Posted on 01/18/2012 7:59:22 PM PST by sukhoi-30mki
Boeing’s New Missile for Littoral Combat Ships
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.
Read more: http://defensetech.org/2012/01/18/boeings-new-missile-for-littoral-combat-ships/#ixzz1js9d5X7l Defense.org
But can it kill a dog chained in my garage?
The Little Corvette Speedy can (on a really really good day)
You have to give up something in other areas if you want to do 50knots.
Did I need a sarcasm font?
:)
“Haven’t followed this one closely, but...it is a nice looking vessel. What are its drawbacks, in your opinion? Too lightly armored, poor performance, limited armament?”
I think you nicely summed it up...
Here's the latest criticism:
Of course, if its primary mission is in littoral waters, then it obviously needs to either have capabilities to not activate mines in the first place or the capability to detect and avoid/destroy them. To me, it sounds like a vessel designed by committee with a weakness for mission creep, and it its hull is composed of aluminum not steel. Having seen the results of a fire and an aluminum superstructure (USS Belknap meet USS John F. Kennedy) I am having visions of modern ships burning to the waterline as a wooden ship of the line might do.
To be fair, though, I would take with a grain of salt any defense related article from a publication such as "Wired", written by a guy who uses this as a tagline: "...Spencer Ackerman is Danger Room's senior reporter, based out of Washington, D.C., covering weapons of doom and the strategies they're used to implement..."
I read one of the linked articles about corrosion on this vessel titled "Builder blames Navy as US Warship Disintigrates", and read this passage:
"...There are technical terms for this kind of disintegration. Austal USA, Independence‘s Alabama-based builder, calls it “galvanic corrosion.” Civilian scientists know it as “electrolysis.” It’s what occurs when “two dissimilar metals, after being in electrical contact with one another, corrode at different rates,” Austal explained in a statement. “That suggests to me the metal is completely gone, not rusted,” naval analyst Raymond Pritchett wrote of Independence‘s problem..."
When I read this, I thought...Okay, someone took an explanation of galvanic corrosion and made that conclusion...
It's not a question of being faster than the ship, it's being faster than the ship's defensive systems can react to.
You got three of them. Add undermanned and overcomputerized, too expensive, and the fact that while proponents like to tout the multipurpose roles of LCS, none of the swappable mission modules that will supposedly support this capability exist, except on paper.
The Austal produced version is multi hulled and a lot faster, more fuel efficient and all but still a little light on armament.
Navy seems to be afraid of packing any of the big guns. They really blew it when they backed off the 155mm wep as built now by BAE. NGFS capable inland beyond 60 miles.
Maybe they should have asked the Marines what they would prefer.
If they asked the Marines they would say bring back the battleships.
I thought the Zumwault’s were still on track for the 155mm.
And I don’t think the 155mm was ever a consideration for LCS. Even if they could carry the gun I suspect the ammo supply would be pretty small. i
“But can it kill a dog chained in my garage?”
Nope. Just need a psychopathic pussified cop (I repeat myeself) for that.
I cannot disagree...I have heard that a lot of modern navy designs are geared towards fewer humans and more computers. Which makes them more expensive, and vulnerable.
As for the swappable modules for different missions..that sounds like a level of operational rigidity that is disturbing if true.
“We can’t look for that downed pilot because we have different mission modules loaded in...”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.