[Goose]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/20...ian-lines/

Good article on new JDAM-ER precision guided munitions that are being provided and how they could be employed. Supposedly to be delivered by June, could be useful for a summer offensive in punching some holes, along with GMLRS and artillery, in Russian defensive fortifications.

Indeed a good article. Their explanation of the "how and why" of toss bombing should make clear the limitations of the "standard" JDAM when you are denied the "high perch". Unfortunately the comparison of the HARM integration to the JDAM integration is IMO over-simplified. One thing that made the HARM much easier is that even in US/NATO service an "adapter" is used to mate the missile with the hardpoint. There already was such a design. The JDAM doesn't use an adapter, so this will be a new design requirement. Unlike the HARM, which can be fired either with a planned target or with no target and acquire whatever you see mode, the JDAM has to be programmed by the releasing aircraft and must have data from the releasing aircraft. https://www.ausairpower.net/TE-JDAMPt1.html has an explanation of all this along with a picture of a JDAM on an F-18 hardpoint.

This is not to say an adapter can't be built, it undoubtedly can. It doesn't exist yet apparently. It also seems probable that the US has enough JDAMS in their current pipeline that they could get them to Ukraine immediately. The fact that we are building JDAM-ERs (apparently) for Ukraine indicates to me that we don't see Ukraine being ready to use these weapons "soon". Unfortunate.

I also believe that integration with the Ukraine's existing airframes will be very tricky. The US has a long history with toss-bombing. During the 1950s/early 1960s the US TAC was expected to use F-86 aircraft to deliver nuclear bombs against the Warsaw Pact if required. The airplanes could barely lift the bombs of the time and would have to fly low and fast to avoid interception. In order to escape the effects of the nuclear detonation, the aircraft had to "toss" the weapon toward the target and be going away from the target ASAP. Thus they had to practice toss bombing and the difficult maneuver required to roll upright while escaping at high speed. These toss bombing maneuvers were called "idiot loops". It was quickly discovered that the parameters of the loop were critical. The aircraft couldn't pull up too sharply or it would convert more of it's speed to altitude than "optimal" and therefore slow down the released bomb. The bomb would fall short. Doing the opposite would result in the bomb not going up high enough, falling both short and too quick, decreasing the pilots already minuscule probability of survival. You had to fly the loop almost perfectly. Even if you did that, you had to release the bomb at exactly the right point in the loop. Too soon or too late, you die. As a result, they automated the procedure (https://content.time.com/time/subscriber...15,00.html). Note that there is a difference between "toss" bombing and "loft" bombing. The loft is easier on the airframe and doesn't require recovering at the top of the loop. Both were used. The main disadvantage of the loft is that you directly overfly the target.

JDAMS don't have to be "lofted" over the shoulder, but the airplane still has software that releases the munition at the "optimal" point in the "toss". How do you do that in a MIG? Not impossible, but it sounds like quite a challenge to do it quickly. How and where do you test it? We shall see.

UPDATE: Should have suggested the "obvious" as well: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toss_bombing.
Makes apparent the requirements on the airframe, pilot, and software integration.

[Goose]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/20...ian-lines/

Good article on new JDAM-ER precision guided munitions that are being provided and how they could be employed. Supposedly to be delivered by June, could be useful for a summer offensive in punching some holes, along with GMLRS and artillery, in Russian defensive fortifications.

Indeed a good article. Their explanation of the "how and why" of toss bombing should make clear the limitations of the "standard" JDAM when you are denied the "high perch". Unfortunately the comparison of the HARM integration to the JDAM integration is IMO over-simplified. One thing that made the HARM much easier is that even in US/NATO service an "adapter" is used to mate the missile with the hardpoint. There already was such a design. The JDAM doesn't use an adapter, so this will be a new design requirement. Unlike the HARM, which can be fired either with a planned target or with no target and acquire whatever you see mode, the JDAM has to be programmed by the releasing aircraft and must have data from the releasing aircraft. https://www.ausairpower.net/TE-JDAMPt1.html has an explanation of all this along with a picture of a JDAM on an F-18 hardpoint.

This is not to say an adapter can't be built, it undoubtedly can. It doesn't exist yet apparently. It also seems probable that the US has enough JDAMS in their current pipeline that they could get them to Ukraine immediately. The fact that we are building JDAM-ERs (apparently) for Ukraine indicates to me that we don't see Ukraine being ready to use these weapons "soon". Unfortunate.

I also believe that integration with the Ukraine's existing airframes will be very tricky. The US has a long history with toss-bombing. During the 1950s/early 1960s the US TAC was expected to use F-86 aircraft to deliver nuclear bombs against the Warsaw Pact if required. The airplanes could barely lift the bombs of the time and would have to fly low and fast to avoid interception. In order to escape the effects of the nuclear detonation, the aircraft had to "toss" the weapon toward the target and be going away from the target ASAP. Thus they had to practice toss bombing and the difficult maneuver required to roll upright while escaping at high speed. These toss bombing maneuvers were called "idiot loops". It was quickly discovered that the parameters of the loop were critical. The aircraft couldn't pull up too sharply or it would convert more of it's speed to altitude than "optimal" and therefore slow down the released bomb. The bomb would fall short. Doing the opposite would result in the bomb not going up high enough, falling both short and too quick, decreasing the pilots already minuscule probability of survival. You had to fly the loop almost perfectly. Even if you did that, you had to release the bomb at exactly the right point in the loop. Too soon or too late, you die. As a result, they automated the procedure (https://content.time.com/time/subscriber...15,00.html). Note that there is a difference between "toss" bombing and "loft" bombing. The loft is easier on the airframe and doesn't require recovering at the top of the loop. Both were used. The main disadvantage of the loft is that you directly overfly the target.

JDAMS don't have to be "lofted" over the shoulder, but the airplane still has software that releases the munition at the "optimal" point in the "toss". How do you do that in a MIG? Not impossible, but it sounds like quite a challenge to do it quickly. How and where do you test it? We shall see.

UPDATE: Should have suggested the "obvious" as well: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toss_bombing.
Makes apparent the requirements on the airframe, pilot, and software integration.