Decisions on future procurements of precision-guided weapons are
among the items on the agenda of Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. John
Jumper.
Specifically, Jumper will be expected to firm up an acquisition
strategy for long-range cruise missiles. Even before he became the
Air Force’s chief last month, Jumper had been overseeing a
so-called “cruise-missile roadmap” in his previous job
as head of the Air Combat Command.
The new chief also will be watching closely the progress of the
Air Force Small Diameter Bomb (SDB) program, which has been dubbed
a “critical capability” for future air combat. The Air
Force wants a smaller weapon—from 100 to 250 pounds—that
would make it possible for existing aircraft to drop more bombs
per sortie.
Earlier this year, the Air Force backed away from a program called
the Extended Range Cruise Missile. Under ERCM, the service had planned
to purchase several hundred new weapons, to boost its inventory
of precision-guided cruise missiles. The Air Force asked Congress
for permission to reallocate to other accounts the $40 million that
had been approved for ERCM in fiscal year 2001.
Cruise-missile inventories had gone down dramatically after Operation
Desert Fox against Iraq in 1998 and Operation Allied Force against
Yugoslavia in 1999. In those two conflicts, the Air Force fired
several dozen CALCMs (conventional air-launched cruise missile).
The inventory was down to less than 100 in 1999.
The CALCM, launched from a B-52 bomber, is built by replacing the
ALCM’s nuclear warhead with conventional munitions. The Boeing
Co. began modifying the missile inventory in 1986. The conventionally
armed missile was designated AGM-86C.
The CALCM program only was intended to fill the gap until the new
ERCM was available. However, an ongoing nuclear-posture review by
the Bush administration could result in the availability of more
nuclear-tipped ALCMs, providing the Air Force an alternative to
buying new missiles. Cruise missiles with the standoff, precision-guidance
capabilities that the Air Force wants cost about $1 million each.
Boeing had planned to participate in the ERCM competition with
a new-production variant of CALCM.
The Air Combat Command’s cruise-missile acquisition plan—aimed
to replace the ERCM program—is considering two options: a
new CALCM proposed by Boeing and an upgraded version of the Joint
Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile (JASSM), made by Lockheed Martin
Corp. That version is known as JASSM-ER, for extended range.
A recommendation from the Air Combat Command on a missile acquisition
plan could come by the end of the year. An ACC spokesman was unable
to provide a specific date.
Air Force Col. Tim Moore, deputy program manager for JASSM, said
that Lockheed Martin already has submitted proposals on development
options for a JASSM-ER. The service plans to buy at least 3,000
JASSMs. The program technically is joint, even though the Navy has
not committed to any purchases and only has supported research and
testing of the missile.
According to Moore, the Air Force is completing an “analysis
of alternatives” on JASSM-ER and CALCM. But final decisions
have been on hold, until Jumper has had an opportunity to assess
the options. “JASSM-ER is one of the options the Air Force
is looking at. No determination has been made yet. ... The final
roadmap has to land at the desk of the chief of staff.”
The makers of JASSM said that upgrading the missile to an extended-range
version would make sense financially. “We have a hot supplier
base. A hot production line,” said Gregory A. Howard, director
of business development at Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control.
“We have been asked to provide information to the Air Force
on technical options, things that we could do to JASSM to extend
its range,” Howard said in an interview.
To build a JASSM-ER, he explained, “We would make, not minor,
but not significant modifications inside the current outer mold
line. That would give us greater range without growing the weapon.”
There are many ways to increase the range, if the Air Force wanted
to increase the size and length of the missile, Howard said. “But
if you want to keep it compatible with all fighters and bombers,
you want to stay with the current outer mold line.” JASSM
weighs 2,250 pounds and is 14-feet long. It can be launched from
both bombers and fighters.
If JASSM’s next flight test is successful this fall, the
Pentagon’s Defense Acquisition Board will decide whether the
program can begin low-rate production. The Air Force requested $123
million in fiscal year 2002 for the procurement of 76 missiles.
But problems experienced in a July flight test have slowed down
the original DAB schedule. During that test, the warhead did not
detonate, because the fuze malfunctioned, said Moore.
“It took two weeks to find the warhead. We took out the fuze,
and we are looking at it,” he said. Lockheed Martin has proposed
a fix to the problem. But Howard said he could not discuss what
the company has proposed until the Air Force agreed with the company’s
recommendations.
Moore said that a JASSM-ER would have a range greater than 700
miles. “In my opinion, JASSM-ER is an exceptionally low-cost
solution.”
To be competitive with Boeing’s CALCM, the JASSM-ER would
have to cost about $700,000.
“We have proposed new production of a CALCM-ER,” said
Boeing spokesman Robert Algarotti. “We’ve been told
that there are no more ALCMs to convert. If that changes, depending
on a nuclear posture review, the Air Force may decide to convert
more to CALCMs.”
Between 1994 and 1999, the Air Force converted 445 ALCMs to CALCM
Block 0 and Block 1. The service purchased 132 of the newest model,
Block 1A, which has a more precise GPS guidance system than previous
versions, as well as GPS anti-jam protection. Boeing produces them
at the rate of 24 per month.
A Block 2 version, called AGM-86D, has a bunker-buster warhead.
It weighs 3,200 pounds and is 21 feet long. Fifty of these will
be delivered during the next year, said Algarotti.
Industry Competition
Boeing and Lockheed also are competing in the Small Diameter Bomb
program, along with a third contractor, the Raytheon Co.
The three firms are vying for a contract award scheduled for this
month, which will select two companies to pursue the development
of an SDB.
The key to the success of SDB is the guidance, said Terry Little,
the Air Force program manager who oversees the SDB project. “Most
targets of interest do not require a large warhead, provided you
have good guidance,” he told an industry conference. The SDB
should be able to fly 50-60 miles from a high-altitude launch and
rely on inertial and satellite guidance and wings to reach the target.
Later in the program, he said, the two competitors will develop
a new seeker, which is more expensive but more precise technology
than inertial guidance. This technology is needed for the SDB to
be able to chase mobile targets.
The Air Force plans to buy at least 12,000 bombs and 2,000 bomb
racks. “Our current bomb racks are not adaptable” for
the smaller weapon, said Little.
Air Force spokesman Jake Swinson said each of the two contractors
will receive $47 million for a two-year “risk-reduction effort.”
At the end of two years, the Air Force will downselect to just one
contractor. The plan is to have SDBs on F-15E and F-22 fighters
by fiscal year 2006. “That is fast compared to previous weapon
programs, which took 12 years,” said Swinson.
“Eventually, they will be on all of our combat aircraft.
The Navy and the Marine Corps also plan to participate in this program,”
he said.
Given the stakes in this competition, none of the contractors would
divulge details about their SDB proposals. The Air Force did not
specify the size or the design. “We have a requirement for
a small munition that can fit in the internal base of the F-22,”
said Swinson. “It has to have wings, so it can glide. We are
leaving it up to the contractors to come up with the design. We
don’t know if it will be four 250-pound bombs per bomb rack
or eight 100-pound bombs. They have a lot of flexibility for trade-offs.”
The first phase of the program will concentrate on fixed targets.
In the follow-on phase, the bomb will have an advanced seeker, so
it will go after re-locatable and moving targets, he said. “That
will be more technologically challenging and will take longer.”
The SDB must have a unitary warhead, capable of penetrating at least
a couple of feet of concrete.
The Air Force said it wants the SDB to cost less than $50,000 each.