JSF and close air support

[Rob van Riel]

Everything I read seems to indicate the JSF is intended to do air to ground
work primarily with high-tech weapons like JDAM bombs. However, I get the
impression that such weapons require a considerable amount of advance planning.
This would seem to make loitering near a combat area waiting for a call for
support if and when the need arrises more or less impossible, in turn making
this combination of weapon and aircraft useless for that sort of work. Perhaps
this is not overly relevant when engaged in wholesale warfare, with hordes of
Apaches to take care of targets of opportunity/necessaty (SP?), but how much of
a problem would it present in a small scale bush fire war? Is my idea of CAS
totally outdated? Or am I mistaken about the capabilities of weapons like JDAM?
How effective is a JSF with dumb bombs, or LGBs, or, for example, AGM65
missiles?

Rob

[Kevin Brooks]

"Rob van Riel" > wrote in message
om...
> Everything I read seems to indicate the JSF is intended to do air to
ground
> work primarily with high-tech weapons like JDAM bombs. However, I get the
> impression that such weapons require a considerable amount of advance
planning.
> This would seem to make loitering near a combat area waiting for a call
for
> support if and when the need arrises more or less impossible, in turn
making
> this combination of weapon and aircraft useless for that sort of work.

Not really. It will just require the pilot to enter the target coordinates
he is given (or maybe even datalinked by the time the F-35 is in service).
According to FAS: "JDAM provides the user with a variety of targeting
schemes, such as preplanned and inflight captive carriage retargeting."

Perhaps
> this is not overly relevant when engaged in wholesale warfare, with hordes
of
> Apaches to take care of targets of opportunity/necessaty (SP?), but how
much of
> a problem would it present in a small scale bush fire war? Is my idea of
CAS
> totally outdated? Or am I mistaken about the capabilities of weapons like
JDAM?

To a certain extent it is likely a bit dated. We are now producing the
Tactical Tomahawk cruise missile, which features the capability of being
retargeted in flight--the Navy's SLAM-ER ATA already has that capability. So
programming the coordinates for SDB's or larger JDAM's into them while
enroute to the target is not going to be a big deal. Nor will these be the
only weapons used by the F-35 in the CAS arena.

Brooks

> How effective is a JSF with dumb bombs, or LGBs, or, for example, AGM65
> missiles?
>
> Rob

[Peter Kemp]

On Tue, 2 Mar 2004 08:33:11 -0500, "Kevin Brooks"
> wrote:

>"Rob van Riel" > wrote in message
om...
>Perhaps
>> this is not overly relevant when engaged in wholesale warfare, with hordes
>of
>> Apaches to take care of targets of opportunity/necessaty (SP?), but how
>much of
>> a problem would it present in a small scale bush fire war? Is my idea of
>CAS
>> totally outdated? Or am I mistaken about the capabilities of weapons like
>JDAM?
>
>To a certain extent it is likely a bit dated. We are now producing the
>Tactical Tomahawk cruise missile, which features the capability of being
>retargeted in flight--the Navy's SLAM-ER ATA already has that capability. So
>programming the coordinates for SDB's or larger JDAM's into them while
>enroute to the target is not going to be a big deal. Nor will these be the
>only weapons used by the F-35 in the CAS arena.

Quick update. The ability to update target coordinates for JDAMs in
flight is currently being trialled under the Affordable Moving Surface
Target Engagement (AMSTE) - at least I think that's what the acronym
expands to.

Basically two off board SAR radars provide updates - IIRC the trials
are using a JSTARS and a phased array (I think from the F-35 program,
but can't readily recall). The first fe test shots have provided CEP
of the order of 10m, so eneough to get a kill on truck and light
armour. I imagine by the time JSF reaches squadron service this will
be more routine (perhaps once coords are passed by the ground troops
the F-35 radar will lock on to the SAR return of teh target
automatically.

There are also demos in progress for cheap IIR seekers to strap to the
fron of JDAMs.

---
Peter Kemp

Life is short - drink faster

[Kevin Brooks]

"Peter Kemp" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 2 Mar 2004 08:33:11 -0500, "Kevin Brooks"
> > wrote:
>
> >"Rob van Riel" > wrote in message
> om...
> >Perhaps
> >> this is not overly relevant when engaged in wholesale warfare, with
hordes
> >of
> >> Apaches to take care of targets of opportunity/necessaty (SP?), but how
> >much of
> >> a problem would it present in a small scale bush fire war? Is my idea
of
> >CAS
> >> totally outdated? Or am I mistaken about the capabilities of weapons
like
> >JDAM?
> >
> >To a certain extent it is likely a bit dated. We are now producing the
> >Tactical Tomahawk cruise missile, which features the capability of being
> >retargeted in flight--the Navy's SLAM-ER ATA already has that capability.
So
> >programming the coordinates for SDB's or larger JDAM's into them while
> >enroute to the target is not going to be a big deal. Nor will these be
the
> >only weapons used by the F-35 in the CAS arena.
>
> Quick update. The ability to update target coordinates for JDAMs in
> flight is currently being trialled under the Affordable Moving Surface
> Target Engagement (AMSTE) - at least I think that's what the acronym
> expands to.

Interesting info. But I think we may be talking in different directions a
bit. What I meant by "enroute to the target" was while it is still on the
rail of the launching aircraft. Maybe my adding "is not going to be a big
deal" was a poor choice of wording, as JDAM can already be loaded with its
target coordinates while it is hanging on an aircraft approaching the
release point. Apologies for the less than clear wording.

Brooks

>
> Basically two off board SAR radars provide updates - IIRC the trials
> are using a JSTARS and a phased array (I think from the F-35 program,
> but can't readily recall). The first fe test shots have provided CEP
> of the order of 10m, so eneough to get a kill on truck and light
> armour. I imagine by the time JSF reaches squadron service this will
> be more routine (perhaps once coords are passed by the ground troops
> the F-35 radar will lock on to the SAR return of teh target
> automatically.
>
> There are also demos in progress for cheap IIR seekers to strap to the
> fron of JDAMs.
>
> ---
> Peter Kemp
>
> Life is short - drink faster

[Cub Driver]

>impression that such weapons require a considerable amount of advance planning.

A high percentage of navy fighters in Afghanistan attacked targets
that were not known to the pilot when he launched from the carrier.
Perhaps these were not JADAMs?

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (requires authentication)

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Kevin Brooks]

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
>
> >impression that such weapons require a considerable amount of advance
planning.
>
> A high percentage of navy fighters in Afghanistan attacked targets
> that were not known to the pilot when he launched from the carrier.
> Perhaps these were not JADAMs?

JDAM can be programmed in flight. One of the worst fratricide cases during
OEF occured in Dec 01 when the special operator on the ground apparently
mistakenly gave the crew of of the supporting B-52 his own coordinates
instead of those of the target, resulting in a JDAM striking near their OP
and killing three SF troops and five allied Afghan soldiers.

Brooks


>
> all the best -- Dan Ford
> email: (requires authentication)
>
> see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
> and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Eric Pinnell]

On Wed, 3 Mar 2004 08:45:25 -0500, "Kevin Brooks"
> wrote:


>JDAM can be programmed in flight. One of the worst fratricide cases during
>OEF occured in Dec 01 when the special operator on the ground apparently
>mistakenly gave the crew of of the supporting B-52 his own coordinates
>instead of those of the target, resulting in a JDAM striking near their OP
>and killing three SF troops and five allied Afghan soldiers.
>
>Brooks

This is the fault of the design of the plugger. When his system
froze, he rebooted it. The default coordinates are the location of the
unit itself, which is why he and his buddies got bombed.




Eric Pinnell

(Author, "Claws of The Dragon", "The Omega File")

For a preview, see: http://www.ericpinnell.com and click on "books"

[Harry Andreas]

In article >, Peter Kemp
> wrote:

> Basically two off board SAR radars provide updates - IIRC the trials
> are using a JSTARS and a phased array (I think from the F-35 program,
> but can't readily recall).

More likely either the F/A-18E/F or the F-15C with APG-63(V)2 .
I don't think the F-35 radar is in position yet to be able to support
tests outside the F-35 program.

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

[Allen Epps]

In article >, Harry Andreas
> wrote:

> In article >, Peter Kemp
> > wrote:
>
> > Basically two off board SAR radars provide updates - IIRC the trials
> > are using a JSTARS and a phased array (I think from the F-35 program,
> > but can't readily recall).
>
> More likely either the F/A-18E/F or the F-15C with APG-63(V)2 .
> I don't think the F-35 radar is in position yet to be able to support
> tests outside the F-35 program.

Yep, it's the F-35 radar on a BAC 1-11. Here's a link to an article
about the jet.

http://www.forrelease.com/D20031021/datu058.P2.10212003125553.29871.html

I'm not sure what software it's running or how mature it is to the
final version. I was a bit surprised myself but it's a program parallel
to one of mine so I've seen the brief and discussed it with one of the
PM's.

Pugs

[Paul F Austin]

"Harry Andreas" wrote
> Peter Kemp wrote:
>
> > Basically two off board SAR radars provide updates - IIRC the trials
> > are using a JSTARS and a phased array (I think from the F-35 program,
> > but can't readily recall).
>
> More likely either the F/A-18E/F or the F-15C with APG-63(V)2 .
> I don't think the F-35 radar is in position yet to be able to support
> tests outside the F-35 program.

I read recently that an AMSTE demonstration with a single RADAR sensor was
successful. That's a major milestone since the earlier algorithms required
fusing two RADAR sensors to get the resolution required. I don't think
mono-sensor demo involved a fighter sensor but I don't recall any details.

Both JDAM and SDB are planned to allow use of a terminal imager. Because the
GPS nav puts the weapon into a small error basket, the terminal seeker can
be very inexpensive, given the small field of regard. On the other hand,
JDAM accuracy has been consistently better than spec, so the users are less
interested in the terminal seeker.

I'm not sure how AMSTE plays with the terminal seeker. Moving target
engagement requires post-release updates and a data link from the launcher
to the weapon but everything to date that I've seen talks about aimpoint
updates for the GPS/INS.

[Harry Andreas]

In article >, "Paul F Austin"
> wrote:

> "Harry Andreas" wrote
> > Peter Kemp wrote:
> >
> > > Basically two off board SAR radars provide updates - IIRC the trials
> > > are using a JSTARS and a phased array (I think from the F-35 program,
> > > but can't readily recall).
> >
> > More likely either the F/A-18E/F or the F-15C with APG-63(V)2 .
> > I don't think the F-35 radar is in position yet to be able to support
> > tests outside the F-35 program.
>
> I read recently that an AMSTE demonstration with a single RADAR sensor was
> successful. That's a major milestone since the earlier algorithms required
> fusing two RADAR sensors to get the resolution required. I don't think
> mono-sensor demo involved a fighter sensor but I don't recall any details.
>
> Both JDAM and SDB are planned to allow use of a terminal imager. Because the
> GPS nav puts the weapon into a small error basket, the terminal seeker can
> be very inexpensive, given the small field of regard. On the other hand,
> JDAM accuracy has been consistently better than spec, so the users are less
> interested in the terminal seeker.

Hmmm. I don't know about that. Just as interested seems to me.

>
> I'm not sure how AMSTE plays with the terminal seeker. Moving target
> engagement requires post-release updates and a data link from the launcher
> to the weapon but everything to date that I've seen talks about aimpoint
> updates for the GPS/INS.

Keep that basket small. If your system has enough bandwidth you can update
the weapon all the way to the target and at the terminal point it's within the
CEP of the blast effect for the particular weapon you've selected.
Obviously the 2000lb JDAM requires less bandwidth for a given target.
Also obviously the performance of your SAR, GPS receiver, and datalink are
crucial.

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

[Harry Andreas]

In article >, Allen Epps
> wrote:

> In article >, Harry Andreas
> > wrote:
>
> > In article >, Peter Kemp
> > > wrote:
> >
> > > Basically two off board SAR radars provide updates - IIRC the trials
> > > are using a JSTARS and a phased array (I think from the F-35 program,
> > > but can't readily recall).
> >
> > More likely either the F/A-18E/F or the F-15C with APG-63(V)2 .
> > I don't think the F-35 radar is in position yet to be able to support
> > tests outside the F-35 program.
>
> Yep, it's the F-35 radar on a BAC 1-11. Here's a link to an article
> about the jet.
>
> http://www.forrelease.com/D20031021/datu058.P2.10212003125553.29871.html

Not necessarily. A careful reading of the article (and backdoor info)
indicates that the "sensor" is a "performance representative"
"4th gen" radar that they're using to do the fusion work.
NOT necessarily the F-35 radar which I understand they're having trouble
building because of low yields.
This is the same BAC 111 that they used for the F-22 radar work. It could
have an F-22 radar on it, or an update to the F-22, or a brassboard.
There's really no reason to have a full-up F-35 radar if your main
purpose is S/W development. As long as the target processor is the
same is doesn't matter.

>
> I'm not sure what software it's running or how mature it is to the
> final version. I was a bit surprised myself but it's a program parallel
> to one of mine so I've seen the brief and discussed it with one of the
> PM's.

What's your program (if it's not sensitive)?
Did your contact actually say it is an F-35 radar, or did he use weasel
words like "performance representative" ?
There's nothing wrong with using a brassboard radar for work like
this, but one shouldn't claim it's a production, or even
pre-production system unless it really is.

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

[Tarver Engineering]

"Harry Andreas" > wrote in message
...

> Keep that basket small. If your system has enough bandwidth you can
update
> the weapon all the way to the target and at the terminal point it's within
the
> CEP of the blast effect for the particular weapon you've selected.
> Obviously the 2000lb JDAM requires less bandwidth for a given target.
> Also obviously the performance of your SAR, GPS receiver, and datalink are
> crucial.

So far the GPS/Data link combination has performed at less than expected
levels. I havn't seen anything good about the Navy plan to replace TACAN
with GPS/Data link and FAA just killed the LAAS landing system.

[Allen Epps]

In article >, Harry Andreas
> wrote:

> In article >, Allen Epps
> > wrote:
>
> > In article >, Harry Andreas
> > > wrote:
> >
> > > In article >, Peter Kemp
> > > > wrote:
> > >
> >
>
> What's your program (if it's not sensitive)?
> Did your contact actually say it is an F-35 radar, or did he use weasel
> words like "performance representative" ?
> There's nothing wrong with using a brassboard radar for work like
> this, but one shouldn't claim it's a production, or even
> pre-production system unless it really is.

Harry,
I sent you an e-mail (assuming that's a valid address above) if not
send me one to mine after de-spam trapping it.

Pugs

[John R Weiss]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote...
>
>> Keep that basket small. If your system has enough bandwidth you can update
>> the weapon all the way to the target and at the terminal point it's within
the
>> CEP of the blast effect for the particular weapon you've selected.
> > Obviously the 2000lb JDAM requires less bandwidth for a given target.
>> Also obviously the performance of your SAR, GPS receiver, and datalink are
>> crucial.
>
> So far the GPS/Data link combination has performed at less than expected
> levels. I havn't seen anything good about the Navy plan to replace TACAN
> with GPS/Data link and FAA just killed the LAAS landing system.

How is a proposed GPS/Data link landing system related to the current JDAM or
its proposed seeker?

In what arena have these performance deficits been observed -- development lab?
Formal DT? What is the program/system designation?

[Tarver Engineering]

"John R Weiss" > wrote in message
...
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote...
> >
> >> Keep that basket small. If your system has enough bandwidth you can
update
> >> the weapon all the way to the target and at the terminal point it's
within the
> >> CEP of the blast effect for the particular weapon you've selected.
> > > Obviously the 2000lb JDAM requires less bandwidth for a given target.
> >> Also obviously the performance of your SAR, GPS receiver, and datalink
are
> >> crucial.
> >
> > So far the GPS/Data link combination has performed at less than expected
> > levels. I havn't seen anything good about the Navy plan to replace
TACAN
> > with GPS/Data link and FAA just killed the LAAS landing system.
>
> How is a proposed GPS/Data link landing system related to the current JDAM
or
> its proposed seeker?

As the rest of the thread up to this point indicates, there is a desire to
redirect a GPS guided munition post launch. The means to reprogram the
munition would require some data link.

Do you have a reading disability, Weiss, or are you actually as rude as you
come off?

[John R Weiss]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote...
>
>>> So far the GPS/Data link combination has performed at less than expected
>>> levels. I havn't seen anything good about the Navy plan to replace TACAN
>>> with GPS/Data link and FAA just killed the LAAS landing system.
>>
>> How is a proposed GPS/Data link landing system related to the current JDAM
>> or its proposed seeker?

> As the rest of the thread up to this point indicates, there is a desire to
> redirect a GPS guided munition post launch. The means to reprogram the
> munition would require some data link.

Actually, data link is NOT a hard requirement. There have been several
initiatives in work for many years on autonomous terminal seekers -- TLAM is one
significant example, though it may not have used GPS. I worked with some
relevant JSOW (then AIWS) P3I proposals at TI and a couple other places back in
'90 and '91.

Further, GPS + data link + terminal seeker has worked well in the past -- in
some cases, such as SLAM, at greater than "expected levels" for the program.
SLAM-ER, advanced Tomahawk, JSOW P3I, and other programs have built on the
baselines set by SLAM and other similar programs.


> Do you have a reading disability, Weiss, or are you actually as rude as you
> come off?

No reading disability; nowhere near as rude as you.

OTOH, you just made a couple statements that are apparently without basis or
relevance:

The Navy has been using GPS and data link in landing systems for quite a
while, in addition to TACAN. I am not aware of any current "Navy plan to
replace TACAN with GPS/Data link."

What does LAAS have to do with weapon terminal guidance?

I simply asked for some amplification, which an engineer with your claimed
credentials should be willing and able to provide. Otherwise, if you can't
answer valid questions regarding the basis for your statements, we can all
assume you're just spewing your usual BS, and no basis exists outside your
imagination.

[Jon Parmet]

"John R Weiss" > wrote in message >...
>
> What does LAAS have to do with weapon terminal guidance?

It was shot down before down reaching the initial approach fix? :P

Perhaps so the weapon can land quietly on 12R, taxi on over to that
FBO everyone doesn't like, park in front of the vending machine, and
show 'em who's boss?

> I simply asked for some amplification,

From a device that has a SNR == 0.



Ever been hanging out at a bar in a group socializing when someone
comes up and tries to join but all they do is jump on everyone else's
signal? You notice the group pretty much just continues on with their
conversation without skipping a beat, ignoring the plea for attention.
You'll notice that in/around here. Some threads indent till they run
out of right margin ;) Others continue right on by it as if it's not
there. Don't make it a time sink.

Don't worry that you'll be 'labeled' a troll or whatever else the
defensive tactic tries to use. It's just another tired and cliched
attempt to self-validate. Don't make it a time sink.

Jon
--

"Boy he's really starting to rant like tarver." - Tank Fixer
"Are they quality products, or did you have some input in their
design?" - Mcnicoll to Tarver
"WAAS is dead, dead, dead" - The yelping puppy himself
"L5 is canceled." - yelp, yelp yelp ;)

[Tarver Engineering]

"John R Weiss" > wrote in message
...
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote...
> >
> >>> So far the GPS/Data link combination has performed at less than
expected
> >>> levels. I havn't seen anything good about the Navy plan to replace
TACAN
> >>> with GPS/Data link and FAA just killed the LAAS landing system.
> >>
> >> How is a proposed GPS/Data link landing system related to the current
JDAM
> >> or its proposed seeker?
>
> > As the rest of the thread up to this point indicates, there is a desire
to
> > redirect a GPS guided munition post launch. The means to reprogram the
> > munition would require some data link.
>
> Actually, data link is NOT a hard requirement. There have been several
> initiatives in work for many years on autonomous terminal seekers -- TLAM
is one
> significant example, though it may not have used GPS. I worked with some
> relevant JSOW (then AIWS) P3I proposals at TI and a couple other places
back in
> '90 and '91.

Irrelevent.

GPS with FOG does all that already.

[Harry Andreas]

In article >, "Tarver Engineering"
> wrote:

> "Harry Andreas" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > Keep that basket small. If your system has enough bandwidth you can
> update
> > the weapon all the way to the target and at the terminal point it's within
> the
> > CEP of the blast effect for the particular weapon you've selected.
> > Obviously the 2000lb JDAM requires less bandwidth for a given target.
> > Also obviously the performance of your SAR, GPS receiver, and datalink are
> > crucial.
>
> So far the GPS/Data link combination has performed at less than expected
> levels. I havn't seen anything good about the Navy plan to replace TACAN
> with GPS/Data link and FAA just killed the LAAS landing system.

The JSF GPS receiver is significantly better than anything else on the market.
We'll be delivering the first EMD in September.

Google JPALS.

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

[Tarver Engineering]

"Harry Andreas" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Tarver Engineering"
> > wrote:
>
> > "Harry Andreas" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> > > Keep that basket small. If your system has enough bandwidth you can
> > update
> > > the weapon all the way to the target and at the terminal point it's
within
> > the
> > > CEP of the blast effect for the particular weapon you've selected.
> > > Obviously the 2000lb JDAM requires less bandwidth for a given target.
> > > Also obviously the performance of your SAR, GPS receiver, and datalink
are
> > > crucial.
> >
> > So far the GPS/Data link combination has performed at less than expected
> > levels. I havn't seen anything good about the Navy plan to replace
TACAN
> > with GPS/Data link and FAA just killed the LAAS landing system.
>
> The JSF GPS receiver is significantly better than anything else on the
market.
> We'll be delivering the first EMD in September.
>
> Google JPALS.

http://www.ainonline.com/issues/06_03/06_03_faaselectsp94.html

As you can see by reading the URL, other differential GPS systems have happy
press releases, while often producing less than adaquate results.

For military style systems, the binary satellite provides 0.2 meter accuracy
without augmentation in the longitudinal reference frame. Altitude may
altentaively be resolved using the TWAS data base and thereby eliminates the
error WGS-84 error documented in RTCA DO-208 change 3. UPSAT has
demonstrated same with the CNX-80 using civil codes, optional improvement
for WAAS augmentation shows only a small advantage. (VNAV)

[John R Weiss]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote ...
>
>>> As the rest of the thread up to this point indicates, there is a desire to
>>> redirect a GPS guided munition post launch. The means to reprogram the
>>> munition would require some data link.
>>
>> Actually, data link is NOT a hard requirement. There have been several
>> initiatives in work for many years on autonomous terminal seekers -- TLAM is
one
>> significant example, though it may not have used GPS. I worked with some
>> relevant JSOW (then AIWS) P3I proposals at TI and a couple other places back
in
>> '90 and '91.
>
> Irrelevent.
>
> GPS with FOG does all that already.

I see... In your fantasy world, TLAM and JSOW are "irrelevant" in the context
of GPS guided weapons with terminal seekers, and so is the funded research in
the JSOW Preplanned Product Improvement program...

What current weapon[s] use[s] "GPS with FOG" and "does all that already"?

BTW, what is your definition of FOG in context? The gnomes at China Lake
couldn't make FOG-S (Fiber Optic Guided Skipper) work well enough for
operational use after many years of pork-barrel supported work...

[Tarver Engineering]

"John R Weiss" > wrote in message
...
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote ...
> >
> >>> As the rest of the thread up to this point indicates, there is a
desire to
> >>> redirect a GPS guided munition post launch. The means to reprogram
the
> >>> munition would require some data link.
> >>
> >> Actually, data link is NOT a hard requirement. There have been several
> >> initiatives in work for many years on autonomous terminal seekers --
TLAM is
> one
> >> significant example, though it may not have used GPS. I worked with
some
> >> relevant JSOW (then AIWS) P3I proposals at TI and a couple other places
back
> in
> >> '90 and '91.
> >
> > Irrelevent.
> >
> > GPS with FOG does all that already.
>
> I see... In your fantasy world, TLAM and JSOW are "irrelevant" in the
context
> of GPS guided weapons with terminal seekers, and so is the funded research
in
> the JSOW Preplanned Product Improvement program...
>
> What current weapon[s] use[s] "GPS with FOG" and "does all that already"?
>
> BTW, what is your definition of FOG in context? The gnomes at China Lake
> couldn't make FOG-S (Fiber Optic Guided Skipper) work well enough for
> operational use after many years of pork-barrel supported work...

Fibre Optic Gyro.

[John R Weiss]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote...

>>>>> As the rest of the thread up to this point indicates, there is a desire to
>>>>> redirect a GPS guided munition post launch. The means to reprogram
>>>>>the munition would require some data link.

>>>> Actually, data link is NOT a hard requirement. There have been several
>>>> initiatives in work for many years on autonomous terminal seekers -- TLAM
is
>>>> one significant example, though it may not have used GPS. I worked with
some
>>>> relevant JSOW (then AIWS) P3I proposals at TI and a couple other places
>>>> back in '90 and '91.

>>> Irrelevent.
>>>
>>> GPS with FOG does all that already.
>
> Fibre Optic Gyro.

GPS with a gyro of any kind does not make for post-launch reprogramming or
retargeting of the weapon.

[Tarver Engineering]

"John R Weiss" > wrote in message
...
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote...
>
> >>>>> As the rest of the thread up to this point indicates, there is a
desire to
> >>>>> redirect a GPS guided munition post launch. The means to reprogram
> >>>>>the munition would require some data link.
>
> >>>> Actually, data link is NOT a hard requirement. There have been
several
> >>>> initiatives in work for many years on autonomous terminal seekers --
TLAM
> is
> >>>> one significant example, though it may not have used GPS. I worked
with
> some
> >>>> relevant JSOW (then AIWS) P3I proposals at TI and a couple other
places
> >>>> back in '90 and '91.
>
> >>> Irrelevent.
> >>>
> >>> GPS with FOG does all that already.
> >
> > Fibre Optic Gyro.
>
> GPS with a gyro of any kind does not make for post-launch reprogramming or
> retargeting of the weapon.

That is true.

[Paul F Austin]

"John R Weiss" wrote
> "Tarver Engineering" wrote...
>
> >>>>> As the rest of the thread up to this point indicates, there is a
desire to
> >>>>> redirect a GPS guided munition post launch. The means to reprogram
> >>>>>the munition would require some data link.
>
> >>>> Actually, data link is NOT a hard requirement. There have been
several
> >>>> initiatives in work for many years on autonomous terminal seekers --
TLAM
> is
> >>>> one significant example, though it may not have used GPS. I worked
with
> some
> >>>> relevant JSOW (then AIWS) P3I proposals at TI and a couple other
places
> >>>> back in '90 and '91.
>
> >>> Irrelevent.
> >>>
> >>> GPS with FOG does all that already.
> >
> > Fibre Optic Gyro.
>
> GPS with a gyro of any kind does not make for post-launch reprogramming or
> retargeting of the weapon.

AMSTE (Affordable Moving Surface Target Engagement) uses a post-release data
link to compensate for the long time of flight of the ballistic weapon used
(JDAM). The current AMSTE test series has demonstrated fair success against
soft targets using JDAM unaided by an imager. An imaging seeker is planned
for use against hard targets like armor. The DAMASK (Direct Attack Munition
Affordable Seeker) imaging seeker is one of the candidates to serve in that
role.

In order to make the DAMASK seeker affordable (a key parameter in the
JDAM-related electronics), several performance parameters were kept modest.
Because the intended application (JDAM) has a small, 10m CEP, the IR Seeker
doesn't need either a wide FOV or high resolution.

If a higher performance IR seeker were used, allowing lock-on prior to
release, then yes a data link would not be needed. But you don't have an
"affordable" weapon then. But the USAF has gotten religion on the
affordability of weapons and within that family, cost is an equal priority
with performance.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Paul F Austin" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "John R Weiss" wrote
> > "Tarver Engineering" wrote...
> >
> > >>>>> As the rest of the thread up to this point indicates, there is a
> desire to
> > >>>>> redirect a GPS guided munition post launch. The means to
reprogram
> > >>>>>the munition would require some data link.
> >
> > >>>> Actually, data link is NOT a hard requirement. There have been
> several
> > >>>> initiatives in work for many years on autonomous terminal
seekers --
> TLAM
> > is
> > >>>> one significant example, though it may not have used GPS. I worked
> with
> > some
> > >>>> relevant JSOW (then AIWS) P3I proposals at TI and a couple other
> places
> > >>>> back in '90 and '91.
> >
> > >>> Irrelevent.
> > >>>
> > >>> GPS with FOG does all that already.
> > >
> > > Fibre Optic Gyro.
> >
> > GPS with a gyro of any kind does not make for post-launch reprogramming
or
> > retargeting of the weapon.
>
> AMSTE (Affordable Moving Surface Target Engagement) uses a post-release
data
> link to compensate for the long time of flight of the ballistic weapon
used
> (JDAM).

We already discussed that and Weiss just wanted to argue.

[John R Weiss]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote...
> > > "Tarver Engineering" wrote...
> > >
> > > As the rest of the thread up to this point indicates, there is a desire to
> > > redirect a GPS guided munition post launch. The means to reprogram
> > > the munition would require some data link.

>>>> Irrelevent.
>>>>
>>>> GPS with FOG does all that already.

>>> Fibre Optic Gyro.

>> AMSTE (Affordable Moving Surface Target Engagement) uses a post-release data
>> link to compensate for the long time of flight of the ballistic weapon used
>> (JDAM).

> We already discussed that and Weiss just wanted to argue.

Actually I wanted to debunk your inaccurate claims regarding a "require[d]" data
link and some "GPS with FOG" system that "does all that already."

While data link is one method to accomplish the mission, there are other methods
in development, and have been for many years.

From Paul's description of the current state of AMSTE, it does not appear to yet
be ready for deployment in a CAS scenario. Maybe it will get there; maybe not.
Maybe we will have to spend the $$ for a true autonomous terminal seeker for
those situations where risk to the troops is too high for non-terminally-guided
weapons and/or data link is not an option.

[Tarver Engineering]

"John R Weiss" > wrote in message
...
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote...
> > > > "Tarver Engineering" wrote...
> > > >
> > > > As the rest of the thread up to this point indicates, there is a
desire to
> > > > redirect a GPS guided munition post launch. The means to reprogram
> > > > the munition would require some data link.
>
> >>>> Irrelevent.
> >>>>
> >>>> GPS with FOG does all that already.
>
> >>> Fibre Optic Gyro.
>
> >> AMSTE (Affordable Moving Surface Target Engagement) uses a post-release
data
> >> link to compensate for the long time of flight of the ballistic weapon
used
> >> (JDAM).
>
> > We already discussed that and Weiss just wanted to argue.
>
> Actually I wanted to debunk your inaccurate claims regarding a
"require[d]" data
> link and some "GPS with FOG" system that "does all that already."

You just made up what you wrote, so just calm down and shut up.

[Venik]

> While data link is one method to accomplish the mission, there are other methods
> in development, and have been for many years.

Can you be any more vague? Try limiting your posts to just one or two verifyable facts and fill the rest with the fog of
uncertainty.

--
Venik
www.aeronautics.ru


"John R Weiss" > wrote in message ...
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote...
> > > > "Tarver Engineering" wrote...
> > > >
> > > > As the rest of the thread up to this point indicates, there is a desire to
> > > > redirect a GPS guided munition post launch. The means to reprogram
> > > > the munition would require some data link.
>
> >>>> Irrelevent.
> >>>>
> >>>> GPS with FOG does all that already.
>
> >>> Fibre Optic Gyro.
>
> >> AMSTE (Affordable Moving Surface Target Engagement) uses a post-release data
> >> link to compensate for the long time of flight of the ballistic weapon used
> >> (JDAM).
>
> > We already discussed that and Weiss just wanted to argue.
>
> Actually I wanted to debunk your inaccurate claims regarding a "require[d]" data
> link and some "GPS with FOG" system that "does all that already."
>
> While data link is one method to accomplish the mission, there are other methods
> in development, and have been for many years.
>
> From Paul's description of the current state of AMSTE, it does not appear to yet
> be ready for deployment in a CAS scenario. Maybe it will get there; maybe not.
> Maybe we will have to spend the $$ for a true autonomous terminal seeker for
> those situations where risk to the troops is too high for non-terminally-guided
> weapons and/or data link is not an option.
>

[Paul F Austin]

"John R Weiss" > wrote in message
...
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote...
> > > > "Tarver Engineering" wrote...
> > > >
> > > > As the rest of the thread up to this point indicates, there is a
desire to
> > > > redirect a GPS guided munition post launch. The means to reprogram
> > > > the munition would require some data link.
>
> >>>> Irrelevent.
> >>>>
> >>>> GPS with FOG does all that already.
>
> >>> Fibre Optic Gyro.
>
> >> AMSTE (Affordable Moving Surface Target Engagement) uses a post-release
data
> >> link to compensate for the long time of flight of the ballistic weapon
used
> >> (JDAM).
>
> > We already discussed that and Weiss just wanted to argue.
>
> Actually I wanted to debunk your inaccurate claims regarding a
"require[d]" data
> link and some "GPS with FOG" system that "does all that already."
>
> While data link is one method to accomplish the mission, there are other
methods
> in development, and have been for many years.
>
> From Paul's description of the current state of AMSTE, it does not appear
to yet
> be ready for deployment in a CAS scenario. Maybe it will get there; maybe
not.
> Maybe we will have to spend the $$ for a true autonomous terminal seeker
for
> those situations where risk to the troops is too high for
non-terminally-guided
> weapons and/or data link is not an option.

The various flavors of Mav already give us a linkless approach to precision
kill of moving targets but despite being in production forever, the cost is
too high (and requires good visibility).

AMSTE uses RADAR as the primary sensor and the link allows weapons release
above the cloud deck. That may be one of the drivers for the overall
architecture (which knowledge I've derived entirely from reading AvWeek and
IDR).

Whether CAS strikes will be allowed without visual confirmation of FLOT and
target is a doctrinal issue but a lot will depend on the development
trajectory of Blue Force Tracking (BFT) as well as of the AMSTE technology
set..

None of this stuff is Ready For Prime Time yet. AMSTE in particular is in an
Advanced Developement stage. Northrop-Grumman just demonstrated successful
geolocation and strike of a moving target using a single airborne RADAR
sensor. All prior tests had used two airborne sensors to get the spatial
resolution needed.

It seems to me that a major advantage of a data linked approach to CAS
strikes, whether RADAR as a primary sensor or not is the ability to update
aimpoints while the weapon is in flight. That's not a new thing, being the
way AGM-130 works. Data links are becoming ubiquitous around the battlefield
these days. In the case of a command link to a weapon in flight, the link is
geometrically resistant to jamming in addition to the more conventional AJ
techniques.

[B2431]

>From: "Venik"
>
>
>> While data link is one method to accomplish the mission, there are other
>methods
>> in development, and have been for many years.
>
>Can you be any more vague? Try limiting your posts to just one or two
>verifyable facts and fill the rest with the fog of
>uncertainty.
>
>--
>Venik
>www.aeronautics.ru
>

Take your own advise. Is the B-2 the Serbs shot down still being studied in
Yugoslavia?

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[John R Weiss]

"Paul F Austin" > wrote...
>
> The various flavors of Mav already give us a linkless approach to precision
> kill of moving targets but despite being in production forever, the cost is
> too high (and requires good visibility).

Add to that the various laser-guided munitions already available, either with
direct target designation from the ground or indirect target ID (traditional
9-line brief, "100 meters south of the smoke", etc...), and there are avariety
of "linkless" options to terminal guidance. Each has its advantages and
limitations. I suspect there will be an analogous mix in the future as well.


> AMSTE uses RADAR as the primary sensor and the link allows weapons release
> above the cloud deck. That may be one of the drivers for the overall
> architecture (which knowledge I've derived entirely from reading AvWeek and
> IDR).
>
> Whether CAS strikes will be allowed without visual confirmation of FLOT and
> target is a doctrinal issue but a lot will depend on the development
> trajectory of Blue Force Tracking (BFT) as well as of the AMSTE technology
> set..

That (visual confirmation) will likely be a primary issue for the foreseeable
future. During early development, the USMC was VERY skeptical of JSOW (then
AIWS) as a CAS weapon, even with uplinked target coordinates, because of lack of
confidence in its CEP (especially with a CBU loadout), the long weapon time of
flight, and inability to abort the weapon once launched. Since CAS is by
definition conducted very close to friendly forces, it will take a major
doctrinal change to embrace non-visual target ID and weapon designation.


> It seems to me that a major advantage of a data linked approach to CAS
> strikes, whether RADAR as a primary sensor or not is the ability to update
> aimpoints while the weapon is in flight. That's not a new thing, being the
> way AGM-130 works. Data links are becoming ubiquitous around the battlefield
> these days. In the case of a command link to a weapon in flight, the link is
> geometrically resistant to jamming in addition to the more conventional AJ
> techniques.

It will be interesting when the data link controller is in the hands of the FAC
on the ground!

[Venik]

It's already at Whiteman getting a new crome coat.

--
Venik
www.aeronautics.ru


"B2431" > wrote in message ...
> >From: "Venik"
> >
> >
> >> While data link is one method to accomplish the mission, there are other
> >methods
> >> in development, and have been for many years.
> >
> >Can you be any more vague? Try limiting your posts to just one or two
> >verifyable facts and fill the rest with the fog of
> >uncertainty.
> >
> >--
> >Venik
> >www.aeronautics.ru
> >
>
> Take your own advise. Is the B-2 the Serbs shot down still being studied in
> Yugoslavia?
>
> Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired