Ground Launched Small Diameter Bomb (GLSDB)

HOJ isn't going to solve jamming, jammers would be mobile and distributed to cover each other and turned on in short intervals to deny a full targeting solution. This does impose significant costs on the defender though. Loitering munitions and very fast munitions on HOJ would be needed for some jamming defense configurations.

I do wonder if you can just add signal sources on earth and have it work off existing GPS receivers. Ground/air sources are just far closer than a satellite at GEO and can put out far more power on receiver, with narrow beam and short durations it shouldn't be too easy to target by the opponent.
 
shin_getter said:
HOJ isn't going to solve jamming, jammers would be mobile and distributed to cover each other and turned on in short intervals to deny a full targeting solution. This does impose significant costs on the defender though. Loitering munitions and very fast munitions on HOJ would be needed for some jamming defense configurations.

I do wonder if you can just add signal sources on earth and have it work off existing GPS receivers. Ground/air sources are just far closer than a satellite at GEO and can put out far more power on receiver, with narrow beam and short durations it shouldn't be too easy to target by the opponent.
Click to expand...
You have seen how big the Russian jammer units are, right?

They're the size of a 20ft ISO container!
 
shin_getter said:
HOJ isn't going to solve jamming, jammers would be mobile and distributed to cover each other and turned on in short intervals to deny a full targeting solution. This does impose significant costs on the defender though. Loitering munitions and very fast munitions on HOJ would be needed for some jamming defense configurations.

I do wonder if you can just add signal sources on earth and have it work off existing GPS receivers. Ground/air sources are just far closer than a satellite at GEO and can put out far more power on receiver, with narrow beam and short durations it shouldn't be too easy to target by the opponent.
Click to expand...

Russian anti-GPS jammers, as Scott Kenny pointed, out are NOT small, we're seen at least van sized and usually small to large truck size and these units are very expensive and difficult to replace. The Ukrainians have been actively hunting for them and destroying any they discover, I don't know what the figures are but I suspect they've already destroyed large numbers of these Russian anti-GPS jammers.

Fitting at least some of the SDBs with anti-GPS jammer HOJ terminal-seekers and firing them first will ensure that those jammers are permanently offline when the second wave of SDBs arrive.
 
Last edited:
Forest Green said:
What's interesting is that it's still going to Ukraine despite Trump's announcements.
Click to expand...
Previous contracts.

Also, if the US has mining interests/rights there, the US has reason to send troops. So I suspect a whole lot of theater was involved with that Zelensky meeting.
 
Given that the GLSDB has proven itself there's no reason to restrict it to using just surplus M26 rocket-motors, what about also using, say, the RUM-139 VLA launch-booster/airframe but with the airframe for example modified to fully encapsulate the SDB?
 
NMaude said:
Given that the GLSDB has proven itself there's no reason to restrict it to using just surplus M26 rocket-motors, what about also using, say, the RUM-139 VLA launch-booster/airframe but with the airframe for example modified to fully encapsulate the SDB?
Click to expand...
Crud, if you're using that setup, you might as well pack 3x or 4x SDBs into the aeroshell. There's plenty of room for them all!
 
Scott Kenny said:
Crud, if you're using that setup, you might as well pack 3x or 4x SDBs into the aeroshell.
Click to expand...

You could easily do that using a Mk-72 launch-booster but with a Mk-114 booster two SDBIs tops, the SDB-I weighs 285lb while the VLA's normal payload - was a Mk-46 (508lb) or a Mk-54 (608lb). It would have a range of about 15 miles or perhaps 30 miles with a single SDB-I. What might be better would be a two-stage launch-booster using the Mk-114 as the first-stage and a Mk-136 TSRM as the second-stage and that would have a fairly lengthy range with an SDB-I payload.
 
NMaude said:
Given that the GLSDB has proven itself there's no reason to restrict it to using just surplus M26 rocket-motors, what about also using, say, the RUM-139 VLA launch-booster/airframe but with the airframe for example modified to fully encapsulate the SDB?
Click to expand...
Well, I considered the idea of using the ESSM's rocket motor to launch quad-packed GLSDB's from Mk-41. At least on paper the idea seems workable.
 
Dilandu said:
Well, I considered the idea of using the ESSM's rocket motor to launch quad-packed GLSDB's from Mk-41.
Click to expand...

The ESSM's rocket-motor/tail assembly was one of several others I've thought would be a good SDB launch-booster (Especially if the SDB was fully encapsulated to cut down on drag).
 
NMaude said:
The ESSM's rocket-motor/tail assembly was one of several others I've thought would be a good SDB launch-booster (Especially if the SDB was fully encapsulated to cut down on drag).
Click to expand...
True. Of course, even with aerodynamic collar, the SDB would be heavier (it's weight is essentially the same as ESSM total weight), but since the purpose of the motor is merely to boost SDB to required altitude - it's perfectly acceptable. And if GBU-53/B StromBreaker would be used, then even this problem would be avoided due to its small weight.

The idea of quad-packing a SDB's in Mk-41 actually looks attractive:

* For merely one Mk-41 module filled with SDB, a warship could got a 32 land/ship attack weapons, useful for both coastal bombardment and self-defense against small boats & unmanned drone boats
* Filling half of Arleigh Burke Mk-41 with SDB (for coastal support missions), she would got a 192 weapons - likely enough for a long-range, fast-reaction support, that USMC always wanted
* A specialized coastal bombardment platforms with multiple container launchers filled with SDB - a reincarnation of the old Rocket Support Ship on a new base - could easily be created.
 
Other rocket-motors that could be used to launched ground-launched SDB-Is are the AIM-7M/P's Mk-58 rocket-motor (Using the Sea sparrow's JVC unit to pitch it over in the right direction if launched from a Mk-41 VLS, the AIM-120's Aerojet rocket-motor (I don't know what its Mk-number is) and associated tail-control assembly or the SM-2/6 booster-stack with the SDB-I encapsulated in a 13.5" clam-shell aerodynamic fairing in place of the missile's GCU/warhead assembly for example.
 
I mean in the MK.41 with ESSM as Booster you also got enough space to just throw an small engine in the back for even more range
 
kqcke for you said:
I mean in the MK.41 with ESSM as Booster you also got enough space to just throw an small engine in the back for even more range
Click to expand...
Quite possible, albeit I'm not sure it would be practical for medium-range weapon with small warhead. IMHO, but shipborne GLSDB should be kept as cheap as possible.
 
Dilandu said:
Quite possible, albeit I'm not sure it would be practical for medium-range weapon with small warhead. IMHO, but shipborne GLSDB should be kept as cheap as possible.
Click to expand...
Considering that they are already looking into that direction it would be that mutch of an novelty. That said it gives you more freedom with the weapons in both range and speed
 
NMaude said:
That's good as the Russians operating these anti-GPS jammer units will be in for a very nasty surprise.
Click to expand...
The GPS jammers would be largely unmanned, aside from personnel to make sure the generator is kept fueled and running. Some jammers might be running on landline power and attached or adjacent to civilian buildings and that's where a home on jam seeker without mission planning or a man in the loop might be a problem in terms of collateral damage. GPS jammers aren't big morally unambiguous targets like SAM battery radars. Early in the conflict, many apartment blocks were likely hit because of roof mounted radio repeaters. Someone triangulated a signal and called in a strike on a coordinant and instant collateral damage. And no personal associated with the radio repeaters were likely killed, just innocent civilians.
 
Last edited:
NMaude said:
Especially given the conversion of RIM-7Ps into ESSM Block Is where the Mk-58 rocket-motor is discarded and replaced with the 10" Mk-135 rocket-motor.
Click to expand...

Do you have any evidence that this happened outside of (possibly) early test articles?
 
TomS said:
Do you have any evidence that this happened outside of (possibly) early test articles?
Click to expand...

I got the impression from reading various articles concerning the development and manufacture of the Block I ESSM that only the GCU and warhead assemblies were retained from the RIM-7P before being mounted on the new 10" diameter rocket-motor/tail-control sections. Correct me if I'm wrong though, however my point still stands is that the RIM-7P's Mk-58 rocket-motor and tail-fin assembly (With the RIM-7P's JVC unit to pitch it in the right direction if fired from a VLS) could be used as a booster assembly with an adaptor to mount an SDB onto it.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom