Boeing family of JDAMs

AN/AWW-14(V)

AN/AWW-14(V)

ACCESS: Granted
Senior Member
Joined
18 May 2019
Messages
640
Reaction score
1,638
23.jpg

The Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM) is our high-quantity, air-to-ground weapon of choice because of its accuracy, reliability, and effectiveness. The JDAM program delivered over 46,000 guidance tailkits in FY19 to meet the needs of the Joint Force a nd Foreign Military Sales (FMS) partners. The Department of the Air Force also received an Urgent Operational Need (UON) for an advanced variant, known as SABR-Y, which incorporated enhanced GPS jamming resistance. We plan to order 25,000 tailkits in FY20 with future procurements shifting completely to the advanced SABR-Y variant.

 
Last edited:
AN/AWW-14(V) said:
2017 year
test efforts, JDAM kit with 5K warhead BLU-113

Click to expand...

5K JDAM was designated as GBU-72

34.JPG

While cruising over the Eglin Air Force Base range, a 96th Test Wing F-15E Strike Eagle released a GBU-72 Advanced 5K Penetrator at 35,000 feet here Oct. 7.

The 5,000-pound bomb’s release marked the end of a test series planned by the 780th Test Squadron and performed by the 40th Flight Test Squadron. That series included the first-ever weapons load, flight and release of the weapon July 23. The squadron’s test goals were to show the weapon could safely release from the aircraft and validate a modified 2,000-pound joint-direct-attack-munition tail kit’s ability to control and navigate a 5,000-pound weapon.

The test series, deemed a success by the Armament Directorate’s Direct Attack Division, consisted of three flights. Those flights and drops were made much more complex since this was the first GBU-72 release.

In addition to the successful flight test series, the ground test series was Eglin’s largest-ever arena test, surpassing the previous titleholder by more than double. The arena test, an open-air test where the warhead detonates surrounded by blast pressure sensors and fragment counting equipment, helps to determine the weapon’s lethality. The 780th TS also planned this test event.

The flight test series success depended upon the 780th TS’s planners and the 40th FLTS’s aircrews making the right choices, creating new procedures and adjusting quickly to ensure the weapon released correctly and the mission remained on schedule.

“Test series of this magnitude are never successful, overall, because of just a single person or organization,” said Ronald Forch, 780th TS Programming Engineer over the GBU-72 flight and ground test efforts. “They are ultimately successful because the test engineer is able to perform a role very similar to that of a symphony conductor guiding the performance of a series of consecutive miracles – none any more important than the other.”

The Armament Directorate recently commended the squadron with the External Team of the Quarter award for its GBU-72 program efforts.

The GBU-72 was developed to overcome hardened deeply buried target challenges and designed for both fighter and bomber aircraft. The weapon design and its projected effectiveness were developed using advanced modeling and simulation techniques and processes before the first warhead was forged. This is a repeatable process for all future direct attack weapons. Lethality is expected to be substantially higher compared to similar legacy weapons like the GBU-28, according to James Culliton, GBU-72 Program Manager.
Click to expand...

www.eglin.af.mil

Eglin test squadron releases GBU-72 for first time

Test series included the first-ever weapons load, flight and release of the weapon July 23. Also included Eglin’s largest-ever arena test, surpassing the previous titleholder by more than double.
www.eglin.af.mil
 
Last edited:
AN/AWW-14(V) said:
Boeing 5K JDAM was designated as GBU-72
Click to expand...

twenty four years ago 5K warhead has in the great-grandfather of todays gps-guided bombs, although then they were was built by Northrop Grumman :cool:


12.JPG
bunker-buster-gbu-37.jpg
Northrop-GBU-36-GAM-S.jpg

After the end of the Cold War in 1990, the U.S. Air Force's B-2 bomber's only non-nuclear armament option was the unguided 900 kg (2000 lb) MK 84 free-fall bomb. To enhance the B-2's value in conventional wars, the USAF decided in 1992 to equip the aircraft as soon as possible with a precision bombing capability. Northrop Grumman subsequently developed a package consisting of the GATS (GPS Aided Targeting System) for the B-2 and the GAM (GPS Aided Munition) add-on kit for the MK 84 bomb. The GAM kit includes a tail assembly with a GPS-aided INS (Inertial Navigation System) and four movable fins to steer the bomb, and a so-called "strake jacket" wrapped around the forward part of the bomb body to ensure a constant angle of descent. The GATS uses the imaging capabilities of the B-2's AN/APQ-181 SAR (Synthetic Aperture Radar) in connection with a GPS receiver to obtain very accurate coordinates of the intended targets. This information is used to update the GAM's GPS/INS guidance computer immediately before weapons release. The first GATS/GAM-equipped B-2s (Block 20) became available in April 1996, and in October that year, a live test successfully demonstrated the Block 20 B-2's all-weather high-altitude multi-target (the aircraft could carry 16 indiviually targeted GAM bombs) precision bombing capability with an accuracy of better than 6 m (20 ft) CEP.
The GAM-equipped MK 84 bomb was known as "GAM-84", and was eventually officially designated as GBU-36/B. GAM uses the same guidance principle as JDAM (Joint Direct Attack Munition), which was also under development in the 1990s. However, while JDAM was to be a low-cost weapon and was not planned to become available until 1998/99, GAM was developed to field an interim precision-guided conventional weapon on the B-2 as quickly as possible, without too much concern for unit cost. Therefore, less than 200 GBU-36/B bombs were procured, and these were retired when JDAM became ready for use on the B-2 in 1999.
The second bomb that was fitted with a GAM guidance kit was the 2000 kg (4500 lb) class BLU-113/B "bunker buster" penetrator warhead, which had been developed on a "crash" basis for Operation Desert Storm in 1991 (for details, see GBU-28/B Paveway III). The GAM-equipped BLU-113/B, also known as "GAM-113", was designated GBU-37/B. The first drop of a GBU-37/B from a B-2 occurred in May 1997, and it's possible that weapons of this type were operationally used in Afghanistan in 2001 (but reports are conflicting). The GBU-37/B is replaced by the GBU-28C/B, a development of the GBU-28/B laser-guided bomb with an improved warhead and additional GPS/INS guidance.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
zjz said:
Click to expand...

Interesting animation.

I would not bet on the shape shown having anything to do with the actual weapon. That ring airfoil nose served a purpose with Paveway but I'm not sure why you would need it in a modern scanning seeker.

The choice of weather suggests a multi-spectral seeker like Stormbreaker.

And the terminal effects suggest they are actually trying for an under-keel detonation. Probably just some sort of time delay based on the predicted underwater trajectory of the bomb rather than an influence fuze.
 
So maybe not as fancy as I thought. Looks like it penetrates the ship from above then detonates under the hull. No tricky underwater trajectory before impact to deal with.
 
@TomS : if we look closely (@0:18):

1651577427362.png

Excerpt at 0:20:
1651577546076.png

IMOHO, the bomb splashes next to the hull, without impacting the hull, and detonates underside. This is why the boat is rocked on its starboard side afterward (@0:20).

Notice how the boat sink instantly, leaving no escape to any sailors that would have been onboard. This is terrifying, coming from something as casual and cheap as a guided bomb...
 
Last edited:
TomcatViP said:
@TomS : if we look closely (@0:18):

View attachment 677591

Excerpt at 0:20:
View attachment 677592

IMOHO, the bomb splashes next to the hull, without impacting the hull, and detonates underside. This is why the boa is rocked on its starboard side afterward (@0:20).

Notice how the boat sink instantly, leaving no escape to any sailors that would have been onboard. This is terrifying.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it could be so. Very hard to tell on my phone. Will have to look again on a bigger screen.

Either way, this is very nasty. As they say, very much like a heavyweight torpedo in terms of terminal effects.
 
You're exactly right. Here is the first fame of the actual impact and it does appear to be close alongside. I've often wondered why we haven't seen this approach make a comeback with modern ASCMs as well.

1651578975053.png
 
I have to agree the terminal effects of this munition are impressive/terrifying.

Moskva not withstanding, sinking a sizable ship typically takes quite a bit of ordinance.
 
Jimmo952 said:
I have to agree the terminal effects of this munition are impressive/terrifying.

Moskva not withstanding, sinking a sizable ship typically takes quite a bit of ordinance.
Click to expand...

To be fair, this target looks like a best-case scenario. Built in the 1950s, Coastal Sea was a 195-feet, 1265 dwt general cargo vessel, likely with little internal compartmentalization. (The ship is actually named in the brochure in post #14.) She was apparently built for the Pacific Northwest and Alaska trade, so maybe she had some ice hardening?

Here she is: https://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ai...mmsi:367645770/imo:5153890/vessel:COASTAL_SEA
 
TomS said:
Jimmo952 said:
I have to agree the terminal effects of this munition are impressive/terrifying.

Moskva not withstanding, sinking a sizable ship typically takes quite a bit of ordinance.
Click to expand...

To be fair, this target looks like a best-case scenario. Built in the 1950s, Coastal Sea was a 195-feet, 1265 dwt general cargo vessel, likely with little internal compartmentalization. (The ship is actually named in the brochure in post #14.) She was apparently built for the Pacific Northwest and Alaska trade, so maybe she had some ice hardening?

Here she is: https://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ai...mmsi:367645770/imo:5153890/vessel:COASTAL_SEA
Click to expand...

The ship's back had to have been broken for it to sink that quickly.

This was not a case of a hole being punched in the hull and the lack of compartmentalization causing it to sink.

The new munition is scheduled to be used in a couple of upcoming SINKEX exercises which typically use FFG as targets.

It's performance against a prepared warship can be better assessed then.
 
TomS said:
You're exactly right. Here is the first fame of the actual impact and it does appear to be close alongside. I've often wondered why we haven't seen this approach make a comeback with modern ASCMs as well.

View attachment 677593
Click to expand...
SS-N-3 Shaddock (P-6/P-35)

"Thereafter, the missile descended to low altitude, remaining at supersonic speed. The missile was
intended to hit the water 10-20 m before the target and dive to detonate underwater to increase
damage."

Don't know if more modern Russian missiles do the same.
 
sferrin said:
TomS said:
You're exactly right. Here is the first fame of the actual impact and it does appear to be close alongside. I've often wondered why we haven't seen this approach make a comeback with modern ASCMs as well.

View attachment 677593
Click to expand...
SS-N-3 Shaddock (P-6/P-35)

"Thereafter, the missile descended to low altitude, remaining at supersonic speed. The missile was
intended to hit the water 10-20 m before the target and dive to detonate underwater to increase
damage."

Don't know if more modern Russian missiles do the same.
Click to expand...

Source? I don't find that description in the references I have readily to hand.

I was only able to find one (machine-translated) source that even mentions the impact on a ship, and is seems to indicate an above-water impact. It is admittedly vague, however. I'm not sure how best to translate "скулу" in naval terms; "cheekbone" isn't quite right, obviously.

Anti-ship cruise missile P-35 (P-6) | Missilery.info

August 17, 1956 was issued CM CCCH Resolution № 1149-592 on the beginning of development of anti-ship cruise missiles P-6 and P-35. Both missiles were designed in OKB-52 and differed little from each
en.missilery.info en.missilery.info
Subsequent flight tests from the 4th quarter of 1962 were more successful. A number of launches were made against targets: the unfinished leader of the project 48 "Kiev" squadron of mine carriers and the tanker "Nizami". One missile, with an inert warhead (without explosives), was enough to sink the leader with displacement of 2500 tons. The rocket hit the left cheekbone, opened the deck like a tin can about 50 m long, then the rocket crashed, and its engine broke through the bottom, and after 3 minutes the leader sank.
Click to expand...
 
It's always been known that the best way to sink a ship is to explode under the keel.
As Moskva shows, topside damage and hull cracking can lead to leaks which with firefighting water can affect stability enough to sink a ship, but its a long slow process.

Could "cheekbone" be forecastle? A 50m long gash in the deck though seems odd, that's either a seriously shallow angle of impact (so why didn't the missile break up) or the description is ropey. I wouldn't have thought 50m of deck could be torn horizontally given all the beams and framing.... and 50m is almost half the length of a Project 48 (127m long). Which implies an end-on impact rather than side-on.
 
TomS said:
So maybe not as fancy as I thought. Looks like it penetrates the ship from above then detonates under the hull. No tricky underwater trajectory before impact to deal with.
Click to expand...
I can't tell if it penetrates or if it falls just short of the ship, but the explosion looks pretty centered so probably the former. Seems perfectly workable against anything short of a CV. Pretty sure the Argentinians had at least a couple Mk83s through-and-through RN ships. At >900lbs of HE filler, a mk84 is going to make a gas bubble like a mk48. Good for lightly defended targets or as the back breaker follow up to successful stand off attacks and probably costs almost nothing compared to AShMs.

EDIT: as other posts noted, it does seem to fall short and then detonate under the ship, if somewhat off center. I suspect the bomb is big enough that fine positioning isn't especially relevant; a mk84 actually has a couple hundred pounds/hundred kilos more HE than a Mk48 (though I think its fairly plane jane TNT as opposed to some flavor of PBX in the case of mk48). But it should hit more or less like a heavyweight torpedo, which should be more than enough to snap most any surface combatant or cripple any larger civilian ship.

I wonder if it could be compatible with a wing kit for range extension?
 
Last edited:
TomS said:
sferrin said:
TomS said:
You're exactly right. Here is the first fame of the actual impact and it does appear to be close alongside. I've often wondered why we haven't seen this approach make a comeback with modern ASCMs as well.

View attachment 677593
Click to expand...
SS-N-3 Shaddock (P-6/P-35)

"Thereafter, the missile descended to low altitude, remaining at supersonic speed. The missile was
intended to hit the water 10-20 m before the target and dive to detonate underwater to increase
damage."

Don't know if more modern Russian missiles do the same.
Click to expand...

Source? I don't find that description in the references I have readily to hand.

Click to expand...
This PDF:

www.yumpu.com

RUSSIAN/SOVIET SEA-BASED ANTI-SHIP MISSILES Specia ... - DTIG

RUSSIAN/SOVIET SEA-BASED ANTI-SHIP MISSILES Specia ... - DTIG
www.yumpu.com www.yumpu.com

There used to be a DTIG site that had quite a few PDFs. Don't know what happened to it.
 
I find myself wondering if the near-miss, allowing it to detonate under the hull, were intentional or a happy accident. If they meant to do that that's some accurate shooting.
 
sferrin said:
I find myself wondering if the near-miss, allowing it to detonate under the hull, were intentional or a happy accident. If they meant to do that that's some accurate shooting.
Click to expand...
The test was labeled successful, so I think it is quite intentional. USAF said they were specifically looking for a torpedo like effect and I wouldn't have thought it would be difficult to make a weapon guide to an aim point under the ship in this day and age. I mean, if Soviet cruise missile could do it half a century ago...
 
Josh_TN said:
sferrin said:
I find myself wondering if the near-miss, allowing it to detonate under the hull, were intentional or a happy accident. If they meant to do that that's some accurate shooting.
Click to expand...
The test was labeled successful, so I think it is quite intentional.
Click to expand...

The ship sank, and did so spectacularly. So in that context it was successful. But if it actually *missed*, if it was intended to actually center punch the ship itself... it failed. But since the ship sank anyway, the PR department is of course going to spin it as a success.
 
The USAF has generally been very candid about its success/failures. If they were going to "spin" anything, I would have thought it would be three consecutive failures of ARRW of which there is no footage. Making a bomb fall 10-20 meters short of the target it is tracking and giving it a delayed fuse doesn't strike me as an especially challenging technical feet.
 
TomS said:
sferrin said:
I find myself wondering if the near-miss, allowing it to detonate under the hull, were intentional or a happy accident.
Click to expand...

Given the comparisons the program is making to Mk 48, I'm quite sure the under-keel detonation is the point of the exercise.
Click to expand...
Imagine if they could land GBU-57 under a carrier. :eek:
 
TomcatViP said:
Not a good day to enlist in any non-US or allied Navy.
Click to expand...
Sad thing is it'll probably take China fifteen minutes to download the necessary info to implement it themselves.
 
Couple thoughts on Quicksink:
  • I think we're seeing the modern version of the Bomben Torpedo:
    • Much cheaper way to attack ships than the alternative (BT is much cheaper than a torpedo, Quicksink is much cheaper than a purpose built anti-ship missile)
    • Both are designed to hit the water and explode under the target, probably via simple time delay fuze, for maximum destructiveness
  • A guided bomb is the easiest target imaginable for CIWS etc., so this is probably intended as a cheap weapon for merchant ship attack as well as military auxiliaries or degraded military targets with little or no anti-ship missile defense
    • This makes a huge amount of sense if you were planning for, for instance, blockading a large pacific nation heavily dependent on both international trade and resupplying island garrisons, and you want to save your limited stocks of expensive missiles for warships.
    • If so, then it's possible the USAF came up with a very sensible ConOps and then executed a cheap and successful program to implement it, which are words I never thought I would type . . .
 
CIWS would have a field day shooting down all the JDAM an F-15 can ripple launch. But obviously this system is for isolated targets devoid of the most potent defense system. Or day two of the Pacific battle.

Think Chinese cost guard and trawler fleet that are in the thousands.
 
I was thinking it is better suited to the numerous large civilian ships that would be necessary to support an invasion of Taiwan...car ferries, Ro/Ros, container ships, etc. Wasting a militia fishing boat with a mk84 seems a little...overly dramatic. Though it is probably still perfectly cost effective...
 

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom