TASSM AGM-137

[Daryl J.]

Questions:  Which way is up?   Vertical fin up or vertical fin down?    Were the wings folded while on its mount/rail?    Could the warhead be varied?


Thanks!  :)

[GTX_Admin]

Evan....

[elmayerle]

Vertical fin folds into the down position from the stowed position as the horizontal fins unfold from stowed position.  The wings are folded and under a cover when stowed, said cover fitting onto the exhaust cover.  There's also a coverplate on the bottom over the inlet that's jettisoned on launch ('twas a headache I took over later in the program).  There were multiple payloads available, both dispensed munitions and a unitary warhead.  There was also an option for a l-o sensor window in the front for man-in-the-loop terminal guidance.  Even without that, the first full-up guided launch hit the "10-ring".

[Jeffry Fontaine]

Wikipedia - AGM-137 TSSAM

Desktop model of the AGM-137 TSSAM

*sigh* Where's the AGM-137 TSSAM when you could use it?  'Twas an all-aspects stealthy conventionally-armed cruise missile with excellent sensor fits.  It wouldn't be that difficult to scratchbuild (let me know if you need more info that is readily available online).

If Wikipedia's comments are to be trusted it would seem that it was the failure of the contractor.

[elmayerle]

If Wikipedia's comments are to be trusted it would seem that it was the failure of the contractor.

Actually, I have to agree with regard to Northrop's upper management of that period and some of the upper program management.  One "lesson learned" was that you don't go with the lowest bidder, you go with the lowest qualified bidder (there is a demonstrable difference and it definitely delayed matters of development).  Another lesson was that you don't agree to technical changes without compensation changes in the contract ("sure, we can do that" without asking for budget can really hurt you).

For me, I think the most annoying event, other than the layoff when the program was cancelled, was the Army cancelling their version just as we were about to conduct a test launch to verify that we'd fixed the problems found in the previous, problem-plagued, launch.  The missile itself performed well, at least when built to spec (had one test fail at the very last second because a sub-sub-contractor messed up) and would be most useful today.

At the time of cancellation, there was a study under way to meet a longer-ranged RAF requirement that would've made for a slightly longer missile.

[Jeffry Fontaine]

If Wikipedia's comments are to be trusted it would seem that it was the failure of the contractor.

Actually, I have to agree with regard to Northrop's upper management of that period and some of the upper program management.  One "lesson learned" was that you don't go with the lowest bidder, you go with the lowest qualified bidder (there is a demonstrable difference and it definitely delayed matters of development).  Another lesson was that you don't agree to technical changes without compensation changes in the contract ("sure, we can do that" without asking for budget can really hurt you).

For me, I think the most annoying event, other than the layoff when the program was cancelled, was the Army cancelling their version just as we were about to conduct a test launch to verify that we'd fixed the problems found in the previous, problem-plagued, launch.  The missile itself performed well, at least when built to spec (had one test fail at the very last second because a sub-sub-contractor messed up) and would be most useful today.

At the time of cancellation, there was a study under way to meet a longer-ranged RAF requirement that would've made for a slightly longer missile.

How many of the Army version of the TSSAM would fit in the MLRS?

[elmayerle]

How many of the Army version of the TSSAM would fit in the MLRS?

One box launcher for an Army-TSSAM would fit in place of a "six-pack" and would be visually identical until launch.

[Jeffry Fontaine]

How many of the Army version of the TSSAM would fit in the MLRS?

One box launcher for an Army-TSSAM would fit in place of a "six-pack" and would be visually identical until launch.

I thought it would be so but it never hurts to ask. 

[GTX_Admin]

you don't go with the lowest bidder, you go with the lowest qualified bidder (there is a demonstrable difference and it definitely delayed matters of development).  Another lesson was that you don't agree to technical changes without compensation changes in the contract ("sure, we can do that" without asking for budget can really hurt you).

Agree definitely on both counts!