PrSM is roughly the same length as AARGM-ER but it has 17 inches diameter while AARGM-ER diameter is only 10 inches, it should be capable of carrying alot more propulsion. I don’t even think PrSM need to be able to fit F-35 weapons bay.
I don't understand. Are you suggesting that we change the platform carriage requirements of the Stand In Attack Weapon in order to buy PrSM? A key feature of SiAW is F-35 carriage. You simply quoted my tweet and started talking about AL-PrSM being XYZ relative to SiAW when I never claimed that SiAW was a superior weapon in that regard (as is PrSM cannot meet that guidance requirement). I mean there's a reason its called a "Stand-In" platform weapon.
My point simply was to take the path of DE and focus on system commonality to save money. This combination allows you to affordably and quickly field highly optimized weapons vs taking the approach of simply adapting whatever the Army or Navy has and perhaps only addressing one or two of those components. I am all for the AF adapting weapons like the SM-6 that have operational air launched variants. But an ‘ability to adapt’ a ground launched weapon should not be the sole criteria for creating a new munitions program. In other words, let such an adapted weapon earn its way into the AF inventory.
If the AF needs another weapon between the SiAW and HACM that is not the JASSM-ER, it needs to first follow its requirements process and determine what charecteristics such weapon needs to have..what targets it needs to defeat..etc etc. Then it can leverage its DE capabilities sucessfully demonstrated on programs like Sentinel, SiAW and now increasingly HACM to get that weapon. All those things are affordability drivers. But these bloggers seem to concentrate on simply "Adapt PrSM" as if other things and considerations simply don't matter.
My point, if it wasn't clear enough, was that the digital designs the AF has for its munitions lends itself nicely to different variants leveraging fielded systems. For example, the SiAW guidance and associated production base can be repurposed for SoAW with a larger diameter air-breathing or rocket based propulsion system. In fact, Northrop Grumman has toyed around with those ideas already. Same applies to the work Lockheed and L3Harris did on their respective SiAW designs. The AF is already looking into things like that. But let's not jump the gun. HACM is pushing some interesting cost goals and Northrop is running ahead of production phase in setting up its facilities to produce at the programs scale. And with OSD and Navy funding there's moving target capability being spiralled in as well. I think HACM cost / capability will define SoAW and future efforts. PrSM increments that may be of interest to the USAF are at least 2-3 years from being fielded by the Army so those aren't even real options at the moment.
or if they somehow take another 20-30 years
They are using a OTA for this contract IIRC. Those are 3-5 years. Of course they could face a 15 year delay on a 5 year program without the whole thing ever being cancelled.
But let's say they do what then? How does the PrSM perform against those requirements? Does it have sameToF, survivability and other characteristics? I think it might not be just that simply as swapping one Army weapon for HACM because it sounds cool to do so. Not having HACM might push the AF to look at its portfolio more broadly and the result may be a very different mix of capabilities.
thedefensepost.com
armyrecognition.com
www.twz.com
jaesan-aero.blogspot.com
