F-35A JSOW certification imminent

Raytheon is expecting certification of the Joint Stand-Off Weapon for the F-35A within days. The weapon was tested on the F-35C earlier this year, and generated enough data to allow certification on the A model as well. The paperwork has been submitted to the Air Force, and is just waiting on a signature by the Air Force to allow the weapons to be carried. It's currently carried on multiple platforms, including the F-15 and F-16. The Air Force ended new production in 2005, leaving the Navy and Marines the only ones getting new weapons.

A JSOW-ER is in testing, which will extend the range to 300 nmi. It adds a turbojet engine to the weapon. JSOW uses GPS/INS guidance, with the C adding an IR seeker for terminal guidance.

DUBAI—Raytheon says its Joint Stand-Off Weapon (JSOW) will be cleared to fly on the F-35A within days.

The certification is expected following the conclusion of operational test flights of the missile on the F-35C earlier this year, which generated sufficient data for weapon integration to be pushed beyond the carrier-optimized variant of the jet.

The development emerged during the recent Dubai Airshow here.

aviationweek.com...

a reply to: Zaphod58

So is this a cruse missile? I click link not much there, picture of what looks like a cruse missile.

a reply to: Tarzan the apeman.

Guided bomb with a wing unit. It's capable of gliding 70 nmi.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Will the ER be external only?

a reply to: mightmight

Almost certainly.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Hence no reason to put it on a stealth.

a reply to: mightmight

Except for the fact that they're still going to be on the front lines after day one, when they're flying with their externals.

a reply to: Zaphod58
And they'll end up flying with other externals on proverbial day 3.

If you think about it, anything less than full aspect stealth is only truly necessary after the initial disruption of the IADS and before destroying it outright.
Let us not kid ourselves, there would not be much penetrating and persisting of stealthy fighter jets in a near peer threat environment. The B-21 as a full aspect stealth design might, but not without a lot of support and even then it will be questionable in not to distant future.
So you'd inadvertently end up using a hell of a lot of standoff weaponry before you’d go in.
And as soon as the enemy IADS is knocked out you’d switch to hauling externals again. It’s not like you can do much against pop up threats anyway.

That’s not a dig at stealth in principle but a question about fleet composition. Do we need thousands of sorta stealthy fighter jets, or do we need to focus on fewer full aspect, no compromise stealth aircraft backed up by a large conventionally oriented fighter jet fleet?

a reply to: mightmight

Too late now.

a reply to: mightmight

What we don't need is a fleet composed of lots of large bomber platforms trying to do every role. The force mix that is being built has worked, and will still work for a while to come. It will be tweaked as new threats and counters emerge, but it works.

a reply to: Masisoar

At the very least there will be the question of more B-21s or more F-35s going forward.
And also Cs vs Block IIIs.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: mightmight

What we don't need is a fleet composed of lots of large bomber platforms trying to do every role. The force mix that is being built has worked, and will still work for a while to come. It will be tweaked as new threats and counters emerge, but it works.

That's a rather naive take, isn't it? Yes, it worked in the past. Sort of. Doesn't mean a different approach would have worked too. What was the mission of the past decades? Hauling ordnance for ground support in a non-threatening environment. Every modern platform could have done that and indeed, every platform from the A-10 to the B-1 flew CAS missions.
But the GWOT was fought with the Air Forces available at the time. Air Forces still very much shaped by half a century of Cold War armament for a high intensity conflict focused on the European theater.

Times have changed though. The threat Soviet Union morphed into a truncated Russia and China has risen as a major contender. Focus on Europe has radically shifted to the Pacific and the solutions that worked in the European theater don’t work on the other side of the world.
It’s high time the US adapts to these changes. They are no longer preoccupied with fighting a global low intensity conflict and the Air Forces are in dire need of rejuvenation. But simply relying on what was done before because ‘it worked’ will potentially have disastrous consequences going forward since the Chinese no exactly what they are doing, building a force to actually fight the next war, not just relying on dated concepts of a bygone era.

It’s also not enough to tweak once new threats emerge. The changes in the threat environment are too rapid for the slow pace movement of the past. The US needs to get ahead of the curve and drive the change instead of playing catchup with the Chinese ten years after the fact.
The F-35 is a good aircraft. It’ll wreak havoc against anyone but the Chinese for decades to come. But if the US wants to confront China this won’t do. Fielding the F-35 by the numbers envisioned by the US military means committing the US to an unworkable force mix until the turn of the century.

Whether we like it or not, the F-35 is simply the wrong tool for the job, it’s woefully inadequate for the vastness and emptiness of a Pacific theater dominated by the Chinese Rocket force. As is any fighter jet for that matter.
The US needs a radical shift to long range platforms if it’s serious about confronting the Chinese. You know the situation as well as I do. Not enough airbases too far away but still in range of Chinese missiles. Too few tankers to support enough jet sorties to matter and already threatened by Chinese long range counter air. Carrier groups already on questionable ground against Chinese long range anti ship assets.

Nothing about this will change going forward. In fact it will only get much, much worse. The air war the US is sorta serious about fighting against China if it had to would work today. It’ll probably sorta work five to ten years from now. It will most definitely not work in the 2030s and 2040s. But the US will be stuck with thousands of F-35s.

Masisoar is right that is basically too late for a lot of things. They decisions made ten years ago aircraft procurement were wrong. I said this then and I say it now. We can’t change that but it doesn’t mean we can’t start moving things in the right direction.

The B-21 and the entire LRS family is absolutely vital going forward. If the program fails or gets truncated to a couple of dozen airframes the US is ceding the Western Pacific to the Chinese. The program needs to not only go forward undisturbed by political bickering but needs to be significantly expanded. On top of that most of the existing bomber fleet needs to be retained. If that means cutting 500 or even 1000 F-35s I’m all for it.

a reply to: mightmight

the chinese are building a force to play offensively just to defend their homeland. Still they are not invincible,same as the US or russia. Chinese SAMs are still not a sgood as th eRussian ones that the new J-35 weapon can hit before being detected properly. 60 nm to properly detect a f-35. the JSOW is 70 nm range,and could get more range if carried higher and lobbed faster.

originally posted by: yuppa
the chinese are building a force to play offensively just to defend their homeland.

Small problem though, their maps don't match ours.

originally posted by: yuppa
Still they are not invincible

Of course not. From a purely military point of view, containing China is a trivial exercise. But that's not what US politics is about these days.

a reply to: mightmight

Once the joint forces figure out their blueprint for the future with regards to how to effectively contain/deter/fight China, we'll probably have a better idea. I think given the long timelines that China operates on, coupled with their tactics of deception, economic potential, and their ever-growing industrial capacity, it's a difficult chess match where the DOD doesn't want to give away anything to provide China with an upper-hand for planning purposes. I know that's the standard case when dealing with any near-peer.. but China is a seemingly different animal than the USSR was.

(Isn't it funny how the countries we build up, appear to become some type of problem down the road - Japan (economically), China (militarily and economically), and Germany (economically mainly within the EU, still hesitant to join the resistance against China for economic reasons).)

So much can change in the span of 5-10 years, especially with the recent escalation of tensions between China & the US. I honestly don't have the answer for what to do but it's going to be incredibly expensive, so expendable and cheap will be a necessity. Expendable and cheap on a massive scale. Hopefully the F-35 can stay effective and remain relevant until we figure out what we want in the next gen multi-role A/C.

I definitely agree with you on needing longer legs though, we kind of sold ourselves short here given what we KNEW was going to start transpiring across the ocean.

a reply to: Masisoar

The so called 6th Gen, or whatever they're going to end up calling it, is going to be less of a fighter or a bomber, and fall somewhere in between the two. It won't be a true fighter, but will have fighter capabilities, but have longer legs and be larger. It won't be as large as a bomber, but will have far more efficient engines than any other aircraft flying, extending both the range, and its combat performance. It also will be flying sooner than we think in testing.

a reply to: Masisoar

Are we even certain they are playing chess?

Chinas meteoric and unopposed rise is no accident. The emerging economic world order after the Cold War was very profitable for certain groups of people. Same is true for what was done to Japan and Germany both before and after the world wars for that matter.

I do think different players are playing different games in the US. And I do not think those who prefer a sort of Reagan-style approach to the Chinese problem are in control of the political process. Sure, Trump talks big and all that, but frankly, the influence of his Administration doesn’t extend much beyond the White House lawn. He certainly hasn’t any control over the power brokers in the Senate or any hope of draining the corrupt swamp on the other side of the Potomac.

I do fear that those at the levers of power don’t grasp the nature of the beast they helped creating. I do think many still think they can ride the dragon, but fail to realize that China isn’t a western / Christian nation and approaches the game with an entirely different mindset.

Zaph, hopefully. Manned assets don't need to be at the forefront of any future fight and I'm glad the USAF and USN/MC are finally coming around to this (despite all the pushback over however many years). Definitely important to keep a human in the kill chain but the executable roles, especially the expendable ones, can be fulfilled by UCAVs. I definitely like the idea of a long range platform that's not necessarily a fighter or a bomber, something that can keep a forward eye on the battlefield and provide directive. Kind of exciting to think about and makes sense for where we are technology wise, 100+ years separated from when the first aircraft were flown in combat.

MightyMight, the Chinese are certainly playing chess, I just hope the US is beginning to and revising its strategy accordingly. The CCP see the world through a particular lens based on historical texts/stories/lessons (which may end up proving detrimental to them depending on how things play out), but it's all about careful strategy and deception. I just hope there isn't overwhelming hubris within the USG and DOD with regards to China.. I know there are plenty of people who do take it seriously, but may not necessarily be the people in the right places taking it seriously. And yes, China's rise is no accident, similar to how the United States built up Nazi Germany before they decided to go over the edge and we had to reign in the corporations stateside to stop helping their war production. This may have to happen again...?

I definitely agree with your words about Trump's administration and for all of his faults, he did get the ball rolling. And there has been bipartisan legislation against China, so that is making me hopeful that there won't be a huge reversal on the way we are engaging them after Trump leaves office. And yes, unfortunately China probably does hold considerable influence over our politicians and businesses, no surprise, that's the whole reason the Pacific pivot stalled and any other initiative to challenge China. No one's separated enough to be able to stop the music at the party and get everyone sobered up. Everyone is still drunk on China and wondering why some brash New Yorker with no political experience just put a hammer through the DJ booth.

originally posted by: mightmight
Whether we like it or not, the F-35 is simply the wrong tool for the job, it’s woefully inadequate for the vastness and emptiness of a Pacific theater dominated by the Chinese Rocket force. As is any fighter jet for that matter.
The US needs a radical shift to long range platforms if it’s serious about confronting the Chinese. You know the situation as well as I do. Not enough airbases too far away but still in range of Chinese missiles. Too few tankers to support enough jet sorties to matter and already threatened by Chinese long range counter air. Carrier groups already on questionable ground against Chinese long range anti ship assets.

You had me until right here. I've said for years that the Navy screwed up when it went to an all F/A-18 air wing and removed organic tankers from the carriers, but, I think you give the Chinese too much credit.

What "Chines long range counter air" are you referring to? I can and have said that the "Chinese long range anti-ship assets" too. The only that these assets can work is if they can receive real-time targeting data. What platform is going to provide that data?
You state that the US tankers will be vulnerable, well so will the Chinese tankers. One thing that you are forgetting is the Navy's new SSGN force. 154 Tomahawks from out of the blue can wreak a lot of havoc.

a reply to: JIMC5499

I htink he is referring to SAMS,like the S series from russia.