The Navy’s advanced weapons shopping list

The Navy’s advanced weapons shopping list

There’s a reason Adm. Jonathan Greenert didn’t call for the Navy to back out of F-35, his spokesman said Tuesday — he doesn’t think it should.

The chief of naval operations continues to support F-35C, said Capt. Danny Hernandez. So what was all that stealth skepticism in his Proceedings piece this month questioning the value of low-observable strike aircraft? That was Greenert arguing that stealth has a limit, Hernandez said, and that there may come a point at which the Navy has to draw the line or risk diminishing returns.

Greenert believes one alternative is relying on tomorrow’s more precise, longer-range munitions to reach out and touch the bad guy. That way stealth makes less of a difference because you can stay out of his range. What does that mean in terms of programs?


Hernandez told DoDBuzz there are at least three weapons in the works that Greenert believes will be promising in the context he set up in Proceedings: The AGM-154 Joint Stand-Off Weapon model C; an anti-ship version of the Block IV Tactical Tomahawk; and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency’s new long-range anti-ship missile. The first two are built by Raytheon and the third is still in the early technology phases, but as we heard earlier this year, Undersecretary of the Navy Robert Work expects to see it in the fleet.

Hernandez also hinted there’s more behind the scenes, too: “There’s obviously some classified stuff I can’t talk about,” he said.

Raytheon’s sales pitch for the JSOW-C and the anti-ship version of its TacTom sound tailor-made for Greenert’s vision: Networked, precise, long-range weapons that could let the U.S. Navy out-range a … sigh … “advanced adversary” and keep to the periphery of his air defenses.

Crucially, they might also give the Navy more punch in dealing with a “peer competitor” in a no-kidding naval battle. The Navy has shorn away some of its ability to fight other ships at sea — getting rid of its first-generation anti-ship Tomahawk and dialing back the number of Harpoon anti-ship missiles it fields — but Greenert wants to get that back.

According to Raytheon, JSOW-C’s “long standoff range of approximately 70 nautical miles allows delivery from well outside the lethal range of most enemy air defenses.” It’s supposed to achieve initial operational capability next year. Company officials also have pitched an “extended range” version of JSOW with its own engine, pushing its standoff distance to as much as 300 miles.

The state of the anti-ship TacTom is less clear; we’ve asked Raytheon for an update. But when the company announced that it was pursuing moving-target capability for its flagship cruise missile in 2009, it said it wanted the weapon to be able to hit a maneuvering object from more than 900 nautical miles.

We can only speculate about what’s going on behind the curtain, but the Pentagon has enjoyed mixed success with a new generation of fast, precise, extended range weapons. Its Prompt Global Strike; Revolutionary Approaches To Time-Critical Long Range Strike; and other efforts have yet to bear fruit for the operational fleet. That’s another one of the key questions Greenert did not address in his Proceedings piece — how long does the U.S. have to get all this right?

Join the Conversation

I want the JAGM back.

Mr Ewing, what do you really think? Making the case for standoff munitions here while creating a shark frenzy with your other story making the case that Greenert was dinging the F35. Well done puppet master!

“The F-35 Lightning II has no shortage of critics among defense observers, congressional skeptics and other Beltway denizens, and now it has a new one: The boss of one of the services that will fly it.” http://​www​.dodbuzz​.com/​2​0​1​2​/​0​7​/​0​3​/​d​i​d​-​c​n​o​-​j​u​s​t​-ta

The issue with employing JSOW as anti-ship weapon is its slow speed and the likelihood of being intercepted by enemy ship defense is relatively high, thus reducing the weapon’s effectiveness. Even JSOW-ER is not ideal. With a weak engine and sub-sonic cruising speed, JSOW-ER has the range but still venerable to high maneuverable intercept missile. US Navy needs a Tomahawk class fully automated + supersonic missile to tackle high end anti-surface warfare.

