Wednesday, August 8, 2012

UK to have degraded air-defense capability with the F-35

Since the start of the UK signing on to the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program years ago, it was briefed that one of the weapons to be cleared for internal carry by the end of systems development and demonstration (SDD) phase with UK jets was the ASRAAM AIM-132 air-to-air missile.

Now, according to a briefing by program officials earlier this year, it seems that the AIM-132 will only be cleared for outside carry--the non-stealth mode--by the end of SDD.

There have been other degraded affects with the AIM-132 and UK F-35. Back in 2008, program officials announced that it was just too much work to clear the AIM-132 for carry on internal air-to-ground hard-points. In each of the F-35's two internal weapon's bays you have one hard-point which can hold either an air-to-ground weapon or an air-to-air weapon. One door from each of the two bays can also hold an air-to-air missile. This gives the potential for the F-35 to carry 4 air-to-air missiles internally.

Originally the UK expected to have the ability to carry 4 AIM-132s internally; 2 for each weapons bay. With the 2008 announcement, that left the UK with 2 internal carry AIM-132s (hung on the internal part of one of the weapons bay doors) and the other two would be carried externally. In 2008 it was passed off that the external carry would be with low-observable hard-points to carry the missile but program officials have already stated that if you carry weapons externally, you are not stealthy.

A March 2012 briefing now shows no internal carry of the AIM-132 for the end of SDD.



Compare that to this 2009 slide (from a Lockheed Martin 2010 briefing) which reflects what has been briefed for years in relation weapons cleared by the end of SDD. Those weapons with pink text labels.


Ignore the pink on the external fuel tanks. That went away in 2006 when trying to figure out stores separation became too troublesome. Note that the 2012 brief still assumes the UK will have the F-35C. This is no longer so. They are back to the F-35B.

The 2012 brief also has some interesting items about schedule best left for another post.

It will be interesting to see how program officials respond to the idea that the UK just recently said good-bye to internal carry of the AIM-132. An industry observer and military aerospace engineer not attached to the program put forth some possibilities:

ASRAAM is a rail launched weapon so the body is likely not designed to take the loads of an ejection and the exhaust would burn the beejeesus out of the weapon bay, with exhaust plume byproducts being blasted into the bay and onto everything in its flight path, like the EOTS sapphire window.

Then there is the under fuselage crossing angle issue with a rail launch from the door station which would somewhat seriously hinder simultaneous or closely spaced dual launches to consider.

Most likely too, it was yet another case of the PowerPoint not matching engineering reality. Quite normal for this program. Woe to the U.K.

So what does that leave the UK with? AMRAAM. However that has its own trouble with production reliability considering the 2-year-old motor problem and overly optimistic probability-of-kill claims against high-end targets.

The U.K. is currently running a going-out-of-business sale with the military. How the F-35 will help any improvement in their combat capability is a large question.

It may be possible to see weapons clearance options catch up after SDD. However the way the program is struggling, that is the least of the worries for the F-35 faithful who are trying to keep the cause alive.

18 comments:

Anonymous said...

Amazing, Israel apparently is getting all sorts of concesions regarding electronics and weapons.

Anonymous said...

Stealth is not absolute. Instead, think of it as a sliding scale of observability.

How much observability is affected by 'LO' pylons and ASRAAMs is figured by people with anachoic chambers. How tactically significant this is is figured by people with weapons school patches.

Anonymous said...

Eric,

I think you're putting too much emphasis and assumption into the effectiveness and absolute value of stealth? sarcasm..

Note the head of Israeli Defence procurement for the F-35 recently stated that F-35 stealth itself will only be credible for the next 5-10 years (about the time frame when combat-coded Block III F-35 will finally achieve squadron level IOC).

He went on to stipulate that the base design is "OK" but will need to rely on substantial increased EW capabilities in order to remain effective and credible. Hence, the need for seeking increased investments/subsidies to bolster F-35's EW self-protection abilities.

Moreover, even the AMRAAM itself is estimated to be less than adequate as a sufficient Air-Air munition -- hence the requirement for further investment/development funding for a superior next-gen air-air munition proposed and reportedly being developed by Israeli developers.

So I think the whole 'wing-mounted' ASRAAM ordeal shouldn't be such a major issue in the greater priority of things, as there are apparently more fundamental F-35 Programme issues needing correction.

Unknown said...

Well, for starters, the F-35 will not be survivable vs. emerging threats. In any event, what we have is a pattern of capability reduction with the program planning when they can't figure stuff out. Only one example: the definition of Block 1, 2 and 3 many years ago compared to today.
The program is a wreck but some are still trying to imagine value in the F-35.

Anonymous said...

Anon.

I think you need to understand more of the facts of why the F-35 will never be able to survivable against high threat environment etc. Eric has certainly not put too much emphasis and assumptions into the effectiveness and absolute value of stealth. It's not sarcasm. Well to me Anon it makes sense.

Do you find everything Eric posts is sarcasm? I don't think so Anon.

Because if you do, you shouldn't be here.

Cheers Peter

Anonymous said...

Excuse me survive for the first paragraph.

Peter

NGF said...

Thank goodness the RAF has Typhoons that will be armed with Meteor.

Anonymous said...

What indication is there that meteor will be better than AMRAAM or PL-12?

NGF said...

The following by Gareth Evans in Air Force Technology shows that the RAF is wise not to put all its eggs in one basket:

http://www.airforce-technology.com/features/featureair-to-air-missiles-expanding-the-no-escape-zone/

"The Eurofighter Typhoon, for instance, is ultimately destined to have the Meteor - a state-of-the-art BVRAAM from European manufacturer MBDA - as its principal air-to-air weapon system. Said to offer world-beating air superiority, Meteor is a fast and agile missile, with what is claimed to be the largest 'no-escape zone' of any air-to-air weapon. Equipped with both proximity and impact fuses, it can engage targets ranging from fast-jets to UAVs or cruise missiles, autonomously in all weathers, during day or night, in full electronic countermeasure environments. It also highlights two other key developments in AAM design - improved kinematic performance and a high degree of network-centric readiness.
Kinematic and network-centric - the missiles of the future

According to the manufacturers, Meteor has between three and six times the kinematic performance of current similar types of air-to-air weapons - something made possible by its unique solid fuel, variable-flow, ducted ramjet propulsion system."

Anonymous said...

"the F-35 will not be survivable vs. emerging threats"

Not going into a debate here, but thought I'd shoot in that just about all the dozen or so operational pilots I talked to this summer were pretty extatic about the F-35. Including those from countries who are not going to fly it.

To quote a second hand source with good knowledge of the F-35 and more hours in more jets than most: "Competition? There is no competition. It [a regarded high-end fighter which shall be unnamed] has nothing like that [the F-35]. He wasn't mearly refering to stealth.

BB/Oslo

Anonymous said...

BB/Oslo
Have they actually flown the thing?
Or have they been briefed by the LM Marketing Machine?

Unknown said...

There aren't any operationally relevant jets. PowerPoint isn't a substitute for a weapons program. And, oh yeah, while we are at it, the marketing sim "flown" by some, is just a glorified computer game.

bhigr said...

What's the point of getting a "stealthy" F-35B, if it has to carry its most important weapons, short and long range missiles, in parts externally? In this configuration, the F-35B is more stealthy than the Typhoon!

Except for stealth, the F-35 is inferior to the Typhoon in every possible measure. Now, even the highly overrated stealth feature is seriously compromised.

You have to pay more and get a lot less with the F-35B. Navalize the tranch 3 of the typhoons the UK has already ordered. You would save a lot of money and get a far superior product.

Horde said...

NGF: Very good points.

And where do folks think "its unique solid fuel, variable-flow, ducted ramjet propulsion system" originate from?

BB/Oslo:

To quote first hand sources who are flying the high end threats, the JSF is a very costly mistake and, as Napolean said, "Never disturb an enemy when he is making a mistake - the bigger the better!"

Folks at Nellis call the JSF 'the little Turd'

Anonymous said...

Well Eric, some of the pilots have flown the mission simulator or seen the classified air force briefings, others going by their experience and heresay I guess. It's the same each year, quite few of the pilots I speak to have reservations against the F-35 and if so it's usually centered on whether it will deliver as promised or on specific subjects. But you have to take it for what it is, I'm sure opinions will differ especially outside NATO. Then again, outside NATO there is little experience with stealth or the F-22, or modern air operations.

BB/Oslo

Unknown said...

Hi BB. Hope you are doing well.

Eric

Anonymous said...

@ Horde

Is this Peter Goon, Head of Test and Evaluation, Associate Editor, Co-Founder, Air Power Australia?

Really, the folks at Nellis air base call the F-35 'the little Turd'. I like that.

The F-35 has got plenty of nicknames whatever wish you can call the aircraft.

1. Junk Strike Failure

2. Joint Strike Failure

3. "Overweight Baby Seal", certainly not a Lightining II because it has no lightning bolts in the airframe in a similar way when the former Air Commander Peter Criss called the Super Hornet a "Super Dog".

P.S. I really hate the lemon F-35 too.

Regards Peter

Anonymous said...

Thank's, you too Eric.

BB/Oslo