tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post2437476582751652849..comments2024-03-28T07:56:09.239-07:00Comments on Navy Matters: LRASM Drops Out of OTH CompetitionComNavOpshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comBlogger61125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-6464042877968687342017-05-29T04:57:19.510-07:002017-05-29T04:57:19.510-07:00I'm going to leave you with the last word. It...I'm going to leave you with the last word. It will be interesting to see how this plays out. Good discussion.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-43688500260200167682017-05-28T22:59:50.082-07:002017-05-28T22:59:50.082-07:00"To believe that the Kongsberg/Raytheon won&#..."To believe that the Kongsberg/Raytheon won't raise their bid even one dollar now that there are no competitors is to believe in the Easter Bunny. Of course they will raise their bid. How much remains to be seen."<br /><br />No they probably wont raise their bid.<br /><br />The going price for the latest Harpoon Block 2 (before the mods needed to make the ER version) is about 1.2 million. Raytheon and Kongsberg know these things:<br /><br />1. Boeing has about 0 chance of producing a Harpoon more advanced than the Block 2 for $1.2 million.<br /><br />2. LRASM was never price competitive, its a 2-3 million dollar missile.<br /><br />3. Kongsberg has proven it can sell NSM for about .8 million<br /><br />Therefore:<br /><br />Kongsberg/Raytheon can sell the missile to the Navy with or without competition at a price that customer has been happy paying and is not considered excessive and still earn up to a 50% premium and probably push their primary competitor (Harpoon) right out of the market if they price it at about $1.2 million or less. Hence why Boeing and LM are out. Their only chance of being competitive would be to force on Kongsberg an expensive modification to the missile, like networking or to get "credit" (a lot of credit) for the only thing they have and NSM doesnt.<br /><br />" To stop the entire process, start the whole ASM selection process over again, and risk Congressional funding and increased oversight/criticism is not something the Navy will allow. The Navy will pay whatever premium they have to."<br /><br />Phooey. Congress will freak out if the Navy pays more for that "foreign" missile than its been paying for the one wrapped in red white and blue (Harpoon). The Navy, the bidders, everyone with any sense (including the Easter Bunny) knows this. DOD, the Whitehouse or Congress can always tell the Navy to use the missile it has now in stock, is already on the ship, costs next to nothing and is 100% American; Harpoon 1c; or buy Block 2 and make due or (the final twist) let Boing finalize the 1c to Block 2+ER conversion and buy the conversion sole source off the shelf. Either would be a vast improvement over what native antiship capability LCS had: (0) Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-23473045987940232022017-05-28T19:21:08.279-07:002017-05-28T19:21:08.279-07:00NSM warhead is a little strange compared to most. ...NSM warhead is a little strange compared to most. That 276lb warhead has 265lb of explosive fill. They keep the overall weight down via use of a titanium casing instead of iron/steel. For reference, a Mk82 500lb bomb has 196lb of explosive fill.<br /><br />As far as lethality, AFAIK, neither AShM nor naval guns (even 16" ones)actually sink ships. Generally they simply make a ship fighting ineffective. The warhead of NSM should at least be as effective as the Exocet's warhead plus the NSM has much better terminal targeting allowing it to hit specific section of the ship. Page 8 of http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2014/PSAR/albright.pdf has a NSM hitting a 2000 ton Oslo FFG and basically vaporizing the control portion of the ship. Can it take out an aircraft carrier? Probably not, but it can probably take out the tower which will cause not insignificant issues.atshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11410880091736531848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-27615585329707162032017-05-28T09:20:13.691-07:002017-05-28T09:20:13.691-07:00Comparing explosive effects based simply on warhea...Comparing explosive effects based simply on warhead weight is an inexact science, to say the least. Remember the example of the battleship 2000 lb shell with only a small bit of explosive? Explosive effects are a function of amount and type of explosive, degree of containment, and many other factors that I don't even pretend to know.<br /><br />Still, you bring up a good point. Harpoons are not particularly lethal to large ships (well, enough of them are, but not single hits) and one has to suspect that a smaller NSM is less so.<br /><br />That leads to the question, what targets are the distributed LCS's supposed to engage? NSM is, undoubtedly, adequate for killing a missile boat. A frigate? Probably not from a single hit (two Exocets did not kill the Perry FFG Stark, though it came close). A destroyer? No. A carrier or large transport/amphib? No.<br /><br />Does the Navy think they'll be able to mass enough LCS's to take down a major ship or do they think the LCS will only handle smaller targets? This gets into CONOPS which I'm not sure the Navy has thought through (actually, I'm sure the Navy has not thought through!).<br /><br />Good question!ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-647910767976874072017-05-28T08:06:38.354-07:002017-05-28T08:06:38.354-07:00With a 276 lb warhead how lethal is the NSM to mod...With a 276 lb warhead how lethal is the NSM to modern ships? It seems a little light weight compared t the 500lbs Harpoon and the 900 lbs LRASM. <br />JFWhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16095723023404412328noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-78698548854121727402017-05-28T06:51:13.519-07:002017-05-28T06:51:13.519-07:00"Whether the price is excessive depends on ho..."Whether the price is excessive depends on how Raytheon and Kongsberg view the market."<br /><br />To believe that the Kongsberg/Raytheon won't raise their bid even one dollar now that there are no competitors is to believe in the Easter Bunny. Of course they will raise their bid. How much remains to be seen.<br /><br />I already stated that would have to balance the degree of their avarice against the possibility of the Navy reopening the competition but, even so, the Navy paying a premium IS AN ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY. Even the possibility of the Navy reopening the competition is a very remote likelihood. Historically, it is seldom done and, in this specific case, the Navy has so clearly signaled their exclusive interest that the threat, or even the actual occurrence, of a reopened bid would be mere window dressing. If the Navy is as dead set as they appear to be on the NSM, they aren't going to realistically reopen the competition and, if they did, Lockheed and Boeing would have no more reason to reenter the process than they do now - which is none.<br /><br />As far as pricing according to foreign markets, that would be valid if the foreign markets were identical to the US Navy market - they aren't. The US government procurement process has its own sets of rules and regulations, all of which add enormous costs. K/R will price according to the US market plus whatever premium they feel they can get away with.<br /><br />Partnering with Raytheon all but guarantees a huge premium bid. Raytheon has never given the US govt a "charitable" bid and there is no reason to believe they will now. They will push the bid as high as they think they can.<br /><br />Interesting sidenote, I wonder which company has the ultimate price setting authority?<br /><br />"The NSM team knows that the Navy does not have to accept their bid if it is not fairly priced. "<br /><br />That's hilarious! The Navy accepts grossly high and "unfair" contracts all the time. That's the rule, not the exception. Your view of the Navy's procurement process and acceptance standards is not in line with history and actual data. If you've followed this blog, you've seen a steady stream of documentation of the Navy cheerfully accepting hideously "unfair" contracts.<br /><br />"This is not the case with NSM sized ASMs. There is a broad and competitive market."<br /><br />Not in the US and not for the Navy/LCS there isn't. The Navy is desperate to get a credible ASM on the LCS to counter the deluge of negative, mocking publicity over the toothlessness of the LCS. To stop the entire process, start the whole ASM selection process over again, and risk Congressional funding and increased oversight/criticism is not something the Navy will allow. The Navy will pay whatever premium they have to. <br />ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-90345398401020529612017-05-27T22:10:02.559-07:002017-05-27T22:10:02.559-07:00"the Navy has ensured that they will pay a he..."the Navy has ensured that they will pay a hefty premium for the NSM."<br /><br />This is not necessarily true. Whether the price is excessive depends on how Raytheon and Kongsberg view the market. <br /><br />Your supposition is true in most cases for the DOD for a simple reason: the US DOD tends to be the only significant buyer for many of the weapons systems it buys. . It is the entire market available to the manufacturer. The true competitive market value is therefor unknowable. This is not the case with NSM sized ASMs. There is a broad and competitive market. <br /><br />It is unlikely NSM will be excessively priced to the Navy for these reasons:<br /><br />-The manufacturer is not developing the weapon for the Navy, it is already available in the market and sold in quantity therefore the development cost and risk are already covered<br />-Kongsberg will want the imprimatur of the US Navy as a selling point to other buyers<br /><br />-The added capacity, and leverage of a production partnership with Raytheon is highly desirable to Kongsberg, and the entry into the global ASM market afforded by NSM is highly desirable to Raytheon. <br /><br />-The NSM team knows that the Navy does not have to accept their bid if it is not fairly priced. Pricing for NSM is known. Its been sold to several customers. The Navy can reject the bid and rebid with modified requirements to suit other bidders. Just rejecting the NSM bid as price excessive would create huge problems for the future of NSM sales. <br /><br />In short, if the NSM team is smart (they are) they will put in a bid the Navy can't refuse. They are in position to do so more than any other competitor. They will then build their profit on modifications, foreign sales and other opportunities a sale to the US Navy affords once one is a production program. <br /><br />LM and Boeing are smart too. They have probably generated the intelligence needed to know where the NSM teams bid is likely to be, know they cant possibly compete on price and are now maneuvering to possibly change the terms and cover ass. Remember , these are S&P 500 companies. A loss on a bid against little old Kongsberg could be a percent + loss on the stock. For Boeing thats more than a billion lost against a contract worth 300- 400 million. They need a reason to feed the stock holders to minimize the impact. "We had our asses handed to us" wont work. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-35295856603308779822017-05-27T17:41:10.931-07:002017-05-27T17:41:10.931-07:00Both NSM and LRASM targeting work pretty much the ...Both NSM and LRASM targeting work pretty much the same. Both use IIR to located a target ship from a database of targets and then refine the specific impact point. The main autonomy difference between the two is more route to target area. LRASM is capable of full autonomous deviation based on both unknown and pop up threats while NSM is a simple way point system. atshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11410880091736531848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-11406635292171331832017-05-27T17:24:53.459-07:002017-05-27T17:24:53.459-07:00It might not be so much the Navy pushing them out ...It might not be so much the Navy pushing them out as Kongsberg/Raytheon doing it. NSM is by all reports significantly cheaper than both LRASM/Harpoon and if the contest is structured as a price sensitive one with little to no bonus for exceeding requirements, then it may simply be Boeing/LM saving face. AKA, they knew they weren't going to win, so why compete. <br /><br />AKA, the navy starts a contest for land attack missiles, Tomahawk and JSOW both enter, Navy releases requirements to 100nm range, Tomahawk withdraws. atshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11410880091736531848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-75695925254752290472017-05-27T10:05:08.886-07:002017-05-27T10:05:08.886-07:00"Program Office "OASuW Inc 1 has success..."Program Office "OASuW Inc 1 has successfully progressed "<br /><br />Of course, recall how many glowing pronouncements of triumph have been issued about the LCS and F-35 - so take official pronouncements with a thousand pound block of salt!ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-33955604974749834862017-05-27T06:51:32.899-07:002017-05-27T06:51:32.899-07:00In a GPS denised environment, the LRASM autonomous...In a GPS denised environment, the LRASM autonomous targeting capability ought to be highly valued. NSM has a precise target imaging capability but that is not the same as autonomous targeting. ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-23923241940036085462017-05-27T06:49:22.095-07:002017-05-27T06:49:22.095-07:00The larger issue, here, is why the Navy would so t...The larger issue, here, is why the Navy would so tightly restrict requirements that they would prompt Lockheed and Boeing to drop out. That results in a single bidder. A single bidder no longer has to worry about presenting an affordable bid. The single source manf can present a much higher bid. By forcing Lockheed and Boeing out, the Navy has ensured that they will pay a hefty premium for the NSM. As I've said repeatedly, this makes no sense. There's something else going on here.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-79996355307384951852017-05-27T06:46:28.075-07:002017-05-27T06:46:28.075-07:00NSM uses GPS/INS for guidance. As discussed in a ...NSM uses GPS/INS for guidance. As discussed in a previous post on the NSM, if GPS is denied that leaves only INS which is questionable for accuracy over long distances. The NSM terrain matching is, presumably, useless over water.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-63486963746502810842017-05-27T06:44:01.455-07:002017-05-27T06:44:01.455-07:00The Harpoon Blk II+ER has undergone captive carry ...The Harpoon Blk II+ER has undergone captive carry testing at Point Mugu and was scheduled for further testing early this year (haven't heard anything about whether that occurred or not).<br /><br /><a href="https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C1ftFOVWIAIAgfQ.jpg" rel="nofollow">Harpoon II+ER Captive Carry Photo</a><br /><br /><br />ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-77760710865187566712017-05-27T06:32:46.547-07:002017-05-27T06:32:46.547-07:00"Hey we have sucky sensors and navigation but..."Hey we have sucky sensors and navigation but we make up for it with the network, so you cant take the network away its not fair!"<br /><br />Understand just the opposite for the LRASM. DARPA program for the Long Range Anti-Ship Missile Deployment Office (LDO) funded BAE Systems, Electronics, Nashua, N.H. for the seeker and guidance, were so impressed by its capabilities they then choose the LM AGM-158B as the carrier, so the LRSAM. <br /><br />Wikipedia "BAE Systems-designed seeker and guidance system, integrating jam-resistant GPS/INS, passive RF and threat warning receiver, an imaging infrared (IIR infrared homing) seeker with automatic scene/target matching recognition, a data-link, and passive Electronic Support Measure (ESM) and radar warning receiver sensors. Artificial intelligence software combines these features to locate enemy ships and avoid neutral shipping in crowded areas."<br /><br />Program Office "OASuW Inc 1 has successfully progressed from technology development through a production readiness decision in 10 months, and the program remains on track for early operational capability fielding in the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2018."<br /><br />LRSAM procurement cost $342 million for 110 missiles, $3.1 million each compared to ~ $0.8 million for NSM. NSM a lighter and cheaper option than the more sophisticated LRSAM.Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12567148391327455726noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-73189293187028426722017-05-26T23:43:00.050-07:002017-05-26T23:43:00.050-07:00"Block II+ER has been tested at Poinugu this ... "Block II+ER has been tested at Poinugu this past year." <br />You seem to be confused. Block 2+ was tested. It is a guidance only upgrade. Block 2+ ER is proposed but as yet nonexistant. Boeing has proposed to start testing it late this year. <br /><br />To your original point. The Navys concept of DL does not call for tying every weapon to the network, it primarily focuses on tying platforms to the network such that those platforms can be linked to attack from multiple and unpredictable locations. The Navys primary focus on linking weapons has been on longer range weapons and those that must at times be targeted by platforms other than the launching platform (such as SM-6 attacking an aircraft over the horizon that an AWACS can see but an Aegis ship cant). The network is an added capability, it is not necessary for the weapon to perform its required mission. (SM-6 can still hit any airplane that its Aegis launching ship can provide initial targeting data on) Weighting networking such that it allows other undesirable characteristics for a weapon that will be employed at relatively short ranges (100nm +-) would be foolish. Secondly the further problem may be that LRASM (since it was designed to be networked), and Harpoon Block2+ may lack the sensor breadth and identification fidelity to be effective in some necessary conditions without updating from the network. If the requirement was x effectiveness with a downgraded and/or unavailable network and LRASM/Harpoon can't meet that requirement then LM and Boeing would protest that they werent given enough credit for networking. It would also be stupid for the Navy to change it because it is essential that LCS/Frigate have some way to complete the kill chain without dependance on the network.<br /><br />A quote from this article gives us a clue what might be going on here: http://www.scout.com/military/warrior/story/1751213-navy-details-tech-specs-for-new-lcs-missile<br /><br />"The draft RFP, outlining some of Navy requirements for the missile, calls for extensive simulations to explore certain desired technical parameters. <br />The simulations to include GPS-denied and extended GPS-denied environments; seeker discrimination; seeker aim-point determination; lethality to include specified fuze effects; fire-control launch sequencing; and mission planning software."<br /><br />So the Navy is specifically looking for on target effectiveness in a communications denied environment probably against smallish moving targets and yet LM and Boeing complain that they dont get credit for being able to use the network to get on target.<br /><br /> "Hey we have sucky sensors and navigation but we make up for it with the network, so you cant take the network away its not fair!"<br /><br />NSM was designed with and for a small Navy operating in difficult conditions, often in emissions denied or emissions limited states, off small ships against most likely bigger more capable opponents. Harpoon and LRASM have been designed for a Navy used to operating with data running down virtual fire hoses with complete air dominance. Its no wonder they are complaining about being denied credit for using "the network". Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-78147557121914758092017-05-26T17:37:19.262-07:002017-05-26T17:37:19.262-07:00Agree with CNO so far.
I can see where LRASM weig...Agree with CNO so far.<br /><br />I can see where LRASM weight is significantly bigger and could be a problem but Harpoon is pretty close in class with NSM plus Boeing is doing some more testing this year so it's almost ready to go. Harpoon been around since the 60s so I can't believe BA can't find a few pounds here or there to shed plus considering how long it's been in production, BA should be competitive on price. So why did LMT and especially BA just walk away from the contract? I don't think it's that obvious that NSM is the better missile. USB said let's have a competition to find out BUT everybody walked out!WHY?!? So what makes NSM so special to USN? Just the weight?!? <br /><br /><br />http://seapowermagazine.org/stories/20170110-harpoon.html NICOhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14567491909555759918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-79651490158272970652017-05-26T16:18:06.615-07:002017-05-26T16:18:06.615-07:00The Block II+ER has been tested at Point Mugu this...The Block II+ER has been tested at Point Mugu this past year. You're overstating the degree of "newness" of the missile. Both Boeing and the Navy describe the Block II+ER as an upgrade kit that can be applied to existing missiles.<br /><br />Setting that aside, you appear to be looking to create an argument where none exists. Whether one missile or another is superior is not the point of the post nor a point of contention. The point of the post, to refresh your memory, is the question about why the Navy would "devalue" networking and in-flight re-targeting after spending the last couple years talking up the wonders of Third Offset and Distributed Lethality which are critically dependent on networking. Further, for the Navy to tighten the requirements to the point that they discourage Boeing and Lockheed from even offering a bid is puzzling. By narrowing the requirements to an extreme, the Navy is, for all intents and purposes, passing on the Boeing and Lockheed bids. <br /><br />Finally, your original supposition, while reasonable, does not fit the observed facts. Both Boeing and Lockheed seem to agree that the Navy has narrowed requirements to the point that networking is of no value. Neither company has cited weight, cost, development time, or any other aspect as reasons they've dropped out. Thus, to repeat, while your scenario is reasonable it is not supported by the few facts we have.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-25849287755116296492017-05-26T15:08:27.534-07:002017-05-26T15:08:27.534-07:00" There is no reason to believe that the Blk ..." There is no reason to believe that the Blk 2+ represents any significant risk,.."<br /><br />Its the Block 2+ ER. An as yet non existent variant.<br />New motor, new warhead, in addition to the new block 2 + guidance section, the only legacy major components are the airframe, container and launcher. The airframe is acknowledged to be marginal in current ship to ship engagements. So all it has going for it as low risk is the launching system is a known, and its costs are predictable. Its effectiveness on target is completely unproven and known only in theory. As far as I've seen Boeing hasn't said whether or not the fire control system will need significant updating.<br /><br />"let alone enough for the Navy to outright pass on it."<br /><br />Straw man. No one has said the Navy has chosen to pass on it, that was Boeing's decision. If a company can't make money against a competitor, then they wont bother, that is an essential part of our system, or should be. Too often its short circuited to generate jobs. <br /><br />"the LRASM, while a somewhat riskier development, is based on the existing JASSM so the ultimate development is a pretty safe bet." <br /><br />Its based on JASSM-ER a missile intended for aircraft launch, which has not itself passed all its milestones. LRASM hasn't even been proven out as an air launch system, its still in testing and integration. Its years, tens of millions, and many tests from being a complete deck launched system. <br /><br />LRASM is more than twice the cost of NSM or Harpoon, more than twice the weight of NSM, and its space requirements are unresolved. Those could easily be far too many cons for its pros to overcome. <br /><br /><br />Bottom line: NSM is a damn good modern cost effective proven system needing next to no development being bought by several allied nations. Germany just ordered it for its ships. Harpoon block 2+ ER is operationally nonexistent and LRASM is unproven in almost all metrics as a ship launched weapon. Kongsberg and Norway saw the need in the marketplace for a new missile years ago and worked long and hard to get it right then they partnered with the worlds premier missile builder for this offering. It should not be surprising that Boeing and L-M can't compete with their last minute cobbled together systems.