Powered JDAM

[timmymagic]

I think atleast 200k

I wouldn't disagree. I've said before that it would need to be around that level as although it has some advantages, if it gets too pricey it starts to compete with other munitions, like JSOW, which could be more survivable due to their LO shape. At that point you'd need to start thinking of enclosing the JDAM shape in a more LO mold line, which adds more cost etc etc.

Basically its worth it if the price is low enough that you can sling them at an enemy with relative abandon due to their cost, production numbers etc. But much beyond $250k you're moving towards other munitions having an advantage.

But its worth saying for the size of munition, and the possibilities that it offers, that is still an exceptionally good price.

 

[kqcke for you]

It could also be very useful for those Dragon launch Things for Transport aircraft. Sometimes mass wins against everything.

 

[TomS]

Powered JDAM would cost a lot more. You won't get change from $150k. And thats probably at the lowest end of estimates.

Small turbine engines are surprisingly expensive. Even if TDI's J-85 has managed to get the price down dramatically it won't be less than $50k for the motor alone, and I think that might be far too low...add in a wing kit, booster etc etc...

That engine was intended for the Grey Wolf missile, which was supposed to cost $100,000 all up. Half of that being engine isn't impossible but that does put a pretty solid upper bound on the cost. OTOH, Grey Wolf didn't proceed, so maybe they didn't hit that cost target.

 

[timmymagic]

Grey Wolf didn't proceed, so maybe they didn't hit that cost target.

They were reporting that they had had success in the engine, but its never been clear if they actually achieved that goal.

I guess the way to tell is if the J-85 is used in every missile going forward...hard to resist those savings if they've come true.

 

[Josh_TN]

I dunno, I could see the US Army wanting something a lot cheaper than SM6 or Tomahawks for long range precision fires. Simple and unstealthy, but good for either spoofing while stealthier missiles go, or saturating defenses.

Especially if they make a 2000lb version, I can really see the Army wanting a cheap 1000lb boom.

I’d argue the US Army isn’t in the business of saturating defenses. One of their entire batteries doesn’t even put out as much as a single B-52. Perhaps there is a foreign market for it but the US Army will never be interested.

 

[Josh_TN]

I think atleast 200k

Perhaps more if you add a rocket hefty enough to boost it to any altitude. PJDAM is already mk84 in volume, if not mass.

 

[kqcke for you]

Perhaps more if you add a rocket hefty enough to boost it to any altitude. PJDAM is already mk84 in volume, if not mass.

I was thinking only about the Air launched Version right now.

 

[timmymagic]

It could also be very useful for those Dragon launch Things for Transport aircraft. Sometimes mass wins against everything.

A 700nm range decoy would be worth it alone. Lots of space inside for a payload. Spear-EW and MALD will top out around 300nm. Having something that could loiter for extended times could be very useful.

 

[Forest Green]

A 700nm range decoy would be worth it alone. Lots of space inside for a payload. Spear-EW and MALD will top out around 300nm. Having something that could loiter for extended times could be very useful.

MALD B has a 920km range.

 

[timmymagic]

MALD B has a 920km range.

The ones with a jammer payload have a far lower range. c300nm.

 

[NMaude]

Perhaps more if you add a rocket hefty enough to boost it to any altitude. PJDAM is already mk84 in volume, if not mass.

Perhaps using something like a Mk-72 rocket-booster? I think that another possibility is to use the existing JDAM-ER with a two-stage launch-booster.

 

[Josh_TN]

Perhaps using something like a Mk-72 rocket-booster? I think that another possibility is to use the existing JDAM-ER with a two-stage launch-booster.

It would probably take something like that, yeah. In any case, I don't think it has a role to play for the Army but it seems like it would be a good buy for the USAF. The below article notes that the larger F107 engine is < $200,000, so I would expect the entire PJDAM kit to be in that price range or lower. For that little money, it's worth having another hot line of stand off missile production and increasing the total stocks. I've come around to the idea now that I've seen how much ordnance a sustained aerial campaign can consume. I think the USAF would be stupid not to invest in low cost kits to beef up inventory.

Jet-Powered JDAM Aims To Turn Bombs Into Cruise Missiles

Powered JDAMs could attack targets on land and sea, deploy naval mines, or even act as decoys, over long ranges.

www.thedrive.com

 

[NMaude]

Something that I've noticed about the PJDAM is that the engine exhaust is dorsally mounted and not through the boat-tail so that means a ground-launched version once it has cleared its' launch-canister will be able to start its' J-85 which would mean supplementing the the booster's thrust especially as it tapers off and burnout.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Powered JDAM would cost a lot more. You won't get change from $150k. And thats probably at the lowest end of estimates.

Small turbine engines are surprisingly expensive. Even if TDI's J-85 has managed to get the price down dramatically it won't be less than $50k for the motor alone, and I think that might be far too low...add in a wing kit, booster etc etc...

Then I can still buy 10x Powered JDAMs for the cost of a Tomahawk (and Tomahawk is a fairly cheap cruise missile these days).

 

[Scott Kenny]

I’d argue the US Army isn’t in the business of saturating defenses. One of their entire batteries doesn’t even put out as much as a single B-52. Perhaps there is a foreign market for it but the US Army will never be interested.

The long strikes with SM6 and Tomahawk may require such, to get one or two missiles in to actually hit the S400 missile complex.

 

[kqcke for you]

Then I can still buy 10x Powered JDAMs for the cost of a Tomahawk (and Tomahawk is a fairly cheap cruise missile these days).

Yeah but you don't get the "advanced" guidance. But that doesn't Matter. Army's, Navy's and Air Forces can win from this. An easy, cheap, stand Off solution with an modular Design for an easy Change of Mission? With a simple Swap a decoy becomes a Bunker Buster. Taking Paveway IVs warhead and you get BLU-109 and possible even more performance (you can be powered the full flight Phase).

 

[aim9xray]

Then I can still buy 10x Powered JDAMs for the cost of a Tomahawk (and Tomahawk is a fairly cheap cruise missile these days).

With respect to range, one will observe the truism that having nine women pregnant for one month each does not yield one baby.

 

[Scott Kenny]

With respect to range, one will observe the truism that having nine women pregnant for one month each does not yield one baby.

Granted.

But you still get a 500km range out of Powered JDAM, which is enough for any non-strategic use.

 

[NMaude]

For the proposed PJDAM and its' JDAM-ER precursor as I mentioned upthread an inexpensive way to give them terminal homing capability would be to mount the SDB-II's seeker-section (Via an adaptor Ala Paveway) onto its' nose.

 

[kqcke for you]

Or boeings in house SLAM-ER seeker-section

 

[NMaude]

Or boeings in house SLAM-ER seeker-section

I hadn't thought of that but that would work too however the AGM-84H/K seeker probably costs more than the SDB-II's seeker.

Talking about the SLAM-ER, since Ukraine will be receiving some regular Harpoons and ground-launchers the Ukrainians would probably love a ground-launched version of the SLAM-ER (It would just be a matter of mounting the RGM-84's launch-booster on it).

 

[kqcke for you]

I hadn't thought of that but that would work too however the AGM-84H/K seeker probably costs more than the SDB-II's seeker.

Can't say mutch about it. But i would guess If you Goal are cruise missile capabilitys then its better and chances are higher that hey do that, i think.

Talking about the SLAM-ER, since Ukraine will be receiving some regular Harpoons and ground-launchers the Ukrainians would probably love a ground-launched version of the SLAM-ER (It would just be a matter of mounting the RGM-84's launch-booster on it).

Too easy so no (but its not like even air launched would be hard).

 

[Forest Green]

It would probably take something like that, yeah. In any case, I don't think it has a role to play for the Army but it seems like it would be a good buy for the USAF. The below article notes that the larger F107 engine is < $200,000, so I would expect the entire PJDAM kit to be in that price range or lower. For that little money, it's worth having another hot line of stand off missile production and increasing the total stocks. I've come around to the idea now that I've seen how much ordnance a sustained aerial campaign can consume. I think the USAF would be stupid not to invest in low cost kits to beef up inventory.

Jet-Powered JDAM Aims To Turn Bombs Into Cruise Missiles

Powered JDAMs could attack targets on land and sea, deploy naval mines, or even act as decoys, over long ranges.

www.thedrive.com

700 miles!

In addition, the PJDAM is also now being pitched as a possible air-launched decoy. In this configuration, its warhead would be replaced with an additional fuel tank designed to extend its range out to at least 700 miles.

 

[NMaude]

In that article there's a version of the PJDAM under development that has a terminal homing-seeker and is used for maritime strike. If this variant is put into production not only would it be handy for the USN as a budget ASM but the Ukrainians would love it and imagine if a ground-launched version is developed too using the Mk-135 booster. This variant is called Quicksink (A very apt name given its role):

The U.S. Air Force has been separately testing an add-on dual-mode seeker system for use on unpowered JDAMs, which combines a radar and imaging infrared (IIR) camera, specifically to help employ those bombs in the anti-ship role. You can read more about that project, known as Quicksink, here.

Boeing's fact sheet says that PJDAM has a built-in 1.2-kilowatt alternator specifically to help provide power for "optional enhancements" like "seekers, data link, [and] other mission avionics."

Now a PJDAM would have a number of advantages as noted:

Altogether, as advertised, the PJDAM offers a number of potential benefits. The first of these is the aforementioned flexibility that would give units in the field a stand-off munition that can be readily reconfigured to the mission at hand, or even turned into decoys, as necessary.
Then there is the added value in the ability to turn existing stockpiles of standard 500-pound-class bombs into lower-cost cruise missiles with relative ease. Boeing has, so far, not disclosed a project unit cost for the PJDAM kit.

Given how the Russo-Ukrainian has shown that a prolonged, high-intensity war you will use a LOT PGMs and cruise-missiles for example (In the thousands) having a budget cruise-missile that can be produced in large numbers is very enticing.

 

[kqcke for you]

Quicksink is Not new. I remember that the plan was for F-35 to use 2000Ib bombs as anti ship weapons with it.

 

[NMaude]

Quicksink is Not new. I remember that the plan was for F-35 to use 2000Ib bombs as anti ship weapons with it.

Imagine a PJDAM version of Quicksink? Initially it would be limited compared to GBU-31 variant as PJDAM is built around the 500Lb variant (1,000Lb and 2,000Lb versions would require larger, more powerful turbojets than the J-85).

 

[kqcke for you]

Imagine a PJDAM version of Quicksink? Initially it would be limited compared to GBU-31 variant as PJDAM is built around the 500Lb variant (1,000Lb and 2,000Lb versions would require larger, more powerful turbojets than the J-85).

Or Turbofans. But its a good alternative for Stand off needs and small pockets. But i don't think we get a 1000Lb Version. I See a 2000Lb version (If its happens) as more viable. Maybe reduced range but when you need a BLU-116 somewhere and can't BE to close this would be the solution.

 

[NMaude]

Another thing that the PJDAM article pointed out is that by having large numbers of PJDAMs it means the stand-off missiles like the Tomahawk, JSOW, JASSM and other similar systems can be reserved for targets that need their capabilities to attack thereby avoiding the unnecessary use of them on targets that could be serviced by a PJDAM.

 

[Josh_TN]

Imagine a PJDAM version of Quicksink? Initially it would be limited compared to GBU-31 variant as PJDAM is built around the 500Lb variant (1,000Lb and 2,000Lb versions would require larger, more powerful turbojets than the J-85).

200lbs of HE directly under the keel should work well enough against anything under 10,000 ton’s displacement. IMO the bigger problem with any quicksink dirived missile is that it is pretty easy to engage with a point defense gun. It is really only a solution for unarmed ships.

 

[Scott Kenny]

200lbs of HE directly under the keel should work well enough against anything under 10,000 ton’s displacement. IMO the bigger problem with any quicksink dirived missile is that it is pretty easy to engage with a point defense gun. It is really only a solution for unarmed ships.

CIWS can only engage one weapon at a time. You just drop more on armed targets.

 

[timmymagic]

Too easy so no (but its not like even air launched would be hard).

The data link and operator display would represent a real challenge, particularly for ground launch.

200lbs of HE directly under the keel should work well enough against anything under 10,000 ton’s displacement. IMO the bigger problem with any quicksink dirived missile is that it is pretty easy to engage with a point defense gun. It is really only a solution for unarmed ships.

I think QuickSink's primary target is non-naval vessels. The type that the PRC has in abundance, but also a long standing security concern in relation to trans-national terrorism. Regarding vulnerability to gun based CIWS though, all you need to do is some fairly leisurely terminal manoeuvres and most gun based CIWS will fail.

 

[Scott Kenny]

I think QuickSink's primary target is non-naval vessels. The type that the PRC has in abundance, but also a long standing security concern in relation to trans-national terrorism. Regarding vulnerability to gun based CIWS though, all you need to do is some fairly leisurely terminal manoeuvres and most gun based CIWS will fail.

Even a Burke is not going to like 200lbs of HE under the keel.

Honestly, the 1000lb JDAM as the antiship variant is better, but the USAF doesn't really use many 1000lb bombs. That's a Navy thing for some weird reason.

 

[Josh_TN]

CIWS can only engage one weapon at a time. You just drop more on armed targets.

Fair enough, but an unstealthed mid altitude PJDAM is only going to work as an anti shipping weapon if used in fairly extreme numbers. It isn't fast, it isn't stealthy, it almost certainly isn't sea skimming. Even 76mm/100mm is probably perfectly useable against that target class. It seems to me something like PJDAM is better suited to less well defended targets.

 

[TomS]

Even a Burke is not going to like 200lbs of HE under the keel.

Honestly, the 1000lb JDAM as the antiship variant is better, but the USAF doesn't really use many 1000lb bombs. That's a Navy thing for some weird reason.

Got to be bring-back weight issues. The 1000-lb weapon accomplishes most of what 2000-lb does, but is much friendlier around the carrier.

Fair enough, but an unstealthed mid altitude PJDAM is only going to work as an anti shipping weapon if used in fairly extreme numbers. It isn't fast, it isn't stealthy, it almost certainly isn't sea skimming. Even 76mm/100mm is probably perfectly useable against that target class. It seems to me something like PJDAM is better suited to less well defended targets.

I'd say it is principally intended for countering Chinese Coast Guard and Maritime Militia vessels and commercial vessels drafted for a cross-strait invasion. Use the fancy weapons like LRASM to roll back the air defenses, then use Quicksink for the modern equivalent of barge-busting.

 

[Josh_TN]

Even a Burke is not going to like 200lbs of HE under the keel.

Honestly, the 1000lb JDAM as the antiship variant is better, but the USAF doesn't really use many 1000lb bombs. That's a Navy thing for some weird reason.

I believe the USAF has retired the type, more or less. It probably exists in inventory but I think it isn't forward deployed or carried. Newer aircraft probably aren't even cleared to carry it I'd imagine; I don't think it has been in service in a couple decades. USMC and USN still equip it.

 

[Josh_TN]

Got to be bring-back weight issues. The 1000-lb weapon accomplishes most of what 2000-lb does, but is much friendlier around the carrier.



I'd say it is principally intended for countering Chinese Coast Guard and Maritime Militia vessels and commercial vessels drafted for a cross-strait invasion. Use the fancy weapons like LRASM to roll back the air defenses, then use Quicksink for the modern equivalent of barge-busting.

I think we need to get away from the idea that anything larger than a 500# weapon/Mk82 could be carried. That would result in a much larger and more expensive weapon with dubious additional utility.

Similarly I think we need to get away from PDJAM as a naval weapon. It seems like an incredibly sub optimal use for such a platform. What it is to me is a low cost PGM with good stand off range that also inherits the fusing flexibility of the Mk82 for some niche purposes, if necessary. I could see mine laying as being one of those - it would be a pricey way to deliver on a mine but on the other hand it would make the rapid, precise emplacement of an offensive mine field rather easy. But again, primarily it is a low cost, low capability, land attack cruise missile.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Got to be bring-back weight issues. The 1000-lb weapon accomplishes most of what 2000-lb does, but is much friendlier around the carrier.

Ah, that makes sense!

 

[NMaude]

I'd say it is principally intended for countering Chinese Coast Guard and Maritime Militia vessels and commercial vessels drafted for a cross-strait invasion.

Yeah, it would be perfect for that and if Quickstrike does go into service I can see the Taiwanese opening up their wallets to by a shitload of Quickstrike kits, they'd buy them by the thousands and I can see Taiwan wanting to licence produced Quickstrikes locally.

 

[Josh_TN]

Yeah, it would be perfect for that and if Quickstrike does go into service I can see the Taiwanese opening up their wallets to by a shitload of Quickstrike kits, they'd buy them by the thousands and I can see Taiwan wanting to licence produced Quickstrikes locally.

It seems unlikely the ROCAF would last long enough to make much use of such.

 

[NMaude]

It seems unlikely the ROCAF would last long enough to make much use of such.

I strongly suspect that the ROCAF will last a lot longer than you think, Taiwan has been preparing for a PRC invasion for several decades now with for example the bulk of their airfields on the eastern side of Taiwan with extensive underground hungers. Taiwan with a tough nut to crack with the PLA:N, PLA and PLA:AF taking horrific casualties in any invasion attempt (The straits of Taiwan are 100 miles wide at their narrowest), you give the PRC's armed forces too much credit. The PRC has been paying close attention to the Ukrainian invasion and they've taken note of the heavy casualties the Russian army has been taking (Remember Russia didn't need to use any amphibious operations in order to invade Ukraine), an amphibious invasion of Taiwan will be a LOT harder to do and in the best case scenario for the PRC it will be a pyrric victory.

I strongly suspect that Taiwan is an enthusiastic proponent of the JDAM and its increasing number of variants, it's a very versatile and inexpensive PGM and PJDAM is something that IMO they'd love to get their hands, Quickstrike (Especially a PJDAM variant) would be something right up their alley.