According to a Naval Recognition story (read it here), the US Navy is evaluating Brimstone for use aboard its fighter jets.
The simple question is why? They have a full array of weaponry available that would seem to adequately cover the Brimstone mission set. In an age of austerity why are they doing this?
The answer is simple, the US does not have and anti-vehicle/anti-bunker missile that it can carry (in any significant numbers) from a Fast Mover.
ReplyDeleteHellfire would be the closes but it cannot be carried on jets.
Maverick works but cannot be carried in large numbers and is WAY too expensive for the task.
JAGM will fill the need but who knows when it will be done.
laser guided 2.75 can be fired from fast movers and fills the void perfectly. again. they don't need this weapon.
DeleteWhile I like the DAGR-style rockets, they in no way “fill the void perfectly”.
DeleteHere is where the Brimstone is better:
1. Range
2. Warhead size
3. Tandem Warhead type (tanks & most APCs would laugh at a DAGR)
4. More maneuverable, good for going after maneuvering targets
5. Seeker modes (Bimstone DM has a MMW seeker in addition to laser) backed up with INS. This enables a Fire & Forget mode that cannot be done with DAGR.
6. Ripple fire – Brimstone can better handle swarm attacks and has the ability to overwhelm defenses.
I am not saying that DAGR-style rockets to not have a use for our armed forces, but there is definitely a capability gap when attacking targets that require a rapid response (ie needs to be a missile not a bomb).
I thought SDB II will do for the most part except for that it's unpowered(weighs a little more too but I doubt that little extra weight means anything to a tactical fighter). That's going to make it less suitable for certain CAS scenarios where you have to launch at low alt and speed or at higher OBS angle. But other than that I think a JAGM class weapon for fixed wing is not really indispensable.
DeleteBTW I think fixed wing variant of JAGM was ditched a long time ago.
You mean the USN doesn't need the ability to carry larger amounts of cheaper munitions, to achieve higher kills per sortie, thereby multiplying their combat capabilities? The words cheaper but not worse, and more kills are enough to sell me.
DeleteBrimstone is ****ing ace!
ReplyDeleteIts a Maverick at a quarter of the weight, which can be triple carried on most hard points.
Lasers are fine against technicals, when theres no danger for the aircraft loitering around to lase the target, but whats the survivability of a launch platform staying on target emitting a laser in a war against a competent enemy?
In theory, a pack of 24 can be launched against a general area, where they will collectively prioritise and hunt down enemy forces.
What he said. From what I have seen it is everything the JAGM was supposed to but it is actually here now and fully functional out of box.
DeleteActually, JAGM is BDM (Brimstone Dual Mode) with an IIR seeker added on (Tri-Mode).
DeleteIt is rather a Hellfire with both MMW and SAL compatible with rotary wing and MALE UAV only today. LockMart was quick to neuter the Cooled IIR tri-mode seeker that has been touted as a superior solution to dual mode the second the requirement changed. And they actually won the competition.
DeleteIt will take forever if it ever "spirals" back to the original tri-mode.
Great, buy brimstones because they work and are here now, and replace the sensors later on, or don't, no reason to wait. They are probably cheaper too, extra sensors are always better, but I expect they are going to have to pay an unreasonable sum to get them. Hell start buying these and JAGM will probably be finished much earler, and be sold much cheaper.
DeleteI can think of three plausible reasons, and one real reason.
ReplyDeleteOne is the "swiss army knife" argument where having a tool that can do more, even if it isn't as good as a specialized munition, is better for long air patrols where there isn't a dedicated target, only "general theater support."
The second argument is that this is an "economy of scale" buy, similar to what the F-35 was supposed to be. However this actually has the potential to drive the cost per weapon system down if the missile becomes a defacto NATO standard.
The third plausible reason is that this is the beginning of a technology transfer to go away from the AIM/Sparrow/Maverick missile platform to upgrade other missile systems based around the Brimstone chassis.
Now the one real reason is that some palms got greased.
Run with mixed payloads obviously, 2 2,000IB JDAM-ERs or 4 SDBs (dual mounted?) and 2x3 brimstone with AMRAAMS and sidewinders for ground interdiction missions. That way you maintain flexibility, you have that standoff capability, you can use that against SAMs or targets protected by them, or large instalations or hard targets, and for the tanks and whatnot you have Brimstones.
DeleteYour looking at 8-10 ground targets either way per sortie including some at stand-off ranges, so that isn't that bad to be honost and all these munitions are not that pricey by modern procurment standards either...
I think NAVAIR has this covered with APKWS:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.janes.com/article/28497/apkws-ii-cleared-for-fixed-wing-use
https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=9cc61d634fb1eb21775a60e1a8498c92&tab=core&_cview=1
http://www.navair.navy.mil/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.NAVAIRNewsStory&id=4769