USAF considers new anti-ship weapon.

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.

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

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-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.

IIRC the USN *has* pulled out of JASSM.

--
Peter Kemp

"Life is short...drink faster"

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

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 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

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.

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