Combat Debut of Joint Air-to-Surface Stand-off Missile: Did U.S. Air Force Lose High Tech Missile in Syria?

Donate

Written by Brian Kalman exclusively for SouthFront; Brian Kalman is a management professional in the marine transportation industry. He was an officer in the US Navy for eleven years.

Like so many others that watched the unfolding U.S.-led cruise missile strike on Syria in the early morning hours of April 14th, I was amazed by the brazen and ill-conceived nature of such an undertaking. Not only was the attack not based on any verifiable intelligence proving a chemical attack by Syrian governmental forces, the given reason for the justification of the attack, but it was extremely ill-advised from any military or political stand point. Was it imperial hubris on the part of the “leadership” of the sole “exceptional” nation, or a simple matter of poor military decision making that resulted in the approval of the strike?  A number of failures in executing the strike have come to light after the fact, not minor faults that have been magnified by Russian or Syrian government propaganda interests, but real and fundamental failures that have showcased real weaknesses in frontline U.S., French and U.K. tactical cooperation, as well as new weapon systems and their employment.

A number of analyses have appeared online over the past week that have showcased the utter failure of the French Navy’s performance in the strike and the inability of the sole VLS fired LACM in the French Navy arsenal, the MdCN , to launch reliably. Only one of three FREMM class multi-purpose frigates deployed was able to successfully fire cruise missiles within the agreed upon launch interval. The five Rafale carrier-borne strike aircraft taking part in the strike each carried 2 SCALP air-launched land attack cruise missiles, yet it was announced that only 9 SCALPs were fired against targets in Syria. Apparently, one missile malfunctioned and had to be dropped into the sea as not to present a danger to the returning aircraft upon landing.

Of even greater import than the obvious failure of the French Navy, was the official announcement by the Syrian military that they had recovered two U.S. cruise missiles that were relatively intact after the strikes were conducted. These two missiles were promptly delivered to the Russian military in Syria. This entire story may just be a propaganda or military psy-op. on the part of Russia, but if true, what could be the possible implications? If true, it would not be an extremely disastrous development for the U.S. if both of these cruise missiles were a more modern variant of the Tomahawk. This missile is based on technology developed in the 1970s and 1980s. The Tomahawk is a legacy U.S. weapon system. Although increasingly modernized over intervening decades, the Tomahawk is far from cutting edge as guided missiles are concerned. Such a development would definitely aid the Russian military and defense industry in not only furthering the development of Russian missile technology, but more importantly, in developing countermeasures to defeat U.S. guided munitions.

Very early after the strikes were conducted, the U.S. Air Force made it known that B1-B strategic bombers also took part in the strike. These bombers supposedly fired 19 Joint Air-to-Surface Stand-off Missiles (JASSM) at targets in Syria. That is the official record.  It is acknowledged that each B1-B can carry 24 such missiles, so it is unclear how many bombers were employed in the April 14th strike, but at least one or more were utilized. The JASSM has been in development since the mid-1990s, and was not declared operational until February of this year. The Syria strike of April 14th would be the first documented use of this weapon system ever in warfare. The JASSM had a quite troubled developmental history, and like so many other U.S. weapons systems, ran considerably over budget. The JASSM is seen as the benchmark of the next generation of U.S. cruise missiles. Did one of these missiles fail and crash land in Syria? Does Russia now have a relatively intact JASSM missile to study and reverse-engineer? If so, this is without a doubt, the greatest U.S. military technology loss (not due to Chinese espionage at least) in almost a century. And the entire episode either stems from U.S. hubris and arrogance, or simple dereliction of duty in approving a missile strike operation that was likely to be marginally successful, and definitely not worth the risk.

The Joint Air-to-Surface Stand-Off Missile (JASSM)/AGM-158A

The Joint Air-to-Surface Stand-Off Missile (JASSM) began development in 1995 with the aim of designing and fielding the next generation of precision, autonomous, guided cruise missile for the U.S. Air Force and U.S. Navy. The Tomahawk (TLAM) land attack cruise missile proved to be very successful in attacking targets in the first Gulf War of 1991. Between this conflict and the start of the JASSM program, at least 357 TLAMs were fired on Iraq, and an additional 13 were used to target Serbian forces in Bosnia. In total, the U.S. armed forces have fired no less than 2,413 TLAMs on targets in seven different countries over the past 27 years.

Combat Debut of Joint Air-to-Surface Stand-off Missile: Did U.S. Air Force Lose High Tech Missile in Syria?

BGM-109C Block III Tomahawk land attack cruise missile. The missile is equipped with a solid propellant rocket booster and discarding two-piece canister to facilitate launch.

With the passage of time, TLAMs have been increasingly employed to engage targets where a robust, modern air-defense network is not present. The TLAM is a sub-sonic cruise missile with minimal inherent stealth characteristics. In conjunction with more high tech and stealthy guided munitions that can bear the brunt of targeting and eliminating high value command and control and critical air defense network control elements, the TLAM still has a significant part to play in future U.S. military operations. The JASSM was developed to be just such a high tech and stealthy guided munition. If the weapons prove successful, JASSMs fired from aircraft outside of an adversary’s airspace, and well out on engagement range of air defenses, could overwhelm and destroy key air-defense network radar and command and control assets, as well as the most capable enemy surface-to-air missile (SAM) batteries.

Combat Debut of Joint Air-to-Surface Stand-off Missile: Did U.S. Air Force Lose High Tech Missile in Syria?

JASSM being loaded into the internal bomb bay of a B-1B Lancer strategic bomber.

Development of the JASSM was begun in 1995 by Lockheed Martin. Twelve years after the program had begun, the cruise missile had not achieved the level of success required, and an additional $68 million had to be allocated to help salvage the $3 billion program. The JASSM finally was able to pass the USAF Initial Operational Test and Evaluation program, and a contract was signed with Lockheed Martin in 2013 to provide the first batch of 2,000 missiles. A year later, the Joint Air-to-Surface Stand-off Missile Extended Range AG-158B (JASMM-ER) successfully passed testing and an order for a further 2,900 of these missiles was signed. The JASSM-ER extends the range of the base missile from 370 km. to 1,000 km. Both missiles are fitted with a 450kg. WDU-42/B penetrator warhead. The warhead is fitted with a penetrator fuse that can measure the density of the environment around it so it can determine when it has penetrated a hardened target. The JASSM is guided by an internal guidance system which is programmed prior to launch with targeting information. The missile’s flight path can be adjusted in flight via a jam-resistant GPS receiver. Once the missile enters its terminal targeting phase, it switches over to an infrared (IR) imaging seeker which is able to identify the target via parameters in its targeting memory. This targeting memory can be uploaded with up to eight different target identifications. Lockheed Martin claims accuracy within a three yard radius of target.

Combat Debut of Joint Air-to-Surface Stand-off Missile: Did U.S. Air Force Lose High Tech Missile in Syria?

JASSM being successfully test fired from an F-15E Strike Eagle. The JASSM development parameters demanded that the next generation air launched cruise missile be compatible with multiple strike, maritime patrol and strategic bomber aircraft in the U.S. and NATO inventory.

The JASSM has been purchased by the militaries of Poland, Finland and Australia. The missile was initially designed to be utilized by the U.S. B1-B strategic bomber; however, from the very start, it was envisioned that the missile be compatible with a broad spectrum of U.S. aerial platforms, including the F-16C/D, F-18C/D, F-15E, F-35 strike aircraft, as well as the B-2 and B-52 strategic bombers. The P-8 Poseidon may also be a candidate for use of a modified anti-ship cruise missile currently being developed using the JASSM-ER as its foundation. The Long Range Anti-Ship Missile AG-158C (LRASM) is currently being developed by Lockheed Martin as a next generation sea and air launched anti-ship cruise missile meant to defeat near-peer or peer naval targets. There is little doubt that the LRASM is being developed to counter the exceedingly modernized and capable warships developed by China and Russia over the past 25 years. The People’s Liberation Army Navy in particular, has been developing and commissioning extremely capable warships at a rate far exceeding any other navy in the world. As its attention continues to focus on militarization of the South China Sea and Chinese A2/AD, or access and area denial capability in this region, the U.S. Navy will have to develop a more viable means by which to engage and defeat exceedingly capable PLAN surface warfare platforms.

Combat Debut of Joint Air-to-Surface Stand-off Missile: Did U.S. Air Force Lose High Tech Missile in Syria?

Computer generated rendition of a LRASM targeting a Russian Sovremenny Class destroyer.

The AG-158 family of missiles have been developed as the benchmark of the next generation of cruise missiles for both the U.S. Air Force and Navy. Significant investment went into the development of this weapon system, and it goes without saying that the specifics behind its design and how it functions must remain unknown to any prospective adversaries, with Russia and China paramount among them. In light of the importance of keeping the specifics of this new technology secret, was it truly a good idea to use JASSM missiles in a pointless assault against Syrian government targets on April 14th? A simple and logical cost benefit analysis would conclude that it was not a wise decision.

It is quite obvious to anyone that has ever followed proxy conflicts, that all sides invested in the conflict will use such proxy wars as an advanced training ground for their own weapon systems. There is no doubt that Russia has been doing this in Syria for years now; however, they have been quite reserved in their willingness to use their most secretive and game-changing assets. The S-300 and S-400 systems have not been used, nor have the most state of the art electronic warfare (EW) systems. They have been deployed in Syria for sure, but Russia has wisely decided not to use these systems unless absolutely necessary. As soon as these weapons are used, the U.S., NATO and Israel will be able to gain very real data on how they work, especially from the standpoint of EW. Russia will only risk using these systems, and thus “showing their hand” if they have no other options.

Combat Debut of Joint Air-to-Surface Stand-off Missile: Did U.S. Air Force Lose High Tech Missile in Syria?

Satellite images of the Him Shinshar “Chemical Weapons storage facility” before and after the strike. Were JASMMs used to target these structures?

The Trump administration decided to approve a strike plan that included the employment of the JASSM, which had only become operational months before. Whether the decision was made to ensure that the Syrian air-defense network’s ability to interdict and defeat the attack would be minimized by using JASSM missiles is questionable. It was disclosed that only 19 of the missiles were used, accounting for 18% of the cruise missiles used. These were fired from two B-1B bombers. Each of these aircraft can carry 24 JASSMs each. The majority of missiles employed in the attack were the TLAM, fired from U.S. Navy destroyers and a Virginia Class attack submarine. Also, one target alone, the Barzah Research and Development Center, were allegedly saturated by 76 missiles. Use of the JASSM in such an attack would be pointless, as the cruise missile was designed to target and destroy targets with such effectiveness that only one missile would be necessary. This concept is referred to as Missile Mission Effectiveness (MME), and the JASSM was expected to have an MME value of one. What would be the point of targeting a handful of unhardened targets with multiple JASSMs? Two of the three main facilities said to have been targeted and destroyed in the attack was a munitions storage facility and “CW bunker” located in Him Shinshar near the city of Homs. It is impossible to tell from the satellite imagery provided by the U.S. as proof of the effectiveness of the attack, or if these were hardened targets or not. Even if they were, why target them with 19 missiles that each possess an MME = 1?

As it becomes clear with each passing day that there was no chemical weapons attack perpetrated by the Syrian government on civilians in East Ghouta, the questionable judgement of using the JASSM in the April 14th strike becomes even more glaring. Why risk the possible recovery of a JASSM, whether largely intact or not, in perpetrating an attack that was not only unnecessary, but one based on a fabrication? Clearly the U.S. intelligence apparatus has greater information collecting means than just monitoring opposition linked Twitter accounts. Was the possible loss of a JASSM and its delivery to Russia worth “success” in a meaningless attack that would yield no real, material benefit? The answer is an unequivocal no.

The Russian M.O.D. was quick to verify claims made by the Syrian military that they had handed over two U.S. cruise missiles recovered largely intact, but they did not specify any details. Either this is simply a bluff, or Russia does in fact have these missiles now. Of added significance is the fact that the Russian M.O.D. has yet to specify what type of missiles were recovered, and I would bet that this information is not forthcoming. They will keep the U.S. leadership guessing and fearing that they are currently inspecting one of their newest and most advanced guided missiles, even if they are not. An intact TLAM would be of obvious benefit to the Russian defense industry, but an intact JASSM would be a windfall.  Decades of development and tens of billions of dollars could be thwarted in just a few short years, forcing the U.S. defense industry to work to improve upon and safeguard what they saw as the foundation of both air and sea launched cruise missiles guaranteeing U.S. power preeminence through the next fifty years.

Donate

SouthFront

Do you like this content? Consider helping us!

  • MD Ranix

    it was not about chemical war fake news – the zio masters wanted to protect their terrorist slaves but alas – the cat is out of the bag – elimination of illegal occupiers is in full swing with no sign of stopping

  • Nuno Cardoso da Silva

    Greed and dumbness go very well together… The more greedy Americans appear to be, the dumber they become in their decisions…

    • v76

      Spot on… its also known as arrogance.

  • JustPassingThrough

    thank you Brian for a very interesting article.
    “And the entire episode either stems from U.S. hubris and arrogance, or
    simple dereliction of duty in approving a missile strike operation that
    was likely to be marginally successful, and definitely not worth the
    risk.”

    if it is as you say, someone is going to find a way to blame the failure on the Russians.
    again L.M. of dubious F35 fame is involved. one could probably make the argument that the Russians are in charge of L.M., couldn’t one? Planes that don’t fly, missiles that don’t fly, my, my. The only thing flying at L.M. is the stock price. (time to buy the dip)

    i know nothing about missile technology but isn’t a subsonic, turbojet powered, gps guided missile a bit out of date?

    • David James

      Out of date by 30+ years.

    • David James

      Russia’s cruise missiles now use TRIPLE redundant navigation. That’s why they are so much better, on top of being faster, 2X the range(in some versions), and having a far, far smaller CEP.
      The US is simply “outclassed” in nearly ALL areas.

  • Redadmiral

    Totally logical argument and conclusion. However, what if the whole fiasco was nothing more than the shroud to deliver failed Yanki Tech to the Ruskies. (Give them Godless Neo-Commies plenty of research to keep them occupied). This idea being predicated on Yanks having shit that actually works, which I suppose is a bit of a stretch……Lol

  • Hassadnah Abraham

    High Tech MY FOOT. Burn billions of dollars for NOTHING

    • Vaughanbaby

      Yes! very little bang for the buck. In fact no bang for billions of bucks

  • Barba_Papa

    >>Development of the JASSM was begun in 1995 by Lockheed Martin.<<

    There you have the root of all problems. You let LM do the job, you get an overpriced lemon.

    • Java Ape Timelord

      Yet again Americans use more words than necessary, i.e. poor English.
      Better English is “Development of the JASSM began in 1995 by Lockheed Martin.”.

      • David James

        Nobody CARES about grammar on an international forum dummy. Nitpicky nitwit.

        • Java Ape Timelord

          Your logical fallacy is ad hominem.

          • David James

            Focusing upon irrelevant minutae……waste of time & diversionary.

      • subhuti 2

        The best usage would be, ‘Lockheed Martin began development…..in 1995.’ Barba papa used passive voice which is grammatically correct. You used active voice with ‘by Lockheed Martin’. This mixes active voice with a prepositional phrase. Version 1 is more grammatically correct than yours. Besides which, rude.

        • Java Ape Timelord

          1. Barba papa did not write it. He quoted from the article. I was criticising the article.
          2. So I was Not impolite to Barba.
          If you are going attack someone get your logic right.

          • subhuti 2

            After I wrote my comment, I saw that you are factually correct. So why did you apparently attack HIM for bad grammar? In any case, using passive voice with a ‘by’ prepositional phrase is perfectly acceptable grammatically speaking. Using active voice with a ‘by’ prepositional phrase is not incorrect but is awkward usage. In any case, using disparaging words to his comment is not useful. From a text editor’s standpoint, my usage was the best, but who cares? His point was clear enough. Why distract the topic. Let’s focus on the issue he justifiably raised. Enough said, not interested in getting into a pissing contest.

      • ChuckNoland

        Ahhh, the grammar Nazi of the message boards.

        • Java Ape Timelord

          Ahhh, Your logical fallacy is ad hominem.

          • ChuckNoland

            LOL, someone took a philosophy class yet never learned to argue. An observation is perception and can thus not be a logical fallacy. You really are bad at this.

          • Java Ape Timelord

            An ‘observation’ that is an ad hominem which is not based on a logical argument.
            Now your reply is a logical fallacy.
            It appears you are really bad at this.

          • ChuckNoland

            Ok, disprove it then. You can’t. Logically I perceive someone who views language as something to be analy fastidious about the technical aspects of said language while on a informal communication platform to be a grammar nazi. It’s a common internet term that accurately describes your position of placing importance on the technical aspects of language and simply parroting back your encounter with a book on logic rather than using it to effectively communicate an idea or concept. Thinking is NOT simply regurgitating memorized passages. Therefore I was addressing your point of logic, or lack thereof, and not attacking your character so it isn’t ad hominem.

          • Java Ape Timelord

            It appears comprehension is not your strong suit. my original comment was aimed at the article which I perceived to be too verbose. In way of an example I referenced a quote of the article by Barba_Papa. I was not so concerned with the grammar but the excessive use of words.

            1. Your response to me was based on a false assumption, that I am pedantic about grammar when I am not. Spelling maybe, excessive use of words yes as it makes the reading tiresome.

            2. You called me a Nazi which was the German National Socialism party, now often associated with atrocious and inhuman activities.
            I find that to be extremely offensive.

            Your arguments carry no weight, and anyone could see that you were attacking my character by calling me a Nazi. Your excuses are not accepted.
            You owe me an apology.

  • Bob

    If there is a name for modern military contractors price gouging public money, it is surely Lockheed Martin.

  • John

    Some of the content is off in the article, however I recommended it. For instance, the Russian MoD account of what transpired in he attack, is by far still the most accurate. Regardless, the main point is valid, that the strike had a bunch of ‘stupid’ embedded in it. I wish well to all.

  • Darko Dakić

    76 missiles for The Barzeh Research and Development Center, it is insane but ok…this is what they claim.
    22 for the Him Shinshar chemical weapons storage facility and another 9 for the Him Shinshar chemical weapons bunker facility. I am doing my best trying to count impacts at photo above, Him Shinshar chemical weapons storage facility …I see 9 impacts, bunker facility, using digital globe image I have seen 1, maybe 2. For research center I don´t have images at all, not without a smoke. Can someone do better? Actually should be easy to mark visible impacts for anyone who has access to high resolution satellite images and good will to show the truth

    • David James

      Sounds about right, for the 22 recorded hits on Target. Well done. My BDA was less accurate.

  • EL ZORRO

    Well, the only “EXCEPTIONAL” nation, is only exceptional in the CORRUPTION AND DISHONESTY that have been exposed in the investigations of the IG, both political parties, have turned the UNITED STATES into a BANANA REPUBLIC OF NORTH AMERICA, the corruption is rampant in ALL THE GOVERNMENT AGENCIES, loaded with SES(SENIOR EXECUTIVE SERVICE) members, unelected officials with permanent positions selected by the DEEPSTATE(COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS).

  • David James

    It was kind of Trump to donate the JASSM-ER, and latest version of Tomahawk to Russia. I’m sure they will learn ALL of their secrets, and put that knowledge to good use.
    US incompetance in action-once again !

    • ZP

      And why would this be Trump’s donation? Why not military itself?

    • Ok, new conspiracy theory could develop, attack was secret way Trump was helping Russia.

  • Joe Dirt

    russki propaganda

  • wisedupearly

    Giving the Russians a JASSM will ensure that a new cruise missile contract is issued to Lockheed Martin. Another couple of billion wasted.

  • Pave Way IV

    “…was it truly a good idea to use JASSM missiles in a pointless assault against Syrian government targets on April 14th?…”

    Depends. The targets had absolutely nothing to do with the chemical weapons false flag used as an excuse for the attack, but they were something Israel wanted to destroy.

    The Scientific Research Center was where Syria was working on their own missile development and manufacturing technology, undoubtedly with some expertise passed on by Russian and Iranian experts. Israel does not allow anyone it doesn’t like to have accurate tactical medium- or long-range ballistic missiles. Same reason any psychopathic bully and thief has for not wanting their preferably defenseless victims to have a readily-accessible firearm.

    The two other ‘chemical weapons’ facilities had some other physical role in Syria’s missile programs – fuel, fabrication, storage, etc. Not the entirety of Syria’s missile-related development, but they were something the Israelis knew (or thought they knew) about. Syria had no intention of ‘correcting’ the chemical weapons claim by pointing out their missile development was targeted. Israel (and the US) could not possibly justify a strike against the Syrian missile program to the world, so the chemical weapons excuse was recycled.

    Even then, the Syrian missile development-related sites were just a convenient Israeli-demanded target and only one aspect of the attack. Another intent of the attack was to gather intel on Russian system capabilities (which Russia wisely didn’t fall for). US:Fail.

    Yet another motivation was some live combat testing of the newest generation of cruise missiles. The latest French/Italian SCALP EG (UK Storm Shadow) long-range, low-observable version. The same for the US JASSM-ER. Because of that, I doubt if any Tomahawks were even used. They would do nothing but interfere with the ZATO ‘testing’ results.

    The US just claimed they used 109 missiles – why would anyone believe them? I don’t. Why would they even bother giving details like that? Likewise, if Syria did fire of some SAMs and only those three sites were hit, why not say they shot the rest down that ZATO claimed to have used? And why would Russia bother revealing their detection capabilities by announcing that only thirty-some low-observability cruise missiles were tracked (or not) and/or that they know Syria only downed a few of them (or not)? Or maybe Russia couldn’t see any of them – again, why report that?

    I certainly don’t trust US military commanders to understand the US Constitution, but they are not unintelligent otherwise. They blew through $28 million of JASSM-ERs for some reason. Likewise, France and the UK burned up €34 million in SCALP-EGs, and it damn sure wasn’t just to bust up a few low-value sites or ‘try’ their new toys.

  • temujin1970

    Nemesis follows hubris.

  • Mikronos

    The back end of the B-1 looks about as attractive as the rear end of a ‘lancer’s’ horse – worse when you start noticing the collection of rectal ‘warts’.

  • Pave Way IV

    Always interesting which of my replies the Disqus spam filter ‘detects’ and removes (SouthFront isn’t responsible AFIK). And I didn’t even mention the EMP version of the JASSM-ER this time either! Thanks for nothing, Israeli-firster US spooks. Sorry Brian. Good article – would have been interesting to discuss.
    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/01f6378ffea7e3d05b099f511102801dee24228c1be87bfebce9143f874e83b5.png

  • Ronald

    There is an article in VT , Helpless….Israeli “back doors”, well worth the read, and it would be great to have a professional commentary from Brian Kalman.

  • Tewr Sowjgo

    I can confirm that 2x JASSMs did arrive in moscow relatively intact, the rockets hade british insignia and of the Stormshadow designation. According to a serbian professor in rocket engineering by the name of Momcilo Milinovic on sputnik belgrade intervju. 5 Dassault Rafales and 4 Mirage 2000 was also involved, only the Tomahawks were successfull, many missiles went down due to EW employed by Krashuka EW system. Some JASSMs were successfull when hiding in Beqa Valley, Scalp/Stormshadow sucked. This guy told even the most detailed description of american tech and their warheads and propulsion, seemed to know a lot of classified information.