f-35 performed its first live fire remote engagement using S

>>31346098

based

>>31346098
That kind of remote capability is why the USN needs to
1. Buy VLS LRASMs
2. Retrofit TLAMs with a terminal seeker

So you can have long range anti-ship attack.

Do not let them buy short range 1000lb NSMs and waste VLS cells!

>>31346200
>Buy VLS LRASMs

thats currently happening.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1l5MonhGZE

>>31346098
>F-35! F-35 tan! What's you're loadout?
>EVERYTHING

>>31346225
>>31346200

and for those who don't know what LRASM is

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-sNhw-aORdQ

>>31346225
That's a Lockheed funded test. The USN is right now only buying an initial batch of air launched LRASMs, and other companies complained so for the follow on orders and for a surface launched weapon it'll be through a competition.

>>31346200
As far as i'm aware the US is only interested in the NSM for air-launch and maybe for arming the LCS (though I think they've backed off on putting it on the LCS).

>>31346255
You may be correct, it seems like the only other surface competitor is Raytheon offering a terminal seekered Tomahawk (which should only be kept around for land strike since it has zero chance of making it past a decent AAW ship).

I'm pretty sure it's still being offered for the LCS, the only other option is Boeing offering an updated Harpoon (another old missile with no survivability),

>>31346254

The navy is purchasing the LRASM but calling it an interim solution. Their near future plans are a long range, accurate and hard to detect hypersonic weapon. But LRASM is what they are going with for now. They call it an interim solution because that gets funding to build them now instead of a massive investment. But the word is its s god tier asset with what it can do, so i won't be surprised it they get a massive buy considering the asian pivot.

>>31346300
They're already planning to start rolling out anti-ship Tomahawks in 2021. It's another interim solution just to give the ships some more punch, they'll probably end up buying the LRASM. Though technically I think the current Block 4 Tomahawk has already demonstrated the ability in testing.

>>31346300

The NSM will more than likely be outfitted to the LCS's as they are moving towards a frigate level shit. The LRASM is a whole different ballgame than that though. But we need a high/medium/low tier missile. It would be a massive waste of resources to send an LRASM at a north korean corvette for example...

But also keep in mind SM-2s and SM-6s can be used against ship borne targets as wells (SM-2 has been used with great success in the past).. so the NSM would have a pretty limited roll. with what we have.

But every american and anyone else who is buying the F-35 should get hard at the thought of its sensors.

Its AEGIS is hard to detect, but its EO-DAS is impossible to detect, and it has 360 degree coverage. Imagine the possibilities.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXoqb7GT6Lk

This 360 degree info is all shared to other assets as well and is used for targeting.

File: meteor-f-35-1316535616.jpg (3MB, 4288x2848px)

3MB, 4288x2848px

This shows once again the USN needs a long range AAM again. Something to stick on F/A-18E/Fs hanging back while the F-35Cs get in close and act as the spotters.

At the very least they should get in on the UK/Japan project to stick an AESA seeker on Meteor.

Amazing. The F-35 now has the same capability as a much cheaper drone. Truly, we are in heady times. The future is now.

how much does the earth curvature limit the SPY-1 radar? I thought with the 400km range SPY-1 can guidance of SM-6s by itself.

>>31346517
It depends entirely on the height of the target. You can't spot a sea skimming missile from a ship past 20 nautical miles or so.

>>31346463
Define long range. AIM-120D can go 160km

>>31346463

AAMs? AIM-120D has over a 100 mile range and is much more sophisticated than the phoenix ever was.

This new tech is all about it being able to use assets from destroyers and cruisers which carry over 96 cells and 128 cells respectively (counting the fact that ESSMs are quad packed to a single cell)

The SM-6 has around a 300 mile range.

>>31346098
>amazing remote abilities when you don't need it
>Inability to fly when you do need it
This fucking thing is a meme.

>>31346463
The AMRAAM is our long range missile. At this point our tech has advanced so much that the name Medium Range has become misleading

>AIM-120D (C-8): >160 km
>AIM-54 Phoenix(long range AAM)100 nmi (190 km)

the range has pretty much become comparable

>>31346632
>>31346596
>>31346579
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/usaf-seeks-interim-champ-longer-range-air-to-air-416828/
>In terms of air superiority weapons, Carlisle says the development of next-generation air-to-air missiles is also “an exceptionally high priority”.

File: Tyler-The-Creator1.jpg (96KB, 608x610px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 608x610px

>>31346463
>semi-active

>>31346666
checked

im not saying we dont need new AAMs. its just that tech has marched on. we do have a long range aam. its a heavily upgraded and modified medium range aam

File: F35-Testing-01[1].jpg (233KB, 1600x1280px) Image search: [Google]

233KB, 1600x1280px

>>31346517

This picture makes it easy to understand. IIRC sea skimming missiles can be detected out at about 19 miles by a ship. If that radar was put up 30,000 feet it can see out hundreds.
Thats why we have AWAACs. But the F-35 and its sensors and coms introduce an entirely different ballgame, as its passive sensors are impossible to detect as well.

It makes the F-15 look antiquated.

In fact, its like comparing an F-15 to a WW2 fighter.

5th gen aircraft are about survivability and firepower. This requires an entire new level of thinking if you're going to try to compare it to something else. It flat out does something other aircraft could never dream about.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qF29GBSpRF4

You can build a super sleek, super manueverable fighter- thats easy these days with whats known. Its the sensors (in the F-35's case) the APG-81 and 360 degree EO DAS. and the NIFC-CA.

And of course systems like AEGIS and the god tier SM-6.

File: Radar_Horizon[1].jpg (19KB, 540x275px)

19KB, 540x275px

>>31346738

fuck, i meant this picture.

>>31346738

>It makes the F-15 look antiquated.

The F-15 really is antiquated. I mean, the F-15 is one of the few fighters out there that truly is faster and more maneuverable than the F-35 in almost any situation. But in terms of sensors and stealth, they are worlds apart. And those things matter more.

>>31346991

Thats for damned sure. Though pilots say the F-35 is more manueverable than the F-16 in a lot of instances. So I don't even know if the "not manueverable" thing even stands anymore.

The USAF is spending billions upgrading its F-15s with state of the art AESA radars, but the F-22 and F-35 will be the front line fighters.

>>31346255
>As far as i'm aware the US is only interested in the NSM for air-launch and maybe for arming the LCS (though I think they've backed off on putting it on the LCS).
LRASM is already accepted as an air launched munition. It has yet to be accepted as a surface to surface missile.

They haven't "backed off" from the NSM on the LCS, it's just that they didn't have the money to put the NSM boxes on LCS-whatever this year, so it will presumably be done next fiscal year.

>>31346509
Remember, it can do that as just one of the tasks it's in the middle of.

>>31346666
That will likely come from the SACM or other Cuda-like missiles, which have the range of an AIM-120D, possibly higher pk, and are smaller. Check the blog "elements of power" for what the guy there has to say about it. While not part of that program, he's probably one of the best qualified people outside of it to talk about it.

>>31346509
Actually, no drone possess the capability to do this at the moment.

>>31346098
Vatniks and 50-centers on suicide watch

>>31346098
nice, the US finally achieved something the USSR did back in the 70's.

>>31347134
Nah, they'll just fall back on "vhf makes stealth worthless" sour grapes posting as always.

>>31346620
He said, while posting a meme...

File: VLS-launches-672x372.jpg (51KB, 672x372px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 672x372px

>>31347140

Thanks for correcting the record.

lmao

File: radarhorizon1.jpg (50KB, 588x250px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 588x250px

>>31346517
>>31346540
>>31346738
>>31346781

Radar horizon equation.

File: radarhorizon2.jpg (159KB, 1183x677px) Image search: [Google]

159KB, 1183x677px

>>31346517
>>31346540
>>31346738
>>31346781
Do the math guys.

>>31346463
Friendly reminder that the "Meteor has xyz longer range than AMRAAM" claims are based on AIM-120C5, not AIM-120D.

>>31346509
No drone has this capability.

And if you stick the F-35's god-tier sensors and sensor fusion engine onto a drone it would certainly no longer be 'cheaper'

>>31347475
>>31347483
Or just use http://members.home.nl/7seas/radcalc.htm if you're a lazy shit like I am

>>31347140
The USSR never had an aircraft guide a missile launched from another source that couldn't see the target itself.

>>31347525
>inb4 vatniks sperg about MiG-31 again

>>31347525

This. Cracks me up seeing russian shills defend USSR capabilities without understanding it. USSR shit was exposed long ago. USAF generals shill for current russian and chicom shit because they want that budget increase.

Thats why the USAF sends a unit to countries like india but puts limits on the exercise like we won't use any radar but you can.

>>31347554
The datalink system that MiG-31's had with each other was breddy good, but its not even used anymore

>>31347589

It was such a basic and low tier solution that it is pretty much laughed at.

>>31347601
Now, yeah. Back then, nah.

>>31347589
>>31347601
As far as I can dig up, the Marines, Air Force and Navy were using digital tactical datalinks. in the 1960s.

Back then the US Navy has Link 4 where it could transmit data and take remote control of an F-4 and guide it towards an area or an intercept. All during the 60s and all digital.

>>31347616
We laughed at it back then.

>>31347134
Nah, it's just amusing to see /k/tard children bragging about testing a capability that Russia has had for decades.

>>31347616
I would not say we laughed at it, but we had a more prevelent and capable system, link 16 (75' is when it was introduced)

>>31347771
Dont forget the older Link 11 which came first. Cross networking just about everything needed into a single display across every ship, every plane and across different branches like the Marines and the Air Force.

Would be interesting to know the update rate of the good ole fashioned tomahawk.

Assuming it is high enough, you could use it as a AShM with real time data updates via E-2 or F-35.

>>31347649
I doubt you were alive back then.

>>31347648
Link 4 is not a comparable system. At least use Link 16, which initially was only equipped in AWACS, F-14's and one squadron of F-15's until after the 90's.

>>31347723
>>31347525

>>31347830
Link 11 was used en mass before 16.

16 was also in a fuckload more aircraft than a few f-14s in the 80s, friend. Who do you think those awacs was sending data too?

>>31347867
Link 11 was used to coordinate hundreds of Allied ships and several hundred aircraft during Desert Storm.

This is the same system used to coordinate hundreds of aircraft, ships and send data to Marine and Airforce units during the Vietnam War from the beginning to the end.

>>31347924
Of course, it was the legacy system.

But link 16 was also wide spread. Hell, link 11 is STILL around, they are replaceing it with link 21.

For examle, the f-16c/d all had link 16 and were produced in 85.

File: link 16 terminals.jpg (210KB, 652x1094px)

210KB, 652x1094px

>>31347867
>Link 11 was used en mass before 16.

Link 11 is not a comparable system.

>16 was also in a fuckload more aircraft than a few f-14s in the 80s, friend. Who do you think those awacs was sending data too?

https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1235/MR1235.chap9.pdf
>Link 16 data communications standards and technology were developed in the U.S. JTIDS program, which began in 1975. The first JTIDS terminals or Class 1 terminals were large and were installed only on AWACS and at U.S., U.K., and NATO ground-control facilities. Smaller JTIDS terminals (Class 2) were also developed. However, because of their high cost, large size, and reliability issues, only a limited number of such terminals were procured to equip U.S. fighters specifically—U.S. Navy F-14Ds and a single squadron of U.S. Air Force F-15Cs.

Fuck off with the nationalist retardation, you are making me defend slavshit.

>>31347723
please tell us more about the mig 25s line of sight online datalink that can be shared with a maximum of 4 planes at a time

>>31348057
At this point he is just shitposting over gis slavshit datalink limited a few fighters of the same model.

>>31348098
ikr
it must truly suck to be russian or chinese...seeing the US pump out hundreds of planes that are beyond your technological capabilities capabilities (with the intention that they'll be the standard run of the mill aircraft)

>>31348115
oh please, other nations are progressing far faster than the US at 1/10 the cost. your MIC is going to collapse your country sooner or later just the same as the USSR did.

>>31348219
like who?
and not likely, sorry bro

>>31346200
>1. Buy VLS LRASMs
Planned, air LRASM already active
>2. Retrofit TLAMs with a terminal seeker
already done, although from pub releases it seems to be a secondary capability. might not have ecm/eccm/terminal maneuvering?
>So you can have long range anti-ship attack.
handled by aviation, SSNs, and SSGNs
>Do not let them buy short range 1000lb NSMs and waste VLS cells!
gibberish

>>31348021
The article is straight wrong.

F-16C/Ds were built in 85', and they all had link 16

>link 11 is not compareable..

Why not.

>>31348766
>Rand is wrong because my feels

Ok.

Now that SM-2ER are retired they should be repurposed into an air launched version for this system.

>>31352031
They were retired for a reason; why would you want old missiles with old targeting systems? SM-6 has a longer range and uses the AMRAAM's newer & better seeker.

>>31352086
Tight budgets and an existing stock of missiles. Block 2 ESSM and Block 2A SM-3 will need procurement money soon.

File: dae.jpg (138KB, 980x1040px) Image search: [Google]

138KB, 980x1040px

I said this before, and I think it's worth repeating.

I think we should all take a moment to appreciate this little tidbit:

>special permission from Congress was required to name the building "USS Desert Ship".[3] The designation "LLS" stands for "Land Locked Ship".

Kills me every time thinking of someone going to congress and asking for that.

File: 2010-Fortune-100.jpg (120KB, 1032x510px) Image search: [Google]

120KB, 1032x510px

>>31348219
>muh MIC

Cry harder, bitch nigga

>>31352626
>Walmart revenue driven by employees on welfare

>>31352623
I'm just thinking of some sailors getting told to report at USS Desert Ship, putting the address into google maps and looking confused.

>>31352572
You are talking about putting old missiles on jets that could instead be carrying (a larger quantity of too) AMRAAMs though.

>>31356159
I am thinking about an arsenal plane that could take advantage of missiles with a longer range than AIM-120, while not taking SM-6's from surface assets.

File: 1473692059510.jpg (6KB, 225x225px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 225x225px

>>31346098

>one engine

>>31356238
I know you are trying to meme, but its like, a really bad meme at this point. I'l give you credit for trying though

>>31356238
>babby's first meme
aaaw, so cute