The continued problems being encountered in flight tests of the Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile (JASSM) could lead to resurrection of the air-launched Tomahawk missile. The JASSM — designated AGM-158 — was initiated in 1995 following cancellation of the Tri-Service Standoff Attack Missile (TSSAM) because of massive cost increases.
The Lockheed Martin AGM-158 had won out in competition with the McDonnell Douglas AGM-159 design. Procurement of the Lockheed Martin JASSM began in December 2001 with the missile intended for use on the F-15 Eagle, F-16 Fighting Falcon, F/A-18 Hornet, and F-35 Lightning II (Joint Strike Fighter) as well as on the B-1B, B-2A, and B-52H Stratofortress strategic bombers.
Some 600 JASSMs have been produced, but testing continues to indicate poor reliability. During tests launches from December 2006 to April 2007, the Air Force reported a system reliability of only 58 percent. Coupled with increased costs, this reliability factor has led Department of Defense officials to question the efficacy of the program, even at this late date.
The TSSAM cancellation — and other never-completed air-launched programs, including the Medium-Range Air-to-Surface Missile (MRASM), which was based on the Tomahawk missile — has led some weapon experts to believe that initiation of a new air-launched attack weapon of this type is beyond the near-term capabilities of the U.S. defense industry.
In this environment, the Air Force and Navy may be required to take another look at the Tomahawk cruise missile as a successor to the JASSM. The Tomahawk has been operational in U.S. surface ships since 1982 and submarines since 1983. Beginning with the Gulf War of 1991, the Tomahawk has a demonstrated a high effectiveness. During the 1991 conflict U.S. submarines launched 12 land-attack variants and U.S. surface ships launched 276. They had a launch success rate with transition to cruise flight of 98 percent, with a higher-than-predicted accuracy.
The General Dynamics Tomahawk was originally developed as a nuclear strike weapon, but all missiles carrying the W80 nuclear warhead have now been retired, as have the anti-ship missiles with conventional 1,000-pound warheads. The submarine-launched (UGM-109) and ship-launched (BGM-109) weapons in the fleet today are Tomahawk Land-Attack Missiles (TLAM). They carry several warheads and have undergone continued updates of engines and guidance. The large number of missiles being procured, which are also used by Britain and will be bought by Spain, have led to additional production by Raytheon and McDonnell Douglas.
Two proposed Tomahawk variants were not deployed, the Ground Launched Cruise Missile (GLCM) –named Gryphon — which was cancelled because of the U.S.-Soviet Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces (INF) agreement, and the AGM-109 air-launched Tomahawk. The latter weapon was flight tested from A-6 Intruder aircraft.
Should the JASSM effort be terminated, a prime candidate for the long-range, air-to-ground missile role will thus be a modification of the latest Tomahawk variants.
Maybe it’s just me, but whenever I read about a defense programs that has “cost overruns” and “reliability problems”, Lockheed Martin seems to be the culprit a lot of the time.
The Navy’s SLAM-ER would be a much better fit, the R&D costs would be almost non existent because the missiles already been tested, and its got the possibility of being more accurate.
Also, the term JASSM shouldnt be used anymore, I find it funny that its called a joint air to surface stand off missile, despite the fact that the Navy has left the program. ASSM is more fitting.
Why is there a need for such accuracy like the JASSM, especially when the thing cant even hit mobile targets like the SLAM ER can.
»> The JASSM ..was initiated in 1995 … a system reliability of only 58 percent.
Why should Lockheed care if the thing works or not? I mean, twelve freaking years in production and the thing still doesn’t even and work — but the government continues to fund it. Why would Lockheed spend money to fix or imrpove the thing?
This kind of military procurement process drives me insane because it’s a scam from start to finish. The government knows it and Lockheed knows it, and they both know nobody is paying attention. But it keeps a lot of Pentagon and Lockheed employees busy shuffling papers, looking like they care if the taxpayers money is being squandered.
Any weapon system, especially something that is nothing more than a flying bomb (which was invented long ago with the cruise missile), that cannot be designed and fielded in 5 to 7 years is simply a waste of money.
That’s all, rant over. You may resume squandering the national wealth.
i was wondering if anyone had considered looking at the UK’s Stormshadow long-range air-launched missile, or is this another case of the USA having to have American-developed weapons (got to keep those missile-making voters happy) regardless of cost/performance?
Lockheed Martin seems to be having more and more problems of this kind. They squandered the greatest program they ever had with the “Skunk Works”. Such an organization needs only the right people and an upper management with the courage and intellegence to allow it to work. The Skunk Works “worked” because of the principles Kelly Johnson and Ben Rich applied. Good people are out there, what is missing is proper management decisions and operational doctrine. But with the way upper management is no doubt stuffing thier pockets anyway, the man is right, why change? Every one reading this should get the book “Skunk Works” by Ben Rich and read it. The speed at which great planes like the U-2 and SR-71 where built, along with thier fantastic performace, is nothing short of fantastic. Today, this kind of performance is impossible. At least, right now.It is a pitiful shame a legendary plane like the SR-71 could be built and operational in HALF the time this relatively simple JASSM system has had and is a failure. If one listens to the commentary by Ben Rich, its as if he had a crystal ball. Too bad people do not listen.
Its tough to see a great company dieing a slow death, like so many other companies seem to be doing these days…
If you ask me, the US DoD should seriously consider converting their Advanced Cruise Missiles, which they are planning to destroy into Conventional Advanced Cruise Missiles. They already have stealth, range and payload advantages, an existing launch platform (B-52) and support infrastructure. All they need is a conventional warhead, some flight tests and they are set to go.
If you ask me, the US DoD should seriously consider converting their Advanced Cruise Missiles, which they are currently planning to destroy, into Conventional Advanced Cruise Missiles. They already have stealth, range and payload advantages, an existing launch platform (B-52) and support infrastructure. All they need is a conventional warhead, some flight tests and they are set to go.