Boeing family of JDAMs

Oh no, I agree, those are most probably guided munitions. I am suggesting only that the same result could have probably been achieved with unguided Mk-82, given the tactical picture.
 
TomcatViP said:
Oh no, I agree, those are most probably guided munitions. I am suggesting only that the same result could have probably been achieved with unguided Mk-82, given the tactical picture.
Click to expand...
IIRC, you need an order of magnitude more munitions for conventional versus guided. Sometimes two orders of magnitude, if it's a heavily built target that needs direct hits.

So you just went from 4 bombs to 40. One plane to at least 4, if not 10-12.
 
Alex Hollings from Sandboxx has just put out a video about how a B-2A Spirit sunk a target in the RIMPAC2024 exercise held earlier this year using a Quicksink JDAM:


During a massive series of Maritime wargames called RIMPAC 2024 held earlier this month, a U.S. Air Force B-2 Spirit stealth bomber demonstrated a new relatively low-cost — but extremely effective — means of engaging even large enemy warships dubbed QUICKSINK. This weapon, which could be thought of as an anti-ship JDAM, has significant implications for the future of naval warfare, so let's talk about it.
Click to expand...
 
Defense Updates has just put its' own Quicksand video and how it could help the USN sink enemy ships (No doubt PLA:N warships):


A US Air Force B-2 Spirit stealth bomber recently deployed a new anti-ship weapon to sink a decommissioned warship in the Pacific and a cargo ship off the coast of Florida. The US military touts this experimental weapon, known as QUICKSINK, as a cost-effective solution for defeating surface vessels, providing American forces with expanded strike options in the maritime domain.
Click to expand...
The development of this weapon is part of a larger, military-wide initiative to enhance anti-ship capabilities.
Click to expand...
Col. Matthew Caspers, head of Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL)’s munitions directorate at Eglin Air Force Base in Florida, said in a statement that the technology will ensure the U.S. can defend its interests, keep seas open, and “seize the initiative over large maritime areas.
Click to expand...
”He noted the significance of the demonstration. “The development of this technology helps deliver technological superiority to ensure the United States can defend our interests, maintain freedom of action, and seize the initiative over large maritime areas”
Click to expand...
In this video, Defense Updates analyzes how QUICKSINK could enhance the US military’s capacity to sink large enemy warships?
Click to expand...
#defenseupdates #ukrainekurskoffensive #ukrainerussiawar
Click to expand...
Chapters:
00:11 INTRODUCTION
02:14 THE TESTS
03:43 CONCEPT
04:51 ULTIMATE GOAL
06:05 NOT A STANDOFF WEAPON
07:02 ANALYSIS
Click to expand...
 
Forest Green said:
I think the aim is to take out ships' radars first and them finish them off.

www.defensenews.com

Ship-killing guided bomb put to test as Air Force sinks cargo vessel

The Air Force is looking for more ways to strike enemy vessels at sea as the U.S. prepares for a potential conflict with China in the Pacific.
www.defensenews.com www.defensenews.com
Click to expand...

There would be plenty of lightly defended targets in a major conflict. Doubly so in an invasion. Warships are usually going to require something more sophisticated.
 
Josh_TN said:
There would be plenty of lightly defended targets in a major conflict. Doubly so in an invasion. Warships are usually going to require something more sophisticated.
Click to expand...
Not if their radars are down. You use the sophisticated weapon to take out their radars, then you lob a 2,000lb bomb at them to sink them.
 
Forest Green said:
Not if their radars are down. You use the sophisticated weapon to take out their radars, then you lob a 2,000lb bomb at them to sink them.
Click to expand...
It's not a bad idea, but you're still going to have to use several missiles (is the AGM-88G currently the most suitable for this?) to saturate and overwhelm the ship's missile defenses. Depending on the fighter used getting into JDAM range might mean putting yourself at risk from the SAMs of other ships that are likely operating in the general area. Something like JDAM-ER would help but as far as I know the US hasn't shown interest in that for whatever reason. If you're dealing with a whole Chinese CVBG you might be better off following those initial missiles with some dedicated AShMs.
 
Colonial-Marine said:
It's not a bad idea, but you're still going to have to use several missiles (is the AGM-88G currently the most suitable for this?) to saturate and overwhelm the ship's missile defenses. Depending on the fighter used getting into JDAM range might mean putting yourself at risk from the SAMs of other ships that are likely operating in the general area. Something like JDAM-ER would help but as far as I know the US hasn't shown interest in that for whatever reason. If you're dealing with a whole Chinese CVBG you might be better off following those initial missiles with some dedicated AShMs.
Click to expand...
LRASMs can be instructed to hit any given part of a ship, JSMs too probably.
 
Forest Green said:
LRASMs can be instructed to hit any given part of a ship, JSMs too probably.
Click to expand...

JSM presumably since NSM definitely has the capability. LRASM/NSM tests I’ve seen always targeted the forward superstructure (CIC/bridge/combat system). Though I question whether any follow up hit is really necessary after that treatment. Sinking a ship that will be in a yard for months or years and probably is more expensive to fix than replace seems like a low payout.

ETA: I’d be very surprised if Tomahawks could not also pick their aim point on a ship, especially Blk V.
 
Josh_TN said:
JSM presumably since NSM definitely has the capability. LRASM/NSM tests I’ve seen always targeted the forward superstructure (CIC/bridge/combat system). Though I question whether any follow up hit is really necessary after that treatment. Sinking a ship that will be in a yard for months or years and probably is more expensive to fix than replace seems like a low payout.
Click to expand...
IIRC, the US really surprised Japan with how quickly they could put a ship back into service after significant damage in WW2.

So I suspect that there's still a good market for finishing off crippled ships in war.


Josh_TN said:
ETA: I’d be very surprised if Tomahawks could not also pick their aim point on a ship, especially Blk V.
Click to expand...
I believe that's one of the options. Gotta love DSMAC.
 
Scott Kenny said:
IIRC, the US really surprised Japan with how quickly they could put a ship back into service after significant damage in WW2.

So I suspect that there's still a good market for finishing off crippled ships in war.

I believe that's one of the options. Gotta love DSMAC.
Click to expand...

Ships were a lot simpler then. Getting a ship back into service was largely a matter of fixing structure and propulsion. Taking a 1000# class warhead to the forward superstructure is surely going to make the CIC and bridge more of an open concept layout, and the resulting fires probably destroy almost all of the coms, navigation, and sensor equipment in the ship. That is not an easy replacement, even if we assume the D/C teams rapidly get the fire under control. Such a strike also likely immolates most of the officers of the ship, if it is at general quarters. I rather doubt there would be a strong desire to dedicate secondary strikes against such a target when there would be plenty of other targets to service, many much more JDAM friendly.
 
Josh_TN said:
Ships were a lot simpler then. Getting a ship back into service was largely a matter of fixing structure and propulsion. Taking a 1000# class warhead to the forward superstructure is surely going to make the CIC and bridge more of an open concept layout, and the resulting fires probably destroy almost all of the coms, navigation, and sensor equipment in the ship. That is not an easy replacement, even if we assume the D/C teams rapidly get the fire under control. Such a strike also likely immolates most of the officers of the ship, if it is at general quarters. I rather doubt there would be a strong desire to dedicate secondary strikes against such a target when there would be plenty of other targets to service, many much more JDAM friendly.
Click to expand...
CIC is usually below the waterline, so unless that boom gets deep into the guts before it goes boom, I think you're more likely to get the superstructure (and bridge) some fancy new air conditioning and improved views.

But point taken about how much of the officer cadre would be out of the fight.

And while I'd like to think that any given US crew could get their ship home even if every single officer somehow ended up dead, the only places I'm willing to testify to that in court is submarines.
 
Forest Green said:
Not if their radars are down. You use the sophisticated weapon to take out their radars, then you lob a 2,000lb bomb at them to sink them.
Click to expand...
Way back in the 70s there was company artwork of HARM being used to knock out the radar on a Kresta I or II so it could be finished up with bombs and stuff.
 
sferrin said:
Way back in the 70s there was company artwork of HARM being used to knock out the radar on a Kresta I or II so it could be finished up with bombs and stuff.
Click to expand...

Martel was similar -- there were Buccaneer loads with a mix of Martel anti-radiation and TV-guided missiles. The clear intent was to use the ARs to either destroy or suppress radar on the target ships so the Buccs would make their Martel TV ship-killing runs with some degree of survivability.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Huh, that's not what I'm hearing about Burkes and Ticos. *shrug*
Click to expand...

I've been aboard both, and it's not that low. Here's a diagram from US Destroyers for the DDG-51. Note the CIC is just below the weather deck, but I believe still at the 01 Level, well above the waterline. Maybe a bit more removed than in the FFGs, granted, but not that buried. For one thing, being below the WL would mean that flooding (including from firefighting) immediately risks making CIC untenable.

DDG internal arrangement.jpg
 
Is there decent evidence that F-22 could use JDAM-ER?

I mean, I've already read Wikipedia, but I want something tad better.
 
TSARb said:
Is there decent evidence that F-22 could use JDAM-ER?

I mean, I've already read Wikipedia, but I want something tad better.
Click to expand...

I don't think there is any reason to think that the F-22 can carry JDAM-ER. The only JDAM-ER in US service appear to be the Quickstrike-ER mines and those are built on 2000-lb bombs, too large for the F-22 internal bay.

There is ample evidence that the F-22 can carry (and has used in combat) standard 1000-lb JDAMs.
 
There are also Quickstrike ER “Flounder” mine based on mk82s.

I would suspect that the small bay of F-22 would struggle to contain a wing kit for any bomb; it was designed solely with AAMs in mind.
 
What an irony, the first time Russia comes under aerial bombing since WWII is from an aircraft built by... Mig!

*Mig built the Mig-3, the very one that was detrimental in helping turning the tide in the WWII air battle above Moscow.
 
Last edited:

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom