Lockheed Martin, which builds the Joint Air to Surface Standoff Missile, had some disappointing results during a test last week that raised even more difficult questions about the ongoing development program.
(Photo from Lockheed Martin)
From the Orlando Sentinel:
Last week, the company confirmed that “anomalies were experienced” in four JASSM tests conducted at a missile range in Utah in early May.
Lockheed would not provide details or speculate on the cause, citing an ongoing inquiry into what went wrong.
Three missiles apparently missed the target area entirely and one hit pay dirt but failed to detonate properly.
“If you’re a JASSM supporter, this could not have come out at a worse time,” noted Christopher Hellman, a defense analyst for the Center for Arms Control & Non-Proliferation, a think tank in Washington, D.C.
Cost overruns have already put the program on the Pentagon’s “problem child” list: Last month, military officials included JASSM among eight weapons programs that were running as much as 50 percent over original cost projections.
Those Nunn-McCurdy violations, as they’re called, require the Pentagon to notify Congress of the excessive cost-overruns, which could lead to the programs being canceled
The cost overruns were “triggered by a variety of factors,” including the addition of an extended-range version of the missile, which more than doubled the number of missiles to be bought, Lockheed said.
This is what happens when you combine a low-cost ($400k/missile) weapon with high-cost requirements (stealth, standoff, precision guidance). The Air Force has to learn that they can’t wage precision warfare on the cheap and also expect to buy high reliability.
There are two ironies in this situation:
1) JASSM used to be the poster-child for the late-1990s version of acquisition reform, which also gave us the now-discredited C-130J commercial contract and, (drum-roll …) the scandal of the KC-X tanker lease deal.
2) The JASSM program was launched after the Tri-Service Standoff Attack Missile, or TSSAM, was cancelled because of its (drum-roll…) high-cost.
It’s also become evident that the baseline JASSM missile’s 250-mile-or-so range means that the launching aircraft must come within the engagement zone of the S400 surface-to-air missile system, meaning that the act of launching the missile may become something of a suicide mission for the lucky pilot.
The S400 is the latest version of Russia’s robust SAM technology.
The JASSM-ER is necessary to ensure that a strike on a target protected by the S400 is a success.
That doesn’t mean the JASSM is useless, but merely limited — in addition to having what appears to be a chronic reliability problem.
{ 21 comments… read them below or add one }
JASSM costs (at least) $400k a copy, has a range of 230 miles, carries a half-ton warhead, has to be launched off a vulnerable platform like an F-16, and doesn’t work. TLAM has a range of 2500 miles, costs under $600k a copy, carries a one-ton warhead, can be launched from a safe platform like a destroyer or a far-off B-52, and does work.
Am I missing something really simple here? Why on earth does anyone need JASSM?
The TLAM is not stealthy and is not air launched. Those are the only things in the JASSM’s favor.
The Europeans developed more than one competing product or the same missions with the same characteristics, no need to continue R&D…
Yes,I agree with Sven.We should cut off all defense projects because other countries have similar equipment.
Xander, the point is we can buy some really great COTS mil gear already developed and operational from our supposed allies without corporate welfare for Northrop/Grumman/Lockhheed/Martin/Bell/Etc/Etc/Etc
What is that great COT mil gear that you speak of?Lets be fair here;which european equivalent are we comparing the JASSM to,and has this foreign munition been tested to find the same faults as the JASSM?
“The JASSM-ER is necessary to ensure that a strike on a target protected by the S400 is a success.
That doesn’t mean the JASSM is useless, but merely limited — in addition to having what appears to be a chronic reliability problem.”
-from the article
This is important to note because several european countries have actually chosen the JASSM for the same role;Greece and the like(Finland’s request was denied).
I have mixed feelings about this news.
On the one hand, there is a looooong-time unmet requirement to satisfy for which the JASSM is the long-awaited solution. On the other hand, I watched a perfectly good weapon system get cancelled about 12 years ago because it became politically incorrect to support it as soon as the
Note: substitute TSSAM for TASSM. Jeez
I MUST be tired.
Xander, Sven mentioned some euro programs, I was commenting in a more general sense. I do know the SLAM-ER harpoon derivative the Navy uses had been around since about ’99, similar mission/payload, probably shorter range but I don’t recall specifically. Perhaps SMSgtMAC has more info on whether it was directly from the TASSM or just derivied from Harpoon separately.
SLAM and SLAM-ER were pure Navy programs. AF was ‘lead’ on the TSSAM, and (without going into details) to many of us, it felt from day one that there were elements in both the Army and the Navy that didn’t want anything to do with the TSSAM, and that they were actively working to develop their own specialized solution under the guise of a ‘just in case’ TSSAM fell through option (like F-18E/F vis a vis the F-35!). IMHO, while the Navy was overtly subversive in cobbling the SLAM-etal effort together, the Army was more passive-aggressive in how they worked the ATACMS into the mix.
I suspect the Europrogram mentioned is the Matra-BAE Storm Shadow.
SMSgt Mac – very interesting. I had no idea TLAM was as bad as that.
But that study was referring to launches in 1991; I should imagine reliability has improved since then.
(And please try to avoid using phrases like “politically incorrect” and “Clintonista”. It makes you sound, well, not very objective. Also, it risks derailing the discussion; see the AC-130 thread.)
As for the air-launched point: if a missile has a range of 2500 miles, does it really need to be air-launched? You could just fire them from a ship, or even off the back of a truck in a safe location. The point is to get explosives on target.
Ajay,
Where do you get the 2500 mile range? Dont he conventional C and D variants have a 1000 mile range? Also isnt the warhead 1000 pounds.
My mistake – 2500 km range and 1000lb warhead, not 2500nm and 1000kg. Point still holds, I think; TLAM can put the same warhead on target from further away, probably more reliably, and already exists…
RE: Why Air Launch.
1. There is no guarantee you will have a ship already positioned within range when you want to strike. You may need to be closer to strike quicker.
2. There is no guarantee it will be operationally desireable to launch and attack via a great circle direct course from launch platform to impoint (indeed sometimes you want it to come from ANY other direction.)
3. There is no guarantee it will be politically feasible to strike via the most direct route for a lot of reasons and especially due to lack of overflight permissions from ‘uninvolved’ states.
4. Ten years ago, 1500 miles was the closest I would want to place any bases , or slow or stationary launch platforms without also having a significant AD and ground security footprint. That distance must have grown in the intervening years.
The European programs that are comparable to JASSM are the Storm Shadow and the Taurus.
Storm Shadow/SCALP EG (France/UK) began deliveries to the UK in 2002 and France in 2004.
1000lbs warhead, 250 km, around 1.5 million USD (small production run so far, could become cheaper).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Storm_Shadow
Taurus/KEPD350 (Germany/Sweden) in production
1100lbs warhead, >350km, around 1.25 million USD
(same here, so far only projected about 700 missiles)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taurus_missile
Assume a production run (in the USA) of some thousand missiles for the USAF and you get a price far below a million USD. Much of the price for the European missiles is due to the exchange rate changes (attributes to about one fifth) and doesn’t reflect a more expensive production at all.
The stuff works and the freed U.S. development teams can fix other projects.
A continuation of JASSM will most likely be quite like any U.S. arms project – first, it’s called “low-cost” and promised to be available in short notie … a decade later it’s three times as expensive and threatened by cancellation in a late stage of development.
Maybe the procurement administration cannot do better – but sometimes there are really equal or superior systems ready for license production … and that means more R&D is a waste.
Cut the program and teach your procurement system and contractors that dollars will be lost if the program runs bad.
In early engineering testing. JASSM had a high success rate. After the manufacturing phase began. changes were made and led to decreased reliabilty. When JASSM works right, the accuracy is extrodinary (view the videos on the JASSM web site to see for yourself). The real enemy is changing the design with insufficent testing. Patriot, Pershing, and Hellfire missiles learned that.
JASSM-ER is still in the engineering phase and has a 100% success rate (3 flight tests so far as well as ground testing). JASSM can be launch from the B1 , the B2, the F16, and soon the F18 and F-15. The Tomahawk and ALCMs are far more expensive and are no more reliable than JASSM, and not as accurate and not stealthy. There are those who still think a P-51 Mustang is cheaper and better than an F-15 or F-22.
Jassm is stealthy. I personaly work on its fuesalage and wings. the tomahawk while it does have superior range is not stealthy and costs $1mil a piece. Jassm can be scary accurate. The Air Force wants it badly. Production is expected to be around 5000 units.
I was one of the original JASSMites in 1995. The short range was due to the 168 inch limitation caused by the B-1 bay and the diameter limitations of the rotary launcher. The could have tripled the range by allowing a longer and larger missile.
I just like very much how Sweden, my home country, have managed to make most of all the population, think that we are totally disarming and giving up most of our defense! We have the Taurus KEPD350, and we are armed to the teeth. I don’t know, but I hope we also got thyem mounted on our newly bought hoovercrafts;) Argh!