Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    USAF and USN Cruise Missiles

    Share

    MotherlandCalls

    Posts : 8
    Points : 8
    Join date : 2014-08-03

    Re: USAF and USN Cruise Missiles

    Post  MotherlandCalls on Wed Aug 06, 2014 7:58 pm

    GarryB wrote:The US Navy neglects its anti air and anti ship capability for the same reason the US Army has neglected its air defence and ATBM capabilities till after 1991.. and even then the PAC-3 Patriot is a limited weapon compared with its Soviet and Russian equivalents.

    I think it's because they were so preoccupied with getting all that opium from Afghanistan and fighting the Iraqi's the last 10+ years that they put all their time, money and resources into bunker busters, tanks, infantry fighting vehicles and soldier equipment. There was no threat from those enemies towards their ships or aircraft for the most part so they chose to neglect the aspect of their defence seeing as they were so preoccupied with the middle east and not even thinking about us or the Chinese.
    avatar
    AlfaT8

    Posts : 1334
    Points : 1341
    Join date : 2013-02-02

    Re: USAF and USN Cruise Missiles

    Post  AlfaT8 on Thu Aug 07, 2014 2:31 am

    MotherlandCalls wrote:
    GarryB wrote:The US Navy neglects its anti air and anti ship capability for the same reason the US Army has neglected its air defence and ATBM capabilities till after 1991.. and even then the PAC-3 Patriot is a limited weapon compared with its Soviet and Russian equivalents.

    I think it's because they were so preoccupied with getting all that opium from Afghanistan and fighting the Iraqi's the last 10+ years that they put all their time, money and resources into bunker busters, tanks, infantry fighting vehicles and soldier equipment. There was no threat from those enemies towards their ships or aircraft for the most part so they chose to neglect the aspect of their defence seeing as they were so preoccupied with the middle east and not even thinking about us or the Chinese.
    The U.S and friends (NATO) remain unopposed all thanks to the MTCR Treaty, although i am not sure why China hasn't capitalize on the +300km range Cruise/Anti-ship missile market????? confused 

    MotherlandCalls

    Posts : 8
    Points : 8
    Join date : 2014-08-03

    Re: USAF and USN Cruise Missiles

    Post  MotherlandCalls on Thu Aug 07, 2014 2:49 am

    AlfaT8 wrote:
    MotherlandCalls wrote:
    GarryB wrote:The US Navy neglects its anti air and anti ship capability for the same reason the US Army has neglected its air defence and ATBM capabilities till after 1991.. and even then the PAC-3 Patriot is a limited weapon compared with its Soviet and Russian equivalents.

    I think it's because they were so preoccupied with getting all that opium from Afghanistan and fighting the Iraqi's the last 10+ years that they put all their time, money and resources into bunker busters, tanks, infantry fighting vehicles and soldier equipment. There was no threat from those enemies towards their ships or aircraft for the most part so they chose to neglect the aspect of their defence seeing as they were so preoccupied with the middle east and not even thinking about us or the Chinese.
    The U.S and friends (NATO) remain unopposed all thanks to the MTCR Treaty, although i am not sure why China hasn't capitalize on the +300km range Cruise/Anti-ship missile market????? confused 

    I'm sure they'll get around to it eventually. The Chinese military at this point seem to be mass developing everything under the sun at the same time. I have literally lost count of all the ships that they've laid down in the last five years and all the air superiority fighters and carrier-based fighters that are in development or currently being mass produced. Then you have their aircraft carrier program which is in full swing and their new ballistic missile submarines they're in the process of creating.

    They're a busy bunch.
    avatar
    Mike E

    Posts : 2763
    Points : 2813
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    US Navy ASHMs

    Post  Mike E on Tue Aug 12, 2014 7:06 am

    AlfaT8 wrote:
    MotherlandCalls wrote:
    GarryB wrote:The US Navy neglects its anti air and anti ship capability for the same reason the US Army has neglected its air defence and ATBM capabilities till after 1991.. and even then the PAC-3 Patriot is a limited weapon compared with its Soviet and Russian equivalents.

    I think it's because they were so preoccupied with getting all that opium from Afghanistan and fighting the Iraqi's the last 10+ years that they put all their time, money and resources into bunker busters, tanks, infantry fighting vehicles and soldier equipment. There was no threat from those enemies towards their ships or aircraft for the most part so they chose to neglect the aspect of their defence seeing as they were so preoccupied with the middle east and not even thinking about us or the Chinese.
    The U.S and friends (NATO) remain unopposed all thanks to the MTCR Treaty, although i am not sure why China hasn't capitalize on the +300km range Cruise/Anti-ship missile market????? confused 

    China has plenty of 300 km+ AShM missiles, some are even supersonic. Here's are short list; YJ-12 - said to have a range of 400 km and speed up to Mach 4, HN-3 - claimed to have a range of around 3,000 km and is subsonic. There are literally to many to list! That being said, most of them are upgrades of upgrades of upgrades of the downgraded version of a Soviet missile... That or it is possible some figures are "overconfident" aka lies.

    Problem with the U.S. Navy is that they believe lots of large ships with outdated and crappy (in general) weapons equals the "best" navy in the world. Why this is I don't know, probably has something to do with their obsession of "power projections" (Yeah, cause threatening a bunch of barefoot "jihadists" with 60 year old weapons makes you look strong!!! Laughing) - I've been "talking" to someone on YT about this, and I think I convinced them... That's not relevant but whatever...

    They also believe that the LRASM will stand a chance against modern CIWS systems and missiles, I think that says it all! - It is almost like they want Russia to have the best equipment...
    avatar
    Mike E

    Posts : 2763
    Points : 2813
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: USAF and USN Cruise Missiles

    Post  Mike E on Sun Feb 08, 2015 1:14 am

    American media is wetting themselves over how a Tomahawk AShM hit a target using guidance from an aircraft... Claiming it is a "game changer". - The Soviets did the same.... with satellites in the 80's.
    avatar
    magnumcromagnon

    Posts : 4495
    Points : 4674
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    Re: USAF and USN Cruise Missiles

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Sun Feb 08, 2015 1:23 am

    Mike E wrote:American media is wetting themselves over how a Tomahawk AShM hit a target using guidance from an aircraft... Claiming it is a "game changer". - The Soviets did the same.... with satellites in the 80's.

    Really? They're hyperventilating over that? Fighter aircraft have been able to do that for decades, is it just clueless media figures?
    avatar
    Mike E

    Posts : 2763
    Points : 2813
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: USAF and USN Cruise Missiles

    Post  Mike E on Sun Feb 08, 2015 1:29 am

    magnumcromagnon wrote:
    Mike E wrote:American media is wetting themselves over how a Tomahawk AShM hit a target using guidance from an aircraft... Claiming it is a "game changer". - The Soviets did the same.... with satellites in the 80's.

    Really? They're hyperventilating over that? Fighter aircraft have been able to do that for decades, is it just clueless media figures?
    Guess so... Here is the link. http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Security-Industry/2015/02/06/Tomahawk-hits-moving-target-using-synthetic-guidance/6721423241784/
    avatar
    collegeboy16

    Posts : 1184
    Points : 1201
    Join date : 2012-10-05
    Age : 20
    Location : Roanapur

    Re: USAF and USN Cruise Missiles

    Post  collegeboy16 on Sun Feb 08, 2015 4:14 am

    Mike E wrote:American media is wetting themselves over how a Tomahawk AShM hit a target using guidance from an aircraft... Claiming it is a "game changer". - The Soviets did the same.... with satellites in the 80's.
    hahahaha, thats cute. say hello to rorsat and legenda targeting sat used to search for warships and drive home granit missiles respectively- and those were back then in the 70s and 80s, who knows how much better the stuff has gotten since then.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16281
    Points : 16912
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Tomahawk AShM

    Post  GarryB on Sun Feb 08, 2015 5:01 am

    Improvements in datalinks and the reduction in size and performance of electronics alone suggests what the americans would call game changing performance improvements.

    reduction in size of Onyx at 2.5-3 tons depending on model from 7 tons for Granit, with similar range and higher flight speed.... and in a half a decade or so Zirconium, probably in the 3-4 ton weight range with hypersonic speeds using a scramjet engine able to be launched from every new and upgraded Russian naval vessel from Corvette to Carrier...


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    George1

    Posts : 10215
    Points : 10703
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: USAF and USN Cruise Missiles

    Post  George1 on Tue Mar 10, 2015 1:38 pm

    DARPA's Anti-Ship Missile Still Less Deadly Than Chinese ‘Carrier Killer’

    While DARPA has developed a long-awaited anti-ship missile for the United States Navy, the new weapon will be no match for one of the threats it was designed to counter, China’s so-called “carrier killer” missile.

    At 15 tons and 35 feet tall, China’s DF-21D Dong Feng missile is rumored to be able to travel at speeds as fast as Mach 10 and has an effective range of up to 1,200 miles. In the event of a conflict, the weapon would pose a major threat to US aircraft carriers off the coast of Taiwan.
    Concept art of a Raytheon small satellite in orbit

    In response to the Navy’s call for a similarly sophisticated weapon system, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency spent years developing its own Long Range Anti-Ship Missile. According to DARPA, LRASM aims "to provide a leap ahead in US surface warfare capability."

    The missile can operate in antiaccess/area denial or A2/AD environments with robust anti-missile defense and fierce electronic warfare with the ability for "jamming" guidance systems. LRASM can also operate independently and under remote guidance and survive GPS jamming.

    The missile, designed by defense contractor Lockheed Martin, can guide itself to targets using "autonomous guidance algorithms" even in the absence of remote control or GPS by pinpointing strike targets independently.

    LRASM has completed three successful flight tests, according to DARPA, and is targeted for a deployment date sometime in 2018.

    As another countermeasure to China’s “carrier killer,” the Pentagon paid Raytheon millions of dollars to develop a RIM-162 ESSM "Evolved SeaSparrow" antimissile missile. The hope is that such a defensive weapon will be able to shoot down DF-21D, despite its high speed and high trajectory.

    In a keynote address on American Society of Naval Engineers’ Day on March 4, Sean Stackley, the Navy’s acquisition chief, stressed the importance of modernizing ships in the fleet.

    To help reach that goal, the Navy has embarked on a 30-year research and development plan to ensure that it remains not only the largest such force in the world, but also the most powerful.

    Read more: http://sputniknews.com/news/20150310/1019279301.html#ixzz3TzAwEup2
    avatar
    max steel

    Posts : 2979
    Points : 3011
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    Re: USAF and USN Cruise Missiles

    Post  max steel on Wed Mar 11, 2015 5:41 am

    Based on AGM-158B JASSM-ER - have long range up to 1200km and low signatures but subsonic. The time in automatic artillery an small calibre defence missile area - in 3 times more speed near target 0.3km/s than for BRAHMOS (1km/s).
    LRASM-B - similar BrahMos project, was canceled. I suppose they attempt use electronic warfare onboard - in all other cases this missile will killed. Also as a factor surviveability US seem hi maneurability but as I see this is limited by construction of cruise missile and poor for this purpose (all for long range) aerodynamic scheme.LRASM is missile for mass attack low-defended ground targets from sea .

    Very important moment - all US-made cruise missile, modern planes, drones and missiles large scale have US-manned backdoors. They can launch and moderate wars by remote control that weapon which they sold.




    Can you compare Brahmos and LRASM ? Which one is better in today's modern defence systems ?
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16281
    Points : 16912
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: USAF and USN Cruise Missiles

    Post  GarryB on Wed Mar 11, 2015 8:42 am

    Basically they represent two attack profiles that would suit two different situations.

    The long range stealth option assumes you can detect the targets ships at enormous ranges reliably and correctly identify them.

    it is a sneaky attack method that relies on surprise in the hope that by the time the enemy knows they are under attack it is too late.

    the high speed attack mode assumes the enemy is on guard and expecting an attack, so high speed is used to try to sneak through the layers of the enemies defences before they have time to react effectively... it assumes it will be detected fairly early in the attack but tries to use speed to evade interception and to penetrate the ships defences and defeat the ship.

    To be honest I think the high speed attack is the most realistic as modern ships have an array of active and passive sensors that can detect incoming threats, so high speed makes it harder for them to defeat your attack.

    For India having Brahmos means that most of its neighbours will have serious problems keeping their navies safe from Brahmos... it wont be a perfect super laser beam killer, but as shown in the Falklands war, on paper the British Navy should have been invulnerable to the Exocet... for a start they had it in their own inventory so it should not have been any surprise for them, yet time and again these simple subsonic low flying missiles defeated ship defences and sunk ships... I suspect the French gave the British the codes to disable the warheads of the missiles because none of the exocets that hit British ships had warheads that exploded on impact when they were supposed to... most just started fires which ended up doing lethal damage to several ships.

    For the US however a sneaky stealthy missile actually suits them better... they wont be involved in full on wars or wars of survival... they haven't fired a Harpoon in anger so far as I know and likely wont fire one of these new missiles either.

    If they do the naval version of Pantsir has MMW and CM wave radar and thermal optics and can defeat targets from about 50m out to 4km with guns from sea level up to about 3km altitude and from 2m off the wave tops to 15km in altitude and from about 1.2km out to perhaps 45km in the latest Pantsir-SM missile model.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    max steel

    Posts : 2979
    Points : 3011
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    USAF Cruise missiles

    Post  max steel on Thu May 28, 2015 8:44 pm

     USAF to Get New ‘Electronics Killer’ Missiles  


    A new missile developed by the Pentagon could apparently cripple all enemy electronic systems using a microwave pulse without physically destroying their targets. This has potential to change war as we know forever.  :/

    The United States Air Force (USAF) will soon be armed with new cruise missiles that can destroy all enemy electronics without harming people,

    The new technology was developed on the basis of high-precision cruise ground-to-air missiles, known as the Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile-Extended Range (JASSM) designed as part of the Pentagon's Counter-Electronics High-Power Advanced Microwave Project (CHAMP).

    The rocket is equipped with an electromagnetic gun that fires microwave projectiles. When hitting a target, the projectiles cause sudden surges in electricity and disable all electric equipment.

    The purpose is to destroy enemies' command, control, communication and computing, as well as surveillance and intelligence capacities without hurting enemy personnel or infrastructure.

    "In the near future, this technology may be used to render an enemy's electronic and data systems useless even before the first troops or aircraft arrive," said Keith Coleman, the program manager of CHAMP.

    The new technology will be a breakthrough in modern warfare, as it would save many lives while giving the enemy a huge blow.

     http://sputniknews.com/military/20150528/1022674154.html


    BE SCARED RUSSIA/CHINA BE VERY SCARED  8-|
    avatar
    George1

    Posts : 10215
    Points : 10703
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    US Cruise missiles

    Post  George1 on Wed Oct 14, 2015 2:29 pm

    US Air Force Orders $305Mln Longer-Range Cruise Missiles - Lockheed Martin

    A $305 million contract has been concluded to manufacture Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missiles (JASSM), or air-launched cruise missiles, for the US Air Force, US defense contractor Lockheed Martin announced in a release.

    WASHINGTON (Sputnik) — The JASSM is a stand-off, air-launched cruise missile that was introduced into operational service in 2009 after many delays.

    "[Lockheed Martin] will provide Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile production, system upgrades, integration, sustainment, management and logistical support," the release read on Tuesday.

    Missiles and Fire Control is one of Lockheed Martin’s five main business areas and designs.

    The production work on the JASSM will be carried out at the company’s facilities in Troy, Alabama, and is expected to be completed by June 30, 2018, according to the release.

    Read more: http://sputniknews.com/military/20151014/1028486818/us-lockheed-martin-jassm.html#ixzz3oXpFXygU


    _________________
    "There's no smoke without fire.", Georgy Zhukov

    avatar
    max steel

    Posts : 2979
    Points : 3011
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    Feinstein Takes Aim at Nuclear Cruise Missile Funding

    Post  max steel on Thu Apr 14, 2016 10:03 pm

    Feinstein Takes Aim at Nuclear Cruise Missile Funding

    US not interested in Nuclear Cruise Missiles they think ALCM, JASSM-ER is capable enough  Idea



    Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., said Wednesday she would seek to block funding for the Air Force’s new nuclear-capable cruise missile program.

    The ranking member of the Senate Appropriations Committee's subcommittee on energy and water development, which has oversight over Department of Energy nuclear weapons funding, said she believes the long range standoff (LRSO) cruise missile "is unaffordable, and may well be unnecessary."

    "Spending on this weapon, and the warhead, would crowd out other funding for higher national security priorities," she added.

    If Democrats regain control of the Senate in November, Feinstein could find herself in charge of the subcommittee — where should would be in a strong position to strangle funding for the LRSO. A spokesman for the senator later confirmed that Feinstein will seek to block funding for the weapon, which could cost in the realm of $20-30 billion to develop and produce.

    The LRSO program aims to replace the air-launched cruise missile (ALCM) program with 1,000 to 1,100 cruise missiles that represent the Air Force’s standoff nuclear delivery capability. The ALCM is set to expire around 2030.

    The Pentagon has defended the need for the weapon as part of its strategic nuclear posture. The Pentagon plans to spend in the realm of $350 billion over the next decade to modernize its nuclear arsenal.

    While department officials have stated the LRSO is a vital part of that strategic deterrent, those in the nonproliferation community have taken aim at the LRSO as a potential cut, citing its similarity to the Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile-Extended Range (JASSM-ER) non-nuclear cruise missile.

    Feinstein echoed that argument Wednesday, saying: "We have non-nuclear options, which can achieve the same objectives, and that's my deep belief. So we need that discussion in this country, about the role of nuclear weapons in the nation's defense."

    She also thanked Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., the chairman of the energy and water development subcommittee, for being open to holding a hearing specifically to debate the merits of the LRSO.

    "You have been good enough to say we will have a hearing, we will have a full hearing, where the public can hear the pros and the cons of a nuclear standoff cruise missile," Feinstein told her colleague.



    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    WHY THE U.S. SHOULD NOT BUY A NEW NUCLEAR AIR-LAUNCHED CRUISE MISSILE


    The Obama administration’s fantastical plan to modernize the Cold War-era nuclear triad of land-based missiles, submarine-launched missiles, and long-range bombers is prompting an increasingly loud and much-needed debate in Washington and beyond about whether the effort is necessary and sustainable.

    One of the most controversial pieces of this “all of the above” sustainment approach, which is projected to exceed $350 billion over the next decade, is the Air Force’s proposal to build a new fleet of roughly 1,000 nuclear-capable air-launched cruise missiles (ALCMs).

    The Defense Department and supporters of replacing the nuclear ALCM in Congress and the think tank community argue that building a new missile is necessary to maintain an effective U.S. nuclear deterrent because the current missile is losing its ability to penetrate increasingly sophisticated air and missile defenses. These proponents also claim that retaining an ALCM option for the bomber leg of the triad provides the president with unique options to control escalation and respond proportionally to a limited nuclear attack. In other words, the new missiles would augment the ability of the U.S. military to fight a nuclear war.

    In the halls of the Pentagon, where planners have spent decades justifying nuclear force levels that would make a hoarder seem frugal by comparison, these arguments have taken on an almost religious quality. Yet strip away the magical thinking that permeates so much of U.S. nuclear strategy and the case for a new ALCM is weak: it is redundant, recklessly expensive, and potentially destabilizing.

    Background

    ALCMs, which are currently carried by the B-52H long-range bomber, are guided missiles that can attack targets at distances outside the range of air defense systems. They were developed at a time when America did not have stealth bombers and sought an additional nuclear system with which to deter and impose costs on the Soviet Union.

    America’s lone remaining ALCM variant is the AGM-86B, with a range of 1,500-plus miles. Multiple life-extension programs have kept the missile, which was first fielded in 1982 with a planned service life of 10 years, in service for more than 30 years. The Air Force is planning to retain the missile until 2030.

    The Air Force is developing the long-range standoff cruise missile (LRSO) to replace the existing ALCM. The new missile will be compatible with existing B-2 and B-52 bombers, as well as with the planned B-21 bomber. The first missile is slated for production by 2026. Including the refurbished warhead that would be carried by the missile, the new weapon system is currently estimated to cost roughly $20 to $30 billion to acquire.

    The LRSO is not the first time the Pentagon has sought to upgrade its nuclear ALCM capabilities. During the early 1990s, the Air Force developed the Advanced Cruise Missile, describing it as a “subsonic, low-observable air-to-surface strategic nuclear missile with significant range, accuracy, and survivability improvements over the ALCM.”

    However, after spending $6 billion to buy and operate roughly 450 missiles, the George W. Bush administration announced the retirement of the system in 2008 due to major performance and reliability issues. The Pentagon hopes that the same fate that befell the ACM will not befall the LRSO.

    A redundant capability

    While supporters of the LRSO cite anticipated improvements in the air defenses of potential adversaries as a reason to develop the new nuclear cruise missile, it is doubtful that any target the missile could hit could not also be destroyed by other U.S. nuclear weapons or conventional cruise missiles.

    For starters, the LRSO weapon is just one element of the Air Force’s plan for the air-based leg of the triad.

    The service is planning to spend over $100 billion to build 80 to 100 new stealthy penetrating strategic bombers. One of the top rationales for building a new bomber is to extend America’s air dominance in advanced air defense environments. In addition to carrying the LRSO, the new long-range strike bomber (B-21) will be armed with refurbished B61 mod 12 nuclear gravity bombs. Upgrading the B61 is expected to cost roughly $10 billion. The B-21 is scheduled to remain in service for 50 years while the B61 mod 12 is expected to last 20-30 years.

    LRSO proponents respond to this point by arguing that future air defenses could jeopardize unchallenged U.S. bomber operations in certain theaters. Though supporters do not claim that the LRSO would be inherently more survivable than the B-21, they claim that the LRSO would increase the number of penetrating targets each bomber presents to an adversary. But in the event the B-21 can’t reach a target with a gravity bomb, the weapons associated with the other two legs of the nuclear triad, submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs) and intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), can penetrate air defenses and strike targets anywhere on the planet with high confidence.

    Indeed, in making the case for the LRSO, supporters often ignore the other two legs of the triad altogether.

    As if this wasn’t head-scratching enough, some sources say there are significant restrictions on the use of the existing ALCM due to aging and reliability issues. This raises yet another question: If the ALCM only serves a “back-up” role in the current U.S. nuclear war plan, how is it wise to invest $20 to $30 billion in a completely new system?

    Meanwhile, the Air Force is significantly increasing the lethality of its conventionally armed cruise missiles.

    For example, the service is purchasing thousands of stealthy precision air-to-surface standoff cruise missiles designed to attack targets from outside the range of adversary air defenses. Known as the JASSM-ER, the missile will have a range of roughly 500 miles and be integrated onto the B-1, B-52, B-2, F-15E, and F-16 aircraft — and likely on the F-35 and B-21 as well. The Air Force is also planning to arm the JASSM-ER with a new computer-killing electronic attack payload. The technology is designed to have an effect similar to an electromagnetic pulse. The Navy’s sea-launched Tomahawk cruise missile is also a highly capable and continually improving conventional standoff weapon, and it has an even longer range than the JASSM-ER.

    Enhanced warfighting capabilities

    Given there is nothing unique about the penetrating mission of a nuclear ALCM, devotees of the missile often emphasize other supposed attributes of the system, including that it would come in handy in potential scenarios involving limited nuclear escalation.

    The idea here is that the weapon system, by virtue of the lower yield of the nuclear warhead it carries, provides the president with the ability to respond proportionally to a smaller-scale nuclear attack by an adversary, thereby enhancing the U.S. ability to deter such attacks from taking place and assuring allies that Washington will respond decisively to limited use.

    Yet U.S. nuclear capabilities would remain highly credible and flexible even without a nuclear ALCM. The arsenal includes other weapons that can produce more “limited” effects, most notably the B61 gravity bomb. More importantly, the notion the use of nuclear weapons can be fine-tuned to carefully control escalation to a full-scale nuclear exchange is very dangerous thinking. It is highly unlikely that an adversary on the receiving end of a U.S. nuclear strike would (or could) distinguish between a large warhead and a small warhead. The fog of war is thick. The fog of nuclear war would be even thicker.

    Large or small, nuclear weapons are extremely blunt instruments, both in terms of their destructive power and the taboo associated with the fact they have not been used in 70 years. As Michael Krepon has elegantly put it, the case for the LRSO “demands a fealty to nuclear warfighting concepts that most Americans will be hard-pressed to understand. The nuclear deterrence business is most persuasive to taxpayers in the abstract; particulars require the suspension of disbelief.”

    Other arguments in favor of the LRSO are also unconvincing. The Defense and State Departments claim that strategic bombers armed with ALCMs and gravity bombs are more “stabilizing” than the capabilities inherent in the other legs of the triad because the airborne leg provides a nuclear response option that is observable and does not pose the threat of a disarming surprise attack. Yet a B-21 bomber armed with the LRSO will be more difficult to detect than the current B-52/AGM-86B arrangement, and may not always be observable or provide more potential for warning, especially in a crisis. Indeed, some supporters of the LRSO emphasize its utility for achieving tactical surprise in combat.

    The LRSO raises serious questions about stability that have yet to be fully explored. The new missile and its associated refurbished warhead could be vastly more capable than the current ALCM in terms of characteristics such as stealth, speed, range, accuracy, and yield variability. As noted above, the missiles will be deployed on the more advanced B-2 and B-21 bombers. In addition, some sources have said that the Pentagon is envisioning potential uses for the new cruise missile that go beyond “the original mission space” of the ALCM, namely in contingencies involving China.

    Furthermore, as highlighted by William Perry, President Bill Clinton’s defense secretary, and Andrew Weber, President Barack Obama’s assistant secretary of defense for nuclear, “cruise missiles are a uniquely destabilizing type of weapon” due to the fact that “they can be launched without warning and come in both nuclear and conventional variants.”

    The possible risk of miscalculation and unintended escalation posed by the LRSO requires far more scrutiny than the blithe assertions from the administration that the missile will be stabilizing.

    Indefensible Costs

    The case for the LRSO is further undermined when one considers the high budgetary costs and significant opportunity costs. The United States is planning to rebuild all three legs of the nuclear triad and their associated warheads at a cost and on a schedule that many military leaders say is unsustainable. As Todd Harrison, the director of defense budget analysis at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, convincingly demonstrates in a recent report, the cost to sustain the nuclear mission is scheduled to peak during the 2020s and overlap with heightened levels of projected spending on conventional weapon system modernization programs.

    While no one knows for sure what the military budget will look like after the expiration of the Budget Control Act in 2021, it seems unlikely that there will be enough money to fund all of the military’s nuclear and conventional modernization proposals. This will force the U.S. government to choose between the nuclear effort and other military priorities. What’s more, the president and his military advisors have determined that the United States can reduce the size of its deployed strategic nuclear arsenal by up to one-third below the 2010 New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) levels, Nonetheless, the proposed nuclear spending plans are based on maintaining the New START levels in perpetuity.

    The bloated U.S. nuclear arsenal of approximately 4,700 weapons is largely irrelevant to the most pressing national security challenges the United States faces. Retaining an unnecessarily large arsenal and enhancing U.S. nuclear warfighting capabilities will not help Washington address the challenges posed by great powers such as Russia and China. If anything, doing so will exacerbate relations with these countries.

    The choice is clear: chart a more realistic path for the nuclear arsenal that doesn’t severely constrain the force-sizing options of future presidents and reduces the risk of doing serious damage to conventional capabilities and other national security programs. As an early step in this course correction, the Pentagon should cancel its new cruise missile program and prioritize continued investments in the other legs of the nuclear triad and more relevant and usable non-nuclear capabilities, including longer-range conventional cruise missiles.

    Doing so would be far more beneficial to U.S. security than spending billions to buy a redundant new nuclear missile unneeded for either deterrence or assurance.


    Last edited by max steel on Thu Jun 09, 2016 12:13 am; edited 1 time in total
    avatar
    max steel

    Posts : 2979
    Points : 3011
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    Re: USAF and USN Cruise Missiles

    Post  max steel on Tue Apr 26, 2016 12:09 am

    Lockheed Martin to build 100 more JASSM-ERs

    Lockheed Martin has received a USD116.8 million contract to build 100 additional AGM-158B Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile-Extended Range (JASSM-ER) stealthy cruise missiles for the US Air Force.
    avatar
    max steel

    Posts : 2979
    Points : 3011
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    Lockheed Wins $322M for Long Range Anti-Ship Missile(LRASM)

    Post  max steel on Tue May 17, 2016 1:17 am

    Lockheed Wins $322M for Long Range Anti-Ship Missile(LRASM)

    Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control, Orlando, Florida, is being awarded a $321,847,403 cost-plus-incentive-fee contract for research and development in support of the Long Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM) integration and test phase.

    The integration and test phase completes all remaining hardware and software detailed design; systemically retiring any open risks; building and testing missile test articles to verify compliance with capability requirements; and preparing for production and/or deployment.

    This phase also:
    -- completes full system integration;
    -- incorporates an affordable and executable LRASM manufacturing process into the existing Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile – Extended Range production process;
    -- examines and defines the logistics footprint;
    -- designs for producibility;
    -- ensures affordability;
    -- protects critical program information by implementing appropriate techniques such as anti-tamper and cybersecurity; and
    -- demonstrates system integration, interoperability, safety and utility.

    Work will be performed in Orlando, Florida (60 percent); Troy, Alabama (30 percent); and Ocala, Florida (10 percent), and is expected to be completed in August, 2019.

    Fiscal 2016 research, development, test and evaluation (Navy) funds in the amount of $42,000,000 will be obligated at time of award, none of which will expire at the end of the fiscal year.

    This contract was not competitively procured pursuant to Federal Acquisition Regulation 6.302-1.

    The Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, Maryland, is the contracting activity (N00019-16-C-0035).
    avatar
    max steel

    Posts : 2979
    Points : 3011
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    Re: USAF and USN Cruise Missiles

    Post  max steel on Mon Jun 06, 2016 1:01 pm

    Joint Air-to-Ground Missile Fired From Drone

    The missile intended to ultimately replace the Hellfire was fired from a Gray Eagle unmanned aircraft system and hit a moving truck target at Dugway Proving Ground, Utah, according to the US Army’s Joint Attack Munition Systems project manager.

    Col. James Romero, who works out of the Missiles and Space Program Executive Office, which also manages Hellfire and Hydra 2.75 inch rockets, said the Joint Air-to-Ground Missile (JAGM) flew at a range of “slightly longer” than 8 kilometers at a “nominal altitude” as Predator unmanned aerial vehicles operate. The missile, intended to be fired from a variety of aircraft, engaged a moving truck on the ground traveling about 20 mph.

    The May 25 test marks the first time the JAGM missile was tested on an unmanned aircraft system.

    “This missile has several modes and the missile successfully engaged the target without having to track and perfectly aimed the platform at that target,” Romero said. “So this missile is really flexible in that it allows the pilot to sometimes be engaged or track the target the entire time or to leave the engagement and let the missile finish its engagement on its own.”

    The Gray Eagle test was the seventh flight test for the JAGM missile. The missile was previously tested on Apache attack helicopters and Marine Corps Cobra helicopters.

    The $66 million JAGM missile engineering and manufacturing development contract was awarded to Lockheed Martin last summer. The contract could ultimately be worth up to $186 million, as it includes two additional options for low-rate initial production valued at about $60 million each, the Army has said.

    The missile is designed to hit stationary and moving targets, and is intended to reach initial operational fielding in 2018, according to Romero.

    At the end of 2017, the Army will conduct a limited user test with pilots firing JAGM missiles from Apaches in what is believed to be typical operational scenarios, Romero noted.

    Starting in August, the Army plans to take production quality missiles through the paces, testing JAGM for safety and lethality in all environments. An important part of the EMD phase, Romero said, will be to get JAGM air worthiness releases to be deployed on Apaches and Cobras.

    The JAGM missile’s threshold requirements are to fly on the Apache and Cobra, Romero said, but the Army is considering what other platforms on which to test JAGM’s capability — defined as “objective” requirements. Gray Eagle is an obvious candidate considering it carries Hellfire and also will be teamed with Apaches in reconnaissance missions.
    avatar
    max steel

    Posts : 2979
    Points : 3011
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    Re: USAF and USN Cruise Missiles

    Post  max steel on Sat Jun 18, 2016 8:10 pm

    Nuclear Cruise Missile Survives Challenge in House

    The House today defeated an amendment to defund a new nuclear cruise missile program for the Air Force , despite a slowly rising chorus of influential voices arguing against the weapon.

    Proponents of the Long Range Stand-Off (LRSO) cruise missile say it is a vital part of US strategic posture for the future. The LRSO will replace the Air-Launched Cruise Missile (ALCM) program with 1,000 to 1,100 cruise missiles, representing the Air Force’s stand-off nuclear delivery capability. The ALCM program is scheduled to age out in 2030.

    However, critics of the US nuclear modernization strategy have zeroed in on the LRSO as a potential cut, arguing that its similarity to existing US weapons such as the Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile-Extended Range mean it could be cut without dramatically altering America’s strategic posture.

    In its budget request released in February, the Pentagon requested $95.6 million for the weapons in its fiscal 2017 budget, and $2.2 billion over the next five years. But since then, some in Congress have grown increasingly vocal in questioning the necessity of the weapon.

    An amendment to cut $75.8 million from the LRSO program, introduced by Rep. Mike Quigley, D-Il., fell 159-261. The vote was largely partisan, although five GOP members voted in favor of the amendment while 26 Democrats voted against it. House lawmakers defeated an amendment to the defense spending bill that would have defunded the LRSO program in fiscal year 2017.

    But the fact that more than a third of the House voted against a weapon the Pentagon and administration have both described as key to strategic deterrence could signify that the weapon is vulnerable as budgets tighten.


    Notably, Rep. Adam Smith, D-Wa., was a co-sponsor on Quigley’s amendment. Smith, the top Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, is an influential voice on defense issues. Another influential Democrat, Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, has said she will try to block funding in the Senate for the weapon.
    avatar
    max steel

    Posts : 2979
    Points : 3011
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    Re: USAF and USN Cruise Missiles

    Post  max steel on Wed Jun 22, 2016 10:22 pm

    JSOW C-1 achieves IOC



    The US Navy (USN) has begun to deliver the Raytheon AGM-154C-1 Joint Standoff Weapon (JSOW) to the fleet following declaration of Initial Operational Capability (IOC) in early June.

    The JSOW is a medium-range air-to-surface precision-guided glide weapon employing a GPS/inertial navigation system and a terminal imaging infrared (IR) seeker. The JSOW C-1 variant adds a two-way Link 16 Strike Weapon Data Link and upgraded seeker software to meet the navy's requirements for a network-enabled weapon able to precisely strike moving maritime targets at ranges up to and beyond 100 km (54 n miles).

    Characterised as the USN's first air-to-surface network-enabled weapon, the JSOW C-1 variant adds a new Moving Maritime Target capability. Link 16 connectivity enables the weapon to receive target position updates from its launch aircraft or another designated controller to provide real-time target updates to the weapon, reassign it to another target, or abort the mission. The IR seeker performs precision terminal guidance, with target image recognition/matching enabled by an onboard data file containing ship profile characteristics.

    IOC was declared by Rear Admiral DeWolfe Miller III, USN Director, Air Warfare, after JSOW-C1 completed operational testing against land and sea targets. The weapon will initially be deployed from the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet; it will later equip the F-35A/C variants of the Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter.
    avatar
    max steel

    Posts : 2979
    Points : 3011
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    Re: USAF and USN Cruise Missiles

    Post  max steel on Fri Jun 24, 2016 2:31 pm




    Boeing Defense's Sleek Next-Generation Cruise Missile
    avatar
    George1

    Posts : 10215
    Points : 10703
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: USAF and USN Cruise Missiles

    Post  George1 on Sun Nov 13, 2016 2:24 pm

    The US Air Force has released a request for proposals for its new Long Range Standoff (LRSO) nuclear cruise missile program. It wants the new weapon to be able to outwit Russia's state-of-the-art S-300 and S-400 air defense systems with the announced purpose to "keep the peace" in the world.

    Read more: https://sputniknews.com/us/201611111047339091-us-new-cruise-missile/


    _________________
    "There's no smoke without fire.", Georgy Zhukov

    avatar
    George1

    Posts : 10215
    Points : 10703
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: USAF and USN Cruise Missiles

    Post  George1 on Wed Nov 30, 2016 10:17 pm

    American corporation Lockeed Martin released a teaser of its official anti-ship missile AGM-158C LRASM (antiship variant aircraft operational-tactical missiles AGM-158A JASSM). As the target is clearly visible missile cruiser Project 1164.



    http://bmpd.livejournal.com/2294292.html


    _________________
    "There's no smoke without fire.", Georgy Zhukov

    avatar
    George1

    Posts : 10215
    Points : 10703
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: USAF and USN Cruise Missiles

    Post  George1 on Thu Jan 19, 2017 2:42 pm

    Established in 1980 cruise missile TLAM (Tomahawk Land Attack Cruise Missile) will become a universal weapon of the 21st century.

    Launch of the new version, named as the Maritime Strike Tomahawk (MST), will be able to divert to another goal and go into service ships and submarines. It is reported that the US Navy impressed with the capabilities of the new version of the CD, serial production will start this year, the overall needs amount to about 4,000 units.

    The missile, equipped TTWCS management system (Tactical Tomahawk Weapon Control System), capable of hitting both fixed and moving targets. It is noted that the CD is developed powerful thermobaric warhead.

    http://vpk.name/news/172932_tomagavk_morskogo_udara.html


    _________________
    "There's no smoke without fire.", Georgy Zhukov

    avatar
    George1

    Posts : 10215
    Points : 10703
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: USAF and USN Cruise Missiles

    Post  George1 on Fri Jun 02, 2017 4:44 pm

    Lockheed Martin Inks $413Mln to Produce Joint Standoff Missile for US Air Force

    The Department of Defense announced that Lockheed Martin has been awarded more than a $413-million contract to manufacture 360 extended range air-to-surface missile for the US Air Force.

    WASHINGTON (Sputnik) — Lockheed Martin has been awarded more than a $413-million contract to manufacture 360 extended range air-to-surface missile for the US Air Force, the Department of Defense announced in a press release.

    "Lockheed Martin has been awarded a $413,854,079 contract for Lot 15 Joint Air-to —Surface Standoff Missile-Extended Range (JASSM-ER) production," the release stated on Thursday. "Contractor will provide 360 JASSM-ER missiles and tooling and test equipment."

    The JASSM-ER is an autonomous precision-guided standoff missile used against well-fortified, fixed and moving targets outside the range of enemy air defenses.

    Akin to a cruise missile, it employs inertial navigation, the global positioning system and its infrared sensors to seek and destroy its targets.

    https://sputniknews.com/military/201706021054227479-lockheed-produce-usaf-missile/


    _________________
    "There's no smoke without fire.", Georgy Zhukov


    Sponsored content

    Re: USAF and USN Cruise Missiles

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Fri Aug 18, 2017 3:21 am