Grand Danois
Entertainer
Do you have any info on the corresponding numbers on SDB?
Found it myself - same source.
Avg Unit Procurement Cost - $50,000
Unit Program Cost - $65,000
24,070 units.
F-35 First Flight Comments...
- Thread starter Kurt Plummer
- Start date
Found it myself - same source.
Avg Unit Procurement Cost - $50,000
Unit Program Cost - $65,000
24,070 units.
cost effectiveness has to be weighted against a few variables:
- ingress difficulty
- target value
- blue loss value
- appropriate and proportionate response
- complexity of supporting assets - nominally non LO planes that have to come in closer to deliver higher probability on target will be more vulnerable. hence risk costs go up. esp pilot loss issues as they are a degraded risk that cannot be easily replaced. esp if trained on complex platforms
- target relevance
Last edited:
My first post here, but been keeping an eye on this thread.
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/wms/findPage.do?dsp=fec&ci=18074&rsbci=0&fti=111&ti=0&sc=400
Has successfully completed all taxi test, should all test-data be a-ok, test flight should be a go very shortly. It's nice to have positive news on this project, hopefully the flight goes well.
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/wms/findPage.do?dsp=fec&ci=18074&rsbci=0&fti=111&ti=0&sc=400
Has successfully completed all taxi test, should all test-data be a-ok, test flight should be a go very shortly. It's nice to have positive news on this project, hopefully the flight goes well.
JASSMs
Avg Unit Procurement Cost - $575,000
Unit Program Cost - $849,000
SDB
Avg Unit Procurement Cost - $50,000
Unit Program Cost - $65,000
Holly crap, this just destroys the argument that
The F-22 can carry a 1000lb JDAM for the big targets, and even though it would have to go within 50 miles of the target it would be safer than being in a JSF 100 miles away from the same target.
Avg Unit Procurement Cost - $575,000
Unit Program Cost - $849,000
SDB
Avg Unit Procurement Cost - $50,000
Unit Program Cost - $65,000
Holly crap, this just destroys the argument that
If the JASSM cost double or tripple the price, then fair enough. But more than 10 times the price the SDB is a very good option.
The F-22 can carry a 1000lb JDAM for the big targets, and even though it would have to go within 50 miles of the target it would be safer than being in a JSF 100 miles away from the same target.
From http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d06391.pdf ,
(as of 2004) For 24,070 SDBs,
Total Procurement Cost - $1.24 billion
Total Program Cost - $1.63 billion
Avg Unit Procurement Cost - $51,500
Unit Program Cost - $67,700
So not much worse than your numbers
You're exactly right on target with your posting. So is "Occum". To those who underestimate the SDB, considering that the F-22 would not just launch 1 at a target, but more like 3-4 with staggered impact times. Also considering that the explosives today are not going to be as powerful as the explosives of the next decade: they will become quite more powerful.
The 22, like it or not is the best route to go for the USAF. If 381 are enough to replace all of the F-15s (except for the Strike Eagle), then imagine what 900 F-22s could do: replace *ALL* F-15s, F-16s, F-117s. With that would come even further reduced operational costs for the USAF since instead of having 3-4 fighter/bomber airframes to train people to fly and fix and store parts for, that number would be reduced to just 1 airframe. There would most likely be very significant savings to the USAF along with an incredibly fearsome AF. I don't know about you, but if I was NK, Iran, whomever, I'd be much more worried about 300-400 F-22s coming at me than 300-400
F-35s with a token force of 22's for CAP missions.
Grand Danois
Entertainer
The substance of my argument was not cost per munition, but cost-effectiveness against a well defended target.
The JASSM mission is cheaper per target destroyed.
Last edited:
Grand Danois
Entertainer
The enemy AD of of tomorrow will also have improved. SDB is an easier target than a target drone. And they can handle multiple of those today.
If the SDB can be detected 10 km out, then the AD will have in excess of luxurious 2 minutes to shoot them down.
Last edited:
Sure, but I'm still waiting to hear how an F-35's larger internal bays are going to help the S-3/400 plus TOR problem.
If either has to resort to slinging JASSMs, then they're both basically in the same boat. (little better than an F-teen)
A weapon data link is in development for SDB II, IIRC.
And loitering munitions are also planned for the F-22 and F-35.
You assume JASSM can penetrate this type of defense. The spec sheet says it's stealthy, but to what extent? Who knows. It too may require significant saturation to crack a tough target.
Grand Danois
Entertainer
Not only is it LO (presumably not VLO), but has the benefit of horizon and terrain masking and clutter which is a world of difference to the "I can see you all the way" non-stealthy SDB. This means that the JASSM will get much, much closer before being detected, if at all.
It is also faster, speed unknown, but probably high subsonic, whilst the SDB is a 150kt glide bomb. This considerably reduces reaction time, reducing ability of the AD to engage, shoot, determine success, reengage, etc. It is also more difficult for the missile to hit a ground hugging missile.
Endgame maneuvers = increased survivability.
Example:
4*SDB (or 8*SDB) detected at 10 km in their slow, predictable trajectory. AD has two minutes to shoot them down.
2*JASSM detected at say 5 km at Mach 0.8 = 20 seconds to impact. And it will soon be to close engage. So we're talking perhaps a 10-15 sec window to shoot them down.
But, yes, saturation may be necessary.
Of course no plan is perfect and for every offensive weapon there is a counter "weapon". Imagine that after Vietnam the USAF concluded that since Soviet SAMs were so effective and were going to improve over time as technology advanced that it was pointless to build to new fighters. War and its weaponry is an ever ongoing game of chess, of checks and counter checks. Not too mention there is still the SEAD mission aircraft.
There also nothing to prevent the USAF/Pentagon from developing RF LO bombs. Considering that bombs have practically no heat signature, it would not take a PhD to figure out how to make already existing bombs into stealthy weapons. Already, a week ago, some team of scientists figured out that if you 'zap' a metalic surface with a ultra-high intense laser, then a micro-surface of complex geometry is formed that when RF energy is pointed at it, that said 'zapped' metalic surface effectively acts like a "black body" to the RF energy (without complex 'stealthy' shaping). If that can be militarized, then its not out of the question to make the current production bombs the USA now has into LO weapons. I'm not up on my treaties, but I do recall there is something out there in a treaty with the USSR/Russia that bans stealthy weapons from being deployed onto stealth aircraft. I know, I know... What I said about the laser technique sounds sci-fi, but none the less its true.
Grand Danois
Entertainer
Agreed. And the F-35 would be dropping the same bombs and could be coated with the same "black body material".
And still be half the price of an F-22.
But futuristics is not what we are discussing right now.
Don;t most stealth munitions sacrifice aerodynamics to a fair extent?
I don;t remember exactly but I remember hearing that the F-22 had quite a high stall speed because the stealth reduced the wing's lift area (something to that effect anyway).
If that IS the case then a VLO 'glide-bomb' would sacrifice a fair whack of range forcing your much less expendable F-22 to either go higher or closer, either way making it a better target for enemy sensor systems.
Which would mean that you're better of with Storm Shadow or it's US equivalent.
I don;t remember exactly but I remember hearing that the F-22 had quite a high stall speed because the stealth reduced the wing's lift area (something to that effect anyway).
If that IS the case then a VLO 'glide-bomb' would sacrifice a fair whack of range forcing your much less expendable F-22 to either go higher or closer, either way making it a better target for enemy sensor systems.
Which would mean that you're better of with Storm Shadow or it's US equivalent.
But is it really half the price? Is it $276 billion for 2400 aircraft? 1700 aircraft? Fewer? Will the price go up yet again?
Terrain and horizon masking means it's flying low - in the trashfire envelope, over presumably hostile terrain. It means, if the enemy is on the ball, they can have spotters watching for missiles far out, cueing all manner of low-end air defense systems along its presumed flightpath - from DShKs to Zu-23s to MANPADs. And a non-maneuvering, subsonic JASSM won't be a difficult target.
Is JASSM actually designed to fly a terrain following profile? Maybe it can, I'm not sure.
But regardless, if you're making a cost argument against the F-22 based on the perception that you'll often need to fire JASSMs anyway, then you can do it a helluva lot cheaper with EXISTING and in service F-teens. Just continue to crank out F-15Es, F-16Cs and F-18E/Fs at half to a third the cost of an F-35.
