F-16 Reference
5th Gen Fighters
|
| Author |
Message |
|
elp
|
Posted: Oct 31, 2005 - 08:53 PM
|
|
|
F-16.net Editor

Joined: Sep 23, 2003
Posts: 2862
|
Just a trivia question for our muntions experts.
What was the deal with this thing? It sure looked good on paper and smiley-face corporate press releases
Why was it cancelled? They say money. I was just curious if it flunked a tech review or something and the plug was pulled.
It sure looked nice anyway. Smaller than a Maverick,.... nice range.... multi-sensor warhead. The end goal was to replace both Maverick and Hellfire, so that a fast fixed wing and attack helo would both be happy. |
_________________ - ELP -
Last edited by elp on Aug 31, 2007 - 10:55 PM; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Sponsor
|
Posted: Nov 19, 2008 - 2:48 AM
|
|
|
F-16.net Sponsor
|
|
|
Last edited by elp on Aug 31, 2007 - 10:55 PM; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Safetystick
|
Posted: Nov 01, 2005 - 07:49 AM
|
|
|
Active Member

Joined: May 13, 2005
Posts: 156
Location: Sussex, UK
Status: Offline
|
Is it cancelled? I thought it was under threat but still ticking over.
Could have sworn I saw on article on the tri-guidance warhead recently, although it was talking about putting it on SDB... |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
johnqhitman
|
Posted: Nov 01, 2005 - 02:31 PM
|
|
|
Active Member

Joined: Oct 26, 2005
Posts: 108
Status: Offline
|
| It is a shame. One of the few joint-projects that I liked. Wonder if the Navy would've kept the AGM-65F/G for its light anti-shipping work... |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
elp
|
Posted: Nov 01, 2005 - 02:57 PM
|
|
|
F-16.net Editor

Joined: Sep 23, 2003
Posts: 2862
|
Maybe I need an update. Old info. I had read that it was canceled but that the maker is still doing R&D. So I don't know the whole story. Still looks like a useful weapon on paper. It is small, and something all services could certainly use. I was thinking some wild thoughts.
That:
You could....
stick a lot of these on an F-15, 16, 18 making them even more deadly for CAS stuff.
That.... it would be cool to even have a bundle of these on a B-52 orbiting around.
That.... This would give the AC-130 some extra options.
Certainly UCAV and attack Helos.
And finally......
As a ground launched effort for ( Indirect fire/fire support ) shot off of a HUMVEE, or other vehicle. |
_________________ - ELP -
|
|
|
|
 |
|
agilefalcon16
|
Posted: Nov 01, 2005 - 08:59 PM
|
|
|
Senior member

Joined: Jan 26, 2005
Posts: 397
Status: Offline
|
According to most of my sites, the pentagon had announced plans on December 23rd 2004 for the saving of $30 billion between 2005 and 2011. Among the programs to be cancelled due to these cuts, was the $2.4 billion funding for the JCM program. So, I too believed the JCM program was axed. However, I recently came across a news article about JCM testing on the AH-64D Apache Longbow, and the article was dated September 6, 2005. The article also didn't even notice of the cancellation, or the threat of cancellation, of the JCM at all. Strange, very strange.
Here's the link to the article: http://www.missilesandfirecontrol.com/our_news/pressreleases/05pressrelease/090605-JCM.htm
So now I just don't know what to believe about this missile anymore. |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
elp
|
Posted: Nov 02, 2005 - 08:31 PM
|
|
|
F-16.net Editor

Joined: Sep 23, 2003
Posts: 2862
|
OK finally found some recent JCM news....
http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/news/c ... 100025.xml
Quote:
Meanwhile, the JCM program was proposed for termination in the FY '06 budget, with an agreement that unobligated balances from the FY '05 account could be used to continue research and development activities on how to apply JCM technologies to other missile programs, the administration said.
The program counts $34.6 million in unobligated balances. "Rescinding these funds will have a minimal impact on other Army R&D programs," the White House said.
JCM prime contractor Lockheed Martin conducted a preliminary design review of the program this summer, and had hoped Congress would restore its funding. The House approved $50 million to continue maturing its technology (DAILY, July 7), and the Senate defense appropriations report has urged the Defense Department to re-evaluate the decision to cancel it.
|
_________________ - ELP -
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Safetystick
|
Posted: Nov 02, 2005 - 09:20 PM
|
|
|
Active Member

Joined: May 13, 2005
Posts: 156
Location: Sussex, UK
Status: Offline
|
Just mulling it over but would JCM be all that useful for the future USAF?
I mean, it looks like its going to be a great bit of kit. Kinda like a Brimstone but with a tri-guidance sensor package instead of just MMW on its own.
But, when you consider that an F/A-22 should be able to carry eight SDB equipped with a moving target sensor (indeed, the same seeker as fitted to the JCM given recent reports) - based on four SDB per bay on Sergeant Fletcher Smart MER - and still remain stealthy I wonder how much use externally carried JCM would be.
Having said that, the UK has a requirement to carry Brimstone internally which will require some sort of deployable bay launcher. I guess it should be possible for a similar thing to be be fitted on a F-22, although I can't see more than four JCM being carried (only got the space of a Mk-83 JDAM to play with right).
Still, the Navy (Hornet doesn't care about externals!) and Army would be well served by it and if an F-22 is doing CAS then stealth probably isn't a geat concern!
Out of interest was there ever any news about how it would be deployed on aircraft? Brimstone uses a triple launcher but I don't recall seeing mention of any comparable launcher bar a dual launcher developed by EDO (shameless plug). |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
elp
|
Posted: Nov 02, 2005 - 09:29 PM
|
|
|
F-16.net Editor

Joined: Sep 23, 2003
Posts: 2862
|
| I think it would be pretty useful. Add to some of the planforms I mentioned above... a good pirate killer on USN choppers....other Maritime/Sub-hunter airframes. I think the list is long of things you could put it on. |
_________________ - ELP -
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Safetystick
|
Posted: Nov 02, 2005 - 09:42 PM
|
|
|
Active Member

Joined: May 13, 2005
Posts: 156
Location: Sussex, UK
Status: Offline
|
Don't disagree with the USN use and the like. Just wonder if, and this is really only applicable if they need to retain stealth, the F-22 and F-35 gain anything from it compared to bay deployed WCMD and/or SDB with moving target seekers.
I imagine any F-16/A-10 (Strike Eagles too?) would REALLY benefit from it as a Maverick replacement as would the other services (not much heavier than a Hellfire - based on Brimstone - so more than ideal for weaponised UAV and AH).
Just playing Devil's advocate. |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
johnqhitman
|
Posted: Nov 03, 2005 - 02:15 PM
|
|
|
Active Member

Joined: Oct 26, 2005
Posts: 108
Status: Offline
|
Well the military can just buy Brimstone from the UK. The navy and Marines should still keep the heavy Mavericks for light anti-shipping and taking out bunkers on the beach.
I can imagine an A-10 carrying a full load of Brimstones/JCMs, ability to take out a battalion of tanks in a danger close situation providing air support.
Is JCM also part of the Common Modular Missilee Program? |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
sferrin
|
Posted: Nov 04, 2005 - 08:41 PM
|
|
|
Elite 1K

Joined: Jul 22, 2005
Posts: 1089
Status: Offline
|
| The guidance unit will probably make it onto Phase II SDB |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
elp
|
Posted: Nov 04, 2005 - 09:13 PM
|
|
|
F-16.net Editor

Joined: Sep 23, 2003
Posts: 2862
|
|
sferrin wrote:
The guidance unit will probably make it onto Phase II SDB
Cool. SDB rocks. |
_________________ - ELP -
|
|
|
|
 |
|
skrip00
|
Posted: Jul 10, 2006 - 12:37 AM
|
|
|
Forum Veteran

Joined: Jul 03, 2006
Posts: 536
Status: Offline
|
I recently read that the Pentagon cant kill this thing even if they wanted to. Political Clout > Military Clout.
This system would be awesome when it debuts. |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
elp
|
Posted: Aug 31, 2007 - 08:53 PM
|
|
|
F-16.net Editor

Joined: Sep 23, 2003
Posts: 2862
|
It is Alive!
First, note this from Janes.com early in August 2007...
Quote:
The curtain has finally fallen on Lockheed Martin's Joint Common Missile (JCM) programme, which has been on life support since it was cut from the US DoD's budget plans in 2004.
No one seems to be able to adequately explain why the JCM was killed off. The programme wasn't in trouble, appeared to be on time and within budget and had suffered no great technical disasters. However, at a time when budget pressures dictated that something had to go, that something turned out to be the JCM.
The missile arguably suffered from being a sophisticated and pricey weapon at a time when there are fewer and fewer sophisticated and pricey targets on the battlefield. The JCM was intended to equip both fast jets and helicopters - but the fast jet community doesn't seem to have any pressing need for such a new weapon (its attention is elsewhere), while helicopter crews are still perfectly happy with the AGM-114 Hellfire air-to-surface missile.
But wait there's more! JCM is now JAGM. I guess they needed more lawyers involved.
News from Inside the Army
provided by the InsideDefense NewsStand
OIPT working to ensure open competition
JOINT AIR-TO-GROUND MISSILE SOLICITATION EXPECTED NEXT MONTH
_______________________________________________
Date: September 3, 2007
Quote:
The Pentagon is preparing to kick off the competition for the new Joint Air-to-Ground Missile -- a next-generation, multipurpose replacement for Hellfire, Longbow Hellfire and Maverick air-to-ground missiles.
JAGM is considered a replacement for the Joint Common Missile, which the Pentagon terminated in December 2004.
Sources tell Inside the Army that an overarching integrated product team met Aug. 10 to review the JAGM program schedule, requirements and acquisition strategy.
In preparing for a Sept. 21 release of a request for proposals covering the system development and demonstration phase, the team discussed the need to ensure a fair and open competition for the JAGM contract, according to an industry source.
Specifically, officials plan to investigate contract language that would dis-incentivize exclusive arrangements between contractors and sub-prime vendors, as well as ways to place more emphasis on product delivery as opposed to up-front process, sources say.
Rocket motors and the missile’s integration with fixed-wing platforms were also discussed, these sources add. JAGM is being designed for use with Army, Navy and Marine Corps helicopters as well as Navy fighters and unmanned aerial systems. The United Kingdom is also involved in the program.
Meanwhile, the draft RFP, released in June, was amended Aug. 31. New language in the solicitation notes that potential bidders “have proposed alternate solutions, risk mitigators, and fundamentally different acquisition strategies.”
In talks with industry officials, ITA learned that the OIPT believes up to five prime respondents to the RFP are possible. Other likely bidders include Raytheon, Boeing and BAE Systems, industry officials say.
Representing the lead service on the project when talks to resume the effort began last year, Army officials had expressed a preference for restarting work on the Joint Common Missile. OSD officials, however, elected to open the competition to other technologies that have matured in the three years since the JCM program contract was awarded to Lockheed.
An industry source said some potential bidders fear the RFP will favor Lockheed Martin.
Army officials did not return calls for comment by press time (Aug. 31).
The JAGM program is expected to be worth billions of dollars; its predecessor was estimated to be worth $5 billion.
Late last year, the Pentagon comptroller directed the Army and Navy to fund an account dedicated to the program. Tina Jonas, the Defense Department’s chief financial officer, told the Army to shift $53.5 million from its “Other Missile Procurement Product Improvement Program” to a new “Joint Air-to-Ground” budget line, sister publication Inside the Pentagon reported in February. The Navy and Marine Corps were directed to contribute the remainder of the $68.5 million by diverting funds from other ammunition programs.
In August, the House Appropriations Committee recommended fully funding the new program in fiscal year 2008. The Army request is for $53.5 million, while the Navy asked for $15 million.
A milestone B review could come as soon as May 2008, sources said last week, though the OIPT did discuss delaying the decision until after a preliminary design review is conducted, which could reduce risk.
The JAGM is a fixed-wing, rotary wing and unmanned aerial vehicle-launched missile system that is to provide advanced line-of-sight and non-line-of-sight capabilities, including precision strike. -- Marina Malenic
Well if it is going to indeed be "joint", that means that you go with the Navy spec shipboard safety requirements for their storage magazines, and all the other services follow suit. |
_________________ - ELP -
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Rocky_LC
|
Posted: Sep 01, 2007 - 04:11 AM
|
|
|
Enthusiast

Joined: Aug 21, 2004
Posts: 76
Status: Offline
|
Here's interesting, related info (although a couple of months old).... I hear there are several teams submitting bids for new JAGM contract.
Rocky
Quote:
Lockheed Martin Told To Wrap Up Work On JCM By Today
Jun 15, 2007 (Defense Daily/Access Intelligence via COMTEX) --
The Army is bringing the Joint Common Missile (JCM) program to a formal close, preparing for the launch of a competition for the follow-on program--the Joint Air to Ground Missile (JAGM).
Starting today, Lockheed Martin [LMT], the contractor that has been working on JCM since 2004, must stop work on the program, according to a letter from the Army's Aviation and Missile Life Cycle Management Command.
The company was told to close out the contract with the remaining funds by June 15, according to the May 14 letter. "Further work against the Statement of Work is not required," the letter said.
The break in work opens the door for the Army to release a request for information (RFI) for the JAGM on June 18. A pre-proposal conference is scheduled for June 28 and 29, during which the Army will present its procurement strategy and vision for the missile's mission, the notice said.
The notice to Lockheed Martin is the latest in a long line of hurdles for the contractor on the JCM program.
Lockheed Martin won a $53 million contract to develop the missile in the spring of 2004, beating competitors Raytheon [RTN] and a Boeing [BA]-Northrop Grumman [NOC]- led team. At the time, the program's estimated worth was $5 billion (Defense Daily, March 9, 2005).
That fell into doubt during a Pentagon budget decision later that year, but the program continued to survive with support from Congress. Last year, Pentagon officials began discussing the possibility of recompeting the program, a process that is now taking shape.
JAGM will be used by Army, Navy and Marine Corps aerial platforms with "enhanced targeting capabilities, increased lethality and extended range in both fire-and-forget and precision point targeting modes, and against the most advanced threat armored vehicles and non-traditional (or other than armored vehicle) target sets in adverse weather, obscured battlefield conditions, and against current and projected threat countermeasures using advanced seeker technologies," said the presolicitation notice posted June 1 (Defense Daily, June 5).
JAGM is the new successor to the TOW, Hellfire and Maverick missiles and replaces the Joint Common Missile (JCM) program that was cut from the Pentagon's budget in late 2004 and kept alive by congressional plus-ups.
As of last month, Lockheed Martin continued to work on its contract for that program, saying that its contract had not been formally terminated (Defense Daily, May 17).
Defense Daily, Vol. 234, No. 53
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|