it more a powered glider, where the aerodynamics and launch altitude are providing the majority of the travel distance, enhanced by the propulsion system.
Did we just make a frickton of MK-82s or something? Surely we don't make them currently as there is zero need for unguided bombs and manufacturing guided missiles/glide bombs in one piece would be better than add on kits.
>as there is zero need for unguided bombs
He says as the hot new tactic in 2023 is to exhaust your enemy's supply by throwing waves upon waves at the problem.
The MK-82 is basically perfect and blowing the shit out of just about anything you could want. The only modern pressures are accuracy, and we've been slapping guide kits on them for like 40 years now? Paveway, JDAM, etc.
Theres literally no reason to develop a full replacement when all we need is to develop bolt on guidance kits. Bomb is fine.
It replaces the bomb with more fuel, so it can fly around for a long time and annoy SAM operators.
https://i.imgur.com/33oIO67.jpg
This reads like a tailor-made missile for the Ukrainian theater. Or a GLSDB booster/body kit with the avionics of a JDAM.
So the JDAM kit was made to make America's old stock of dumb-bombs useful in the kebab wars. To use up old warehouses of dumb munitions in a smart way. Same with GLSDB
How many DUMB bombs are left? At some point the inventory of JDAM/PJDAM/GLSDB kits will out-number the amount of general purpose bombs left. Surely we won't do something wacky, like, I dunno, restart production of general purpose bombs?
Production of Mk 8Xs never stopped. It's still ongoing.
>AFAIK we're still making them because they're dirt cheap.
I doubt the cost of a new production dumb bomb + retrofitted guidance kit would be cheaper than a purpose built guided bomb
The bombs cost $2,000-4,000 (at least, they did a couple decades ago, before the current inflation). The basic JDAM kit is the cheapest guidance option the US makes, at ~$10,000 (again, GWOT-era prices). Contrast this with SDB1 ($40,000), which is a purpose-built guided glide bomb.
On a related note, compare the price of Excalibur ($110,000) with the price of the M1156 PGK fuze/guidance kit (<$15,000). Making large numbers of add-on kits for equally large numbers of unguided munitions is cheaper than making a smaller number of weapons with bespoke warheads.
Adding to this, the Navy was originally going to procure a JSOW-ER which did the same thing, but was cancelled in favor of buying JASSM-ERs
Agreed. There are plenty of options available already, and adding new weapons with new fixed costs to be amortized just raises the average price of everything. We have JDAM (cheap), SDB1 (smol/light), SDB2 (terminal guidance), JSOW (larger/longer-ranged USN glide bomb), JASSM (stealthy cruise missile), JASSM-ER (longcat is...), JASSM-XR (el grande), LRASM (nice boat). In order for a new weapon to be worth buying, it has to bring something new or something better to the table. For example, the QuickStrike/QuickSink variants of JDAM used to turn dumb bombs into sea mines and cheap anti-ship weapons, respectively.
How is it still 4 thousand fricking dollars for a metal cast and some filler then still should cost a tenth of that
Filling bombs with HE is actually a bit of an art form, and if you mess it up, you might have a bad day. There's a bottleneck in highly-experienced workers who can safely pour molten HE into a bomb or shell. BAE claims to be working on a new ultrasonic system that apparently wouldn't require the HE to be melted down and poured, and thus could be largely automated.
>It replaces the bomb with more fuel, so it can fly around for a long time and annoy SAM operators.
Just imagine launching a dozen or so on the most moronic trajectories you can to make the other guy waste as many SAMs as possible before the real fun starts
>Just imagine launching a dozen or so on the most moronic trajectories you can to make the other guy waste as many SAMs as possible before the real fun starts
And consider that these could actually evade launched SAMs lmao. They can kill their heat signature in seconds.
Also, dog-legging a strike is a common tactic already.
>Did we just make a frickton of MK-82s or something?
Yes the US made a frickton of MK-8#s
>manufacturing guided missiles/glide bombs in one piece would be better than add on kits.
Not at the cost of JDAM kits, they're designed to be inexpensive as frick
the US dropped more bombs in vietnam than WW2 and korea combined, dropped more bombs in iraq twice, dropped more bombs against terrorists hiding in caves; and somehow still have more bombs lying about that theres an economic incentive to make JDAMs out of them just so they wont go to waste
Ehhh
At this point the price of engine a guidance must be much higher than the bomb itself right? Wouldn't it be cheaper to just produce a new, purpose built missile? JDAM makes good sense, this not so much
Adding to this, the Navy was originally going to procure a JSOW-ER which did the same thing, but was cancelled in favor of buying JASSM-ERs
Ehhh
At this point the price of engine a guidance must be much higher than the bomb itself right? Wouldn't it be cheaper to just produce a new, purpose built missile? JDAM makes good sense, this not so much
We have literally come full circle to bombs become cruise missiles. Everything now is basically a cruise missile. >bombs
cruise missile >GLSDB
cruise missile >MLRS
cruise missile >suicide drones
cruise missile >cruise missiles
decoys for cruise missiles
This reads like a tailor-made missile for the Ukrainian theater. Or a GLSDB booster/body kit with the avionics of a JDAM.
So the JDAM kit was made to make America's old stock of dumb-bombs useful in the kebab wars. To use up old warehouses of dumb munitions in a smart way. Same with GLSDB
How many DUMB bombs are left? At some point the inventory of JDAM/PJDAM/GLSDB kits will out-number the amount of general purpose bombs left. Surely we won't do something wacky, like, I dunno, restart production of general purpose bombs?