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-8860543397457791472017-05-26T13:56:03.673-07:002017-05-26T13:56:03.673-07:00Yup, that's the concept. How much of the netwo...Yup, that's the concept. How much of the network has actually been implemented? Has the USN actually paid for and taken delivery of any hardware that's dedicated to distributed lethality? <br /><br />Aegis centralises control. The computer on the master ship is in control, and is only told what to do in general terms. Having that arrangement over a large area puts you very much at risk from the opponent's EW capabilities. So you need to decentralise control, and that's a hard problem in communications and software. <br /><br />Distributed lethality was created as a strategic concept to cope with Chinese ASBMs and give the LCS a claim to being useful. Those are political imperatives. They don't give you any clues on how to resolve the technical problems inherent in distributed lethality. <br /><br />I'm not at all convinced that there is any actual implementation of automated distributed lethality. It's been a great slogan for a couple of years, but does the emperor actually have any clothes on? John Dallmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01184719865727491672noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-13106381206613431042017-05-26T13:19:15.837-07:002017-05-26T13:19:15.837-07:00For Harpoon, 8x is the standard Mk141 arrangement ...For Harpoon, 8x is the standard Mk141 arrangement and I would assume (cautiously!) that's what would be on the LCS.<br /><br />The whole concept of Third Offset/Distributed Lethality is that the network "controls" the weapons allocation. The Admiral is only along for the ride and to say shoot or don't shoot. Just like Aegis in auto mode.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-73952955575653406832017-05-26T13:15:59.757-07:002017-05-26T13:15:59.757-07:00Could be, except that it runs counter to everythin...Could be, except that it runs counter to everything the Navy is saying as regards re-targeting on the fly and networking. The whole idea is that the magical F-35 will find, track, and control waves of weapons. If they can't control and retarget the NSM, it somewhat defeats the purpose of the F-35 and the entire distributed/networking concept. <br /><br />The Navy has done nothing but talk up the miracle of networking and in flight re-targeting and now, given the opportunity to make it happen, they opt to go with the NSM?????? That is completely inconsistent. There's something else going on here.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-40141098975856262952017-05-26T13:12:03.811-07:002017-05-26T13:12:03.811-07:00Hey, don't get me wrong. I'm not particul...Hey, don't get me wrong. I'm not particularly for or against any specific missile. I'm just puzzled by the apparent desire to "push" the other manf's out of the competition. Why wouldn't the Navy at least want to see what the others bid?<br /><br />There's something else going on here and I'm missing it.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-85701367866012291302017-05-26T11:53:26.102-07:002017-05-26T11:53:26.102-07:00I think you're reaching a bit for this. Harpo...I think you're reaching a bit for this. Harpoon has been around for years in various iterations. There is no reason to believe that the Blk 2+ represents any significant risk, let alone enough for the Navy to outright pass on it. <br /><br />Similarly, the LRASM, while a somewhat riskier development, is based on the existing JASSM so the ultimate development is a pretty safe bet. Again, not enough risk to think the Navy would not even want to see a bid from the manf on it.<br /><br />The Coronado Harpoon failure has not been attributed to any modifications of the missile, as far as I know. The launch was successful but the missile apparently missed the target. In fact, I'm not aware of any modifications made to the missile other than it was partially defueled for safety reasons. If you have more information on the missile modifications and cause of failure, please let me know.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-19346935773274374892017-05-26T11:53:02.335-07:002017-05-26T11:53:02.335-07:00The likely reason that LM/Boeing dropped out is th...The likely reason that LM/Boeing dropped out is that the navy revised the scoring matrix to make the networking capabilities less significant in the final scoring. Once again, I don't see it so much as removing distributed lethality, the NSM is perfectly capable of distributed lethality. What it isn't as capable of, for a variety of reason, is post launch re-targeting. Which isn't that big of the deal breaker in distributed lethality given its radius. Something like LRASM with a 300++nm radius will have a much greater need for post launch re-targeting flexibility simply due to time of flight delay. Preferring NSM over LRASM for some missions is similar to preferring AIM-9 over AIM-120 for some missions. atshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11410880091736531848noreply@blogger.com