Hi guys,

not sure if topic of similar nature has been raised before, but have come across an article sometime ago which states that Singapore was interested in a Russian missile system SS- ??. It is definitely not talking about the Igla and the S300, though the latter did pop up a few times. There were some talk about a cruise missile system in the form of the Israeli Popeye....any inputs pls?

No additional info on Russian SAM.

As for cruise missile or standoff weapon, we have Longshot from ST Kinetics which have a range over 100km, guided into target area by GPS/INS and terminally by laser designation.

As for Israeli Popeye, your guess is as good as mine!!!

As for other standoff weapon, we are expected to be getting the following as part of the F-15T deal:

200 AIM 120C advanced medium-range air-to-air missiles (AMRAAM);
50 joint direct attack munitions (JDAMs) with 500-pound warheads(max range 24km);
30 AGM 154A-1 joint standoff weapons with 500-pound warheads(Max range 74km);
30 AGM 154C joint standoff weapons(Max range 74km);
and 200 AIM 9X Sidewinder missiles.

The AGM 154 is the Joint Stand Off Weapons (JSOW) with GPS/INS guidance with CEP of 3m.

Eventhough it has a shorter range as compare to the Longshot but it is true fire & forget system.

Hi guys,

sorry am not too familiar with familiar with the weapons mentioned...back then the technology was to designate or "paint" the target for the AF to come in to bomb or to launch AGM...not the current level of sophistication.... anywhere for me to read up on the Longshot pls? Didn't know that our arsenal included such weapons....but its not really a cruise missile right? If it was wouldn't the northern fellas kick up a big hoohah? After all they can kick up a fuss almost over anything.

Maybe this might help...
LOCKHEED MARTIN - LongShot
LOCKHEED MARTIN - LongShot (PDF)
LOCKHEED MARTIN - LongShot (MPG Video)

By right the definition of a cruise missile is: “an unmanned self-propelled guided vehicle that sustains flight through aerodynamic lift for most of its flight path and whose primary mission is to place an ordnance or special payload on a target.” This definition can include unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) and unmanned control-guided helicopters or aircraft. Going by this defination the LongShot is indeed considered a cruise missile when fitted with appropriate munitions (Even The AGM-84 Harpoon Is Classed As A Short-Range Anti-Ship Cruise Missile (ASCM)) and roughly 75 countries around the world have this cruise missile capabilities.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


~~ Project-ION Phoenix ~~ ~~ Op. Iceberge ~~ ~~ Iowa_BB61 ~~ ~~ xxKuZNetxx ~~


--------------------

I thought it's Lockheed Martin for the Longshot? Is there an arrangement with ST Kinetics?

Not sure but read this old Jane's report:

1 March 2002

Singapore Technologies UAVs on display
By Ken Munson, Changi

A glide bomb which from a brief glance could pass for a Lockheed Martin low-cost autonomous attack system (LOCAAS) unmanned combat air vehicle (UCAV), a simple delta-wing UAV reminiscent of the US Army and Marine Corps' Exdrome and a vertical take-off and landing (VTOL) mini UAV not unlike the US Naval Research Laboratory's Eager are all on display at the Asian Aerospace 2002 show from Singapore Technologies Dynamics. However, looks are not everything, and in fact all are confirmed as indigenous programmes by company Vice-President, Lee Chuen Fei.

LongShot, the largest of the trio, is actually not a UCAV in itself. Rather, it is a bolt-on wing adapter kit (with flip-out swept wings) that extends the range and provides autonomous guidance for existing air-to-surface munitions such as cluster, general-purpose and laser-guided bombs, sea mines or tactical munitions dispensers.

Using internationally standard 14-inch wing ejector racks, it needs no hardware or software modifications to the launch aircraft (air-launched tests have been conducted on an F-16). It can be deployed at altitudes up to 12,200m and can provide a stand off of up to 110km, so reducing the host aircraft’s exposure to point defence systems. Upon launch it guides the munition to its target using Global Positioning System (GPS) inertial navigation.

PhantomEye, the mini-delta, is a low-cost, close-range battery-powered surveillance UAV (wing span 80cm) with a launch weight of 2kg including 0.5kg of payload. Currently under development, it has a top speed of over 75km/h and an endurance of up to an hour. Payloads can include real-time video, biochemical sensors or communications relay equipment.

The VTOL Mini, being developed jointly with Micro Autonomous Systems, has a 66cm-long cylindrical body with a 28cm diameter rotor amidships and stands on six spidery legs angled outward from the rotor shroud. Payloads, weights and performance are generally in the same order as those of the PhantomEye.

A copy of the report could be found here:
http://www.powmadeak47.com/dn/dnp020301uav.html

I have seen a picture of the Longshot on display under ST Dynamics' banner which is identical to the one from Lockheed Martin which is actually a product of Leigh Aerosystems which LM acquired.

Anyway , Longshot could be a collaboration of both companies which is why ST could exhibit it.

And DSTA also mention Longshot in their website:

http://www.mindef.gov.sg/dtech/dtp/Past_DT..._exhibition.htm

Specifications

Length: 160 in (4.1 m)

Weight: 1050 lbs (475 kg) Depends on variant

Aircraft Compatibility:
• F-16, F-15E, F/A-18, B-1, B-2, B-52, P-3, F-35 (JSF),
JAS 39 Gripen, Eurofighter 2000, Tornado
• Multiple carriage capable on BRU-55/BRU-57 twin launchers
• MIL-STD 1553/1760 and NATO STANAG 3837AA interface for full capability

Range (unpowered):
• Low altitude 500 ft launch 12 nm (22 km)
• High altitude 40K ft launch 70 nm maximum kinematic range (130 km)

Range (powered):
• ~175 nm (~325 km)

Warheads:
• BLU-97 Combined effects bomblets
• BLU-108 Sensor fused submunitions
• 500 lb BROACH Blast/fragmentation and/or penetrating warhead
Demonstrated 5 ft (1.5 m) concrete penetration in testing
• 500 lb BLU-111 Unitary blast/fragmentation warhead

WHats the definition of Powered and Unpowered?

From: http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-154.html

A JSOW variant powered by a tail-mounted Williams WJ24-8 (J400-WR-104) turbojet was tested in 1995 as a contender in the UK's CASOM (Conventionally Armed Standoff Missile) competition (which was eventually won by another competitor). The range for high-altitude launches was increased to about 220 km (120 nm). Although there seems to be no immediate requirement by U.S. forces for a powered JSOW, the designations AGM-154D and AGM-154E were allocated in 2000 to powered derivatives of the AGM-154A and AGM-154C, respectively.

Otherwise, the JSOW is a (unpowered) glide bomb. A powered JSOW is, in effect, a small cruise missile!

Due know if Singapore's F-15's weapon package did include some JSOW?

A non powered glide for bombs veries as you know atomospreheric factors. So a possiblity of plus or minus that 22km reported for JSOW. An effective weapon for "silent"strike of target in its own rights.

The powered veriantion is a "short range criuse missile" i agree for the standoff range to lauch it against a target.

I think the A-1 and C models. (The weapons package included with the F-15SG has been posted somewhere on this forum before.)

(UPDATE: The weapons package that was submitted to Congress for approval included 30 x AGM-154A-1 and 30 x AGM-154C JSOWs. See here.)

From Raytheon's pdf brochure
http://www.raytheon.com/products/stellent/...ms01_055754.pdf



As far as I can tell, there is no powered version of the JSOW under production.

I thought there is this thing known as Longshot made by ST?

That's what I thought orginally, but check out the following links.


http://www.lockheedmartin.com/wms/findPage...ci=13776&sc=400
http://www.missilesandfirecontrol.com/our_...31103_LEIGH.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/sys...ns/longshot.htm

[snip]
By early 2001 Leigh Aerosystems had performed about 36 releases from about five different aircraft types, using four different munitions. Most of these had been outside the US, because Leigh Aerosystems looked upon in the foreign market as a very affordable solution to satisfy Precision Guided Munition (PGM) acquisition programs with foreign air forces. And for some, LongShots are the only solution, because there is no way that they could afford others. :D

Maybe the effort(probably joint) has moved to developing a powered Longshot equivalent to JSOW or a powered version of the JSOW.

Edit: Why? When we already have Delilahs(I speculate.)?

Based on experience gained from LongShot(and probably Delilahs and so on) so we can come up with a win-win arrangement? :ph43r:

There's something I never sort out:

There's the LongShot bolt-on wing kit and GPS/INS navigation system developed by Leigh Aerosystems of Carlsbad, California. According to this 2004 report (.pdf file, last page), the system was "demonstrated to Singapore". This system is suppose to be a cost effective way to turn "dumb" bombs into smart, standoff ones.

Then I also keep running into rumors about something called "Longshot" developed by ST, not that I've ever come across hard details about that. According to this, it was actually displayed at the Defence Technology Prize 2002 Exhibition. Anyone has more details?

I suppose DSTA bought the rights to the system or perhaps they bought the rights to part-license the system under their own name.

Who knows, Leigh Aerosystems might by owned by our GIC? :huh: It was the same as Dynamit Nobel.Apparently we inject the funds, and provide some manpower and the end-product is a joint-release.

"This year, DSTA will showcase eight projects, four of which are joint collaborations with small and medium-sized enterprises:"

I'm inclined to think that this is the case with Leigh.

ST having a hand with Leigh's Longshot? That's always a possibility...but no confirmation. (Come to think of it, I don't think it's the case. Hard to make sense of Leigh/LM having "demonstrated" the system to us in 2004.)

Anyway, Leigh Aerosystems was acquired by Lockheed Martin in 2003.

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/wms/findPage...112&ti=0&sc=400

Does anyone have information on ST's Longshot showcased in 2002 at all?

Here the link to the thread abt SG missile capability, in there are a link from a Jane report :

http://militarynuts.com/index.php?showtopic=646

Thanks Gary. (Now that you mentioned it, I recall reading you post.) Collaboration between ST and Leigh is not impossible, but some confirmation would be nice.

My very longshot understanding is (it's not a confirmation and.....) there was a joint-collaboration/co-funding but further developments depended on the proof of performance figures. However, there were technical problems and timelines slipped.....then financial problems set in.

ST was given a chance to buyover but opted out(probably because Mindef has lost confidence/budget?) and so .... Lockheed Martin.

Guess they hold some IP rights over the LongShot which allowed the arrangement to go on with Lockheed Martin?

I believe this would be the most plausible situation.

ST buys/possess the rights to the Longshot product, but LM buys over the parent company.

Bring up this old thread for some interesting news:

SMART BOMBS SCORE ANOTHER HIT IN EXTENDED RANGE TESTS

The Minister for Defence Science and Personnel, the Hon. Warren Snowdon MP, today announced the successful testing of the Joint Direct Attack Munition - Extended Range (JDAM-ER) weapon which will enable the RAAF to deploy strike weapons more safely and effectively.

The JDAM-ER is a conventional JDAM, enhanced with an Australian-designed wing kit, based on technology licensed from the Defence Science and Technology Organisation (DSTO).

“This round of testing builds on the initial proving of the wing attachment in August 2006 under the Capability and Technology Demonstrator (CTD) program managed by DSTO,” Mr Snowdon said.

“DSTO developed the gliding mechanism in a wing attachment that enables the 500-pound JDAM weapon to accurately find long-range targets, giving the launch aircraft a fire-and-forget capability at a safe standoff distance, well out of harm’s way from enemy threats on the ground.”

The JDAM-ER wing kit was developed by Boeing’s Hawker de Havilland subsidiary from DSTO’s original technology called ‘Kerkanya’ (an Aboriginal word for Kestrel Hawk).

The recent tests, conducted at the Woomera Test Facility in South Australia by the Aerospace Operational Support Group on Royal Australian Air Force F/A-18 Hornet aircraft, demonstrated further performance enhancements of the system.

“By increasing range and accuracy, the delivery of the weapon will be more effective, allowing a single aircraft to engage multiple targets while the extended range also increases the survivability of the aircrew and the aircraft launching the weapon,” Mr Snowdon said.

The latest tests were conducted under the scope of a Defence Materiel Organisation, Industry Division Minor Project to further develop the JDAM-ER into a usable product.

Mr Snowdon said the successful tests highlighted the value of CTD arrangements in maturing good ideas by combining industry and Defence resources.

Consideration will now be given to further develop the wing kits for commercial production.

“If the wing kits are commercially viable, there is likely to be significant Australian industry involvement in the manufacturing activities,” Mr Snowdon said.

Link
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Something similar to Longshot glide standoff PGM that I think STK is prpbably got the technology transfer, maybe we could zing uo our own JDAM?

basically they developed their own Longshot.

we do things the easy way and simply buy JSOW.

no real need IMO to develop a domestic ER PGM production capability - you only really need these for the high-value first week of war targets anyway.

You gotta understand the British mentality-- they don't really like being the 'little brother' to the US, hence they gotta modify all their US bought equipment at enormous expense and for little gain just so that they can claim that they 'improved' it. Or develop a parallel capability, again at enormous expense. It is really quite sad!

..er... I thought the passage said Aussie and not British.

My bad :(

((May 4, 2009: Finland is replacing, at a cost of over $700 million, its three year old Russian SA-11/17 (9K37 Buk) anti-aircraft missile systems, with Norwegian NASAMS. Norway developed this system in the early 1990s and deployed the first missiles and radars in 1995. NASAMS uses the American AMRAMM radar guided air-to-air missiles fired from a six missile container. This ground based AMRAAM weighs 350 pounds and has a range of 30 kilometers (it's radar can see out 50-70 kilometers), and can hit targets as high as 65,000 feet.
What makes the AMRAMM so effective as a SAM is the capabilities of its guidance system (which is about two thirds of the $400,000 missiles cost.) Testing also revealed that AMRAAM could be used to shoot down cruise missiles.
The Russian SA-11 uses a 1,500 pound missile with a range of 30 kilometers. Even with upgrades, the accuracy and reliability of the AMRAAM is superior to the Russian missile. Four of the SA-11 missiles are mounted on a tracked transporter. The AMRAAMs are protected inside their canister, which means fewer maintenance problems. The SA-11 is combat proven, having recently been used in Georgia, by both sides to shoot down aircraft and UAVs. But the Finns believe the AMRAAM (also combat proven) bases NASAMS is a better long term choice. There's also the suspicion that Russia may know things about defeating the SA-11 that they are not sharing with the Finns.
Norway pioneered the use of AMRAAM as a surface to air missile. The Finns received the SA-11s in payment for the $300 million debt that would have taken much longer to get paid off in cash. Russia has paid off many of its older (often Soviet era) debts with modern military equipment. Some of the recipients have found that the stuff wasn't modern, or effective, enough. )) - www.strategypage.com


Saw this article on a pretty effective missile system which SG might consider for its air defense needs....we do have a gap in that sense after Bloodhounds were retired, we do not have anymore longer ranged air defense missile. This system is also effective against cruise missiles (on papaer); something for us to consider as our neigbhours inch towards having those kind of systems (eg Brahmos). Afterall, we are a city state and the effects of a crusie missile strike would be devastating. Even though RSAF would be tasked with taking pre-emptive strikes to take out the threats before it occurs, it would not hurt to have a back-up

Qn of cost effectiveness. No point buying a L-R SAM bty that cost a $1b when that can purchase more effective fighters which have greater reach.

I-hawk has anti-missile capability. Fighters have the capability to shoot down cruise missiles as well with sufficient warning time from G550/E2C AEWs. For supersonic CMs such as Brahmos, the most effective method is to target the shooter/firer eg suks or naval platforms.

Norway does have the Joint Strike Missile that is small enough to equip the F-35 for internal carriage that may interest RSAF in the future naval strike role. At 100nm range, that's a useful AShM v future ships equipped with M/L-R SAMs. Otherwise, AGM-65G, AGM-114Ks, JSOWs, PGMs and AGM-84s are already sufficient for RSAF needs.

Our northern neighbours received a package of guided munitions which includes AS-17s as well as AS-18s if I recall. Over 80 of them. Whatever we have would have to be similar or outrange it.