Team up with MBDA and co-develop and co-produce the PERSEUS antiship missile in the US or cooperate with India on a US version of the Brahmos missile. This will save money and make the USN more lethal. Or team up with the Israelis or South Koreans. The US only approach will not give us the lethal missiles we need at a price we can afford, see the dramatic price increase of the Aim120D which seems inferior to the Meteor AAM.

In the case of any potential Pacific conflict I say more AGM-154s and long range missiles less slow and venerable F-35Cs.

Overall the Navy need the priority and the Army need much fat and pork cut from its bloated budget.

What the “Canoe Club” is more than a one-trick pony! OMG!! :( Now the anti-JSF soot-sayers will have to find another part time job. Yes the Navy will continue to buy the F-35C to replace the aging F-18 Hornets and yes the Navy will continue to buy E/F/G-18 Super-Hornets. Different a/c for different mission requirements; or not! Now that Adm. Greenert is CNO, a submariner may not agree with aviation “as being the end all to be all”. His tools have been missles and torpedoes and this trident of missles he alludes to in “Proceedings” gives an incite to his visions. Missles that can be launched from ships, on or from under the water. A new Boss is giving creedence to another viewpoint, it could get interesting! :)

While I acknowledge the need for the Navy to bulk up and increase its capabilities to prepare for a possible naval conflict, when was the last time they actually fought another naval force since the end of WWII? Cuban missile crisis (no fighting), the short spat against Iran back in the 80’s and a very quick win against Iraq’s brown water navy. Did I miss any?

Now lets look at the Army: Korea, Vietnam, Panama, Gulf War, Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq.

I know the navy took part in many of those operations, but they were never the main effort; the point is there is a trend. Iran and Korea, not China, are more likely to be the next spots the US military goes in the near future, the Navy likely wont be the main effort then either. I don’t think the answer is to slash the Army’s funding; it and the USMC have carried the burden over the last ten years.

I also am not nearly as convinced as some others seem to be that a conflict with China is inevitable. In fact I believe the threat is becoming a little hyped.

Having said all that, ALL services can do ALOT better with the funds they have.

I suppose the future may include a rail gun of some sort on USN vessels as well. Certainly these will have the standoff range to keep American ships outside of our enemies’ weapons’ umbrella.

This is more of a heading of how far along are railgun technology? How far along are the anti missile/airplane/anything moving lasers for shipboard use? How far along are scram missile technologies? How far along are IR sensors for distance distinction/resolution etc. Meaning fighters/bombers will be seen no matter what Radar Absorbant material is used.

If one believe their railgun and laser tech will mature in 10 years or however long it really takes,making an effective impenetrable barrier of ‘x’ miles of airspace around your ships, to relatively very slow moving aircraft in comparison, then one only really needs said next generation of fighter to defend the marines on the beach and there really isn’t going to be a CAP over navy ships. Wouldn’t that shore based fighter be the F-35B anyways? Not the F-35C where if the boys on the ‘beach head’ need air support NOW, not an hour from now because folks are so worried about losing a carrier that said carrier is 200–400 miles off shore.

Have to look at emerging technology, not what is already in service. What is in service was developed 20 or more years ago and will likewise be true of any adversary as well.

I agree. But the army’s GCV ICC and AAS need to go BIG waste since current systems can do the job.

Should have built the NATF 20 years ago.

LRASM-a and LRASM-b

High tech, high dollar systems have their place but we need to consider that low tech, low dollar systems do too. The genius of the laser guided bomb was the use of low dollar off the shelf conventional Mk series GP bombs. Add a low tech, low dollar rear pop out fin and a relatively low dollar guidance unit to the front and all you needed was to retrofit our air and ground forces with laser sending units like was done with the Gruman A6E and ground laser designators. ——
Cheap in the big scope of things. ——- Outmoded today? Maybe, but a good example of situational weapons suitable for some battlefield tactical conditions that gave relatively light precision in targeting and relatively high controllability in collateral damage by choosing the right size bomb body for the target. —– The employment of some systems entails more risk to personnel and/or support systems than others and that has to be balanced against the mission. —– I don’t ever want to risk lives when not necessary but not every mission deserves a 2 million dollar missile delivered by a 100 million or billion dollar support system or launch platform. —— If we are going to survive in this day of terrorism we have to remember an old adage that Eisenhower and GWHB understood well: That a hundred million dollars of offensive technology is easily offset by ten million dollars of defensive technology. ——
A balance of high and less tech, more and less expensive weapons is more beneficial than shooting our whole wad on nothing but super expensive systems that we can’t afford to have too many of, can’t afford to maintain and can’t afford to replace. ——-
Star Wars has its place, just not every place, every time.

I agree! The China threat is hugely hyped by politicians and military leaders who seem unable to do without a superpower enemy.

Well said! The good old naval gun remains all that is necessary in a high percentage of situations.

you don’t build capabilities based upon the past, you build them based upon the future

when was the last time the Army faced a peer-WWII, Korea perhaps

when was the last time the Air Force faced a peer-Vietnam maybe, more like Korea or WWII

but you are right about China, it’s only a matter of time b4 that happen, no one even needs a crystal ball to see that coming. China is exhibiting all of the classic signs of a nation preparing for war
–rapid built up of military
–lots of saber rattling and talk of enemies
–overpopulation (of males)
–claiming vast territories as their own
–pushing their neighbors around
–slowing economy
–restless population
–scared leaders
–repressive government
–lots of talk about lack of repect

You all seem to think that war is inevitable. Vietnam came about due to a network of agreements signed into law by Eisenhauer; Reagan spent massive amounts of money to expand the military, and meddled everywhere; Bush (the father) bombed Panama with the F-117 and invaded Iraq while we were still delivering weapons to it; Bush (the junior) most probably lied to push the U.S. into Iraq. On the other hand, Clinton was criticized for not getting into Bosnia, downsized and upgrade our military and generated a surplus. Obama’s single big emphasis has been a health care program, but congress continues to increase our military budget and seems to continue to look for more wars to fight. We have gone from selling democracy to being the world’s largest exporter of weapons and we have the largest military budget. We have 1,170 military bases OUTSIDE of the U.S. How many bases are enough? How many wars? Why do you think that China wants a military war with this country. It is obvious that China is at war with the U.S. in particular, and the west in general, but it clearly sees that the war can be won through non-military means, while the west is bankrupting itself.

Problem is the flattops are just too good as targets. Better to have 33 jeep flattops than 11 floating AFBs. A ship the size of Lake Champlain leads to more ships the size of Lake Champlain, not more weapons we may need in any coming hot focus. Ignoring what passes for communism these days (control of the military by guys making billions using the military for business: fascism, not communism), the most likely event is a takeover of a neighboring country, not direct stab at US. If the neighboring country is one of our “sworn treaty partners”, then we have a problem. F-35C is already a dead duck, they just won’t admit it until LM has made the last penny out of the worthless toys they produce.

Smaller carriers are slower and more vulnerable to crippling damage — the size of the target is moot when your adversaries have PGMs. Larger carriers are more flexible in terms of the air wing it can embark, and provide a symbiotic capability to protect their entire task force, which smaller carriers like LHAs cannot.

Capt. Hernandez is practicing damage control.

Does anyone know how much it would cost the Navy to cancel its contract for 260 F-35 C-models?

Someone needs a history lesson.

I believe you need to do more research.

It is a military leader’s job to anticipate such possibilities, not act like world peace is possible.

No one has a crystal ball.

It IS however in the realm of possibility correct?

Making no preparations to such a possibility leads to disaster.

Uh who escalated Vietnam? Who missed Bin Laden multiple times? Who expanded the mission in Somalia and then scaled it back convincing Bin Laden we’d fold at the first sight of casualties? You have a very warped view of history especially when you blame America for all the world’s woes.

You don’t do research on black box secret projects.

There is no doubt one still needs updated electronics/airframe. I was only pointing out that Stealth as defined by “radar” today and yesterday isn’t true anymore. Its a bit blurred as the article was pointing out. Just as the A-10 is not the ultimate CAS vehicle anymore as it was 20 and 10 years ago.

Probably the defense should look into this:
http://​english​.peopledaily​.com​.cn/​1​0​2​7​7​4​/​7​8​6​6​220.…

So much Bullshit here.
Name the weapons that we were delivering to Iraq in 1992, Be specific. In fact, please tell us all which US WEAPONS the Iraquis were equipped with at that time.

Where do you get the number of 1170 bases? Are you counting field outposts/foxholes in Aghanistan? Please provde a list.

Clearly you do not understand federal contracting.

Hint: The Navy does NOT have a contract for 260 F-35s

Apparently the previous article said that the Navy signed on the “dotted line” to buy 260 F-35Cs. I may have been using the word contract out of context, but my real question is how much would it cost the Navy to pull out of the JSF program?

JAGM already exists, it’s called Brimstone.

One thing that’s interesting in this explanation of what the PR men wanted Greenert to say, is that I thought the original article was clearly pointing at two weapons — JASSM-ER/LRASM-B and MALD-J. I’m not sure what the Navy’s position is on MALD-J — will it fit on a Bug? But he was clearly pointing at something along those lines, I guess a LRASM-B with EW payload would be pretty cool.

Also interesting how things have gone quiet on AShM TacTom — but then do they really need it if LRASM-B works out? I guess it increases the flexibility of the subs if they have AShM capability.

Doesn’t have to be Tomahawk-class, just Sizzler-class. Since LRASM-A got cancelled, I guess LRASM-B with a terminal booster would be the most likely approach, like Sizzler.

Perseus would be cool though.

hi, my name is amirhesamodine , and my family is athari . i want ashm job for me . thanks .

iwant ASHM , THANKS .

HI, I WANT ASHM .THANKS .

Reread the prior article. It is largely an opinion piece. “Signing on the dotted Line” is very much a misnomer. The contract is to design the plane and additional contracts are for small number of Low Rate Iniital Production (LRIP). The small number actually contracted for is very small. Go talk to the Professor in the Aero Dept in Rickover Hall who used to be the Program Executive Officer for JSF to get more of the real details.

JAGM is based on Brimstone, but it was designed to be able to replace the Hellfire, Maverick, and TOW. It would have been extremely cheap to make and give our typical units from Super Hornets to Humvees an abundant amount of reliable ammunition. The Navy put it on hold so it could feed money to the F-35 and LCS. I thought that missile would have truly been an excellent punch to any enemy at low cost.

The Navy has already started putting money toward MALD-J: http://​www​.marketwatch​.com/​s​t​o​r​y​/​r​a​y​t​h​e​o​n​-​a​n​d​-us–

I remember there was an earlier article on this site that said Boeing was going to use a version of the Scan Eagle UAV. I wonder if that’s exactly what MALD-J is.

Bosnia? Army deploys with the mission of force protection. Really?

Kosovo? Three Carrier Airwings with something like half the tactical sorties against Kosovo for the Navy, not to mention Tomahawks versus what, one immensely botched helo deployment that never fires a shot!

… Why is it I get the feeling that the people on this site know more about the professors here than I do?

i want black owl .thanks

Nvm. Just looked up some more information on MALD-J and it is definitely not a ScanEagle variant.

I think the defense should look into the saab rbs 15 mk3 for defense

This is typical for the US defense Strategy how looks to shift only between extremes but find never a balanced concept. The reality is what both sides (the stealth and the non-stealth fraction) are wrong with there concepts. So all other World Powers and enemy’s understand this so the Russians and Chinese develop since decades a lot of sophisticated long range Air defense Systems like (S300PM,PMU1,PMU2…, S400, S500, HQ19,HQ21 and many more) and also a lot of long range Anti Ship Missiles some of them Hypersonic and with a Rage of more them 200 Miles but in the same time they develop also there own Stealth Fighter like the PAK FA or the J20 how will simply exterminate all other non stealth enemy’s in Air Combat. In compare with them the USA has never spend big to improve there Land based Air Defense systems and there offensive attainments are nearly non-existed on smaller Surface Combatants including some destroyers like the DDG51 and everything look like to be concentrate around the 10–11 Carriers how become more and more vulnerable.

The Fact is what the Navy needs necessarily a replacement for there non-stealthy and slow Harpoons because why nearly all enemy surface ships have already a better Close Defense them the most US ships have. And the Navy needs at same time immediately a replace for there Cruise Missiles like the Tomahawk how is also non-stealthy, slow and with now chances to penetrate even older enemy Air Defense Systems on Land and See. But the USA needs also a Stealth Fighter to stay competitive even them they get a new Anti-ship Missile and a new Cruise Missiles because why the enemy has already started to built there own Stealth Fighter Fleets and the USA has also sleep to improve there counter stealth Techniques. So lags about 20 Years behind the Russians on Anti-Stealth Techniques and the Chinese are also far ahead of on this Point because of Russian help.

Summarily it exist no choice between the F35 and New Long Range and Anti Ship Weapons because why the Navy needs simply both to stay competitive everything else is typical US Military BS like FCS or War on Terror Focus.

LRASM-B = Cancelled. (Who would have guessed?)

you for behtar bodan bayad bee system bargh estgahe fazayee baynolmelaly sary bazany . daryayee az elm dar an haste ka barayee bargh curose , ya stelte ‚mofid mibashad . system fiuz an baseeyar pishrafteh mibashad
. mamolan chine va sayere keshvar ha az tarigh sarghate sestem batry hayee ka barayee azmayesh dar kar khane jatee aslahee sazy azmayesh mikonand va kamy kar royee an ba ine pishraft ha naeeal mishavand …

We have gone from selling democracy to being the world’s largest exporter of weapons and we have the largest military budget.

I get sick of hearing these eutopia activist who say why cant we just all get along. The same as the governments who are trying to make a one world economy and probably eventually a one world government. We can all just get together and hold hands falalalalala. IT WONT WORK!!!!!!!! The problem is, is that there will always be a ASSHOLE or ASSHOLES in this world. Look now!!!!! WE have ASSHOLES in CHINA, We have ASSHOLES in RUSSIA, We have ASSHOLES in NORTH KOREA, even though it has tamed down a little compared to the past, and we have ASSHOLES in IRAN. Just to name a few. These people will never lay down their arms and play FALALALA. The only way to make a BULLY see is to bloody his nose. So we must prepare and be ready, not taken by surprise. China will start a war it is garunteed. They are firm in their policies to try and oppress Taiwan. That is what this is all about. They try to bully the rest of Asia and the USA to get what they want. Resources locally to continue development and military build up so they can sooth their pride and egos by forcing Taiwan back int to the fold. Plus I think they have developed a thinking like Japan did in the 30’s. That they are the better Asian race and everyone in Asia should be submitted to them, because of their economic success, as well as past mind sets that have plagued Asia for along time of believing the Western world thinks their inferior. Japan felt the same way in the 30’s.Plus if you look at leaders around the world and if their very prideful then in dealing with them takes tact because if you humilate them you will never hear the end of it. As well as they believe in the Defensive island chains that Japan did during WW2 to try and keep the USA Navy from their door steps.

If you use http://​www​.militaryinstallations​.dod​.mil/​M​O​S​/​f?p=

The Army/Navy/Air Force/Marines numbers go up to 391, unless there’s double billing. It may also under-report some overseas facilities.

Checking
http://​www​.acq​.osd​.mil/​i​e​/​d​o​w​n​l​o​a​d​/​b​s​r​/​b​s​r​2​0​1​1​bas

suggests thousands of “DoD sites” with 611 overseas. The Army and the Air Force have the lion’s share of them.

Bear in mind the semantic definition of “base” versus “DoD site” may vary.

*required

NOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces.

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement

AdChoices | Like us on , follow us on and join us on Google+
© 2014 Military Advantage
A Monster Company.