Is replacing Maverick with JCM a good idea?

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.

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

"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

"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

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


"David E. Powell" wrote in message
ws.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.

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

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.

"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

Scott Ferrin wrote in message
news
On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 01:07:25 -0400, "Kevin Brooks"
wrote:


"David E. Powell" wrote in message
ws.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

"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