Hope for JASSM

The JASSM-ER will be one of the few solutions for USAF anti-access strike needs for years to come.

I hope it works.

This press release describes the new 500-mile range variant which compares it to the 200-mile range original variant.

JASSM is sub-sonic and since there aren't any videos of it doing nap-of-the-earth flight profiles, it is possible that it depends only on stealth to survive.

That could be challenging. First day of duck season.

Also mentioned by the USAF is its over-optimism with GPS assistance to the inertial navigation (INS) in the missile. GPS is great for the JDAM which has a short flight time (around 1 minute). If the jet dropping JDAM already has a tight INS fix (better if enhanced by a radar update), the JDAM's INS is going to hit--GPS or no.

The longer range you shoot the more updates you need. GPS degradation is mentioned by the USAF but if it is a long range shot and GPS is denied, good luck hitting much. This comment doesn't hold water:

"Even without GPS, the JASSM can find its target due to its internal sensor."

Also, if they are depending on net-enabled updates, that can be geo-located and/or denied.

What would help? Celestial navigation. The B-2 has a very accurate celestial navigation unit in its left wing. Some old Cold War ideas had an analog ones...but accuracy only needed to be good enough for nukes.

How did pre-GPS cruise missiles like ALCM off of the B-52 do it? With a terrain contour-matching guidance system (SAC SIOP=highly scripted missions) and again nukes needing less accuracy. Survivablity was based on flying nap-of-the-earth around known threats.

Bomb damage assessment (BDA) of Desert Storm targets hit with ALCM's converted from nuke to conventional warheads, with this technology of the day was mixed; and, over-hyped. Or as General Powell put it: something about bouncing rubble with million-dollar missiles; for those those that made it near the proper target.

Post-Desert Storm, ALCMs were upgraded with GPS assist.

How the JASSM acts in real combat against high-end threats will be interesting. I hope we never have to find out. Scripted range events and all that. It beats the over-sell by the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter crowd claiming high-end IADS survival which doesn't exist.

The F-35 problem is that it is too weak to take on high end-IADS and too expensive to operate for any other kind of lesser threat. Unusable for the Pacific. Current legacy aircraft that can carry JASSM have a better shot at taking care of high and low threats.

JASSM was supposed to be an "affordable" cruise missile in the $400,000 each region. What the U.S. pays for each weapon these days isn't anywhere close to that.

So, cruise missiles are it. We are out of money and any real air power advocates are retired, dead, or doing anything else.

And, I wonder, why the USAF thinks 1763 F-35 Joint Strike Fighters, still makes any sense.

RAAF boss gets it almost all...wrong

Enjoy this faith-based trip by the RAAF boss on the faulty aircraft he wants for Australia. The media laps it up wholesale with little reporting skill.

Going through the comments, it seems an alternate reality is the long-range strategy of the day.

"Our other choice is to go down the New Zealand route - it's pretty simple."

Simple thinking maybe. New Zealand isn't making the dumb decision to spend billions on an uncompetitive-to-the-threat air force.

He said Australia needed the JSF because by the mid-2020s the Super Hornet just wouldn't cut it against the planes our neighbours are considering buying.

If the Super Hornet won't cut it, the F-35, with so many faults and a weaker self-defense suite will fare worse.

And compare the following videos.

And, if we stick with the stealth fighter, quantity has a quality all its own.

70-100 defective aircraft are a quantity of waste.

"Capacity matters - and anything less than 100 JSFs severely limits the options available to government and only provides a boutique capability," Air Marshal Brown said.

"Boutique" implies that what one buys actually works. The Air Marshal has NO go-to-war example of the F-35 to look at and at this point is depending on a vivid imagination.

"You could buy more Super Hornets (instead of JSFs) but I'd argue (that) by 2025 or somewhere around that it becomes an uncompetitive fighter. You can be the best fighter pilot in the world but if the other guy has got some significant capability advantages over you you just don't fundamentally stand a chance."

Fundamentally, his logic doesn't stand a chance with the Just So Farcical.

"I'd argue the AGM-158 Joint Air To Surface Standoff Missile (JASSM) equipped (classic) Hornets with the KC-30 (multi-role tanker) is a far superior strike capability than we ever possessed with the F-111," he said.

I'd argue that Defence was too intellectuality lazy to upgrade the F-111 with J-series weapons and SDB giving a deployed package of USAF F-22s and a joint operational team, lots of options.

And as for the JASSM, how many is Australia going to buy? 2000?, 3000 like the USAF? About 260. At $700,000 each. After those are fired, the war is over. Hopefully. Fusing issues with the JASSM still are not a done-deal. There will be a percentage that just don't hit the target or go "bang". The U.S. knows the rate of those weapons that just don't reach the target for any number of reasons. Cruise missiles (and evaluation of the BDA) wasn't so great in Desert Storm. Cruise missiles have improve some since then, but we have never fired them in a network/GPS denied environment. Also, unlike the short-range JDAM where time-of-flight and a tight INS don't matter with GPS jamming, the longer longer the weapon flys, the more you risk a chance of missing in a network/GPS denied environment.

Star-finder anyone?

Australia has only fired a handful of JASSMs on the test range. That was enough to take it off the project of concern list and declare IOC.

Also, we don't have enough tankers to feed the classic Hornets and it is unlikely we can protect those same tankers.

The above in anti-access environs and less of a factor against legacy threats.

The boss finishes with this:

Despite the government's recent decision to defer the purchase of the next 12 JSFs as part of the Defence cuts in the budget Air Marshal Brown says the fifth generation fighters are still affordable and could be in service with the RAAF before the end of the decade.

"We signed on for the JSF back in 2003 - about 10 years ago," he said. "We decided on a budget, an amount for the joint strike fighter. That hasn't changed. 100 JSFs are still affordable within that original budget range established in 2003."

Define "affordable". He is dreaming. Also, I wonder how he is going to scrounge up to 3 times the ops funds for a squadron to pay for the insane F-35 cost per flying hour?

I figure the budget can tolerate to own and operate less than half of the mistake jets. Assuming one wants to fly them.

You go to war with the RAAF you have; not necessarily the one you want, or hoped for.

-

F-35 electronic warfare capability affected by production quality

A kind of progress Defence is familiar with

Australian Defence is making some progress with clearing the JASSM cruise missile on the legacy Hornet.

This is bitter/sweet news. It is good for those that believe this is the course of action for long range strike after the bad decision to retire the F-111. It is bad for other reasons.

The old Hornet is short-ranged right off the bat. Put drag on it and that goes away even more. We have a few new air-refueling tankers coming online but that is with the stress of "few". If the weapon gets cleared on the new Super Hornets, this may help some.

It makes some sense given the corner Defence has painted itself into with multiple bad decisions on air power planning.

The JASSM has some problems that it is trying to get over. That is being able to hit the target and occasionally fusing issues where it doesn't go 'bang' when it gets there.

It is wildly expensive, costing the U.S. over $1 million each. It was designed to be "affordable" in the sub $400,000 category.

JASSM is still on the infamous project-of-concern list in Australia.

Defence makes a lot of bad decisions. These days it seems to be a battle to make a lesser degree of bad decision on the class-curve and declare victory.

One has to consider that we could have launched JASSMs from a distance of over twice that of the legacy Hornet if the F-111 was not retired on a lie. Tankers, F-111 and JASSM and well, now you put our whole area of interest in long-range strike range. And, only aircraft can give you the concept of long-range strike within hours of a hostile act. Return to base. Rearm. Day after day. The fantasy home-grown sub or fancy over-priced ships do not have this ability.


H/T- reader Bonza

Admiral Greenert not very well informed

The deception continues...or maybe Admiral Greenert just isn't very smart on things that he should be smart about... like history.

"Greenert said the Navy has “no alternative” to the F-35, saying if “we fail to bring it home,” the service would need to develop a brand new — and likely costly —“stand-off weapon” that could be delivered by F/A-18E/F Super Hornet fighter jets."

Done.

The Navy originally backed away from JASSM (budget issues). But it seems like that could change.


JASSM on Super Hornet.

The JASSM isn't perfect (with USAF still having to sort out some issues). However there is a production line, over one thousand of them delivered to USAF and a longer range one being developed. It amazes how Greenert is either deceiving our elected officials or is really just that poorly informed about the history of JASSM with the Navy. The J is of course for Joint; like JSOW and JDAM.

Good luck with your new job Greenert.

UPDATE: Also an LM press release on the troubled JASSM program.
.
.

South Korea wants a low-observable cruise missile

South Korea is looking for a JASSM like cruise missile. If the JASSM worked as advertised this might be a good idea. Well it might be a good idea regardless.

The JASSM blew out on costs big time in the U.S. It still has to prove some fusing issues and is on a watch list to keep reliability acceptable for the USAF in anything other than highly scripted range events.

Yet even if the probability of kill is lower than needed and you end up with more than the expected number of duds it might not be so bad. Why?

Most of the targets South Korea would want to hit are kind of close. Spend a billion or more on “JASSM-level” missiles (whatever that means) might be a better idea than spending tens of billions on over-priced and over-hyped Just So Flawed fighters or some other option.

Yeah, that might work.