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...

https://sam.gov/opp/41cd9248a4494117aa19af9c89cd0ee7/view
 
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
 
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:
Some good news for Ukraine. Wes O'Donell has put out a video about this welcome development:


Breaking News! Ukraine is about to receive 3,550 brand-new American Extended Range Attack Munitions (ERAMs), a low-cost, mass-producible cruise missile with the ability to strike targets up to 280 miles away. That’s not a typo: thousands of these precision stand-off weapons are coming, and they’re about to change the battlefield math.
Click to expand...
Just to clarify, the RIM-174 ERAM and the ERAM (Extended Range Attack Munition) going to Ukraine are two completely different weapons that just happen to share the same acronym. That’s where a lot of confusion comes from in the news. Don't worry, I got you.
Click to expand...
✅ So the RIM-174 ERAM (SM-6) = big Navy air defense interceptor.
✅ The ERAM for Ukraine = brand new, small, air-launched cruise missile for ground attack.
Click to expand...
In this video, I break down exactly what ERAM is, how it works, and why it’s such a big deal for Ukraine. Think of it as a “mini-cruise missile” that sits between a glide munition and a JASSM. With a 500-pound warhead, GPS and inertial navigation, and accuracy better than 10 meters CEP, it gives Ukraine the power to hammer Russian depots, bridges, command centres, and even naval facilities from safely outside the SA-21 air defence envelope.
Click to expand...
Here’s what I’ll cover:
• The specs: weight, range, speed, and guidance system that make ERAM reliable and deadly.
• The launch platforms: Su-24s, MiG-29s, Su-27s, F-16s, and even Mirage 2000-5s—all capable of carrying ERAM after integration.
• The strategy: how ERAM fits between HIMARS, ATACMS, and Storm Shadow, giving Ukraine the affordable long-range firepower it’s been missing.
• The politics: why Washington is attaching a leash to ERAM strikes, requiring Pentagon approval for any use inside Russian territory—limiting the weapon’s true potential.
• The numbers game: why 3,550 ERAMs aren’t just another headline, but a volume play designed to overwhelm Russian air defenses and bleed them dry of interceptors.

Bottom line: ERAM is the sweet spot, longer reach than HIMARS, cheaper and more available than Storm Shadow, and far more numerous than ATACMS. It’s not just a new missile, it’s a strategy shift: massed precision fire at scale.
Click to expand...
But the real question is, will Ukraine be allowed to use ERAM to its full potential, or will U.S. politics clip its wings?
Click to expand...
TLDR: Ukraine is set to receive a significant boost with the delivery of the new joint air-to-surface standoff missile ERAM. This new weapon offers a long range strike capability, presenting a new challenge for the russian air force. The introduction of this military technology could potentially shift the dynamics of the Ukraine war.
Click to expand...
Video Sources: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1y...https://www.youtube.com/redirect?event=video_description&redir_token=QUFFLUhqbExZamlMaVd4S1g4US1qYjAzSmNGamtLS3Nud3xBQ3Jtc0tsWGR6YnU0LVZ2eHVIeElOeWo1Zm40YldqVWRuV2hHOE9wLURYbmxSd29vQWk4eEdHdjByeVg2NW1yV3pwNFlSMDB0cnc2SzFESFN2WVhBQ0VBekxaTjdDby1YRHNDb1RwQ05vYlg0elh1M0oyVnBxRQ&q=https://docs.google.com/document/d/1yDqIisSuwqCpNifOriRU3Xjr9BtYXq5VjJawbZTdnnU/edit?usp=sharing&v=DPyXmm5zPtA
#Ukraine #UkraineWar #RussiaUkraineWar #News #ERAM #CruiseMissile #PrecisionStrike #PentagonAid #MilitaryTechnology #military
Click to expand...
 

Boeing Shows off JDAM-LR Anti-Ship, Mining Bomber Payloads​

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-new...off-jdam-lr-anti-ship-mining-bomber-payloads/https://www.boeing.com/content/dam/...ion-guided-munitions/jdam-lr_product_card.pdf
Derived from the company’s widespread guided-bomb kit, the JDAM LR will be able to strike targets or deliver minefields out to 300 nautical miles, effectively converting the Mark 82 warhead into a long-range cruise missile. The variant was previously known as the Powered JDAM in 2023, with Boeing updating its information pamphlet to the new designation this year and at WEST 2026.

Maritime strike, Quickstrike aerial-launched mines and baseline strike variants are planned. A decoy variant without the warhead extends the range to 700 nautical miles. The inclusion of the fuel tank, engine and spaces for optional attachments has greatly increased the length of JDAM LR.

While specifications, ranges and variants of JDAM LR remain as previously listed, the company revealed the large payloads of anti-ship and mining munitions that can be deployed via American strategic bombers. A video highlighting the system’s integration onto legacy platforms showcased up to 20 JDAM LRs being deployed by a B-52, with eight via the conventional rotary launcher and 12 mounted on external pylons. The B-1 concept was also shown to be carrying up to 30 munitions via three conventional rotary launchers and external pylons. These payloads configurations are similar to those used by larger air-launched cruise missiles, such as the AGM-86 and AGM-158 Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile.
Click to expand...
1770818581152.png 1770818554286.png
 
It will be good if the USAF decides to pursue Boeing's JDAM-LR proposal as this would be a good way to get an inexpensive short-range cruise-missile and it would be perfect for Ukraine too.
 
Last edited:
Josh_TN said:
Is this a program of record now? Interesting that the USN seems to be developing the idea rather than USAF.
Click to expand...

Given that it has had its first test-flight and that it has a tri-services designation (GBU-75) I'd say yes.
 
Last edited:
Glad to see this picking up steam - I was always sad that powered JSOW sort of fizzled out, but it would be fantastic to see GBU-75 make it into the fleet in significant numbers. I always figured any sort of JDAM-ER would essentially be a crash thing for Ukraine only due to how silent the U.S. armed forces about actually making it a program of record for their own procurement. I am pleasantly surprised!
 
Defense Updates has just uploaded a video concerning the recent successful test of the JDAM-LR:


Earlier this month, the U.S. Navy carried out a successful demonstration of an advanced standoff strike capability designed to significantly increase the reach of its carrier-based fighter fleet. The test involved a new munition known as the GBU-75 Joint Direct Attack Munition Long Range (JDAM-LR), which was deployed from an F/A-18 Super Hornet during trials conducted over the Point Mugu Sea Range in California.​
Click to expand...
The JDAM-LR represents an evolution of the well-established JDAM family, transforming the traditional guided bomb into a cost-effective, precision-guided cruise weapon. It integrates the extended-range wing kit from the JDAM-ER—featuring deployable glide surfaces—with the addition of a compact turbojet propulsion system, enabling sustained powered flight and significantly greater stand-off distance.​
Click to expand...
In this video, Defense Updates analyzes how JDAM-LR is set to provide US military with cost effective long range strike option?
#defenseupdates #JDAM_LR #usnavy
Click to expand...
Chapters:
0:00 TITLE
00:11 INTRODUCTION
01:19 SPONSORSHIP - NordVPN
01:53 THE TEST
03:12 JDAM-LR OVERVIEW
05:29 JDAM-LR VARIANTS
07:23 ANALYSIS
Click to expand...
 
Sandbox uploaded a video about the JDAM-LR yesterday:


The United States Navy just successfully tested a new iteration of the legendary JDAM, or Joint Direct Attack Munition, that adds a turbojet to the smart bomb, resulting in a new low-cost precision-guided cruise missile with a maximum range approaching 350 miles — the JDAM-LR. But as important as this new JDAM cruise missile truly is, it may be the two sea-focused iterations of the new weapon, the QUICKSTRIKE-LR and Maritime JDAM-LR, that have the biggest strategic impact.​
Click to expand...
 
I've just pondered the JDAM-LR/PJDAM's new DoD designation, GBU-75, and it occurred to me that that designation is not only anomalous but inappropriate as the addition of a jet-engine has made it a missile so shouldn't its' tri-services designation be something like AGM-191A?
 
NMaude said:
I've just pondered the JDAM-LR/PJDAM's new DoD designation, GBU-75, and it occurred to me that that designation is not only anomalous but inappropriate as the addition of a jet-engine has made it a missile so shouldn't its' tri-services designation be something like AGM-191A?
Click to expand...
You are not wrong in being confused. But the thing is this is an add-on kit and not a "complete base round".
The real confusion is that it applies to all of the different version: normal AG bomb, anti-ship, etc.
 
NMaude said:
I've just pondered the JDAM-LR/PJDAM's new DoD designation, GBU-75, and it occurred to me that that designation is not only anomalous but inappropriate as the addition of a jet-engine has made it a missile so shouldn't its' tri-services designation be something like AGM-191A?
Click to expand...
The JSOW broke that mold first.

I'm sure there's an argument to be made for "since it uses a 500lb bomb as the warhead it should have a GBU-series number"
 
Scott Kenny said:
I'm sure there's an argument to be made for "since it uses a 500lb bomb as the warhead it should have a GBU-series number"
Click to expand...

But given that it has a turbojet propulsion system that makes it a cruise-missile not a GBU, In the USN with the addition of the Mk-78 rocket-motor (Used by the AGM-45 Shrike) the GBU-16 became the AGM-123 Skipper II.
 
Last edited:
If the 2,000lb JDAM-LR in QuickStrike form has a range of 200nm....you could mine the channel that leads to Murmansk, Polyarny, Olenya Guba and Severomorsk from Norwegian airspace, well outside of Russian defences, with 2 x P-8 sorties......bottle up the majority of the Russian Northern Fleet....and they only have 1 'modern' minehunter up there...(well they could just drive the last few ancient ones into the minefield I guess and clear a few mines, any ship can be a minesweeper once)....
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom