Contributed by Aviation Week’s Aerospace Daily and Defense Report
The next significant air-launched weapons battle is about to heat up with the U.S. Army’s forthcoming solicitation for a single Hellfire, Javelin and TOW missile replacement called the Joint Air-to-Ground Missile (JAGM).
JAGM could be worth billions of dollars, and will be integrated onto six platforms – including fixed and rotary wing – for the Army and Navy : the Boeing F/A-18E/F and Apache Block III, Bell AH-1Z and OH-58D, Sikorsky MH-60R/S and General Atomics MQ-1C Gray Eagle .A request for proposals is expected by the end of October.
Meanwhile, two industry teams are wrapping up work on separate $125-million technology demonstration contracts, each of which lasted 27 months. JAGM grew out of the defunct Joint Common Missile effort, which was led by Lockheed Martin prior to termination.
This time, the company is pitted against a Raytheon/Boeing team.During the JAGM technology demonstration phase, both teams were required to conduct three tests, each designed to prominently feature the capabilities of a single mode of the tri-mode seeker required.
The three modes are the semi-active laser (SAL), imaging infrared (I2R) and millimeter wave (MMW) radar, and the tests were conducted in that order. The Raytheon/Boeing weapon, which did not include a new solid-rocket propelled motor under development for the JAGM requirement, scored all three hits.
Read the rest of this story and more from our Aviation Week friends at Military.com.
{ 45 comments… read them below or add one }
Once again the "commonizing" may have gone a bit too far. Hellfire is certainly much larger than the Javelin? Certainly the Hellfire and TOW niches could be combined (and TOWs were fired from helicopters early on), but replacing Javelin would require a smaller missile that would certainly be less capable, unless we shell out big bucks to develop that capability.
Hi Blight1,
JAGM is not being designed to replace Javelin. It is is being designed to replace Hellfire, TOW and Maverick.
Javelin is not a vehicle launched weapon, but in a MANPAD shoulder launched weapon. As you say, Javelin is smaller than Hellfire, but it is not smaller than TOW and is in fact cheaper than neither of them.
Thanks,
E
eagles,
The article itself mentions Javelin, so it must be a typo or someone fell off their rocker. Raytheon's page http://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/products/jag…
supports your assertion about Maverick in lieu of Javelin.
I couldn't help but think myself if it were to replace the Javelin, how massive that launcher would have to be. Let alone fire it in a sitting position.
The Joint Air-to-Ground Missile (JAGM) is a U.S. military program to develop an air-to-surface missile to replace the current BGM-71 TOW, AGM-114 Hellfire and AGM-65 Maverick missiles.[1] The US Army and Marines both plan to buy thousands of JAGMs. Therefore the article is wrong. Plus, the Javelin is only a little more then a decade old, while the TOW and Hellfire have been around during the Cold War. Our grandfathers used TOWs in the Vietnam War for heaven's sake.
Eh, how's with the different warheads needed? I mean, attacking a tank with a HE warhead will make just scratches and trying to destroy a speed boat with a HEAT round, well, it might be possible.
Are we going to see a AH-1Z with 4x HEAT and 4x AP/HE JAGMs? That would definitely defeat the entire purpose of common production, wouldn't it?
What is wrong with having several missile types anyway?
* Cheap, mass produced HE missile with low tech guidance to be fired /en masse/.
* Anti-tank missile (tank armour needs dedicated opponent)
* Long range precision strike missile
So… we would have
* Javelin
* TOW
* Harpoon
Now, what's wrong with that? Modernization isn't always better.
They may design some sort of multipurpose warhead. Raytheon may opt for a top attack shaped charge that also has a HE package, but this increases the per missile cost. However this will be negligible compared to avionics costs..
Other anti-tank missiles have multipurpose warheads. I suspect they'll use a top-attack shaped charge for anti-tank along with a general-purpose HE warhead. Javelin has a similar warhead..
Actually, a HE round on the top of a tank's turret will utterly destroy it. That is why artillery rounds are so devestating. Also, you could simply change the warhead type in the JAGM. Making multiple types isn't wise in this economy.
Nor is starting another development program that might get kicked to the curb like GCV, NLOS-LS, the previous common missile, etc.
The Raytheon page confirms that there will be a "shaped charge with multipurpose effects" whatever that means…
So it is a Maverick replacement, not the Javelin.
TOW, Maverick and Hellfire replacement would be promising, but each of these missiles is operating on different scales. Maverick is the biggest and longest-ranged, followed by Hellfire and the lightest, which is TOW. The point is still the same: how does one replace all these missiles without giving something up?
Using the Raytheon page JAGM spec sheet:
Weight: 108 lb
Range: >16 km
The Hellfire is around this weight, and the Maverick's much bigger. Wikipedia gives the desired JAGM range as 28 km, which matches Maverick's spec at the weight of the Hellfire. The Raytheon page even gives the diameter at the Hellfire's, so they've elected to squeeze everything into something about the size of the Hellfire missile.
The Raytheon sheet doesn't give information on it's payload, so not much to say there.
If Raytheon can get all three modes to work, they're ahead of poor little NLOS-LS.
Good MOrning Folks,
I'm not really sure of any cost benefits of the JAGM come in. Although both the TOW and HELLFIRE are aging systems they have been up graded constantly over the years, both have an established maintenance infrastructures with in all of the services and most of all are Combat proven and relative to the JAGM very inexpensive.
I would like to know what advantages the JAGM has over BGM-71 TOW-Wireless and the AGM-114R Hellfire II?
I personally can see none other them some small incremental advances in technology which will have little or no effect on the current battle fields. Both the TOW-Wireless and the Hellfire II have the M warhead and the AGM-114R the N warhead also. The BGM-71 TOW Wireless is also programed to be used over water and in the open ocean, it could and should be part of the Navy's solution to a GM for the Littoral/Green water mission.
The JAGM appears to be just needless costly technology that will not significantly increase the combat power of the United States Military. In times of economic stress the country can ill afford these gold plated costly weapons systems that don't address any current tactical operational needs.
ALLONS,
Byron Skinner
"I would like to know what advantages the JAGM has over BGM-71 TOW-Wireless and the AGM-114R Hellfire II?"
Better range, selectable warhead, all weather/all aspect targeting. It's basically capable (per sepcs) of doing all those missions.
I completely agree. The TOW is wirelessly guided, making it obsolete in modern battlefields. The Hellfire, althogh good, is getting old. It'll still be around for at least a decade while the JAGM kicks in into productions. With the other guys thinking, we would still be using M60s ugraded to the max.
Good Evening STemplar,
I don’t disagree with any of what you say, better range, 17 miles vs. 5 miles, selectable warheads (?) and the addition of IR to the guidance system. By it weight the warhead of the JAGM would be about the same as the Hellfire II.
But does any of this matter to anybody but the USAF who doesn’t want to go below 10,000 feet and likes a 10 mile stand off from the target. Sine the air environment is 100% free of ADM’s, its had to understand why the USAF doesn’t want to get some mud on its airplanes.
The Army now is providing most of the close air support for it troops with the its attack helicopters (AH-64 and AOH-58). Currently they are using the AGM-114 Hellfire II in several variants and the unguided Hydra 70 mm. The USMC also relies on the AH’s (AH-1) although they have on call F-18 E/F and AV8B’s which use the current arsenal of bombs available for US forces.
UAV’s are using the BGM-71 Mavericks ($158,000.00 ea.), AGM 114 Hellfire (average cost $65,000.00 to $68,000.00 per missile) and the GBU12 at ($21,896.00 ea.). We don’t know the unit cost of the JAGM yet but if trends hold to other weapons systems it will be a factor of 2X, or most likely greater then any of these systems it is intended to replace.
Is anybody unhappy with the current weapons?
Since I haven’t heard of any problems and they are being consumed in rather prestigious quantities in Afghanistan and Iraq, I would have to assume they are meeting the requirements of the users. These all are well known and understood weapons that have been in the US arsenal for years.
The trending for the UAV’s is going to smaller weapons like the viper strike which is a precision kill weapon system, AIM-9 Sidewinder that has been reprogramed as an A/G IR system and has the ability to follow traveling vehicles, the AH are going to the Hydra 70 Laser guided rocket. The DoD list only a 5 meter CEP for any weapon “officially” but these smaller weapons are know to have far greater accuracy.
The JAGM is not a replacement for the BGM-71 E or H Tow-4B-RF missile ($65,000.00 ea.) because the TOW can be used on land, sea and air platforms.
While the JAGM is certainly an advance in technology, other them range which is not all that important to anybody other them the Air Force, the JAGM isn’t offering that much more bang for the additional bucks.
ALLONS,
Byron Skinner
It's replacing 3 systems but multiple variants of those 3 systems. It carries 3 targeting modes in a single weapon, gives better range than some of the systems, has a selectable multi function warhead for armor and soft targets. Boeing's was three for three in testing and the LM missed once but said it wasn't the seeker that failed but "mechanical anomaly", so I would assume some kind of failure with steering or the motor. In any event the tests were too evaluate all 3 seeker modes.
If it works, and the targeting tests sounds like it is, the savings logistically will be substantial I would think.
I think it is just the fact that what the Maverick does can be accomplished by lighter systems that we can carry more of now. JAGM will have the same range as Maverick but the footprint of a Hellfire. SBDs are just as accurate as a Maverick and have a better range. I think technology has just advanced that we can do the Maverick's mission with a new system we can carry more of.
My concern is if it's one of those engineering promises that is "technically feasible" but is expensive to implement in practice. National defense is important, but if this is another program that bleeds money it'll get kicked to the curb like JGM-169, NLOS-LS and so on and so forth…
JAGM has plenty of potential and will certainly improve the capabilities of any platform it enters service on. I don't see why a ground vehicle launched version wouldn't be possible.
We should probably do engineering studies to see if Bradleys and Humvees can fire a Hellfire missile, it'll give us a clue on whether or not those vehicles will be ready for JAGM before the first prototype is built.
http://newwars.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/hellfi…
Sweet. Is that a built in G/VLLD in there?
To follow up more substantially…
I had to figure out where this pic came from. Apparently it came from Redstone, where I found this gem:
[http://www.redstone.army.mil/history/systems/HELLFIRE.html]
"
FY 91 A 16-month program began to determine the most appropriate method for integrating the HELLFIRE missile into the candidate systems for the GLH-Heavy (GLH-H). A recommended concept based on the M2 Bradley chassis and the AH-64 APACHE/UH-60 BLACK HAWK fire control systems was developed.
March 91 Developmental and qualification testing of the GLH-Light (GLH-L) was completed. The GLH-L system consisted of an M998 High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle (HMMWV) with a GLH vehicle adapter kit. The combat load included eight standard laser guided HELLFIRE missiles (two on the launch rails & six stowed).
June 91 TRADOC received five GLH-L systems for operational testing at Fort Hunter Liggett, California, all of which were extremely successful.
"
And then bam, nothing.
I suspect GLH disappeared with the end of the cold war, just like wireless TOW.
These studies have been carried out in the US and in many other countries. It works from light wheeled vehicles, LAVs, patrol boats and even ground-based tripods. An early off-shoot was an anti-ship version (Rb-17) developed for coastal defense against ships for Sweden and Norway. We have since re-developed the same anti-ship capability in the form of the AGM-114N version.
Background: http://books.google.com/books?id=8MwyTX-iA2wC&…
On tripod: http://img212.imageshack.us/img212/2628/rb1720cv.jpg
More on RB-17: http://books.google.com/books?id=8MwyTX-iA2wC&…
From a CB-90 (RCB in USN testing): <a href="http://translate.google.com/translate?js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=1&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2 Fwww.mil.no%2Fstart%2Farticle.jhtml%3FarticleID%3D78157&sl=auto&tl=en” target=”_blank”>http://translate.google.com/translate?js=y&pr…” target=”_blank”>Fwww.mil.no%2Fstart%2Farticle.jhtml%3FarticleID%3D78157&sl=auto&tl=en
You don't need the Mavericks warhead to take out tanks, its inefficient. For buildings, just use JDAMS or Paveways. If the JAGM can score ceiling hits on tanks, it'll only need a small warhead.
I always wondered why they needed such a gigantic warhead on the Maverick. Perhaps we'll never know, or maybe it's to fight Bolos.
The Paveways are getting long in the tooth as well. I didn't know that they had developed a dual laser/GPS mode, or that they were working on something that would work on moving targets.
JDAM with dual laser/GPS mode apparently got fielded a few years back. And looking at both Paveway and JDAM family, it seems that many of the iron bombs have been fitted for both JDAM and Paveway. I wonder if this redundancy wasn't spotted years ago…
The JAGM should be integrated with gps guidance system to suceed, I heard it was laser guidance.
