Read the forum code of contact
By: - 14th January 2006 at 17:03 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
All three options are obsolete.
The future belongs to a cheap weapon dropped from a low observable platform - the SDB (Small Diameter Bomb).
Coupled with the F-35 or F-22, the SDB is just as capable as JASSM/Storm Shadow in most scenarios, but far cheaper.
By: - 14th January 2006 at 18:42 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Sorry Tinwing but I can't buy that.
And what if you don't have these low observable platform ?
What about their survabibilty in intense situation ?
The range of those SDB ?
By: - 14th January 2006 at 18:57 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
All three options are obsolete.The future belongs to a cheap weapon dropped from a low observable platform - the SDB (Small Diameter Bomb).
Coupled with the F-35 or F-22, the SDB is just as capable as JASSM/Storm Shadow in most scenarios, but far cheaper.
Ah yes buying and operating an F/A-22 or even an F-35 is so cheap? And as glitter said who will get F/A-22, probably no one except USAF and the exportmodell of the F-35 is less "invincible".
About the three weapons, I don't know much about JASSM, but I heared that this weapon is less advanced at all than TAURUS and Storm Shadow/Scalp EG. But I will search for some more informations about JASSM.
TAURUS might have a higher range than Storm Shadow, but Storm Shadow may have a lower RCS. Difficult to say which one is the better one as to many details are missing. About accuracy it was said that the KEPD-350 TAURUS hits its target within the cm area in the last test in south africa.
TAURUS has also a modular designe enabling different warhead/fuel configurations to suit different missions. Don't know if Storm Shadow or JASSM are similary designed in that area. TAURUS and Storm Shadow are both using similar technologies for initional and terminal guidance.
By: - 14th January 2006 at 19:10 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Ah yes buying and operating an F/A-22 or even an F-35 is so cheap? And as glitter said who will get F/A-22, probably no one except USAF and the exportmodell of the F-35 is less "invincible".
The F-35 is entirely comparable in acquistion cost to the Eurofighter, with dramatically greater effectiveness and tremendously lower life cycle costs. Even the F-22's operating costs are in the same order of magnitude as the Eurofighter's, despite the fact that the F-22 is far larger, more powerful aircraft.
The big difference is that both "low observable" aircraft can use cheap ordinance in high threat environments. Hundreds - or perhaps thousands - of SDB's can be dropped in a sustained campaign with little - or maybe zero - attrition to the F-22/F-35 fleet.
In contrast, no more than a few dozen Storm Shadom missiles can ever be expended in a single conflict. The missile is simply too expensive, and will never be stockpiled in militarily significant numbers. Similarly, the warhead is too large to be used in urban areas, especially when you consider the European "sensitivity" to issue of collateral damage.
By: - 14th January 2006 at 19:31 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The F-35 is entirely comparable in acquistion cost to the Eurofighter, with dramatically greater effectiveness and tremendously lower life cycle costs. Even the F-22's operating costs are in the same order of magnitude as the Eurofighters.The big difference is that both "low observable" aircraft can use cheap ordinance in high threat environments.
As long as no concrete informations are available about operating costs of these aircraft it's risky to allege the costs of these stealth fighters are lower or equal to that of a Typhoon. Further more the F-35 has now to be developed at all and prove it's self.
And as mentioned not everyone will get this stealth platforms or full capable versions of the F-35.
But I agree with you that particulary it's cheaper to use such aircraft with cheaper munitions like SDB.
But that's not the topic so let's get back to the original topic JASSM VS Storm Shadow VS KEPD-350 TAURUS.
I researched a little bit in the internet for more informations about the JASSM and it looks like it has less stealth capabilities (including low level flight) than the european designs, but it might be cheaper.
By: - 14th January 2006 at 19:53 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile (JASSM) http://www.missilesandfirecontrol.com/our_products/strikeweapons/JASSM/product-jassm.html
STORM SHADOW / SCALP EG http://www.mbda.net/site/FO/scripts/siteFO_contenu.php?lang=EN&noeu_id=120
TAURUS KEPD 350 http://products.saab.se/PDBWeb/ShowProduct.aspx?ProductId=641
The JASSM will probably be built in the highest numbers and get the most development so it will probably end up as the cheapest and most effective.
By: - 14th January 2006 at 20:00 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile (JASSM) http://www.missilesandfirecontrol.com/our_products/strikeweapons/JASSM/product-jassm.html
STORM SHADOW / SCALP EG http://www.mbda.net/site/FO/scripts/siteFO_contenu.php?lang=EN&noeu_id=120
TAURUS KEPD 350 http://products.saab.se/PDBWeb/ShowProduct.aspx?ProductId=641The JASSM will probably be built in the highest numbers and get the most development so it will probably end up as the cheapest and most effective.
I would say that the real cost effectiveness comparison is between the JASSM, the new "half price" Tomahawk Block IV, the SLAM-ER and even the SDB.
By: - 14th January 2006 at 20:22 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I would say that the real cost effectiveness comparison is between the JASSM, the new "half price" Tomahawk Block IV, the SLAM-ER and even the SDB.
Why?
By: - 14th January 2006 at 21:59 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The 3 main stand off weapons Stand-off missiles in development in USA and Europe...
So which one you think is the best?
Regarding the range (formal or not...), accuracy, survivability and effectiveness but also logistics and flexibility of operation?
JASSM: 1000lb warhead for over 200 miles and 2250 lbs (range will be 600 miles but likely the warhead size will fall
SLAM-ER: 800lb warhead for 150 miles and 1600 lbs
Apache/Storm Shadow/Scalp: 1150lb warhead for 100 miles and 2700lbs
Taurus: 1100lb warhead for 220 miles and 2870 lbs
* Since the question seems to be directed at air-launched missiles only I left out Tactical Tomahawk and the longer ranged sea-launched Scalp.
* Of the above some are stealthier than others I'd rank the SLAM-ER at the bottom because of it's big wing and cylindrical fuselage and JASSM at the top because it's got the fewest control surfaces and is built by a company with more LO experience than anybody else on the planet. In the end though we don't know, JASSM could be on the bottom of the heap with Apache on the top.
* Apache/Scalp/Storm Shadow are close enough that I lumped them altogether. Apache uses submunitions and Storm Shadow and Scalp unitary warheads with a bit more fuel (likely because the unitary warhead is more compact for the same weight than the submunition payload) but in general weight and performance are similar.
So which is best? Depends what you want to do. If you want to deliver submunitions then you're stuck with Apache for the moment. Thing is they are very specialized (anti-runway) so they won't help much against an area target. SLAM-ER is the lightest and probably the most versitile of the bunch but then what's it's RCS like and will it matter? Do you need to have control up to the point of impact or can you launch and leave the missile?
By: - 14th January 2006 at 22:12 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Sorry Tinwing but I can't buy that.And what if you don't have these low observable platform ?
What about their survabibilty in intense situation ?The range of those SDB ?
The range of a winged SDB is about 60 miles when launched from a decent speed and altitude (no not Mach 3 at 80,000 feet :) ) If they need more range it wouldn't be a huge job to develope a powered SDB but it wouldn't have anything like the warhead power of the missiles we're discussing (else it would cease to be an *S* DB.). Nobody cares if SDB is the future anyway because as the thread title says the question is about missiles.
By: - 14th January 2006 at 22:41 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
If you want to deliver submunitions then you're stuck with Apache for the moment.
Actually, variants of the Tomahawk (including the cancelled MRASM) have carried submunition dispensing warheads. Of course, the primary US options are JSOW and WCMD.
In the current air defense environment, a gliding weapon such as JSOW can perform the same task as APACHE for far less money.
(Incidentally, APACHE is a French acronym. I'm not shouting.)
By: - 14th January 2006 at 22:51 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Actually, variants of the Tomahawk (including the cancelled MRASM) have carried submunition dispensing warheads. Of course, the primary US options are JSOW and WCMD.In the current air defense environment, a gliding weapon such as JSOW can perform the same task as APACHE for far less money.
(Incidentally, APACHE is a French acronym. I'm not shouting.)
Except as I indicated the original poster seems to be more interested in air-launched vehicles which would take Tomahawk out of the equation. Also JSOW isn't a powered weapon so it's range is nothing like the others. I wasn't saying the US didn't have other options, just that JASSM or SLAM-ER weren't among them when it came to submunitions :-)
By: - 15th January 2006 at 00:41 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Scalp/StormShadow is probably closer to 200 miles in range (quoted as over 250km). Apache manages around 160km, that much is true though.
"Storm Shadow and Scalp unitary warheads with a bit more fuel (likely because the unitary warhead is more compact for the same weight than the submunition payload) but in general weight and performance are similar."
:D
By: - 15th January 2006 at 00:43 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Just looking at the gorgeous stealthiness of the JASSM brings back one of my pet annoyances-why oh why do they not just fit the raptor with the EOT's and DASS (from the F-35), to the Raptor-just imagine a Raptor carrying 4 JASSM's!!!
By: - 15th January 2006 at 01:00 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
APACHE/SCALP-EG/Storm Shadow/Black Shaheen ranges are classified and you can expect them to be significantly higher than the figures quoted by MBDA (>150 km for the APACHE, >250 km for the others).
By: - 15th January 2006 at 01:45 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
APACHE/SCALP-EG/Storm Shadow/Black Shaheen ranges are classified and you can expect them to be significantly higher than the figures quoted by MBDA (>150 km for the APACHE, >250 km for the others).
:rolleyes: The same could be said of ALL of them. We're obviously going off of PUBLISHED info.
By: - 15th January 2006 at 15:06 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I wonder about the reliability of the leaks - rumors which define the actual range of SCALP EG up to about 600-650km...
By: - 15th January 2006 at 15:30 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I wonder about the reliability of the leaks - rumors which define the actual range of SCALP EG up to about 600-650km...
That's a bit high, IMO. Anyhow, actual range depends on the flight path. Manoeuvers (due to terrain following) tend to reduce the range, and 250 km for SCALP/Storm Shadow is likely to be the minimum range in any situation (maximum thrust all along). The truth is in between, and I'd say the average range would be 350-450 km.
The Taurus KEPD-350 is quite similar (missile weight/volume and warhead weight), so its range should be in the same ballpark.
The AGM-158A is significantly lighter, although it carries a warhead comparable to BROACH or Mephisto (weight). This suggests it carries less fuel, so it should have a shorter range than the two others. The existence of AGM-158B (JASSM ER) tends to confirm this view.
Posts: 395
By: Petros - 14th January 2006 at 16:56 - Edited 2nd October 2019 at 11:40
The 3 main stand off weapons Stand-off missiles in development in USA and Europe...
So which one you think is the best?
Regarding the range (formal or not...), accuracy, survivability and effectiveness but also logistics and flexibility of operation?