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