StandOff & PGM Weapons

Josh_TN said:
Yeah, and I want to be a Disney Princess. How about we stick to realistic budgets and the laws of physics? No one is crushing the external storage of an F-18 into a low RCS aircraft for any achievable amount of money.
Click to expand...
A GBU-31 2000lb JDAM is ~3.9m long and has a wingspan of 64cm (edit) to give a box size of 46cm. Which means that if you can pack the drop rack and the ordnance into that volume it will fit in an F-35A or -C. This gives a rough volume of 1.9m by 25cm 20cm for a weapon that will pack 8 per bay and still leave room for the AMRAAM.

We already have some ordnance that size in inventory, but they're not all set up for drop launch. Hellfires, JAGMs, AGM-176 Griffins...

You'd probably need to drop down to 4x per bay for something with more standoff range. ~3.9m by 25cm 20cm.

edit: goofed on the bay width. JDAMs are not carried with their strakes in a + cruciform, they're carried in an X.
 
Last edited:
TomS said:
Are we sure? I didn't see any mention of MACE in this BAA, and the ACME description sounds about different — talks about supersonic ramjets, mention of fitting two per F-35 bay, etc.
Click to expand...

Agree, ACME appears to be a SIAW type weapon. Emphasis on speed rather than range.
 
TomS said:
Are we sure? I didn't see any mention of MACE in this BAA, and the ACME description sounds different — talks about supersonic ramjets, no mention of fitting two per F-35 bay, etc.
Click to expand...
Josh_TN said:
Agree, ACME appears to be a SIAW type weapon. Emphasis on speed rather than range.
Click to expand...
Yes. I accidentally read launch speed of M 0.8 as weapon speed..

Now that I've read it again, ACME is targeting a supersonic weapon with a $500K propulsion and airframe cost (excluding all other systems). This looks like MAKO class as Lockheed has oriented that program/effort towards the Navy once it decided/was not selected not to pursue SiAW follow on.

Josh_TN said:
My personal opinion is that these kind of massed subsonic platforms don’t work well with high speed missiles due to the speed differential. It is absolutely clear which is which. But if you mix a couple hundred MALD in with a couple dozen LRASM or Tomahawk, everything looks the same, at least inside the several minutes you have to sort it out. Take that up a notch h and make almost every platform a bomb or at least a potential bomb, and you have a nearly hopeless defensive situation where the offense can throw ten weapons per aircraft and a couple dozen per ship. Put up a couple squadrons of that and see how that goes.
Click to expand...
I don't think the objective would be to confuse the radar or fire control system on an enemy vessel or ADS by launching subsonic and supersonic weapons. As in have them shoot at a MALD or a MACE thinking it as a HALO or HACM. It would be about saturation and creating some of those other non kinetic effects on the systems through synchronized strike using these capabilities. You have to honor the threat. Yes it is much easier to do this if you have similar type of weapons (flight profiles, speed / range etc). Say launch 4 MACE from F-35 IWB and 2 LRASM's from external hardpoints etc. But next gen C2 and some of the investments we're making allow us to synchronize disparate capabilities as well allowing the convergence of effects in ways we haven't ever been able to do (or so is. the promise).
 
Last edited:
I do not see why you would need or want supersonic weapons paired with subsonics: if you can wait for the later, just use more. Alternatively if the target is time sensitive or surprise is the goal, go with the former.

But in any case the USN seems to be adopting subsonic platforms in the short term (MALD-N, LrASM, Tom blk V, possibly MACE) and working towards high speed weapons for next decade (HALO, ACME). ACME seems like more of a low cost, high density (500 AUR/year) ‘stand in’ strike weapon, or short range stand off, which will settle for supersonic performance (the doc mentions high grain loaded SRM and ramjet; unclear if this is either or both in an integral boosted ramjet). HALO is a longer ranged, hypersonic low density system with a focus on ships.
 
Joint Soviet Fighter said:
Arguably the best part of this "article" is that Axe contradicts his own "reporting" from earlier in the conflict. Good grief, lol.
Click to expand...
David Axe is extremely prolific in terms of what might optimistically be called "political op-ed" content.

I do pretty much believe that GPS jamming has been stepped up as various donor nations have supplied hardware. It's a double edged sword, as a profoundly GPS denied environment will impact the operations of both sides. INS is a poor substitute and you really need some sort of terminal seeker to make up for the loss of GPS accuracy. Also, you have to shift from free flying drones to tethered or fiberoptically guided drones - and we all on know which side has specialized in those.

From the post-Cold War Western standpoint, GPS jamming was never a publicly announced defense priority, most likely because jamming your own GPS severely impacted combined arms doctrine and maneuver warfare.
 
Dilandu said:
Apparently they considered unimpressive GLSDB performance in Ukraine to be worrysome enough to NOT haste thing and make sure they took lessons into account.
Click to expand...
It is not just that. GBU-39 is a mature and well fielded product that works great in its intended primary role (air launched glide weapon). GBU-53/b is still going through integration with platforms beyond F-15E (full SH capability and F-35 etc). You would expect resources to be dedicated there..hence the gap..You really need to fully field the exsisting capability before you begin spending resources on other applications.
 
TinWing said:
David Axe is extremely prolific in terms of what might optimistically be called "political op-ed" content.

I do pretty much believe that GPS jamming has been stepped up as various donor nations have supplied hardware. It's a double edged sword, as a profoundly GPS denied environment will impact the operations of both sides. INS is a poor substitute and you really need some sort of terminal seeker to make up for the loss of GPS accuracy. Also, you have to shift from free flying drones to tethered or fiberoptically guided drones - and we all on know which side has specialized in those.

From the post-Cold War Western standpoint, GPS jamming was never a publicly announced defense priority, most likely because jamming your own GPS severely impacted combined arms doctrine and maneuver warfare.
Click to expand...

It is worth noting that not all INS or satellite navigation systems are created equal, nor are all satellite constellations equally accurate. The effectiveness of jamming partially depends on the accuracy of unit and satellite system (or in many cases multiple systems). It is also quite possible to jam the carrier waves from specific constellations, since they all use different frequencies. Though most any commercial nav system usually integrates multiple constellations these days, and I suspect even Russian weapons use other countries’ navigation, as theirs is probably the least accurate/well maintained at this point.
 
TinWing said:
David Axe is extremely prolific in terms of what might optimistically be called "political op-ed" content.

I do pretty much believe that GPS jamming has been stepped up as various donor nations have supplied hardware. It's a double edged sword, as a profoundly GPS denied environment will impact the operations of both sides. INS is a poor substitute and you really need some sort of terminal seeker to make up for the loss of GPS accuracy. Also, you have to shift from free flying drones to tethered or fiberoptically guided drones - and we all on know which side has specialized in those.

From the post-Cold War Western standpoint, GPS jamming was never a publicly announced defense priority, most likely because jamming your own GPS severely impacted combined arms doctrine and maneuver warfare.
Click to expand...
The part that makes absolutely no sense is that the effectiveness of Geran-2 drones has actually increased despite the fact that they use the same guidance as umpk glide bombs. I mean, are you telling me that Ukraine wouldn't use their jammers to protect Kyiv?
 
Joint Soviet Fighter said:
The part that makes absolutely no sense is that the effectiveness of Geran-2 drones has actually increased despite the fact that they use the same guidance as umpk glide bombs. I mean, are you telling me that Ukraine wouldn't use their jammers to protect Kyiv?
Click to expand...

Geran 2 are regularly diverted using EW and are either downed by that or diverted into Belarus. Not sure they're actually increasing effectiveness as the defences shoot down a huge percentage of them...
 
timmymagic said:
Not sure they're actually increasing effectiveness as the defences shoot down a huge percentage of them...
Click to expand...

I think that Ukraine's defences are getting better but the reason why there are still some Shahed-136 and Geran-2 drones getting through is that whenever such a raid is launched Russia spams them to swamp Ukraine's defences, what's getting through to the targets are the leakers.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom