AFRL Gray Wolf Cruise Missile

[TomcatViP]

@shin_getter :IMOHO b/w catching a drone in the air and the same drone with a live weapon, there is a gulf that could take time to cross.

 

[bring_it_on]

I doubt they will look to weaponize the Gremlins. It just complicates the whole process. As a DARPA program it will likely showcase a path to a EW and ISR system that builds upon the capabilities of the expendable systems currently in service. Rest will be up to the USAF to pursue.

 

[jsport]

@shin_getter :IMOHO b/w catching a drone in the air and the same drone with a live weapon, there is a gulf that could take time to cross.

When your a small UAS and very close to scene you dont need 250lbs of explossive, you need a needle in the eye. A very easily managed recovery and relaunch. Anything else is alot of wasted time and expense and a lost SEAD battle. SEAD will take place over vast areas and over much time.

https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1365/MR1365.ch6.pdf

FRUSTRATIONS WITH THE SEAD EFFORT
In contrast to the far more satisfying SEAD experience in Desert Storm, the initial effort to suppress Serb air defenses in Allied Force did not go nearly as well as expected. The avowed going-in objective of the SEAD operation was to neutralize as many of Serbia’s SAMs and AAA sites as possible, particularly its estimated 16 SA-3 LOW BLOW and 25 SA-6 STRAIGHT FLUSH fire control radars. Another early goal was to take out or suppress long-range surveillance radars that could provide timely threat warning to MANPADS operators carrying shoulder-fired infrared SAMs like the SA-7. The Serbs, however, kept their SAMs defensively dispersed and operating in an emission control (EMCON) mode, prompting concern that they were attempting to draw NATO aircraft down to lower altitudes where they could be more easily engaged. Before the initial strikes, there were reports of a large-scale dispersal of SA-3 and SA-6 batteries from nearly all of the regular known garrisons. The understandable reluctance of enemy SAM operators to emit and thus render themselves cooperative targets made them much harder to find and attack, forcing allied aircrews to remain constantly alert to the radar-guided SAM threat throughout the air war.2 It further had the effect of denying some high-risk targets for a time, increasing force package size, and increasing overall SEAD sortie requirements. Moreover, unlike in the more permissive Desert Storm operating environment, airspace availability limitations in the war zone typically made for high predictability on the part of attacking NATO aircraft, and collateral damage avoidance considerations frequently prevented the use of the most tactically advantageous attack headings. The resulting efforts to neutralize the Serb IADS were, according to retired U.S. Navy Admiral Leighton Smith, the commander of NATO forces in Bosnia from 1994 to 1996, “like digging out potatoes one at a time.”3 The commander of USAFE, General Jumper, later added that the CAOC could never get NATO political clearance to attack the most troublesome early warning radars in Montenegro, ______________
2Dana Priest, “NATO Unlikely to Alter Strategy,” Washington Post, March 26, 1999.
3Dana Priest, “NATO Pilots Set to Confront Potent Foe,” Washington Post, March 24, 1999.

 

[marauder2048]

When your a small UAS and very close to scene you dont need 250lbs of explossive,

As evidenced by AARGM-ER, you need very large warheads. Particularly against AESAs; they are just much more damage
tolerant and much easier to repair than their predecessors.

Keep in mind, over the former Yugoslavia, the US used AGM-130s against SA-6 radars. SLAM and GBU-15
were used in much the same way. You'd prefer these things DEAD'ed.

 

[jsport]

..am quite sure it would be classified how to needle the eye, but again when you are literally on top of the target and you have time to circle etc so would simply strongly disagree.

 

[marauder2048]

..am quite sure it would be classified how to needle the eye, but again when you are literally on top of the target and you have time to circle etc so would simply strongly disagree.

Fair enough. AFAIK, there's no publicly available LFT&E or actual published battle damage data for AESAs; TPQ-53 at least has
been around the block enough times for this to have happened. Same with the Israeli radars.

Back on point: $38k for a miniature expendable turbojet in that thrust class strikes me as very cheap.

It's not immediately clear to me that a reusable drone with useful payload would be cheaper than expendables in the
200 lbf thrust class and if you look at the dispenser version of TLAM it's got much shorter range than the unitary warhead
version due to trading off structural weight or fuel volume for the dispenser.

 

[jsport]

..am quite sure it would be classified how to needle the eye, but again when you are literally on top of the target and you have time to circle etc so would simply strongly disagree.

Fair enough. AFAIK, there's no publicly available LFT&E or actual published battle damage data for AESAs; TPQ-53 at least has
been around the block enough times for this to have happened. Same with the Israeli radars.

Back on point: $38k for a miniature expendable turbojet in that thrust class strikes me as very cheap.

It's not immediately clear to me that a reusable drone with useful payload would be cheaper than expendables in the
200 lbf thrust class and if you look at the dispenser version of TLAM it's got much shorter range than the unitary warhead
version due to trading off structural weight or fuel volume for the dispenser.

You has stated the DoD wanted a $20k to compete w/ JDAM so going off your statement. A reuseable drone may well not be cheaper, but it could well last through a long SEAD fight.

BTW Hardened structures may well require a gun as stated...and taken so much flak for.

 

[trose213]

..am quite sure it would be classified how to needle the eye, but again when you are literally on top of the target and you have time to circle etc so would simply strongly disagree.

Fair enough. AFAIK, there's no publicly available LFT&E or actual published battle damage data for AESAs; TPQ-53 at least has
been around the block enough times for this to have happened. Same with the Israeli radars.

Back on point: $38k for a miniature expendable turbojet in that thrust class strikes me as very cheap.

It's not immediately clear to me that a reusable drone with useful payload would be cheaper than expendables in the
200 lbf thrust class and if you look at the dispenser version of TLAM it's got much shorter range than the unitary warhead
version due to trading off structural weight or fuel volume for the dispenser.

The whole point of Golden Horde is to allow the munitions to do BDA and then redirect to another target, so adding a turbojet would greatly increase the number of targets that could be struck.

 

[marauder2048]

..am quite sure it would be classified how to needle the eye, but again when you are literally on top of the target and you have time to circle etc so would simply strongly disagree.

Fair enough. AFAIK, there's no publicly available LFT&E or actual published battle damage data for AESAs; TPQ-53 at least has
been around the block enough times for this to have happened. Same with the Israeli radars.

Back on point: $38k for a miniature expendable turbojet in that thrust class strikes me as very cheap.

It's not immediately clear to me that a reusable drone with useful payload would be cheaper than expendables in the
200 lbf thrust class and if you look at the dispenser version of TLAM it's got much shorter range than the unitary warhead
version due to trading off structural weight or fuel volume for the dispenser.

You has stated the DoD wanted a $20k to compete w/ JDAM so going off your statement. A reuseable drone may well not be cheaper, but it could well last through a long SEAD fight.

BTW Hardened structures may well require a gun as stated...and taken so much flak for.

I don't recall stating $20k for the turbojet but If I did then I misspoke; the last quasi-official target goals I saw came from a
RADM Winter preso at NDIA from 8 years ago where they had cost goals for the
turbojet in the $32k - $40k range for > FY2016 $.



$38k for the TDI-J85 missed the $26k cost goal for Gray Wolf but Gray Wolf is (was) much more ambitious
wrt payloads, range and capability than the powered -ER weapons.

The Navy assumed $20k for the wing kit. I've been trying to tease out what the -ER wing kits cost now
for Quickstrike or JDAM-ER without much success.

 

[jsport]

..am quite sure it would be classified how to needle the eye, but again when you are literally on top of the target and you have time to circle etc so would simply strongly disagree.

Fair enough. AFAIK, there's no publicly available LFT&E or actual published battle damage data for AESAs; TPQ-53 at least has
been around the block enough times for this to have happened. Same with the Israeli radars.

Back on point: $38k for a miniature expendable turbojet in that thrust class strikes me as very cheap.

It's not immediately clear to me that a reusable drone with useful payload would be cheaper than expendables in the
200 lbf thrust class and if you look at the dispenser version of TLAM it's got much shorter range than the unitary warhead
version due to trading off structural weight or fuel volume for the dispenser.

The whole point of Golden Horde is to allow the munitions to do BDA and then redirect to another target, so adding a turbojet would greatly increase the number of targets that could be struck.

How does a bomb which is essentially like the AV Switchblade really do BDA when it just self destructed into a tgt.

 

[jsport]

..am quite sure it would be classified how to needle the eye, but again when you are literally on top of the target and you have time to circle etc so would simply strongly disagree.

Fair enough. AFAIK, there's no publicly available LFT&E or actual published battle damage data for AESAs; TPQ-53 at least has
been around the block enough times for this to have happened. Same with the Israeli radars.

Back on point: $38k for a miniature expendable turbojet in that thrust class strikes me as very cheap.

It's not immediately clear to me that a reusable drone with useful payload would be cheaper than expendables in the
200 lbf thrust class and if you look at the dispenser version of TLAM it's got much shorter range than the unitary warhead
version due to trading off structural weight or fuel volume for the dispenser.

You has stated the DoD wanted a $20k to compete w/ JDAM so going off your statement. A reuseable drone may well not be cheaper, but it could well last through a long SEAD fight.

BTW Hardened structures may well require a gun as stated...and taken so much flak for.

I don't recall stating $20k for the turbojet but If I did then I misspoke; the last quasi-official target goals I saw came from a
RADM Winter preso at NDIA from 8 years ago where they had cost goals for the
turbojet in the $32k - $40k range for > FY2016 $.

View attachment 641981

$38k for the TDI-J85 missed the $26k cost goal for Gray Wolf but Gray Wolf is (was) much more ambitious
wrt payloads, range and capability than the powered -ER weapons.

The Navy assumed $20k for the wing kit. I've been trying to tease out what the -ER wing kits cost now
for Quickstrike or JDAM-ER without much success.

Any bomb based system still requires a great deal of effort on the part of the dropping craft to get in particular position for engaging the tgt even at standoff. The USAF "Thirsty Saber" " Tacit Rainbow" concepts were essentially a hunting cruise missiles. If you have to be acruise than why not a mini-UCRAV/S.

 

[marauder2048]

The whole point of Golden Horde is to allow the munitions to do BDA and then redirect to another target, so adding a turbojet would greatly increase the number of targets that could be struck.

I think the BDA is a going to be a crude: "it's no longer emitting."

Those small turbojets also have alternators that generate kVAs which is incredibly useful for powering long range datalinks and seeker stacks.
Otherwise, you have to appeal SDB II style big batteries and RATs which is less than ideal.

 

[trose213]

The whole point of Golden Horde is to allow the munitions to do BDA and then redirect to another target, so adding a turbojet would greatly increase the number of targets that could be struck.

I think the BDA is a going to be a crude: "it's no longer emitting."

Those small turbojets also have alternators that generate kVAs which is incredibly useful for powering long range datalinks and seeker stacks.
Otherwise, you have to appeal SDB II style big batteries and RATs which is less than ideal.

Pretty sure there's going to also be some machine vision and recognizing there's a hole in the side of the vehicle.

 

[jsport]

The whole point of Golden Horde is to allow the munitions to do BDA and then redirect to another target, so adding a turbojet would greatly increase the number of targets that could be struck.

I think the BDA is a going to be a crude: "it's no longer emitting."

Those small turbojets also have alternators that generate kVAs which is incredibly useful for powering long range datalinks and seeker stacks.
Otherwise, you have to appeal SDB II style big batteries and RATs which is less than ideal.

"it's no longer emitting." is an easy an obvious spoof to save and move the AD system ie SEAD mission failure. House power will be an issue for a mini-ucrav yes..more reason for a lesser warhead weight.. A few small I-HEDP would be fine.

 

[jsport]

The whole point of Golden Horde is to allow the munitions to do BDA and then redirect to another target, so adding a turbojet would greatly increase the number of targets that could be struck.

I think the BDA is a going to be a crude: "it's no longer emitting."

Those small turbojets also have alternators that generate kVAs which is incredibly useful for powering long range datalinks and seeker stacks.
Otherwise, you have to appeal SDB II style big batteries and RATs which is less than ideal.

Pretty sure there's going to also be some machine vision and recognizing there's a hole in the side of the vehicle.

Bombs have no loiter therefore no geniune BDA. Something needs to circle for at least a few min to see secondary effects.

 

[marauder2048]

The whole point of Golden Horde is to allow the munitions to do BDA and then redirect to another target, so adding a turbojet would greatly increase the number of targets that could be struck.

I think the BDA is a going to be a crude: "it's no longer emitting."

Those small turbojets also have alternators that generate kVAs which is incredibly useful for powering long range datalinks and seeker stacks.
Otherwise, you have to appeal SDB II style big batteries and RATs which is less than ideal.

Pretty sure there's going to also be some machine vision and recognizing there's a hole in the side of the vehicle.

I suppose you could cram all of that into this volume. But the impression I got is that for the initial spiral it
was going to be a passive RF + datalink; you get a weapons impact assessment from swarm elements
which when combined with the emitter status gives you BDA.

 

[jsport]

The whole point of Golden Horde is to allow the munitions to do BDA and then redirect to another target, so adding a turbojet would greatly increase the number of targets that could be struck.

I think the BDA is a going to be a crude: "it's no longer emitting."

Those small turbojets also have alternators that generate kVAs which is incredibly useful for powering long range datalinks and seeker stacks.
Otherwise, you have to appeal SDB II style big batteries and RATs which is less than ideal.

Pretty sure there's going to also be some machine vision and recognizing there's a hole in the side of the vehicle.

I suppose you could cram all of that into this volume. But the impression I got is that for the initial spiral it
was going to be a passive RF + datalink; you get a weapons impact assessment from swarm elements
which when combined with the emitter status gives you BDA.

View attachment 642023

The problem is the swarm is no good against widely disbursed IADS TELs. Why would you swarm against a single TEL or radar? Likewise, you dont get close enough to IADS tgts untill the IADS is degraded/cleared significantly by HARMs and or these mini-Thirsty Saber/Tacit Rainbows.. SDBs are good for safe standoff vehicel and even aircraft bunker shots but would be deadly as SEAD weapon.

Seems to be gettin a little redundant here.

 

[trose213]

The whole point of Golden Horde is to allow the munitions to do BDA and then redirect to another target, so adding a turbojet would greatly increase the number of targets that could be struck.

I think the BDA is a going to be a crude: "it's no longer emitting."

Those small turbojets also have alternators that generate kVAs which is incredibly useful for powering long range datalinks and seeker stacks.
Otherwise, you have to appeal SDB II style big batteries and RATs which is less than ideal.

Pretty sure there's going to also be some machine vision and recognizing there's a hole in the side of the vehicle.

Bombs have no loiter therefore no geniune BDA. Something needs to circle for at least a few min to see secondary effects.

They relay it to other bombs in the air and those divert. If there's an engine, then that bomb can divert.

 

[jsport]

The whole point of Golden Horde is to allow the munitions to do BDA and then redirect to another target, so adding a turbojet would greatly increase the number of targets that could be struck.

I think the BDA is a going to be a crude: "it's no longer emitting."

Those small turbojets also have alternators that generate kVAs which is incredibly useful for powering long range datalinks and seeker stacks.
Otherwise, you have to appeal SDB II style big batteries and RATs which is less than ideal.

Pretty sure there's going to also be some machine vision and recognizing there's a hole in the side of the vehicle.

Bombs have no loiter therefore no geniune BDA. Something needs to circle for at least a few min to see secondary effects.

They relay it to other bombs in the air and those divert. If there's an engine, then that bomb can divert.

Point is these diverted bombs are likely just wasted entirely against a modern dispersed adversary. Hordes of bombs are not UAS and they are quite limited in any sort of endurance. Just service the DMPIs, maybe get a few flashes of BDA amoungst clustered tgts but this is a marginal capability and is it even worth it. BDA is most important against unclustered tgts.

 

[marauder2048]

The problem is the swarm is no good against widely disbursed IADS TELs. Why would you swarm against a single TEL or radar? Likewise, you dont get close enough to IADS tgts untill the IADS is degraded/cleared significantly by HARMs and or these mini-Thirsty Saber/Tacit Rainbows.. SDBs are good for safe standoff vehicel and even aircraft bunker shots but would be deadly as SEAD weapon.

Seems to be gettin a little redundant here.

I think part of Golden Horde is to degrade/suppress IADS through exhaustion: SDB is big enough to be a threat that
the defense can't really ignore but small enough to be produced and employed in quantity.


Glide weapons of this type are vulnerable to just about every SAM out there.
But on the assumption that one SAM can't destroy more than one SDB, it's at least a 1:1 exchange ratio.

If the attacker can increase the exchange ratio or the quality of weapons the defender has to commit
through collaborative jamming/swarming that's a big win.

It's somewhat analogous to the Israeli tactic over the Golan in 1973 where the IAF would just toss bombs
in order to provoke the Syrians into expending SAMs. This in turn required SAM battery reloads and
resupplies that the Israelis could track and interdict.

 

[trose213]

Here is the article that details what exactly 'playbooks' mean.

US Air Force gears up for first flight test of Golden Horde munition swarms

The Air Force wants networked munitions that can adapt to changes on the battlefield.

www.defensenews.com

 

[marauder2048]

Here is the article that details what exactly 'playbooks' mean.

US Air Force gears up for first flight test of Golden Horde munition swarms

The Air Force wants networked munitions that can adapt to changes on the battlefield.

www.defensenews.com

It doesn't really detail much.

The modern mission planning software for glide weapons can, with a set of known emitters, solve for a series
of waypoints and bank angles to minimize the probability the glide weapons are detected en route to their target.

If the known emitters change location or there are pop-up threat emitters then you'd need to:

a. detect that the known emitters have changed location
b. detect pop-up emitters
c. dynamically recompute the flight path

The swarm is potentially better at geolocating emitters by virtue of wider physical separation and being
closer to the threat; one SDB might be in the sidelobe while the other SDB is in the mainlobe.

The SDBs are also closer to each other than they are to the launch platform so latencies will be lower
and thus solutions can be found faster.

 

[jsport]

Sending pilots armed w/ SDBs against IADS is not good idea (see below). The old ME is not any analog to what increasing sophisticated technical and training which will be faced. Much of the non-kinetic exercise currently over Syria will be greatly complicated over a vast Euro or Asia complex terrain scenario.
Again this seems to be getting redundant.

[/QUOTE]

https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1365/MR1365.ch6.pdf

FRUSTRATIONS WITH THE SEAD EFFORT
In contrast to the far more satisfying SEAD experience in Desert Storm, the initial effort to suppress Serb air defenses in Allied Force did not go nearly as well as expected. The avowed going-in objective of the SEAD operation was to neutralize as many of Serbia’s SAMs and AAA sites as possible, particularly its estimated 16 SA-3 LOW BLOW and 25 SA-6 STRAIGHT FLUSH fire control radars. Another early goal was to take out or suppress long-range surveillance radars that could provide timely threat warning to MANPADS operators carrying shoulder-fired infrared SAMs like the SA-7. The Serbs, however, kept their SAMs defensively dispersed and operating in an emission control (EMCON) mode, prompting concern that they were attempting to draw NATO aircraft down to lower altitudes where they could be more easily engaged. Before the initial strikes, there were reports of a large-scale dispersal of SA-3 and SA-6 batteries from nearly all of the regular known garrisons. The understandable reluctance of enemy SAM operators to emit and thus render themselves cooperative targets made them much harder to find and attack, forcing allied aircrews to remain constantly alert to the radar-guided SAM threat throughout the air war.2 It further had the effect of denying some high-risk targets for a time, increasing force package size (wild weasels), and increasing overall SEAD sortie requirements. Moreover, unlike in the more permissive Desert Storm operating environment, airspace availability limitations in the war zone typically made for high predictability on the part of attacking NATO aircraft, and collateral damage avoidance considerations frequently prevented the use of the most tactically advantageous attack headings. The resulting efforts to neutralize the Serb IADS were, according to retired U.S. Navy Admiral Leighton Smith, the commander of NATO forces in Bosnia from 1994 to 1996, “like digging out potatoes one at a time.”3 The commander of USAFE, General Jumper, later added that the CAOC could never get NATO political clearance to attack the most troublesome early warning radars in Montenegro, ______________
2Dana Priest, “NATO Unlikely to Alter Strategy,” Washington Post, March 26, 1999.
3Dana Priest, “NATO Pilots Set to Confront Potent Foe,” Washington Post, March 24, 1999.
[/QUOTE]

 

[marauder2048]

Sending pilots armed w/ SDBs against IADS is not good idea (see below). The old ME is not any analog to what increasing sophisticated technical and training which will be faced. Much of the non-kinetic exercise currently over Syria will be greatly complicated over a vast Euro or Asia complex terrain scenario.
Again this seems to be getting redundant.

They showed B-2 in one of the videos but there's nothing preventing Collaborative SDB from being launched from Valkyrie
or those LO attritable drones.

The air campaign, in general, over the former Yugoslavia was good example of how *not* to do things.
But a takeaway, IMHO, is that SEAD/DEAD capability needs to be proliferated throughout the force.
Dependence on dedicated jammers, dedicated SEAD shooters and dedicated SEAD weapons is fragile.

Not that you don't want to have these things (AARGM-ER, MALD-J, NGJ etc) but giving SDB and MALD-J
the ability to collaboratively conduct SEAD, if you can do it at a reasonable cost point say no more than
2X for SDB and 1.1x for MALD-J, seems well worth the effort.

 

[Josh_TN]

SDB and MALD are the test articles but not necessarily the final operational host platforms. However it would make sense that SBDs were used since they are one of the least expensive and smallest munitions. They would probably have no additional sensors, just an ability to be retargetted. MALD or a reusable UAV might make for a good sensor platform that can cue other weapons. SBD2 also might be useful in a damage assessment role or to look for other more valuable target, since it has radar and IIR.

 

[marauder2048]

SDB and MALD are the test articles but not necessarily the final operational host platforms. However it would make sense that SBDs were used since they are one of the least expensive and smallest munitions. They would probably have no additional sensors, just an ability to be retargetted.

https://www.airforcemag.com/app/uploads/2020/02/FY2021-Air-Force-UPL1.pdf

a collaborative Small Diameter Bomb (SBD)-I that autonomously optimizes coordinated attacks on emitting or Global Positioning Satellite (GPS) targets within Operators Rules of Engagement.

I'm assuming all they are doing with "Collaborative MALD" is just a new software drop for MALD-N which already has the datalink.

 

[jsport]

Sending pilots armed w/ SDBs against IADS is not good idea (see below). The old ME is not any analog to what increasing sophisticated technical and training which will be faced. Much of the non-kinetic exercise currently over Syria will be greatly complicated over a vast Euro or Asia complex terrain scenario.
Again this seems to be getting redundant.

They showed B-2 in one of the videos but there's nothing preventing Collaborative SDB from being launched from Valkyrie
or those LO attritable drones.

The air campaign, in general, over the former Yugoslavia was good example of how *not* to do things.
But a takeaway, IMHO, is that SEAD/DEAD capability needs to be proliferated throughout the force.
Dependence on dedicated jammers, dedicated SEAD shooters and dedicated SEAD weapons is fragile.

Not that you don't want to have these things (AARGM-ER, MALD-J, NGJ etc) but giving SDB and MALD-J
the ability to collaboratively conduct SEAD, if you can do it at a reasonable cost point say no more than
2X for SDB and 1.1x for MALD-J, seems well worth the effort.

If cost is a factor in SEAD then every pilot should get chills up their spine. This is like being sniper bait. We would prefer a robot to do that.

It is quite dangerous for pilots w/ SDBs to get that close, if you can place unmanned H-K motherships (loyal wingman, Reaper replacements) w/ AARGM-ER, HARM and mini reloadables to accomplish SEAD, much better. This type of exclusive SEAD, over a fair amount of time at least clear particular corridors. This SEAD phase can reasonably afford a generally safe area for manned fighter/bombers. (still a fan of the latest F-16 and F-15 iterations.)

SEAD should continue throughout and B-2, B-21 (maybe others) can tgt Centers O Gravity concurrently w/ this initial SEAD. A SEAD phase still makes sense. MALD-J and NGJ are great to provide a margin of safety for conventional packages as well as equip SEAD craft. A long endurance MALD- J should be invested in but a last look it was not. On static point tgts current MALD-J may be sufficient.

 

[jsport]

PS if atk helicopters, transport helicopters, jet tankers , transports, bombers, legacy fighters as well as newer craft are sufficiently protected by this rapidly evolving DEW tech all threats may well be zapped flys..

PPS: a mini-anti-missile as patented is still good idea.

 

[marauder2048]

If cost is a factor in SEAD then every pilot should get chills up their spine. This is like being sniper bait. We would prefer a robot to do that.

AARGM-ER is estimated to be ~$1.3 million/round. I'm sure it's going to have a very high SSPK against threat emitters.
But there are going to be a lot of threat emitters since the nice thing about AESAs panels is that the are very
amenable to mass production.

 

[jsport]

..want one..dont know what to do w/ it but still want it..

 

[jsport]

Air Force Wants Help Teaching its Weapon Swarm How to ‘Think’ | Air & Space Forces Magazine

The Air Force Research Laboratory wants to make its budding swarm of semi-autonomous weapons smarter.

www.airforcemag.com

 

[bobbymike]

AFRL demonstrates first collaborative weapon technologies – Air Force Research Laboratory

afresearchlab.com

 

[bobbymike]

Golden Horde: The Air Force’s Plan for Networked Bombs

Imagine this scenario: A U.S. Air Force F-22 Raptor pilot races toward a target on the ground and when within striking distance, drops a pair of GPS-guided precision bombs. As the bomb

www.realcleardefense.com

 

[bobbymike]

WeaponONE demonstrates Digital Twin technologies that deliver software-defined capabilities – Air Force Research Laboratory

afresearchlab.com

 

[shin_getter]

Point is these diverted bombs are likely just wasted entirely against a modern dispersed adversary. Hordes of bombs are not UAS and they are quite limited in any sort of endurance.

This kind of capability seems most useful in a high force density scenario, like how RAND simulated asiatic hoards ramming hundreds of tanks to eject Americans in jeeps on a hill: clearly inflicting only 30% attrition via air/long range fires with plentiful shooters indicate failure: why not inflict 100% losses? The long lag time between firing and hitting means inefficiency and unreliability: the target may be already disabled due to other causes, some targets move in unpredicted directions and out of the terminal seeker area, while some other target presumed dead are still alive and one has to spend time organizing for another fire mission.

Low cost networked redirectable munitions is a solution to that problem: just fire as fast as possible into the rough area of the enemy and redirect it on the fly as the tactical picture changes.

If you are dealing with a "shoot and hide" scenario you'd use some other weapon and tactic: really fast missiles or sensors (either survivable or low cost) that keeps a "track" on the enemy trying to hide. The recent Azerbaijian war produced great videos of UAVs tracking Tor and Smech back to its hiding spot which is later smashed.

 

[bobbymike]

AFRL's WeaponONE Aims To Rapidly Build Digital Design, Engineering Tools - Breaking Defense

AFRL's WeaponONE is serving as a pathfinder program for Air Force Materiel Command's digital campaign to integrate digital tools into its operations.

breakingdefense.com

 

[Grey Havoc]

US Air Force’s ‘Golden Horde’ swarming munitions program to get second chance

The next test will involve four networked bombs capable of shifting its target as the battlefield changes.

www.defensenews.com

 

[Josh_TN]

US Air Force’s ‘Golden Horde’ swarming munitions program to get second chance

The next test will involve four networked bombs capable of shifting its target as the battlefield changes.

www.defensenews.com

Is it just me or is the munition pictured an SBD-II? I thought the laser guided SBD-I's retained the same sharp nosed form of the original with a blistered fairing for the laser sensor?

 

[Grey Havoc]

Could be just a handy file image used for illustration without clarifying it as such.

 

[Grey Havoc]

On a side note:

Air Force Research Laboratory wants to add more Vanguard programs

As AFRL targets its investments on transformational capabilities, the lab wants to have three to six Vanguard programs in development at any one time.

www.c4isrnet.com