Powered JDAM

Grey Havoc

Grey Havoc

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
9 October 2009
Messages
21,147
Reaction score
12,249
www.flightglobal.com

Boeing resurrects effort to turn JDAM bomb into cheap cruise missile

Boeing has resurrected and is showing off its Powered JDAM concept believing that the US Air Force (USAF) is keen to buy low-cost cruise missiles.
www.flightglobal.com www.flightglobal.com

www.airforcemag.com

Powered JDAM: Boeing’s New Alternative to Cruise Missiles | Air & Space Forces Magazine

Boeing is developing a long-range version of its Joint Direct Attack Munition called the Powered JDAM, adding an engine to extend its range by 20 times over the conventional glide version of the weapon.
www.airforcemag.com www.airforcemag.com

www.dsjournal.com

AFA Air Warfare Symposium: Boeing Touts Powered JDAM as LOW-RISK, Low-Cost Cruise Missile

Working in alignment with the U.S. Air Force’s PEO Weapons, but spending its own internal R&D funds, Boeing has added an engine and a tail kit to its venerable (430,000 units sold) Joint …
www.dsjournal.com www.dsjournal.com

EDIT: Woops, should have put this over in Aviation & Space. Could someone please move it over there?
 
Last edited:
sferrin said:
Problem is they're easily shot down against a defended target.
Click to expand...
Not much more easy than things like JSOW or SDB. And since they are intended to be relatively cheap - oversaturation is answer. As always.
 
Sounds an awful lot like an AGM-123, just with the JDAM kit rather than the Paveway. It was a cool idea then, and it's still a pretty neat one today.
 

Attachments

  • AGM-123_Skipper_II.jpg
    AGM-123_Skipper_II.jpg
    303.7 KB · Views: 144
sferrin said:
Problem is they're easily shot down against a defended target.
Click to expand...
“No matter what the enemy tries to shoot down that [cruise missile] with, they’re going to lose the battlefield calculus equation,” says Jim Leary, global sales and marketing for weapons with Boeing. “They’re going to have to tap some kind of exquisite [and expensive] missile to shoot something like that down. It’s going to cost a lot more.”
Click to expand...
 
TomcatViP said:
sferrin said:
Problem is they're easily shot down against a defended target.
Click to expand...
“No matter what the enemy tries to shoot down that [cruise missile] with, they’re going to lose the battlefield calculus equation,” says Jim Leary, global sales and marketing for weapons with Boeing. “They’re going to have to tap some kind of exquisite [and expensive] missile to shoot something like that down. It’s going to cost a lot more.”
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Tor was designed SPECIFICALLY to win that cost equation.
 
How many PGM were fired over Iraq & Syria to repel ISIS? And then how many cheap Thor would have been needed to counter them?

Here what lays for the future:

Precision-Guided Munitions_ Background and Issues for Congress; Feb. 27, 2020:

news.usni.org

Report to Congress on Precision-Guided Munitions - USNI News

The following is the Feb. 27, 2020 Congressional Research Service report, Precision-Guided Munitions: Background and Issues for Congress. Over the years, the U.S. military has become reliant on precision-guided munitions (PGMs) to execute military operations. PGMs are used in ground, air, and...
news.usni.org news.usni.org

That kind of of powered JDAM will revitalize for example Tank plinking with the sensor being a Stealth asset (F-35 in charge of a Killbox) and shooters beaming well outside IADS range to launch their weapons in short succession.
 
TomcatViP said:
That kind of of powered JDAM will revitalize for example Tank plinking with the sensor being a Stealth asset (F-35 in charge of a Killbox) and shooters beaming well outside IADS range to launch their weapons in short succession.
Click to expand...
So again spherical situation in vacuum that includes positive assets only for attacker?
 
Tell that to the Iranians and Syrians armies... They would probably reply that to the best of their knowledge, Vacuum is not a word in Hebrew.
 
Last edited:
TomcatViP said:
How many PGM were fired over Iraq & Syria to repel ISIS? And then how many cheap Thor would have been needed to counter them?

Here what lays for the future:

Precision-Guided Munitions_ Background and Issues for Congress; Feb. 27, 2020:

news.usni.org

Report to Congress on Precision-Guided Munitions - USNI News

The following is the Feb. 27, 2020 Congressional Research Service report, Precision-Guided Munitions: Background and Issues for Congress. Over the years, the U.S. military has become reliant on precision-guided munitions (PGMs) to execute military operations. PGMs are used in ground, air, and...
news.usni.org news.usni.org

That kind of of powered JDAM will revitalize for example Tank plinking with the sensor being a Stealth asset (F-35 in charge of a Killbox) and shooters beaming well outside IADS range to launch their weapons in short succession.
Click to expand...


How many TOR did Iraq or Syria have? I'm thinking Z-E-R-O.
 
On the air defense "discussion" there are a lot of parameters in the battlefield calculus. How many missiles on a TOR? Is the TOR backed up by equally capable defender? How many powered JDAM are there? Is there any jamming toward the TOR? What power level? Are the JDAM flying ballistic paths or random jinxing? Best way to defeat something like this is present multiple dilemma.

If it is one JDAM vs TOR, I would have to go with the TOR. If it is two plane loads of powered JDAM, supported by a strike package, I would have to go with the package. If it is a TOR supported by SA-300 and Pantsir...

Just noted the USAF Program Name: "Golden Horde project" Likely gives us a clue on technique.
 
Last edited:
yasotay said:
On the air defense "discussion" there are a lot of parameters in the battlefield calculus. How many missiles on a TOR? Is the TOR backed up by equally capable defender? How many powered JDAM are there? Is there any jamming toward the TOR? What power level? Are the JDAM flying ballistic paths or random jinxing? Best way to defeat something like this is present multiple dilemma.

If it is one JDAM vs TOR, I would have to go with the TOR. If it is two plane loads of powered JDAM, supported by a strike package, I would have to go with the package. If it is a TOR supported by SA-300 and Pantsir...

Just noted the USAF Program Name: "Golden Horde project" Likely gives us a clue on technique.
Click to expand...

I was speaking specifically of the cost trade. How many of what is involved isn't really the point.
 
attachment.php
 
timmymagic said:
Is that the SDBII sensor shape fitted on one of the images?
Click to expand...

Bottom right? Seems unlikely, since SDBII isn't a Boeing product. (Though they did team with Raytheon for a JAGM contender using the SDBII seeker, so maybe?)

Bottom left looks to be the Laser JDAM seeker.
 
kqcke for you said:
Maybe one of them is a Quicksink model?
Click to expand...

I'm skeptical. From what we have seen of Quicksink, it's a flat-nosed fuze replacement (which makes sense, became a flat nose it what you want for getting cleanly though the air-water interface).

Now, here's Boeing's original press release, which does describe that variant as Maritime Strike but does NOT say Quicksink. My guess is it's actually some sort of radar seeker. Interesting that the bottom left is not Laser JDAM but the Quickstrike mine TDD.

Clockwise from top, the PJDAM shown in land strike, maritime strike and maritime aerial mining configuration in the Aircraft Research Association Transonic Wind Tunnel in Bedford, United Kingdom. (Boeing photos)
Click to expand...

onfirstup.com

Long-range precision strike system caps wind tunnel testing

Boeing’s milestone furthers the development of the system to meet emergent defense needs.
onfirstup.com
 
Last edited:
TomS said:
Much, much smaller than that. J85 is like an order of magnitude too big. Probably even smaller than the little turbofans/jets in cruise missiles.
Click to expand...
Thought that too - wonder what the J85 refers to then on the brochure.

Enjoy the Day! Mark
 
Mark Nankivil said:
Thought that too - wonder what the J85 refers to then on the brochure.

Enjoy the Day! Mark
Click to expand...

Oh, jeez, I didn't notice that.

Ah ha. Turns out that TDI makes a microturbine called the TDI-J85. So, the identity of the PJDAM engine is a mystery no more.

The TDI-J85 weighs just under 30 pounds and generates a maximum of 200 lbf of thrust.

tdi-engines.com

TDI-J85 - TDI

Specifications Performance Data (SLS) – TDI-J85 Thrust (idle – max) 20-200 lbf (88-890 N) Airflow 2.00 lbm/sec (0.91 kg/sec) Electrical Output (idle – max) 1.2 kW Engine-Generator Weight 28 lbm (12.7 kg) Fuel Pump Weight 1.4 lbm (0.65 kg) Ignition Pyroflare Weight 0.3 lbm (0.12 kg)
tdi-engines.com tdi-engines.com
 
Last edited:
I think the idea has merit as a bomber based weapon. A B-52 or B-1 can carry enough of them to saturate a target area. I don't see a lot of utility for tactical aircraft - it has the same footprint as a Mk84, so outside of F-15E, only 2-4 could be carried, and the latter without drop tanks. Have they given range or price figures for it yet? Were it sufficiently cheap and fast to produce and sufficiently long ranged that it could allow bombers stand off range, I could see the use case. But it would have to be dramatically cheaper than JASSM and give at least a couple hundred miles range, IMO.

EDIT: Ah, should have read the original Boeing release. Greater than 300nm works for me. If they can keep costs below a half million and have sufficient capacity to stamp out a few hundred a year, I'd say buy it as a hedge against the AGM-158 inventory being depleted.
 
Last edited:
timmymagic said:
On the second image it mentions Low Cost decoy fuel tank....never seen that mentioned before....wonder what the range would be with a 400lb load of fuel....
Click to expand...

Seems redundant with MALD. Is more than 500nm really needed?
 
TomS said:
Interesting that the bottom left is not Laser JDAM but the Quickstrike mine TDD.
Click to expand...

Actually probably one of the best uses for such a kit. Land and ship attack already have other (albeit more expensive) weapons dedicated to the role, but remote mine laying would be a unique capability. Mining an open undefended patch of water is probably a more realistic target set for such a system.
 
Josh_TN said:
Have they given range or price figures for it yet?
Click to expand...

Price - No. But it wouldn't be more than $200k. JDAM is around $40k, a wing kit shouldn't add more than another $40k. A lot would depend on the engine. They're usually the most expensive component but the TDI-J85 was developed with AFRL to deliver the Gray Wolf missile at under $100k. Its hard to see it costing more than $50k as a result. Produced at scale it might be possible to get a Powered JDAM at less than $150k.

Range - up to 160 nm

Josh_TN said:
Were it sufficiently cheap and fast to produce and sufficiently long ranged that it could allow bombers stand off range, I could see the use case.
Click to expand...


There won't be anything out there as cheap, in terms of fast? JDAM is about as fast and hot a production line as its possible to get.

Josh_TN said:
But it would have to be dramatically cheaper than JASSM and give at least a couple hundred miles range, IMO.
Click to expand...

JASSM is between $1.2-1.6m at the moment in the 'standard' versions. So you could get 8-10 Powered JDAM for the same money....but they have different use cases. JASSM to kick the door down and Powered JDAM to push through. It's more appropriate to compare it to JSOW. JSOW has a stealthier body, but costs >$700k and has a max range of around 65 miles....

Josh_TN said:
Seems redundant with MALD. Is more than 500nm really needed?
Click to expand...

Why not? If it had 1,000 mile range you could orbit it to provide cover for the duration of a strike. Range opens up possibilities, it could even accompany JASSM strikes as a decoy or stand in jammer.
 
Josh_TN said:
Actually probably one of the best uses for such a kit. Land and ship attack already have other (albeit more expensive) weapons dedicated to the role, but remote mine laying would be a unique capability. Mining an open undefended patch of water is probably a more realistic target set for such a system.
Click to expand...

JDAM-ER is specifically used by the US for Quickstrike mine operations. The ability to safely deploy a precise minefield from 60 miles away is a fantastic capability.
 
Josh_TN said:
they can keep costs below a half million and have sufficient capacity to stamp out a few hundred a year, I'd say buy it as a hedge for AGM-158 depletion.
Click to expand...

Seems likely. There's a quote in the early articles about how JDAM costs dramatically less than $1 million. Counting parts, it's $20k or so for a JDAM kit, $4k for the warhead, and an unknown sum for the wings and engine. Even adding the Quicksink seeker is only supposed to cost $50k at scale. You could seriously be looking at less than $200k per round for a Powered Quicksink and even less for a simple Powered JDAM.
 
timmymagic said:
JDAM-ER is specifically used by the US for Quickstrike mine operations. The ability to safely deploy a precise minefield from 60 miles away is a fantastic capability.
Click to expand...
Yes, but that is probably still too short of a stand off range for a bomber to deliver a shallow water mine during a peer competitor conflict.
 
JDAM is definitely very cheap; its the engine/wing kit cost that I'm curious about. If they can build it for the low hundreds of thousands than I think it is a no brainer to get into production. The various fusing options would give it capabilities outside of JASSM and the lower cost would allow it to be used for saturation attacks or just targets that weren't as well defended, and it would be an additional source of ammunition in a drawn out strategic campaign, were one needed. The most recent open source wargame concerning a US-PRC war found that almost the entire JASSM inventory was used up inside three weeks. That isn't hard to imagine, particular if something like Rapid Dragon is adopted even for small numbers of cargo aircraft.
 

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom