SLAM vs. JSOW

[Recluse]

Just a question out of curiousity:

 

 

SLAM and JSOW seem to have pretty similar ranges (granted JSOW needs to be dropped from very high altitude to match SLAM) and JSOW seems to have pretty much pinpoint accuracy from the GPS/INS guidance whereas SLAM needs active terminal guidance.

 

 

Especially considering JSOW is purely a GLIDER while SLAM has a thruster, I am wondering why their performance is different with GPS coordinates.

 

 

Is JSOW performance over-modelled?

[Swift.]

Because SLAM was made back in (70s?) iirc, using dodgy old Vietnam tech. JSOW was made in 90s/00s using more modern stuff.

[CarbonFox]

Because SLAM was made back in (70s?) iirc, using dodgy old Vietnam tech. JSOW was made in 90s/00s using more modern stuff.

 

 

The AGM-84E SLAM is really just a Harpoon with the optical sensor taken from the old Walleye, GPS plus the warhead from the Tomahawk. It's a weird frankenstein build of different Cold War era technologies that became operational at the tail end of it all (1990).

 

 

As you put it, the JSOW is a completely new weapon developed in the 90s.

[Recluse]

OK thanks.. Maybe we'll get the SLAM-ER (AGM-84 H/K) at some point.

[Loso]

I find SLAM almost useless crap. Also JSOW C against ships like Molniya. I shot four C's and four GBU-38's at it and they all hit but it didn't sink. I mean come on?

[Bunny Clark]

I find SLAM almost useless crap. Also JSOW C against ships like Molniya. I shot four C's and four GBU-38's at it and they all hit but it didn't sink. I mean come on?

Watch any of the videos from US Navy's SINKEX programs. It's pretty hard to sink a warship, and many take dozens of bomb hits without going down. In fact it's almost never a bomb or missile hit that ends up sinking the ship, but a torpedo. Hits above the waterline can absolutely render a ship combat ineffective, but they don't tend to sink.

[ebabil]

I guess you have to escort your slam untill it impacts. so you will find yourself in danger zone. (didn't try aft antenna accuracy)

[BuzzU]

Any reason to use the SLAM at all?

[Drac]

Any reason to use the SLAM at all?

 

I was thinking the same thing. I have been playing around with it and find myself in the danger zone...

[Swift.]

You can still squeeze a 30-40NM stand off out of it.

[Kev2go]

it will get better with the SLAM ER.

 

Longer stand off range, better optical sensor, and automatic target recognition.

[Bunny Clark]

it will get better with the SLAM ER.

 

Longer stand off range, better optical sensor, and automatic target recognition.

 

As far as I know, the SLAM-ER uses the exact same Maverick image sensor as the SLAM. It does have a better datalink though, which should mean improved video quality and longer transmission range. Automatic Target Acquisition was not originally a feature on the SLAM-ER, but added in a latter update, and I don't know that ED has clarified if we're getting SLAM-ATA or not.

[Kev2go]

The AGM-84E SLAM is really just a Harpoon with the optical sensor taken from the old Walleye, GPS plus the warhead from the Tomahawk. It's a weird frankenstein build of different Cold War era technologies that became operational at the tail end of it all (1990).

 

 

As you put it, the JSOW is a completely new weapon developed in the 90s.

 

the AGM84E used an AGM65F IR seekerhead. Its imaging quality is better than the AGM62's seeker, its just that image quality is degraded due to an older datalink system producing static like interference in the video feed.

[Kev2go]

As far as I know, the SLAM-ER uses the exact same Maverick image sensor as the SLAM. It does have a better datalink though, which should mean improved video quality and longer transmission range. Automatic Target Acquisition was not originally a feature on the SLAM-ER, but added in a latter update, and I don't know that ED has clarified if we're getting SLAM-ATA or not.

 

Ah yes my mistake. Right with the ER's still having a slightly modified AGM65F sensor like the preceding SLAM . I had assumed an improved one was used given the different shape IR sensor of the missile.

 

IN any case I would like to think the AGM84 ATA would be included. Although "ATA" aspect is not explicitly mentioned the planned SLAM ER variants were the AGM84H and the AGM84K. Various sources say that ATA functionality was fairly quickly retrofitted to all initial production SLAM ER's. ATA did become a standard feature.

 

IF we have a "circa 2005" Hornet then it should probably have it since the ATA updated AGM84H/K had IOC declared in 2002 and saw its combat debut during OIF 2003.

 

 

https://boeing.mediaroom.com/2002-09-16-Boeing-SLAM-ER-Becomes-First-Missile-with-Operational-Automatic-Target-Acquisition

 

 

https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/navy/ntsp/agm-84-d_2002.pdf

Edited August 22, 2020 by Kev2go