Grand Danois
Entertainer
True. But if history is any indicator, the price will only go up from here.Time will tell how many is to be built.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #99
Grand Danois,
Like it or you can lump it but the SDB is the wave of the future for our services. Not just the F-22 but the F-35. Any problems it has are thus mutual to both platforms as well as the F-15E and other airframes it will be integrated with.
>>
Not only is it LO (presumably not VLO), but has the benefit of horizon and terrain masking and clutter which is a world of difference to the "I can see you all the way" non-stealthy SDB.
>>
Yet the BRU-61 is also capable of launching an ADM-160B, the LOCAAS or it's SMACM followon. All of which are powered, one supersonic. Two subhorizoning.
>>
This means that the JASSM will get much, much closer before being detected, if at all.
>>
A facile and incomplete argument at best.
First off the competence of the Tor is highly dependent on it's reaction times and from an initial detection range of 5km/3nm, you are looking at a 5-8 second detection-track-engagement window /before first launch/ (assuming the vehicle is static). During which, a Mach .85 'force of one' stealthy missile will have moved all of .7nm. Comparitively, a Mach 1.2-1.4 plunger is coming in at .22nm/sec to .25nm/sec which means in 5 seconds, a swarm of them will have moved 1.25nm or 7600ft. Straight Down.
It should also be mentioned that 'not all Toroids are created equally round' as an engagement envelope.
While all the baseline Gauntlet is an 8 shot wonder (2 missiles per target = 4 target engagements, max) it was not until the Tor-M that dual target ability was gained. It was not until Tor M2 that an active seeker 9M331 was /tested/. And without that particular onboard seeker option, the Tor is NOT a _high speed_ anti-missile capable defender.
>>
It is also faster, speed unknown, but probably high subsonic, whilst the SDB is a 150kt glide bomb.
>>
The best I can come up with is this-
http://www.clashofarms.com/files/H4.1 Annex Errata.pdf
Which states 594 knots. If you use the low altitude M=660 number, that's .9 Mach which seems a little high to me.
However; the key to understanding any PENETRATING MUNITIONS total energy is the height at which it arrives over target. In this, the original AvLeak article on the GBU-39 (same issue as had the X-32 on the cover) highlighted a 15nm cross track capability and 25-30nm downrange capability with a 1.6m RFC penetration value from a 10,000ft stoop height arrival over the target. 50nm was stated as 'possible if you gave up the target penetration effect'.
This-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hAfjFm2jJo4
Is not the penetration of a 150knot munition sir. It is more likely a Mach 1.2-1.4 hit.
Now, keeping in mind that the Tor is an 18-20,000ft ceiling, 30,000ft slant, weapon. AND that the munitions /may well not/ be targeted at the vehicle but rather at an airfield complex itself 3-5nm long and at least a mile across. And 'suddenly' it's a whole new ballgame.
Indeed, with a glide ratio probably around 15-20:1, the F-22 with it's ability to drop from Mach 1.4 and 45K or better on an 80-100nm standoff basis of engagement becomes quite well advantaged because no matter how long it takes the munitions to arrive, _so long as they hit terminal above the threat floor_, the Tor is going to have a helluva time smacking them all with 2 missiles per target 'needle to needle' on the way down.
>>
This considerably reduces reaction time, reducing ability of the AD to engage, shoot, determine success, reengage, etc. It is also more difficult for the missile to hit a ground hugging missile.
>>
If I want to kill a cruise missile, I am going to do it with either popup mines (the next evolution of the AHM, already under development in Russia). Or with another cruise missile. PERIOD. Nose to nose accuracies and fuzing in particular are just to unreliable on sub-1m2 targets when compared to motoring up alongside to score a formating kill at near-zero crossing angle and relative speed.
Or throwing up dozens of cued airburst rounds that cost 1/10th as much as even the 9M330 class missile.
>>
Endgame maneuvers = increased survivability.
>>
Endgame maneuvers stress the weapon excessively and often compromise accuracy for little gain in penetration value. In this it should also be noted that the AGM-158's most likely engagement mode is also _from altitude_ so that it's seeker can effectively view target planform geometries in selecting an aimpoint and indeed can function as an on-the-fly ISR/BIA 'snapshot' relay to give remote commanders a chance to alter final targeting.
>>
Example:
4*SDB (or 8*SDB) detected at 10 km in their slow, predictable trajectory. AD has two minutes to shoot them down.
>>
No. Because not only does the munition have a threat floor advantage, it also has a multitarget and signature one. Specifically, 'nose on' the GBU-39 is small enough signatured to qualify as LO which will effect target tracking variables to much the same extent (3-5km engagement threshold) as it does the CM. The difference being that the GBU-39 is going to be arriving at one heckuva clip and the Tor is going to have both acquisition and intercept mechanic DELAYS in it's target stack so as to be able to cross-track hit the weapons that are at the edge of it's terminal defensive envelope because of this (what you can hit at 10km, moving at 500 knots as an airframe sized target, you may only hit at 2km for a 600-700 knot plunging PGM).
>>
2*JASSM detected at say 5 km at Mach 0.8 = 20 seconds to impact. And it will soon be to close engage. So we're talking perhaps a 10-15 sec window to shoot them down.
But, yes, saturation may be necessary.
>>
And given the Tor has an 8-round VLS and typical CM SSPK is between .6 and .9 _for an easier target_ than a diving GBU-39 represents (i.e. 2 shot defensive kill guarantees), that 'saturation value' is going to be equal to about HALF of one F-22 loadout. Anything outside a 3nm downrange, 18-20,000ft ceiling and the GBU-39 is effectively 'or your next Favorit is free' weapon. At which point BSmitty's "Sure, I'll trade!" comment is particularly apt.
KPl.
Like it or you can lump it but the SDB is the wave of the future for our services. Not just the F-22 but the F-35. Any problems it has are thus mutual to both platforms as well as the F-15E and other airframes it will be integrated with.
>>
Not only is it LO (presumably not VLO), but has the benefit of horizon and terrain masking and clutter which is a world of difference to the "I can see you all the way" non-stealthy SDB.
>>
Yet the BRU-61 is also capable of launching an ADM-160B, the LOCAAS or it's SMACM followon. All of which are powered, one supersonic. Two subhorizoning.
>>
This means that the JASSM will get much, much closer before being detected, if at all.
>>
A facile and incomplete argument at best.
First off the competence of the Tor is highly dependent on it's reaction times and from an initial detection range of 5km/3nm, you are looking at a 5-8 second detection-track-engagement window /before first launch/ (assuming the vehicle is static). During which, a Mach .85 'force of one' stealthy missile will have moved all of .7nm. Comparitively, a Mach 1.2-1.4 plunger is coming in at .22nm/sec to .25nm/sec which means in 5 seconds, a swarm of them will have moved 1.25nm or 7600ft. Straight Down.
It should also be mentioned that 'not all Toroids are created equally round' as an engagement envelope.
While all the baseline Gauntlet is an 8 shot wonder (2 missiles per target = 4 target engagements, max) it was not until the Tor-M that dual target ability was gained. It was not until Tor M2 that an active seeker 9M331 was /tested/. And without that particular onboard seeker option, the Tor is NOT a _high speed_ anti-missile capable defender.
>>
It is also faster, speed unknown, but probably high subsonic, whilst the SDB is a 150kt glide bomb.
>>
The best I can come up with is this-
http://www.clashofarms.com/files/H4.1 Annex Errata.pdf
Which states 594 knots. If you use the low altitude M=660 number, that's .9 Mach which seems a little high to me.
However; the key to understanding any PENETRATING MUNITIONS total energy is the height at which it arrives over target. In this, the original AvLeak article on the GBU-39 (same issue as had the X-32 on the cover) highlighted a 15nm cross track capability and 25-30nm downrange capability with a 1.6m RFC penetration value from a 10,000ft stoop height arrival over the target. 50nm was stated as 'possible if you gave up the target penetration effect'.
This-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hAfjFm2jJo4
Is not the penetration of a 150knot munition sir. It is more likely a Mach 1.2-1.4 hit.
Now, keeping in mind that the Tor is an 18-20,000ft ceiling, 30,000ft slant, weapon. AND that the munitions /may well not/ be targeted at the vehicle but rather at an airfield complex itself 3-5nm long and at least a mile across. And 'suddenly' it's a whole new ballgame.
Indeed, with a glide ratio probably around 15-20:1, the F-22 with it's ability to drop from Mach 1.4 and 45K or better on an 80-100nm standoff basis of engagement becomes quite well advantaged because no matter how long it takes the munitions to arrive, _so long as they hit terminal above the threat floor_, the Tor is going to have a helluva time smacking them all with 2 missiles per target 'needle to needle' on the way down.
>>
This considerably reduces reaction time, reducing ability of the AD to engage, shoot, determine success, reengage, etc. It is also more difficult for the missile to hit a ground hugging missile.
>>
If I want to kill a cruise missile, I am going to do it with either popup mines (the next evolution of the AHM, already under development in Russia). Or with another cruise missile. PERIOD. Nose to nose accuracies and fuzing in particular are just to unreliable on sub-1m2 targets when compared to motoring up alongside to score a formating kill at near-zero crossing angle and relative speed.
Or throwing up dozens of cued airburst rounds that cost 1/10th as much as even the 9M330 class missile.
>>
Endgame maneuvers = increased survivability.
>>
Endgame maneuvers stress the weapon excessively and often compromise accuracy for little gain in penetration value. In this it should also be noted that the AGM-158's most likely engagement mode is also _from altitude_ so that it's seeker can effectively view target planform geometries in selecting an aimpoint and indeed can function as an on-the-fly ISR/BIA 'snapshot' relay to give remote commanders a chance to alter final targeting.
>>
Example:
4*SDB (or 8*SDB) detected at 10 km in their slow, predictable trajectory. AD has two minutes to shoot them down.
>>
No. Because not only does the munition have a threat floor advantage, it also has a multitarget and signature one. Specifically, 'nose on' the GBU-39 is small enough signatured to qualify as LO which will effect target tracking variables to much the same extent (3-5km engagement threshold) as it does the CM. The difference being that the GBU-39 is going to be arriving at one heckuva clip and the Tor is going to have both acquisition and intercept mechanic DELAYS in it's target stack so as to be able to cross-track hit the weapons that are at the edge of it's terminal defensive envelope because of this (what you can hit at 10km, moving at 500 knots as an airframe sized target, you may only hit at 2km for a 600-700 knot plunging PGM).
>>
2*JASSM detected at say 5 km at Mach 0.8 = 20 seconds to impact. And it will soon be to close engage. So we're talking perhaps a 10-15 sec window to shoot them down.
But, yes, saturation may be necessary.
>>
And given the Tor has an 8-round VLS and typical CM SSPK is between .6 and .9 _for an easier target_ than a diving GBU-39 represents (i.e. 2 shot defensive kill guarantees), that 'saturation value' is going to be equal to about HALF of one F-22 loadout. Anything outside a 3nm downrange, 18-20,000ft ceiling and the GBU-39 is effectively 'or your next Favorit is free' weapon. At which point BSmitty's "Sure, I'll trade!" comment is particularly apt.
KPl.
Grand Danois
Entertainer
It is not different from any other cruise missile to date. What is the track record of Tomahawk and Storm Shadow? It is in the end game the missile is most vulnerable.
You're right that TERCOM is not a feature on JASSM. It is a low level flight missile, however, and has GPS/INS, which means it can do pretty well with a terrain database. I would assume this is the case, but don't know for sure.
Btw, reading up on it I realise that JASSM is not LO. It is extremely LO and specifically intended for the TOR-M1/S-300 combo. A programme of 4,400 units tells me that there are some (a lot of!) targets out there that SDB/JDAM can't handle. Yup. that's 1 JASSM for every 5 SDB planned so far.
That's right. And a fighter like the Eurofighter will do fine with its limited LO. E.g. UK has ordered 900 Storm Shadow. However, the F-35 still has all the flexibility that LO provides. It's multirole - has a lot of cards to play. Not a single failure point like F-22/SDB.
Actually I also advocate tossing cruise missiles out the back of transports.