USAF considers new anti-ship weapon.

Michael Kelly wrote:

:Fred J. McCall wrote:
:
: :Just as likely that there's a little bad blood after the Air Force
: :changed its preference to WCMD-ER over JSOW, same range,
:
: Wrong. Shorter range.
:
:Just going off of what I've seen in the office.

"The WCMD-ER system adds a wing kit to the GPS version of the WCMD
tail kit to obtain a range of 30-40 miles."
-- http://www.f-16.net/f-16_news_article665.html

"The JSOW is a family of affordable, highly lethal weapons
revolutionizing strike warfare. This new generation glide weapon
ensures warfighter survivability by enabling precision air strike
launches from well beyond most enemy air defenses, at kinematic
standoff ranges up to 70 nm (130 km)."
http://www.raytheon.com/products/ste...s01_055754.pdf

Last I checked 70 is bigger than 40.

: :lower cost and
:
: Paper weapons are always cheap.
:
:Except WCMD-ER's are being dropped and integrated at Eglin right now.
:Probably only on paper though. It did get zeroed on my platform to pay
:for other upgrades.

I thought it got zeroed everywhere (although USAF was trying to get
some money put back for it). Did they get it refunded? Last I heard
they'd given up asking for procurement funds for '06 and were trying
to eke out $20-ish million to finish development.

Until it IOCs it's still a paper weapon.

: :much more bang for the buck.
:
: Especially when it's cut back to zero bucks.
:
:A strap on kit is more cost effective than a brand new weapon,
:especially when its a modification of a currently low cost guidance that
:straps on to the back end of a dumb bomb.

It's only more cost effective if you actually get to procure them.
Any time you start slapping things on bombs, that *is* effectively a
brand new weapon. Radical changes in aerodynamic behaviour. That's
why there are development programs for this stuff.

--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
--George Bernard Shaw

wrote in message
oups.com...
The USAF is considering building a new weapon to go after heavily-
defended ships. See:


http://aviationnow.ecnext.com/free-s..._document&arti
cle=DEMO09135

Shouldn't the Navy be taking the lead on a project like this?

I think everyone can play. Why is it an automatic assumption that the USN
has exclusive rights to blow up ships, or even be in charge of every project
to blow up ships? For decades every branch of the US military has had so
much overlap with each other that one might as well not worry about these
issues. Everyone wants to have their own navy, air force, ground forces,
nuclear capability...if the USAF wants to start a project to sink aircraft
carriers, let 'em. Arguably they might be a bit more enthusiastic at it than
the Navy is.

AHS

Arved Sandstrom wrote:

I think everyone can play. Why is it an automatic assumption that the USN
has exclusive rights to blow up ships, or even be in charge of every project
to blow up ships? For decades every branch of the US military has had so
much overlap with each other that one might as well not worry about these
issues. Everyone wants to have their own navy, air force, ground forces,
nuclear capability...if the USAF wants to start a project to sink aircraft
carriers, let 'em. Arguably they might be a bit more enthusiastic at it than
the Navy is.

AHS

IIRC the Navy still requires the Air Force to maintain some
anti-shipping capability. They particularly like our bomber's ability
to deliver a lot of mines quickly. FWIW I wrote some test cards for a
Mk65 mission a couple of months ago and will very likely plan a couple
more Mk65 missions next year. When I worked on the Bone, the weapons
loaders showed me the Mk62 and Mk65 load trainers all the time.

As for Harpoon, a small number of B-52H's were modified, the whole BUFF
fleet is now getting updated with AMI and the AF's Harpoons are old. It
makes good sense to replace Harpoon with a modification of JASSM. It
would cost a whole lot less to integrate and test and brings a longer
range, LO missile with a larger warhead to the table. Plus making JASSM
our (I am a blue suiter) primary anti-ship weapon allows us to use a lot
more platforms to support the Navy's requirement for us to go after ships.

Michael Kelly
BUFF Flight Tester

wrote in message
oups.com...
The USAF is considering building a new weapon to go after heavily-
defended ships. See:

http://aviationnow.ecnext.com/free-s...icle=DEMO09135

Shouldn't the Navy be taking the lead on a project like this?

Let me take a look into the old crystal ball...

Since USAF is upset that the Navy refuses to let it lead the development of
all DoD UAV's, they're creating a juicy Navy-oriented project. That way,
when push comes to shove, the Air Force has a program to use as a bargaining
chip that they can "trade" for the right to take over the Navy's UAV
projects.

Farfetched?

Mike Dennis wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
The USAF is considering building a new weapon to go after heavily-
defended ships. See:

http://aviationnow.ecnext.com/free-s...icle=DEMO09135

Shouldn't the Navy be taking the lead on a project like this?

Let me take a look into the old crystal ball...

Since USAF is upset that the Navy refuses to let it lead the
development of all DoD UAV's, they're creating a juicy Navy-oriented
project. That
way, when push comes to shove, the Air Force has a program to use as a
bargaining chip that they can "trade" for the right to take over the
Navy's UAV
projects.

Farfetched?

Yes. The real story here is probably less complex.

Back in the early 1990s, the Navy and Air Force teamed up on two joint
air-launched weapon projects. These were JASSM (formerly TSSAM) and JSOW
(formerly AIWS). The Navy was the lead service on JSOW, because AIWS
(Advanced Interdiction Weapon System) had been a Navy-specific program
originally. In exchange, the Air Force was lead on JASSM, because TSSAM had
been primarily an Air Force program with some joint interest. That means
the Air Force is the lead service on *any* future JASSM developments, even
ones that would appear to be completely Navy-specific. IIRC, the Air Force
was even the official lead service for the study of a VLS-launched JASSM
from surface ships that was announced last year (and promptly disappeared
without further mention).

As for why fund this now, I'm not 100% sure. It could be an effort to
regenerate Navy interest in JASSM; the Navy has killed JASSM funding in the
FY06 budget. But the Navy has also stated that it plans to use SLAM-ER for
both land-attack and antiship strikes and seems well-pleased with the
capability of SLAM-ER plus Automatic Target Acquisition. I can't see it
being seriously interested in JASSM again right now.

Alternatively, it might just be the sort of "what the heck" project that
often gets funded as an ACTD. It's not much money, and might be a
worthwhile capability, so they'll see what they can do on the cheap.

--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"Our country, right or wrong. When right, to be kept right, when
wrong to be put right." - Senator Carl Schurz, 1872

I was wondering if Boeing has proposed a helicopter-launched version of
SLAM-ER. Have you heard anything about this?

"KDR" wrote in message
oups.com...
I was wondering if Boeing has proposed a helicopter-launched version of
SLAM-ER. Have you heard anything about this?

At nearly 1500 pounds and a length of fourteen feet, why would anyone want
to bother?

Brooks

Kevin Brooks wrote:

"KDR" wrote in message
oups.com...
I was wondering if Boeing has proposed a helicopter-launched version of
SLAM-ER. Have you heard anything about this?

At nearly 1500 pounds and a length of fourteen feet, why would anyone want
to bother?

Probably for the same reason that Exocet has been carried by Super Frelons,
Sea Kings and Cougars for years. Sure beats closing into retaliation range
with your skimmer. Of course, the USN is a lot better equipped with fixed-wing
air than other navies, but that didn't stop them integrating Penguin and
Hellfire on their SH-60s.

Guy

Perhaps the cheapest way to have a limited land attack capability for
smaller navies that operate mid-sized helicopters from frigates.

The project/program manager for DoD cruise missile is AF. This includes the
surface and submarine launch TMHK.

wrote in message
oups.com...
The USAF is considering building a new weapon to go after heavily-
defended ships. See:

http://aviationnow.ecnext.com/free-s...icle=DEMO09135

Shouldn't the Navy be taking the lead on a project like this?