDIT: Upon re-reading, my post comes off as pretty adversarial but that is absolutely not the intention here
Last edited:
Joe Black
Active Member
F-35 fighter jet’s capabilities far outweigh deficiencies: US Marines
News of F-35B on display in Singapore Aerospace right now:
F-35 fighter jet’s capabilities far outweigh deficiencies: US Marines - Channel NewsAsia
News of F-35B on display in Singapore Aerospace right now:
F-35 fighter jet’s capabilities far outweigh deficiencies: US Marines - Channel NewsAsia
I to do not wish to be adversarial but I think we have a vision difference. My comments are made in the context of a major situation such as a Chinese v US conflict precipitated by the militarisation of the S. China Sea. A CBG would be nowhere near the theatre of ops and the air combat would be on the scale of The battles of Midway and the Coral Sea.Actually, no. My original comparison was that a Typhoon with a centreline external fuel tank with Storm Shadow would provide a greater strike capability at range than an F-35B with a pair of Storm Shadows. I said nothing about a land/air comparison because in UK service that definite split is not the case in RAF service.
In theory, you are correct. In practice, you are not. I understand the issues behind basing access and how it can be denied, I also understand the merits of carrier based air. However as we are seeing within Africa and the Middle East basing rights for land based air in counter terrorism operations has been granted freely and more often than not with the host nation providing support for those operations militarily.
I get that this is not a guarantee, but in practice it seems as though getting an air-base within a decent operational range is fairly simple outside of Europe (which you contend) in two important areas.
Absolutely, areas in deep blue operations are 100% the domain of naval air, but that's not the nature of the conflicts which we are involved in or are developing. China is the boogeyman on the horizon, SEA is a little more tricky but even the US isn't considering the USAF to not be involved in that hypothetical conflict.
Disagree. Land based air has a significantly greater range of stand off weapons, so by your words of them becoming 'the delivery system of choice' why does that characteristic lend advantage to the naval domain?
List the military operations conducted in the last 3 decades which have only involved naval forces and have not had land based air power involved in a significant way.
Alternatively list any potential future conflict hot spots which may erupt which will not involve land based air power in a major way.
EDIT: Upon re-reading, my post comes off as pretty adversarial but that is absolutely not the intention here
Military objectives can be pursued using naval airforces way beyond land airforces radius of ops.
What we haven't discussed or considered is the defining advantage of mobile air and that is sortie rates. You will be well aware of the stark differences between the effectiveness of the Tornado effort and the seaborne air effort during the Libyan campaign even within the close geographical confines of the Med. Although that's a separate discussion it has some relevance to this discussion with regard to total effectiveness.
Joe Black
Active Member
A few more hints in F-35 capabilities can be found here:
Israeli air force debates purchase of F-35 fighter planes - Al-Monitor: the Pulse of the Middle East
Israeli air force debates purchase of F-35 fighter planes - Al-Monitor: the Pulse of the Middle East