AARGM-ER cleared for EMD [for F-35A/C & other aircraft]

F-35 Armament, fuel tanks, internal and external hardpoints, loadouts, and other stores.
  • Author
  • Message
Online

boogieman

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 347
  • Joined: 19 Aug 2019, 03:26

Unread post27 Apr 2020, 22:26

marauder2048 wrote:
boogieman wrote:
marauder2048 wrote:The author does not identity the APS type.

https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/1038759.pdf

On closer inspection this appears to be somebody's masters thesis (ie. not really an official US Army document) and a pretty rough one at that. AFAIK of all Russian active protection systems only the Afghanit APS could plausibly respond to a top attack sensor fuzed munition, and the only countermeasure it has available is a last-ditch smoke screen. Even so, the Afghanit is unique to the T14, which is unlikely to be fielded in significant quantities for quite some time (if ever).



Which is why I said semi-official. The author's opinion about APS vs. SFM is on page 60.
The author is a program manager in the area of cannon/rocket delivery of anti-armor/anti-infantry munitions.

So I'm going to attach a little more weight to his opinions.

Yes I saw that. He says that two specific types of SFM "could" experience difficulty penetrating the combination of APS and ERA, but doesn't elaborate on how or why.

At any rate we can only go on what's in the public domain, and the available information on Russian active protection systems suggests they have little or no ability to respond to a true top-down projectile. As I said earlier I am sure this will change, I just haven't seen the information to say that it has yet.
Offline

marauder2048

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1453
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post27 Apr 2020, 22:41

ricnunes wrote:
marauder2048 wrote:JSOW-C1 was a defensive move on the Navy's part of avoid being co-opted into a JASSM Maritime Interdiction buy.
Which failed; the Navy killed the JSOW-C1 purchase pretty quickly and is buying LRASM.


Do you have a source for such claim of yours?



https://www.defensedaily.com/navy-seeks-harpoon-jsow-upgrades-rather-than-using-air-force-jassm-for-maritime-interdiction-missions/homeland-security/

So that's most of the background. Recall, the Navy was the Joint part of the Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile.
They opted out of it. Then they were really forced back into it (or at least a variant) by reality and OSD.

ricnunes wrote:
I'm asking this because everything I've read points out exactly for the 'opposite', or more precisely the US Navy is fielding the JSOW-C1 which already achieved Full Operational Capability with the US Navy.
So and don't get me wrong but it sure doesn't seem to me that the US Navy is killing "the JSOW-C1 purchase" but by the contrary.
Or putting into another perspective, JSOW-C1 and LRASM purchases aren't or don't seem to be mutually exclusive.



The Navy stopped buying JSOW-C1 way back in FY2015 and it was on life-support (minimum sustaining rates) since
FY2013. From the FY2016 budget:

The Department has determined that there are sufficient JSOW C (fixed target) and JSOW C-1
(maritime moving target) weapons in inventory, and that other weapons will provide a much more formidable capability in future near-peer surface warfare engagements.


I'm sure most of the accelerated C-1 on F-35 is in prep for JSOW-ER and a recognition that
C-1 isn't particularly useful on the Super Hornet in a high-end threat environment.

JSOW-ER is practically a different weapon: new warhead, new propulsion stack.
And as before, Lockheed pitched a version of JASSM to meet the Navy's requirements.

What's not clear to me is if JSOW-ER units are upgraded C-1s or new builds.
Offline

marauder2048

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1453
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post27 Apr 2020, 23:07

boogieman wrote:
At any rate we can only go on what's in the public domain, and the available information on Russian active protection systems suggests they have little or no ability to respond to a true top-down projectile. As I said earlier I am sure this will change, I just haven't seen the information to say that it has yet.


This document is in the public domain and is written by someone who would quality as an expert witness on the matter.
I also don't read Karber's account as conflating an APS with a SACLOS jammer. I don't know if Arena ever got deployed
but the Army's Armor publication from May-June 1998 attributes capability against top-attack munitions.
Online

boogieman

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 347
  • Joined: 19 Aug 2019, 03:26

Unread post27 Apr 2020, 23:24

marauder2048 wrote:
boogieman wrote:
At any rate we can only go on what's in the public domain, and the available information on Russian active protection systems suggests they have little or no ability to respond to a true top-down projectile. As I said earlier I am sure this will change, I just haven't seen the information to say that it has yet.


This document is in the public domain and is written by someone who would quality as an expert witness on the matter.
I also don't read Karber's account as conflating an APS with a SACLOS jammer.

From the horse's mouth:

(45:33)
I don't know if Arena ever got deployed
but the Army's Armor publication from May-June 1998 attributes capability against top-attack munitions.

Can you point me to that?
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2783
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post27 Apr 2020, 23:28

marauder2048 wrote:
https://www.defensedaily.com/navy-seeks-harpoon-jsow-upgrades-rather-than-using-air-force-jassm-for-maritime-interdiction-missions/homeland-security/

So that's most of the background. Recall, the Navy was the Joint part of the Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile.
They opted out of it. Then they were really forced back into it (or at least a variant) by reality and OSD.


Your link doesn't state that the US Navy isn't procuring the JSOW-C1, by the contrary actually! Your link states that the US Navy won't procure the JASSM (and again not the JSOW-C1).

Actually your link confirms that the US navy will procure the JSOW-C1 and use it as one of its main weapons for the job.
For instance, you can read in your link the following:

"Is the Navy pursuing JASSM? No. The Navy is not pursuing JASSM,"

...


But right now we have Harpoon and SLAM-ER and in the near term Harpoon Block III and JSOW-C1, for the [Navy] maritime interdiction road map."

...

The Navy will soon have its own data linked weapons: Harpoon Block III and JSOW-C1, C1 which is integrating a data link into a JSOW to effectively engage maritime moving targets, specifically ships at sea, Winter said.

"Harpoon Block III and JSOW-C1 are our family of networked enabled weapons," he said. "We are in currently in development of both those and they share a similar acquisition strategy of modifying current capability."

"So Harpoon III and JSOW-C1 are, right now, material solutions in development to address Navy’s warfighter capability gap of cluttered maritime environments,"




marauder2048 wrote:The Navy stopped buying JSOW-C1 way back in FY2015 and it was on life-support (minimum sustaining rates) since
FY2013. From the FY2016 budget:

The Department has determined that there are sufficient JSOW C (fixed target) and JSOW C-1
(maritime moving target) weapons in inventory, and that other weapons will provide a much more formidable capability in future near-peer surface warfare engagements.



Well the sources that I posted which are from 2017 - JSOW C-1 Achieves Full Operational Capability - and another from this year in my last post somehow contradicts with what you posted above. And again the source that you stated doesn't mention the above. So, what's the source of your quote above?

Moreover if what you said above is accurate then it surely doesn't mean that the US navy "killed the JSOW-C1", totally and completely by the contrary! It only means that the US Navy feels that it already has enough JSOW-C1 in their inventory. So, if you already have enough weapons in your inventory, why buy more?


marauder2048 wrote:JSOW-ER is practically a different weapon: new warhead, new propulsion stack.
And as before, Lockheed pitched a version of JASSM to meet the Navy's requirements.

What's not clear to me is if JSOW-ER units are upgraded C-1s or new builds.


Err, I don't think so.
From everything that I read so far about the JSOW-ER is that it's basically the same weapon (or at least a very, very closely related one) but fitted with small jet engine which obviously extends the JSOW-ER range compared to the unpowered JSOW.
For example in the link below:
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/2 ... side-f-35c

one can read the following:
The JSOW-ER will otherwise retain many of the features of the existing JSOW-C, including its guidance package, according to NAVAIR’s notice.


and specially the following:
One of the biggest benefits of the unpowered JSOW's design was, and still is, its spacious modular payload bay that can accept any warhead based around the standard 500-pound-class low-drag bomb design. The JSOW-ER's need to accommodate a jet engine and fuel will have an impact on the maximum warhead size, but it's not clear whether it might still be able to readily accept new payloads that fit within those constraints.


So the JSOW-ER should basically be a JSOW with a somehow more limited warhead payload due to the small jet engine and its fuel being fitted.

Moreover when you stated that:
"What's not clear to me is if JSOW-ER units are upgraded C-1s or new builds."
You clearly hinted that both the JSOW and JSOW-ER are very similar (if not almost the same) weapons or else an upgrade from JSOW to the JSOW-ER wouldn't be possible.
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Online

boogieman

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 347
  • Joined: 19 Aug 2019, 03:26

Unread post28 Apr 2020, 00:59

boogieman wrote:
I don't know if Arena ever got deployed
but the Army's Armor publication from May-June 1998 attributes capability against top-attack munitions.

Can you point me to that?

Nevermind I found it:
https://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/docs/3aps98.pdf

Further digging suggests the original Arena design could detect incoming projectiles up to an elevation of 65deg. This would be a problem for Javelin and TOW2, but shouldn't beat SFMs coming down at steeper angles. The one caveat being that the Russians have now moved on from Arena-E to Arena-M, which may expand the engagement envelope. Information on the newer system seems to be scarce though.
Offline

marauder2048

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1453
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post28 Apr 2020, 03:04

Original claim:

the Navy killed the JSOW-C1 purchase pretty quickly


Here's the buy profile for FY2013.

fy13-jsow-c-1-buy-profile.png


Here's the buy profile for FY2016 that includes the quote I have above.

fy2016-jsow-c1-buy-profile.png


That's killing the buy pretty quickly for a program that only started procurement in FY2009
and was supposed to go through the FYDP and still had thousands of rounds outside of the FYDP.
Offline

marauder2048

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1453
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post28 Apr 2020, 03:57

boogieman wrote:
boogieman wrote:
I don't know if Arena ever got deployed
but the Army's Armor publication from May-June 1998 attributes capability against top-attack munitions.

Can you point me to that?

Nevermind I found it:
https://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/docs/3aps98.pdf

Further digging suggests the original Arena design could detect incoming projectiles up to an elevation of 65deg. This would be a problem for Javelin and TOW2, but shouldn't beat SFMs coming down at steeper angles. The one caveat being that the Russians have now moved on from Arena-E to Arena-M, which may expand the engagement envelope. Information on the newer system seems to be scarce though.


And if you're a sensible program manager for cannon/artillery delivered anti-tank munitions which caveat/suggestion
do you heed: the one that indicates that threat APS has utility against SFMs or the one that doesn't?

I'd argue that the fact the US has gone the route of an anti-armor, hit-to-kill version of Excalibur is evidence
that they heeded the former.
Online

boogieman

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 347
  • Joined: 19 Aug 2019, 03:26

Unread post28 Apr 2020, 04:45

marauder2048 wrote:And if you're a sensible program manager for cannon/artillery delivered anti-tank munitions which caveat/suggestion
do you heed: the one that indicates that threat APS has utility against SFMs or the one that doesn't?

I'd argue that the fact the US has gone the route of an anti-armor, hit-to-kill version of Excalibur is evidence
that they heeded the former.

Yes, that is just sensible future-proofing to guarantee the round has overmatch against its intended target set in the decade(s) to come. That said, I suspect it will be some time before APS systems capable of defeating SFMs become commonplace among Russian tanks and IFVs, and longer still until they are found on their air defence vehicles (if ever).
Offline

bring_it_on

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 977
  • Joined: 30 Apr 2014, 14:32

Unread post28 Apr 2020, 13:59

ricnunes wrote:So the JSOW-ER should basically be a JSOW with a somehow more limited warhead payload due to the small jet engine and its fuel being fitted.
.


JSOW-ER is basically the same but with a new smaller warhead, a motor, a fuel tank, avionics upgrades, software upgrades, and a 5 year EMD program. This is akin to saying that the USAF's SiAW is essentially an AGM-88E. :mrgreen:
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2783
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post29 Apr 2020, 20:27

marauder2048 wrote:That's killing the buy pretty quickly for a program that only started procurement in FY2009
and was supposed to go through the FYDP and still had thousands of rounds outside of the FYDP.


First of all, thanks for the source :thumb:

However, after 6 years in full production (2009-2015) which produced 5168 JSOW C-1 units (source, US Navy procurement 2018, whose document/link I'll post below) which by its turn are being maintained is very, very far from "killing the program quickly":
https://www.secnav.navy.mil/fmc/fmb/Doc ... N_Book.pdf

Another indication that the JSOW C-1 program doesn't seem to have been "killed quickly" lies in your own source. For example, 4,756 JSOW C-1's were procured between 2009 and 2013, while 212 were procured in 2014 and 200 were procured in 2015. Again, this doesn't seem to be an abrupt and quick killing of a program.

Moreover on the source that I posted above you can read that the Navy is fully committed to maintaining the JSOW C-1 where for example in 2017 the Navy spent $2.232 Million USD while in 2018 it spent $5.487 Million USD, this for keeping the weapon in service. If this isn't being fully committed to the weapon then I wonder what would be? :wink:

So and together with the above, I would say that the part you quoted above:
Production of the JSOW missile will be terminated in FY2016 following the FY2015 FRP11 AUR procurement. The Department has determined that there are sufficient JSOW C (fixed target) and JSOW C-1 (maritime moving target) weapons in inventory, and that other weapons will provide a much more formidable capability in future near-peer surface warfare engagements.

means like mentioned in the quote above that there are already sufficient quantities of the weapon (JSOW C-1) in stock and other "more formidable capability weapons" (such as as LRASM, I imagine) will complement the JSOW C-1.

Anyway and IMO, 5168 JSOW C-1 units would be more than enough for the F-35C fleet while other longer ranged weapons such as the LRASM could be allocated (like you mentioned) to the (non-stealth) Super Hornet fleet.
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline

wolfpak

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 145
  • Joined: 12 Jan 2014, 19:26

Unread post29 Apr 2020, 21:24

It looks like the JSOW C-1 reached IOC in June of 2016 and FOC in October of 2017. The earlier JSOW AGM-154C has been in service a lot longer.

https://navaltoday.com/2017/10/12/us-na ... apability/
Offline

bring_it_on

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 977
  • Joined: 30 Apr 2014, 14:32

Unread post29 Apr 2020, 21:51

I believe the original Navy requirement for the weapon was in excess of 7,000 units.
Offline

marauder2048

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1453
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post29 Apr 2020, 21:57

ricnunes wrote:
marauder2048 wrote:That's killing the buy pretty quickly for a program that only started procurement in FY2009
and was supposed to go through the FYDP and still had thousands of rounds outside of the FYDP.


First of all, thanks for the source :thumb:

However, after 6 years in full production (2009-2015) which produced 5168 JSOW C-1 units (source, US Navy procurement 2018, whose document/link I'll post below) which by its turn are being maintained is very, very far from "killing the program quickly":
https://www.secnav.navy.mil/fmc/fmb/Doc ... N_Book.pdf


That's a misinterpretation of the prior years figure: that includes all JSOW variants (A/B/C/C-1) ever procured to that point.

The Navy was forecasting a total buy of ~5500 JSOW-C1s from FY2009 - FY2022.

The Navy killed procurement at ~1600 JSOW-C1s procured between FY2009 - FY2015.

That's an average annual buy rate at the production line minimum efficiency. Basically, life support.

marauder2048 wrote:Moreover on the source that I posted above you can read that the Navy is fully committed to maintaining the JSOW C-1 where for example in 2017 the Navy spent $2.232 Million USD while in 2018 it spent $5.487 Million USD, this for keeping the weapon in service. If this isn't being fully committed to the weapon then I wonder what would be? :wink:


The Navy also spends money on Harpoon II+ mods. Not sure what that proves.
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2783
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post30 Apr 2020, 00:19

marauder2048 wrote:That's a misinterpretation of the prior years figure: that includes all JSOW variants (A/B/C/C-1) ever procured to that point.


Yes, you seem to be correct on the figure above.

After digging a bit more on the subject I found the following document here:
https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Docu ... c_2014.PDF

On page 27 we can read that the US Navy procured 1983 units of the BASELINE/BLU-108 JSOW (AGM-154A and AGM-154B).

And on page 33 we can read that the US Navy procured 3185 units of the UNITARY JSOW (AGM-154C and AGM-154C-1).

Summing up both values (1983 + 3185) it gives the 5168 value that we can read on the other documents. So yes, you're correct about the 5168 number being for all JSOW variants.

However if you scroll down to page 54 (of the document above) you'll see that 2615 units of UNITARY JSOW (AGM-154C and AGM-154C-1) were planned to be delivered but 3185 units of UNITARY JSOW (AGM-154C and AGM-154C-1) actually ended up being delivered. So IMO, this means that the JSOW C and C-1 weren't "killed" by the US Navy and actually more of these JSOWs seem to have been build (and later delivered) compared to what was initially planned.
Resuming, the production of these weapons was stopped because the DoD felt that enough of these weapons already existed in inventory to be used against current and/or foreseen threats and this can be read on page 7 of the same document which I'll quote below:
The quantity reductions were the result of a DoD weapons/target pairing assessment that deemed that with the delivery of weapons from the FY 2015 procurement contract sufficient JSOW-C-1 assets would be in inventory to address the target set requirements allocated to the Department of the Navy rather than any program execution or cost concerns.



marauder2048 wrote:The Navy was forecasting a total buy of ~5500 JSOW-C1s from FY2009 - FY2022.


As you can see in the document above (page 54), apparently 2615 JSOW C and C-1 were planned to be procured but more have been procured (3185) compared to what was initially planned (2615).

marauder2048 wrote:The Navy killed procurement at ~1600 JSOW-C1s procured between FY2009 - FY2015.

That's an average annual buy rate at the production line minimum efficiency. Basically, life support.


At this point, I clearly believe that the accurate terms isn't "killed" but instead "the production was stopped/finished".
The DoD seems happy with the Navy having an inventory of ~1600 JSOW-C1s and indeed and while not being the 5168 units that I previously mentioned, it's still a very respectable and 'sufficient' inventory, specially if it ends up being used exclusively (or almost exclusively) by the F-35C fleet.


marauder2048 wrote:
Moreover on the source that I posted above you can read that the Navy is fully committed to maintaining the JSOW C-1 where for example in 2017 the Navy spent $2.232 Million USD while in 2018 it spent $5.487 Million USD, this for keeping the weapon in service. If this isn't being fully committed to the weapon then I wonder what would be? :wink:


The Navy also spends money on Harpoon II+ mods. Not sure what that proves.


IMO, it proves that the US Navy will continue to use the Harpoon and well as the JSOW C-1 as its anti-ship weapons (of course other weapons such as LRASM will join the US navy inventory as well) but no more Harpoons and JSOW will be manufactured because it's deemed that enough of such weapons exist in the inventory (so why build more?).

Also IMO, it's probable/likely that the JSOW C-1 will be superseded by the JSOW-ER which could be another reason why no more JSOW C-1s (or any other gliding JSOW variants) are to be procured.
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
PreviousNext

Return to F-35 Armament, Stores and Tactics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests