USAF considers new anti-ship weapon.

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?

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

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!

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-s...icle=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.

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..._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

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?

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/

"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-s...icle=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.

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?

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