If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
On 10/9/03 11:03 PM, in article
, "John R Weiss" wrote: "Thomas Schoene" wrote... The Marines were the primary instigators of the 500-lb JDAM, specifically for CAS. I'd say they changed their mind sometime after 1989. Makes sense... Less collateral damage than the big ones. Also, can be carried on the Harrier. The primary driver behind the 500 lb JDAM was so the Harrier could carry it. The rest of the services thought about it and figured it'd be a good idea too. Come to think of it, if someone's working on a 1760 capable ITER, you could hang 8 JDAM on a Hornet! --Woody |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
|
#33
|
|||
|
|||
In article , Joe Osman
wrote: snip While doing CAS from afar doesn't have the dramatic flair of the good ol' days, it certainly is just as effective. Won't make very good footage for some future war movie though. That's all well and good if the technology works, but if it fails the results can be a lot nastier than when the ordnance was being pointed in the proper direction until the last second with the pilot there to make the decision to release or not. And if the enemy defeats or spoofs the terchnology we should still have the old fashioned capability around, especially in an expeditionary context where troops on the ground need "flying artillery". The technology is a lot harder to defeat than most people realize. The alternative is to spend a LOT of time training for dumb bomb deliveries that you'll probably never do: a waste to resources when you could be training for something more useful. Or not train for dumb bomb deliveries enough, and if you have to do it, not be competent enough which is a risk all it's own. I think you need to bet on the odds, which are strongly in favor of the technology, especially since it's been demonstrated in service. -- Harry Andreas Engineering raconteur |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
"Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" wrote...
Come to think of it, if someone's working on a 1760 capable ITER, you could hang 8 JDAM on a Hornet! IIRC, McDonnell-Douglas had one (or maybe it was a VER) in the works back around 89 or 90, but the Navy didn't want to pay for it. |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
On 10/10/03 12:36 PM, in article B6Chb.729401$uu5.123386@sccrnsc04, "John R
Weiss" wrote: "Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" wrote... Come to think of it, if someone's working on a 1760 capable ITER, you could hang 8 JDAM on a Hornet! IIRC, McDonnell-Douglas had one (or maybe it was a VER) in the works back around 89 or 90, but the Navy didn't want to pay for it. I seem to remember discussions (never pen to paper) of a MER for the A-6 back when the JDAM was still AIWS. Think about that--22 MK-82 JDAM on an Intruder... It would have to be a SWIP Block 1A or better yet an F. --Woody |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
"Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" wrote...
I seem to remember discussions (never pen to paper) of a MER for the A-6 back when the JDAM was still AIWS. Think about that--22 MK-82 JDAM on an Intruder... It would have to be a SWIP Block 1A or better yet an F. That, too. IIRC, one problem was that the 1553 subset of the 1760 interface on the A-6 SWIP was not complete enough. It probably would have been for the A-6F only. In fact, the "smart VER" (or whatever they called it) would have required rewiring the F/A-18A/B (not sure of the C/D) to get GPS info to the stations; the coax was not in the initial contract. However, AIWS became JSOW, not JDAM. JDAM started in the USAF and merged with the USN ABF (Advanced Bomb Family) program. Navy kept the JSOW lead; Air Force kept JDAM lead. Enough alphabet soup yet? ;-) |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
On 10/10/03 3:38 PM, in article IMEhb.83326$%h1.87290@sccrnsc02, "John R
Weiss" wrote: "Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" wrote... I seem to remember discussions (never pen to paper) of a MER for the A-6 back when the JDAM was still AIWS. Think about that--22 MK-82 JDAM on an Intruder... It would have to be a SWIP Block 1A or better yet an F. That, too. IIRC, one problem was that the 1553 subset of the 1760 interface on the A-6 SWIP was not complete enough. It probably would have been for the A-6F only. In fact, the "smart VER" (or whatever they called it) would have required rewiring the F/A-18A/B (not sure of the C/D) to get GPS info to the stations; the coax was not in the initial contract. You are correct, J.R. 1553 would have needed to be upgraded to 1760. The standard SWIP aircraft sans GPS could not have handled even a single JDAM. GPS on the nav solution is a REQUIREMENT to drop JDAM. The SWIP Block 1A (flew it at China Lake for about 80 or so hours) could have handled multiple JDAM nicely (in theory/Woody speculation). It never made it past prototype, but it was quite capable: - ASN-139 RLG INS - GPS - CP-4 (vice CP-3B) Mission Computer 3X the memory, 4X the speed (still not blazing) - A no-kidding HUD for the pilot - A (get this) DDI for the B/N - An aerodynamic strake mod allowing it to max trap 9 knots slower at 38,400 lbs vice 36K. (As an aside, I once flew it on speed clean wing at the field with 2.5 on the gas at 104 KIAS.) All in all, it was to the Intruder what the F-14D is to the Tomcat, but it was canned when the retirement of the Intruder was moved up. The F/A-18A was re-wired/GPS'd to handle JDAM/JSOW. It's called the F/A-18A+ (ECP-560/583). However, AIWS became JSOW, not JDAM. JDAM started in the USAF and merged with the USN ABF (Advanced Bomb Family) program. Navy kept the JSOW lead; Air Force kept JDAM lead. Enough alphabet soup yet? ;-) You're absolutely right... My faux pax. I always got ABF and AIWS mixed up before they AGM-154A'd and GBU-32/35/31'd them. ABC's right back atcha, J.R. |:-) --Woody |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
"Grantland" wrote in message ... (Harry Andreas) wrote: In article , Joe Osman wrote: snip While doing CAS from afar doesn't have the dramatic flair of the good ol' days, it certainly is just as effective. Won't make very good footage for some future war movie though. That's all well and good if the technology works, but if it fails the results can be a lot nastier than when the ordnance was being pointed in the proper direction until the last second with the pilot there to make the decision to release or not. And if the enemy defeats or spoofs the terchnology we should still have the old fashioned capability around, especially in an expeditionary context where troops on the ground need "flying artillery". The technology is a lot harder to defeat than most people realize. The alternative is to spend a LOT of time training for dumb bomb deliveries that you'll probably never do: a waste to resources when you could be training for something more useful. Or not train for dumb bomb deliveries enough, and if you have to do it, not be competent enough which is a risk all it's own. I think you need to bet on the odds, which are strongly in favor of the technology, especially since it's been demonstrated in service. until someone detonates an EMP nukes(s) in high orbit. No doubt there's a coupla candidates already up there, waiting. There goes your $trillion+ investment.. tsk tsk Grantland -- Harry Andreas Engineering raconteur ..... and you can bet your last eggroll that the Red Chinese have got one of their top thinktanks devising ways to circumvent/destroy the U.S. digital infrastructure - Gulf War I & II have taught them and the world the way to defang the U.S. across the board is to take out every one of our networks/uplinks & downlinks. If they ever go head to head with us in the future it will have to be their number one priority if they want to stand a chance. |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
"Dudhorse" wrote:
.... and you can bet your last eggroll that the Red Chinese have got one of their top thinktanks devising ways to circumvent/destroy the U.S. digital infrastructure - Gulf War I & II have taught them and the world the way to defang the U.S. across the board is to take out every one of our networks/uplinks & downlinks. If they ever go head to head with us in the future it will have to be their number one priority if they want to stand a chance. Tue BUT: "Red" Chinese? No, Hong Kong (and, less so, Taiwan) showed the "Reds" how errant they were. When they complete their program they will be the most capitalist country on earth. Way beyond high-tax, Socialist Amerika - Hong Kong writ gigantic. Taiwan (peacefully, voluntarily) included. To *effect* this transformation in an orderly manner, however, they need to stay in power. Hence the Red hats. And nobody (in China) could care. Just keep up the 10% growth. So China is (should be) an ally, not a foe. Just like a fading British Empire embracing the (virile, not-yet-corrupt) United States. China is the future. Amerika is history. Grantland |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
GPT (Gulfport MS) ILS 14 question | A Lieberman | Instrument Flight Rules | 18 | January 30th 05 04:51 PM |
VOR/DME Approach Question | Chip Jones | Instrument Flight Rules | 47 | August 29th 04 05:03 AM |
A question on Airworthiness Inspection | Dave S | Home Built | 1 | August 10th 04 05:07 AM |
Tecumseh Engine Mounting Question | jlauer | Home Built | 7 | November 16th 03 01:51 AM |
Question about Question 4488 | [email protected] | Instrument Flight Rules | 3 | October 27th 03 01:26 AM |