Scott Ferrin wrote in message
news
On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 01:07:25 -0400, "Kevin Brooks"
wrote:


"David E. Powell" wrote in message
ws.com...
"Dana Miller" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Scott Ferrin wrote:

The Maverick's warhead is between five and 12 times the size of
JCM's
and it's range is higher. That and Raytheon is talking about
extending it to nearly 40 miles with LOAL. Seems like they'd want
to
keep it around.

Con: In the most recent war, the warhead on the mav was just too much
boom while firing at targets in cities.

Yeah, but you might need the bigger boom in the future. Maybe a light
warhead version could be developed, like the Israelis have done with
some
missiles of theirs, for similar reasons.

But that would mean that in the end you are paying more money for a
larger
missile than is required for those targets, while at the same time
reducing
the number you can carry per sortiecompared to the smaller missile.


con: You can carry more JCMs
due to their light weight. (JCM is basically the same shape as
hellfire
but is launched from fast movers).

Maybe, but an A-10 or F-16 can carry plenty of Mavericks.

"Plenty"? I doubt there are many missions where the F-16 has lugged more
than two into combat, what with the usual requirment to cart extra
tankage
around, maybe a jammer, etc. If JCM allows him to carry four instead of
two
rounds, you just doubled his effect-per-sortie (assuming that JCM can
kill
most of the targets that we habitually use Maverick for, which apparently
it
will be able to do); if the target is such that you are not confident a
direct hit with a JCM will do the job, then I'd submit that you'd be more
likely to send an SDB or even 500 pound JDAM, or JASSM, etc., to do the
job
rather than figure the comparitively nominally larger Maverick will be
able
to do the job.

If they ever figure out how to effectively jam GPS all of those GPS
dependant wonder weapons are going to be pretty limited.

Can you name which weapons are "GPS dependent"? JDAM is not (it uses an
inertial guidance system, with GPS updates providing enhanced accuracy, but
it is still pretty accurate with just the inertial), and I doubt SDB will
be, either. JCM is to use three guidance systems, all packaged into one
missile--MMW radar, semi-active laser, and IR. So your point would be...?
Not to mention that the DoD has apparently been staying a jump ahead of
jamming attempts to date, and has expressed a strong desire to continue in
that mode.

Also your
targeting options are going to be substantially less than a LOAL
Maverick not to mention the lack of precision compared to a Maverick.

Lack of precision? Can you point to any source that indicates JCM will be
*less* precise than the AGM-65 family? With a tri-mode seeker, it would be
hard to say that JCM will offer less targeting options than the Maverick,
which forces you to target using the single system available to that
particular variant.

A JCM will not be able to take out the full spectrum of Maverick
targets anymore than an SDB will be able to handle 2000lb BLU-109
targets.

And as I said earlier, if the target is such that it is determined a JCM
*can't* handle it, then other options will remain available. What is the
single "target set" that the military services are most concerned with being
able to kill these days? Those that are mobile (the whole idea behind
reducing the sensor-to-shooter lagtime). How many mobile targets are there
that can't be killed by a JCM but can be killed by a Maverick? Darned few
(medium sized and larger combatant vessels being the majority of those few,
though JCM's dual/tandem warhead would not make life easy for *any* patrol
combatatnt it hits--and we still have Harpoon to deal with those). If the
target is a MBT, then you need a direct hit to be assured of killing
it--even with a Maverick; so why would JCM be a less capable missile in this
regard?





Using the "plenty" argument, then the USAF would apparently be wasting
its
effort with the SDB; I mean, heck, the A-10 or F-16 can carry oodles of
Mark
82's, right? But the folks in charge seem quite interested in being able
to
both increase the number of munitions carried per sortie, and at the same
time take advantage of more precise engagement capabilities with smaller
warheads to reduce collateral damage--why do you think the same
philosophy
does not make sense in the JCM versus Maverick debate?


You'll also note they're keeping LGBs around though. SDBs are great
if you're attacking a stationary target who's location is known or if
you have a guy on the ground to get you a GPS coordinate but if you
are trying to hit a moving target you'll want an LGB not an SDB.

Not necessarily. The USAF and USN have been involved with some interesting
tests involving hitting *moving* (not just mobile) targets with non-laser
guided weapons, using datalinked information from airborne radars to update
the munition after it has been dropped. ISTR reading where a LMCO system of
that sort has already chalked up a couple of "hits" during tests. And if the
target is moving and you *do* have a laser lock on it, JCM will do the
job--it has that semi active laser capability, remember?

On
that same note a JCM will not be able to handle all Maverick targets,
especially if you factor in the LOAL capability that is being looked
into.

But from what I gather, JCM will also have LOAL capability (according to
LMCO), so what advantage does Maverick offer in that regard?

I'm not saying JCM couldn't handle many of the targets
currently assigned to Maverick but it's not a 100% solution. A good
example happened during Desert Storm. You had a couple A-10s tooling
around in the boonies looking for targets of opportunity and they saw
a big bunker with guys standing around it's open door so they flew a
Maverickthrough the open door and destroyed it. An itty bitty 25
pound warhead won't have the effect of a 125 (or 300 for that matter)
pound warhead on a bunker and from a practicle standpoint you aren't
going to get a GPS guided anything through it on short notice without
a guy on the ground.


You seem to have an erroneous view of what the JCM warhead is all about. It
uses a tandem warhead system--a shaped charge to punch an entry way for the
following blast/frag warhead. Sounds like your bunker could have been taken
down by a JCM just as well as that Maverick. Care to guess what the effect
of even ten pounds of HE going off *inside* a bunker would be? Guarantee you
none of the occupants are going to be able to tell you about it for quite a
while--if ever.


At best you'd have to use a laser system on the
aircraft (which the A-10 doesn't have) to get a GPS coordinate but
since you want the bomb to go INSIDE the bunker THROUGH the open door
I'm not sure you'd have a lot of luck getting that coordinate where
you want it.

Since JCM offers three different modes of targeting, I believe it would be
more capable in this regard than any single-mode Maverick.


Pro:Having an inventory of about 18k
Mavericks does give a ton of warshots. Con: The IR seeker on the mav
is
old, real old. Con: all the parts of the mavs are old.

A newer version could be updated and be usable along with the older
ones.

Which would require development funding, and additional purchasing
money--which could apparently be put to better use doing JCM, based upon
the
decision to go with it a couple of years back. It would still be big
(thus
costing more per round than JCM), and limit the carriage capacity per
sortie. You want to toss in a "light warhead" version? OK--more
development
and purchasing money, again--and that leaves you firing that bigger, more
expensive, less-amenable-to-mass-carriage round against a target that
could
just as well have killed using JCM...doesn't sound like the best of
exchanges to me.


I'm involved with man-in-the-loop weapons and would like to see LOAL
Mav
developed. LOAL JCM would be good too. For the things that really
need
a serious thumping, there's the GBU-15/AGM-130. I've seen IFVs hit
by
mavericks. smoking hole and shards of burnt steel. LOAL JDAM would
be
good too.

My thoughts are going down in capability, range and warhead size might
be
bad, because who is to say that every war is going to be agaist foes
less
capable in air defense? Makes sense to prepare for the best possible
opposition....

If they are *more* capable in air defesne, that means you would want to
maximize the number of targets that each strike sortie you do support
(with
tankers, ECM, escorts, etc.) is able to take out, wouldn't it?

It also means you'd want the standoff range of an LOAL Maverick. That
was the whole point of them looking into it in the first place.

From what I have read, the actual effective range of maverick is less than
what JCM is supposed to offer; Maverick having what one source credited as
about a 14 km *effective* maximum range, versus 16 km for JCM.



Or,
coversely, if the striker has to provide its own air defense in this
scenario, which would be better--the F-16 with only two pylons remaining
(after adding a couple of extra AIM-120's to the sortie requirment)
lugging
two AGM-65's, or the same aircraft carrying four or six JCM's?

Brook

Those AIM-120s aren't going to do you much good against an SA-17
battery. On the other hand with an LOAL Maverick you could fire from
outside the SAM's range whereas with a JCM you could not.

Not according to what I have been reading. If that info has not been
correct, please provide your numbers.

Brooks