PAC-3 is one of the best ABM solutions around and is going to be cheaper than the SM-3 solution that Japan took with their destroyers. However, there is a interesting development for sea based ABM, via a modification and improvement of the PAC-3 missile, called MSE (with an existing Aegis system). See the Lockheed Martin brochure on Sea Based MSE. MSE stands for Missile Segment Enhancement and is sometimes referred to as PAC-4. It is an improved version of the Patriot PAC-3 missile with better kinematics and seeking.

Yup. Cheap-er but still expensive.

US$3.1b for 330 missiles + launchers.

http://www.dsca.mil/PressReleases/36-b/2008/Taiwan_08-56.pdf

Just missiles alone cost $9m per unit.

http://www.dsca.mil/PressReleases/36-b/2006/Japan_06-66.pdf

Might as well get F-35s with US$0.5m AMRAAMs. Will always have better reach than ground SAMs.

If that is not effective enough, there's NCADE which existing F-15 and F-16s can also use... Cost shouldn't be that much more than AIM-120s as it uses the same airframe with the intention of keeping cost down.

www.raytheon.com/media/ausa07/docs/factsheets/ncade.pdf

((The Polish Missiles And Iran
August 26, 2009: What if someone offered to switch GDI with Aegis in Poland, in order to halt S300s for Iran? Doesn't make any sense? Read on. Russia and the United States are negotiating to solve some missile problems each side has. The United States wants to insure that Iran does not get S300 air defense systems (similar to the U.S. Patriot), and the Russians don't want the American GBI (Ground Based Interceptor) anti-missile system installed in Poland (to protect Europe from Iranian threats to use its ballistic missiles). Russian politicians have created a political monster by insisting that the ten GBI missiles would threaten the viability of the hundreds of Russian ballistic missiles aimed at Europe. This is absurd, but Russian politicians have painted themselves into a corner.
Moreover, aside from the money, there is no benefit to anyone to sell Iran S300 missile systems. So a compromise has been offered. The U.S. will withdraw the GBI, and replace it with the much cheaper, and "less threatening" (but just as scary to the Iranians), ground based Aegis system (which Israel wants, for the same reason, to intercept Iranian ballistic missiles.) In return, the Iranians would not get their S300s.
The American GBI (Ground Based Interceptor) system consists of a powerful radar system, and 12.7 ton ballistic missiles that delivers a 140 pound "kill vehicle" that will intercept a ballistic missile before it begins its descent into the atmosphere. The GBI kill vehicle can maneuver to destroy the incoming missile, while avoiding decoys. The U.S. is installing GBIs in Alaska and in California. More were on their way to Poland.
The GBI can receive target information from a variety of source, mainly a large X-band radar and space based sensors (that can detect ballistic missiles during their initial launch.) The U.S. plans to install 5-10 GBIs a year over the next few years, until 30 are in service. Each GBI costs over $100 million (up to several hundred million dollars, depending on how many are built and how you allocated development costs.) The GBI can intercept ballistic missiles launched from as far away as 5,000 kilometers.
The 18 U.S. Navy Aegis (radar) equipped ships have achieved an 83 percent success rate in using its SM-3 missiles to shoot down ballistic missiles during live test firings. The RIM-161A, also known as the Standard Missile 3 (or SM-3), has a range of over 500 kilometers and max altitude of over 160 kilometers. The Standard 3 is based on the anti-missile version of the Standard 2 (SM-2 Block IV). This SM-2 missile turned out to be effective against ballistic missile warheads that are closer to their target. One test saw a SM-2 Block IV missile destroy a warhead that was only 19 kilometers up. An SM-3 missile can destroy a warhead that is more than 200 kilometers up. But the SM-3 is only good for anti-missile work, while the SM-2 Block IV can be used against both ballistic missiles and aircraft. The SM-2 Block IV also costs less than half what a three million dollar SM-3.
The SM-3 has four stages. The first two boost the interceptor out of the atmosphere. The third stage fires twice to boost the interceptor farther beyond the earth's atmosphere. Prior to each motor firing it takes a GPS reading to correct course for approaching the target. The fourth stage is the 20 pound LEAP kill vehicle, which uses infrared sensors to close on the target and ram it. The Aegis system was designed to operate aboard warships (cruisers and destroyers that have been equipped with the special software that enables the AEGIS radar system to detect and track incoming ballistic missiles). However, there is also a land based version that Israel is interested in buying. There is already one of these; the original development Aegis system built on land to debug and test Aegis before installing it on ships. Land based Aegis would cost about $50 million, plus the costs of the SM-3 missiles)) www.strategypage.com


Gathering from this articel, it looks like the land-based AGEIS system is quite affordable....possible that RSAF would consider it for the overall defence of our airspace in the near future? Especially since Israeli eyes are also on it....

I think RSAF's (or rather Singapore's) priority is to replace both the Rapier and the I-Hawk. I would suggest the ballistic missiles defence be put into action after the replacement of Rapier and I-Hawk.

if a system is good for ABM, it should be good for AD as well... while its probably not reasonable for such a system to replace the rapier, given its very different area of responsibility.

the I-hawk is a different story.

question is how long before we make an announcement...

Its true the land based AGEIS is good against most aerial threats..... the main thing I was focused on is the cost - $50mio - if its true.... imagine getting a sophisticated system @ this cost....

But the thing to consider would be if the AEGIS is good against cruise missiles, since this type of threat would be the most likely and reaslistic in the near to mid term - India is already touting their Brahmos to the likes of Malaysia and Indonesia....and others with the cash.... and with states like Myanmar possibly having ballistic missiles.... wow...we can just get Rapiers / I-Hawk replacements.... we need something really solid and able to take on these stuff....

The GBI to be installed in Poland is Boeing's GMD system.

(i) The cost of each GMD system will cost far more than US$100m as highlighted. It involves silo construction.

(ii) The US will have trouble justifying the sale a system in excess of 300km range (even as a SAM) due to MTCR concerns.

(iii) Even in the polish case, the US is not selling the system to Poland, merely basing US missiles and systems in Polish bases + undertake construction.

(iv) Silos are static fixtures with same defensive risks as other static structures.

You're confusing the GBI for THAAD. They're two quite distinct systems. THAAD is not silo mounted. Poland was to receive a silo mounted, two stage version of GBI, the three stage version of which is deployed in silos in the US. THAAD is not fully ICBM intercept capable like the GBI is, though it was stated to have some limited ICBM capability, and that capability might increase with an upgraded 21'' motor version under study.

Yup, you're right. The polish complex is per Boeing's GMD programme as opposed to LM's THAAD.

http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/space/gmd/index.html

I forgot about that programme which if I remember now, included SG's Keppel participating to build the offshore rig platform for the SBX radar that was supposed to support this.

Have amended the previous post for the name of the program but the points remain. Having said that, wasn't GMD one of the programmes that was axed by Gates in the recent US budget? If so, then the question of export is now moot.

GMD? GMD is a general term I think. If you mean GBI, then GBI wasn't axed, it was just downscaled in terms of the number of interceptors to be acquired. I'm not sure if MCTR applies to SAMs, considering THAAD and SM-3 are exported or soon to be exported to countries like Japan, UAE etc. Apparenty there's a good deal of foreign interest in both.

I haven't heard of any export intent for the GBI, but personally I don't think it is wise to permanently station the silos in Poland for security reasons. Which is why I think Boeing's mobile GBI variant seems like an exceedingly flexible option which also allows for the circumvention of diplomatic roadblocks.

I can confirm that its the GMD which has 2 components, the GBI and the ground system.

http://www.mda.mil/mdalink/pdf/gmdfacts.pdf

MTCR covers all missiles. But as we see from the UAE example, its not legally binding. As for other entities like Japan, Australia, these are already within the MTCR structure.

I agree the mobile element is a smarter move. In the case of SG, if there is a real threat (clear and present danger), I suppose can always request existing US sea based interceptors (eg aegis ships) to base around these waters...

eg..USS Chancellorsville (CG 62) in Changi - End June together with CVN
http://www.navy.mil/view_single.asp?id=73414