JDAM based Cruise Missile
- Elite 5K
- Posts: 9834
- Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14
Boeing resurrects effort to turn JDAM bomb into cheap cruise missile
Boeing has resurrected and is showing off its Powered JDAM concept believing that the US Air Force (USAF) is keen to buy low-cost cruise missiles.
The company has increased development work on the concept within the last 18 months, it says at the Air Force Association Air Warfare Symposium in Orlando, Florida on 28 February. The project was originally begun about eight years ago, but had been put on the back burner due to lukewarm interest from the service.
The idea has new life now that the USAF is pursuing glide bomb swarms, such as the Air Force Research Laboratory’s Golden Horde project. It is also relevant because of the service’s desire for long-range strike options.
“Our entire Air Force customer set keeps saying, ‘We need range, we need range, we need range,” says Wade Kirkbride, senior marketing representative with Boeing.
The Powered JDAM shares a lot of similarities to the glide variant of the JDAM. The Powered JDAM uses a derivative wing kit that is sized between the 2,000lb-class and 500lb-class glider JDAM wing kits. The warhead on the cruise missile variant is also a standard Mark 84 and it would use a regular Guidance Control Unit, says Kirkbride.
The important difference between the gliding JDAM and the cruise missile version is a small jet turbine engine. While jet turbines are typically one of the most expensive parts of a cruise missile, the Powered JDAM uses an undisclosed low-cost engine from an undisclosed manufacturer, says Kirkbride.
Boeing declines to disclose the cruise missile’s exact range, but says that it is comparable to more expensive and sophisticated cruise missiles, such as JASSM, which has a range of 200nm (370km).
The cruise missile also doesn’t have a stealthy shape and can’t fly below-radar, nap-of-the-earth routes like the JASSM. However, it could be networked with other weapons to autonomous attack a target in a swarm, similar to the Golden Horde programme’s effort to network gliding GBU-39B Small Diameter Bombs.
“We can take that exact same type of capability and put it into Powered JDAM,” says Kirkbride.
Ultimately, the idea behind the Powered JDAM is to overwhelm and bankrupt an enemy.
“No matter what the enemy tries to shoot down that [cruise missile] with, they’re going to lose the battlefield calculus equation,” says Jim Leary, global sales and marketing for weapons with Boeing. “They’re going to have to tap some kind of exquisite [and expensive] missile to shoot something like that down. It’s going to cost a lot more.”
https://www.flightglobal.com/fixed-wing ... 46.article
Boeing has resurrected and is showing off its Powered JDAM concept believing that the US Air Force (USAF) is keen to buy low-cost cruise missiles.
The company has increased development work on the concept within the last 18 months, it says at the Air Force Association Air Warfare Symposium in Orlando, Florida on 28 February. The project was originally begun about eight years ago, but had been put on the back burner due to lukewarm interest from the service.
The idea has new life now that the USAF is pursuing glide bomb swarms, such as the Air Force Research Laboratory’s Golden Horde project. It is also relevant because of the service’s desire for long-range strike options.
“Our entire Air Force customer set keeps saying, ‘We need range, we need range, we need range,” says Wade Kirkbride, senior marketing representative with Boeing.
The Powered JDAM shares a lot of similarities to the glide variant of the JDAM. The Powered JDAM uses a derivative wing kit that is sized between the 2,000lb-class and 500lb-class glider JDAM wing kits. The warhead on the cruise missile variant is also a standard Mark 84 and it would use a regular Guidance Control Unit, says Kirkbride.
The important difference between the gliding JDAM and the cruise missile version is a small jet turbine engine. While jet turbines are typically one of the most expensive parts of a cruise missile, the Powered JDAM uses an undisclosed low-cost engine from an undisclosed manufacturer, says Kirkbride.
Boeing declines to disclose the cruise missile’s exact range, but says that it is comparable to more expensive and sophisticated cruise missiles, such as JASSM, which has a range of 200nm (370km).
The cruise missile also doesn’t have a stealthy shape and can’t fly below-radar, nap-of-the-earth routes like the JASSM. However, it could be networked with other weapons to autonomous attack a target in a swarm, similar to the Golden Horde programme’s effort to network gliding GBU-39B Small Diameter Bombs.
“We can take that exact same type of capability and put it into Powered JDAM,” says Kirkbride.
Ultimately, the idea behind the Powered JDAM is to overwhelm and bankrupt an enemy.
“No matter what the enemy tries to shoot down that [cruise missile] with, they’re going to lose the battlefield calculus equation,” says Jim Leary, global sales and marketing for weapons with Boeing. “They’re going to have to tap some kind of exquisite [and expensive] missile to shoot something like that down. It’s going to cost a lot more.”
https://www.flightglobal.com/fixed-wing ... 46.article
- Elite 2K
- Posts: 2561
- Joined: 12 Jan 2014, 19:26
Boeing putting propulsion systems on bombs, nothing new...
http://www.boeing.com/features/2015/03/ ... 09-15.page
http://www.boeing.com/features/2015/03/ ... 09-15.page
-
- Elite 3K
- Posts: 3667
- Joined: 12 Jun 2016, 17:36
charlielima223 wrote:Boeing putting propulsion systems on bombs, nothing new...
http://www.boeing.com/features/2015/03/ ... 09-15.page
Dumb question: why did Boeing team with Saab for that test / GLSDB? Does (did) Saab make the M26 rocket? Or was Sweden paying for the program?
Take an F-16, stir in A-7, dollop of F-117, gob of F-22, dash of F/A-18, sprinkle with AV-8B, stir well + bake. Whaddya get? F-35.
- Elite 2K
- Posts: 2561
- Joined: 12 Jan 2014, 19:26
steve2267 wrote:
Dumb question: why did Boeing team with Saab for that test / GLSDB? Does (did) Saab make the M26 rocket? Or was Sweden paying for the program?
Honest answer: to be honest I dont know who makes the rocket. I think it was a joint venture betwee. Saab and Boeing to try something different. I havent seen or read anything else about the GLSDB or any military picking it up to be used in their arsenal.
- Elite 5K
- Posts: 5289
- Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
- Location: Finland
AFAIK, the rocket motor for GLSDB is made by NAMMO and of course GBU-39 is made by Boeing. Not sure what Saab brings to table. I think the idea is neat. I'd say that GBU-53 would be good alternative in some cases. Interestingly Sweden doesn't have either SDB nor any MLRS system.
- Senior member
- Posts: 462
- Joined: 21 Jul 2014, 19:28
hornetfinn wrote:AFAIK, the rocket motor for GLSDB is made by NAMMO and of course GBU-39 is made by Boeing. Not sure what Saab brings to table. I think the idea is neat. I'd say that GBU-53 would be good alternative in some cases. Interestingly Sweden doesn't have either SDB nor any MLRS system.
Yes, it's Nammo who is making the engine.
Translated from this article: It is Nammo at Raufoss who has produced the rocket engines used in the test shootings. In a possible further development program for GLSDB, one of the points is that Nammo can supply a new engine that can further increase the range.
https://www.tu.no/artikler/bakkefyrt-gl ... ger/476457
- Elite 1K
- Posts: 1496
- Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46
The rocket motor is the M26 which is the pre-GMLRS motor. As alluded to the in article that pron posted,
many of those motors are the backend for the DPICM MLRS which are being de-miled which in turn
makes the rocket motor available for other uses ...typically practice rounds. GLSDB would be another use.
So I think a cheap rocket motor, a cheap inter-stage and a relatively cheap front-end is the appeal.
And the focused Lethality version of the SDB does make GLSDB a potentially interesting close-support weapon.
The main issue is ER-GMLRS which gives you better range, better response time and no reliability
issues due to staging. And they've freed room up-front for a seeker which is under development.
On the powered JDAM, I can't even find reliable cost data for the JDAM-ER wingkit.
So I'm not surprised they are coy on price for the powered version.
many of those motors are the backend for the DPICM MLRS which are being de-miled which in turn
makes the rocket motor available for other uses ...typically practice rounds. GLSDB would be another use.
So I think a cheap rocket motor, a cheap inter-stage and a relatively cheap front-end is the appeal.
And the focused Lethality version of the SDB does make GLSDB a potentially interesting close-support weapon.
The main issue is ER-GMLRS which gives you better range, better response time and no reliability
issues due to staging. And they've freed room up-front for a seeker which is under development.
On the powered JDAM, I can't even find reliable cost data for the JDAM-ER wingkit.
So I'm not surprised they are coy on price for the powered version.
7 posts
|Page 1 of 1
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests