• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

Lockheed's JAGM missile

SpudmanWP

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2008
Messages
1,079
Reaction score
42
I guess with a 20+ lb warhead it won't matter much :)
 

Moose

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2010
Messages
1,248
Reaction score
233
I'm not horribly impressed with JAGM compared to earlier plans for it and the previous JCM. It's basically a Hellfire that combines millimeter wave radar and SALH guidance in once missile which is an improvement but Brimstone 2 already does that and provides an increase in range. Plus there is Spear 3 as well now which I believe has the tri-mode guidance they originally wanted.
B2 is only just in service for a couple years now after several delays, Spear 3 is a bit down the line. JAGM and the decision to move to an Incremental approach both predate their availability. The higher-spec JAGM weapons are still in the plan as future Increments, I1 is essentially confined to introducing a new guidance package so yes the spec isn't going to light the world on fire.
 

yasotay

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
2,342
Reaction score
488
I'm not horribly impressed with JAGM compared to earlier plans for it and the previous JCM. It's basically a Hellfire that combines millimeter wave radar and SALH guidance in once missile which is an improvement but Brimstone 2 already does that and provides an increase in range. Plus there is Spear 3 as well now which I believe has the tri-mode guidance they originally wanted.
Well it may not go further than a Hellfire or have any more targeting capability than Hellfires, but it did keep one JAGM increase - cost.
 

marauder2048

"I should really just relax"
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
2,817
Reaction score
287
The point of JAGM is an IM-compliant, cockpit selectable multi-effects warhead with heigh-of-burst capability.
The UK just started funding that capability for Brimstone.
 

Deino

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2006
Messages
2,694
Reaction score
439
JAGM off the bench (ie Incr1) is fast jet compatible with similar rail launcher that Brimstone uses. JAGM-F adapts Incr1 JAGM for ejector launcher.





Before you say "Brimstone", the easiest way to tell a JAGM from a Brimstone is that JAGM does not have forward fins and it's tail fin is nearly half of it's body length.


I don't want to nitpick, but usually the Chinese are accused of copying... looks very much like a KD-10A. :p;)

20190721_122210.jpg
 

AN/AWW-14(V)

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
May 18, 2019
Messages
314
Reaction score
542
Last edited:

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
4,045
Reaction score
1,019
Unlikely. For starters, look closely at the pic of JAGM that the Army is using in the program brochure. The lift weight shown is 53kg/116lb, not 52kg/115lb.

And why would they use an untested missile that has only just entered production instead of a time-tested one with a track record? It's not like this was a difficult target that needed any of JAGM's new features. 7VP5EU5HLFFQVBSMIGUEUHXWQI.png
 

AN/AWW-14(V)

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
May 18, 2019
Messages
314
Reaction score
542
Unlikely. For starters, look closely at the pic of JAGM that the Army is using in the program brochure. The lift weight shown is 53kg/116lb, not 52kg/115lb.
weight - 115 lbs, https://asc.army.mil/web/portfolio-item/ms-jagm/

its pic not serial version - feature khaki color,

And why would they use an untested missile that has only just entered production instead of a time-tested one with a track record? It's not like this was a difficult target that needed any of JAGM's new features.
it was difficult engagement, two cars (could be more) must be hit instantly, so that no one escapes
Hellfire not conform for that condition, time between launch 8 sec (autonomously designate) and 2 sec (Buddy laser)



but JAGM can engage multiple target simultaneously:

 
Last edited:

yasotay

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
2,342
Reaction score
488
Honestly it could have been either. Units in theater usually get the best available. Conversely it is also possible that one AGM-114 was shot LOBL and one was shot LOAL, or both could have been launched LOBL with enough (time) separation between launch for the designator to slew to the second target.
 

FighterJock

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Oct 29, 2007
Messages
1,463
Reaction score
282
Honestly it could have been either. Units in theater usually get the best available. Conversely it is also possible that one AGM-114 was shot LOBL and one was shot LOAL, or both could have been launched LOBL with enough (time) separation between launch for the designator to slew to the second target.
One thing that puzzles me why fire one missile with one mode (LOBL) then fire the next with (LOAL), it does not make sense. :confused:
 

yasotay

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
2,342
Reaction score
488
Honestly it could have been either. Units in theater usually get the best available. Conversely it is also possible that one AGM-114 was shot LOBL and one was shot LOAL, or both could have been launched LOBL with enough (time) separation between launch for the designator to slew to the second target.
One thing that puzzles me why fire one missile with one mode (LOBL) then fire the next with (LOAL), it does not make sense. :confused:
By doing this one missile tracks direct at a target (LOBL) while the other (LOAL) is lofted and is looking for a laser spot using a different laser code. This has been a capability of AH64 since the A model. The challenge of shooting two in LOBL is that the second missile will track the same target as the first missile. If the targets are far apart the missile might not have the energy to get to the target with drastic changes in direction. Either method would work.
 

FighterJock

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Oct 29, 2007
Messages
1,463
Reaction score
282
Honestly it could have been either. Units in theater usually get the best available. Conversely it is also possible that one AGM-114 was shot LOBL and one was shot LOAL, or both could have been launched LOBL with enough (time) separation between launch for the designator to slew to the second target.
One thing that puzzles me why fire one missile with one mode (LOBL) then fire the next with (LOAL), it does not make sense. :confused:
By doing this one missile tracks direct at a target (LOBL) while the other (LOAL) is lofted and is looking for a laser spot using a different laser code. This has been a capability of AH64 since the A model. The challenge of shooting two in LOBL is that the second missile will track the same target as the first missile. If the targets are far apart the missile might not have the energy to get to the target with drastic changes in direction. Either method would work.
Thanks for the info yasotay.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,265
Reaction score
1,290
JAGM off the bench (ie Incr1) is fast jet compatible with similar rail launcher that Brimstone uses. JAGM-F adapts Incr1 JAGM for ejector launcher.





Before you say "Brimstone", the easiest way to tell a JAGM from a Brimstone is that JAGM does not have forward fins and it's tail fin is nearly half of it's body length.


I don't want to nitpick, but usually the Chinese are accused of copying... looks very much like a KD-10A. :p;)

View attachment 616754
Ahem:


jcm-1.jpg

;)
 

Deino

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2006
Messages
2,694
Reaction score
439
JAGM off the bench (ie Incr1) is fast jet compatible with similar rail launcher that Brimstone uses. JAGM-F adapts Incr1 JAGM for ejector launcher.





Before you say "Brimstone", the easiest way to tell a JAGM from a Brimstone is that JAGM does not have forward fins and it's tail fin is nearly half of it's body length.


I don't want to nitpick, but usually the Chinese are accused of copying... looks very much like a KD-10A. :p;)

View attachment 616754
Ahem:


View attachment 624283

;)

That was a joke!
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,265
Reaction score
1,290
I was joking too. :)
 

AN/AWW-14(V)

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
May 18, 2019
Messages
314
Reaction score
542
Predictive aimpoint does not look so good. Seems to me that it should have hit mid-body.
The U.S. Army and Marine Corps are working to refine the Joint Air-to-Ground Missile’s software after it failed to achieve desired lethal effects on a maritime target during its initial operational test, Col. David Warnick, the Army’s program manager for joint attack munition systems, told Defense News in a recent interview.

The JAGM is to replace the legacy Lockheed Martin-made Hellfire missile used across the services.

A report from the Pentagon’s chief weapons tester released last month called out the less-than-lethal results during maritime testing of the new missile, which is also made by Lockheed. The initial operational test and evaluation, or IOT&E, was held at Fort Hood, Texas, and Eglin Air Force Base, Florida, in April and May 2019.

The IOT&E consisted of six shots against stationary and moving targets in both land and maritime environments during the daytime. Following the two test shots that didn’t achieve desired effects, the program manager suspended further maritime testing to analyze results and tweak missile software to improve results, the report stated.

“What we had was a few shots that were taken, and we had impacts more toward the back of the boat than we would have liked,” Warnick said. “They were all successful in stopping the boats … but we would prefer to have a center mast hit, one that guarantees a little bit more high probability that we’re going to get the lethal effects desired.”

The team is incorporating changes into the next software build and is anticipating taking three more maritime shots this month at Eglin, Warnick said.

“Based off of how we’ve run the models, based off of the test readiness review that they just conducted this week, we’re confident that we’ve got it in there,” he added.

The Marine Corps originally planned to conduct its JAGM IOT&E in the second quarter of fiscal 2020, but that schedule has changed, according to Warnick. A new timeline for the testing should be ironed out soon, he indicated.

Still, the Army has overcome all of its earlier problems discovered in tests. In tests in 2017, JAGM missed two targets; and while 18 missiles were launched from an AH-64E Apache attack helicopter during tests, one of the four launches with a live warhead failed to detonate. The Apache’s targeting site and fire control radar passed “erroneous target velocities” to the missile, according to previous test reports.

The newest report from the Office of the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation stated that JAGM “met hit performance and reliability requirements when launched by Version 4.5 and Version 6 AH-64E software,” even when targets were obscured by countermeasures or dust and proved more lethal than the legacy missile, particularly against an up-armored Russian T-72 [tank] and other light-armored vehicles.

“I think to date we’ve shot 103 JAGMs and really only had two that were near misses, and we are very pleased with the results at this point,” Warnick said. “Our costs are coming down the cost curve as we transition from that low-rate initial production that we’re in right now. And we will hopefully get a favorable full-rate production decision this May.”

The DOT&E Office provided more suggestions, including a recommendation that the Army develop, test and field a JAGM training missile. Warnick said the Army is funded in FY20 and FY21 to produce that asset.

The report also recommended the Army test JAGM in an environment where electronic warfare is a threat as well as against threats with active protection systems.

“We’ve got it planned and budgeted in [research, development, test and evaluation] to update the software every couple of years,” Warnick said, “and as that threat becomes closer in, we ensure that we stay ahead of it with implementing whatever changes we need to make sure we are capable of defeating it, so we’re on track at this point to stay ahead of threats, and I think we are comfortable with where the system is at this time.”

 

AeroFranz

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
May 4, 2008
Messages
2,249
Reaction score
148
I'm a bit confused...the triple Hornet launcher seems to show a rail, so the missile fires its rocket and flies off. However, it would make sense for the version on the quadruple carrier to be dropped first, and then fire the rocket (otherwise firing the missile in the front row results in cooking the ones in the second row). The mockup JAGM-F picture above also seems to show 14" lugs as opposed to the legacy rail guides, which supports the possibility of dropping first. So does that mean there will be multiple versions for tailored to different types of mountings?
 
Top