Is replacing Maverick with JCM a good idea?

[Scott Ferrin]

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.

[Dana Miller]

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. 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). 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.

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.

--
Dana Miller

[David E. Powell]

"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.

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.

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.

> 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....

> --
> Dana Miller

[Kevin Brooks]

"David E. Powell" > wrote in message
s.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.

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?

>
> 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? 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?

Brooks


>
> > --
> > Dana Miller
>
>

[Scott Ferrin]

On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 01:07:25 -0400, "Kevin Brooks"
> wrote:

>
>"David E. Powell" > wrote in message
s.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. 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.
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.



>
>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. 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. 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. 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.




>
>>
>> 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.


> 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.

[Peter Kemp]

On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 08:39:57 -0600, Scott Ferrin <> wrote:

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

Which may be why so much effort is going into making the upcoming
improvements to GPS and all the investment into anti-jam equipment
logical. Not forgetting of course that teh GPS weapon such as JDAM are
primarily inertial, with GPS updates, so the CEP grow, but not to
much, and even a brief period of GPS guidance to snug down the fix
gets it back on track.

> 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.
>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.

But an aircraft armed with JCM can engage far more targets more
cheaply than one armed with LOAL Maverick. And don't forget that the
command link on the LOAL Maverick (I assume it's commanded rather than
autonomous?) can also be jammed, and far more simply than jamming GPS
over a broad area.

Quite frankly there are not many battlefield targets that could
withstand a JCM, and those that could are the ones with active
defences (Like Shtora), which will find it easier to engage a larger
missile like a Maverick than a smaller JCM.

At which point you whistle up a couple of CBU-97.

Does LOAL Maverick have a role for which it is particularly suited?
Probably, but the role can be covered quite nicely by JCM plus other
systems with more flexibility and without adding another system to the
inventory.

Peter Kemp

[Scott Ferrin]

On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 12:19:09 -0400, Peter Kemp
> wrote:

>On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 08:39:57 -0600, Scott Ferrin <> wrote:
>
>>If they ever figure out how to effectively jam GPS all of those GPS
>>dependant wonder weapons are going to be pretty limited.
>
>Which may be why so much effort is going into making the upcoming
>improvements to GPS and all the investment into anti-jam equipment
>logical. Not forgetting of course that teh GPS weapon such as JDAM are
>primarily inertial, with GPS updates, so the CEP grow, but not to
>much, and even a brief period of GPS guidance to snug down the fix
>gets it back on track.
>
>> 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.
>>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.
>
>But an aircraft armed with JCM can engage far more targets more
>cheaply than one armed with LOAL Maverick. And don't forget that the
>command link on the LOAL Maverick (I assume it's commanded rather than
>autonomous?) can also be jammed, and far more simply than jamming GPS
>over a broad area.
>
>Quite frankly there are not many battlefield targets that could
>withstand a JCM, and those that could are the ones with active
>defences (Like Shtora), which will find it easier to engage a larger
>missile like a Maverick than a smaller JCM.
>
>At which point you whistle up a couple of CBU-97.
>
>Does LOAL Maverick have a role for which it is particularly suited?
>Probably, but the role can be covered quite nicely by JCM plus other
>systems with more flexibility and without adding another system to the
>inventory.
>
>Peter Kemp

I don't know how significant ($$$) the mod to make Maverick LOAL would
be but seeing how we already have the missiles we may as well at least
keep the newer ones. Have we ever tossed aside weapons before they we
too worn out and wished we'd kept them? I don't know. If I was told
there was a mobile SAM system cruising around in town and I had to
take it out I'd rather try it with a LOAL Maverick and stay out of
range than with a JCM and be right in it's kill zone. And if you're
thinking "HARM" that only works if the thing is emitting.

[David E. Powell]

"Peter Kemp" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 08:39:57 -0600, Scott Ferrin <> wrote:
>
> >If they ever figure out how to effectively jam GPS all of those GPS
> >dependant wonder weapons are going to be pretty limited.
>
> Which may be why so much effort is going into making the upcoming
> improvements to GPS and all the investment into anti-jam equipment
> logical. Not forgetting of course that teh GPS weapon such as JDAM are
> primarily inertial, with GPS updates, so the CEP grow, but not to
> much, and even a brief period of GPS guidance to snug down the fix
> gets it back on track.

Yes, but the reliance on the one system (GPS) and the independence of the
Maverick's targeting system are serious points. What happens if someone can
jam or knock out the sats?

> > 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.
> >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.
>
> But an aircraft armed with JCM can engage far more targets more
> cheaply than one armed with LOAL Maverick. And don't forget that the
> command link on the LOAL Maverick (I assume it's commanded rather than
> autonomous?) can also be jammed, and far more simply than jamming GPS
> over a broad area.

How many targets does the one plane need to hit? It seems that people are
trying to turn fighter-bombers into the Hollywood 50-shot six-shooter
instead of dealing with numbers requirements and reserve force requirements.
Also, the range issue is important. If the flier must take a plane deeper
into a danger area to launch his weapon, it risks the craft, the pilot, and
the ability of such to use the rest of their weapons to good effect on that
sortie at the least.

> Quite frankly there are not many battlefield targets that could
> withstand a JCM, and those that could are the ones with active
> defences (Like Shtora), which will find it easier to engage a larger
> missile like a Maverick than a smaller JCM.

Better to risk a missile than a pilot getting close to one of those things
to fire a smaller weapon with lesser range.

> At which point you whistle up a couple of CBU-97.

Which would be nice, yes, but how much room do they take up on the racks?
Plus, if they are on other planes, how far out are they, can they be
diverted, and how does this fit in the "more weapons, less planes"
arrangement? Not to mention that if one is worried about Maverick or JCM
range, getting close enough to drop CBUs.... and how big are CBUs for such
an antimissile defense, if Mav is considered a large target? I'm asking
because I am sure you have more knowledge on that one than me....

> Does LOAL Maverick have a role for which it is particularly suited?
> Probably, but the role can be covered quite nicely by JCM plus other
> systems with more flexibility and without adding another system to the
> inventory.

Working a system that is Maverick compatable into things spares having to go
to futher lengths than such in another system, actually.

> Peter Kemp

[Kevin Brooks]

<Scott Ferrin> wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 01:07:25 -0400, "Kevin Brooks"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"David E. Powell" > wrote in message
> s.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

[Kevin Brooks]

"David E. Powell" > wrote in message
s.com...
> "Peter Kemp" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 08:39:57 -0600, Scott Ferrin <> wrote:
> >
> > >If they ever figure out how to effectively jam GPS all of those GPS
> > >dependant wonder weapons are going to be pretty limited.
> >
> > Which may be why so much effort is going into making the upcoming
> > improvements to GPS and all the investment into anti-jam equipment
> > logical. Not forgetting of course that teh GPS weapon such as JDAM are
> > primarily inertial, with GPS updates, so the CEP grow, but not to
> > much, and even a brief period of GPS guidance to snug down the fix
> > gets it back on track.
>
> Yes, but the reliance on the one system (GPS) and the independence of the
> Maverick's targeting system are serious points. What happens if someone
can
> jam or knock out the sats?

JCM is not GPS dependent; for that matter, neither is JDAM. What happens if
someone jams your datalink for LOAL Maverick?

>
> > > 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.
> > >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.
> >
> > But an aircraft armed with JCM can engage far more targets more
> > cheaply than one armed with LOAL Maverick. And don't forget that the
> > command link on the LOAL Maverick (I assume it's commanded rather than
> > autonomous?) can also be jammed, and far more simply than jamming GPS
> > over a broad area.
>
> How many targets does the one plane need to hit?

As many as it can per sortie. We had F-16's and F-15E's flying *very* long
distance CAS missions in Afghanistan--which would you rather have on
station, four F-15E's with JCM's or the same number with of F-15E's with
half that quantity of Mavericks? The USN CVN force was faced with a similar
dilemma--trading munitions load for fuel to allow them to get to the target
area.

It seems that people are
> trying to turn fighter-bombers into the Hollywood 50-shot six-shooter
> instead of dealing with numbers requirements and reserve force
requirements.

OK, so you'd rather have umpteen fighters with fewer munitions each making
that 1500 miles (each way) trek from Qatar to Afghanistan...but oops, you
now need umpteen *more* tankers to get them there, and if your objective is
to keep umpteen fighters on station around the clock you need *al lot* more
of both fighters and tankers... That does not sound like a good plan to me.

> Also, the range issue is important. If the flier must take a plane deeper
> into a danger area to launch his weapon, it risks the craft, the pilot,
and
> the ability of such to use the rest of their weapons to good effect on
that
> sortie at the least.

Frome what I have read, JCM is at least as long-legged, if not moreso, than
Maverick--so the point would be...?

>
> > Quite frankly there are not many battlefield targets that could
> > withstand a JCM, and those that could are the ones with active
> > defences (Like Shtora), which will find it easier to engage a larger
> > missile like a Maverick than a smaller JCM.
>
> Better to risk a missile than a pilot getting close to one of those things
> to fire a smaller weapon with lesser range.

See above. LMCO says the JCM maximum range from a fixed wing platform is
greater than 28 km (I earlier indicated 16 km--but that is for JCM when
fired from a rotary platform); my handy desk resource indicates Maverick
maxes out at some 23 km, with the true effective range being a bit shorter
than that.

Brooks

>
> > At which point you whistle up a couple of CBU-97.
>
> Which would be nice, yes, but how much room do they take up on the racks?
> Plus, if they are on other planes, how far out are they, can they be
> diverted, and how does this fit in the "more weapons, less planes"
> arrangement? Not to mention that if one is worried about Maverick or JCM
> range, getting close enough to drop CBUs.... and how big are CBUs for such
> an antimissile defense, if Mav is considered a large target? I'm asking
> because I am sure you have more knowledge on that one than me....
>
> > Does LOAL Maverick have a role for which it is particularly suited?
> > Probably, but the role can be covered quite nicely by JCM plus other
> > systems with more flexibility and without adding another system to the
> > inventory.
>
> Working a system that is Maverick compatable into things spares having to
go
> to futher lengths than such in another system, actually.
>
> > Peter Kemp
>
>

[Scott Ferrin]

>> 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.

JDAM, JSOW, JASSM. Sure they have inertial backups but they aren't
going to be flying into any open doors or individual buildings with
them. If GPS is down that means they get their initial coordinate
from the launching aircraft's INS. Those drift and aren't precision
by any stretch.






> JCM is to use three guidance systems, all packaged into one
>missile--MMW radar, semi-active laser, and IR. So your point would be...?

Well since GPS isn't a JCM form of guidance you obviously MISSED my
point. I commented on JCM's short range and small warhead and you
said "well we could use XXX instead". "XXX" being a GPS guided weapon
of one kind or another.



>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.


Great. Doesn't mean they'll always succeed.



>
>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?


Like I said, you missed the point. We're talking about GPS guided
weapons.



> 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?


Well you go hit those SA-17 sites with your JCM and I'll use a LOAL
Maverick. Who do you think will have more fun?



> 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?

Range, range, range.



>
>>
>>
>>
>> >
>> >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?


*sigh* Try to stay on topic. Or at least in context. I was saying
you aren't going to be able to hit moving targets with GPS. Sure
they've done some tests. That was several years ago and you'll notice
we haven't heard anything about it since. It's one thing to get a
group of aircraft together to support hitting a target moving in a
straight line. Quite another to support scores of strike aircraft who
could be anywhere trying to hit god-knows-what. If you have an army
on the move supported by SA-17sor moving targets inside a zone
defended by SA-17s (or anything better for that matter) you're not
going to want to try to take them out with JCM. Not if you're smart
anyway. IF they're emmitting then sure, you can take a HARM shot. If
they're just hanging out waiting offline then you're out of luck with
the HARM.



>
>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?


Range.





>
> 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

Well what it "sounds" like is a roughly 25 pound warhead.




>. Sounds like your bunker could have been taken
>down by a JCM just as well as that Maverick.


There's that range thing again.



>Care to guess what the effect
>of even ten pounds of HE going off *inside* a bunker would be?

Yeah. Nothing like a 125 or 300 pound warhead.



>Guarantee you
>none of the occupants are going to be able to tell you about it for quite a
>while--if ever.

Maybe not the people but the equipment is another matter.




>
>
> 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.


Provided that the defenders don't have SAMs that out-range JCM. Much
more likely than with Maverick.




>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.


According to Lockheed's sheet on the JCM it's 16km for rotary wing and
28 for fixed wing. For the Maverick the info I've found lists about
is also 28km. For LOAL Maverick Raytheon says "over 20 miles" (32km)
but I've seen 40 miles mentioned too. Unfortunately I can't locate
the 40 mile figure. It might have been in Jane's or something. The
thing is if LOAL Maverick only gets you twenty miles AND JCM has LOAL
capability I'm inclined to agree with you. OTH if LOAL Maverick is in
the 30 to 40 mile range I think it would be sacrificing capability.



>
>>
>>
>> > 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.

See my above comment. Until I can track down the 40 mile figure for
LOAL Maverick I'm thinking it might have been an error. I'd think if
anybody Raytheon would talking about it but they say only "20+ miles".

[Kevin Brooks]

<Scott Ferrin> wrote in message
...
>
> >> 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.
>
> JDAM, JSOW, JASSM. Sure they have inertial backups but they aren't
> going to be flying into any open doors or individual buildings with
> them. If GPS is down that means they get their initial coordinate
> from the launching aircraft's INS. Those drift and aren't precision
> by any stretch.

You have it distinctly backwards--the inertial is the primary guidance
system, with GPS providing enhanced capability. Without GPS it is still
credited with a 30 meter CEP, so hitting that building, if it is a decent
sized one, is a real likelihood--taking down the door is not. But given that
JDAM comes in a minimum size package of 500 pounds, I doubt hitting the door
is required in the first place. As to getting its positional update from the
launch aircraft, normally that is the case (though AMSTE changes the picure
to include after launch updates from other sources)--and if you are
speculating that the launch aircraft *also* is being jammed throughout its
approach, that is one heck of a GPS jammer you have working for you.

>
> > JCM is to use three guidance systems, all packaged into one
> >missile--MMW radar, semi-active laser, and IR. So your point would be...?
>
> Well since GPS isn't a JCM form of guidance you obviously MISSED my
> point. I commented on JCM's short range and small warhead and you
> said "well we could use XXX instead". "XXX" being a GPS guided weapon
> of one kind or another.

That short range that is, in fact, not so "short" when employed from fixed
wing platforms? Which is in fact greater than that of the Maverick, from
what I have been able to find both on the web and in my references? Or the
"small warhead" that is in reality a tandem warhead? At this point you have
aparently mischaracterized JCM in every manner, and embarked upon an attmpt
to try and point to other systems as being inherently inaccurate (look up
the results of the AMSTE tests with JDAM before you go to far out on a limb
on that one)...

>
>
>
> >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.
>
>
> Great. Doesn't mean they'll always succeed.

My money is on them. You know what kind of weapon was reportedly used to
kill a GPS jammer in Iraq, don't you? JDAM... now that is irony for you.

> >
> >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?
>
>
> Like I said, you missed the point. We're talking about GPS guided
> weapons.

No, we are talking about JCM--look at the thread's title. You have
manufactured a case claiming that JCM is less capable than Maverick, but
your assumptions (i.e., it has a shorter range, when it does not; its
warhead is "small", ignoring the fact that it uses a tandem warhead design
to acheive increased penetration and lethality, etc.)have not proven to be
correct. Now you want to instead shift the focus to the other air delivered
systtems we now have, or will soon be fielding? Nope.

>
>
>
> > 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?
>
>
> Well you go hit those SA-17 sites with your JCM and I'll use a LOAL
> Maverick. Who do you think will have more fun?

Your's, being as it actually has a shorter maximum engagement range and
relies on a single targeting mode. Of course, if you want to ignore those
facts, your mileage might differ...
>
>
>
> > 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?
>
> Range, range, range.

Regarding which you are apparently wrong, wrong, wrong.

LMCO claims JCM employed from a fixed wing asset will have a maximum range
of more than 28 km (see
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/data/assets/4550.pdf ). Maverick comes in at a
maximum of 26 km (www.astronautix.com/lvs/maverick.htm ). And some sources
indicate the real max range of Maverick is actually less--in the order of 23
km.

> >>
> >> >
> >> >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?
>
>
> *sigh* Try to stay on topic.

LOL! This from the guy who has tried to turn this into a tapdance regarding
GPS reliability? And is advocating a system (LOAL Maverick) that, accoring
to its manufacturer, itself is reliant upon GPS in order to get optimal
performance?

Or at least in context. I was saying
> you aren't going to be able to hit moving targets with GPS. Sure
> they've done some tests. That was several years ago and you'll notice
> we haven't heard anything about it since.

AMSTE was tested last October against a moving target. An ongoing and so far
pretty succesful program.


It's one thing to get a
> group of aircraft together to support hitting a target moving in a
> straight line. Quite another to support scores of strike aircraft who
> could be anywhere trying to hit god-knows-what.

Neither of which your *shorter range* Maverick does anything to improve.

If you have an army
> on the move supported by SA-17sor moving targets inside a zone
> defended by SA-17s (or anything better for that matter) you're not
> going to want to try to take them out with JCM. Not if you're smart
> anyway.


Going after them with fewer (per sortie) shorter range Mavericks is not a
good idea, IMO.


IF they're emmitting then sure, you can take a HARM shot. If
> they're just hanging out waiting offline then you're out of luck with
> the HARM.

So you gain a couple km more standoff range with your JCM, not to mention
three methods of targeting them--versus one for Maverick. Again, not a good
idea to go with Maverick in that scenario, IMO.

>
>
>
> >
> >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?
>
>
> Range.

Point to sources that indicate Maverick has a longer range than JCM, please.

>
>
>
>
>
> >
> > 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
>
> Well what it "sounds" like is a roughly 25 pound warhead.

LMCO indicates it is capable of killing bunkers, and I doubt that the Army
would weant this puppy if it did not have that rudimentary capability--but
they do want it. What does that tell you?
>
>
>
>
> >. Sounds like your bunker could have been taken
> >down by a JCM just as well as that Maverick.
>
>
> There's that range thing again.

There is that whole "what range thing?" again, too.

>
>
>
> >Care to guess what the effect
> >of even ten pounds of HE going off *inside* a bunker would be?
>
> Yeah. Nothing like a 125 or 300 pound warhead.

Like the other poster noted, just killing a tank is just as good as
scattering the tank's remains about a wide area of the battlefield--same
thing goes for bunkers. In fact, if the battle is up close and the
friendlies are in danger close margins, then the less catastrophic kill
capability is generally preferred.

>
>
>
> >Guarantee you
> >none of the occupants are going to be able to tell you about it for quite
a
> >while--if ever.
>
> Maybe not the people but the equipment is another matter.

Equipment is useless without people to make it work; and I do not share your
conviction that the overpressure and fragmentation effects generated by the
JCM are going to be worthless against any equipment in samesaid bunker.

>
> >
> >
> > 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.
>
>
> Provided that the defenders don't have SAMs that out-range JCM. Much
> more likely than with Maverick.

"What range thing?" again.

>
>
>
>
> >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.
>
>
> According to Lockheed's sheet on the JCM it's 16km for rotary wing and
> 28 for fixed wing. For the Maverick the info I've found lists about
> is also 28km. For LOAL Maverick Raytheon says "over 20 miles" (32km)
> but I've seen 40 miles mentioned too. Unfortunately I can't locate
> the 40 mile figure. It might have been in Jane's or something. The
> thing is if LOAL Maverick only gets you twenty miles AND JCM has LOAL
> capability I'm inclined to agree with you. OTH if LOAL Maverick is in
> the 30 to 40 mile range I think it would be sacrificing capability.

Odd, looking at Raytheon's data sheet, I see no mention whatsoever of range,
increased or otherwise.

www.raytheon.com/products/ maverick/ref_docs/maverick.pdf

But I did note that LOAL Maverick is going to be depending upon that bugaboo
of your's, GPS--so I guess we ought to discard it outright?


Brooks

> >>
> >>
> >> > 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.
>
> See my above comment. Until I can track down the 40 mile figure for
> LOAL Maverick I'm thinking it might have been an error. I'd think if
> anybody Raytheon would talking about it but they say only "20+ miles".

[Peter Kemp]

On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 03:51:20 GMT, "David E. Powell"
> wrote:

>"Peter Kemp" > wrote in message
...
>> On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 08:39:57 -0600, Scott Ferrin <> wrote:
>>
>Yes, but the reliance on the one system (GPS) and the independence of the
>Maverick's targeting system are serious points. What happens if someone can
>jam or knock out the sats?

Or the LOAL datalinklink which is rather less bulletproof than you
seem to think.
Don't forget that to jam the sats requires either absurdly large
amounts of power for a ground based jammer (as the planes are well
above the earth and the directional antennae look up not down), or
you're in orbit and that means you're probably only jamming
periodically (unless you've got enough sats to cover the entier GPS
constellation - which is extremely unlikely and not the sort of thing
you can put in place secretly).

>> But an aircraft armed with JCM can engage far more targets more
>> cheaply than one armed with LOAL Maverick. And don't forget that the
>> command link on the LOAL Maverick (I assume it's commanded rather than
>> autonomous?) can also be jammed, and far more simply than jamming GPS
>> over a broad area.
>
>How many targets does the one plane need to hit? It seems that people are
>trying to turn fighter-bombers into the Hollywood 50-shot six-shooter
>instead of dealing with numbers requirements and reserve force requirements.

Don;t blame me, blame the DoD. In DESERT Storm 4 planes were sent to
destroy each target. In IRAQI FREEDOM 1 plane was sent to bomb 4
targets on average. As Keving pointed out if bases are scarce, getting
more sorties on target may not be an option.

>Also, the range issue is important. If the flier must take a plane deeper
>into a danger area to launch his weapon, it risks the craft, the pilot, and
>the ability of such to use the rest of their weapons to good effect on that
>sortie at the least.

JCM has the range, unles you're postulating that teh LOAL Maverick
also inherits the turboject of the "Longhorn" Maverick concept.

>> Quite frankly there are not many battlefield targets that could
>> withstand a JCM, and those that could are the ones with active
>> defences (Like Shtora), which will find it easier to engage a larger
>> missile like a Maverick than a smaller JCM.
>
>Better to risk a missile than a pilot getting close to one of those things
>to fire a smaller weapon with lesser range.

And why exactly is a pilot worried about a tank armed with Shtora?
It's a tank self defence ssytem, not a SAM. The SAMs will *not*
survive a hit from either JCM or Maverick.

>> At which point you whistle up a couple of CBU-97.
>
>Which would be nice, yes, but how much room do they take up on the racks?

If 90% of the targets can be seviced by JCM, then you load up with
only a few. And they take up the same space as a Maverick (i.e. one
pylon).

>Plus, if they are on other planes, how far out are they, can they be
>diverted, and how does this fit in the "more weapons, less planes"
>arrangement? Not to mention that if one is worried about Maverick or JCM
>range, getting close enough to drop CBUs.... and how big are CBUs for such
>an antimissile defense, if Mav is considered a large target? I'm asking
>because I am sure you have more knowledge on that one than me....

Well first of all, if range worries you then you use a WCMD launched
at hish speed and altitude to get a good range, and by the time you
get within the range of Shtora they're not dealing with a large CBU,
but a cloud of bomblets/skeets, all of which are very small and each
is capable of providing the kill.

>> Does LOAL Maverick have a role for which it is particularly suited?
>> Probably, but the role can be covered quite nicely by JCM plus other
>> systems with more flexibility and without adding another system to the
>> inventory.
>
>Working a system that is Maverick compatable into things spares having to go
>to futher lengths than such in another system, actually.

Not particularly clear sentence here, but I assume you meant htere is
already a spares holding - but of course there won't be when JCM
arrives, as it is supposed to replace the Hellfire/TOW/Maverick and
their associated spares.

Peter Kemp