Paveway vs JDAM

Member for

19 years 11 months

Posts: 82

I know that JDAM is the "new kid on the block" and promises greater effectiveness in many scenarios than laser-guided bombs, but aren't there some situations where Paveway would be preferred to JDAM? One that comes to mind is where visual confirmation is required, or an attack on a moving target. I know JDAM can be dropped through cloud cover, smoke, etc.. and would be preferred over a laser guided munition in such a case.

Original post

Member for

19 years 11 months

Posts: 335

RE: Paveway vs JDAM

well i suppose if it was just a search and destoy mission then it would be better as the jdam would need gps guidence that would take some time and planing before a missoin.

Justin Haley
:)

Profile picture for user ink

Member for

19 years 11 months

Posts: 3,269

RE: Paveway vs JDAM

Which is more cost effective? If the LGBs are cheaper wouldn't they get used more often, the JDAMs only being brought in when absolutley nessecary. Of course if that isn't the case the LGBs will become rarer. I agree with your comments about moving targets ect. On the other hand NATo (during Kosovo) weren't entierly effective at hitting small targets such as vehicles anyway and their war effort concentrated mainly on hitting large fixed targets.

RE: Paveway vs JDAM

JDAM and JDAM-ER will keep the launch aircraft further away from SAM's and AAA than Paveway LGB's will,JDAM can revert to INS under jamming also.

Profile picture for user SOC

Member for

19 years 11 months

Posts: 12,009

RE: Paveway vs JDAM

JDAM's problem is that target coordinates are inputted before launch. If the target has moved, there are obviously problems. When in Saudi Arabia last year I saw problems galore. The standoff capability turned into somewhat of a problem, as pilots were dropping bombs without getting a positive ID on the target to see if it was even still there. What JDAM needs is some system linked to the GPS satellite network allowing the pilot to put a cursor over the target, load those coords into the bomb on the rack, and fire away. Until this can happen inflight JDAM is nothing more than a "C Bomb". Not a dumb bomb, but not really a smart bomb either }>

Member for

19 years 11 months

Posts: 1,400

RE: Paveway vs JDAM

Well, JDAM will never be able to fully replace LGBs. LGBs can be used against moving targets, JDAM obviously cannot. However, JDAM is an excellent weapon for fixed structures, especially as it also frees up pilot time (no need to guide LGB, just drop the JDAM and be done with it) and in some cases, free up a station that would have been used for a "painter" for carriage of an extra bomb, missile, fuel etc. (in the case of RAAF F-111Cs, exclusive use of JDAMs would result in the reactivation of the internal bomb bay, which currently carries the Pave Tack designator pod). However, exclusive use of JDAMs would not make the attacking force very versatile. About the point about pre-planning and designating for JDAMs, this also must be done, to some degree, for LGB strikes. You can't just fly into an area and "look" around for targets, you must have some idea where they are (DUH!!!). God, i sound awfully patronising!!! :P

MinMiester

Profile picture for user SOC

Member for

19 years 11 months

Posts: 12,009

RE: Paveway vs JDAM

This is true, but if you have a laser designator internally or pod-mounted on your aircraft, a target that has changed position is not really a problem. F-111's in the Gulf War used 500-lb LGB's to kill tanks.

Profile picture for user ink

Member for

19 years 11 months

Posts: 3,269

RE: Paveway vs JDAM

Yes but the Gulf war is unique in that it gave airpower an easy time (considering the weather and lack of cover). I don't think LGB sorties against tanks had the same effect over Kosovo (despite the repeated attempts).

Profile picture for user SOC

Member for

19 years 11 months

Posts: 12,009

RE: Paveway vs JDAM

Agreed, but allowing the pilot to set the coordinates for JDAM in flight is entirely different from having to use a laser designator. JDAM is fire and forget, an LGB requires constant target illumination. Perhaps the coordinates could be data-linked to the pilot from a Predator or Global Hawk or J-STARS? This would leave the pilot with both better accuracy and standoff capability.

Profile picture for user ink

Member for

19 years 11 months

Posts: 3,269

RE: Paveway vs JDAM

Yes but that still means that if the target gets up and leaves between weapon launch and touch down the JDAM misses! The LGB will still have a chance of hitting the target. What about attacks on convoys (refugee or otherwise), the JDAM would have to be targeted at a point on the convoys path, that sounds a little inaccurate.

I know its a little off topic but I was wondering what you guys thought of Russian TV guided bombs. I know they're weather limited (night too possibly) but so are LGBs. Also they're fire and forget, thats always a bonus, as SOC mentioned. Also, why have the Russians chosen the path of TV guidance? Is it to do with technological barriers or a different philosophy?

Member for

19 years 11 months

Posts: 839

RE: Paveway vs JDAM

The Russians also have have the KAB-500L, an IR homing version of the KAB-500KR T.V. bomb you're talking about. The 'L' would be the model used most often of the two but the 'KR' would get the nod if IR contrast conditions are unfavorable. Other IR guided or assisted bombs include the Israeli Opher and the upcoming French AASM long range GPS aided munition. Anyway, isn't JDAM now scheduled to receive an IIR terminal seeker?

Member for

19 years 11 months

Posts: 327

RE: Paveway vs JDAM

Americans had an electro optical guided missile during Vietnam war, I don't remember its name. I think they didn't find it very user friendly because of the workload associated with.
But with the new shape recognition algorithms it could change soon ...

Member for

19 years 11 months

Posts: 82

RE: Paveway vs JDAM

JDAMs and LGBs receive most of the attention because they are the most numerous and employed guided glide weapons, but the EOGB is yet another arrow in the quiver, although it doesn't play as large a role. The GBU-15 is only carried by the F-15E and (I believe) the B-52. Around 75 of them were dropped in the Gulf War and achieved pretty good results. It can be dropped from high or low altitude, packs a 2000 lb warhead, and can be either manually or automatically guided in. Since it is EO (or IIR) and has a manual option, you can break lock and miss the target if that enemy command post turns out to be the local pub.

Member for

19 years 11 months

Posts: 1,400

RE: Paveway vs JDAM

RAAF F-111Cs also carry the GBU-15 TV bomb,

MinMiester

RE: Paveway vs JDAM

First off all, JDAM can recive new targets inflight from the carrier aircraft. The italians and the isralies have IR homing noses that can be pluged into Mk series bombs, I belive the US is looking into this to add it to JDAM to give it moving target capability.

The main reason for the inefenctiveness of LGBs during Allied Force was the weather not the LGBs. Cloud cover was havy thruout Yugo and they will break up the lase, making designation dificult at best.

Member for

19 years 11 months

Posts: 570

RE: Paveway vs JDAM

Ok, the weather wasn't great, but you start a war on a nice, clear sunny day, and stop it as soon as the clouds and rains come in. You have to have weapons that can work under ANY weather conditions. That's the key to victory (at least, one of the keys).

RE: Paveway vs JDAM

errr..... that's why they are keeping both types.

Member for

19 years 11 months

Posts: 82

RE: Paveway vs JDAM

PAVEWAY III and some PAVEWAY II's are getting GPS/INS added to the GCU,so will have the best of both worlds.

Member for

13 years

Posts: 151

Yeah, yeah I know , it`s ages old thread etc and so on

But, it was my understanding that the russian kab-500 and kh-29 with video cameras needed to be manually steered until the boom moment, can someone confirm ?

I know its a little off topic but I was wondering what you guys thought of Russian TV guided bombs. I know they're weather limited (night too possibly) but so are LGBs. Also they're fire and forget

Member for

4 years 3 months

Posts: 491

I know that JDAM is the "new kid on the block" and promises greater effectiveness in many scenarios than laser-guided bombs, but aren't there some situations where Paveway would be preferred to JDAM? One that comes to mind is where visual confirmation is required, or an attack on a moving target. I know JDAM can be dropped through cloud cover, smoke, etc.. and would be preferred over a laser guided munition in such a case.

Well actually, the latest Paveways do have GPS too and LJDAM also has laser designation too.
Profile picture for user Marcellogo

Member for

5 years 6 months

Posts: 1,765

Yeah, yeah I know , it`s ages old thread etc and so on

But, it was my understanding that the russian kab-500 and kh-29 with video cameras needed to be manually steered until the boom moment, can someone confirm ?

Not- it was Kh-23 (AS-7 Kerry) needing such a control, kh-25 and kh-29 with TV guidance has auto tracking.
Real advantage of a satellite guided bomb is that its precision is not influenced by the quote of launch so the plane can operate at maximum altitude.
Extensive use of UAV was the mean western forces used to match up the advantages of the two sistem (plus eventually glide or RAP fittings) into one weapon.
Given the about 15 years hiatus between the posts actually would be more correct to say Jdam+ Paweway (or anything other in alternative.)

There is actually an interesting article on the thread about russian intervention in Syria explaining how, apart from the economic collapse of the nineties, doctrinal and organizational differences left to satellite guided weapon just a niche role.
Let me find it...
Here we go.
http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/policy-budget/warfare/2015/10/18/russia-shows-early-success-new-capabilities-syria/74041722/
To sum it up, the so-called frontal aviation deal almost exclusively with direct tactical support to troops on field ie CAS/BAI mission, in this role vanilla sat-guided bomb have simply no role: they are less precise than other guidance systems and offer not any real advantage even when compared with unguided ones when they are coupled with updated FLIR/ targeting systems.

They are instead useful; according to their own word, just to destroy separate targets or also to simply bomb separate cities, territories and infrastructure into oblivion, with separate meaning here "well distant from front lines": something that in their doctrine is made by the long distance aviation i.e. in this case the Su-34 only.