Roland, there's no utility to giving a high-speed air-to-ground missile, meant to engage small fixed and mobile targets, a GPS-based targeting system that has an error radius larger than the target. This is why the Hellfire currently uses laser homing and MMW radar guidance. JAGM is adding imaging infrared to allow automated target identification. JAGM will be a precision attack weapon.
Longer-ranged weapons use GPS guidance when their warhead is bigger than the error and you're dropping it from so high or so far away that you can't directly indicate your target. It is for this reason that the latest JDAM bombs are also getting laser guidance, because modern targeting pods allow high-flying jets to specifically designate their targets with great precision.
Don't be a troll, do your reading first.
CBD, this is tangential, but if JDAMs become dual laser/GPS, isn't it essentially a Paveway LGB? The primary distinction is that JDAM is a Boeing product, and Paveway a Raytheon product. These same two companies are pitted against each other in JAGM.
Boeing is trying to eat into Raytheon's Paveway market by incorporating a laser guidance option for its popular JDAM. So yes, redundant, but sometimes it's nice to have redundancy to drive forward development (and sometimes it's just a nice way of stealing market share from your established competitor).
Blurbs on the web indicate LJDAM is already out. If I read the Raytheon page correctly, the Enhanced Paveway II with laser and GPS is already out. Did we end up paying Boeing and Raytheon to deliver essentially the same kits to outfit the exact same iron bombs?
they did that so a JDAM can attack moving target
JAGM technology 3 phase test was not all a success. It only pass one test out of the 3 test conducted last Aug 3 and Sept. 10 of 2010. This technology is still new. GPS-based targeting system is more accurate and been tested over and over again. I would recommend quadruple integration per missile that is integration with GPS integration, three modes integration ( the semi-active laser (SAL), imaging infrared (I2R) and millimeter wave (MMW) radar) per JAGM missile to make it 100% accurate.
What's been hinted at is that based on the nature of the targets, is that GPS is unlikely to be used. JAGM is probably meant to be thrown at tanks, so SAL, I2R and MWW are explicitly designed to track tanks, especially in case if they move.
GPS alone isn't perfect, which is why laser guidance is being put onto JDAMs.
why would you want a GPS guidance for a direct attack weapon? “GPS-based targeting system is more accurate” –> which is utterly wrong.
I think you need more research on that. I beg to disagree on your claim . Its been tested and used in the past. GPS guided armaments like GBU-36, GBU-37,AGM-158 JASSM,AGM-84 Harpoon.
http://www.janes.com/articles/Janes-Air-Launched-…
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/mu…
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/smart/agm-84.h…
Is the Air Force keeping the Maverick, or can we extrapolate that the anti-vehicle role has been completely subsumed by other weapons?
Based on: http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/USAF_Force_Awar…
I suspect that the AF isn't done with the Maverick.
Teh maverick will be around for years. Itll be a fail safe in case the JAGM suffers any snags like most US systems.
I wonder how superior it would be to the Brimstone? Maybe we could expand that or do a joint upgrade with the British?
Brimstone has a published range of ~12km (versus 16+ for JAGM. However it outranges the Hellfire missile).Guidance is radar/INS, whereas the JAGM is supposed to have IR, radar and laser.
This begs the question of how important is it for each warhead to have all three guidance modes available in the same missile.
I'm re-reading my notes on the Mavericks; and I'm curious if JAGM can replace the Navy Maverick (-F), which has the larger warhead and is probably the reason why Maverick has longer range than proposed JAGM.
I mean, plinking tanks, bunkers and Toyotas is one thing, but ships are probably going to be better prepared against missile attack, so JAGM design will probably have this as part of their consideration?
Also:
Is there an extended-range variant of the JAGM like the AGM-130? 40km+ range is not something to sneeze at…
The TOWs appeared late in the Vietnam War. And the M-16s were around nearer the beginning. We still use the M-16. Age of a system doesn't seem to faze the modern military? (and yes, "modern military" has an ironic twist to it in this context).
Well a rifle doesn't have high tech targeting systems within it. Missiles do, that's why they are ugraded and replaced very often. Teh Russians themselves have produced more types have missiles then us! My point is, is that weapons get and need to be eventually replaced, the m16 itself has undergone many attempts to replace it, but it still works. But if you were to use the slow person guided tow aganist a swarm of chinese tanks, well you wouldn't exist quite frankly. Teh hellfire can be used for multiple attacks, but will eventually need to be replaced just like the Tow, adn teh JAGM won't be fully intigrated for years.