Marines connect F-35 with HIMARS

More fun from YPG:

“We were able to connect the F-35 to a HIMARS, to a rocket shot … and we were able to target a particular conex box,” Rudder told audience members Friday at an aviation readiness discussion at the Center for Strategic & International Studies, or CSIS.

The shot was all done through data link, according to Rudder. The F-35 used sensors and pushed data about the location of the target that was then fed to a HIMARS system.

The HIMARS unit then destroyed the target.

Marine Corps Times


We've already seen successful integration with Aegis/Standard, and this is just more of the same sort of capability the F-35 is to bringing to the table.



Bonus footage of the earlier HIMARS shot from the flight deck of the Anchorage also mentioned in the article:

Groovy nice capability!

Pretty soon everything will be interconnected.

Things to come.

Terminators will be out soon.

They had that ability with the Apache as well but only from Helo to Helo off memory.If they had the capability of cross connectivity between multiple platforms ......

And that is why we don't need heavy naval guns anymore!

originally posted by: Forensick
And that is why we don't need heavy naval guns anymore!

The argument for naval artillery is based on sustainability.

An Iowa could lay nineteen 1900lb HE rounds a minute from 24 miles out each creating a crater 20' deep and 50' across, and it had magazines hundreds of rounds deep. Plus the 5-inch rounds from closer in.

HIMARS gives you six M270 rounds. So six 200lb HE rounds or 3864 submunition rounds about as powerful as a grenade. Then it's done. Even several are not sustainable. The same goes for the cruise missile "replacements". Relatively small warhead, and very limited magazines.

There are several USMC generals that aren't shy about griping to anyone that will listen about the biggest shore bombardment pieces now being five inchers and what that means for amphibious assault.

originally posted by: Forensick
And that is why we don't need heavy naval guns anymore!

Tell that to the ANGLICO boys that would give their left but to drop 16”ers!!! I’m one of those that feels like the Iowa’s shouldn’t have been re-retired after the first gulf war IMO they’re still very relevant.

originally posted by: RadioRobert

originally posted by: Forensick
And that is why we don't need heavy naval guns anymore!

The argument for naval artillery is based on sustainability.

An Iowa could lay nineteen 1900lb HE rounds a minute from 24 miles out each creating a crater 20' deep and 50' across, and it had magazines hundreds of rounds deep. Plus the 5-inch rounds from closer in.

HIMARS gives you six M270 rounds. So six 200lb HE rounds or 3864 submunition rounds about as powerful as a grenade. Then it's done. Even several are not sustainable. The same goes for the cruise missile "replacements". Relatively small warhead, and very limited magazines.

There are several USMC generals that aren't shy about griping to anyone that will listen about the biggest shore bombardment pieces now being five inchers and what that means for amphibious assault.

How does accuracy factor in? I don't know much about this so I'm legitimately curious. What this made me think of is how the Air Force mostly uses smaller, guided munitions to hit precision targets rather than carpet bombing. In WW2 they'd fly over a target and drop a plethora of inaccurate bombs to hit it. Now they just drop a small number. Is a similar thing happening with naval weaponry?

The flip side of that though, is that the Air Force still has carpet bombing available.

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: RadioRobert

originally posted by: Forensick
And that is why we don't need heavy naval guns anymore!

The argument for naval artillery is based on sustainability.

An Iowa could lay nineteen 1900lb HE rounds a minute from 24 miles out each creating a crater 20' deep and 50' across, and it had magazines hundreds of rounds deep. Plus the 5-inch rounds from closer in.

HIMARS gives you six M270 rounds. So six 200lb HE rounds or 3864 submunition rounds about as powerful as a grenade. Then it's done. Even several are not sustainable. The same goes for the cruise missile "replacements". Relatively small warhead, and very limited magazines.

There are several USMC generals that aren't shy about griping to anyone that will listen about the biggest shore bombardment pieces now being five inchers and what that means for amphibious assault.

How does accuracy factor in? I don't know much about this so I'm legitimately curious. What this made me think of is how the Air Force mostly uses smaller, guided munitions to hit precision targets rather than carpet bombing. In WW2 they'd fly over a target and drop a plethora of inaccurate bombs to hit it. Now they just drop a small number. Is a similar thing happening with naval weaponry?

The flip side of that though, is that the Air Force still has carpet bombing available.

Naval gunnery was surprisingly accurate doubly so against land targets as that took more variables out of the equation.

ETA:

As modernized in the 1980s, each turret carried a DR-810 radar that measured the muzzle velocity of each gun, which made it easier to predict the velocity of succeeding shots. Together with the Mark 160 FCS and better propellant consistency, these improvements made these weapons into the most accurate battleship-caliber guns ever made. For example, during test shoots off Crete in 1987, fifteen shells were fired from 34,000 yards (31,900 m), five from the right gun of each turret. The pattern size was 220 yards (200 m), 0.64% of the total range. 14 out of the 15 landed within 250 yards (230 m) of the center of the pattern and 8 were within 150 yards (140 m). Shell-to-shell dispersion was 123 yards (112 m), 0.36% of total range.

www.navweaps.com...

a reply to: face23785

There is certainly some factor there. In the case of shore bombardment, you it doesn't really call for pinpoint accuracy. You can put PGMs onto fortified positions, but when it comes to ground troops meeting opposition, the need drops. Calling fire onto a ridgetop is more effective than trying to pinpoint each unit firing at you from the ridge for a PGM to be effective. The environment also has to be sanitized for air defense for air-support. Ships have a pretty limitd missile magazine.

On the otherhand artillery with modern FCS is pretty accurate, the rate of fire is relatively higher, and you can put hundreds of rounds on target for a sustained period of time.

Missiles were introduced for range extension I thought not pinpoint.

a reply to: Blackfinger

GMLRS are pretty dang accurate. Can hit a conex box at nearly max range

Can they do same with the 155mm M982 yet?

So we've had the AEGIS plug-in, HIMARS, and now the SSDS of the Wasp.

For the first time a US Marine Corps F-35B made a Link 16 connection with the USS Wasp’s Ship Self Defense System (SSDS), allowing the stealth fighter to securely share digital tactical data with the US Navy vessel and surrounding support fleet, information that could be used for defense against an air attack.

Sharing data from the F-35B’s sensors with the SSDS, hardware and software that coordinates defensive missiles, decoys and electronic warfare weapons on board surface ships, would allow the USN more situational awareness...

“Information is key for any commander – and shared information from multiple sources and vantage points extends our battlespace and our advantage over enemy threats,” says USN Capt Danny Busch, who leads the programme executive office for Ship Self Defense System. “Now with the ability to link our sensors and weapons, from sea and air, SSDS is providing a level of interoperability and defensive capability never before available to the Expeditionary fleet.”

...

Have they got a Submarine version of the F35 yet?

a reply to: Blackfinger

That's part of what ACTUV is aiming for. Making contact and harassing it until you can bring force to bear while serving as a comm and data relay.