Powered JDAM

Josh_TN said:
I would think GBU-53s IIR would be a good starting place as well; it is an uncooled unit.
Click to expand...
That's a Raytheon owned system (IP) which I doubt Boeing will either have access to or use. There are plenty of options that they could use including other mature ones. Air Force does not require any seeker to begin with so it's not an immediate consideration.
 
TomS said:
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.
Click to expand...
"Escalate to deescalate"

AKA putting 5-10kt underneath one critical bunker as the final warning before the strategic nukes come out to play.
 
The Russians do seem to have an alarming tactical nuclear policy, and it seems to me the US needs to have an easy to deploy counter for such short of strategic exchanges. I think the combination of B-61 mod 12, AGM-86 on its low setting, and - if you absolutely have to make a point in a very timely fashion - W76 mod2, is sufficient to make it clear that the US has tactical options and will use them. I think the B-21 will help expand that capability in a tangible way as well, and soon after the LRSO.
 
No i don't think we can put them on the same level. The capabilitys that Hammer gives are more in line with the JDAM-ER but can get bigger where PJDAM is more like a cruise missile with a modular warhead and guidance compatable to the MK.82 bomb series.
 
https://twitter.com/x/status/1752468569600729562
View: https://x.com/AirPowerNEW1/status/1752468569600729562

USAF To Develop Its New Air-Launched Munition For Ukraine | Aviation Week Network

The U.S. Air Force is targeting development of ERAM—a new class of air-launched precision munition for Ukraine.
aviationweek.com aviationweek.com
The U.S. Air Force is targeting development of a new class of air-launched precision munition for Ukraine.

The service first released a request for information (RFI) in January for the Extended-Range Attack Munition (ERAM), aiming for a low-cost, quickly developed, air-launched munition that can travel 250 nm (288 mi.). Sixteen undisclosed companies have expressed interest.

A follow-up RFI, posted July 10 by the Air Force Life Cycle Management Center Armament Directorate’s Long-Range Systems Division, directly states ERAM is for Kyiv’s fight against Russia.
Click to expand...

www.twz.com

Air Force's Cheap And Fast To Produce Long-Range Missile Is Being Built For Ukraine

The Extended Range Attack Munition aims to give Ukraine a badly needed capability boost in its ability to strike over hundreds of miles.
www.twz.com www.twz.com

1720794895580.png
 
Last edited:
Josh_TN said:
So that post makes it look like the warhead weight is desired to be 500#, not the AUP weight. In which case it is hard to see how powered JDAM does not already fill the requirement.
Click to expand...
The production capacity says this needs to be a pretty mature design, if maybe not currently in production. Within 2 years of contract win, the winner needs to be able to make at least 80/month!
 
Hopefully the P-JDAM will be put into production and it would be of great benefit for the Ukrainians to have.
 
ERAM AUR is 500 lb, not WH

“AFLCMC/EBDK’s [the AFLCMC Armament Directorate’s] contracting notice calls for a 500-pound-class munition with a range of at least 250 miles and a top speed of no less than Mach 0.6. The size of the munition’s warhead isn’t specified, but it needs to be a blast/fragmentation type with at least some degree of penetrating capability and unspecified variable fuze settings.”

PJDAM is 2000 lb class, much larger forERAM request.
 
TAOG said:
PJDAM is 2000 lb class, much larger forERAM request.
Click to expand...

According to Boeing's PJDAM product card it uses a Mk-82 500Lb bomb.

Now aside from an air-launched PJDAM Boeing should look for a suitable off-the-shelf launch booster as I'm sure that the Ukrainian army would love to have a ground-launched version of the PJDAM.

Edit: As I pointed out in a previous post the PJDAM be a very useful interim weapon for the Ukrainians.
 
Last edited:
NMaude said:
According to Boeing's PJDAM product card it uses a Mk-82 500Lb bomb.

Now aside from an air-launched PJDAM Boeing should look for a suitable off-the-shelf launch booster as I'm sure that the Ukrainian army would love to have a ground-launched version of the PJDAM.

Edit: As I pointed out in a previous post the PJDAM be a very useful interim weapon for the Ukrainians.
Click to expand...
It does not use MK-82 500lb bomb, 500lb is its payload, not AUR
 
PJDAM AUR is 2000 lb with 500 lb payload.


The Boeing-integrated kit transforms the JDAM into a “Powered JDAM” (PJDAM) consisting of a 500-pound gravity bomb, a conventional JDAM guidance system, a wing kit and a Kratos-TDI-J85 engine. The combination fits into the same form factor as a 2,000-pound bomb.
 
products like ERAM PUDAM and MALD improvements are good arguments for the return of the B-1R 'bomb truck' concept (not retiring The Bone) and the jettisoning of CCA concept altogether.
 
TAOG said:
PJDAM AUR is 2000 lb with 500 lb payload.


The Boeing-integrated kit transforms the JDAM into a “Powered JDAM” (PJDAM) consisting of a 500-pound gravity bomb, a conventional JDAM guidance system, a wing kit and a Kratos-TDI-J85 engine. The combination fits into the same form factor as a 2,000-pound bomb.
Click to expand...

The fact that it fits into a 2000 lb profile does not mean it is 2000 lbs, but clearly it is far over 500 lbs since that’s the mk82 weight sans engine and fuel.
 
jsport said:
products like ERAM PUDAM and MALD improvements are good arguments for the return of the B-1R 'bomb truck' concept (not retiring The Bone) and the jettisoning of CCA concept altogether.
Click to expand...

No they are not, because the B-1 fleet is spent and the CCAs have nothing to do with that requirement.
 
now that the USG has a digital twin (IP) of the Bone any used up Bones can be recreated/replaced
CCA has no requirement, that is the problem.

AF argues for a more & more attritable CCA for instance while its self protection will cost more & more.
 
NMaude said:
I did say as an interim weapon, the PJDAM I suspect could be put into service fairly quickly.



The product makes a reference to the Mk-82 form factor.
Click to expand...
That is payload, not AUR. The product card describe it under payload.

You also could see the card say PJDAM has 300nm+ range with 500lb warhead.
 
Josh_TN said:
The fact that it fits into a 2000 lb profile does not mean it is 2000 lbs, but clearly it is far over 500 lbs since that’s the mk82 weight sans engine and fuel.
Click to expand...
Agree
 
TAOG said:
That is payload, not AUR. The product card describe it under payload.
Click to expand...

And the AUR shouldn't weigh much more (Maybe another 200Lb on top of the Mk-82) now as for the 2,000Lb figure mentioned the Mk-84 is 2,000Lb.
 
given the limited number of JSOW, P-JDAM, ERAM, MALD-J++ etc. a CCA would be a nearly valueless, and more expensive extra step.

PS: the number of DMPIs needing to serviced & PLA's use of AHEAD smart proximity fuse ammo still argues for hypersonic small missiles and or guns.
 
NMaude said:
And the AUR shouldn't weigh much more (Maybe another 200Lb on top of the Mk-82) now as for the 2,000Lb figure mentioned the Mk-84 is 2,000Lb.
Click to expand...
I do not know the extra fuel/ guidance/ engine weight, but pjdam has the same form factor as 2000 lb bomb, hence i think at least AUR is far heavier than 500 lb, espacially it is a long range powered weapon.
 
jsport said:
products like ERAM PUDAM and MALD improvements are good arguments for the return of the B-1R 'bomb truck' concept (not retiring The Bone) and the jettisoning of CCA concept altogether.
Click to expand...
Bones are all worn out and it's no longer cost-effective to repair them. As I understand the issue, it's the wing boxes and hinge pins that are worn out. Parts that take an enormous investment in tooling to make.

jsport said:
now that the USG has a digital twin (IP) of the Bone any used up Bones can be recreated/replaced
Click to expand...
With what tooling?

And do you trust McBoing to build them?


jsport said:
CCA has no requirement, that is the problem.
Click to expand...
CCAs are the "low" part of the hi-low mix.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Bones are all worn out and it's no longer cost-effective to repair them. As I understand the issue, it's the wing boxes and hinge pins that are worn out. Parts that take an enormous investment in tooling to make.
Click to expand...
will repeat the USG owns the IP in the form of an digital twin so the craft can be upgraded modernized and built from scratch...this is getting old. Any LSI could be jobbed.

CCA is intellectual exercise throwback the UCRAV concept which financially and intellectually spent itself well over 15yrs ago. Scaled Composite's new high altitude craft as bomber would an alternative but for a real bomber a real bomber is best.
 
Last edited:
this latest hype headline ..'NGAD may control 1k CCAs' ..and who is doing back office/overhead for disposable thousands which will be slightly less work/tending intensive than a manned craft. .the whole thing is increasingly absurd.
 

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom