Comments on: More Tomahawks May Fly

By: Strategic Thinker

Strategic Thinker — Fri, 17 Aug 2007 17:06:30 +0000

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.

By: Strategic Thinker

Strategic Thinker — Fri, 17 Aug 2007 17:05:35 +0000

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.

By: L Plasek

L Plasek — Wed, 20 Jun 2007 02:11:54 +0000

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…

By: elizzar

elizzar — Tue, 19 Jun 2007 07:09:56 +0000

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?

By: John

John — Tue, 19 Jun 2007 02:05:21 +0000

»> 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.

By: James

James — Mon, 18 Jun 2007 23:09:18 +0000

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.

By: Rick

Rick — Mon, 18 Jun 2007 19:08:07 +0000

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.