"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