JDAM now anti-ship capable

shin_getter

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jun 1, 2019
Messages
617
Reaction score
678
Perhaps it can cheaply engage targets that has anti-optical means of defense like smoke, fog or laser dazzler? A blinding laser is likely to be cheaper that SAMs.
 
Last edited:

Dilandu

I'm dissatisfied, which means, I exist.
Joined
May 30, 2013
Messages
1,867
Reaction score
1,558
Website
fonzeppelin.livejournal.com
I don't see the point of this. If the ship has air defense then using any type of bombs will just put aircraft within SAM engagement zone, in that case it much better to use anti ship missiles. If the ship has no air defense then don't they use LGB?
Toss-bombing from low-altitude approach. The attack plane came below horizon, rapidly climb up, release the bombs during climb and escape to low altitude again. Bombs move up at ballistic trajectory, then spread wings and glide toward target.
 

Ronny

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jul 20, 2019
Messages
577
Reaction score
388
I don't see the point of this. If the ship has air defense then using any type of bombs will just put aircraft within SAM engagement zone, in that case it much better to use anti ship missiles. If the ship has no air defense then don't they use LGB?
Toss-bombing from low-altitude approach. The attack plane came below horizon, rapidly climb up, release the bombs during climb and escape to low altitude again. Bombs move up at ballistic trajectory, then spread wings and glide toward target.
even toss bombing has relatively short range, arguably shorter than the radar horizon. And I think it is still much safer for the aircraft to just launch an anti ship missile
Bomb Toss-01.jpg
 

Dilandu

I'm dissatisfied, which means, I exist.
Joined
May 30, 2013
Messages
1,867
Reaction score
1,558
Website
fonzeppelin.livejournal.com
even toss bombing has relatively short range, arguably shorter than the radar horizon. And I think it is still much safer for the aircraft to just launch an anti ship missile
Yes, but missile are far more costly and heavier. And more specialized. You could have forty JDAM kits for the cost of just one Harpoon missile, and JDAM's could be used against other targets, too.

I agree, that anti-ship missiles are much better in anti-ship role, but JDAM's are more available. Their supply is greater, and could be used more actively. Against the targets that have only self-defense or short-range air defense, JDAM would be perfect standoff weapon.

even toss bombing has relatively short range, arguably shorter than the radar horizon.
I remind you, that JDAM is glide bomb. It could glide for quite a while after being tossed.
 

Conspirator

CLEARANCE: L5
Joined
Jan 14, 2021
Messages
232
Reaction score
86
well..... just theoretically.... if the "bomb" is not under its own power wouldnt it be easier for phalanx to just pretty much spray it out of the air?
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
14,743
Reaction score
3,715
JDAMs should be no problem at all for typical CIWS.
 

TomS

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
4,980
Reaction score
2,568
The target set for Maritime JDAM likely isn't large warships with extensive defenses. Thinksmall combatants, transports, maybe even conscripted merchant vessels.
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
2,669
Reaction score
1,022
JDAMs should be no problem at all for typical CIWS.

How about 6 approaching from different vectors? Make that 10 ;)
JDAMs has short range. Shoot down the aircraft dropping them.

Well yes that's a problem if they have ships that are capable of doing so. For those targets they could pursue munition range extension. And as mentioned by others there going to be several targets that may not have the ability to take out the shooter.
 

Conspirator

CLEARANCE: L5
Joined
Jan 14, 2021
Messages
232
Reaction score
86
JDAMs should be no problem at all for typical CIWS.

How about 6 approaching from different vectors? Make that 10 ;)
most ships have at least 2 phalanx systems depending on size. i dont see how it would be a problem especially with the targeting system. it prioritizes the closest one or the most dangerous.... its possible because of the rate of fire. so say the....... F/A 18 superhornet dropping 5 of these sequentially is within 1.0 mile because of the trajectory and the speed of release at about the 500 mph plus capability of the aircraft it would take about 15-25 seconds to get within -100ft of the ship.... well within range of the phalanx which has a range of 6000 yards..... and a kill time of a 1/2 a second and switching targets within a quarter of a second i think its very possible that it could eliminate all 5 effectively with one single phalanx system.
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
2,669
Reaction score
1,022
JDAMs should be no problem at all for typical CIWS.

How about 6 approaching from different vectors? Make that 10 ;)
most ships have at least 2 phalanx systems depending on size. i dont see how it would be a problem especially with the targeting system. it prioritizes the closest one or the most dangerous.... its possible because of the rate of fire. so say the....... F/A 18 superhornet dropping 5 of these sequentially is within 1.0 mile because of the trajectory and the speed of release at about the 500 mph plus capability of the aircraft it would take about 15-25 seconds to get within -100ft of the ship.... well within range of the phalanx which has a range of 6000 yards..... and a kill time of a 1/2 a second and switching targets within a quarter of a second i think its very possible that it could eliminate all 5 effectively with one single phalanx system.

I am happy with those odds and I'm sure the USAF is too. Only one of these weapons needs to make it through and it isn't very expensive. It's not going to be something that will substitute for anti-ship missiles. But, on the other hand, it is also not something that can be ignored if they can get it to work.
 
Last edited:

Conspirator

CLEARANCE: L5
Joined
Jan 14, 2021
Messages
232
Reaction score
86
JDAMs should be no problem at all for typical CIWS.

How about 6 approaching from different vectors? Make that 10 ;)
most ships have at least 2 phalanx systems depending on size. i dont see how it would be a problem especially with the targeting system. it prioritizes the closest one or the most dangerous.... its possible because of the rate of fire. so say the....... F/A 18 superhornet dropping 5 of these sequentially is within 1.0 mile because of the trajectory and the speed of release at about the 500 mph plus capability of the aircraft it would take about 15-25 seconds to get within -100ft of the ship.... well within range of the phalanx which has a range of 6000 yards..... and a kill time of a 1/2 a second and switching targets within a quarter of a second i think its very possible that it could eliminate all 5 effectively with one single phalanx system.

I am happy with those odds and I'm sure the USAF is too. Only one of these weapons needs to make it through and it isn't very expensive.
yea true. they would be cheap and easy to just yeet from a jet. but one? packed with like.... 10-15 lbs of explosive? considering they wont do you dirty and go nuclear....
 

TomS

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
4,980
Reaction score
2,568
and a kill time of a 1/2 a second and switching targets within a quarter of a second i think its very possible that it could eliminate all 5 effectively with one single phalanx system.
Hmm, those are rather optimistic numbers. Assuming 100-round bursts, it's more like 1.5 seconds per burst (including spin-up time) and some time to re-aim between bursts, definitely more than a quarter second. Plus you really can't count on every burst being a kill.; Phalanx does miss sometime (more often than you might think). Also, a GP bomb is actually pretty near worst case for a Phalanx -- lots of nicely shaped steel to get through from the front and hard to deflect if you don't detonate it outright. By the time Phalanx is in play, even destroying the guidance package might not cause a miss.

OTOH, five JDAM on a single ship target is pretty generous. I'd not expect that many.

Again, though, this isn't a weapon for killing heavily defended ships. It's for dealing with larger numbers of relatively undefended targets, like an amphibious landing force, after the escorts have been stripped/degraded by more sophisticated systems.
 

Dilandu

I'm dissatisfied, which means, I exist.
Joined
May 30, 2013
Messages
1,867
Reaction score
1,558
Website
fonzeppelin.livejournal.com
Again, though, this isn't a weapon for killing heavily defended ships. It's for dealing with larger numbers of relatively undefended targets, like an amphibious landing force, after the escorts have been stripped/degraded by more sophisticated systems
Or for finishing off already hit ships.
 

F119

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Dec 7, 2018
Messages
3
Reaction score
3
Besides datalink guidance, the 'torpedo like' quote suggests new fuzing could be involved.
 

AN/AWW-14(V)

ACCESS: Granted
Senior Member
Joined
May 18, 2019
Messages
479
Reaction score
974
JDAMs should be no problem at all for typical CIWS.
unfounded statement
for example BLU-109C/B warhead, this thing can penetrate up to 2 meters of reinforced concrete, filled by insensitive explosive AFX-757, the tail fuse is safe sheltered, the JDAM wings have an extremely small area in head-on engagement

in fact, it is much solid than most western-made ASM

1606235471_betab-2.jpg
 
Last edited:

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
14,743
Reaction score
3,715
JDAMs should be no problem at all for typical CIWS.
unsubstantiated statement
for example BLU-109 warhead, this thing can penetrate to 2 meters reinforced concrete, the tail fuse is safe sheltered, the rudders have an extremely small area in head-on engagement

in fact, it is much solid than any western-made ASM

1606235471_betab-2.jpg
US Phalanx rounds use DU specifically for penetrating armored warheads. No reason to believe a Chinese 30mm couldn't. Or that one of their RAM launchers couldn't swat these out of the air. Also you're assuming a direct head-on aspect would be presented to the CIWS which isn't necessarily the case.
 

shin_getter

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jun 1, 2019
Messages
617
Reaction score
678
I don't see the point of this. If the ship has air defense then using any type of bombs will just put aircraft within SAM engagement zone, in that case it much better to use anti ship missiles. If the ship has no air defense then don't they use LGB?
"In the AMSTE scenario, once a JDAM is released, E-8C Joint Stars will be able to provide the weapon with continuous updates of a target's position to the weapon until impact. This effort is being focused on maritime interdiction.
Looking at it, This looks more like a counter swarm weapon. With the demonstration of Chinese USV in landing exercises and a massive shipbuilding industry, saturation offensive is not implausible, especially in conjunction with other efforts at lowering effective US sortie rates into relevant theater at the time of maneuver.

It takes more equipment per offensive channel to use laser designation relative to radar plus datalink, as such it can either be a bottleneck or eat into weapons payload (imagine dropping the entire bomb load of a B-21 in a single pass), and lasers are more impacted by weather.

Self searching weapons are more expensive, but more importantly do not get allocated to targets effectively as random chance determine what they hit.

Centralized control with datalinks enables better allocation of weapons and GPS is the cheapest command guidance solution.
 

AN/AWW-14(V)

ACCESS: Granted
Senior Member
Joined
May 18, 2019
Messages
479
Reaction score
974
Besides datalink guidance, the 'torpedo like' quote suggests new fuzing could be involved.
modern family FMU-152 fuses already has wide delay overlay, up to 240 ms
if making a hole to the hold and below in a big ship longer delay is needed, add it this will not be a problem
 

Attachments

  • 23.jpg
    23.jpg
    282.1 KB · Views: 8
Last edited:

Hanz2k

The truth is grey...
Joined
Feb 17, 2012
Messages
25
Reaction score
22
Again, JDAMs are not intended to use as first strike weapon. They will be used against ships crippled with LRASM or AARGM to finish them or as second wave strike weapon against troop transport or support ships. All this ships hasn’t any CIWS and 1000lb or 2000lb delayed fuze weapon is more than enough to sink them. Also high altitude drop should give pilot at least safe 8-10 miles of distance - more that enough for any MANPADS or heavy machine guns.
 

Ronny

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jul 20, 2019
Messages
577
Reaction score
388
JDAMs should be no problem at all for typical CIWS.
unfounded statement
for example BLU-109C/B warhead, this thing can penetrate up to 2 meters of reinforced concrete, filled by insensitive explosive AFX-757, the tail fuse is safe sheltered, the JDAM wings have an extremely small area in head-on engagement

in fact, it is much solid than most western-made ASM

1606235471_betab-2.jpg
For the sake of discussion, here are the penetration value for different type of 20 mm round, 25 mm round and 30 mm round.
The standard mix for Phalanx is 2 HE + 1 APDS-T sequences if I remember correctly.
- For 20 mm round, MK-148 armor piecing sabot round can penetrate around 1 inches (25.4 mm) RHA steel at 1000 meters and 0.7 inches ( 17.7 mm) RHA steel at 2000 meters, assuming the obliquity angle is 45 degrees. The upgraded M244 has 48% heavier penetrator, so it will improve the penetration capability significantly
- For 25 mm round, the MP-T SD MK2 multi purpose round can penetrate 20 mm RHA at 400 meter, 16 mm RHA at 1000 meters and 11 mm RHA at 1700 meter. The armor piercing high explosive PGU-47 APEX round can penetrate 8 mm RHA at 2700 meter assuming the obliquity angle is 45 degrees. The armor piercing discarding sabot fin stabilized C137 can penetrate 31 mm RHA at 2000 meter assuming the obliquity angle is 60 degrees
- For 30 mm round, the multi purpose MK264 round can penetrate 10 mm RHA at 1000 meters assuming the obliquity angle is 60 degrees, The armor piercing discarding sabot fin stabilized MK258 can penetrate 100 mm RHA at 1000 meters

20 mm penetration type.png
25 mm penetration.PNG
30 mm.PNG


A small missile boat such as the Russian Tarantul has 2 AK-630 CIWS turret-AK-630 has caliber of 30 mm and a rate of fire of 4000-5000 rounds/minute. The newer AK-630M1-2 has 10000 rounds/ minute rate of fire
F-190-Lastunul-12.jpg
 
Last edited:

totoro

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Jan 11, 2011
Messages
473
Reaction score
232
It's not about penetration but about damage to subsystems. At what distance from the target (ship) would the parts of the bomb be damaged enough to cause malfunctions (to what degree?)
We're talking about damage to fuse, possibly not detonating. Damage to wings, possibly influencing a change in trajectory. Damage to control fins, possibly influencing greater change in trajectory.
Sadly, info that'd help answer those questions isn't readily available nor quantifiable.

Personally, dealing with any kind of a bomb falling mostly vertically on target, just 3 or so km away, is not good enough. Which is why gun based CIWS are likely not the best solution. Missile CIWS in such weight class as RAM, providing they have good enough guidance, would be better suited to it, from the interception efficiency standpoint. Downside of those, of course, is their more limited quantity available to the ship for long engagements (several attack waves?)

But basically, that's the issue with any air attack on any ship. IF you can bring enough planes in a single attack, and if those planes can launch enough munitions at the ship (Bombs or missiles) the ship is going to get wrecked. (Unless soft measures like decoys and jammers can work)
 

Forest Green

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jun 11, 2019
Messages
812
Reaction score
606
I don't see the point of this. If the ship has air defense then using any type of bombs will just put aircraft within SAM engagement zone, in that case it much better to use anti ship missiles. If the ship has no air defense then don't they use LGB?
Depends on the level of air-defence. An F-22 going supersonic can fling a JDAM a surprisingly long way. Then you have JDAM-ER too. Probably enough to beat short range AD. You've also got cost/quantity considerations. You could probably fling a few dozen JDAMs at a ship for the cost of one ASM, probably more resilient to DEWs as well.
 
Last edited:

Ronny

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jul 20, 2019
Messages
577
Reaction score
388
I don't see the point of this. If the ship has air defense then using any type of bombs will just put aircraft within SAM engagement zone, in that case it much better to use anti ship missiles. If the ship has no air defense then don't they use LGB?
Depends on the level of air-defence. An F-22 going supersonic can fling a JDAM a surprisingly long way. Then you have JDAM-ER too. Probably enough to beat short range AD. You've also got cost/quantity considerations. You could probably fling a few dozen JDAMs at a ship for the cost of one ASM, probably more resilient to DEWs as well.
If the ship has weak air defense then I think a couple LGB can do the same job
Air-Force-1.jpg
 

Dilandu

I'm dissatisfied, which means, I exist.
Joined
May 30, 2013
Messages
1,867
Reaction score
1,558
Website
fonzeppelin.livejournal.com
We're talking about damage to fuse, possibly not detonating.
Er... on CIWS effective distance, the goal is exactly to detonate the warhead. Nothing else would stop the incoming projectile. Damage to the wings, control systems, engine (in case of missiles) at this stage is simply not enough to reliably stop it. It would still be able to fly the remainig (small) distance, and hit the target. Only detonating the warhead would stop it at this stage.
 

Ronny

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jul 20, 2019
Messages
577
Reaction score
388
It's not about penetration but about damage to subsystems. At what distance from the target (ship) would the parts of the bomb be damaged enough to cause malfunctions (to what degree?)
We're talking about damage to fuse, possibly not detonating. Damage to wings, possibly influencing a change in trajectory. Damage to control fins, possibly influencing greater change in trajectory.
Sadly, info that'd help answer those questions isn't readily available nor quantifiable.

Personally, dealing with any kind of a bomb falling mostly vertically on target, just 3 or so km away, is not good enough. Which is why gun based CIWS are likely not the best solution. Missile CIWS in such weight class as RAM, providing they have good enough guidance, would be better suited to it, from the interception efficiency standpoint. Downside of those, of course, is their more limited quantity available to the ship for long engagements (several attack waves?)

But basically, that's the issue with any air attack on any ship. IF you can bring enough planes in a single attack, and if those planes can launch enough munitions at the ship (Bombs or missiles) the ship is going to get wrecked. (Unless soft measures like decoys and jammers can work)
I think the penetration of 30 mm APFSDS round and rate of fire of AK-630 should be more than enough to shred JDAM body into small bit. The penetration at 3 km is nearly 39 mm RHA at 60 degree obliquity, and it can fire 55-80 rounds per second down range.
For the sake of argument, let assume JDAM move at Mach 0.8 ( I think gliding JDAM should move slower since it doesn't have engine like antiship missile), it will need 11 seconds to close 3 km distance. I think a single AK-630 mount can easily intercept 6-7 JDAM in that span of time, with 2 AK-630 mount such as on Tarantul, you can probably intercept 12-14 JDAM

penetration graph.jpg

60DEG NATO OBLIQ.jpg
 
Last edited:

Hood

ACCESS: Top Secret
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Messages
2,697
Reaction score
3,250
A JDAM on a high trajectory is going to be a lot more than 60 degree oblique. The threat is entirely different to a relatively horizontal sea-skimmer with terminal pop-up which most CIWS were designed to defeat.
If it was that easy then in theory no bomb, whether guided or dumb, would be able to penetrate a CIWS screen.
And as the Falklands showed, even a dumb bomb that doesn't explode can do serious damage to a relatively flimsy warship, and they weren't 2,000 pounders...
 

Ronny

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jul 20, 2019
Messages
577
Reaction score
388
A JDAM on a high trajectory is going to be a lot more than 60 degree oblique. The threat is entirely different to a relatively horizontal sea-skimmer with terminal pop-up which most CIWS were designed to defeat.
If it was that easy then in theory no bomb, whether guided or dumb, would be able to penetrate a CIWS screen.
The oblique angle is the impact angle of the bullet with the bomb so whether the bomb coming from the horizon or dive straight down, it wouldn't change much as long as it is coming at the ship
The casting wall of MK-84 is 0.56 inches ( 14 mm thick) so even 20 mm round will be able to penetrate it quite easily
The casting wall of BLU-109 is 1 inches ( 25.4 mm thick) so 20 mm APDS round such as MK-148 and the upgraded M244 can penetrate it from around 1000 meters, 25 mm APFSDS round such as C137 can penetrate it from 2500 meters, and 30 mm APFSDS round such as MK258 will still quite comfortably cut through the bomb from 3000 meters aways. Keep in mind that as the bomb also flying toward the bullet, the total impact velocity will be higher than if bullet hit stationary target, so the penetration will be a bit better than value shown above
2.PNG

With that said, of course there are bunker buster bpmb with casting thick enough to make themselves quite immune to cannon rounds such as BLU-116, however they also carry much less explosive, and even if the warhead itself can't be detonate , there are various flimsy components on JDAM that can be destroyed from long range such as the gliding wing, the control tail fin
unnamed.gif
61N+vPgqs6L._AC_SL1000_.jpg
 
Last edited:

Harry64

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Jun 15, 2009
Messages
27
Reaction score
7
As Hood said " in theory no bomb, whether guided or dumb, would be able to penetrate a CIWS screen."
But I think that the development engineers have also given their thoughts to this and see potential in the JDAM to break through the anti-ship defense!
 

Josh_TN

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 4, 2019
Messages
1,201
Reaction score
802
I think the primary target set would be PRC militia fishing boats and conscripted R/Ro ferries in the event of a Taiwan invasion. In both cases, there could be a large number of lightly defended targets not worthy of dedicated AShMs, though IMO this would only be worthwhile if a large number of weapons could be guided at once. If a fighter or bomber is just plinking small boats one by one, LBGs or Maverick would seem an already available option for most weather conditions.

I would note that IR guided SAMs might have a hard time engaging a bomb with no motor though.
 

Similar threads

Top