Ground Launched Small Diameter Bomb (GLSDB)

Actually, such weapon could be a perfect solution of naval gunfire support problem... It have range, accuracy, and compact & cheap enough to carry in relatively large numbers.
 
Dilandu said:
Actually, such weapon could be a perfect solution of naval gunfire support problem... It have range, accuracy, and compact & cheap enough to carry in relatively large numbers.
Click to expand...
No 7+ inch naval guns still in service, unless you mean just using the as rockets from VLS cells??
 
Hmm... though it could be debated, "what much use is a 63-pound warhead against a modern ship",
it could prove interesting if the US were to trial a flechette-type warhead instead of bulk explosive:
attacking the target vessel in a near-vertical (or steep dive) trajectory (if it gets through the ship's CIWS),
an airburst above the ship of incendiary-alloy flechettes (so-called reactive materials, pyrophoric like when DU hits steel)
could decimate antennas, wave guides, and radar arrays: those items are NOT armored, and do not react well to even minimal damage.
Enough fragmentation will disable a ship's eyes, whether they are rotating antennas, optical gimbals, or phased arrays,
multiple holes in the wrong place will distort or damage wave guides, cause electrical shorts, start a lot of small fires in areas you don't want flames, etc.
And if you can't see additional future attacks coming at you, these first few SDBs did their job.

There is (or was) development of "low collateral damage" bombs containing hundreds of various-sized tungsten rods/penetrators,
intended to attack point targets like a SAM near a school or hospital, where explosive blast radius is cause for concern.
It would be an interesting experiment to see what effect such a warhead airbursting over a ship's topside would create,
to see if we could actually exploit LCD warheads for maximized fragmentation effects against ships, in attempts to disable their sensors for follow-on attacks from larger ordnance.
 
Forest Green said:
Dilandu said:
Actually, such weapon could be a perfect solution of naval gunfire support problem... It have range, accuracy, and compact & cheap enough to carry in relatively large numbers.
Click to expand...
No 7+ inch naval guns still in service, unless you mean just using the as rockets from VLS cells??
Click to expand...

Years ago (prior to DDG-1000 Zumwalt and its AGS being selected), Lockheed Martin pushed the POLAR concept: Precision Over-the-horizon Land Attack Rocket. These effectively, for their size, quad-packed like Sea Sparrow/ESSM in Mk 41 VLS cells. I see little reason why a renewed interest in a VLS-SDB, coupled to that fancy tri-mode seeker, couldn't create an interesting multi-target (maritime or land) surface strike weapon.
 
Forest Green said:
No 7+ inch naval guns still in service, unless you mean just using the as rockets from VLS cells??
Click to expand...

I mean, putting them in some kind of shipborne container launcher, preferably quad (or more) packing them into Mk-41 cell. So the Mk-41-carrying ship (or Mk-57 carrying) could be adapted for coastal bombardment role by stuffing her with SBD-tipped rockets.
 
[QUOTE = "DanielStarseer, post: 361957, membro: 4021"]
Hmm ... embora possa ser debatido, "que utilidade é uma ogiva de 63 libras contra um navio moderno",
poderia ser interessante se os EUA testassem uma ogiva do tipo flechette em vez de explosivos a granel:
atacar a embarcação-alvo em uma trajetória quase vertical (ou íngreme) (se ela passar pelo CIWS do navio),
uma explosão de ar acima do navio de flechettes de liga incendiária (os chamados materiais reativos, pirofóricos como quando DU atinge o aço)
poderia dizimar antenas, guias de ondas e matrizes de radar: esses itens NÃO são blindados e não reagem bem a danos mínimos.
Fragmentação suficiente desativará os olhos de uma nave, sejam eles antenas rotativas, cardan óptico ou matrizes em fases,
vários orifícios no lugar errado distorcerão ou danificarão as guias de ondas, causarão curtos elétricos, iniciarão muitos pequenos incêndios em áreas onde você não deseja chamas, etc.
E se você não conseguir ver futuros ataques adicionais, esses primeiros SDBs fizeram o seu trabalho.

Existe (ou houve) desenvolvimento de bombas de "baixo dano colateral" contendo centenas de varetas / penetradores de vários tamanhos,
destinado a atacar alvos pontuais, como um SAM, perto de uma escola ou hospital, onde o raio da explosão é motivo de preocupação.
Seria uma experiência interessante ver qual o efeito que uma explosão de uma ogiva no topo do navio criaria,
para ver se poderíamos realmente explorar ogivas de LCD para obter efeitos maximizados de fragmentação contra navios, na tentativa de desativar seus sensores para ataques subseqüentes de artefatos maiores.
[/CITAR]

Absolutaly correct!

Now a day, with a GLSDB, a simple and small SSK can atack landbases. GLSDB + Small SSK can be a solution for reach a launch zone with stealth mode.

Can be a NSFS operations too.
 
I don't think the Navy is going to permit a new, non-IM munition for shipboard use especially with
ER-GMLRS in the pipeline and being earmarked for the Marines.
 
marauder2048 said:
I don't think the Navy is going to permit a new, non-IM munition for shipboard use especially with
ER-GMLRS in the pipeline and being earmarked for the Marines.
Click to expand...

SDB is already IM, isn't it? (The explosive fill at least is described as insensitive.) Obviously, there would be some serious HERO testing needed for employing the integrated system on a ship. But they've already done quite a bit of shipboard testing with various versions of MLRS/HIMARS, including GMLRS a couple of years ago.
 
DanielStarseer said:
Hmm... though it could be debated, "what much use is a 63-pound warhead against a modern ship",
it could prove interesting if the US were to trial a flechette-type warhead instead of bulk explosive:
attacking the target vessel in a near-vertical (or steep dive) trajectory (if it gets through the ship's CIWS),
an airburst above the ship of incendiary-alloy flechettes (so-called reactive materials, pyrophoric like when DU hits steel)
could decimate antennas, wave guides, and radar arrays: those items are NOT armored, and do not react well to even minimal damage.
Enough fragmentation will disable a ship's eyes, whether they are rotating antennas, optical gimbals, or phased arrays,
multiple holes in the wrong place will distort or damage wave guides, cause electrical shorts, start a lot of small fires in areas you don't want flames, etc.
And if you can't see additional future attacks coming at you, these first few SDBs did their job.
Click to expand...

"The first major air strike on Haiphong since 1968 took place on the 15th of April. During the strike, Worden* was damaged by two anti-radiation missiles** inadvertently fired by United States support aircraft. One crew member was killed, and nine others were seriously injured; they were airlifted by helicopter to the carrier Tripoli (CVU-64) for treatment. Worden proceeded to Subic Bay for a 10-day repair period."

Worden IV (DLG-18)

(DLG-18: dp. 7,903; l. 533'; b. 53'; dr. 24'6
www.history.navy.mil www.history.navy.mil

* USS Worden (CG-18)
** AGM-45 Shrike (~68 kg frag warhead)
 
Saab and Boeing Conduct Successful Test Firing of Ground-Launched Small Diameter Bomb

PRESS RELEASE
14 October 2019
Saab has together with Boeing conducted a successful long-range test firing of the Ground-Launched Small Diameter Bomb (GLSDB) in Norway.
The test firing took place at the Andøya Test Center in Andenes, Norway, September 26, 2019. The objective of the test firing was to hit a predetermined target in the sea, 130 km away from the launcher. The launcher used in the test firing was a custom made, fully autonomous, 20 foot container.
“In collaboration with Boeing, we have developed a highly competent system that offers high precision at long range. We see a lot of potential in the GLSDB, since it provides armed forces around the world with a long range artillery capability, which there is a great demand for”, says Görgen Johansson, Head of Saab business area Dynamics.
GLSDB is a partnership between Saab and Boeing. The GLSDB system stands out with its high accuracy over long ranges, and has the ability to fly complex trajectories and manoeuvres to strike targets that cannot be reached by conventional direct and indirect fire weapons. It is launcher independent, which means that it can be fired from a containerised solution, as well as any launcher capable of using the M26 launch pod container e.g. HIMARS, M270 and ChunMoo. The containerised solution can also be used onboard ships, providing GLSDB with the ability be fired from both land and sea assets.
“Boeing and Saab bring together deep knowledge of precision weapon systems and the ability to rapidly integrate and test solutions,” said Cindy Gruensfelder, vice president, Boeing Weapons. “Combining our companies’ expertise, experience and resources have resulted in an advanced, cost efficient, supportable global rocket artillery solution that brings warfighters the level of capability needed to combat current and future threats in a joint force environment.” 
GLSDB gives land and naval forces a mobile, organic capability to hit targets that were previously out of their reach. This is achieved by taking advantage of the Small Diameter Bomb’s inherent manoeuvrability and accuracy. GLSDB is the ultimate long-range solution, combining affordability and performance, and meets the evolving needs of armed forces today and tomorrow.


saabgroup.com

Press releases | Saab

Here you find our latest releases. You can use the search field or select language or year to narrow down your search.
saabgroup.com saabgroup.com
 
pathology_doc said:
SpudmanWP said:
Imagine these from a VL Mk41. Set them for a timed, simultaneous impact to overwhelm naval targets.

Using a mk41 would also allow for a longer motor which would give a longer range.
Click to expand...


I see an issue with flight time and target movement if used at long range, unless you update the trajectory. That being said, you wouldn't need more than a couple of hits to make even the largest surface combatant significantly less effective due to internal blast damage/fire. Aircraft carriers in particular would make juicy targets due to their large deck area and surfeit of soft, vulnerable, flammable items immediately beneath (even if the aircraft are not fully fuelled, there's always unusable fuel sloshing around at the bottom of the tanks). And even if your deck is tough enough to stop the bomb right there, you're surely going to get fire, local buckling and blast effect to anything nearby (aircraft, deck crew, radar superstructures, etc.) IIRC this was the rationale for giving the SBD Dauntless in its scout mode a 500lb bomb; even if it couldn't sink a carrier alone, it could make a hole in the deck and stop the carrier from launching a defensive scramble or a counter-strike before the follow-up attack group arrived to finish the job. This thing is far more effective than a WW2-vintage 500 pounder, and a carrier captain is going to have a nasty problem on his hands if any more than a couple of them hit him.


I'm thinking that a 1900-vintage protected cruiser, with its armoured deck and protective/sacrificial above-deck internal spaces, could take a hit from one of these and keep fighting. Modern ships, stuffed to the gills with essentials and with no armour or dead space to speak of, significantly less so - the only advantage the modern ship has is in the efficacy of its damage control measures.


It'd be sort of like Hedgehog for surface warships, albeit with a much heavier and more effective charge.
Click to expand...


I see a second issue with using a glide bomb against warships, I am thinking that if a SDB is gliding in from 40k ft, wont that be a pretty easy firing soloution for the defending missile/CIWS? The elderly Harpoon flies very low and reasonably fast (450+knts) and executes a terminal pop up manouvre in order to try and defeat such defences, what does a SDB "cruise" at? obviously it takes its initial velocity from its release platform but over time that will decay to gliding speed that is at most 150-200knts.

So I see lots of vulnerabilities to the SDB on its way to the target.

Butch
 
I wonder how difficult it would be to develop a supersonic variant for MLRS launch.
 
Forest Green said:
sferrin said:
I wonder how difficult it would be to develop a supersonic variant for MLRS launch.
Click to expand...
Can't the Raptor already launch them supersonic? Shouldn't be that difficult.
Click to expand...

It can, and the test shots from MLRS likely separate while supersonic as well. I'm not talking about weapon release however, I'm wondering how long SDB stays supersonic after the wings deploy, and if that can be improved (though likely at the cost of range).
 
sferrin said:
It can, and the test shots from MLRS likely separate while supersonic as well. I'm not talking about weapon release however, I'm wondering how long SDB stays supersonic after the wings deploy, and if that can be improved (though likely at the cost of range).
Click to expand...
I guess you would want some kind of variable sweep system for the wings. If it was just about reducing drag, you probably wouldn't deploy the wings and just steer with the tail(?).
 
sferrin said:
It can, and the test shots from MLRS likely separate while supersonic as well. I'm not talking about weapon release however, I'm wondering how long SDB stays supersonic after the wings deploy, and if that can be improved (though likely at the cost of range).
Click to expand...

IIRC the wings don't deploy until subsonic.
 
If we REALLY want to air launch it supersonic for range and anti-countermeasures (get thru those land-based C-RAM) a la RAMPAGE,
why couldn't Raytheon or LM develop an AIM-120, PAC-3 (THAAD?) or ESSM-based booster section for the SDB weapon?
But at that point, we're almost at the level of a from-the-ground-up supersonic strike weapon.
Anyone still have the blueprints for AGM-69 SRAM? Mach 3 but with a modern conventional warhead the weight of the old W-69 200kT warhead,
might make for an interesting lower-cost "Prompt Tactical Strike" air-to-ground, than the upcoming hypersonics (which will, most likely, not be cheap).
 
DanielStarseer said:
If we REALLY want to air launch it supersonic for range and anti-countermeasures (get thru those land-based C-RAM) a la RAMPAGE,
why couldn't Raytheon or LM develop an AIM-120, PAC-3 (THAAD?) or ESSM-based booster section for the SDB weapon?
But at that point, we're almost at the level of a from-the-ground-up supersonic strike weapon.
Anyone still have the blueprints for AGM-69 SRAM? Mach 3 but with a modern conventional warhead the weight of the old W-69 200kT warhead,
might make for an interesting lower-cost "Prompt Tactical Strike" air-to-ground, than the upcoming hypersonics (which will, most likely, not be cheap).
Click to expand...

The idea is cheap, available, and minimal development. They announced a few days ago that it was ready to enter production. (Presumably they're waiting for somebody to order it.)
 
DanielStarseer said:
why couldn't Raytheon or LM develop an AIM-120, PAC-3 (THAAD?) or ESSM-based booster section for the SDB weapon?
Click to expand...

There are in the US ~400,000 surplus M26 rocket-motor assemblies available at no cost.

On another note now that the M142 and M270 have deployed by the Ukrainians I wonder how long it will be before this is put into production? It would come as a very nasty surprise for the Russians.
 
Last edited:
sferrin said:
DanielStarseer said:
If we REALLY want to air launch it supersonic for range and anti-countermeasures (get thru those land-based C-RAM) a la RAMPAGE,
why couldn't Raytheon or LM develop an AIM-120, PAC-3 (THAAD?) or ESSM-based booster section for the SDB weapon?
But at that point, we're almost at the level of a from-the-ground-up supersonic strike weapon.
Anyone still have the blueprints for AGM-69 SRAM? Mach 3 but with a modern conventional warhead the weight of the old W-69 200kT warhead,
might make for an interesting lower-cost "Prompt Tactical Strike" air-to-ground, than the upcoming hypersonics (which will, most likely, not be cheap).
Click to expand...

The idea is cheap, available, and minimal development. They announced a few days ago that it was ready to enter production. (Presumably they're waiting for somebody to order it.)
Click to expand...
Don’t believe marketing hype. There’s never been an actual requirement and this is an industry funded proposal that only makes sense for a permissive air defense environment - an enemy without C-RAM. Current events show that ballistic and low flying cruise missiles are the future, not a glider boosted by a junk rocket motor.

My guess is that it would take serious funding and years to get this in the field and in the end, new and optimized rocket motors. I’m suspicious that the huge stockpile of M26 rocket motors only existed because there isn’t funding for disposal. From the Army standpoint, it’s a threat to funding for Precision Fires, just as an inflation based defense funding crisis looms. The average member of Congress might just see this as a cheap alternative to precision fires when it’s anything but. The same goes for the Air Force and Navy, both of which are in the business of delivering the same ordinance by air.

I’m all for an export order for a clever, industry lead concept. This system definitely might have been useful in the COIN conflicts of the last 20 years. But that’s all over now. Not much use in the potential near-peer conflicts of 2022.
 
TinWing said:
sferrin said:
DanielStarseer said:
If we REALLY want to air launch it supersonic for range and anti-countermeasures (get thru those land-based C-RAM) a la RAMPAGE,
why couldn't Raytheon or LM develop an AIM-120, PAC-3 (THAAD?) or ESSM-based booster section for the SDB weapon?
But at that point, we're almost at the level of a from-the-ground-up supersonic strike weapon.
Anyone still have the blueprints for AGM-69 SRAM? Mach 3 but with a modern conventional warhead the weight of the old W-69 200kT warhead,
might make for an interesting lower-cost "Prompt Tactical Strike" air-to-ground, than the upcoming hypersonics (which will, most likely, not be cheap).
Click to expand...

The idea is cheap, available, and minimal development. They announced a few days ago that it was ready to enter production. (Presumably they're waiting for somebody to order it.)
Click to expand...
Don’t believe marketing hype. There’s never been an actual requirement and this is an industry funded proposal that only makes sense for a permissive air defense environment - an enemy without C-RAM. Current events show that ballistic and low flying cruise missiles are the future, not a glider boosted by a junk rocket motor.
Click to expand...
"Junk rocket motors" seem to be doing just fine over Russia. ;)
 
An ESSM or AMRAAM booster section modified with an adapter section to attach t to an SDB I or II could work and it would be able to manoeuvre right after it was launched also it could be used in an air-launched configuration.
 
TinWing said:
sferrin said:
DanielStarseer said:
If we REALLY want to air launch it supersonic for range and anti-countermeasures (get thru those land-based C-RAM) a la RAMPAGE,
why couldn't Raytheon or LM develop an AIM-120, PAC-3 (THAAD?) or ESSM-based booster section for the SDB weapon?
But at that point, we're almost at the level of a from-the-ground-up supersonic strike weapon.
Anyone still have the blueprints for AGM-69 SRAM? Mach 3 but with a modern conventional warhead the weight of the old W-69 200kT warhead,
might make for an interesting lower-cost "Prompt Tactical Strike" air-to-ground, than the upcoming hypersonics (which will, most likely, not be cheap).
Click to expand...

The idea is cheap, available, and minimal development. They announced a few days ago that it was ready to enter production. (Presumably they're waiting for somebody to order it.)
Click to expand...
Don’t believe marketing hype. There’s never been an actual requirement and this is an industry funded proposal that only makes sense for a permissive air defense environment - an enemy without C-RAM. Current events show that ballistic and low flying cruise missiles are the future, not a glider boosted by a junk rocket motor.

My guess is that it would take serious funding and years to get this in the field and in the end, new and optimized rocket motors. I’m suspicious that the huge stockpile of M26 rocket motors only existed because there isn’t funding for disposal. From the Army standpoint, it’s a threat to funding for Precision Fires, just as an inflation based defense funding crisis looms. The average member of Congress might just see this as a cheap alternative to precision fires when it’s anything but. The same goes for the Air Force and Navy, both of which are in the business of delivering the same ordinance by air.

I’m all for an export order for a clever, industry lead concept. This system definitely might have been useful in the COIN conflicts of the last 20 years. But that’s all over now. Not much use in the potential near-peer conflicts of 2022.
Click to expand...
I have literally seen this exact argument but for the likes of MLRS, Apache, Harpoon, Ballastics and low flying missiles, and civilian Drones pre-Ukraine Invasion. Some of that on this site!

Blah SHORAD WILL KILL THEM, BLAH ECM BLAH TOO SLOW BLAH REDUNDANT BLAH...

With the Ukraine Invasion showing that with half decent tactics?

Thats not true, at all.

Even with Russia cleaning up their act from Amateur Hour to half decent and semi proper employment of their gear even the Civilian Drones are still making themselves a right proper pain. Like I remember having an debate bout Russian GPS Jamming, which to date has not been a factor yet. Hell only heard rumers bout it being deployed a few weeks being the 8 Himars went on their ammo dump killing spree. Nothing bout it since.

The SDBs are a pain to detect at the best of times despite being non LO. This due to a variety of factors and cause of filter settings.

As is they are an extremely deadly little system that pyting on a rocket does not threaten the Precision fire Program due to the fact that they have a third of the range at best. If anything the complent it by covering down on the short range side odethings. Which is the job of the GMLRS so it insteads threaten that one. With the price being the biggest deciding factor, which the GMLRS wins in exchange for certain abilities. Cant datalink up with nearby aircraft for example. That can be used in many creative ways.
 
The real value-added of GLSDB is that the basically limitless supply of M26 rockets + SDB I’s 8,000/yr max production rate (MPR) means the US could quickly boost HIMARS-compatible rocket pod procurement by 80%. Lockheed’s MPR for GMLRS is 10,000/yr, which we have to share with allies. Even without Ukraine using a LOT of rockets, that’s not enough. Boeing’s GLSDB plan is an elegant way to fix this.
Thanks to its 20 year hyperfocus on GWOT, the Pentagon has long shortchanged procurement of precision guided munitions. I only wish Boeing could pull more rabbits out of the hat like this to remedy the absurdly low MPRs of JASSM/LRASM (550/yr) and SM-6 (150/yr).
 
Well...

news.yahoo.com

Exclusive-U.S. weighs sending 100-mile strike weapon to Ukraine -sources

The Pentagon is considering a Boeing proposal to supply Ukraine with cheap, small precision bombs fitted onto abundantly available rockets, allowing Kyiv to strike far behind Russian lines as the West struggles to meet demand for more arms. U.S. and allied military inventories are shrinking...
news.yahoo.com news.yahoo.com
 
If the Russians hate the GMLRS then they'll really hate the GLSDB as without crossing the Dnieper river in Cherson they'll be able to target northern Crimea. I wonder if Boeing and SAAB will develop a version of the GLSDB that carries the SDB-II?
 
Forest Green said:
Ultimately they need to get producing and restock the inventories.
Click to expand...
If I was Boeing and Saab I'd start building without a contract. Build it and they will come...

There are that many countries lining up to purchase HIMARS and GMLRS-ER in huge quantities that even the increased production just won't be able to fill the US stockpile replenishment and expansion, let alone all the international orders in a reasonable timeframe. Also GMLRS-ER won't be cheap...so militaries may look at the cheaper GLSDB as a good way to add some depth to their inventories in addition to GMLRS-ER and PrSM.

Similar story for the likes of MBDA with LPS and JFS-M....everyone is going all in on M270/HiMARS. Get product out there that fits the platform. Hell if I was the company that owned the IP on LIMAWS(R) I'd be pulling the plans and demonstrator out and dusting them down.
 
timmymagic said:
Forest Green said:
Ultimately they need to get producing and restock the inventories.
Click to expand...
If I was Boeing and Saab I'd start building without a contract. Build it and they will come...

There are that many countries lining up to purchase HIMARS and GMLRS-ER in huge quantities that even the increased production just won't be able to fill the US stockpile replenishment and expansion, let alone all the international orders in a reasonable timeframe. Also GMLRS-ER won't be cheap...so militaries may look at the cheaper GLSDB as a good way to add some depth to their inventories in addition to GMLRS-ER and PrSM.

Similar story for the likes of MBDA with LPS and JFS-M....everyone is going all in on M270/HiMARS. Get product out there that fits the platform. Hell if I was the company that owned the IP on LIMAWS(R) I'd be pulling the plans and demonstrator out and dusting them down.
Click to expand...
Don't some other countries have production licenses for GMLRS?
 
Forest Green said:
Don't some other countries have production licenses for GMLRS?
Click to expand...
There was European production facilities for M26 back in the day but not for GMLRS. There are compatible munitions available from Israel and Turkey however.

It will be interesting to see if there is any impetus for a European production plant.
 
TomS said:
And South Korea, I believe.
Click to expand...
I know that the 227mm rockets from M270/HIMARS are compatible with the K239 Chunmoo, but not sure if it works the other way TBH. Interesting if it is the case, particularly for Poland as they've got a split buy of Chunmoo and HIMARS on the way.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom