Powered JDAM

Is there any evidence that Boeing is going to do a self-funded PJDAM demonstration programme along the lines of the GLSDB?
 
Not heard that PJDAM is going anywhere, though I wonder if it is not one of the ERAM options. I think for its own purchases, the USAF will wait for ETV results. If there is still any possibility of US donated weapons to Ukraine or U.S. weapons bought with foreign money donations, it is possible this idea might be dug up. I do not think the USAF is interested in it, or at least I’ve seen no clear signal to that effect. There was a multi year JDAM contract worth $7 billion if all options were executed, so it is possible PJDAM is part of that. But I haven’t heard anything mentioning that and quite honestly there are probably smaller more effective weapons in that price bracket very soon.

ETA: GLSDB seems to have been a flop.
 
Josh_TN said:
Not heard that PJDAM is going anywhere, though I wonder if it is not one of the ERAM options. I think for its own purchases, the USAF will wait for ETV results. If there is still any possibility of US donated weapons to Ukraine or U.S. weapons bought with foreign money donations, it is possible this idea might be dug up. I do not think the USAF is interested in it, or at least I’ve seen no clear signal to that effect. There was a multi year JDAM contract worth $7 billion if all options were executed, so it is possible PJDAM is part of that. But I haven’t heard anything mentioning that and quite honestly there are probably smaller more effective weapons in that price bracket very soon.

ETA: GLSDB seems to have been a flop.
Click to expand...

ERAM is a 500-lb class weapon, right? PJDAM is too big for that, even with a minimal warhead.
 
TomS said:
ERAM is a 500-lb class weapon, right? PJDAM is too big for that, even with a minimal warhead.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it is just hard to picture anything that fits ERAM that is production ready or any purpose for PJDAM.
 
NMaude said:
Is ERAM referring to the RIM-174C?
Click to expand...

Definitely not. The confusing thing is that the USN refers to SM-6 as ERAM back in the day. Nothing to do with the USAF program, although admittedly confusing nomenclature.
 
NMaude said:
Do you have a link to a detailed description of the USAF ERAM, please?
Click to expand...

From the ERAM RFI:

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.
Click to expand...

SAM.gov

sam.gov sam.gov
 
Josh_TN said:
I do not think the USAF is interested in it, or at least I’ve seen no clear signal to that effect.
Click to expand...

I think that the USAF (And USN too) would find a short-range, budget cruise-missile (Especially if it has a terminal homing seeker) to be handy to have in their inventory.

Josh_TN said:
But I haven’t heard anything mentioning that and quite honestly there are probably smaller more effective weapons in that price bracket very soon.
Click to expand...

Again having a ready, off-the-shelf, budget short-range cruise-missile would be enticing for countries who can't afford something more capable.

Josh_TN said:
ETA: GLSDB seems to have been a flop.
Click to expand...

Ah, no, the only times AFAIK the SDBI hasn't struck targets has been due to Russian jammers which have been actively hunted down and destroyed also the SDB (Like the JDAM) can be fitted with a HOJ seeker that will lock onto these anti-GPS jammers and destroy them.
 
There are a slew of new cruise missile platforms hitting the market. Look at the four entries to ETV. The fact that Boeing is not even in that program tells me that PJDAM falls short. As for the USN, the MACE requirements probably also exclude PJDAM for size/weight reasons.
 
Josh_TN said:
There are a slew of new cruise missile platforms hitting the market.
Click to expand...

True however the JDAM is a modular kit.

Josh_TN said:
The fact that Boeing is not even in that program tells me that PJDAM falls short.
Click to expand...

As I said the PJDAM would fit the bill if you're looking for a budget, short-range cruise-missile in bulk quantity, JDAM kits can be manufactured rapidly dedicated cruise-missiles not so fast.
 
NMaude said:
True however the JDAM is a modular kit.



As I said the PJDAM would fit the bill if you're looking for a budget, short-range cruise-missile in bulk quantity, JDAM kits can be manufactured rapidly dedicated cruise-missiles not so fast.
Click to expand...

We have no cost or production rate information for PJDAM. About all we can say is that the warhead is basically free. Outside that, the kit is itself a cheap cruise missile. It may or may not be cheaper to produce in money/time than the competition.
 
Ukraine is always mentioned as the intended client. Has the USAF ever mentioned itself as a potential buyer? Any sale/donation of ERAM seems a little politically complicated right now.
 
ERAM contract awards support the weapon efforts for Ukraine. That's how the program came to be. Obviously anything developed will have broad applications across other export customers and partners as well. Same for another similar effort the Navy is running (CAMS). ERAM looks like a pretty straightforward/simple effort to identify candidate open architecture 'air vehicles' (call them launched effects or missile trucks if you want to) in the 500# class that are the parent platforms for a extended range weapon (Mk 82 class warhead, WDL etc). They awarded contracts to Coaspire and Zone 5 after reviewing 16 proposals from industry. Those are fairly short/rapid prototyping awards running through October.
 
Last edited:
Is money already budgeted for the next phase?

Also that tweet is the first time I’ve seen mk82 explicitly to be a payload option - IIRC the RFI just said 500# which I took to be an AUR figure. The renderings do not look like Mk82 kits.
 
Josh_TN said:
Is money already budgeted for the next phase?

Also that tweet is the first time I’ve seen mk82 explicitly to be a payload option - IIRC the RFI just said 500# which I took to be an AUR figure. The renderings do not look like Mk82 kits.
Click to expand...
Tought one could assume an MK.82 effect like NSM does with it warhead. Assuming similiar capabilitys the warhead could be half as large while giving an similiar effect on target
 
It’s a rough “effect” though I think someone specifically asked whether the AF has a warhead requirement to which AF replied that proposals are free to select their Wh soluition.
 
Josh_TN said:
Is money already budgeted for the next phase?
Click to expand...
Wasn’t there a recent solicitation to integrate additional GF components into production ERAMs?

Josh_TN said:
Definitely not. The confusing thing is that the USN refers to SM-6 as ERAM back in the day. Nothing to do with the USAF program, although admittedly confusing nomenclature.
Click to expand...

- Navy ERAM (SM-6)
- AF ERAM (E-RAM/ Ukraine)
- AF ERAAM (Air to Air)
 
Last edited:

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom