USAF considers new anti-ship weapon.

[[email protected]]

The USAF is considering building a new weapon to go after heavily-
defended ships. See:

http://aviationnow.ecnext.com/free-scripts/comsite2.pl?page=aw_document&article=DEMO09135

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

[Joe Delphi]

> 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-scripts/comsite2.pl?page=aw_document&article=DEMO09135
>
> Shouldn't the Navy be taking the lead on a project like this?
>

They already did, its called Harpoon. An anti-ship missile that can be
launched from aircraft, surface ships, or submarines.

Been there, done that.

JD

[[email protected]]

Joe Delphi 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-scripts/comsite2.pl?page=aw_document&article=DEMO09135
> >
> > Shouldn't the Navy be taking the lead on a project like this?
> >
>
> They already did, its called Harpoon. An anti-ship missile that can be
> launched from aircraft, surface ships, or submarines.
>
> Been there, done that.
>
> JD

Harpoon has been around for awhile now, though newer versions are an
improvement
over the original. Can Harpoon still hack it against modern air
defenses?

[Joe Delphi]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Harpoon has been around for awhile now, though newer versions are an
> improvement
> over the original. Can Harpoon still hack it against modern air
> defenses?
>

Yes, Harpoon has been in the Fleet since at least the late 1980s, but it is
still a formidable weapon. Not sure what a "JASSAM-variant" would offer
that would be significantly better than Harpoon.

What do you mean by "modern air defenses". Are you talking about the
automatic close in weapon systems that shoot out 1 zillion depleted uranium
rounds per second? Not sure who has those systems other than the United
States or how Harpoon or JASSAM would perform against that type of defense.


JD

[Peter Skelton]

On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 22:28:31 -0700, "Joe Delphi"
> wrote:

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>>
>> Harpoon has been around for awhile now, though newer versions are an
>> improvement
>> over the original. Can Harpoon still hack it against modern air
>> defenses?
>>
>
>Yes, Harpoon has been in the Fleet since at least the late 1980s, but it is
>still a formidable weapon. Not sure what a "JASSAM-variant" would offer
>that would be significantly better than Harpoon.
>
>What do you mean by "modern air defenses". Are you talking about the
>automatic close in weapon systems that shoot out 1 zillion depleted uranium
>rounds per second? Not sure who has those systems other than the United
>States or how Harpoon or JASSAM would perform against that type of defense.
>
>
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

[Kevin Brooks]

"Joe Delphi" > wrote in message
news:6yOVe.240305$E95.101677@fed1read01...
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>>
>> Harpoon has been around for awhile now, though newer versions are an
>> improvement
>> over the original. Can Harpoon still hack it against modern air
>> defenses?
>>
>
> Yes, Harpoon has been in the Fleet since at least the late 1980s,

Actually, since the seventies. First test was in '72, followed by production
beginning in '75 and initial operational capability in '77 (surface
launched), '79 (air launched), and '81 (sub launched).

http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-84.html

but it is
> still a formidable weapon.

A lot of upgrades have kept it competitive so far.

Not sure what a "JASSAM-variant" would offer
> that would be significantly better than Harpoon.

H'mmm...better range and stealth perhaps?

>
> What do you mean by "modern air defenses". Are you talking about the
> automatic close in weapon systems that shoot out 1 zillion depleted
> uranium
> rounds per second?

Air defenses are layered. If you can kill the launch platform before it can
get its own offensive shot off, then you don't have as much need for the
CIWS defenses. Or if you can get enough of a radar return to allow targeting
of the incoming missile with one of your own air defense missiles (which is
why a stealthy attack missile might be advantageous).

Not sure who has those systems other than the United
> States

Lots of countries do these days.

> or how Harpoon or JASSAM would perform against that type of defense.

Harpoon is still viable, but the base system is getting rather long in the
tooth. Having an ability to engage a well defended target from longer range,
and using munitions that are not as readily detectable by the bad guy's
terminal defense sustems, would probably be considered a good thing.

Brooks

>
>
> JD
>
>

[[email protected]]

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?

[Harry Andreas]

In article . com>,
wrote:

> The USAF is considering building a new weapon to go after heavily-
> defended ships. See:
>
>
http://aviationnow.ecnext.com/free-scripts/comsite2.pl?page=aw_document&article=DEMO09135
>
> Shouldn't the Navy be taking the lead on a project like this?

I detect the distinctive smell of marketing-types ghost writing that article.
While JASSM is a joint AF-Navy project, 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.

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

[Tom]

> 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?
>

Because they have more aircraft?

[Peter Kemp]

On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 10:02:07 -0700, (Harry
Andreas) wrote:

>In article . com>,
wrote:
>
>> The USAF is considering building a new weapon to go after heavily-
>> defended ships. See:
>>
>>
>http://aviationnow.ecnext.com/free-scripts/comsite2.pl?page=aw_document&article=DEMO09135
>>
>> Shouldn't the Navy be taking the lead on a project like this?
>
>I detect the distinctive smell of marketing-types ghost writing that article.
>While JASSM is a joint AF-Navy project, 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.

--
Peter Kemp

"Life is short...drink faster"

[[email protected]]

On 14 Sep 2005 09:07:04 -0700, wrote:

>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 the USN is the intended target?

[Peter Skelton]

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

[Diamond Jim]

> wrote in message
...
> On 14 Sep 2005 09:07:04 -0700, wrote:
>
> >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 the USN is the intended target?

At least at the budget hearings!

[[email protected]]

Harry Andreas wrote:
> In article . com>,
> wrote:
>
> > The USAF is considering building a new weapon to go after heavily-
> > defended ships. See:
> >
> >
> http://aviationnow.ecnext.com/free-scripts/comsite2.pl?page=aw_document&article=DEMO09135
> >
> > Shouldn't the Navy be taking the lead on a project like this?
>
> I detect the distinctive smell of marketing-types ghost writing that article.
> While JASSM is a joint AF-Navy project, 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.
>
> --
> Harry Andreas
> Engineering raconteur

So this might be a political move by the USAF to get the Navy back into
the
JASSM program?

Hmmm.

[Arved Sandstrom]

> 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-scripts/comsite2.pl?page=aw_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

[Mike Dennis]

> 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-scripts/comsite2.pl?page=aw_document&article=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?

[Andrew C. Toppan]

On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 22:28:31 -0700, "Joe Delphi"
> wrote:


>Yes, Harpoon has been in the Fleet since at least the late 1980s, but it is
>still a formidable weapon. Not sure what a "JASSAM-variant" would offer

How formidable will it be 10, 20, or 30 years from now? A weapon being
designed today will be in service then. Today's threats are not the
issue.

>What do you mean by "modern air defenses". Are you talking about the
>automatic close in weapon systems that shoot out 1 zillion depleted uranium
>rounds per second? Not sure who has those systems other than the United

Just about everybody of any importance. USSR had their own equivalent,
as do European navies; the Soviet, European, and US weapons have been
sold all over the world. And to call them "modern" is a bit of a
stretch: CIWS has been in the US fleet since 1983 - that's 22 years.

Modern air defenses are things like Aegis and successor systems.

--
Andrew Toppan --- --- "I speak only for myself"
"Haze Gray & Underway" - Naval History, DANFS, World Navies Today,
Photo Features, Military FAQs, and more - http://www.hazegray.org/

[Mark Test]

"Joe Delphi" > wrote in message
news:I9OVe.240030$E95.21775@fed1read01...
> > 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-scripts/comsite2.pl?page=aw_document&article=DEMO09135
> >
> > Shouldn't the Navy be taking the lead on a project like this?
> >
>
> They already did, its called Harpoon. An anti-ship missile that can be
> launched from aircraft, surface ships, or submarines.
>
> Been there, done that.
>
We're all one big "joint" family now. The AF finally has to learn how to
attack
ships. :-) Wonder if they'll have to learn to land on a carrier too?

We "been there done that" with what 20-23 CV's???? Now we have what?
10-11? I'm sure this is a driving force behind the AF's interest.

[Howard C. Berkowitz]

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?

[Peter Skelton]

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

[Howard C. Berkowitz]

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.

[Thomas Schoene]

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-scripts/comsite2.pl?page=aw_document&article=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

[Peter Skelton]

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

[Thomas Schoene]

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

[Kyle Boatright]

> 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

[Howard C. Berkowitz]

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....

[Joe Delphi]

"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

[KDR]

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

[Kevin Brooks]

"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

>

[Guy Alcala]

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

[[email protected]]

Guy Alcala wrote:
> 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

Since Harpoon can't be fired from a VLS cell, the Helo-launched
Penguin and Hellfire, as well as Standard SAM's fired in anti-surface
mode
(can Evolved Sea Sparrow be fired in anti-surface mode?) may be the
only
anti-ship missile capability some modern USN surface combatants have.

Considering that ship-launched Harpoons were used in the Gulf Of
Sidra incident and during Opering Preying Mantis (not sure about
Operation Desert Storm), is the above-listed capability enough?

[KDR]

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

[Kevin Brooks]

"Guy Alcala" > wrote in message
. ..
> 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.

But the USN does not operate under the same constraints that those services
do, and neither do we have any "attack" platforms in the Super Frelon
category.

> Sure beats closing into retaliation range

But being as we don't really envision sending roatary assets against that
kind of threat, it is sort of moot.

> 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.

Uhmmm...Penguin was envisioned as being used against comparitively small
enemy surface combatants (the sort that were not usually configured with
long range air defense systems). Hellfire even more so. I don't see much
chance of the USN being interested in trying to strap a 14-plus foot long
SLAM-ER onto the side of an SH-60 (unless maybe you were thinking they'd rig
a way to fire it from a slingload? :-) ).

Brooks

>
> Guy
>

[Kevin Brooks]

"KDR" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Perhaps the cheapest way to have a limited land attack capability for
> smaller navies that operate mid-sized helicopters from frigates.

Not sure that many such opportunities would exist; most of the nations that
operate smaller combat vessels are not all that interested in using them as
platforms to conduct land attack missions. AFAIK only two countries outside
the US have thus far expressed any interest in acquiring SLAM-ER--the ROK,
which is having them integrated onto their F-15K's (and would therefore be
unlikely to want to fire them from helos), and IIRC Australia was
considering them as a possible arming option for their own fixed wing
assets.

Brooks


>

[Guy Alcala]

Kevin Brooks wrote:

> "Guy Alcala" > wrote in message
> . ..
> > 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.
>
> But the USN does not operate under the same constraints that those services
> do, and neither do we have any "attack" platforms in the Super Frelon
> category.

A point I made below, but you said why would 'anyone' want to bother. Boeing's
SLAM-ER customers aren't necessarily restricted to the USN.

> > Sure beats closing into retaliation range
>
> But being as we don't really envision sending roatary assets against that
> kind of threat, it is sort of moot.

Again, _we_ don't.

> > 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.
>
> Uhmmm...Penguin was envisioned as being used against comparitively small
> enemy surface combatants (the sort that were not usually configured with
> long range air defense systems). Hellfire even more so. I don't see much
> chance of the USN being interested in trying to strap a 14-plus foot long
> SLAM-ER onto the side of an SH-60 (unless maybe you were thinking they'd rig
> a way to fire it from a slingload? :-) ).

Might be difficult size-wise (I'd have to scale it from a photo) on an SH-60,
but power and weight-wise an SH-60 has the same or more as a Sea King or
Cougar. Penguin isn't exactly small -- Gunston gives 10' 5.25" long x 11"
diameter, so Harpoon/SLAM is at least in the ballpark. Missile weight isn't an
issue-- carrying a pair of Penguins adds 1,766 lb, so a single SLAM-ER is
certainly doable with fuel internal fuel (4,012lb. for an "International Sea
Hawk" per Sikorsky's tech specs, and giving up an appropriate amount of internal
fuel would allow carriage of two. The ESSS on the Blackhawk is able to carry a
pair of 230 gal. tanks each side, so it doesn't appear that getting a pylon to
carry the weight of SLAM-ER would be a major problem. And there's a fair number
of naval users of the Sea Hawk, who might well want a true helo-launched
stand-off ASSM capability, as opposed to just an anti-FPB/sub capability.
Whether Boeing chooses to do this is a separate issue, but there's seems
adequate reason for someone to want to do it.

Guy

[Kevin Brooks]

"Guy Alcala" > wrote in message
. ..
> Kevin Brooks wrote:
>
>> "Guy Alcala" > wrote in message
>> . ..
>> > 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.
>>
>> But the USN does not operate under the same constraints that those
>> services
>> do, and neither do we have any "attack" platforms in the Super Frelon
>> category.
>
> A point I made below, but you said why would 'anyone' want to bother.
> Boeing's
> SLAM-ER customers aren't necessarily restricted to the USN.

Who else have they sold them to? The ROKAF is getting them....for their
F-15K's. AFAICT that is the only other SLAM-ER customer. Do you really see
the ROK's planning to send helos laden with SLAM-ER's after targets in the
DPRK?

>
>> > Sure beats closing into retaliation range
>>
>> But being as we don't really envision sending roatary assets against that
>> kind of threat, it is sort of moot.
>
> Again, _we_ don't.

Do you really think the ROK's are?

>
>> > 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.
>>
>> Uhmmm...Penguin was envisioned as being used against comparitively small
>> enemy surface combatants (the sort that were not usually configured with
>> long range air defense systems). Hellfire even more so. I don't see much
>> chance of the USN being interested in trying to strap a 14-plus foot long
>> SLAM-ER onto the side of an SH-60 (unless maybe you were thinking they'd
>> rig
>> a way to fire it from a slingload? :-) ).
>
> Might be difficult size-wise (I'd have to scale it from a photo) on an
> SH-60,
> but power and weight-wise an SH-60 has the same or more as a Sea King or
> Cougar. Penguin isn't exactly small -- Gunston gives 10' 5.25" long x 11"
> diameter, so Harpoon/SLAM is at least in the ballpark.

Actually it is some 40% longer, and IIRC a couple of inches greater in
diameter.

Missile weight isn't an
> issue-- carrying a pair of Penguins adds 1,766 lb, so a single SLAM-ER is
> certainly doable with fuel internal fuel (4,012lb. for an "International
> Sea
> Hawk" per Sikorsky's tech specs, and giving up an appropriate amount of
> internal
> fuel would allow carriage of two. The ESSS on the Blackhawk is able to
> carry a
> pair of 230 gal. tanks each side, so it doesn't appear that getting a
> pylon to
> carry the weight of SLAM-ER would be a major problem. And there's a fair
> number
> of naval users of the Sea Hawk, who might well want a true helo-launched
> stand-off ASSM capability, as opposed to just an anti-FPB/sub capability.
> Whether Boeing chooses to do this is a separate issue, but there's seems
> adequate reason for someone to want to do it.

Yet nobody has yet expressed such an interest in integrating SLAM-ER with a
helo launch platform...

Brooks

>
> Guy
>
>

[Paul]

"Joe Delphi" > wrote in message
news:6yOVe.240305$E95.101677@fed1read01...
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>>
>> Harpoon has been around for awhile now, though newer versions are an
>> improvement
>> over the original. Can Harpoon still hack it against modern air
>> defenses?
>>
>
> Yes, Harpoon has been in the Fleet since at least the late 1980s, but it
> is
> still a formidable weapon. Not sure what a "JASSAM-variant" would offer
> that would be significantly better than Harpoon.
>
> What do you mean by "modern air defenses". Are you talking about the
> automatic close in weapon systems that shoot out 1 zillion depleted
> uranium
> rounds per second? Not sure who has those systems other than the United
> States or how Harpoon or JASSAM would perform against that type of
> defense.
>
>
> JD
>
>
>

The Russians, French and Chinese have a system similar to CIWS.... how
effective they are remains to be seen.

[Richard Bell]

In article >,
Peter Skelton > wrote:
>
>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.
>
If I recall correctly, the harpoon anti-shipping missile was sort of a happy
accident. In that it was much more useful than merely allowing a P-3 Orion
to engage a surfaced submarine, before it had already launched all of the
cruise missiles and dived.

[Kevin Brooks]

"Richard Bell" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Peter Skelton > wrote:
>>
>>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.
>>
> If I recall correctly, the harpoon anti-shipping missile was sort of a
> happy
> accident. In that it was much more useful than merely allowing a P-3
> Orion
> to engage a surfaced submarine, before it had already launched all of the
> cruise missiles and dived.

Not quite. While the initial thought back in the mid-sixties was to develop
a missile aimed primarily at surfaced subs, that soon changed to give
primacy to the anti-ship attack role (the loss of the Eilat in '67
apparently being something of an impetus). When development formally began
in '68 the goal was already aimed at the anti-shipping role, and the first
version developed and fielded was the surface launched variant. You can get
the actual history at:

http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-84.html

That site has proven to be pretty reliable when it comes to missile systems.

Brooks
>

[Guy Alcala]

A somewhat delayed reply, owing to my answering other posts higher up in my
newsreader, and then getting tired before I got around to yours.

Kevin Brooks wrote:

> "Guy Alcala" > wrote in message
> . ..
> > Kevin Brooks wrote:
> >
> >> "Guy Alcala" > wrote in message
> >> . ..
> >> > 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.
> >>
> >> But the USN does not operate under the same constraints that those
> >> services
> >> do, and neither do we have any "attack" platforms in the Super Frelon
> >> category.
> >
> > A point I made below, but you said why would 'anyone' want to bother.
> > Boeing's
> > SLAM-ER customers aren't necessarily restricted to the USN.
>
> Who else have they sold them to? The ROKAF is getting them....for their
> F-15K's. AFAICT that is the only other SLAM-ER customer. Do you really see
> the ROK's planning to send helos laden with SLAM-ER's after targets in the
> DPRK?

No, but just because the RoK is the only export customer to date doesn't mean
that will remain the case. AFAIK SLAM and SLAM-ER weren't cleared for export
until fairly recently. Besides, it's not as if SLAM and SLAM-ER are only useful
against land targets; an IIR seeker provides not only an ECCM but also a target
selection advantage over radar-guided ASSMs for anti-shipping strikes, not to
mention allowing aimpoint selection and a considerable degree of real-time BDA
if a data-link is used.

> >> > Sure beats closing into retaliation range
> >>
> >> But being as we don't really envision sending roatary assets against that
> >> kind of threat, it is sort of moot.
> >
> > Again, _we_ don't.
>
> Do you really think the ROK's are?

No, but they don't need to against the DPRK. OTOH, just for a start some of the
export customers for Seahawk, i.e. Spain, Thailand, Australia, Japan, Greece,
Turkey, and the RoC, might decide that it's a capability _they_ want. And then
there are other countries which haven't bought Sea Hawks, but still might like
to arm their medium and large ship-based helos with long-range, stand-off,
anti-ship and land-attack IIR missile capability.

> >> > 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.
> >>
> >> Uhmmm...Penguin was envisioned as being used against comparitively small
> >> enemy surface combatants (the sort that were not usually configured with
> >> long range air defense systems). Hellfire even more so. I don't see much
> >> chance of the USN being interested in trying to strap a 14-plus foot long
> >> SLAM-ER onto the side of an SH-60 (unless maybe you were thinking they'd
> >> rig
> >> a way to fire it from a slingload? :-) ).
> >
> > Might be difficult size-wise (I'd have to scale it from a photo) on an
> > SH-60,
> > but power and weight-wise an SH-60 has the same or more as a Sea King or
> > Cougar. Penguin isn't exactly small -- Gunston gives 10' 5.25" long x 11"
> > diameter, so Harpoon/SLAM is at least in the ballpark.
>
> Actually it is some 40% longer, and IIRC a couple of inches greater in
> diameter.

Which is why I said Penguin was "at least in the ballpark" of SLAM/Harpoon etc.,
as compared to something like Hellfire (ca. 64" x7" and 100 lb.). Practically,
only the SLAM-ER's length is likely to be an issue -- a 230 gallon tank is
probably fatter, and a fourpack of Hellfires definitely is. SLAM/ER might need a
small booster rocket for helo use, depending on what the minimum launch speed
is, so it might be a bit longer than the base version. If required the booster
could presumably be shorter than the one required for surface/sub launch, as the
helo should be able to provide at least 80 knots (and probably more) at launch.

> Missile weight isn't an
> > issue-- carrying a pair of Penguins adds 1,766 lb, so a single SLAM-ER is
> > certainly doable with fuel internal fuel (4,012lb. for an "International
> > Sea
> > Hawk" per Sikorsky's tech specs, and giving up an appropriate amount of
> > internal
> > fuel would allow carriage of two. The ESSS on the Blackhawk is able to
> > carry a
> > pair of 230 gal. tanks each side, so it doesn't appear that getting a
> > pylon to
> > carry the weight of SLAM-ER would be a major problem. And there's a fair
> > number
> > of naval users of the Sea Hawk, who might well want a true helo-launched
> > stand-off ASSM capability, as opposed to just an anti-FPB/sub capability.
> > Whether Boeing chooses to do this is a separate issue, but there's seems
> > adequate reason for someone to want to do it.
>
> Yet nobody has yet expressed such an interest in integrating SLAM-ER with a
> helo launch platform...

Since I doubt either of us is privy to Boeing's internal deliberations or what
discussions they might have had with potential customers (assuming they were
even cleared to do so), we don't know that to be the case. It may be, but we
just don't know. But even assuming that has been the case up to the present,
that doesn't mean it will remain the case in the future.

Guy

[scott s.]

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in news:ONOdnTkqa-NV5rDeRVn-
:

> http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-84.html

I agree the site looks good, except the surface launching
system SWG-1 was replaced by the SWG-1A. I also didn't
see (but might have missed) the HACLS system for the
B-52G/H.

scott s.
..

[Joe Delphi]

"scott s." > wrote

> I agree the site looks good, except the surface launching
> system SWG-1 was replaced by the SWG-1A. I also didn't
> see (but might have missed) the HACLS system for the
> B-52G/H.
>
> scott s.
>

Perhaps this is the answer to the original posters question. Maybe the new
anti-ship weapon is intended to replace the Harpoon on the B-52G/H. Maybe
they will want one that can be carried by a B-2.

JD

[rb]

Joe Delphi wrote:
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>
>>Harpoon has been around for awhile now, though newer versions are an
>>improvement
>>over the original. Can Harpoon still hack it against modern air
>>defenses?
>>
>
>
> Yes, Harpoon has been in the Fleet since at least the late 1980s, but it is
> still a formidable weapon. Not sure what a "JASSAM-variant" would offer
> that would be significantly better than Harpoon.
>
> What do you mean by "modern air defenses". Are you talking about the
> automatic close in weapon systems that shoot out 1 zillion depleted uranium
> rounds per second? Not sure who has those systems other than the United
> States or how Harpoon or JASSAM would perform against that type of defense.
>
>
> JD
>
>
If you are referring to Phalanx like CIWS (sans DU) then lots of navies
have them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIWS

rb

[niceguy]

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-scripts/comsite2.pl?page=aw_document&article=DEMO09135
>
> Shouldn't the Navy be taking the lead on a project like this?
>

[Thomas Schoene]

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

Not so. PMA-280, the Tomahawk Weapon System Program Office has
"cradle-to-grave" responsibility for Tomahawk. PMA-280 is a NAVIR shop
under PEO (W). The Air Force has no role in Tomahawk management now that
the ground-launched version is gone.

However, as I said before, the Air Force *is* the lead on all versions of
JASSM (just as the Navy is lead on all versions of JSOW).

--
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

[Michael Kelly]

Peter Skelton wrote:

> 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

Not many BUFF's around and even fewer of them with the ability to launch
Harpoon. With AMI all BUFF's can launch JASSM and it has a longer range
with a much larger warhead and some LO. Solve the moving target update
part and you have a pretty effective anti-ship weapon.

Michael Kelly
BUFF Flight Test Engineer

[Michael Kelly]

Joe Delphi wrote:

> Perhaps this is the answer to the original posters question. Maybe the new
> anti-ship weapon is intended to replace the Harpoon on the B-52G/H. Maybe
> they will want one that can be carried by a B-2.
>
> JD

Or the B-1 as they are the perferred JASSM and JASSM-ER bomber.

Michael Kelly
BUFF Flight Test Engineer, Former Bone Maintainer

[Michael Kelly]

Mark Test wrote:

> We're all one big "joint" family now. The AF finally has to learn how to
> attack
> ships. :-) Wonder if they'll have to learn to land on a carrier too?

Careful there, the BUFF pilot I sit next to at work is an USNTPS grad
with numerous traps in Tomcats and Hornets. He didn't think they were
all that hard, but that could have just been bravado...

Michael Kelly
BUFF Flight Test Engineer

[Michael Kelly]

Thomas Schoene wrote:

> 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.

Could be pay back for JSOW...

Michael Kelly
BUFF Flight Test Engineer

[Michael Kelly]

Harry Andreas wrote:

> I detect the distinctive smell of marketing-types ghost writing that article.
> While JASSM is a joint AF-Navy project, 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.

Just as likely that there's a little bad blood after the Air Force
changed its preference to WCMD-ER over JSOW, same range, lower cost and
much more bang for the buck. Did I mention it just straps onto a dumb
cluster bomb shape. Of course JASSM lately has had a few QC problems
and that could explain the Navy's preference for SLAM-ER.

Michael Kelly
BUFF Flight Tester

[Michael Kelly]

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

[Peter Skelton]

On Sat, 05 Nov 2005 06:38:12 GMT, Michael Kelly
> wrote:

>Peter Skelton wrote:
>
>> 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
>
>Not many BUFF's around and even fewer of them with the ability to launch
>Harpoon. With AMI all BUFF's can launch JASSM and it has a longer range
>with a much larger warhead and some LO. Solve the moving target update
>part and you have a pretty effective anti-ship weapon.
>
Wasn't I answering something related to Harpoon, lo those many
moons ago when I wrote that?

Peter Skelton

[Howard C. Berkowitz]

In article >, Michael
Kelly > wrote:

> Mark Test wrote:
>
> > We're all one big "joint" family now. The AF finally has to learn how to
> > attack
> > ships. :-) Wonder if they'll have to learn to land on a carrier too?
>
> Careful there, the BUFF pilot I sit next to at work is an USNTPS grad
> with numerous traps in Tomcats and Hornets. He didn't think they were
> all that hard, but that could have just been bravado...
>
But any BUFF traps? :-)

[Michael Kelly]

Howard C. Berkowitz wrote:
>>Careful there, the BUFF pilot I sit next to at work is an USNTPS grad
>>with numerous traps in Tomcats and Hornets. He didn't think they were
>>all that hard, but that could have just been bravado...
>>
>
> But any BUFF traps? :-)

Couple of his landings felt like traps last week ;), but he was
practicing EP's in variable winds.

Michael Kelly
BUFF Flight Tester

[Fred J. McCall]

Michael Kelly > wrote:

:Mark Test wrote:
:
:> We're all one big "joint" family now. The AF finally has to learn how to
:> attack
:> ships. :-) Wonder if they'll have to learn to land on a carrier too?
:
:Careful there, the BUFF pilot I sit next to at work is an USNTPS grad
:with numerous traps in Tomcats and Hornets. He didn't think they were
:all that hard, but that could have just been bravado...

What the hell was a Big Wing guy doing getting his TP training at Pax?

--
"This is a war of the unknown warriors; but let all strive
without failing in faith or in duty...."

-- Winston Churchill

[Fred J. McCall]

Michael Kelly > wrote:

:Thomas Schoene wrote:
:
:> 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.
:
:Could be pay back for JSOW...

Or could be they just don't need it. Already have SLAM-ER in
inventory for the JASSM mission and it's known to work.

Why commit the money for a paper weapon that the Navy doesn't need?

Hint: USN tried to withdraw from JASSM long before USAF zeroed JSOW
and were told they couldn't, so throw more money in the pot. After
USAF and JSOW and the continually rising cost for JASSM, it was harder
for Congress to tell the Navy 'No' the second time around.

--
"Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute."
-- Charles Pinckney

[Fred J. McCall]

Michael Kelly > wrote:

:Harry Andreas wrote:
:
:> I detect the distinctive smell of marketing-types ghost writing that article.
:> While JASSM is a joint AF-Navy project, 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.
:
: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.

:lower cost and

Paper weapons are always cheap.

:much more bang for the buck.

Especially when it's cut back to zero bucks.

:Did I mention it just straps onto a dumb
:cluster bomb shape. Of course JASSM lately has had a few QC problems
:and that could explain the Navy's preference for SLAM-ER.

Yep. Remember, the Navy wanted out of JASSM due to escalating costs
long before the Air Force got out of JSOW.

--
"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

[Michael Kelly]

Fred J. McCall wrote:

> What the hell was a Big Wing guy doing getting his TP training at Pax?

USAF routinely sends folks to USNTPS and even foreign TPS's to ensure we
don't become to narrow minding in our thinking. My cube mate was one
such person. I also used to work with a former commandant of USAF TPS
who was a graduate of the Royal TPS in England. In both cases they were
brought back as instructors after completing their respective TPS's.

As to a "big wing guy" going to USNTPS, he was an ENJJPT grad and had
almost 1000 hrs in T-38's instructing at Randolph (instructing
instructors).

Michael Kelly
BUFF Flight Tester

[Michael Kelly]

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.

> :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.


> :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.


Michael Kelly
BUFF Flight Tester

[Fred J. McCall]

Michael Kelly > wrote:

:Fred J. McCall wrote:
:
:> What the hell was a Big Wing guy doing getting his TP training at Pax?
:
:USAF routinely sends folks to USNTPS

Well, I can sure understand why USAF might want to send folks to
USNTPS to learn how to do it right. :-)

I'm just surprised that there was room in a class.

--
"The only real kill is a gun kill."
-- Unidentified Top Gun instructor

[Fred J. McCall]

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/stellent/groups/public/documents/content/cms01_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

[Michael Kelly]

Fred J. McCall wrote:

> Well, I can sure understand why USAF might want to send folks to
> USNTPS to learn how to do it right. :-)
>
> I'm just surprised that there was room in a class.

We also hold slots open here for Navy and our allies. I've seen my
share of different uniforms every time I've taken a short course at TPS.

Michael Kelly
BUFF Flight Tester

[Michael Kelly]

Fred J. McCall wrote:
> "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/stellent/groups/public/documents/content/cms01_055754.pdf
>
> Last I checked 70 is bigger than 40.

The 70 nm range smells to me like a publicity shot like the 110 nm
Phoenix shot and is probably not very operationally representative. For
an operationally representative shot the numbers are much closer. For
obvious reasons I won't discuss ranges.

> 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.

As I said they're being dropped now at Eglin. We were surprised to hear
they were still being developed, but it isn't unusual to see funding cut
and then restored.

> 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.

WCMD-ER is a weapon that costs tens of thousands of dollars verses JSOW
which costs hundreds of thousands. Any time you cut metal for an
entirely new shape it will cost more money. As to the flight testing
stuff, I agree, any time you change something that you will be dropping
you do need to extensively test it. That cost though is less though for
a modification of an existing weapon than for a completely new one.


Michael Kelly
BUFF Flight Tester

[Fred J. McCall]

Michael Kelly > wrote:

:Fred J. McCall wrote:
:> "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/stellent/groups/public/documents/content/cms01_055754.pdf
:>
:> Last I checked 70 is bigger than 40.
:
:The 70 nm range smells to me like a publicity shot like the 110 nm
:Phoenix shot and is probably not very operationally representative.

You mean like the "30-40 miles" called out for WCMD-ER? Both are "as
high up as I can get it and as fast as I can let go of it" numbers.

As for the Phoenix, it really does go that far.

http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/factfile/missiles/wep-phoe.html

:For
:an operationally representative shot the numbers are much closer.

No, for an operationally representative shot the numbers are
infinitely far apart. Hundreds of JSOW have been fired in combat.
Zero WCMD-ER have been fired in combat and zero are in the hands of
operational folks.

:For obvious reasons I won't discuss ranges.
:
:> 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.
:
:As I said they're being dropped now at Eglin. We were surprised to hear
:they were still being developed, but it isn't unusual to see funding cut
:and then restored.

And as I said, until it IOCs it's still a paper weapon.

:> 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.
:
:WCMD-ER is a weapon that costs tens of thousands of dollars

Many tens of thousands of dollars.

:verses JSOW which costs hundreds of thousands.

For much more range (although maybe not on the BUFF - JSOW on a BUFF
is a pain in the ass, what with different separation limits for
virtually every station).

:Any time you cut metal for an
:entirely new shape it will cost more money. As to the flight testing
:stuff, I agree, any time you change something that you will be dropping
:you do need to extensively test it. That cost though is less though for
:a modification of an existing weapon than for a completely new one.

A wing is hardly just 'a modification'. WCMD-ER is effectively almost
a new weapon system.

--
"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

[niceguy]

TASM is also Navy missile.

"Joe Delphi" > wrote in message
news:I9OVe.240030$E95.21775@fed1read01...
> > 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-scripts/comsite2.pl?page=aw_document&article=DEMO09135
>>
>> Shouldn't the Navy be taking the lead on a project like this?
>>
>
> They already did, its called Harpoon. An anti-ship missile that can be
> launched from aircraft, surface ships, or submarines.
>
> Been there, done that.
>
> JD
>
>

[Paul J. Adam]

In message <aCscf.7724$6M6.3004@trnddc04>, niceguy
> writes
>TASM is also Navy missile.

Out of service for some years now.

--
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
Julius Caesar I:2

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

[Fred J. McCall]

"niceguy" > wrote:

:TASM is also Navy missile.

Not any more.

--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson

[Howard C. Berkowitz]

In article >, Fred J. McCall
> wrote:

> "niceguy" > wrote:
>
> :TASM is also Navy missile.
>
> Not any more.

TASM remains a deterrent to b*ttlesh*ps. They know it lurks and stay in
their museums.