A-4 / A-7 Question

On 10/9/03 11:03 PM, in article
, "John R Weiss"
wrote:

"Thomas Schoene" wrote...

The Marines were the primary instigators of the 500-lb JDAM, specifically
for CAS. I'd say they changed their mind sometime after 1989.

Makes sense... Less collateral damage than the big ones. Also, can be
carried
on the Harrier.


The primary driver behind the 500 lb JDAM was so the Harrier could carry it.
The rest of the services thought about it and figured it'd be a good idea
too.

Come to think of it, if someone's working on a 1760 capable ITER, you could
hang 8 JDAM on a Hornet!

--Woody

(Harry Andreas) wrote:

In article , Joe Osman
wrote:
snip
While doing CAS from afar doesn't have the dramatic flair of the good
ol' days, it certainly is just as effective. Won't make very good
footage for some future war movie though.

That's all well and good if the technology works, but if it
fails the results can be a lot nastier than when the
ordnance was being pointed in the proper direction until the
last second with the pilot there to make the decision to
release or not. And if the enemy defeats or spoofs the
terchnology we should still have the old fashioned
capability around, especially in an expeditionary context
where troops on the ground need "flying artillery".

The technology is a lot harder to defeat than most people realize.

The alternative is to spend a LOT of time training for dumb bomb
deliveries that you'll probably never do: a waste to resources when
you could be training for something more useful.
Or not train for dumb bomb deliveries enough, and if you have to do it,
not be competent enough which is a risk all it's own.

I think you need to bet on the odds, which are strongly in favor of
the technology, especially since it's been demonstrated in service.

until someone detonates an EMP nukes(s) in high orbit. No doubt
there's a coupla candidates already up there, waiting. There goes
your $trillion+ investment.. tsk tsk

Grantland

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

In article , Joe Osman
wrote:
snip
While doing CAS from afar doesn't have the dramatic flair of the good
ol' days, it certainly is just as effective. Won't make very good
footage for some future war movie though.

That's all well and good if the technology works, but if it
fails the results can be a lot nastier than when the
ordnance was being pointed in the proper direction until the
last second with the pilot there to make the decision to
release or not. And if the enemy defeats or spoofs the
terchnology we should still have the old fashioned
capability around, especially in an expeditionary context
where troops on the ground need "flying artillery".

The technology is a lot harder to defeat than most people realize.

The alternative is to spend a LOT of time training for dumb bomb
deliveries that you'll probably never do: a waste to resources when
you could be training for something more useful.
Or not train for dumb bomb deliveries enough, and if you have to do it,
not be competent enough which is a risk all it's own.

I think you need to bet on the odds, which are strongly in favor of
the technology, especially since it's been demonstrated in service.

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

"Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" wrote...

Come to think of it, if someone's working on a 1760 capable ITER, you could
hang 8 JDAM on a Hornet!

IIRC, McDonnell-Douglas had one (or maybe it was a VER) in the works back around
89 or 90, but the Navy didn't want to pay for it.

On 10/10/03 12:36 PM, in article B6Chb.729401$uu5.123386@sccrnsc04, "John R
Weiss" wrote:

"Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" wrote...

Come to think of it, if someone's working on a 1760 capable ITER, you could
hang 8 JDAM on a Hornet!

IIRC, McDonnell-Douglas had one (or maybe it was a VER) in the works back
around
89 or 90, but the Navy didn't want to pay for it.


I seem to remember discussions (never pen to paper) of a MER for the A-6
back when the JDAM was still AIWS. Think about that--22 MK-82 JDAM on an
Intruder... It would have to be a SWIP Block 1A or better yet an F.

--Woody

On 10/10/03 6:56 AM, in article ,
"Grantland" wrote:

(Harry Andreas) wrote:

In article , Joe Osman
wrote:
snip
While doing CAS from afar doesn't have the dramatic flair of the good
ol' days, it certainly is just as effective. Won't make very good
footage for some future war movie though.

That's all well and good if the technology works, but if it
fails the results can be a lot nastier than when the
ordnance was being pointed in the proper direction until the
last second with the pilot there to make the decision to
release or not. And if the enemy defeats or spoofs the
terchnology we should still have the old fashioned
capability around, especially in an expeditionary context
where troops on the ground need "flying artillery".

The technology is a lot harder to defeat than most people realize.

The alternative is to spend a LOT of time training for dumb bomb
deliveries that you'll probably never do: a waste to resources when
you could be training for something more useful.
Or not train for dumb bomb deliveries enough, and if you have to do it,
not be competent enough which is a risk all it's own.

I think you need to bet on the odds, which are strongly in favor of
the technology, especially since it's been demonstrated in service.

until someone detonates an EMP nukes(s) in high orbit. No doubt
there's a coupla candidates already up there, waiting. There goes
your $trillion+ investment.. tsk tsk

Grantland

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur


Right because terrorists can drive U-Haul trucks into space.

"Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" wrote...

I seem to remember discussions (never pen to paper) of a MER for the A-6
back when the JDAM was still AIWS. Think about that--22 MK-82 JDAM on an
Intruder... It would have to be a SWIP Block 1A or better yet an F.

That, too. IIRC, one problem was that the 1553 subset of the 1760 interface on
the A-6 SWIP was not complete enough. It probably would have been for the A-6F
only. In fact, the "smart VER" (or whatever they called it) would have required
rewiring the F/A-18A/B (not sure of the C/D) to get GPS info to the stations;
the coax was not in the initial contract.

However, AIWS became JSOW, not JDAM. JDAM started in the USAF and merged with
the USN ABF (Advanced Bomb Family) program. Navy kept the JSOW lead; Air Force
kept JDAM lead.

Enough alphabet soup yet? ;-)

On 10/10/03 3:38 PM, in article IMEhb.83326$%h1.87290@sccrnsc02, "John R
Weiss" wrote:

"Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" wrote...

I seem to remember discussions (never pen to paper) of a MER for the A-6
back when the JDAM was still AIWS. Think about that--22 MK-82 JDAM on an
Intruder... It would have to be a SWIP Block 1A or better yet an F.

That, too. IIRC, one problem was that the 1553 subset of the 1760 interface
on
the A-6 SWIP was not complete enough. It probably would have been for the
A-6F
only. In fact, the "smart VER" (or whatever they called it) would have
required
rewiring the F/A-18A/B (not sure of the C/D) to get GPS info to the stations;
the coax was not in the initial contract.


You are correct, J.R. 1553 would have needed to be upgraded to 1760. The
standard SWIP aircraft sans GPS could not have handled even a single JDAM.
GPS on the nav solution is a REQUIREMENT to drop JDAM. The SWIP Block 1A
(flew it at China Lake for about 80 or so hours) could have handled multiple
JDAM nicely (in theory/Woody speculation). It never made it past prototype,
but it was quite capable:

- ASN-139 RLG INS
- GPS
- CP-4 (vice CP-3B) Mission Computer 3X the memory, 4X the speed (still
not blazing)
- A no-kidding HUD for the pilot
- A (get this) DDI for the B/N
- An aerodynamic strake mod allowing it to max trap 9 knots slower at
38,400 lbs vice 36K. (As an aside, I once flew it on speed clean
wing at the field with 2.5 on the gas at 104 KIAS.)

All in all, it was to the Intruder what the F-14D is to the Tomcat, but it
was canned when the retirement of the Intruder was moved up.

The F/A-18A was re-wired/GPS'd to handle JDAM/JSOW. It's called the
F/A-18A+ (ECP-560/583).

However, AIWS became JSOW, not JDAM. JDAM started in the USAF and merged with
the USN ABF (Advanced Bomb Family) program. Navy kept the JSOW lead; Air
Force
kept JDAM lead.

Enough alphabet soup yet? ;-)


You're absolutely right... My faux pax. I always got ABF and AIWS mixed up
before they AGM-154A'd and GBU-32/35/31'd them.

ABC's right back atcha, J.R. |:-)

--Woody

"Grantland" wrote in message
...
(Harry Andreas) wrote:

In article , Joe Osman
wrote:
snip
While doing CAS from afar doesn't have the dramatic flair of the good
ol' days, it certainly is just as effective. Won't make very good
footage for some future war movie though.

That's all well and good if the technology works, but if it
fails the results can be a lot nastier than when the
ordnance was being pointed in the proper direction until the
last second with the pilot there to make the decision to
release or not. And if the enemy defeats or spoofs the
terchnology we should still have the old fashioned
capability around, especially in an expeditionary context
where troops on the ground need "flying artillery".

The technology is a lot harder to defeat than most people realize.

The alternative is to spend a LOT of time training for dumb bomb
deliveries that you'll probably never do: a waste to resources when
you could be training for something more useful.
Or not train for dumb bomb deliveries enough, and if you have to do it,
not be competent enough which is a risk all it's own.

I think you need to bet on the odds, which are strongly in favor of
the technology, especially since it's been demonstrated in service.

until someone detonates an EMP nukes(s) in high orbit. No doubt
there's a coupla candidates already up there, waiting. There goes
your $trillion+ investment.. tsk tsk

Grantland

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

..... and you can bet your last eggroll that the Red Chinese have got one of
their top thinktanks devising ways to circumvent/destroy the U.S. digital
infrastructure - Gulf War I & II have taught them and the world the way to
defang the U.S. across the board is to take out every one of our
networks/uplinks & downlinks. If they ever go head to head with us in the
future it will have to be their number one priority if they want to stand a
chance.

"Dudhorse" wrote:

.... and you can bet your last eggroll that the Red Chinese have got one of
their top thinktanks devising ways to circumvent/destroy the U.S. digital
infrastructure - Gulf War I & II have taught them and the world the way to
defang the U.S. across the board is to take out every one of our
networks/uplinks & downlinks. If they ever go head to head with us in the
future it will have to be their number one priority if they want to stand a
chance.

Tue BUT: "Red" Chinese? No, Hong Kong (and, less so, Taiwan) showed
the "Reds" how errant they were. When they complete their program
they will be the most capitalist country on earth. Way beyond
high-tax, Socialist Amerika - Hong Kong writ gigantic. Taiwan
(peacefully, voluntarily) included. To *effect* this transformation
in an orderly manner, however, they need to stay in power. Hence the
Red hats. And nobody (in China) could care. Just keep up the 10%
growth.

So China is (should be) an ally, not a foe. Just like a fading
British Empire embracing the (virile, not-yet-corrupt) United States.
China is the future. Amerika is history.

Grantland