USAF considers new anti-ship weapon.

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 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.

id 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

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

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

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/ste...s01_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

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/ste...s01_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/.../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