Raytheon announced today it conducted the first free-flight test of its powered Joint Stand-Off Weapon - Extended Range (JSOW-ER) on Oct. 1. The weapon used was a JSOW modified to show an engine could be installed within the outer mould line of the basic "truck".
Video: Raytheon
The missile flew more than 260 miles after release from a US Navy F/A-18 over the Pacific Missile Test Range at Pt Mugu. Raytheon's threshold range target was 150 miles, and it's objective was 250 miles. A production JSOW-ER would have a range of 300 miles.
The demonstrator vehicle was powered by the Hamilton Sundstrand TJ150 turbojet planned for the JSOW-ER - the same engine used in Raytheon's Miniature Air-Launched Decoy for the US Air Force - but with its BLU-111 warhead hollowed out to form the fuel tank. A production JSOW-ER would have a tank installed behind a smaller warhead.
JSOW-ER is not a program of record, and would be a follow-on to the unpowered, datalink-equipped JSOW C-1 now in development for the Navy - but it will be a candidate in the upcoming analysis of alternatives for an anti-surface warfare weapon to replace Harpoon. This is to begin in January and is expected to run for 18-24 months
Thing is if the US really wants something better than Brahmos they need to have the spine to accept a little risk. They don't. Where's Fasthawk? Why did they want to cancel HyFly after only two failures, neither of which had anything to do with propulsion and were obviously quality control? It will be interesting to see if they do anything with RATTLRS. I suspect RATTLRS will never fly and the X-51 will have a minor hiccup during it's first flight resulting in program cancellation.
Would it be possible/feasible to modify an A-TACMS w/1,000lb sub-munition, broach w.h., or perhaps EMP w.h., employed for stand-off (>300nm w/ vertical dive) B-1B/F-15E/B-52 strike deterrence and even ASuW capability?
They've proposed air launched Patriots, right(?) and SM-1 was converted for air-launch once.
JSOW-ER does seem a bit puny - but whatever air-launched weapon they pick has to fit inside the F-35 (which is why JSM is in the mix).
The interesting one is LRASM - DARPA awarded both contracts to Lockheed Martin, and we know the program is primarily about advanced navigation and targeting, not the airframe, which begs the question which missiles is LockMart basing its LRASM designs around? Could ATACMS be one?
ATACMS would seem to be a non-starter. For one thing it's a bit short on range and given that it's a ballitic missle the "ZOMG UR GONNA START WWIII!!!!" would have a colective coronary. It's not exactly what one would call stealthy either. On the other hand were one to acknowledge that FORMATIONS of Tomahawks have flown against targets without kicking off WWIII (and that was back when TLAM-N was still deployed) it could make available some interesting possibilities. For example you could have a 5000lb class ATACMS with a stretched motor with say, 40 50lb GPS guided submunitions designed to deploy it's submunitions on the way up, well outside S-400 range. They could be carried internally in the front bay of the B-1, internally or externally on the B-52, or even underwing on F-15Es. Provided you had timely intelligence on the locations of the battery's elements (launchers, radar, etc.) it'd just about be a dead-SAM-site-in-a-can. They might get some of the submunitons but they wouldn't get them all.
It seems a little absurd at first thought, but since it's a proven design and fairly compact, why just not study the feasibility for air-launched??
Even if it's rocket powered vs ramjet, it would be no more unruly, nor threatening to any balance of power than say; air-launched Brahmos/P-800/Moskit M, etc.
Currently US NAVY doesn't face any peer that can make a direct confrontation. Considered the strained US finances, would you really put money in a program for a such a missile when the most advanced enemy you'll shoot at probably will have just a few frigates?
JASSM isn't going away people. Learn to live with it...
Let's just compare using the best known published data on the inter-webs regarding ASW weapons:
Theoretical range: JSOW-ER= 300NM, AGM-84= 280NM, BrahMos= 290NM.
Theoretical warheads: JSOW-ER= <500lbs, AGM-84= 487lbs, BrahMos= 661lbs.
Theoretical Speed: JSOW-ER= 500-650mph, AGM-84= 500-600mph, BrahMos= 2100-2300mph.
It is pretty clear the USN is at least two generations behind other "near-peers" in regards to ASW systems.
Weight: JASSM= 2250lbs, JSOW-ER= 1100lbs, Brahmos= 5500lbs for the air-launched version. Just a BIT more weight there.
Here's another one, this time from the past.
AGM-53 Condor- Weight= 2100lbs, Warhead= 630lbs, Speed= Mach 2.9, Range= 70 miles.
Thing is if the US really wants something better than Brahmos they need to have the spine to accept a little risk. They don't. Where's Fasthawk? Why did they want to cancel HyFly after only two failures, neither of which had anything to do with propulsion and were obviously quality control? It will be interesting to see if they do anything with RATTLRS. I suspect RATTLRS will never fly and the X-51 will have a minor hiccup during it's first flight resulting in program cancellation.
They've proposed air launched Patriots, right(?) and SM-1 was converted for air-launch once.
The interesting one is LRASM - DARPA awarded both contracts to Lockheed Martin, and we know the program is primarily about advanced navigation and targeting, not the airframe, which begs the question which missiles is LockMart basing its LRASM designs around? Could ATACMS be one?
It seems a little absurd at first thought, but since it's a proven design and fairly compact, why just not study the feasibility for air-launched??
Even if it's rocket powered vs ramjet, it would be no more unruly, nor threatening to any balance of power than say; air-launched Brahmos/P-800/Moskit M, etc.
Considered the strained US finances, would you really put money in a program for a such a missile when the most advanced enemy you'll shoot at probably will have just a few frigates?