JASSM Failures (but proves reputability of tests)

I’m glad you guys are not blessed with the quality of mainstream journalism on defence that we are blessed with was the summary of what I intended to say. 😉

clearly you’re a young ‘un because it sounds like you missed the “my GOD Bradleys will burst into flame at the slightest provocation!!! It has ALUMINUM armor and they use ALUMINUM in ROCKET PROPELLANT!!!!” :diablo:

This is what’s known as flame bait or trolling.

Trolling can be, Flame bait, nope.

Dude did you even read what I said?
It was a sarcasm buddy!!

I’m not dissing LM man :p

I’m glad you guys are not blessed with the quality of mainstream journalism on defence that we are blessed with was the summary of what I intended to say. 😉

Sorry but I have to post this…:D

Mods if this is against forum rules delete it :dev2:

This is what’s known as flame bait or trolling.

Sorry but I have to post this…:D

American Missile is dud, failed in all tests
American Express
From our Special correspondents, Shiv Aroor, Rajat Pandit, Ajay Shukla and Vishal Thapar.

US wasted a Staggering $5.8 billion of tax payers money on a Single Missile project.

Lockheed martin, worlds most hyped largest defence contractor failed to develop a Reliable LACM. F18 AESA S/W problems & failure of JASSM will force everyone to question Lockheed Martins ability to develop weapons.

Its high time pentagon should realise that security of American people cannot be endagered by inducting unreliable weapon Systems from LM.

JASSM project is already a failure, That puts F-22 and F-35 JSF programs in doubt, which are one of the costliest defence projects.

Is American Taxpayers money being wasted in these useless & hopeless systems?

Its high time Pentagon Should consider blacklisting Lockheed martin and start purchasing weapon systems from Russia. Russian PAK-FA is said to be far superior & Generation ahead compared to F-22.

Pentagon should cancel the unreliable and costly F-18 because of software glitches and start funding for Russian PAK-FA project.

It is also to be noted that Tomahawk cruise missile had succesful test last in Iraq war, it has been a few years thus it can be safely assumed it will fail if tested now and future procurement of more tomahawk missiles looks brime, as per the special confidential report we have.

Retd Naval Person George Mac says, “We need new missiles but LM has failed to deliver, we need to look out for JV’s now”.

This also supports why some tomahawk veered from their way to Pakistan, making it one of the most unreliable missile with biggest CEP around.

LM should start looking for Joint Ventures instead of testing missiles over a dozen times, which will speed up and save taxpayers money.

Project Name: JASSM
Trials: All failed
Money wasted: 5.8 Billion USD.

Mods if this is against forum rules delete it :dev2:

take it easy … 😉

Taking it totally easy. I just think it would be a stupid idea to cancel it rather than fix it. It’s a certainty cancelling it would be the more expensive and late way to “fix” it.

What is rather strange is that the US military has been using the Tomahawk for dozen of years, they should have plenty of experience for that kind of cruise missiles.

Nevermind Tomahawk how ’bout JSOW, SLAM, SLAM-ER, JDAM, Guided MLRS, ATACMS, CALCM, and so forth? It’s absurd that they have these kind of failures which is why LM ought to pay for the whole effort of fixing those in service, testing to verify that the fixes worked, and anything else to get the JASSM program to where it’s SUPPOSE to be.

Also, are stealth, low flying, subsonic cruise missiles still worth the money with the spread of systems such as TorM1, tungunska ? According to russo-fanboys they would eat the cruise missiles for breakfeast. .

Consider the source. 😉

I think the THAAD program seemed pretty good. The test found most the problems early, like tests are suppose to.

Never said otherwise. I simply pointed out that the problems they DID have were mainly due to poor QC.

A lot of people argue these tests are expensive and wasteful, however they saved the day this time.

The biggest obstical to more testing is the microscope the media, and organizations like POGO and so forth put on testing without knowing the purpose of testing (actually I believe they DO know but then that wouldn’t fit their agenda). To get a really reliable missile (or whatever) you need to test it a LOT. Compare the number of tests Sprint and Spartan underwent (over 70) to GBI or THAAD etc. IIRC if you added PAC-3, SM-3, THAAD, GBI (and the assorted ERINT, ERIS, HOE, FLAGE, etc) all together I’m fairly certain they haven’t broke 70 yet let alone on an individual basis. Every test has to be perfect because of the negative fallout of a failure so they have to do an excessive amount of prep which drives the cost up. On top of that you get geniuses in the like the current bunch who decide a program might not meet it’s goals so they slash it’s budget- as if that will HELP it meet it’s goals. Yeah, force them to lay people off, that will certainly help the program succeed. Idiots. Either fund it adequately or kill it outright.

Cost might be one reason. Part of the JASSM goal is not to cost as much as the older design cruise missiles.

And of course JASSM is unfixable :rolleyes: The sky isn’t falling people.

take it easy … 😉

What is rather strange is that the US military has been using the Tomahawk for dozen of years, they should have plenty of experience for that kind of cruise missiles.
So I don’t see where the problem is ?
What is so different in the navigation systems of tomahawk and JASSM to justify complete new development and such problems?

Also, are stealth, low flying, subsonic cruise missiles still worth the money with the spread of systems such as TorM1, tungunska ? According to russo-fanboys they would eat the cruise missiles for breakfeast. Yet, all advanced nations try to develop and field this capacity.

Look how THAAD did in it’s initial testing and it was mostly due to QC failures.

I think the THAAD program seemed pretty good. The test found most the problems early, like tests are suppose to.

On the contrary; it sounds like the JASSM problems were not found until a few were pulled out of lots from deliveries for deployment.

It is good to catch bugs in the early stages, but not to find a problem until they are in production and delivered for field service is very late in the game. I hope it is something easy to fix in QC, but I would hope factory QC tests would be good enough to find the problems.

It is good that the USAF had the money to “waste” on these tests or we would have a lemon in service.

A lot of people argue these tests are expensive and wasteful, however they saved the day this time.

I don’t get it either. Program QC? Pencil whipping test reviews? I don’t know, I am sure there is a huge investigation going on right now. It would be great if there is a save for this somehow. I mean for USAF that is a lot of cash plugged into the inventory we have. DOD doesn’t seem to have any fear of canceling things though. This could end up a real happy story in the end or a real ugly one. The goal will be to see if a scripted range event can end up being the same as real ops where munitions pukes pull it out of storage, hang it on the aircraft and presto, it flies, hits and explodes. Good grief, I wouldn’t want to be in that program right now. Every element that makes up that program will get investigated by a CYA team that will make sure they, themselves, are squeaky clean.

No kidding. I’d hate to see them cancel and start over as they’ve already done that once (TSSAM). It’s gotta be QC or inadequate testing as hitting the bull’s eye is one of those “got it in our pocket” things. Look how THAAD did in it’s initial testing and it was mostly due to QC failures. Somebody needs a size 12 up the backside. I think the only positive thing about this is everybody is going to be looking so hard to find out what the other guy screwed up that they’re bound to find some problems to fix. And Lockheed should have to foot the bill for any refits and testing that needs to be done to bring the current inventory up to a reasonable confidence level. Hopefully that was all in the small print :diablo:

I don’t get it either. Program QC? Pencil whipping test reviews? I don’t know, I am sure there is a huge investigation going on right now. It would be great if there is a save for this somehow. I mean for USAF that is a lot of cash plugged into the inventory we have. DOD doesn’t seem to have any fear of canceling things though. This could end up a real happy story in the end or a real ugly one. The goal will be to see if a scripted range event can end up being the same as real ops where munitions pukes pull it out of storage, hang it on the aircraft and presto, it flies, hits and explodes. Good grief, I wouldn’t want to be in that program right now. Every element that makes up that program will get investigated by a CYA team that will make sure they, themselves, are squeaky clean.

I was just thinking…. The powered variant * of JSOW is in testing now. Unpowered JSOW has a track record of working. ( even though there was that one famous OSW mission where a flight of them completely missed the target due to some reason. 😮 ….. Anyway I do wonder, sometime in the future, if the powered JSOW could pick up some of the slack if the JASSM program takes an even worse turn?

*=

I don’t understand what their problem is. I mean, my God we’ve got half a dozen types of weapons in the inventory that hit the bullseye regularly and they can’t manage that with a JASSM? That level of incompitance is akin to finding out “uh the F-22 can’t break Mach 1 in service”.

I was just thinking…. The powered variant * of JSOW is in testing now. Unpowered JSOW has a track record of working. ( even though there was that one famous OSW mission where a flight of them completely missed the target due to some reason. 😮 ….. Anyway I do wonder, sometime in the future, if the powered JSOW could pick up some of the slack if the JASSM program takes an even worse turn?

*=

“We plan to offer the warfighter a 300 nautical mile
(approximately 345 statute miles) weapon with a price goal of $350,000, far
less expensive than similar capability weapons currently in the
warfighter’s inventory.”

I think some serious consideration should be made in discontinuing the missile and pursuing another avenue. The failure of these tests four out of four missiles failed to meet their design parameters in practical field tests.

I have heard accusations from a fairly reputable source. The claims were in the line that the prototypes designs were made as quickly and as cheaply as possible. Quality and reliability should be designed into a complex product from the onset of developing the final product. Apparently the early design and development team were cut to many corners and or were incompetent. From one understand there was a management shakeup, however it seems it may have been too late to save the program. Beyond a point in a program you have to concentrate on accuracy, reliability and quality control; otherwise it can be difficult or impossible to save the program.

I suspect that the basic missile mechanical design is fine. I am under the impression that the electronics seem to be the weakness. I suspect the electronics would have to be redesigned and replaced, it is questionable whether or not that is a cost effective and if it could be achieved in a reasonable amount of time.

I think it is a good concept, however they seem to have gotten lost and mixed up their priorities on the way (time line).

Even though I praised the Air Force tests on this matter; I suspect the manufacture tests and quality control and design have much to be desired on this matter.

The manufacturer is a reputable high-quality manufacturer; however I am highly skeptical of this program.

Easy answer. The missile hasn’t proven any other performance metric of use so how can you even believe any of the other claims?

As for the sky not falling, it had problems in testing before being put into full rate production that stopped the whole program until they could fix it. Then magically it passes some scripted range events and gets approved for production. We get over 300 of these things. We pull 1 out of each different production lot out of storage of weapons delivered to flying units, and none of them work. We don’t have the blood or the money to waste on gold plated weapon systems that don’t work. Break a stiff IADS? We’ll just have to do with with F-22, B-2 and USN Tomahawks until this mess is figured out.

As for LM. No problem with LM. F-22 and F-16…. work. Today USAF is bled white looking for money to spend on war winning stuff that actually works. Re-enforcing multiple failures with JASSM should be considered a bad idea. Lets get out of it before any more truck loads of cash are wasted on it.

So far, JASSM is no more than a theory that is sucking down cash we don’t have. So far it’s ability to do anything in a stiff IADS is zero. If the program is as faulty as it is, I doubt it has any significant “stealth” ability” worth mentioning.

Seeing how stealth was part of the requirement and the USAF is counting on being able to use it to take out double-digit SAM sites why would you think it doesn’t have any stealth ability? Or are you just sour on LM in general? (which is what it sounds like)

but SCALP/Storm Shadow can hit the target :dev2:

And of course JASSM is unfixable :rolleyes: The sky isn’t falling people.

but SCALP/Storm Shadow can hit the target :dev2:

Ha ha 😀

JDAMs aren’t going to do you much good against a site defended by S-300 & above. JASSM will. They need to hold LM’s feet to the fire and make them address the issue on THEIR dime.

So far, JASSM is no more than a theory that is sucking down cash we don’t have. So far it’s ability to do anything in a stiff IADS is zero. If the program is as faulty as it is, I doubt it has any significant “stealth” ability” worth mentioning. These are some of the same people that said it was good to go for production and raped us for over 300 units delivered to the Air Force. Time to cut off the gravy train and have the weapon requirement go up for a competitive performance bid,…. where performance is measured in reliability and bring some euro cruise missiles into the mix. If they fly better and hit the target and go “bang” when they are supposed to, then give the taxpayers money to them. Faulty projects like this in this current budget environment need to be tied to a tree and clubbed to death.

And give up a longer range, lighter weight, stealthier missile?

but SCALP/Storm Shadow can hit the target :dev2: