Last week we showed you this photo I took of a mysterious missile that Boeing had on display at the Surface Navy Association’s annual convention just outside of DC.
I had never seen, or heard of, this missile before and no one at Boeing’s booth could talk about the weapon. Well, a spokeswoman with Boeing’s Phantom Works division just emailed me to explain that the Joint Air-Breathing Multi-Role Missile (JABMM) is being designed for use by the Navy’s Littoral Combat Ships (LCS). Remember, the sea service replaced the canceled Non-Line of Sight missile system as one of the LCS’ primary weapons with Raytheon’s tiny Griffin missile – a munition that was originally designed as a smaller alternative to Hellfire antitank missiles for use by UAVs. Well, the JABMM is a purpose-built weapon designed to take out fast moving enemy ships, aircraft and possibly even incoming missiles, explains Phantom Works spokeswoman Deborah VanNierop in the following email:
The JABMM or Joint Air Breathing Multi-Role Missile is a surface engagement weapon enlisting air breathing propulsion capabilities for greater range than some current solid rocket propelled missiles. It could be used as an air interceptor or surface engagement weapon against fast moving vessels.
The JABMM is designed to fit into deck mounted canisters aboard U.S. Navy Littoral Combat Ships (LCS) for ease of ship integration.
The JABMM would be launched out of its canister by a solid rocket booster and then at take over speed the turbo-jet air breathing engine would take over.
The JABMM is currently a conceptual design.
{ 59 comments… read them below or add one }
This is genius. A mini-tomahawk for the LCS. What's the range????
If it's long range then it eats into payload. ERGM dropped 72 DPICMs or an 8 pound unitary.
Fascinating.
Major plus is that it drops the need for numerous modules and the "return and refit" conundrum.
I am thinking that the LCS concept just got its teeth back. Depending on the size of these missiles and the canister they are held in, this could be quite an effective module for the LCS. If it works then the LCS doesn't seem so much as a lame duck anymore.
Another armchair possibility is retrofitting the armored box cruise missile launchers to the deck of the LCS. Then again, those were intended for BB's and might not do so well. I imagine the option was considered and then rapidly discarded.
They also wanted to change the battleships to have a larger flight deck at one time to be a heavily armed carrier too.
Those armored boxes are tested and were procured, and are probably available since the BB's are decommissioned. Of course if they support VLS…it might make sense to have a VLS module that can carry missiles. The other question is if it makes sense for the same LCS to carry an Aegis system, or to offload it to a CG or DDG, or to have a separate module.
The ABL was fitted to other ships, but perhaps none to tinfoil boats like the LCS.
Ought'a work fine so long as the LCS limits itself to shooting at people who can't shoot back…
Can't the same be said for other surface combatants? Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't our current CG's, DDG's, and FFG's have little to no armor?
If it comes down to armour in modern naval combat – you've already screwed up.
I'm not sure how survivable the more traditional naval combatants are in there "expected combat environment" but this is what the latest DOT&E report has to say about the LCS:
"• LCS is not expected to be survivable in a hostile combat
environment. This assessment is based primarily on a
review of LCS design requirements, which do not require the
inclusion of the survivability features necessary to conduct
sustained operations in its expected combat environment. "
BTW, when did armor and survivability become synonymous? There's more to survivability than just hunkering down in your shell like an armidillo…
http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2011/
Proper damage control techniques and good design can compensate for poor armoring. Look at the USS Stark, which probably came closer than the Cole to sinking. The Stark was smaller, took an unlucky hit near the damage control center as well. Alternatively, we need to study what happened to the Royal Navy in the Falklands: they took actual losses. What went right, and what went wrong? What can be attributed to damage control, and what can be attributed to structural design?
EDIT: subst "their" for "there".
Not to admins: Would it really hurt to allow a five-ten minute EDIT window for typos, etc?
Right now surface Navy survivability means staying afloat. It means nothing with regards to remaining weapons platform. Our (or anybodies unless someone is armoring ships somewhere) paper hulled warships could probably be rendered inop with .50cal let alone a missile. Heaven forbid we get in a shooting war with the Chinese or anyone who could swarm our defenses.
Just my 50 Eurocents worth, but the decline in armoring on surface combatants might have a connection with the rise to prominence of the antiship missile.
While it is possible to armor a large warship to withstand (in the sense of staying in the fight as an effective unit) a couple of 12" shell hits, the same cannot be said for a couple of KH-22's (AS-4 Kitchen).
One might cautiously predict a reversal of this trend, since the main threat to large warships today is not so much Tu-22's with 1-ton-warheaded supersonic antiship missiles, but more in the line of a .50 cal. , an RPG or an ATGM.
Regards & all,
Thomas L. Nielsen
Luxembourg
wow that looks soo cool
Anything that outguns/outranges the Griffin would be welcome. The LCS aren't supposed to be gun-fighters, but being essentially unarmed (other than an impressive albeit limited 57mm) for the first 3 or 4 years of their development will take years to live down.
Yeah- the Griffen looked useful for taking out Somali pirates- and – er that's it.
This looks a lot better- if it doesn't balloon like most of these programs.
Strange I thought the older ALCM missile would go but this is to replace the Tomahawk missile looks cool though.
Didn't Boeing say they have a missile "in production"? If this is that missile, then this statement directly contradicts that.
Or it could be JAGM that they were talking about.
Can someone tell me why they aren't going with the proven Mk 41 VLS tubes? Both LCS builders said that their ships can accomodate 16 (I think) of them. Is it to save costs or is there a capability gap to be filled?
Adding Mk 41 VLS will eat into the space for mission modules, especially on the Lockheed design.
Also the VLS are heavy and probably more than is needed. The VLS equiped ships are export designs that actucally have a hell of alot of firepower. Of course they also dont have the super fast speed demand which is telling.
Plus one, I believe the Independence version can't use the full length VLS cells. However, the export versions offered by both ship builders did have the regular and shortened VLS cells as a more conventionally armed ship.
We keep hearing that the LCS has not been equipped with weapons other than the 5" gun. But can someone explain what it is that looks peculiarly like 2 VLS pads just right behind the gun mount?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c…
It is something of a sore subject, but the LCS class only carry a 57mm gun. Not a 76mm and most assuredly not a 5" gun. If they are carrying the surface warfare module they are apparently planning to carry an additional 2 30mm guns, but no large caliber weapons.
Could be a hatch to move bulk supplies.
Wikipedia (once SOPA day is over) has this to say about the Independence class.
"With 11,000 cubic metres (390,000 cu ft) of payload volume, it was designed with enough payload and volume to carry out one mission with a separate mission module in reserve, allowing the ship to do multiple missions without having to be refitted."
However, the reference links are 404ed; so….
Oops… Forgot about the Wiki protest day, here's a better illustration:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_d2zHm0eK9Cs/S7PfKfvd3XI…
Those hatches behind the "main gun" are definitely not supply hatches. They look more like VLS. You can see the same square shapes on top of the Freedom class as well.
http://www.barking-moonbat.com/images/uploads/USS…
And why does the Israel (freedom class) version have Mk-41 VLS when ours don't?
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.p…
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/files/LCS_Loc…
Those MK-41 VLS seem to be mounted into what is the hanger deck of the US version of the Freedom class
The positioning on the Freedom-class hull makes me doubt it is any kind of large launcher. Too close to delicate gear and important people on the bridge. Those hatches are definitely not for a standard VLS. Check the Wikipedia pix of VLS cells; they have individual hatches for each tube, and those hatches look to be single-piece. Since each hull appears to have two such hatches, I am going to guess standardized access points to swap out modular sensor/electronics packs. Otherwise, I'd back the supply hatch theory since they are so close to the personnel spaces.
That was where the N-LOS missles were supposed to go before they got cancelled.
Sorry I meant to type: NLOS-LS
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NLOS-LS
Figures.
It looks like a modern dirigible.
Do we even have rough physical dimensions of this thing?
I'm curious just what exactly Boeing is implying in "It could be used as an air interceptor…"
Unless they mean targetting something like maritime helicopters, the shape, and probably thrust, of this thing doesn't show a highly maneuverable missile capable of going against fast jets. And as an airbreather, unless it's very supersonic/hypersonic, it probably lacks a good thrust:weight ratio to get to any really effective altitude. But against helos that barely scratch 200mph no higher than ~20,000 feet, yeah, it'll probably do surface-to-air.
It does sound promising, but let's not get our hopes up only to see the F-35 equivalent in missile programs…
Lockheed Martin never should've given up on refining POLAR (a naval MLRS), as with the new wings on the G-MLRS+, its range would be very capable, and multi target ability with these newest trimode seeker systems would give any ship credible firepower.
Most threats from fast movers will come from a lower altitude as they near the target. This is to reduce radar signature and prevent the target from spotting them as easily. You also have to note that most aircraft that fire large anti-ship missiles, generally are slower moving targets such as the P-3 Orion.
But the missile may not have the dynamic capability to reach that altitude.
What I want to know is how much performance they can fit into that cell. The NLOS cells weren't very large, that would make the Boeing missile quite capacity constrained.
Though, if this weapon could be easily reloaded…
Who ever said they would (or are supposed to) stick to the NLOS cell size?
The NetFires missiles (PAM & LAM) were roughly Hellfire-sized, about 7inches diameter, less than 6 feet long, and about 50kg.
Where the Mission Modules are limited in their widht and length, there is room for play in their height. So making a Module that protrudes a couple feet higher above deck to accomodate longer missiles is perfectly within reason.
And at that, vertically-launched AMRAAMs would be the ideal SAM to emply (fire and forget, requiring no post-launch target illumination).
What isn't being addressed more seriously is the LCS families' integrated combat information centers, where all the sensor data is fuzed and displayed for the crew.
People think Aegis and they immediately think SPY-1 phased array EASA panels. But Aegis is actually the entire combat suite, not just the radars.
The question here is, can a single LCS even engage swarm attracks at all, have the ability to track dozens of surface and air contacts, and be able to engage multiple targets at once?
With just the 57mm gun, not so much.
But with a small cell VLS occupying Mission Module bays, the ships could effectively evolve into miniature Burkes.
I think you are missing a very crucial part to your own argument. The LCS seems to be smaller than a frigate and certainly smaller than a destroyer. A fast mover carrying an exocet or something similar will be looking for much larger targets. They want the Carrier first, they also want big logistic ships that are slow moving. The LCS would be further down the list of potential targets. I would be more worried about a Bell helicopter firing an FL-10, than something akin to a Super Etendar and an Exocet if I were on an LCS. Besides, if the LCS is there, the rest of the fleet is not too far away.
IIRC, to date, most air-delivered AShMs used in combat have been fired by fighter aircraft.
Should try out the proto types for effect on the Iranians….
definately looks subsonic cruise from the nose shape and choice of a turbojet rather than scram/ramjet, the chined body hints at stealth, but the the cruciform tail throws that stealth away. Assume a NACA type intake for the tubojet, will limit incidence for good intake pressure recovery so no high g manoeuvres. It looks like a harpoon replacement, or if it smaller a similar capability to the UK FASGW rather than tomahawk, think range more like 50km than 1500Km. I dont see something looking like this doing surface to air?? I think the marketing dept is out of control.
The nose shape doesn't exactly scream "stealth" either. The size of the nose also suggests it's a fairly small munition. My guess is it's sized to carry the JAGM/SDB II tri-mode seeker. Perhaps it's just a Hellfire/JAGM-class weapon with a turbojet for greater range. Anti-air would be limited to low-performance targets (UAVs, Helos).
The LCI/MALI concept seems like a better starting point to me, unless they just wanted a very small munition.
Boeing has a poster to sell. BAE Systems/Rafael has the battle-proven Spike series of missiles, including the Spike-ER (8 Km range) and Spoke NLOS (25 Km range), available today. Why in the world isn't the US Navy putting these weapons on the LCS?
well the way i see this one is that it’s part of a multi layered defense for naval forces. send out a fleet of them to ‘loiter’ around and check for non-ours at greater than horizon distances without the need to have planes in the air.
it could surveillance or use weapons as needed.
this coincides with the multiness of the role they mentioned;
‘…Well, the JABMM is a purpose-built weapon designed to take out fast moving enemy ships, aircraft and possibly even incoming missiles….’
‘…for greater range than some current solid rocket propelled missiles….’
range + multi use. yet another solution to the multi problems
at sea.
You are free to edit comments until someone replies to them, then they are locked.
I didn't know that. Thanks!
I imagine we had always intended for our wars to be decided at greater and greater standoff ranges. Before the Golden Age of Sail wars were mostly decided by boarding. Then smoothbore cannons were introduced. Then more and more gundecks to decide matters by broadside. Then armored turrets mounting very heavy guns, then rifled guns. Then large guns complete with observation towers for long-range rangefinding. Then indirect fire, augmented with scoutplanes beyond visual range. Then we switched to missiles and aircraft, engaging well beyond the horizon.
Buffalo muffins!
OPNAVINST 9070.1 requires a lot more than "staying afloat". It also requires surface combatants and other major ships to maintain full mission capability. LCS isn't a major ship.
Actually, before sailing ships with gun batteries as the main armament, you might be more correct to say that most fights between actual organized navies were decided by ramming to sink. I can't think of any surface engagement in which aircraft directed the gunfire. Things always tended to get more up close than intended. At Guadalcanal, they got into "hit 'em with a rock" range. If history is any guide, things may get closer than people predict.
Umm… Doesn't the designation LITTORAL Combat Ship suggest to you that its intended battle zone is NOT " well beyond the horizon"?
In any event, this latest lethal acronym is nothing more than an artist's conception. If God himself got behind this project, it wouldn't be deployed for 10 or more years. The LCS is still unarmed.
Just reading about the Naval Battle of Guadacanal- Callaghan didn't use his radar effectively- which might have helped him since he was outgunned by the Jap BB's- but was still not a shining moment for using your assets.
Raven, I don't think the LCS was built primarily for use with carrier strike groups. I believe that it was built because our Burkes are kind of over kill for dealing with diverse threats in a low threat atmosphere, especially in close to land in shallow waters where carriers don't go. Hence, the littoral in the name.
But you have nailed one important part of the LCS job. It is not a destroyer, it is not even going to be doing most of the work of a frigate, it is more like a littoral area corvette, frequently tasked to work with the lower tech boats, (not ships frequently) of our allies. Whether it is de-mining, showing the flag, projecting force via quick insertions of USMC companies or a full battalion in permissive environments, or protecting sea lanes from low tech opponents, the job of an LCS will be primarily in a low threat environment. But when they get ambushed, having a VLS with a range of greater than 40 miles would be a great way to eliminate most threats since the 57mm has a relatively short range. And if the VLS could reach out past 100 miles effectively, that would be great, but I am not sure that the LCS can target effectively at long range.
But an LCS or a squadron of 4 LCS will frequently be operating a great distance from any of the other ships of the fleet, so they can't be looking over their shoulders for support during most of their cruise.
Nope, because it wouldn't wouldnt have drones or helicopters if meant to operate only In The Horizon as you want. These would be even more worthless, since they couldn't catch pirate boats they can't see, and we would still need DDGs, making this a waste of money.
The LCS would make more sense if it was cheaper like it was supposed to be- at these costs – it might as well be an Aegis-lite frigate like Norway's Nansens.
At least they got the crew down with automation- will be a good learning tool-