Will JAGM be intergrated with F-35?

F-35 Armament, fuel tanks, internal and external hardpoints, loadouts, and other stores.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

arian

Banned

  • Posts: 1293
  • Joined: 23 Dec 2014, 09:25

Unread post09 Jun 2016, 00:02

SDB-II: longer range, bigger warhead, same price, already in production, easy integration on existing platforms, probably greater release envelope. About the same, or smaller, size.
Offline

SpudmanWP

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8368
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post09 Jun 2016, 01:56

JAGM/Brimstone has the edge on time-critical targets.

This is important for pop-up targets of opportunity, especially SAMs and AAA.
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline
User avatar

count_to_10

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3282
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2012, 15:38

Unread post09 Jun 2016, 02:16

SpudmanWP wrote:JAGM/Brimstone has the edge on time-critical targets.

This is important for pop-up targets of opportunity, especially SAMs and AAA.

It also has commonality advantages -- helicopters and surface vehicles can be armed with Hellfire missiles, but not the SDB.
Well, not counting that test with a SDB replacing the warhead of a cluster rocket, anyway.
Einstein got it backward: one cannot prevent a war without preparing for it.

Uncertainty: Learn it, love it, live it.
Offline

SpudmanWP

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8368
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post28 Jun 2018, 16:40

I was posting on another blog (sorry, I've been unfaithful) and the topic of JAGM came up along with JAGM-F (???). A little digging found this gem from the FY2019 NDAA.

CoAspire personnel attended the open HASC Markup session on May 9, 2018 where JAGM-F and other issues were debated and voted on. JAGM-F Missile amendments (an additional $10M total authorized for Navy and Marine Corps) were voted on "En Bloc" and the vote was bi-partisan and unanimous. (CoAspire Photo)

On Wednesday, May 9th 2018 during the FY19 NDAA markup, the House Armed Services Committee (HASC) passed two "En Bloc" amendments for the JAGM-F missile program for the FY19 National Defense Authorization Act. En Bloc amendments are cleared in a bi-partisan process in advance by the HASC and are voted on during the day-long markup process. Both En Bloc votes that included JAGM-F were unanimous.

For those not familiar with the process, the House Armed Services Committee conducts their mark-up of the NDAA in an open, televised forum and members of the public can sit in the limited public seating area and watch the debate and votes in person. Some of the amendments can be controversial. The ones on the JAGM-F were not, and had senior, bi-partisan support.

Here is a link to a Defense News article that lists the En Bloc amendments.

The first amendment passed by the full committee (EB7 117r1) authorizes an additional $5M for JAGM-F missile studies and analysis for the Navy for their F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and F-35C aircraft, and an additional $5M on a separate line for the USMC for their F/A-18C/D, AV-8B and F-35B/C aircraft.

The second amendment (EB2 177) requests a briefing by the Department of the Navy to the committee on the services' plans for JAGM-F integration on its fighter aircraft to replace the Laser Maverick missile that will be out of inventory in the coming decade. This type of briefing request is expected when the committee authorizes additional funding, to ensure the services have a good plan moving forward.

The US Air Force has requested $31.596M in the FY19 budget to begin JAGM-F integration activities on their aircraft, and the $10M for the DoN will allow both the Navy and Marine Corps to begin their studies and analysis in concert with the Air Force in FY19 and beyond.

The JAGM-F missile is an eject-launched, fighter-capable derivative the JAGM missile that is a dual-mode seeker missile incorporating an active millimeter-wave radar and a semi-active laser seeker. The JAGM missile is a follow-on to the the Hellfire missile and will IOC on the US Army's Apache helicopter and the US Marine Corps' Cobra helicopter.


More digging found this in the FY2019 budget.

Joint Air-to-Ground Missile for Fixed Wing Aircraft (JAGM-F) is an improvement to the Army's JAGM which will allow the missile to be released from fixed wing aircraft in order to eliminate time sensitive moving targets and high value covered/sheltered targets. JAGM-F will be able to combat adverse weather/low visibility battlefield and countermeasure environments and austere communication environments and have the ability to engage multiple targets types near simultaneously in multiple engagement modes. Efforts include but are not limited to testing, qualification, and design/build demo components to production standards. Intent is to meet all BRU-55, BRU-57, and BRU-61 environments.

http://www.dtic.mil/descriptivesum/Y201 ... B_2019.pdf

So, the outstanding question of how the JAGM is to be internally carried in the F-35 is put to paper, it will use the SDB's BRU-61 rack. That should give it some good CAS flexibility. Imagine 2xSDB1, 2xSDB2, and 4xJAGM-F internal for CAS.
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3188
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post28 Jun 2018, 23:23

I wouldn't be surprised if the APKWS is integrated, too. Both of these systems will provide a lot of flexibility in missions, where high precision/low collateral damage, is needed.
Offline

SpudmanWP

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8368
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post28 Jun 2018, 23:25

And LZuni (twice the Hellfire warhead at a fraction of the cost).

I doubt if either will be internal though.
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3188
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post28 Jun 2018, 23:27

SpudmanWP wrote:And LZuni (twice the Hellfire warhead at a fraction of the cost).

I doubt if either will be internal though.

I agree, but for a CAS, etc.... mission, external weapons won't be an issue.
Offline

marauder2048

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 716
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post07 Mar 2019, 01:55

The Naval Air Warfare Center, Aircraft Division, Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst, NJ (NAWCADLKE) intends to negotiate on a sole source basis with CoAspire LLC (CAGE 6UKK9), 4031 University Blvd. Suite 100, Fairfax, VA 22030 who is the sole source provider of analysis, test and evaluation services required to perform physical fit checks for the Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) on issues involving Joint Air-to-Ground Munition (JAGM) and Joint Air-to-Ground Munition-Fixed Wing (JAGM-F). The analyses required for this effort will support future storage compatibility and air worthiness efforts of the JAGM-F on the F/A-18C/D, F/A-18E/F, AV-8B, F-35B and F-35C aircraft. Only CoAspire has the unique expertise necessary to perform the physical fit checks of the OEM's JAGM-F Outer Mold Line (OML) models.


https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=e33322092f5069a45a452f7271ffd72e&tab=core&_cview=0
Offline
User avatar

count_to_10

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3282
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2012, 15:38

Unread post07 Mar 2019, 03:22

I thought the JAGM was now just called Hellfire II.
Einstein got it backward: one cannot prevent a war without preparing for it.

Uncertainty: Learn it, love it, live it.
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5485
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post07 Mar 2019, 04:01

wrightwing wrote:I wouldn't be surprised if the APKWS is integrated, too. Both of these systems will provide a lot of flexibility in missions, where high precision/low collateral damage, is needed.



As I've stated in the past. I am curious if they could fit a couple APKWS tubes in either the inner or outer Weapon Bay Doors of the F-35??? While, four 2.75 rockets doesn't sound like much. The new APKWS are very accurate and cheap. These could be carried regardless of the mission. As they have no impact on the internal or external weapons load. Plus, their small size and weight would have virtually no impact on performance.


Just for example let's say a flight of four F-35A's where on a CAP Mission. (Air to Air) Yet, an urgent call came in. That a Special Forces Team was spotted and surrounded by a company of enemy troops. In this case even four F-35's on a purely Air Superiority Mission. Would have 16 precision-guided rockets to bring to the fight. In addition the 25mm Cannon.....As a matter of fact this has happen a number of times in the fight against terrorism. (Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria)

Here's something similar from an F-102....

f102 falcon missile 1.jpg


ROCKET.png


apkws-unit.jpg
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 22984
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post07 Mar 2019, 04:14

What effect would the APKWS [as described above - in the doors] exhaust have on the F-35? IF ANY will this affect the stealth properties of the aircraft?
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline
User avatar

steve2267

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2134
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2016, 17:36

Unread post07 Mar 2019, 04:43

spazsinbad wrote:What effect would the APKWS [as described above - in the doors] exhaust have on the F-35? IF ANY will this affect the stealth properties of the aircraft?


Prolly dirty up the interior of those weps bays some. The pneumatics engineers are always pretty proud of how their pneumatic weapons ejection system not only works really well, but is super clean. Lot of open plumbing and whatnot in those bays. Keeping them clean as possible is probably a good idea.
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.
Offline

marauder2048

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 716
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post07 Mar 2019, 05:04

In the F-102, how did the exhaust from the forward rockets not damage the aft rockets?
Attachments
ffar-f102.png
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5485
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post07 Mar 2019, 06:44

I would "assume" the tubes would be open at the rear. So, the exhaust gases would exit directly backwards and away for the aircraft. That or maybe even angled slightly outward. In order to provide adequate separation.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 22984
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post07 Mar 2019, 11:32

OH DEAR OH DEARIE ME - I've seen what rocket exhausts do to the rocket pods - it ain't purdy.
MODEL F-102A FLIGHT TRAINING MANUAL
01 Jul 1956 TRAINING SECTION PRODUCTION FLIGHT DEPARTMENT CONVAIR

"...K. EXTERIOR FINISH. Because of the corrosive effects of deposits left by missile motor combustion, the entire exterior surface of the airplane except for the titanium and plastic components, is finished with the following special treatment: aluminum alloys are painted with one coat of wash prime, one coat of zinc chromate primer, and one coat of aircraft_grey enamel. Magnesium receives the same treatment except that two coats of zinc chromate_primer are used...." [physical page 20]
&
"...The armament bay doors, which complete the fairing of the armament bays, contain rocket tubes in which 24 two-inch folding-fin rockets are stored and from which they are launched...." [physical page 15]

Source: http://www.filefactory.com/file/qtejuhf ... Manual.pdf (44Mb)
Attachments
F-102ArocketBayDoors.gif
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
PreviousNext

Return to F-35 Armament, Stores and Tactics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests