25, 2007, Steven Barnoske, Lockheed Martin's JASSM program director, promised that "technical teams have dissected data from test failures, identified root causes and developed corrective action plans that we have validated in a series of laboratory and field tests."īut since then, 50 percent of Lot 5 testing failures has stemmed from poor quality signal cabling, with another 25 percent from more faulty fuses. In a UPI Internet Outside View Webcast on Oct. We've been there before: Problems two years ago included engine, warhead, power, electrical and other systems, and detonation failure. JASSM barely survived cancellation by Congress in 2008.įast forward to 2009: The Air Force is withholding production funding pending the results of last month's scheduled Lot 6 testing, which has now been delayed to allow for replacement of still more faulty components. Of roughly 600 JASSMs then fielded, more than 500 were estimated to have flaws lurking in their GPS guidance systems. JASSM's test failure rate since December 2006 had been 42 percent, along with cost overruns reported to Congress. Air Force procurement was evaluating Europe's Taurus and Storm Shadow cruise missiles as possible JASSM replacements. This problematic program was in jeopardy two years ago, and at the 2007 Paris Air Show, the head of U.S. Well, this author seems to be sceptical to subsonics in general and JASSM in particular:Īfter 13 long years in development, the $7.1 billion Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile (JASSM) was reported still to be missing its target 40 percent of the time in early 2009 testing. Again as described deploying the, generally, smaller subsonics in volume is a simpler proposition than equivalent volumes of supersonics. Firing more missiles than the target can defeat and decoy.
Seeings as modern defensive systems have evolved to cope with supersonic-profile streaming attacks engaging a prepared, contemporary, naval target is a function of simple saturation. All hit because they weren't ready to cope with the threat. Sheffield, Stark, Hanit.all warships that could and should have defeted the missiles fired at them. The most efecctive technique for getting a missile through a targets defenses is not supersonic or subsonic it is suprise!.
Exposing a launch platform in this fashion can increase risk and defeat the potential for tactical suprise. This places onus on the launch platform to develop the track and hold it long enough for the launch sequence to complete. Historically, therefore, supersonics have had to be fairly tightly locked in before launch.
The inherent problem with that is that it simultaneously reduces the available window of opportunity for the missiles seeker to do all the things it needs to do. 31st August 2009 at 01:55 - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00Ī supersonic attempts to defeat countermeasures by minimising its exposure window through the targets defensive-systems envelope. Subsonics also tend to be smaller, allowing more to be carried by a shooter. If the subsonic is stealthy, the time between its detection and target impact is small, limiting the ability of defensive measures. OTOH, subsonics can be programmed to follow circuitous routes to the target, making a multi-axis simultaneous saturation attack easy to accomplish. Large size also limits the number of super/hypers that can be carried by a shooter. Super/hypersonics tend to be large because of the large quantity of fuel needed to loft them. High speed also makes them stand out for doppler and severely limits maneuverability (pretty much a straight line to the target). Super/hypersonics are hot IR targets that can be detected at great distance. "Engage" involves surviving the target's defenses and final maneuvers to hit the required spot on the target. I would give the advantage to subsonics because super/hypersonics cannot carry sensors with sufficient range to assure timely terminal maneuvers or sensor mode changes to reject countermeasures. "Track" involves sensor capability and the ability to discriminate target features while rejecting countermeasures. Track-engage are missile tasks that I believe are easier for subsonics to accomplish than super/hypersonics for the following reasons: Pk requires all links in the kill chain - find, fix, target, track, engage, assess.įind-fix-target-track-assess is simpler to implement on the shooter rather than the missile, so missile speed probably isn't a big discriminator for these tasks. 31st August 2009 at 01:19 - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00īy "efficient" do you mean the highest probability of kill?
0 kommentar(er)
