USAF considers new anti-ship weapon.

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.

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

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

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

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

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....

"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

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