>This reads like a tailor-made missile for the Ukrainian theater.
That's my read on it, we may not have a bunch of ATACMS but we can produce hundreds of JDAM kits per day. Depending on how cheap and fast these can be made they could be HIMARs tier game changers. MiG's would not need to get within 200km of the front line to hit the farthest targets in occupied Ukraine including that bridge.
If the US had the balls, 50 of these things could shut down Rostov-on-Don's military logistics and most of Russia's ability to prosecute the war but that won't happen.
>AFAIK we're still making them because they're dirt cheap.
I doubt the cost of a new production dumb bomb + retrofitted guidance kit would be cheaper than a purpose built guided bomb
You underestimate economies of scale. These production lines have been running for decades so everything that could have been streamlined already has been
Explosives are not cheap. They aren't terribly expensive either, but a good military grade explosive, with a long shelf life and standardized parameters comes at a premium
>Mark 81 – nominal weight 250 pounds (113 kg) >Mark 82 – nominal weight 500 pounds (227 kg) >Mark 83 – nominal weight 1,000 pounds (454 kg) >Mark 84 – nominal weight 2,000 pounds (907 kg)
Because they're big boys filled with lots of TNT, hexogen, and aluminum.
By itself, 1 ton of raw aluminum is currently going for ~$2,222. Most of these bombs are ~20% aluminum for filler alone. In a Mk84 that's about 100kg of aluminum inside a bomb. So each bomb is $200 in raw aluminum alone, BEFORE labor like powdering your 100kg of solid aluminum, if you're a meth-head who takes bombs apart to sell the expensive metal at scrap-yard prices.
Of all that filler, aluminum is probably the cheapest.
>cast
they are forged, but keep telling us how little you know.
7 months ago
Anonymous
they should cast it instead and use cheaper filler, who the frick cares that the big ass bomb may have a yield variation of +-10% if you can make more of them cheaper. Ukraine has shown that quantity is definitely worth a minor decrease in quality. Maybe with the money saved we can actually retain military personnel and not lose valuable experience (worth more than a overpriced piece of pot metal filled with TNT)
7 months ago
Anonymous
you being this stupid is exactly why they don't do this.
7 months ago
Anonymous
>Who cares if you have to use 5 bombs to destroy what used to take 1 at least you save 25% on each bomb
Stop being moronic
7 months ago
Anonymous
moron, you think a 10% yield variation would make it so
1. Most hit targets wouldnt be destroyed
2. It would need 4 more bombs
There is a reason they don't mass issue perfect precision shooting grade 5.56 to the infantry, should be the same for bombs.
7 months ago
Anonymous
They do tho. Modern carbines are lasers compared to the sniper rifles of WW2 and WW1, who considered hitting a stationary man beyond 600 meters with a scoped boltaction so improbable as to be pointless.
7 months ago
Anonymous
Those sniper rifles were about as accurate or maybe better than modern carbines. They just had shitty optics.
7 months ago
Anonymous
Lolwut
Your average $400 PSA ar is probably more accurate than your average WW2 bolt action rifle and most "sniper" rifles back then was just a scope slapped onto a slightly more well built infantry rifle
7 months ago
Anonymous
>you think a 10% yield variation would make
it significantly cheaper to manufacture.
7 months ago
Anonymous
another anon said a big part of the cost was gucci precision spec filler
7 months ago
Anonymous
Cheaping out on your effectors introduces uncertainty. If your fuse has a 90% chance to work, the payload has a 90% chance to be enough and the body has a 10% chance to rattle itself apart during transit that adds up to something like a 72% kill probability. As an air force commander do you want to gamble that it will work or do you send 3 bombs to bring the total p(K) back above 99%?
7 months ago
Anonymous
>hmm, today I will cut corners with my explosives
7 months ago
Anonymous
Here's your cheaper bomb filler moron.
7 months ago
Anonymous
kind of odd they would spend the money to forge something that is designed to blow up, does forging allow for better fragmentation or something?
7 months ago
Anonymous
kind of odd they would spend the money to forge something that is designed to blow up, does forging allow for better fragmentation or something?
Looks like there is an option for hot forging but it was deemed not economical.
RDX based explosives cost around $8 per pound, forged steel about $4 per pound
Materials alone are 1600+800=$2400 for Mk-82 bomb
and 7200+3600=$10800 for Mk-84 bomb
7 months ago
Anonymous
Which is actually not that much for example Retail price of chicken breast (boneless) is just above 4 dollars. and the RDX is 1 dollar above Uncooked Beef Roasts. droppin bigmac instead of jdams would be more expensive
>Surely we won't do something wacky, like, I dunno, restart production of general purpose bombs?
But they are though? And the want the new gem of BLU's to use preformed frag instead of plain steel casing to ensure maximum killage.
[...]
[...] >Restarting
They never stopped, which is why a basic Mk82 costs less than equipping a single infantryman. $4000.
We never stopped making Mk82's, just like Russia never stopped making FAB's.
Dumb bombs and shells need to be stacked DEEEEP
>restart production of general purpose bombs?
Why would you need to restart something that never stopped?
JDAMs ARE add-on kits.
[...]
It replaces the bomb with more fuel, so it can fly around for a long time and annoy SAM operators.
[...]
Production of Mk 8Xs never stopped. It's still ongoing.
[...]
The bombs cost $2,000-4,000 (at least, they did a couple decades ago, before the current inflation). The basic JDAM kit is the cheapest guidance option the US makes, at ~$10,000 (again, GWOT-era prices). Contrast this with SDB1 ($40,000), which is a purpose-built guided glide bomb.
On a related note, compare the price of Excalibur ($110,000) with the price of the M1156 PGK fuze/guidance kit (<$15,000). Making large numbers of add-on kits for equally large numbers of unguided munitions is cheaper than making a smaller number of weapons with bespoke warheads.
[...]
Agreed. There are plenty of options available already, and adding new weapons with new fixed costs to be amortized just raises the average price of everything. We have JDAM (cheap), SDB1 (smol/light), SDB2 (terminal guidance), JSOW (larger/longer-ranged USN glide bomb), JASSM (stealthy cruise missile), JASSM-ER (longcat is...), JASSM-XR (el grande), LRASM (nice boat). In order for a new weapon to be worth buying, it has to bring something new or something better to the table. For example, the QuickStrike/QuickSink variants of JDAM used to turn dumb bombs into sea mines and cheap anti-ship weapons, respectively.
[...]
Filling bombs with HE is actually a bit of an art form, and if you mess it up, you might have a bad day. There's a bottleneck in highly-experienced workers who can safely pour molten HE into a bomb or shell. BAE claims to be working on a new ultrasonic system that apparently wouldn't require the HE to be melted down and poured, and thus could be largely automated.
>Production of Mk 8Xs never stopped.
Alright already I fricking GET IT jeeze. It is my understanding that WE NEVER STOPPED MAKING MK8x GENERAL PURPOSE BOMBS fricking there, happy?
Honestly why not? The tech is there, production lines can be restarted with modularity and continously improving upgrade packages. We could have the MK-82-2.0 designed with purpose built upgrade slots. Imagine the possibilities
Because the tech is there for something better, and if you're restarting production lines that are long cold, why not do so for something purpose-built and not a frankenstein? Yes, its a well-performing Frankenstein, "good enough," but it could be better.
As an example Ukies are making their own 155mm tube gun trucks. The "gun" part of their "gun truck" is new, but they're re-using the product of their old military truck production line. It's a solid enough military truck, but wasn't meant to take the kind of forces that firing a 155mm shell produces. As a result the truck needs to be replaced before the gun. It was "good enough" to keep Snek Island under 155mm fire-control, they still b***hed about their SPG needing a tow after extensive use of the gun. This was in summer of 2022 when Ukies were running out of 152mm, were getting 155mm shipped to them, but before m777 arrived.
>Surely we won't do something wacky, like, I dunno, restart production of general purpose bombs?
But they are though? And the want the new gem of BLU's to use preformed frag instead of plain steel casing to ensure maximum killage.
Honestly why not? The tech is there, production lines can be restarted with modularity and continously improving upgrade packages. We could have the MK-82-2.0 designed with purpose built upgrade slots. Imagine the possibilities
https://i.imgur.com/LWizxkw.jpg
>Honestly why not?
Because the tech is there for something better, and if you're restarting production lines that are long cold, why not do so for something purpose-built and not a frankenstein? Yes, its a well-performing Frankenstein, "good enough," but it could be better.
As an example Ukies are making their own 155mm tube gun trucks. The "gun" part of their "gun truck" is new, but they're re-using the product of their old military truck production line. It's a solid enough military truck, but wasn't meant to take the kind of forces that firing a 155mm shell produces. As a result the truck needs to be replaced before the gun. It was "good enough" to keep Snek Island under 155mm fire-control, they still b***hed about their SPG needing a tow after extensive use of the gun. This was in summer of 2022 when Ukies were running out of 152mm, were getting 155mm shipped to them, but before m777 arrived.
>Restarting
They never stopped, which is why a basic Mk82 costs less than equipping a single infantryman. $4000.
wonder how much the kit costs? I'm guessing at least triple, but that's still a deal. >long range decoy
Interdasting. you could mix these with cruise missiles and saturate AD.
>long range decoy >Operation Desert Storm >Prototype decoys first deployed >Iraqis shot them down over Baghdad, parading the belief that they shot down hundreds of foolish American strategic bombers and fighter jets >The real payload was just a few kilometers behind and destroyed all the SAMS >United States invents a JDAM that has a decoy fuel tank all in one combo
Sure feels good to be in a country as strong as the United States
I suppose the question is how this would change a loadout, that is are they larger than the old kits? I assume the ones with the fuel tank are at least but for a 700nm range who gives a shit? This would more than double the combat range of a ground attack F-35 variant (currently at 670nm) total range would be just under 1600miles. Oh wait there's a + after that 700nmi.... so at minimum you can launch a F-35 from a base in the UK and precision bomb Moscow from the Baltic sea.
why is the american military moronic?
what's the point of turning the JDAM into a shitty and expensive cruise missile (with probably less payload since they have to make room for the extra bits).
They already have cruise missiles.
Isn't the whole point of B-21 that you can fly into glide bomb range?
>has all the things that a cruise missile has, but somehow costs less than a cruise missile
Ladies and Gents, this is what it looks like when the US MIC is trying to save money
Building factories for mass production of cruise missiles vs building a line for mass production of an add on engine, because they already exist for payload and guidance.
First one will be cheaper in the long run, but requires more upfront cost
The body and the warhead are disproportionately cheaper than the cruise missile equivalent. Assuming all the other components are comparable in cost to cruise missiles that's still a net saving. This is ignoring the stock of already existing dumb bombs that have already been paid for and have their effectiveness increased by an order of magnitude for cheap
>all the things a cruise missile has
I mean it's presumably going to be a lot slower even if it can maneuver better so i assume anyone with competent Missile defense would blow these away without much difficulty (you know unless the sensors they are talking about allow communication with whatever asset we have in range that has already spotted the missile to tell it how to evade if that's possible .
These go pretty well with An/SPY6 radar tbh, pretty sure 1 of the variants for An/SPY6 was said to be able to see something half the size at 4 times the distance of An/Spy1 which had a range of 300mi officially i think
>Ladies and Gents, this is what it looks like when the US MIC is trying to save money
it has a 300 nmi range if dropped from a plane that's already flying pretty fast. a cruise missile goes farther, faster, and can be launched from the ground without a plane
What if you want to blow something up a little farther away than a normal JDAM but don't want to spend real cruise missile money? Why bother developing a far more expensive proprietary smaller cruise missile, when you could just develop an even cheaper propulsion system that bolts onto an existing JDAM thats already ready to go?
it it easier and chepaer to manufacture powered guidance than it is to manufacture bespoke cruise missiles.
Here's what's going to happen:
They try to make it cheap, and then subsequently realize, since its a powered cruise missile, in order to make it work properly, it needs a ton of redesign, and ton of features they planned saving money on by cutting, are in fact necessary.
After spending billions of dollars on re-developing all that shit that is needed for powered flight, they will discover, that the JDAM is a poor platform for building a cruise missile, since its in fact, not a cruise missile.
After considering the development costs, they will either end up with a weapon whose unit costs are comparable to a cruise missiles (because of additional complexity and development costs), yet the thing is massively compromised compared to something that was designed to be a cruise missile from the start.
Or they'll realize the whole idea is stupid, and doesn't offer any advantages over existing systems they already have, and cancel it after spending billions.
>They try to make it cheap, and then subsequently realize, since its a powered cruise missile, in order to make it work properly, it needs a ton of redesign, and ton of features they planned saving money on by cutting, are in fact necessary.
this is already done you stupid Black person
Given how comparatively huge JASSM and Tomahawk are in mass, payload, and complexity, making an engine for a bomb as small as these seems pretty piss easy. There isn't some unknown technology needed to make a small motor and bigger wings and slap it on the ass.
Besides the MIC is also developing its own even mini cruise missile in the LCMCM anyway.
Right? Where did the idea that the MK82 is out of production come from? Time didn't suddenly make 500lbs of explosives obsolete.
Many, many tourists have internalized bits and pieces of information they've seen over the past 2ish years and conflated/confused what is out of production and what isn't. You see this happen on the topic of bombs, GMLRS and their rocket motors, the Abrams, even with 5.56 as of late.
How is it still 4 thousand fricking dollars for a metal cast and some filler then still should cost a tenth of that
Premium, long shelf-life HE is not cheap, nor is American labor as
raw materials (mostly the explosives if i had to guess), labor, maintenance, R&D of course to see if there's anywhere you can improve the bomb
and
Explosives are not cheap. They aren't terribly expensive either, but a good military grade explosive, with a long shelf life and standardized parameters comes at a premium
say.
>has all the things that a cruise missile has, but somehow costs less than a cruise missile
Ladies and Gents, this is what it looks like when the US MIC is trying to save money
"I really, really am moronic and truly, genuinely cannot into high/low mix."
So basically a simple, low cost cruise missile. I just wonder at what point does it make more sense to just make a simple, low cost cruise missile instead of attaching kits to dumb bombs. It's not like the bomb is the expensive or hard to produce part.
i don't think it'd be possible tbh, if you want something agile and fast to take out precision targets you go with a missile, if you want something chunky to knock down a building/infrastructure you are going to have to go with a bomb.
Also i wonder how feasible it would to use 2000lb JDAMs in a rods from god like concept where they just fall and once they hit the atmo they switch over to gliders.
The LCMCM program has been going since the early 00's and hasn't produced a viable missile yet. So the US Military obviously has a desire for one. pjdam might be a good stop gap for the time being.
>We have these fancy cruise missiles, but they are too expensive for all targets >Let's slap a guidance kit on a cheap bomb for cheap PGMs >We have these GBUs and JDAMs, but boy it would be nice if they could just fly a bit further...
>decoy fuel tank
What I'm imagining >Be USAF pilot >go up with twin external fuel tanks >sip about 80% of the fuel out of them >fuel tanks have their own little jet engines >lob them at SAMs 100+nmi away for the lulz >SAM operators MUST intercept them as they are completely identical in every way to real cruise missiles with explosive payloads
10/10 troll
Per wiki, 506,718 rockets were produced. Desert Storm used 6,000 of them, and thousands more were used in training. As of 2004, the last publicly-available count of cluster munitions, ~370,000 were left. Between the early production rockets aging out and Obama's strict no-submunitions rules, the US pulled them all out of service and started disposing of them, which is slow and expensive. Fortunately, Trump put a halt to the disposal process, so there are still some left. In order to make sure that they won't blow up in the tube when the Ukrainians launch them, they have to be X-rayed and inspected closely for possible defects.
What the frick is even the point? Do they really have that many useless dumb bombs bombs in reserve that they could just casually turn into cruise missiles?
