Royal Australian Air Force [RAAF] News, Discussions and Updates

[Surfinbird]

Well I guess there is no convincing the converted!

But in case anyone is still wondering I was talking about intercepting glide bombs with a range of 50-100km (Aussie JDAM-ER), not snakeyes dropped from zero feet a few hundred feet from the target (Falklands sea attack). I mean it might be just me but there is a bit of a difference in the flight profile?

So I've reached the point where I'm convinced that you're not trying to discuss this reasonable or lack the capability to do so. So we both agree to not continue it anymore. I look foward to Lockheed Martin and Raytheon closing their JASSM and JSOW factories as the world rushes down under to buy up DSTO's JDAM glide bomb kit!

 

[irtusk]

For you to suggest that high end SAMs will be used on $30k bombs (which one can't tell if its $300 bombs) is another display of remarkable intelligence.

while i agree with most of your points, not sure about this

in the end, it's the value of the target you're protecting, not the cost of the munition that matters

if it's a target that must be protected, does it matter if the attack comes from a $5 munition or a $5 million dollar munition? it still has to be stopped

one example on a smaller scale: land-based phalanx systems near bases shooting hundreds of rounds to hit one very cheap mortar round

do the troops at the base care that the mortar round was cheap and go "well, it is only a cheap mortar, not worth wasting all those phalanx rounds on it"?

hardly!

 

[StevoJH]

Well I guess there is no convincing the converted!

But in case anyone is still wondering I was talking about intercepting glide bombs with a range of 50-100km (Aussie JDAM-ER), not snakeyes dropped from zero feet a few hundred feet from the target (Falklands sea attack). I mean it might be just me but there is a bit of a difference in the flight profile?

So I've reached the point where I'm convinced that you're not trying to discuss this reasonable or lack the capability to do so. So we both agree to not continue it anymore. I look foward to Lockheed Martin and Raytheon closing their JASSM and JSOW factories as the world rushes down under to buy up DSTO's JDAM glide bomb kit!

Umm, JSOW and JDAM are both guided bombs with a range in the tens of kilometers (I believe JDAM is made up of dumb bombs with bolt on guidence equipment), JASSM is a cruise missile with a range of several hundred kilometers, that is capable of terrain following, there is just a slight difference in their capabilities, range, mission profiles and cost.

In summary, JDAM with glide bomb kits would in no way infringe upon the domain of the JASSM, though it *might* infringe upon the job of the JSOW.

 

[Todjaeger]

Dudes, long weapons range is important for current CAS roles because it enables a single fighter to cover a larger area. However with current ROEs (at least in Iraq) in many cases the fighter has to be right over the target and confirm visually what it is bombing before weapons release. But in Afghanistan a single fighter orbit equipped with glide bombs can service two bomb requests simultaneously on targets that may be 100km away. Otherwise the fighter would have to queue the attacks which would mean a 15-30 minute delay for the second target. Which would really suck for the guys calling in the strike.

Loitering is the name of the game in contemporary CAS operations. Maybe if you’re in a high intensity conflict it’s not the same but then you are unlikely to be using JDAMs for CAS and would be back to quick strikes with rockets, missiles and snakeyes.

JDAMs are vulnerable to high intensity GBAD threats because of their comparatively high RCS and low speed. SA-15 or a modern frigate would have little problem shooting down a few JDAMs targeted at it or something it was defending. Just because Iraq and others without a full spectrum of contemporary GBAD systems were unable to shoot down JDAMs does not mean it won’t happen. So glide bomb JDAMs are not going to be replacing JSOW and JASSM for use against defended targets no matter what ranges DSTO can achieve.

There are a few holes in the arguement here. For some high volume CAS missions, the B-52 and B-1 bombers have been used, both due to their tremendous fuel capacity allowing high persistance over a battlefield, as well as the load of ordnance they can carry. A single fighter carrying wingkit-equipped bombs might be able to release them from farther away, possibly allowing a faster response... That does not necessarily improve the fighter's loiter time because the fighter will still need to land and be re-armed once its ordnance has been used.

As for the other idea, that of a GBAD system being used against the bombs, why? By acting against the bomb itself, one might, if successful (and no guarantees of success) protect the target of that one bomb. It does nothing to eliminate ones enemy's ability to continue launching attacks, as would be the case if the launching aircraft was the target.

Take a look at current GBAD systems that are intended to intercept ordnance as opposed to launch platforms. Such systems at present are to attempt to provide BMD since the successful delivery of a BM could be devastating. Against such a threat, then the use of radar and comm systems, etc make sense. Against what might be something as cheap as a $300 bomb, targeting something relatively unimportant... Keep in mind that the effort required to detect, target and persecute an incoming bomb would then attract the attention of the attacker, and likely result in SEAD/DEAD missions. This would further reduce the overall capability for ones defences against future attacks, all without effecting the attacks ability to continue launching attacks.

-Cheers

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

Deleted

 

[Todjaeger]

while i agree with most of your points, not sure about this

in the end, it's the value of the target you're protecting, not the cost of the munition that matters

if it's a target that must be protected, does it matter if the attack comes from a $5 munition or a $5 million dollar munition? it still has to be stopped

one example on a smaller scale: land-based phalanx systems near bases shooting hundreds of rounds to hit one very cheap mortar round

do the troops at the base care that the mortar round was cheap and go "well, it is only a cheap mortar, not worth wasting all those phalanx rounds on it"?

hardly!

Correct, it is the value of the target being protected... However, in a "cost-wise" sense, if it is a high-value target then it might very well be swarmed with incoming ordnance. Imagine this situation, there is a target with a value of $3 million... a single $30k bomb is needed against it, but being a target with a value of $3 million, 100 bombs allocated to the target. What sort of resources would the defender need (in terms of numbers and cost) to protect the target? IMV it would likely require a number of sophisticated systems costing in excess of $3 million for the defending ordnance, nevermind launch platforms, comms, etc. A bit simplistic I admit, but one can get a sense that attempting to defend vs. incoming ordnance is just not practical. What country, even the US (pre financial meltdown:eek2) could afford such systems and infrastructure to protect every target of interest. That would potentially require a ring of air defences around every bridge, powerplant, switching station, train terminal, shipping channel, telecom trunk, etc. Basically any fixed or semi-fixed infrastructure of strategic importance... And then it would become a competition, which side would be able to deliver more attacking bombs, or defending SAM/AA systems? With the "winner" decided by whether the target ultimately is damaged/destroyed or not.

Again, as mentioned, this is just not practical. With very high value targets and critical infrastructure (like HQs, etc) those tend to be defended in such a way to try and eliminate that attacker prior to being able to deliver the ordnance. This is turn led to would-be attackers developing new attack plans and weapons (like standoff ordnance) to mitigate the risks during an attack.

What a defender needs is the ability to destroy the attacker's launching platforms, not the ordnance itself. The launching platforms, be they fighter, bomber, etc are more expensive and time consuming to purchase, and not something that can be stockpiled like bombs can be.

-Cheers

 

[Surfinbird]

Nobody has suggested that JASSM or JSOW will be replaced. That's caught up in your entirely twisted and warped mind. Just check any of the previous post of mine which is all there and show me where I said so.

The wing-kits are incredibly cost-effective and a force-multiplier. The same amount of that can be spent on x number of long ranged missiles can now be multiplied on cheaper bombs without significant degradation of capability.

OK so now you are saying that spending the money for "longer ranged missiles" on the JDAM-ER does not mean replacing the JASSM? Which long range missile are you perhaps referring to? The Minuteman?

Look you've really turned up the insults when all I'm doing is showing up a few flaws in your enthusiast perspective by actually talking about real world, real service tactics and real practices.

In response to a few of your claims:

I never stated that a frigate that could not shoot down fighters could some how shoot down bombs. Because that's not the situation at all. However a frigate that could not shoot down a fighter coming in at zero feet altitude after popping out from behind a shoreline cliff 5km away like in the Falklands can shoot down a glide bomb descending on a glide path from 40,000 feet, 50km out. The difference is huge. That you couldn't contemplate it and twisted it into some perspective that I'm a retard with no idea about anything says legion for the value of your opinions.

Secondly JSOW is hugely different to a JDAM-ER. Apart from the sensor options in JSOW it is a stealthy weapon. Now why would anyone go to the bother of designing a stealthy glide bomb/dispenser if it wasn't necessary? Well I guess Mr Weasel of 1962 on the DefenceTalk webpage knows more about ATG tactics than USAF/USN and the Raytheon/Hughes Aircraft company.

Dude I'm trying to keep this civil but don't take someone with a different POV as somehow an affront to who you are. I imagine you're probably a very nice person with a deep concern for the practice of national defence. You just don't know everything about dropping bombs on things.

 

[Surfinbird]

There are a few holes in the arguement here. For some high volume CAS missions, the B-52 and B-1 bombers have been used, both due to their tremendous fuel capacity allowing high persistance over a battlefield, as well as the load of ordnance they can carry. A single fighter carrying wingkit-equipped bombs might be able to release them from farther away, possibly allowing a faster response... That does not necessarily improve the fighter's loiter time because the fighter will still need to land and be re-armed once its ordnance has been used.

Its not about improving the loiter time of a single fighter but having a single fighter cover the same area that two fighters would be needed. Sustaining a 24-7 orbit over the battlefield is very demanding and if you can reduce the number of aircraft you need over the battlespace because you have a glide bomb then you are making things easy for everyone.

As for the other idea, that of a GBAD system being used against the bombs, why? By acting against the bomb itself, one might, if successful (and no guarantees of success) protect the target of that one bomb. It does nothing to eliminate ones enemy's ability to continue launching attacks, as would be the case if the launching aircraft was the target.

I'm sure any GBAD operator worth his boots would prefer to shoot down the aircraft rather than a bomb. But JDAM was designed for a reason, so bombs could be dropped from aircraft (well B-2s) flying very high and outside the reach of most Soviet GBAD systems. However the bomb has to come down to reach the target. Now with JDAMs being used in smaller numbers by smaller strike fighters and being used with stand off wing kits the ability to defeat the mission and preserve the target by the GBAD operator is improved. That is of course if strike fighters start gliding JDAM-ERs at high value targets rather than JSOW or JASSM in which the GBAD system will not get the same engagement opportunity as against a JDAM-ER.

 

[Todjaeger]

Secondly JSOW is hugely different to a JDAM-ER. Apart from the sensor options in JSOW it is a stealthy weapon. Now why would anyone go to the both of designing a stealthy glide bomb/dispenser if it wasn't necessary? Well I guess Mr Weasel of 1962 on the DefenceTalk webpage knows more about ATG tactics than USAF/USN and the Raytheon/Hughes Aircraft company.

I bothered to read the Raytheon JSOW datasheet here and I would like to point out something. In the last sentence of the 2nd paragraph...

JSOW’s low radar cross section and infrared signature are key stealth features and ensure a high probability of survival en route to heavily
defended targets.

While "stealth features" are mentioned, that is not the same thing as claiming the JSOW is stealthy. A 500lb bomb is naturally going to have a smaller RCS than an aircraft unless the aircraft itself is LO. Same situation exists for the IR signature. The JSOW being a glide weapon is unpowered, therefore the IR signature would mostly come from air friction on the winglets and would therefore be lower than that of a powered (and larger) aircraft, excepting again possible LO aircraft.

There is no mention of a significant difference between the JSOW and JDAM or other bomber in terms of IR signature or RCS. Therefore it would be premature to claim there is without other sources.

The datasheet does mention that the muntion is designed to be survivable in a highly defended environment. What seems to be overlooked, again, is context.

Take a look at the "opening day" of an air campaign conducted by the USAF. A large portion of the initial efforts are directed against IADS via general strikes at C4ISR assets or dedicated SEAD/DEAD missions. The only real reasons why a defender would possibly engage a piece of incoming ordnance is that
1. It is the only potential target the defender has detected...
2. It is the only potential target in the defender's range
3. The ordnance is directed against the defender

#'s 1 & 2 are part and parcel of why stand-off weaponry has been getting developed, namely keeping the launching platform and pilot/crew safe. A US$60 million+ F/A-18F Superhornet is an expensive piece of kit, and then there is the time and cost of training the pilot (AFAIK ~US$5 million+) Neither of which can be replaced quickly or with little cost. By keeping the launching platform farther away, the defender can lose the ability to either see or shoot at the aircraft.

As for #3, the defender likely would not be able to tell exactly where the ordnance was headed until it got rather close... By which time it might well be too late to successfully engage.

As for the Falklands example, the RN SAM defenses were geared towards mid-range high altitude intercepts as a result of Cold War planning. It is likely that had the Argentinian Air Force used such standoff weapons at the time, then likely yes, many of them would have been intercepted. However, one would have to wonder, just how many A-4 Skyhawks Argentina would have lost in that sort of engagement, and if the RN would have had more vessels damaged or lost. On a cost basis, assuming Argentina planned ahead and had built up warstocks beforehand, I think it likely that the RN could have found itself either suffering heavier losses or forced to withdraw. Either the RN would be forced to conserve the missiles carried aboard the frigates and destroyers and only engage aircraft thus ignoring bombs which would air and strike ships, or the missiles could target the bombs which would likely be available in greater numbers than SAMs.

