If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 19:16:07 -0400, "Howard C. Berkowitz"
wrote: In article , wrote: On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 18:16:14 -0400, "Howard C. Berkowitz" wrote: In article , wrote: On 14 Sep 2005 09:07:04 -0700, wrote: Peter Skelton wrote: [SNIP] Surface to air technology has improved to the point where a Harpoon launcher can be at excessive risk. ISTM that the USAF wants to stand back a bit farther. Peter Skelton Which brings me back to the question in the original post. Why is the USAF taking the lead in this, and not the Navy? Because there's a part of the navy that regards surface ships as targets. Peter Skelton When did submarines start air launching? Think about what you just said. Peter Skelton OK, launching in air, not WITH air. Think harder. The USN is not nearly as motivated as the air force to develop an air-based way to take out surface ships because their primary weapon against them is the submarine. The USN is probably better off overall if surface ships are hard to take out from the air. It protects their submarine arm from their real enemy, the USAF, on the battlefield that matters, appropriations. Peter Skelton |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Peter Kemp wrote:
On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 10:02:07 -0700, (Harry Andreas) wrote: I was under the impression that the Navy was considering pulling out of JASSM in favor of SLAM-ER, which itself is a derivative of Harpoon. IIRC the USN *has* pulled out of JASSM. Yes. JASSM was zero-funded in the Navy's FY 06 budget request, and I don't think anyone put it back in the markup. -- 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 |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
wrote in message oups.com... Peter Skelton wrote: [SNIP] Surface to air technology has improved to the point where a Harpoon launcher can be at excessive risk. ISTM that the USAF wants to stand back a bit farther. Peter Skelton Which brings me back to the question in the original post. Why is the USAF taking the lead in this, and not the Navy? With 10 carriers deployed at any given time, the Navy can't adequately cover the 7 seas unless you're willing to wait days, sometimes weeks for force projection. Remember, anything beyond 500 miles from the boat is becoming a reach for the Navy unless we're talking P-3's, and I don't want to send a P-3 into any sort of hostile environment. With the Air Force, they can put a Buff over any likely trouble spot in 18 hours. KB |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
wrote: On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 19:16:07 -0400, "Howard C. Berkowitz" wrote: In article , wrote: On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 18:16:14 -0400, "Howard C. Berkowitz" wrote: In article , wrote: On 14 Sep 2005 09:07:04 -0700, wrote: Peter Skelton wrote: [SNIP] Surface to air technology has improved to the point where a Harpoon launcher can be at excessive risk. ISTM that the USAF wants to stand back a bit farther. Peter Skelton Which brings me back to the question in the original post. Why is the USAF taking the lead in this, and not the Navy? Because there's a part of the navy that regards surface ships as targets. Peter Skelton When did submarines start air launching? Think about what you just said. Peter Skelton OK, launching in air, not WITH air. Think harder. The USN is not nearly as motivated as the air force to develop an air-based way to take out surface ships because their primary weapon against them is the submarine. The USN is probably better off overall if surface ships are hard to take out from the air. It protects their submarine arm from their real enemy, the USAF, on the battlefield that matters, appropriations. My mental image was more of a Japanese science fiction movie, with SSN-21 flying through the air and letting ASM's fly. Hey, if it works for the B*ttl*sh*p Yamato.... |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
"Kyle Boatright" wrote in message
... With 10 carriers deployed at any given time, the Navy can't adequately cover the 7 seas unless you're willing to wait days, sometimes weeks for force projection. Remember, anything beyond 500 miles from the boat is becoming a reach for the Navy unless we're talking P-3's, and I don't want to send a P-3 into any sort of hostile environment. With the Air Force, they can put a Buff over any likely trouble spot in 18 hours. KB I agree, P-3s do not have the aerial refueling capacity and jet speed of USAF aircraft. Although I thought there was going to be a P-3 replacement aircraft that was a militarized version of the Boeing 737 which should have those features and should also be able to shoot an anti-ship weapon. JD |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
I was wondering if Boeing has proposed a helicopter-launched version of
SLAM-ER. Have you heard anything about this? |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Air Ops North Atlantic - Ron Knott | Greasy Rider© @invalid.com | Naval Aviation | 1 | June 4th 05 06:52 PM |
Naval Air Refueling Needs Deferred in Air Force Tanker Plan | Henry J Cobb | Military Aviation | 47 | May 22nd 04 03:36 AM |
THOMAS MOORER, EX-JOINT CHIEFS CHAIR DIES | Ewe n0 who | Naval Aviation | 4 | February 21st 04 09:01 PM |
THOMAS MOORER, EX-JOINT CHIEFS CHAIR DIES | Ewe n0 who | Military Aviation | 2 | February 12th 04 12:52 AM |
P-47/51 deflection shots into the belly of the German tanks,reality | ArtKramr | Military Aviation | 131 | September 7th 03 09:02 PM |