JASSM vs STORM SHADOW/SCALP EG vs TAURUS KEPD 350

MBDA is the manufacturer of the missile. Matra BAe Dynamics-UK is the main UK contractor and Matra BAe Dynamics-France the main French contractor. The two parts of the same company handled the international co-operation work, reducing project management overhead. Practically Storm Shadow/Scalp EG is based on the french Apache missile. The two parts of Matra BAe Dynamics act as separate Prime Contractors and hold the individual Storm Shadow and SCALP EG contracts for their respective national Governments.

A question regarding Storm Shadow/Scalp:

Is the production shared between UK/France, i.e. do British Storm Shadows have Frenchbuilt components and do French Sclaps have British built components? And what about the exports?

in due course I figure Fr will certainly produce simpler, cheaper AASM like unimode Galileo guided jdam clones.

“mass-plink”… lol… I like it

Now the Adl’A also emphasies on cheap weapons with for instance the AASM… which is a good combination with Scalp/Apache.

Nic

desagree: AASM is clever weapon (modular; multisensor, etc) but the price is (depending of options) between 75,000 and 100,000 Euro, while a JDAM is 18,000 $…

“mass-plink”… lol… I like it

Now the Adl’A also emphasies on cheap weapons with for instance the AASM… which is a good combination with Scalp/Apache.

Nic

I disagree that the use of SDB will render those weapons useless. They were not aimed at fighting a war such as those which western countries engage at present (ie Yougoslavia, Iraq or Afghanistan), but it was designed for another type of mission set in a much more dense war environment. I don’t see how they could be replaced by SDB if a major conflict ever broke out.

Then the US probably would be able to hit important and very well defended targets thanks to their stealth AC/and missiles combo… for european nations it would be more difficult, and those type of missles would definately be required. Of course their price would render them reserved to high priority targets, but I’m sure there would be plenty of those to chose from if the hit was to ever hit the fan.

Nic

1. agreed – an SDB-only force would surely be inadequate.

USAF A2G doctrine for the next decade or so would involve JASSM and JSOW launched from long range to take out heavily defended radars, SAM sites, C3I installations etc. even to close to 60 miles (SDB range) with F-22/35 would place the aircraft in danger, especially given the capabilities of S-300 level opposition. once the big radars and SAMs are taken out you could mass-plink enemies with masses of SDBs.

in any case SDB lacks the warhead weight to take out larger/well-protected targets.

2. i think the JASSM vs SCALP/TAURUS debate is quite a simple one. JASSM offers less capability (shorter range, smaller warhead) for much lower cost and reduced RCS and size/drag.

i emphasise the much lower cost; you could buy 2 or 3 JASSMs for one SCALP-EG. SDB is very cheap too. american emphasis on cheap weapons in recent years is a very good choice IMO, given their large scale of operations.

Look at the size of this thing!

the Popeye Turbo is also a comparable tool:
http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/missile_systems/air_missiles/popeye_turbo/Popeye_Turbo.html

but it lacks the Williams turbofans that make american kit and the KEPD so fuel efficient.

I disagree that the use of SDB will render those weapons useless. They were not aimed at fighting a war such as those which western countries engage at present (ie Yougoslavia, Iraq or Afghanistan), but it was designed for another type of mission set in a much more dense war environment. I don’t see how they could be replaced by SDB if a major conflict ever broke out.

Then the US probably would be able to hit important and very well defended targets thanks to their stealth AC/and missiles combo… for european nations it would be more difficult, and those type of missles would definately be required. Of course their price would render them reserved to high priority targets, but I’m sure there would be plenty of those to chose from if the hit was to ever hit the fan.

Nic

I found some more info

Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile (JASSM) http://www.defense-update.com/products/j/jassm.htm
STORM SHADOW / SCALP EG http://www.defense-update.com/products/s/storm-shadow.htm
TAURUS KEPD 350 http://www.defense-update.com/products/k/KEPD350.htm

This is interesting

Fusion of sensor data from three sensors provides reliable autonomous navigation. The sensors package include IBN (Image Based Navigation), TRN (Terrain Reference Navigation) and MIL-GPS (Global Positioning System) subsystems. The use of such fusion enables the Taurus KEPD 350 to navigate over long distances without GPS support.

Does not even Israel offer something similar? MSOV

http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/missile_systems/air_missiles/msov/MSOV.html

It looks similar but that’s a unpowered glider dispenser, I guess it could quite easily be turned into a powered cruise missile though.

And finally you hit the nail on the head “then you must increase the weight of the airframe”.

Sure. Have fun.

Does not even Israel offer something similar? MSOV

http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/missile_systems/air_missiles/msov/MSOV.html

Hasn’t the US protested against the sell of Black Shahines (a SCALP/Storm Shadow derivative) to the UAE cause it did break some 300km+ range cruise missiles non-proliferation agreement?

The same thing happened with Greece

Volume doesn’t make a difference. Weight does. And as a matter of fact, if you reduce the amount of fuel, then you must increase the weight of the airframe to explain the 300+ kg difference (assuming they all carry the same amount of fuel). That doesn’t make sense, and that’s obvious.

And finally you hit the nail on the head “then you must increase the weight of the airframe”. And yes volume DOES make a difference. You’ve heard of a thing called “drag” I assume? More empty space= more fuel for the same range, more weight = more fuel for the same range, more drag = more fuel for the same range. Why is this such a difficult concept? And of course it’s not an all or nothing thing before you go off the deep end. It could be that their configurations demanded more control surfaces, which means more drag (which means you need more fuel for the same range). Maybe the RAM/RAS is heavy and/or bulky which means more fuel for the same range to power that extra weight. And that extra fuel weight doesn’t come free either. If you need more fuel then you need more volume to carry it in which means a bigger structure which means more weight which means more fuel. . . Is any of this sinking in yet? Basically when it comes down to it you have to go off published info else you’re just speculating (and yes I realize published figures aren’t gospel- on ANY side).

Hasn’t the US protested against the sell of Black Shahines (a SCALP/Storm Shadow derivative) to the UAE cause it did break some 300km+ range cruise missiles non-proliferation agreement?

No but dead space DOES reduce the amount of fuel you can carry. If Scalp has three cubic feet of dead space and JASSM has 0.5 cubic feet then it makes a difference.

Volume doesn’t make a difference. Weight does. And as a matter of fact, if you reduce the amount of fuel, then you must increase the weight of the airframe to explain the 300+ kg difference (assuming they all carry the same amount of fuel). That doesn’t make sense, and that’s obvious.

the unitary warhead of scalp is probable more compact than the multiple single /submunition payload of JASSM. Dead space can’t increase the weight 😉

JASSM has a unitary warhead.

the unitary warhead of scalp is probable more compact than the multiple single /submunition payload of JASSM. Dead space can’t increase the weight 😉

No but dead space DOES reduce the amount of fuel you can carry. If Scalp has three cubic feet of dead space and JASSM has 0.5 cubic feet then it makes a difference. But none of this BS matters since we’re going off of PUBLISHED information. And that being the case, the figures have been listed. We can “should”, “probably”, and “tends to confirm” all day long it doesn’t change the published numbers.

the unitary warhead of scalp is probable more compact than the multiple single /submunition payload of JASSM. Dead space can’t increase the weight 😉