StandOff & PGM Weapons


Photos capture exact moments an Israeli missile strikes building in Beirut

 
I saw that on the news but the PGM (Whatever it was) was just a grey blur before it plunged into the bottom of the building.
 
Looks Paveway ish, though with an odd length to diameter ratio…perhaps a BLU-109 or something similar with a Paveway kit.
 
It's definitely a SPICE 2000 ..... although it supposed to have a Mk-84 as warhead, looking at the blast, could it be a BLU-109 instead?

From the link below, a BLU-109 could have been considered useful in urban settings as it uses its delay fuse, and detonate while way inside the building, thus minimising the blast effects on the people at the exterior of the building ......

 
Last edited:
90


Looks like a BLU-109 to me, they have an odd taper to them instead of the Mk80 curved ogive shape.
 
Defense Updates has put out a video about the Israeli ROCKS and Rampage missiles used in Iran:


Israel's pre-dawn strike on Iran marked one of its largest and most intricate air assaults to date. Dozens of aircraft, including advanced U.S.-made F-35 stealth jets alongside F-16 and F-15 warplanes, flew over 1,000 miles or 1600 km to hit multiple targets within Iran.
The operation followed Iran's launch of over 180 ballistic missiles toward Israel on October 1. Israel had pledged a strong response, which came in three waves, beginning at around 2 a.m. on October 26 and ending by 6 a.m., when the last Israeli jet returned unscathed.
This was an incredible feat is since Iran possessed several Russian made S-300 and S-400 batteries which should have inflicted some damage on the 4th generation F-16 and F-15 combat aircraft, if not the 5th generation F-35s.This was possible, partly because of IAF's excellent mission planning as well as the use of ammunition that enabled the warplanes to maintain a relatively safe distance
In this video, Defense Updates analyzes which two weapons IAF deployed to decimate Iranian targets ?
Chapters:
00:11 INTRODUCTION
02:12 ROCKS
04:21 RAMPAGE
06:21 ANALYSIS
 
Alex Hollings from Sandboxx has a new video about Anduril's new mini cruise-missile:


Anduril Industries' new Barracuda line of UAV and cruise missiles has garnered a great deal of attention in recent months, but most of our discussions have been specific to the largest of these new weapons, the M-500. But a closer look at the smallest of Anduril's cruise missile offerings reveals a Hellfire-class competitor with twice the explosive power and more than 20 times the range.
 
Alex Hollings from Sandboxx has a new video about Anduril's new mini cruise-missile:

Twice the boom is kinda meh, unless we're rigging them with EFPs and/or tandem charge warheads. At least for attacking tanks as an ultra-long-range Hellfire equivalent. I'd want more boom for anti-ship work.

But 160-200km is wicked!


Hey, wait a minute. Wasn't the USMC talking about buying some ludicrously long ranged weapon from the USAF?!?
 
I can see the discontinuities in the skin surface from here. Just saying.

That thing's a weighted mockup (stores training from features on it), not a real missile

I'm also not sure why this is being portrayed as if it is new on that channel, we first had those pictures of it two years ago at Zhuhai 2022
Looks like it's from a low effort content farm channel
 
I thought that HE such as RDX was more powerful than TNT.

Yes, I think the author is misinformed or misread something. Almost any explosive filler has superior performance to plain Jane TNT; the main advantage is low production cost. So it tends to be the primary ingredient in bulk dumb munitions production like artillery and mk80s, where as missiles and torpedoes tend to get more artisanal fillings since the HE content is not a driver of total cost in that application.
 
I could not find a JSOW dedicated thread, so I thought I post here.


Interesting to note the statement :

"In strong head or tail winds, performance of the AGM-154A may not have improved. Therefore, two AGM-154A weapons should be employed against a single target at perpendicular attack headings to mitigate potential errors in wind estimator performance."

How is wind estimated here? I do not see a pitot-static tube or any form on wind vanes on JSOW.
 
I could not find a JSOW dedicated thread, so I thought I post here.


Interesting to note the statement :

"In strong head or tail winds, performance of the AGM-154A may not have improved. Therefore, two AGM-154A weapons should be employed against a single target at perpendicular attack headings to mitigate potential errors in wind estimator performance."

How is wind estimated here? I do not see a pitot-static tube or any form on wind vanes on JSOW.
Probably via IMU/GPS, as compared to the computer estimate of where it should be if there was no wind.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom