Meanwhile, the Barracuda-100 is a very similar size and weight, costs LESS than these upgraded hellfires, has a range of well over 100 miles, not 10, and has double the warhead payload with a similarly capable seeker. But we must continue to pay the military industrial complex's dinosaurs.
I think it's because the Barracuda-100 uses an engine found on tomahawk or any subsonic missiles but much smaller, while the JAGM uses rocket. So Barracuda is much slower compare to JAGM, I think.
I would say its great idea but needs more refining. The USN is already upgrading the Mk-38 to Mod 4 which added the 30mm cannon which can use the 30x173 mm Mk310 PABM-T round This would be great from small crafts and targets but they should revise with 8 banks for the JAGM and 4 for Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System (APKWS) and Low-Cost Guided Imaging Rocket (LOGIR) APKWS and LOGIR only cost between 20K-30K at most while the JAGM is over 100K A few minor tweaks such as larger motor for better range and 6lb High explosive (HEDP) warhead would still be substantially cheaper than a single JAGM The JAGM seeker is all weather however the APKWS and LOGIR can be the cheaper option
Its a stupid idea. JAGM only has a range of a couple of miles so its a point defense last chance defense missile. Meaning if the missile misses sailors die. You need something with 10-20 mile range so if missile misses there is a back up point defense option like CIWS. There are far better options like Coyote & Road Runner.
Should replace them with Barracuda-100. Similar size, over ten times the range, double the warhead, similar sensor package, and LOWER cost! How is that possible? They use a small turbojet instead of a rocket. You'ld think the rocket would be cheaper, except it is made by the legacy military industrial complex.
@@panpiper US needs Barracuda 100, 250 & 500. We need them now. Stop d-cking around. I am worried about their ability in GPS denied environment though.
Wrong tool for the job. 600kw laser is a better anti-drone weapon with a much deeper magazine and much lower cost per shot/engagement. JAGM makes sense for anti small boat/unmanned surface weapons use and for use at close range or entering/exiting harbors.
Is this video made by AI? The narrator talks about the high cost of expending Standard SM-2 Surface to "Air" Missiles and then introduces this JAGM-170 Surface to "Surface" anti-ship/land attack missile which has nothing to do with supplementing SM-2 Sam's for air defense. This is a complete dumbass video.
Hellfire and its JAGM replacement are primarily air to surface missiles but can easily be adapted for VLS or other ground/sea launch systems and even without modification can be used against relatively slow drones. A SM-2 can take out faster, higher targets than either the Hellfire or the JAGM, but for a 200 knot drone it's a significant level of overkill.
we are already having stockpiles depletion issues and foreign troops imported into CONUS and they still can not see that the enemy is in the gate depleting their resources from within. Maybe this new administration will put a stop to it but I worry we are already to badly undermined to recover.
Are people not concerned that Burkes are increasingly getting heavier & heavier? As the Navy continues to mount more and more sensor & weapons systems? It would be nice if LCS actually provided more actual effectiveness to fleet defense. Constellation-class might not even be built as its status continues to be filled with screw ups. Ticos being retired.
The ship builder has engineers to explain the weight additions. More importantly is the fact that the Burkes have increased in size and capacity with later flights.
its not a really an issue 24 missiles is 2500lbs . That launcher is probably 3000bs each so nominal an extra 9000lbs or 4.5 tons which isnt much for ship You have remember that modern ships have growth options by design
Too many different systems. The US military is far too distributed among uncommon platforms to effectively combat UAS. We need one or 2 solid systems and that is it. For the Navy we should be going the route of MW scale HEL or U-HPM. For ground defense we should be going DE-M-SHORAD and LEONIDAS.
@@dhherion Depending on the warhead on the drone that's not as much standoff as you might think, especially since to line up the shot the fighter has to be flying directly toward the drone. The effective range of the cannon may be 10k feet against a jet-sized target but not necessarily so against anything smaller than that. There's a good chance the fighter could get caught in the secondary explosion of the target, which is what they suspect happened to at least one Ukrainian F-16 pilot.
@@willythemailboy2 WW2 spitfires and Tempests blew up V1s that had 2000lbs of high explosives and they were firing at closer than 10k feet. If they are concerned about using expensive missiles than you have to have an alternative.
Meanwhile, the Barracuda-100 is a very similar size and weight, costs LESS than these upgraded hellfires, has a range of well over 100 miles, not 10, and has double the warhead payload with a similarly capable seeker. But we must continue to pay the military industrial complex's dinosaurs.
It's interesting how FPV/drones are gonna kill the MIC's monopoly's and drag down costs. If I had liquid I'd buy stocks in Anduril.
I think it's because the Barracuda-100 uses an engine found on tomahawk or any subsonic missiles but much smaller, while the JAGM uses rocket. So Barracuda is much slower compare to JAGM, I think.
I would say its great idea but needs more refining. The USN is already upgrading the Mk-38 to Mod 4 which added the 30mm cannon which can use the 30x173 mm Mk310 PABM-T round
This would be great from small crafts and targets but they should revise with 8 banks for the JAGM and 4 for Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System (APKWS) and Low-Cost Guided Imaging Rocket (LOGIR)
APKWS and LOGIR only cost between 20K-30K at most while the JAGM is over 100K
A few minor tweaks such as larger motor for better range and 6lb High explosive (HEDP) warhead would still be substantially cheaper than a single JAGM
The JAGM seeker is all weather however the APKWS and LOGIR can be the cheaper option
JAGM is a Joint Air to GROUND missiles.
Its been adapted for air to ship(small vessels really).
How is this being described as an S2A missiles?
Yeah - wtf - AGM - air to ground
Simple
It can engage slow moving targets in the air
The Hellfire on occasion has been used to engage such targets
I think they have the capability for S2A. The us army has been using it in their stryker for a new anti-uas system.
Good post
does it shoot torpedoes?
Its a stupid idea. JAGM only has a range of a couple of miles so its a point defense last chance defense missile. Meaning if the missile misses sailors die. You need something with 10-20 mile range so if missile misses there is a back up point defense option like CIWS. There are far better options like Coyote & Road Runner.
Should replace them with Barracuda-100. Similar size, over ten times the range, double the warhead, similar sensor package, and LOWER cost! How is that possible? They use a small turbojet instead of a rocket. You'ld think the rocket would be cheaper, except it is made by the legacy military industrial complex.
@@panpiper US needs Barracuda 100, 250 & 500. We need them now. Stop d-cking around. I am worried about their ability in GPS denied environment though.
Wrong tool for the job. 600kw laser is a better anti-drone weapon with a much deeper magazine and much lower cost per shot/engagement. JAGM makes sense for anti small boat/unmanned surface weapons use and for use at close range or entering/exiting harbors.
I thought that lasers and railguns were suppose to be the next weapon at a cheap price to Intercept enemy drones 🤔
Need to keep those retired ships just in case.
Good thirty two tubes
Is this video made by AI? The narrator talks about the high cost of expending Standard SM-2 Surface to "Air" Missiles and then introduces this JAGM-170 Surface to "Surface" anti-ship/land attack missile which has nothing to do with supplementing SM-2 Sam's for air defense. This is a complete dumbass video.
Hellfire and its JAGM replacement are primarily air to surface missiles but can easily be adapted for VLS or other ground/sea launch systems and even without modification can be used against relatively slow drones. A SM-2 can take out faster, higher targets than either the Hellfire or the JAGM, but for a 200 knot drone it's a significant level of overkill.
we are already having stockpiles depletion issues and foreign troops imported into CONUS and they still can not see that the enemy is in the gate depleting their resources from within. Maybe this new administration will put a stop to it but I worry we are already to badly undermined to recover.
Who's "we", comrade??
There has to be a cheaper way
There is, Barracuda-100.
Finally getting smarter but I still think they need guns to engage small drones
There two CIWS 20mm point defense systems on board.
Aden is pronounced "A den", NOT "Add in". 🎉
Are people not concerned that Burkes are increasingly getting heavier & heavier? As the Navy continues to mount more and more sensor & weapons systems? It would be nice if LCS actually provided more actual effectiveness to fleet defense. Constellation-class might not even be built as its status continues to be filled with screw ups. Ticos being retired.
The ship builder has engineers to explain the weight additions. More importantly is the fact that the Burkes have increased in size and capacity with later flights.
its not a really an issue
24 missiles is 2500lbs . That launcher is probably 3000bs each
so nominal an extra 9000lbs or 4.5 tons which isnt much for ship
You have remember that modern ships have growth options by design
🤙🤙🔥🔥🇺🇸🇺🇸😎😎
Too many different systems. The US military is far too distributed among uncommon platforms to effectively combat UAS. We need one or 2 solid systems and that is it. For the Navy we should be going the route of MW scale HEL or U-HPM. For ground defense we should be going DE-M-SHORAD and LEONIDAS.
Why not have a jet gun down a UAV...way cheaper than a missile? In WW2 prop fighters were shooting down or toppling V-1s.
Too short range you don’t want uavs that close
@@mynameisschezuan the effective range of the hornet's M61 20mm cannon is almost 10,000 feet...
In a high end fight, do you really want your F-35Cs and Super hornets chasing $999-$10,000 drones? And praying that GUNS take them down?
@@dhherion Depending on the warhead on the drone that's not as much standoff as you might think, especially since to line up the shot the fighter has to be flying directly toward the drone. The effective range of the cannon may be 10k feet against a jet-sized target but not necessarily so against anything smaller than that. There's a good chance the fighter could get caught in the secondary explosion of the target, which is what they suspect happened to at least one Ukrainian F-16 pilot.
@@willythemailboy2 WW2 spitfires and Tempests blew up V1s that had 2000lbs of high explosives and they were firing at closer than 10k feet. If they are concerned about using expensive missiles than you have to have an alternative.
Stupid report……… making confused arguments to contrary points…..
BETTER BE ABLE TO DEFEAT DRONE SWARMS.
Good post