Also, keep in mind the scope of engagements. Diferent sized and typed ordnance is available for different mission profiles and are used as such.

-Cheers

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

Deleted

 

[Todjaeger]

I'm sure any GBAD operator worth his boots would prefer to shoot down the aircraft rather than a bomb. But JDAM was designed for a reason, so bombs could be dropped from aircraft (well B-2s) flying very high and outside the reach of most Soviet GBAD systems. However the bomb has to come down to reach the target. Now with JDAMs being used in smaller numbers by smaller strike fighters and being used with stand off wing kits the ability to defeat the mission and preserve the target by the GBAD operator is improved. That is of course if strike fighters start gliding JDAM-ERs at high value targets rather than JSOW or JASSM in which the GBAD system will not get the same engagement opportunity as against a JDAM-ER.

Umm... No, JDAM was developed as a low-cost guidance kit to convert existing free-fall bombs in "smart" bombs.

As for using JDAM vs JSOW or JAASM, it all depends on the environment one operates in. If the target is important and located deep inside an IADS, then JAASM, or perhaps multiple JAASMs would be called for. However, if the GBAD located around the target is anticipated to be manpack SAMS and perhaps SPAAG, there is no need to engage from tens of, or hundreds of km away. Using a JDAM-ER when a JSOW or JAASM is called for is of course a waste of the attackers resources, as it would put an unneed risk on the launching platform. At the same time, using a JAASM or JSOW when a JDAM-ER can equally fufill the requirements is a waste of financial and logistical resources better utilized elsewhere.

-Cheers

 

[Surfinbird]

and you read it as I want to replace all JSOWs and JASSMs with JDAMs. One is a comparison of cost. The other is an acquisition policy.

Dude, you said JDAM-ER gives you the same capability as JSOW and JASSM. At least that's what is meant by 'without significant degradation in capability' in the basic school of Logic 101 last time I checked. Double negative equals a positive. Your analysis was a classic case of two dimensional armchair generalling. Just because the JDAM-ER can fly tens of miles to hit a target with a CEP of a donkey's butt crack hair. Which is on the surface what a JSOW and a JASSM does.

Your imagination of 5km popping planes from cliffs edge is indeed fascinating and just symptomatic of your lack of facts or knowledge of the falklands. I'm sure the argies are absolutely thankful for the falkland cliffs, where that may be... I love your exaggeration but you still don't get the logic do you...sigh...

San Carlos, bomb alley? Multiple air strikes, terrain masking, 13 bombs hitting RN ships but not detonating because the fuses had not activated because they were dropped from so low? Are we talking about the same air battle here?

I read with your posts with stark fascination on how a JDAM with a terminal velocity of 1000+ km/h can be considered slower than a JASSM on a subsonic speed.

Because we are talking about the JDAM-ER vs the JSOW. A bomb on a ballistic path is a lot faster than a glide bomb. But the speed difference isn't so crucial as the amount of time exposed to the enemies counter measures and the weapon's ability to not be seen by them.

I'm amazed at the extremes to which you are willing to go to backup your knowledge free viewpoint. But its kind of funny in a Schadenfreude way.

 

[Surfinbird]

Umm... No, JDAM was developed as a low-cost guidance kit to convert existing free-fall bombs in "smart" bombs.

Paveway works in the same way strapping on a kit to the build up of a bomb to make a LGB. Replacing it with a GPS guided unit was all about achieving precision bombing from high altitude and through weather and obscurants that a laser could not do. All for... the B-2. Which is why after Allied Force JDAM kits were developed for 500lb and 1,000lb bombs to be used by smaller platforms.

 

[Surfinbird]

While "stealth features" are mentioned, that is not the same thing as claiming the JSOW is stealthy.

Dude, so what does it mean? That the JSOW isn't stealthy!

 

[swerve]

San Carlos, bomb alley? Multiple air strikes, terrain masking, 13 bombs hitting RN ships but not detonating because the fuses had not activated because they were dropped from so low? Are we talking about the same air battle here?.

Not if there were fighters popping out from behind shoreline cliffs. In San Carlos Water, they were popping up from behind the relatively gently undulating hills of West Falkland.
http://flickr.com/photos/75407711@N00/147723681

Or try this selection of photos -
http://www.hovingtonartandphotography.co.uk/gallery_58414.html

Or some official pictures -
http://www.raf.mod.uk/falklands/dday1.html

 

[Surfinbird]

Not if there were fighters popping out from behind shoreline cliffs. In San Carlos Water, they were popping up from behind the relatively gently undulating hills of West Falkland.
http://flickr.com/photos/75407711@N00/147723681

Or try this selection of photos -
http://www.hovingtonartandphotography.co.uk/gallery_58414.html

Or some official pictures -
http://www.raf.mod.uk/falklands/dday1.html

Cool, thanks dude for pointing that out. But its semantics really. Terrain masking is terrain masking! If I'm going to be crucified and ajudged a troll based on the mislabeling of Falklands terrain features then so be it.

But the point stands, the engagement opportunity between a frigate taking on one of those Argentinian Skyhawks and Mirages in San Carlos (cliff or undulating hill) is very, very different to a glide bomb from 40,000 feet and over 50km away.

 

[irtusk]

100 bombs allocated to the target.

. . .

The launching platforms, be they fighter, bomber, etc are more expensive and time consuming to purchase, and not something that can be stockpiled like bombs can be.

a point to consider is that even if you have enough bombs stockpiled to allocate 100 to a target, you don't have enough launching platforms to deliver that many at a target

so even with cheaper weapons, you are still constrained by the number of platforms

if you can only spare 2 planes for a target, it may be better to equip them with munitions that have a better chance of success

because in the real world saturation attacks never happen

if Iran wanted to sink the USS Missouri, they could have fired 100 silkworms at her

yet they fired 2

when Hamas tried to sink the Israeli ship, why didn't they launch hundreds of missiles at it? Instead they again launched 2

the problem is that mass attacks require mass logistics that attract unwanted attention

so most attacks are going to come from a limited number of munitions, whether cheap or not

i'm not really sure what i'm arguing about, it just seemed like an interesting point to consider

 

[winnyfield]

Paveway works in the same way strapping on a kit to the build up of a bomb to make a LGB. Replacing it with a GPS guided unit was all about achieving precision bombing from high altitude and through weather and obscurants that a laser could not do. All for... the B-2. Which is why after Allied Force JDAM kits were developed for 500lb and 1,000lb bombs to be used by smaller platforms.

JDAM-ER (+ laser) probably means the end to Paveway (doesn't fit in F-35 bays) use for the RAAF.

 

[Todjaeger]

a point to consider is that even if you have enough bombs stockpiled to allocate 100 to a target, you don't have enough launching platforms to deliver that many at a target

so even with cheaper weapons, you are still constrained by the number of platforms

if you can only spare 2 planes for a target, it may be better to equip them with munitions that have a better chance of success

because in the real world saturation attacks never happen

if Iran wanted to sink the USS Missouri, they could have fired 100 silkworms at her

yet they fired 2

when Hamas tried to sink the Israeli ship, why didn't they launch hundreds of missiles at it? Instead they again launched 2

the problem is that mass attacks require mass logistics that attract unwanted attention

so most attacks are going to come from a limited number of munitions, whether cheap or not

i'm not really sure what i'm arguing about, it just seemed like an interesting point to consider

I used 100 bombs to exaggerate a point, though depending on the mission it could potentially be accomplished with something like a B-1 or B-52.

The point was if a target was important enough to eliminate before completing the rollback of IADS, enough resources would be concentrated on it to take it out. This is an area where the attacker has advantages in knowing what their target (site of in-bound strike) is and mobility.

For most targets, a single or perhaps pair of standard fighters would be tasked on the mission and generally the fewer # of bombs used the better. However, this would often occur either during the IADS rollback, or afterwards. If the sortie occurred during the rollback, then the SAM system would likely be trying to stop the rollback along with other GBAD systems, as opposed to engaging a single incoming bomb... If the sortie occurred after the rollback, then aside from some of the smaller and less capable SAM systems, there would not be a system available to engage the incoming ordnance.

In some respects, the situation is opposite that of the proposed ALCM/AShM 'swarm' attacks on a USN CBG, as the defenders' location is known, and the attackers' is not. This would potentially force the defender to attempt to engage every in-bound detected, IMV this would rapidly a defenders stocks of SAMs. Not that it could not be done, but it still presents the same logistics issue an attacker would have, only on the defenders side.

-Cheers

 

[Surfinbird]

JDAM-ER (+ laser) probably means the end to Paveway (doesn't fit in F-35 bays) use for the RAAF.

The BIP doesn't include any LJDAMs and a "LJDAM-ER" is going to require LD from an offboard asset as even the F-35 EOTS won't be powerful enough for 30-50NM slant ranges! Air Force is interested in a new ATG weapon with trimode guidance including IIR, SAL and GPS/INS and Link 16 for F-35. Something like Block III JSOW for strike and JAGM for CAS.