"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