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