AFAIK, cruise missiles like Tomahawks have expiration dates, before which they need to be either scrapped, or used, which is why the US fire them so liberally whenever they get the chance, like that iranian air-strip some time ago. Iron bombs on the other hand can sit around in a stockpile for probably a century.
JJDAM
Does the missile make unsolicited comments on the Ray Rice domestic situation?
THEY FLY NOW!?
They fly now
So it's a cruise missile.
>So it's a cruise missile.
It's a cruise missile backpack that goes on a dumb bomb.
Presumably there's some cost savings in there.
it more a powered glider, where the aerodynamics and launch altitude are providing the majority of the travel distance, enhanced by the propulsion system.
I don't give a JDAM
At what point do we call them suicide planes.
I call them kamikaze planes
its just a missile now
No you don't understand! It's a powered bomb! A guided rocket! Not a missile. -t. Lockheeb Jakmart
glider
they're basically drones
they're not human, let go anon
🙁
>SUICIDE
machines cannot commit suicide
What if we make it activate a logic bomb just before impact?
Would it count then?
that's LITERALLY what a Tomahawk is lmao, we just build a small jet and fly it into shit bro
When they can loiter, and don't need another place to launch, I guess.
when we rename the f35 to a carrier
It's like if the F-111 had a pet dog.
Did we just make a frickton of MK-82s or something? Surely we don't make them currently as there is zero need for unguided bombs and manufacturing guided missiles/glide bombs in one piece would be better than add on kits.
>as there is zero need for unguided bombs
He says as the hot new tactic in 2023 is to exhaust your enemy's supply by throwing waves upon waves at the problem.
The MK-82 is basically perfect and blowing the shit out of just about anything you could want. The only modern pressures are accuracy, and we've been slapping guide kits on them for like 40 years now? Paveway, JDAM, etc.
Theres literally no reason to develop a full replacement when all we need is to develop bolt on guidance kits. Bomb is fine.
JDAMs ARE add-on kits.
It replaces the bomb with more fuel, so it can fly around for a long time and annoy SAM operators.
Production of Mk 8Xs never stopped. It's still ongoing.
The bombs cost $2,000-4,000 (at least, they did a couple decades ago, before the current inflation). The basic JDAM kit is the cheapest guidance option the US makes, at ~$10,000 (again, GWOT-era prices). Contrast this with SDB1 ($40,000), which is a purpose-built guided glide bomb.
On a related note, compare the price of Excalibur ($110,000) with the price of the M1156 PGK fuze/guidance kit (<$15,000). Making large numbers of add-on kits for equally large numbers of unguided munitions is cheaper than making a smaller number of weapons with bespoke warheads.
Agreed. There are plenty of options available already, and adding new weapons with new fixed costs to be amortized just raises the average price of everything. We have JDAM (cheap), SDB1 (smol/light), SDB2 (terminal guidance), JSOW (larger/longer-ranged USN glide bomb), JASSM (stealthy cruise missile), JASSM-ER (longcat is...), JASSM-XR (el grande), LRASM (nice boat). In order for a new weapon to be worth buying, it has to bring something new or something better to the table. For example, the QuickStrike/QuickSink variants of JDAM used to turn dumb bombs into sea mines and cheap anti-ship weapons, respectively.
Filling bombs with HE is actually a bit of an art form, and if you mess it up, you might have a bad day. There's a bottleneck in highly-experienced workers who can safely pour molten HE into a bomb or shell. BAE claims to be working on a new ultrasonic system that apparently wouldn't require the HE to be melted down and poured, and thus could be largely automated.
>It replaces the bomb with more fuel, so it can fly around for a long time and annoy SAM operators.
Just imagine launching a dozen or so on the most moronic trajectories you can to make the other guy waste as many SAMs as possible before the real fun starts
Throw some MALD-Js in there for some extra fun.
>Just imagine launching a dozen or so on the most moronic trajectories you can to make the other guy waste as many SAMs as possible before the real fun starts
And consider that these could actually evade launched SAMs lmao. They can kill their heat signature in seconds.
Also, dog-legging a strike is a common tactic already.
How is it even possible to melt high explosives seems like bullshit it would just degrade or explode
Think of plastic pellets. You heat them up just right and it turns into molten goo. Don't keep it too hot for too long and the explosives are okay.
TNT's melting point is something like 160F, you could literally do it in a crock pot.
>seems like bullshit
>Basic high school chemistry knowledge is bullshit
I am in utter awe at your stupidity
>For example, the QuickStrike/QuickSink variants of JDAM used to turn dumb bombs into sea mines
AFRL says its not a mine.
https://afresearchlab.com/technology/quicksink/
>and cheap anti-ship weapons, respectively.
>Did we just make a frickton of MK-82s or something?
Yes the US made a frickton of MK-8#s
>manufacturing guided missiles/glide bombs in one piece would be better than add on kits.
Not at the cost of JDAM kits, they're designed to be inexpensive as frick
the US dropped more bombs in vietnam than WW2 and korea combined, dropped more bombs in iraq twice, dropped more bombs against terrorists hiding in caves; and somehow still have more bombs lying about that theres an economic incentive to make JDAMs out of them just so they wont go to waste
i forgot to add: the US still has enough mk82s to sell to other countries by the several thousands
whats a decoy fuel tank?
I'm going to assume it's a fuel tank that can be detached as a decoy
Ehhh
At this point the price of engine a guidance must be much higher than the bomb itself right? Wouldn't it be cheaper to just produce a new, purpose built missile? JDAM makes good sense, this not so much
This is the reason why this has been an idea on paper since 2010, and has since stayed on paper.
Adding to this, the Navy was originally going to procure a JSOW-ER which did the same thing, but was cancelled in favor of buying JASSM-ERs
Is this a "just-in case we get desperate" test?
This is a 'wouldn't it be nice if we could use AF assets to bomb from the comfort of the CONUS' sorta thing.
Makes sense, rocket motors are pretty cheap these days. Just strap one on and let er rip.
>rocket motors
It says "air breathing". Means "jet engine".
I'm surprised it took this long, "let's stick a engine to it!" must've been first potential improvements engineers thought out
We have literally come full circle to bombs become cruise missiles. Everything now is basically a cruise missile.
>bombs
cruise missile
>GLSDB
cruise missile
>MLRS
cruise missile
>suicide drones
cruise missile
>cruise missiles
decoys for cruise missiles
>cruise bombs
Everything returns to missile.
When will bullets become missiles? Soon
Is DARPA still working on EXACTO?
This reads like a tailor-made missile for the Ukrainian theater. Or a GLSDB booster/body kit with the avionics of a JDAM.
So the JDAM kit was made to make America's old stock of dumb-bombs useful in the kebab wars. To use up old warehouses of dumb munitions in a smart way. Same with GLSDB
How many DUMB bombs are left? At some point the inventory of JDAM/PJDAM/GLSDB kits will out-number the amount of general purpose bombs left. Surely we won't do something wacky, like, I dunno, restart production of general purpose bombs?
>This reads like a tailor-made missile for the Ukrainian theater.
That's my read on it, we may not have a bunch of ATACMS but we can produce hundreds of JDAM kits per day. Depending on how cheap and fast these can be made they could be HIMARs tier game changers. MiG's would not need to get within 200km of the front line to hit the farthest targets in occupied Ukraine including that bridge.
If the US had the balls, 50 of these things could shut down Rostov-on-Don's military logistics and most of Russia's ability to prosecute the war but that won't happen.
>restart
AFAIK we're still making them because they're dirt cheap. Economies of scale really shows its power with these kind of things
>AFAIK we're still making them because they're dirt cheap.
I doubt the cost of a new production dumb bomb + retrofitted guidance kit would be cheaper than a purpose built guided bomb
You underestimate economies of scale. These production lines have been running for decades so everything that could have been streamlined already has been
Well you’d be wrong. The Mk 82 tooling was amortized in the 60s and the production has been optimized to the bone.
How is it still 4 thousand fricking dollars for a metal cast and some filler then still should cost a tenth of that
raw materials (mostly the explosives if i had to guess), labor, maintenance, R&D of course to see if there's anywhere you can improve the bomb
Explosives are not cheap. They aren't terribly expensive either, but a good military grade explosive, with a long shelf life and standardized parameters comes at a premium
>Mark 81 – nominal weight 250 pounds (113 kg)
>Mark 82 – nominal weight 500 pounds (227 kg)
>Mark 83 – nominal weight 1,000 pounds (454 kg)
>Mark 84 – nominal weight 2,000 pounds (907 kg)
Because they're big boys filled with lots of TNT, hexogen, and aluminum.
By itself, 1 ton of raw aluminum is currently going for ~$2,222. Most of these bombs are ~20% aluminum for filler alone. In a Mk84 that's about 100kg of aluminum inside a bomb. So each bomb is $200 in raw aluminum alone, BEFORE labor like powdering your 100kg of solid aluminum, if you're a meth-head who takes bombs apart to sell the expensive metal at scrap-yard prices.
Of all that filler, aluminum is probably the cheapest.
>cast
they are forged, but keep telling us how little you know.
they should cast it instead and use cheaper filler, who the frick cares that the big ass bomb may have a yield variation of +-10% if you can make more of them cheaper. Ukraine has shown that quantity is definitely worth a minor decrease in quality. Maybe with the money saved we can actually retain military personnel and not lose valuable experience (worth more than a overpriced piece of pot metal filled with TNT)
you being this stupid is exactly why they don't do this.
>Who cares if you have to use 5 bombs to destroy what used to take 1 at least you save 25% on each bomb
Stop being moronic
moron, you think a 10% yield variation would make it so
1. Most hit targets wouldnt be destroyed
2. It would need 4 more bombs
There is a reason they don't mass issue perfect precision shooting grade 5.56 to the infantry, should be the same for bombs.
They do tho. Modern carbines are lasers compared to the sniper rifles of WW2 and WW1, who considered hitting a stationary man beyond 600 meters with a scoped boltaction so improbable as to be pointless.
Those sniper rifles were about as accurate or maybe better than modern carbines. They just had shitty optics.
Lolwut
Your average $400 PSA ar is probably more accurate than your average WW2 bolt action rifle and most "sniper" rifles back then was just a scope slapped onto a slightly more well built infantry rifle
>you think a 10% yield variation would make
it significantly cheaper to manufacture.
another anon said a big part of the cost was gucci precision spec filler
Cheaping out on your effectors introduces uncertainty. If your fuse has a 90% chance to work, the payload has a 90% chance to be enough and the body has a 10% chance to rattle itself apart during transit that adds up to something like a 72% kill probability. As an air force commander do you want to gamble that it will work or do you send 3 bombs to bring the total p(K) back above 99%?
>hmm, today I will cut corners with my explosives
Here's your cheaper bomb filler moron.
kind of odd they would spend the money to forge something that is designed to blow up, does forging allow for better fragmentation or something?
Looks like there is an option for hot forging but it was deemed not economical.
>https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA057220.pdf
Another part I found.
RDX based explosives cost around $8 per pound, forged steel about $4 per pound
Materials alone are 1600+800=$2400 for Mk-82 bomb
and 7200+3600=$10800 for Mk-84 bomb
Which is actually not that much for example Retail price of chicken breast (boneless) is just above 4 dollars. and the RDX is 1 dollar above Uncooked Beef Roasts. droppin bigmac instead of jdams would be more expensive
It needs to robustly work in high Gs, high altitude and brutal operating conditions, including damaged
>Production of Mk 8Xs never stopped.
Alright already I fricking GET IT jeeze. It is my understanding that WE NEVER STOPPED MAKING MK8x GENERAL PURPOSE BOMBS fricking there, happy?
Honestly why not? The tech is there, production lines can be restarted with modularity and continously improving upgrade packages. We could have the MK-82-2.0 designed with purpose built upgrade slots. Imagine the possibilities
>Honestly why not?
Because the tech is there for something better, and if you're restarting production lines that are long cold, why not do so for something purpose-built and not a frankenstein? Yes, its a well-performing Frankenstein, "good enough," but it could be better.
As an example Ukies are making their own 155mm tube gun trucks. The "gun" part of their "gun truck" is new, but they're re-using the product of their old military truck production line. It's a solid enough military truck, but wasn't meant to take the kind of forces that firing a 155mm shell produces. As a result the truck needs to be replaced before the gun. It was "good enough" to keep Snek Island under 155mm fire-control, they still b***hed about their SPG needing a tow after extensive use of the gun. This was in summer of 2022 when Ukies were running out of 152mm, were getting 155mm shipped to them, but before m777 arrived.
the production lines aren't cold moron, that bomb is still in production
Right? Where did the idea that the MK82 is out of production come from? Time didn't suddenly make 500lbs of explosives obsolete.
>Surely we won't do something wacky, like, I dunno, restart production of general purpose bombs?
But they are though? And the want the new gem of BLU's to use preformed frag instead of plain steel casing to ensure maximum killage.
>Restarting
They never stopped, which is why a basic Mk82 costs less than equipping a single infantryman. $4000.
We never stopped making Mk82's, just like Russia never stopped making FAB's.
Dumb bombs and shells need to be stacked DEEEEP
>restart production of general purpose bombs?
Why would you need to restart something that never stopped?
China already has these
wonder how much the kit costs? I'm guessing at least triple, but that's still a deal.
>long range decoy
Interdasting. you could mix these with cruise missiles and saturate AD.
>long range decoy
>Operation Desert Storm
>Prototype decoys first deployed
>Iraqis shot them down over Baghdad, parading the belief that they shot down hundreds of foolish American strategic bombers and fighter jets
>The real payload was just a few kilometers behind and destroyed all the SAMS
>United States invents a JDAM that has a decoy fuel tank all in one combo
Sure feels good to be in a country as strong as the United States
>Sure feels good to be in a country as strong as the United States
you mean the only country as strong as the US
which is the US.
Yes, thank you
Mobiks hate it! American MIC figured out this one funny trick to more cheaply bring about TZD. CLICK HERE TO LEARN THEIR SECRET!!!
I suppose the question is how this would change a loadout, that is are they larger than the old kits? I assume the ones with the fuel tank are at least but for a 700nm range who gives a shit? This would more than double the combat range of a ground attack F-35 variant (currently at 670nm) total range would be just under 1600miles. Oh wait there's a + after that 700nmi.... so at minimum you can launch a F-35 from a base in the UK and precision bomb Moscow from the Baltic sea.
Global south in shambles
PrepHole idea: PJDAM but fired from a custom-built howitzer then flown to target
why is the american military moronic?
what's the point of turning the JDAM into a shitty and expensive cruise missile (with probably less payload since they have to make room for the extra bits).
They already have cruise missiles.
Isn't the whole point of B-21 that you can fly into glide bomb range?
The point is that it's not expensive
and you're an uninformed homosexual for thinking that's the case
>has all the things that a cruise missile has, but somehow costs less than a cruise missile
Ladies and Gents, this is what it looks like when the US MIC is trying to save money
Building factories for mass production of cruise missiles vs building a line for mass production of an add on engine, because they already exist for payload and guidance.
First one will be cheaper in the long run, but requires more upfront cost
Your incredulity isn't proof or an argument.
The body and the warhead are disproportionately cheaper than the cruise missile equivalent. Assuming all the other components are comparable in cost to cruise missiles that's still a net saving. This is ignoring the stock of already existing dumb bombs that have already been paid for and have their effectiveness increased by an order of magnitude for cheap
>all the things a cruise missile has
I mean it's presumably going to be a lot slower even if it can maneuver better so i assume anyone with competent Missile defense would blow these away without much difficulty (you know unless the sensors they are talking about allow communication with whatever asset we have in range that has already spotted the missile to tell it how to evade if that's possible .
These go pretty well with An/SPY6 radar tbh, pretty sure 1 of the variants for An/SPY6 was said to be able to see something half the size at 4 times the distance of An/Spy1 which had a range of 300mi officially i think
>Ladies and Gents, this is what it looks like when the US MIC is trying to save money
it has a 300 nmi range if dropped from a plane that's already flying pretty fast. a cruise missile goes farther, faster, and can be launched from the ground without a plane
Which is weird to me - doesn't the INF Treaty limit the range of cruise missiles to 500km?
Only ground launched. Sea and Air launched missiles are excluded. Ground launched missiles are also excluded if the range is over 1000km.
The INF treaty is no longer a thing
What if you want to blow something up a little farther away than a normal JDAM but don't want to spend real cruise missile money? Why bother developing a far more expensive proprietary smaller cruise missile, when you could just develop an even cheaper propulsion system that bolts onto an existing JDAM thats already ready to go?
Here's what's going to happen:
They try to make it cheap, and then subsequently realize, since its a powered cruise missile, in order to make it work properly, it needs a ton of redesign, and ton of features they planned saving money on by cutting, are in fact necessary.
After spending billions of dollars on re-developing all that shit that is needed for powered flight, they will discover, that the JDAM is a poor platform for building a cruise missile, since its in fact, not a cruise missile.
After considering the development costs, they will either end up with a weapon whose unit costs are comparable to a cruise missiles (because of additional complexity and development costs), yet the thing is massively compromised compared to something that was designed to be a cruise missile from the start.
Or they'll realize the whole idea is stupid, and doesn't offer any advantages over existing systems they already have, and cancel it after spending billions.
>They try to make it cheap, and then subsequently realize, since its a powered cruise missile, in order to make it work properly, it needs a ton of redesign, and ton of features they planned saving money on by cutting, are in fact necessary.
this is already done you stupid Black person
No it's not, it's a concept you mong. Which makes sense because its too moronic to be real.
Given how comparatively huge JASSM and Tomahawk are in mass, payload, and complexity, making an engine for a bomb as small as these seems pretty piss easy. There isn't some unknown technology needed to make a small motor and bigger wings and slap it on the ass.
Besides the MIC is also developing its own even mini cruise missile in the LCMCM anyway.
it it easier and chepaer to manufacture powered guidance than it is to manufacture bespoke cruise missiles.
>"I'm a moron that can't fathom a high/low mix."
Many, many tourists have internalized bits and pieces of information they've seen over the past 2ish years and conflated/confused what is out of production and what isn't. You see this happen on the topic of bombs, GMLRS and their rocket motors, the Abrams, even with 5.56 as of late.
Premium, long shelf-life HE is not cheap, nor is American labor as
and
say.
"I really, really am moronic and truly, genuinely cannot into high/low mix."
>captcha: RDX XW
So basically a simple, low cost cruise missile. I just wonder at what point does it make more sense to just make a simple, low cost cruise missile instead of attaching kits to dumb bombs. It's not like the bomb is the expensive or hard to produce part.
i don't think it'd be possible tbh, if you want something agile and fast to take out precision targets you go with a missile, if you want something chunky to knock down a building/infrastructure you are going to have to go with a bomb.
Also i wonder how feasible it would to use 2000lb JDAMs in a rods from god like concept where they just fall and once they hit the atmo they switch over to gliders.
The LCMCM program has been going since the early 00's and hasn't produced a viable missile yet. So the US Military obviously has a desire for one. pjdam might be a good stop gap for the time being.
>We have these fancy cruise missiles, but they are too expensive for all targets
>Let's slap a guidance kit on a cheap bomb for cheap PGMs
>We have these GBUs and JDAMs, but boy it would be nice if they could just fly a bit further...
>decoy fuel tank
What I'm imagining
>Be USAF pilot
>go up with twin external fuel tanks
>sip about 80% of the fuel out of them
>fuel tanks have their own little jet engines
>lob them at SAMs 100+nmi away for the lulz
>SAM operators MUST intercept them as they are completely identical in every way to real cruise missiles with explosive payloads
10/10 troll
Bonus points if you stick the guts of a microwave oven inside the thing and turn it on when you release.
Nah, getting the guts out of the oven is too expensive. Just tape it to the front with a car battery.
damn, the USA must be drowning in M26 motors, they're sticking one on anything that glides
what's next, M26 JATO?
Per wiki, 506,718 rockets were produced. Desert Storm used 6,000 of them, and thousands more were used in training. As of 2004, the last publicly-available count of cluster munitions, ~370,000 were left. Between the early production rockets aging out and Obama's strict no-submunitions rules, the US pulled them all out of service and started disposing of them, which is slow and expensive. Fortunately, Trump put a halt to the disposal process, so there are still some left. In order to make sure that they won't blow up in the tube when the Ukrainians launch them, they have to be X-rayed and inspected closely for possible defects.
The next obvious step in this special frankensteining operation is to attach an M-26 to it and we have GLPJDAM
I love it
Boeing has been trying to sell powered JDAMs for decades and it's never found a customer. There's no reason for this thing to exist.
>decoy fuel tanks
That is pretty neat, I never thought of using fuel tanks as decoys too.
Your JDAM ER has become PJDAM!
What the frick is even the point? Do they really have that many useless dumb bombs bombs in reserve that they could just casually turn into cruise missiles?
a 500 lb bomb that flies and glides 1400 km
AFAIK, cruise missiles like Tomahawks have expiration dates, before which they need to be either scrapped, or used, which is why the US fire them so liberally whenever they get the chance, like that iranian air-strip some time ago. Iron bombs on the other hand can sit around in a stockpile for probably a century.
Whats next PBJDAM?