Boeing family of JDAMs

Jeb said:
sferrin said:
TomcatViP said:
Not a good day to enlist in any non-US or allied Navy.
Click to expand...
Sad thing is it'll probably take China fifteen minutes to download the necessary info to implement it themselves.
Click to expand...
Won't even have to steal anything other than an idea. I can't imagine that programming a 10-foot offset is that hard.
Click to expand...
Takes more than that to get a bomb near a moving target. Not sure China has all the pieces- yet.
 
And now I wonder if the P-8 actually has those two centerline fuselage weapon stations that were talked about early on. (When not carrying the radar pod, obviously). A combo of four Harpoon or LRASM under the wings and a couple of Quicksinks for confirming kills would be a potent ASuW combo.
 
Josh_TN said:
I was thinking it is better suited to the numerous large civilian ships that would be necessary to support an invasion of Taiwan...car ferries, Ro/Ros, container ships, etc. Wasting a militia fishing boat with a mk84 seems a little...overly dramatic. Though it is probably still perfectly cost effective...
Click to expand...
Makes you wonder how scalable it is. A B-2 with 80 500lb versions of this over an amphibious assault fleet would be devastating. Then again there will be a lot of air defenses so I don't know how long you could hang around with bay doors open.
 
Hypothetically, wouldn't a mk82 accept the same seeker head? Though it would have a lot less explosive so it would be more akin to hitting a small bottom mine rather than a torpedo. I wonder if the seeker has an option to directly target a ship rather than keel break; if you used mk82s you could just pop a half dozen onto larger ships and that should be enough to get a good fire going. Anything small can take 1-2.
 
The target wasn’t awe inspiring but it also was gone in thirty seconds. A Mk84 is 900+ lbs of TNT/aluminum binder so it’s roughly equivalent to the 700lbs of PBX in a mk48. And a mk48 is going to ruin anyones day even if it doesn’t get you a quick date with Davy Jones.
 

Air Force Research Laboratory selects <br /> BAE Systems to develop advanced seeker for maritime targeting from air-launched platforms

BAE Systems has received contract from AFRL to further develop a low cost, all-weather, multi-mode (radar/infrared) open architecture seeker.
www.baesystems.com www.baesystems.com
11 Jan 2023
BAE Systems has received a $12 million Phase 2 contract from the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) to further develop a low cost, all-weather, multi-mode (radar/infrared) open architecture seeker under the Maritime Weapon Innovation Program (MWIP) Joint Capability Technology Demonstration (also known as QUICKSINK).

QUICKSINK munition concept provides air-delivered maritime surface vessel defeat capability for the warfighter via a cost-effective precision-guided munition kit. The program aims to integrate the new seeker developed by BAE Systems’ FAST Labs™ research and development organization. The Weapon Open Systems Architecture (WOSA) compliant seeker is designed to be plug and play – providing semi-autonomous precision targeting of maritime surface vessels at low cost by retrofitting existing weapon systems to achieve torpedo-like seaworthy capabilities from the air.

“Our new multi-mode modular seeker enables precision identification and engagement of surface targets at great distances over a large area,” said Peter Dusaitis, chief scientist at BAE Systems’ FAST Labs. “Our seeker technology will greatly increase the warfighter’s capabilities, enabling combatant commanders with a new way to defend against maritime threats in a cost-effective manner.”

Phase 2 focuses on integration and test maturation of a prototype multi-mode seeker system through free flight capability demonstration against a maritime target.
Click to expand...
 
TomS said:
Interesting.

Makes sense that they would get the ER version. Probably delivered in a toss from well back from the front lines, to give the launch aircraft a decent chance against Russian SAMs.
Click to expand...

Does any US air arm use the JDAM-ER? Outside the new GPS guided ER Quickstrike kits, I've not see the wing kits used. Is it an item that is kept in inventory and added on an as needed basis?
 
sferrin said:
Does the US use the ER?
Click to expand...
Josh_TN said:

Does any US air arm use the JDAM-ER? Outside the new GPS guided ER Quickstrike kits, I've not see the wing kits used. Is it an item that is kept in inventory and added on an as needed basis?
Click to expand...

I haven't seen it either, though the only real difference between Quickstrike and a standard JDAM is the fuze.

That said, Australia uses the JDAM-ER kit on 500-lb bombs and I think South Korea bought it for 2000-lb bombs.
 
Last edited:
sferrin said:
Unviewable.
Click to expand...
The tweet works fine for me. Here's one with a link:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1628145135694274560
View: https://twitter.com/bayraktar_1love/status/1628145135694274560?s=20


Josh_TN said:
Does any US air arm use the JDAM-ER? Outside the new GPS guided ER Quickstrike kits, I've not see the wing kits used. Is it an item that is kept in inventory and added on an as needed basis?
Click to expand...
It's a kit like the JDAM itself, so I assume they add it as needed.
 
Last edited:
TomS said:
Forest Green said:
It's a kit like the JDAM itself, so I assume they add it as needed.
Click to expand...

Outside of Quickstrike ER, it doesn't appear that the ER wing kits are even in US inventory.
Click to expand...

Presumably some wing kits are in inventory for Quickstrike to have them, though what said inventory is or when it was purchased I can’t find any documentation for. Also it isn’t clear what aircraft have been cleared to carry wing kits; I’ve only seen them on B-52 HSAB.
 
Josh_TN said:
TomS said:
Forest Green said:
It's a kit like the JDAM itself, so I assume they add it as needed.
Click to expand...

Outside of Quickstrike ER, it doesn't appear that the ER wing kits are even in US inventory.
Click to expand...

Presumably some wing kits are in inventory for Quickstrike to have them, though what said inventory is or when it was purchased I can’t find any documentation for. Also it isn’t clear what aircraft have been cleared to carry wing kits; I’ve only seen them on B-52 HSAB.
Click to expand...

My point is that the ER kits that exist in the US are probably specifically linked to Quickstrike and are not available for other uses.

If you are the US and need some extra standoff range, use JSOW or SDB.
 
Josh_TN said:
Presumably some wing kits are in inventory for Quickstrike to have them, though what said inventory is or when it was purchased I can’t find any documentation for. Also it isn’t clear what aircraft have been cleared to carry wing kits; I’ve only seen them on B-52 HSAB.
Click to expand...
TomS said:
My point is that the ER kits that exist in the US are probably specifically linked to Quickstrike and are not available for other uses.

If you are the US and need some extra standoff range, use JSOW or SDB.
Click to expand...
I'd imagine adding the kits to a standard Mk82/3/4 is cheaper than a JSOW or SDB. It doesn't specify whether the supply is from US stocks, or an ordered supply from Boeing via the US gov.

As regards fitment, I imagine it'll be some kind of arrangement like they did with the HARMs.
 
Forest Green said:
Josh_TN said:
Presumably some wing kits are in inventory for Quickstrike to have them, though what said inventory is or when it was purchased I can’t find any documentation for. Also it isn’t clear what aircraft have been cleared to carry wing kits; I’ve only seen them on B-52 HSAB.
Click to expand...
TomS said:
My point is that the ER kits that exist in the US are probably specifically linked to Quickstrike and are not available for other uses.

If you are the US and need some extra standoff range, use JSOW or SDB.
Click to expand...
I'd imagine adding the kits to a standard Mk82/3/4 is cheaper than a JSOW or SDB. It doesn't specify whether the supply is from US stocks, or an ordered supply from Boeing via the US gov.

As regards fitment, I imagine it'll be some kind of arrangement like they did with the HARMs.
Click to expand...

I'd guess the kits are a direct buy.

Wing kits seem like a very cheap way to provide stand off range beyond all but the largest strategic SAMs. SDB doesn't have the same punch and the JSOW is sparse in USN inventory and not used by USAF. For Mk82/84 level bang you'd probably have to use a much more expensive AGM-158.
 
Forest Green said:
I wonder if they can put the same wing kit on a CBU-105.
Click to expand...

There was a procurement of Wind-Corrected Munition Dispenser - Extended Range (CBU-115), which is CBU-105 with inertial guidance and a wing kit. Not the same wings as JDAM-ER (becuase it's Lockheed, not Boeing) but same basic result.

Josh_TN said:
SDB doesn't have the same punch and the JSOW is sparse in USN inventory and not used by USAF. For Mk82/84 level bang you'd probably have to use a much more expensive AGM-158.
Click to expand...

Yes, JSOW is not available in huge numbers and SDB is somewhat small. But I'd say that if your target is hardened enough to need a 2000-lb bomb and defended enough to require 70km of standoff, it's probably worth stepping up to JASSM and doing it right.
 
I wonder if the USAF and/or the USN has thought creating a JDAM equivalent of the AGM-123 Skipper II by attaching a suitable off-the-shelf rocket-motor (That would be jettisoned after burnout) to the tail assembly of a JDAM-ER?
 
NMaude said:
I wonder if the USAF and/or the USN has thought creating a JDAM equivalent of the AGM-123 Skipper II by attaching a suitable off-the-shelf rocket-motor (That would be jettisoned after burnout) to the tail assembly of a JDAM-ER?
Click to expand...
Powered JDAM is the closest bet at the moment, definitely needs more love from the USAF. Maybe there are clearance issues with the F-35 bays?

www.airandspaceforces.com

Powered JDAM: Boeing’s New Alternative to Cruise Missiles | Air & Space Forces Magazine

Boeing is developing a long-range version of its Joint Direct Attack Munition called the Powered JDAM, adding an engine to extend its range by 20 times over the conventional glide version of the weapon.
www.airandspaceforces.com www.airandspaceforces.com
 
isayyo2 said:
Powered JDAM is the closest bet at the moment, definitely needs more love from the USAF.
Click to expand...

That's the first time I've heard of it but I hope the USAF and USN take up Boeing's offer and add it to their inventory of JDAM variants (IMO this concept is a good idea).

isayyo2 said:
Maybe there are clearance issues with the F-35 bays?
Click to expand...

Good point however if it can be done on a 500Lb JDAM and it only has the footprint of the 2,000Lb JDAM then it should be able to fit.
 
isayyo2 said:
Powered JDAM is the closest bet at the moment, definitely needs more love from the USAF. Maybe there are clearance issues with the F-35 bays?

www.airandspaceforces.com

Powered JDAM: Boeing’s New Alternative to Cruise Missiles | Air & Space Forces Magazine

Boeing is developing a long-range version of its Joint Direct Attack Munition called the Powered JDAM, adding an engine to extend its range by 20 times over the conventional glide version of the weapon.
www.airandspaceforces.com www.airandspaceforces.com
Click to expand...
I assume it means 20x the range of the basic version not the JDAM-ER. 1440km seems unlikely.
 
Forest Green said:
I assume it means 20x the range of the basic version not the JDAM-ER. 1440km seems unlikely.
Click to expand...

I looked around at some of the articles to do with this proposed JDAM variant and I believe it was stated as 10 times the range of the standard JDAM so that would mean a range of 150 miles.
 
isayyo2 said:
NMaude said:
I wonder if the USAF and/or the USN has thought creating a JDAM equivalent of the AGM-123 Skipper II by attaching a suitable off-the-shelf rocket-motor (That would be jettisoned after burnout) to the tail assembly of a JDAM-ER?
Click to expand...
Powered JDAM is the closest bet at the moment, definitely needs more love from the USAF. Maybe there are clearance issues with the F-35 bays?

www.airandspaceforces.com

Powered JDAM: Boeing’s New Alternative to Cruise Missiles | Air & Space Forces Magazine

Boeing is developing a long-range version of its Joint Direct Attack Munition called the Powered JDAM, adding an engine to extend its range by 20 times over the conventional glide version of the weapon.
www.airandspaceforces.com www.airandspaceforces.com
Click to expand...

USAF and USN seem luke warm on cheap stand off munitions. The former has no shortage of AGM-158s and platforms to deliver them, so that makes some sense. For the USN I’d think the small number of JSOW and SLAM-ER, along with the flexibility of using existing mk80 series from a CV’s more limited armory inventory, would make a stand-off kit bash mk82/83/84 more attractive. Add on appropriate terminal seeker/TDD (laser,gps,Quickstrike, Quicksink) as necessary to make your mk80s into whatever the moment calls for at low cost.
 
Josh_TN said:
The former has no shortage of AGM-158s and platforms to deliver them
Click to expand...

True however the AGM-158 is expensive and a powered JDAM would fit the bill where you basically want a budget cruise-missile for a target that is beyond the range of JDAM-ER but doesn't justify the expense of an AGM-158.
 
NMaude said:
Josh_TN said:
The former has no shortage of AGM-158s and platforms to deliver them
Click to expand...

True however the AGM-158 is expensive and a powered JDAM would fit the bill where you basically want a budget cruise-missile for a target that is beyond the range of JDAM-ER but doesn't justify the expense of an AGM-158.
Click to expand...

There will be 6,000 AGM-158s of all types by 2026. It's a sunk cost. If you don't want waste a new one, use one of the old A models that still heavily outranges powered JDAM. They probably start to expire late decade anyway and might as well be used up. The only advantage I see would be if more could be carried, and since it is stated to take up the same space as a mk84 (though I presume it is lighter), I don't see any way it could be tucked into existing racks or hard points in larger numbers, So the weapon is pointless for USAF; there's no niche to fill.
 
It has occurred to me that if you want to do an AGM-123 Skipper II JDAM equivalent then mount a Mk-135 rocket booster onto the tail of a JDAM-ER.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom