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

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).

Total unitary quantity was to be 7000 units (pg 19): a mix of C and C-1 with the vast majority (5500) being C-1.
That's completely consistent with the earlier SARs and the FY2013 budget shown above.

That did not happen. They ended up with 1676 C-1s and 1509 Cs.
That's a program (C-1) where acquisition was killed nearly a decade earlier than planned
and where production annual production quantities barely exceeded the minimum sustainable
quantity.

At this point, I clearly believe that the accurate terms isn't "killed" but instead "the production was stopped/finished".

The production was aborted and the line was to be shutdown.
And it's completely consistent with what I've said from the beginning: Killing the buy doesn't mean the weapon isn't fielded.

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.

Yet the Navy viewed 5500 C-1s as the inventory requirement. What changed?
Per the FY2016 budget above, better weapons i.e. JASSM-MI aka LRASM which the Navy declined to
procure before it un-declined.

JSOW incurred a Nunn-McCurdy breach as a result of the quantity truncation which programs don't do for fun.

Also IMO, it's probable/likely that the JSOW C-1 will be superseded by the JSOW-ER which could be another reason why no more JSOW C-1s (or any other gliding JSOW variants) are to be procured.

They had line shutdown costs in the SAR and in the FY2016 budget. That was to be it for JSOW after FY2015.

JSOW-ER is a new weapon that was not part of the plan; no sane program plans to incur a *seven* year gap in production
between the last JSOW-C1 in FY2015 and the first JSOW-ER in FY2022.

Yet the Navy viewed 5500 C-1s as the inventory requirement. What changed?

IMO, the answer to that question is very straightforward:
- (Big) Reduction of funds allocated for defense.
The JSOW C-1 is very far from being the only program whose production was cut short from what was initially planned.
For instance, the (USAF) F-22 program also suffered from the "same fate". From 750 initially planned only 195 were actually build and this is even a bigger cut compared to the JSOW C-1 program.
The (USN) Zumwalt-class destroyers would be another example and so on... And it's not only aircraft, ships and other vehicles that suffer from such budget/funds reductions, weapons also suffer from the same.

Of course that major reduction of funds allocated for defense together with the need to allocate more funds to new systems in development ranging from ships (such as the Ford Carriers) to weapons (such as LRASM) means that the funds allocated to current systems such as the JSOW C-1, namely the production of these current systems must be cut short from what was initially planned.
But then again, this is far from being the US Navy 'killing' the JSOW C-1 since this weapons is still and will be one of the main US Navy weapons similarly as the F-22 is still and will be one of the USAF main weapon systems (fighter aircraft in this case).

Dollar amounts in Billions.

Navy completes first AARGM-ER captive carry flight on F/A-18
02 Jun 2020 NavAir

"...AARGM-ER is being integrated on the F/A-18E/F and EA-18G, and will also be compatible for integration on the F-35A/B/C.

PHOTO: "The Navy conducts the first captive carry flight test of an Advanced Anti-Radiation Guided Missile – Extended Range (AARGM-ER) missile on an F/A-18 Super Hornet June 1 at the Naval Air Station Patuxent River test range in Maryland. (U.S. Navy photo)" https://www.navair.navy.mil/sites/g/fil ... k=ydjZyxiK

Source: https://www.navair.navy.mil/news/Navy-c ... 22020-1557

Navy's Highly Promising Long-Range Air Defense Busting Missile Has Taken Its First Flight





https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/3 ... Y81n_3i160

What a shitty website is that drivebyshootemup. Had to do a hard reboot to get away from the damn thing as it locked up.

What a shitty website is that drivebyshootemup. Had to do a hard reboot to get away from the damn thing as it locked up.

A "format c:" usually alleviates any tention brought on by the interweb around these parts.

Speaking of locked up:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WHSkbM9zAU&t=38s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ehxwvt-7bYY

Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co., Fort Worth, Texas, has been awarded a $9,326,062 cost-plus-fixed-fee contract for the Long Range Systems Division seeking to integrate the Navy Advanced Anti-Radiation Guided Missile-Extended Range (AARGM-ER) into the F-35. The AARGM-ER is a Navy weapon that will provide the F-35A advanced suppression of enemy air defenses/destruction of enemy air defenses capability. This contract includes one contract line item number and is the result of a sole-source acquisition. Fiscal 2020 research, development, test and evaluation funds in the full amount are being obligated at the time of award. The Air Force Life Cycle Management Center, Eglin Air Force Base, Florida, is the contracting activity (FA8682-21-C-2000).

https://www.defense.gov/Newsroom/Contracts/Contract/Article/2425497/

http://alert5.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/AARGM1.png

Do anyone know why the leading edge is ejected?

I don't think the leading edges are ejectable.
They are just showing an exploded view to demonstrate how the existing front-end gets mated to the new SRM.

I agree with Marauder.

If you notice, the Guidance and Control section is also seen detached from the rest of the missile (and I also don't think that this part will detach from the rest of the missile during flight). IMO, this is probably to show/highlight the part which reuses components from the previous version (AGM-88E AARGM) which again is the Guidance and Control section from the part which is completely new which is the Ordnance and Propulsion section and since the leading edges start from the former section and ends on the later these are seen or highlighted as 'detached' as well.

It's also a gliding-body, rather important for long-range fast high-altitude flight which maximizes reach. The longer it can stay up high in thin air with a supportive body chine and minimal angle of attack, the further it will go, and the faster it will be able to arrive, via dropping down faster from a higher altitude, rather than coming in shallower and slower. None of the oversize fins of an AARGM to bleed its range and slow down terminal speed. Also, maintaining terminal mass is crucial for maintaining terminal speed and thus energy for fast maneuvers, so removing the spent body is not so desirable when attacking largely fixed or slow-moving targets. Take away the mass though and it would bleed its energy away much faster.