Powered JDAM

[Dilandu]

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

Hm. What about something like that?



It could carry about 450 kg, i.e. the average size of Quickstrike mine. And it could lift it about 4,5 km up. So, a large military drone copter could be a solution - they could be easily disperced and hidden, and could be sent to launch Quickstrike mines from some altitude.

 

[Dilandu]

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

Yes, but they are so obvious targets, that they would most likely be constantly disabled by Chinese ballistic missiles. Don't think it would be reasonable to assume ROCAF being able to do much more than sneaking a few planes into air to do hit-and-run attacks.

Things could be changed, if they get F-35B, of course. F-35B main advantage - it could be disperced, camouflaged. It didn't require large airfields to operate.

 

[Moose]

Yes, but they are so obvious targets, that they would most likely be constantly disabled by Chinese ballistic missiles. Don't think it would be reasonable to assume ROCAF being able to do much more than sneaking a few planes into air to do hit-and-run attacks.

Similar comments might have been made about Ukraine's air force in a war against Russia.

 

[Josh_TN]

Hm. What about something like that?

View attachment 710387

It could carry about 450 kg, i.e. the average size of Quickstrike mine. And it could lift it about 4,5 km up. So, a large military drone copter could be a solution - they could be easily disperced and hidden, and could be sent to launch Quickstrike mines from some altitude.

Honestly I hope Taiwan just has mine fields already laid within command activation wires. Given how much effort they have put into anti landing obstacles, I would have thought it not difficult to maintain mines that are remotely commanded, at least around ports.

I expect the ROCAF to be either immobilized or occupied with othe missions outside mine laying once a conflict occurs.

 

[Josh_TN]

Similar comments might have been made about Ukraine's air force in a war against Russia.

Ukraine is also a couple orders of magnitude larger in area with a couple of orders of magnitude more air strips of varying size, counting all the abandoned ex Soviet facilities. And the VKS is a much smaller and less sophisticated organization than the PLAAF or PLARF.

 

[aonestudio]

Boeing, Ferra Expand Precision Aerial Munition Partnership

BRISBANE, Oct. 23, 2023—Boeing [NYSE: BA] and Australia industry partner Ferra Engineering signed a Memorandum of Understanding to continue production of Joint Direct Attack Munition Extended...

boeing.mediaroom.com

BRISBANE, Oct. 24, 2023—Boeing [NYSE: BA] and Australia industry partner Ferra Engineering signed a Memorandum of Understanding to continue production of Joint Direct Attack Munition Extended Range (JDAM ER) wing kits. The agreement also includes the intent to explore applications for Powered JDAM — a long-range, low-cost and mass-producible JDAM derivative capable of travelling upwards of 300 nautical miles.

 

[NMaude]

In regards to testing the feasibility of a ground-launched PJDAM Boeing could design and build an adapter to mate a Mk-135 launch booster to a specially instrumented JDAM-ER and launch it from a Mk-41 VLS container to see if it can handle the launch acceleration loads, also a two-stage booster could be developed from existing launch-boosters to create a, call it GLJDAM-ER.

 

[Scott Kenny]

In regards to testing the feasibility of a ground-launched PJDAM Boeing could design and build an adapter to mate a Mk-135 launch booster to a specially instrumented JDAM-ER and launch it from a Mk-41 VLS container to see if it can handle the launch acceleration loads, also a two-stage booster could be developed from existing launch-boosters to create a, call it GLJDAM-ER.

That may end up on the Army and/or USMC docket for development as "coastal artillery"

 

[NMaude]

That may end up on the Army and/or USMC docket for development as "coastal artillery"

Coastal ground-launched Quickstrike?

 

[Scott Kenny]

Coastal ground-launched Quickstrike?

Yep!

Allows the Littoral Battalions or Army long range arty units to leave presents for the Chinese, as otherwise preemptively mining naval channels is not particularly legal.

 

[NMaude]

Allows the Littoral Battalions or Army long range arty units to leave presents for the Chinese

That would be very handy for the Taiwanese to deal with any PRC amphibious assault.

 

[Scott Kenny]

That would be very handy for the Taiwanese to deal with any PRC amphibious assault.

Problem there is timing when to have those GL-PJDAMs versus when to have SM-6s. Probably wait for the attack to start, fire all the SM-6s for AA, reload with GL-PJDAMs and fire them, then reload again with more SM-6s for AA.

 

[Josh_TN]

Yep!

Allows the Littoral Battalions or Army long range arty units to leave presents for the Chinese, as otherwise preemptively mining naval channels is not particularly legal.

Inactive mine can be pre emplace in international waters. Incr 2 of the CDM and the new CAPTOR are going to have acoustic modems for communication to enable remote activation.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Inactive mine can be pre emplace in international waters. Incr 2 of the CDM and the new CAPTOR are going to have acoustic modems for communication to enable remote activation.

but does the Quickstrike fuse have that capability?

Alternatively, using the GLPJDAM to refill gaps in minefields, however they happened to be cleared.

 

[bring_it_on]

Extended Range Attack Munition​

Interested and capable sources are encouraged to respond to this RFI with a Statement of Capabilities that provides specific relevant knowledge and experience in the following areas as it pertains to satisfying the requirements detailed below in section a-h.
The Statement of Capabilities should provide evidence that the contractor can meet the minimum requirements:
a. 500# class weapon desired
b. Capable of blast / frag / and limited penetration effects
c. Variable fuze options
d. Range ≥ 250NM
e. Speed ≥ .6 mach
f. Nav System capable of operating in a GPS degraded environment
g. Terminal Accuracy: CEP 50 w/in 10m both in non-EMI (Electromagnetic Interference) and high
EMI environments (includes GPS degraded)
h. Production Capacity: >1,000 AURs NLT 24 months from contractor award.

SAM.gov

sam.gov

 

[NMaude]

Given the US's unfortunate lack of missiles armed with tactical nuclear warheads perhaps the USAF and USN as an interim measure could develop a short range tactical-nuclear version of the PJDAM equipped with either the W61-12 or a W80 warhead.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Given the US's unfortunate lack of missiles armed with tactical nuclear warheads perhaps the USAF and USN as an interim measure could develop a short range tactical-nuclear version of the PJDAM equipped with either the W61-12 or a W80 warhead.

That would be ... difficult, to say the least. If only because the nuclear engineers don't like letting other people play with their stuff, so you more or less can't just do an off the shelf without some very high level backing. Like the head of STRATCOM himself slamming his fists on the table and saying "YOU WILL MAKE ME THIS ITEM OR ELSE!"

Yes, B61-11 is described as basically a B61 with the JDAM tailcone on it, but it's not that simple a build.

 

[Firefinder]

That and runs into like...

50 different issues and Doctrinal snafus

The US entire Nuke Trident is basic set up to be totally against Tactical Nuke usage.

 

[kqcke for you]

Extended Range Attack Munition​

SAM.gov

sam.gov

Damn when i just read it i First tought its gonna go mach 6

 

[Scott Kenny]

That and runs into like...

50 different issues and Doctrinal snafus

The US entire Nuke Trident is basic set up to be totally against Tactical Nuke usage.

Was in the past, there's starting to be some serious rumbles about using <10kt warheads tactically instead of going straight to heavy nukes.

 

[TomS]

Was in the past, there's starting to be some serious rumbles about using <10kt warheads tactically instead of going straight to heavy nukes.

Ah, the eternal fantasy that it is possible to use nuclear weapons without an unacceptable risk of escalation.

Quite frankly, I don't even see the military value in nuclear gravity bombs. They're never going to be used, and if they were, it would be "bouncing the rubble" rather than any operationally meaningful use. Their only function is political -- to pretend that the rest of NATO has some say in the use of nukes in Europe.

 

[bring_it_on]

Extended Range Attack Munition​

SAM.gov

sam.gov

I wonder how cost competitive a new JSOW-ER variant would be that is based more on the classic JSOW (but with blu-111) rather than the seeker and networking equipped JSOW-C. While Boeing has done some tunnel testing of the PJDAM, Raytheon has actually flown a powered JSOW and has the baseline variant qualified on the F-16, B-2 and B-52.

 

[TomS]

I wonder how cost competitive a new JSOW-ER variant would be that is based more on the classic JSOW (but with blu-111) rather than the seeker and networking equipped JSOW-C. While Boeing has done some tunnel testing of the PJDAM, Raytheon has actually flown a powered JSOW and has the baseline variant qualified on the F-16, B-2 and B-52.

The Navy's Stealthy Glide Bomb Is About To Get Way More Capable

The service is funding work on a powered version of the AGM-154 Joint Stand-Off Weapon and could give it new payloads in the future.

www.twz.com

As of 2008, Raytheon claimed that it could make JSOW-ERs for just $350,000 each.

Edit: Original source: https://www.flightglobal.com/raytheon-launches-jsow-er-talks-with-stork-fokker/78751.article

Clearly that figure will have gone up in the last 15 years but maybe not too much?

People are estimating PJDAM in the $200k ballpark, but that's a very WAG sort of number. And the advantage of LO features and existing integration with a lot of aircraft (including internal carriage on the F-35) might reduce the development cost side of the calculation for JSOW-ER.

 

[Moose]

I wonder how cost competitive a new JSOW-ER variant would be that is based more on the classic JSOW (but with blu-111) rather than the seeker and networking equipped JSOW-C. While Boeing has done some tunnel testing of the PJDAM, Raytheon has actually flown a powered JSOW and has the baseline variant qualified on the F-16, B-2 and B-52.

Powered JSOW was still being looked at up until FY22, the impression I got is that it wound up stuck in a dead zone of being not cost competitive with powered JDAM and not capability competitive with real cruise missiles.

 

[Josh_TN]

That was my impression - not capable enough against well defended targets compared to JASSM or LRASM due to the non sea skimming attack profile but not sufficiently cheap to be a JDAM-ER replacement. Powered JDAM likely suffers from the same issue, though it might have a lower price and significantly longer range that make it more attractive.

 

[bring_it_on]

Powered JSOW was still being looked at up until FY22, the impression I got is that it wound up stuck in a dead zone of being not cost competitive with powered JDAM and not capability competitive with real cruise missiles.

That would / could be true for the Navy variant at Navy production rates. Air Force is not looking for a seeker equipped networked weapon which is what the Navy wanted so it would be more like a turbojet variant of the original JSOW. Air Force will also be buying at 2-3 times the Navy’s annual procurement rate.

 

[Josh_TN]

That would / could be true for the Navy variant at Navy production rates. Air Force is not looking for a seeker equipped networked weapon which is what the Navy wanted so it would be more like a turbojet variant of the original JSOW. Air Force will also be buying at 2-3 times the Navy’s annual procurement rate.

Has the USAF show any interest yet?

 

[Moose]

That would / could be true for the Navy variant at Navy production rates. Air Force is not looking for a seeker equipped networked weapon which is what the Navy wanted so it would be more like a turbojet variant of the original JSOW. Air Force will also be buying at 2-3 times the Navy’s annual procurement rate.

This is fair, but JSOW-ER's turbine is bigger and it's an all-up round, whereas powered JDAM with it's small and very cheap turbine still straps to a standard "dumb" bomb.

 

[FighterJock]

A bit like the GBU-15 Moose? That had a rocket motor (in one variant) attached onto it and they were used in Desert Storm to great effect.

 

[Josh_TN]

A bit like the GBU-15 Moose? That had a rocket motor (in one variant) attached onto it and they were used in Desert Storm to great effect.

<Mr Picky> You are thinking of the AGM-130, and it was not created until after ODS, although GBU-15 did see usage. </Mr Picky>

 

[FighterJock]

Ah right, I had thought it was the AGM-130 but I could not remember exactly. Thanks Josh_TN.

 

[bring_it_on]

Has the USAF show any interest yet?

No, but I assume Raytheon might be interested in competing on the ERAM.

 

[Josh_TN]

No, but I assume Raytheon might be interested in competing on the ERAM.

ERAM? SM-6?

 

[TomS]

ERAM? SM-6?

The solicitation above is titled Extended-Range Attack Munition.

 

[Josh_TN]

The solicitation above is titled Extended-Range Attack Munition.

Ah, right. Well the request looks like it was written specifically to ask for PJDAM. 500 units a year to start is a kinda high bar though, as is 10m CEP in a GPS degraded environment. Presumably the later implies it must use M code?

 

[TomS]

Ah, right. Well the request looks like it was written specifically to ask for PJDAM. 500 units a year to start is a kinda high bar though, as is 10m CEP in a GOS degraded environment. Presumably the later implies it must use M code?

The SABR-Y receiver was the procurement standard for JDAM from about 2020, and I think it would meet this, but SABR-M is likely to be the standard very soon, if they haven't made the changeover already.

Also, PJDAM has margins for a terminal seeker, and Quicksink shows that a fairly cheap one is possible (Radar plus IR is ~$200k). So, that's a potential option, probably as an upgrade, not baseline.

 

[Josh_TN]

The SABR-Y receiver was the procurement standard for JDAM from about 2020, and I think it would meet this, but SABR-M is likely to be the standard very soon, if they haven't made the changeover already.

Also, PJDAM has margins for a terminal seeker, and Quicksink shows that a fairly cheap one is possible (Radar plus IR is ~$200k). So, that's a potential option, probably as an upgrade, not baseline.

Is there any existing drop in IIR seeker for JDAM? I'm aware of Quicksink, but that appears to be a more complicated dual mode seeker optimized for ships.

 

[bring_it_on]

There are some interesting uncooled IIR seekers that have been presented for those type of applications and have received SBIR funding for maturity and demonstrations. They even put one on the SDB-1 IIRC. You could also borrow what the JSOW has.

 

[TomS]

Is there any existing drop in IIR seeker for JDAM? I'm aware of Quicksink, but that appears to be a more complicated dual mode seeker optimized for ships.

20-odd years ago, there was DAMASK, but it wasn't quite productionized and required a reference image to compare against.

Planned JDAM Upgrade Boosts Accuracy to 10 Feet

Planned JDAM Upgrade Boosts Accuracy to 10 Feet

www.nationaldefensemagazine.org

 

[Josh_TN]

There are some interesting uncooled IIR seekers that have been presented for those type of applications and have received SBIR funding for maturity and demonstrations. They even put one on the SDB-1 IIRC. You could also borrow what the JSOW has.

I would think GBU-53s IIR would be a good starting place as well; it is an uncooled unit.