StandOff & PGM Weapons

[bring_it_on]

Well, yes if it is not explicitly mentioned in the requirement about a specific warhead weight then yes, it is up to the weapon manufacturer to design, as long as they can still match other requirements in the list.

Lethality is always in and you have to be able to defeat the target set its designed to effectively defeat. So yes, what WH you chose is highly dependent on what your customer desires. Both from the effects stand point and the lethality stand point. This is always the case in munition program requirements. Without exception.

You are acting like there is only one specific solution for each list of requirement while that clearly not the case at all.

What was the WH variation amongst the SDB II proposals. Can you shed some light on that?

Lockheed Martin MAKO and Northrop Grumman AARGM-ER were competing against each other for SIAW program, they clearly don't have the same size or speed.

We have no idea what the enduring SiAW requirements were but specifically, how does the proposed SiAW warhead differ from the proposed MAKO warhead?

And yes sure, SDB II has a defined targets, just like SPEAR is, you still haven't been able to provide the targets set of either let alone proving that there are a massive different between their target set.

Those who know the program know what the target set is and you aren't going to deviate significantly from what Raytheon/General Dynamics has fielded as a multi-effect WH solution. Its literally that simple. So if they desire a long range weapon in the SPEAR class, they will have to alter lethality or other WH requirements allowing a larger WH trade space.. But to the best of my knowledge, the directorate is not seeking that. Not yet anyway. They want ways to extend range of the current SDB class weapons and wants longer range weapons in a different form factor. Those 2 to three classes combined might actually make something in the SPEAR class redundant from a USAF munitions portfolio perspective.

My point is that there is no powered SDB II in production, the only time where a plan for it pop up is when Raytheon intended to compete against MBDA SPEAR in UK selective precision effects at range capability 3 program. That should indicate the similarity between SPEAR and a hypothetical powered SDB II.

All that proves is that RTX can (or thinks it can) easily modify its design and trade guidance or warhead component volume and mass for fuel and other components allowing a powered variant to be created allowing commonality elsewhere. That was never a point I was disagreeing with. What I'm saying is that by doing so, RTX would not still be able to offer lethality and other effects in accordance with the USAF's original SDB II requirement for which they chose a particular 40-50 kg class WH solution. So something has to give..if it doesn't, it would force them to completely different design choices. It might not have been a problem for UK requirements but the USAF is not UK and if it demands a range extension on the SDB II such a solution might not be able to meet that..and what does might have to be somewhere in lower (but still extended) range class than SPEAR 3. If the USAF sets aside SDB II specs, and asks for a small quad-packed munition with 100+ km range and powered flight and other requirements then depending on what they are other clean sheet solutions might be more affordable and optimized. It all begins with answering what you are trying to do with this in terms of target sets and other performance requirements.

 

[Ronny]

Lethality is always in and you have to be able to defeat the target set its designed to effectively defeat. So yes, what WH you chose is highly dependent on what your customer desires. Both from the effects stand point and the lethality stand point. This is always the case in munition program requirements. Without exception.

Well, the problem is that again, there could be multiple warhead class that still satisfy the lethality requirement, you are acting like there could be only a singular warhead weight that satisfy munition program requirements.
The most obvious case is Navy over-the-horizon, anti-surface missile program for LCS/Frigate, you literally have warhead ranging from 260 lbs up to 1000 lbs, yet they all satisfy the lethality requirement so they all compete in the same program.

What was the WH variation amongst the SDB II proposals. Can you shed some light on that?

How about you shed some light on the so called "target set different between SDB II and SPEAR"?, or the "requirement of SDB II warhead weight"?

You have no idea what the enduring SiAW requirements were but specifically, how does the proposed SiAW warhead differ from the proposed MAKO warhead. Kindly share specifics.

Please quote where I said that AARGM-ER warhead are different from MAKO?. Don't twist my words. I said MAKO and AARGM-ER are not same size or speed. This is obvious but if their speed are different then their time to target will be different. And given that AARGM-ER is approximately 1030 lbs with top speed of Mach 4 while MAKO is 1300 lbs with top speed higher than Mach 5, that would give MAKO twice the kinetic energy of AARGM-ER at impact even if they have the same warhead, that surely affect the lethality of the missile. Yet they both compete for the same SIAW program, which again prove my point that there could be multiple option that manufacturer could use to satisfy the contract requirement. It not like there is only a singular right answer

I don't need to prove this to you. Those who know the program know what the target set is and you aren't going to deviate significantly from what Raytheon has fielded as a WH solution. Its literally that simple.

Do you work in SDB II program? No.
Is there anyone else here work in SDB II program? No.
Is there any target set list for SDB II and SPEAR available in the public sector that show they are hugely different?. No
Is there any actual information available about SPEAR warhead weight? No.
The situation here is not that "you don't have to prove your point". The situation here is that you literally bring up a point that impossible for yourself to prove in one way for another, it is not even possible to know the point is wrong or right because it based on a hypothetical system that doesn't exist.

So if they desire a long range weapon in the SPEAR class, they will have to alter lethality or other WH requirements allowing a larger WH trade space.. But to the best of my knowledge, the directorate is not seeking that. Not yet anyway. They want ways to extend range of the current SDB class weapons and wants longer range weapons in a different form factor. Those 2 to three classes combined might actually make something in the SPEAR class redundant from a USAF munitions portfolio perspective .All that proves is that RTX can (or thinks it can) easily modify its design and trade guidance or warhead component volume and mass for fuel and other components allowing a powered variant to be created allowing commonality elsewhere. That was never a point I was disagreeing with. What I'm saying is that by doing so, RTX would not still be able to offer lethality and other effects in accordance with the USAF's original SDB II requirement for which they chose a particular 40-50 kg class WH solution. So something has to give..if it doesn't, it would force them to completely different design choices. It might not have been a problem for UK requirements but the USAF is not UK and if it demands a range extension on the SDB II such a solution might not be able to meet that..and what does might have to be somewhere in lower (but still extended) range class than SPEAR 3.

ok, look, may be we start off on wrong foot here so it get unnecessary intense
My original comment was not mean to say that USAF absolutely need something like SPEAR. It only to answer @NMaude question whether "a turbojet SDB II ever developed". It was basically a reference to a program which a powered SDB II could have been if it won, and the winning candidate is similar enough to SDB II, at least in term of size, payload ..etc

 

[bring_it_on]

Well, the problem is that again, there could be multiple warhead class that still satisfy the lethality requirement, you are acting like there could be only a singular warhead weight that satisfy munition program requirements.
The most obvious case is Navy over-the-horizon, anti-surface missile program for LCS/Frigate, you literally have warhead ranging from 260 lbs up to 1000 lbs, yet they all satisfy the lethality requirement so they all compete in the same program.

How many proposals on the SDB2 pitched a 8 kg class multi effect warhead for the program? 1..2? or None?

Your examples on the OTH missile are not relevant since there OEM's were pitching existing designs of whatever they had on offer. SDB II saw competitors field clean sheet designs for a clean sheet program.

How about you shed some light on the so called "target set different between SDB II and SPEAR"?, or the "requirement of SDB II warhead weight"?

How about you go talk to folks at RTX or USAF who may have more to shed? I am not going to say anything beyond what can be searched by looking at docs released more than a decade ago. You are free to look at those and find those on your own.

Please quote where I said that AARGM-ER warhead are different from MAKO?. Don't twist my words.

Since the discussion is about the warhead requirements and trade space, I assumed you were sticking to that not realizing that you were bringing in other attributes.

Which performance attributes differ and how so. Elaborate with specifics since you brought up MAKO with enduring SiAW in mind, I assume you know a thing or two about what the AF was looking for on that program. So what did NG's digital design look like for the enduring SiAW? What commonality does/did it have with the interim SiAW (AARGM-ER baseline with USAF changes)? How does it differ? Where does it contrast with MAKO? Where do they share a commonality in approach and design choices? Where does it diverge? However you may chose to answer those things, do note that not every single design attribute has the same trade space as a warhead or seeker solutions..some trade spaces are narrower than others.

Do you work in SDB II program? No.
Is there anyone else here work in SDB II program? No.

I wouldn't assume anything about myself or others here.

My original comment was not mean to say that USAF absolutely need something like SPEAR. It only to answer @NMaude question whether "a turbojet SDB II ever developed". It was basically a reference to a program which a powered SDB II could have been if it won, and the winning candidate is similar enough to SDB II, at least in term of size, payload ..etc

You were correct that a turbojet can be added to Stormbreaker much like it can be to several other munition classes. But that might not be a very sensible thing to do unless there are requirements for a weapon system that is very different from the SDB II. All I am saying is that if the AF/N want an extended range SDB 1 and 2 then the solution might look quite a bit different because of the importance they've placed on some of the other attributes during those programs.

 

[TomcatViP]

Bear in mind that JDAM and relatives are limited glide bombs, which is how they achieve standoff (strakes and body lift). They are not going to free-fall at near vertical angles like a WW2 block buster, more like about a 2:1 glide ratio (15nm from 45kft). JDAM can be supersonic, when released by a supersonic aircraft like the F-22, but it's not clear it stays supersonic for long after a supersonic release or that it will accelerate to supersonic speeds after a subsonic release.

Yes, the Mk-84 can be supersonic at terminal velocity, relatively independently from launch speed.

To be sure, let´s take a low alt air density with an aggravated supersonic Drag coef of 0,35 taken from the Mk-82 table at +-45deg AoA at Mach1,5 applied to the front section of the bomb (MK-84)
Terminal velocity calculation in free fall gives us then 1200kph

Vmax = SQRT[2*m*9,8/(1,2*0,46*0,35)]

0,46 is the front section in sqm

That from stand still but with low alt air density (1,2kg/m3). Any launch speed added would impart a superior speed. Any high alt air density taken into consideration will see that speed exceeded after launch significantly before gradually coming down toward that value.

Hence, we can conclude that in any given circumstance where a QuickSink Mk-84 based bomb is launched from a high altitude bomber travelling at a subsonic speed , the near impact velocity will be transonic to moderately supersonic.

If we neglect the bomb Drag Coefficient, launched from 45kft, the terminal velocity would approach 2k kph.
Vmax = SQRT(2gh)

 

[TomS]

Yes, the Mk-84 can be supersonic at terminal velocity, relatively independently from launch speed.

To be sure, let´s take a low alt air density with an aggravated supersonic Drag coef of 0,35 taken from the Mk-82 table at +-45deg AoA at Mach1,5 applied to the front section of the bomb (MK-84)
Terminal velocity calculation in free fall gives us then 1200kph

Vmax = SQRT[2*m*9,8/(1,2*0,46*0,35)]

0,46 is the front section in sqm

That from stand still but with low alt air density (1,2kg/m3). Any launch speed added would impart a superior speed. Any high alt air density taken into consideration will see that speed exceeded after launch significantly before gradually coming down toward that value.

Hence, we can conclude that in any given circumstance where a QuickSink Mk-84 based bomb is launched from a high altitude bomber travelling at a subsonic speed , the near impact velocity will be transonic to moderately supersonic.

If we neglect the bomb Drag Coefficient, launched from 45kft, the terminal velocity would approach 2k kph.
Vmax = SQRT(2gh)

I'm not sure how that calculation holds up when the bomb is gliding rather than falling straight. It aligns the body at an angle to the airflow, so the cross-section isn't strictly the same as frontal area. I suspect if it's only marginally supersonic when free falling, it won't be at all when gliding.

 

[TomcatViP]

The parameter at hands during the discussion was the speed of the approaching bomb relatively to point defenses. We can say in confidence that, launched from a high altitude stealth bomber, the bomb will be transonic at worst reaching the boat.

And once again, Quicksink is not a weapon of choice to attack a capital ship but one to interdict, en-masse, shipping inside a vast geographic zone, hence inducing heavy causalities on the PLN, among a sensitive part of the Chinese population: young ensigns.

If we take an average crew of 50, a daily drop number of 30 with a conservative 2/3rd successful rate and 10 bombers flying missions every days, we get a 1000 Enemy combatant kill rate per bomber per day, hence at the end of a week long initial campaign: 70 000 deaths for the PLN for probably 2 or 4 pilot killed at the very best as an exchange ratio (remember that they are targeting non-capital vessel over a vast geographical area).

The estimated number of ships sunk being 20 per plane per day, hence 1400 in a week.

I know it sounds crazy but this is a characteristic of modern warfare where you potentially face hyper attrition over contested area. The PLN would have only one option, to regroup (hence alter significantly their ambition) and go after symbolic wins.

 

[Grey Havoc]

Israel Introduces New ‘Wind Demon’ Air-to-Surface Cruise Missile

Israel Aerospace Industries has unveiled the country’s new air-to-surface missile dubbed “Wind Demon” at the Farnborough Airshow 2024.

www.thedefensepost.com

 

[Scott Kenny]

Ascms can be made to throw their warhead under the keel to, in fact it's ironically easier than actually hitting the ship.
Also, WW2 experience on superiority of under keel explosions against targets without developed TPS is at best controversial.

Uhm.

Have you seen the way an under keel explosion actually works? Gas bubble under the keel that starts by lifting the center of the boat and then dropping the center of the boat into that gas bubble. Torpedo protection systems in the hull trying to prevent blast damage from going in don't work against that attack, it's equivalent to putting a ship in drydock with blocks on the ends of the hull but not in the middle!

It doesn't work well on a carrier-sized target because the tested weapon (Mk48 torpedo) is only ~1000lbs TNT equivalent. A 1000ft long ship just flat needs a larger bubble to snap the keel than one 500ft long.

The point of irony is not damage, though, it's expectation to bomb operational warships from b-2 from high altitudes, especially in key operations(say, invasion convoys).

The only thing you'll achieve this way is you'll lose the b-2 fleet.
Stealth for strategic bomber is for different things, especially Reagan era stealth. Geometry may still be solid, but construction techniques and RAMs changed a whole lot since then.

You know that the B-2s have had at least one signature upgrade since 1990, right? And are getting another one right now?

It's a very useful tool to attack something without personal destroyer and/or air screen, of course - especially bigger civilian ships(which houthis outright struggle to sink even when hit, as we see; I saw anecdotal evidence that Russian navy regrets moving away from oversized ascms and torpedoes for this reason - warheads matter for modern mass-produced trade giants).

But thousands of sleeping plan ensigns is out of touch with westpac realities. Warhead isn't the question here, the question is that PLAN is so young, large, and quite heavily invested into detecting things. And their electronic industry is more than capable to support that.

Do their LSTs have air search radars equal to their DDGs? (for sake of argument I will assume that the DDG radars are actually capable of detecting the B2)

If the LSTs do not have a radar equal to their DDGs, then any unescorted LSTs are not going to know there's a bomber overhead and their first warning will be the sudden appearance of some Quicksink JDAMs at about 10nmi range at 45kft.

 

[Ainen]

Have you seen the way an under keel explosion actually works? Gas bubble under the keel that starts by lifting the center of the boat and then dropping the center of the boat into that gas bubble. Torpedo protection systems in the hull trying to prevent blast damage from going in don't work against that attack, it's equivalent to putting a ship in drydock with blocks on the ends of the hull but not in the middle!

Yes, and they looked exactly like that since 1940.
Yet, practice was...controversial - reports from all 3 involved sides(sub captains, ships and repair facilities) judged that for everything other than heavily protected targets, benefits weren't magical, and ships with broken keel did in fact return (and were repaired, ship isn't human, broken keel is quite repairable).
The conclusion was that catastrophic stability loss is deadlier for large civilian ships, and the only ships where underkeel explosion is absolutely beneficial are combat ships from heavy cruisers and larger. I.e. ones with TDS and which can be expected to perform timely DC.
I.e. the only ships in whole PLAN, for which an under-keel explosion will be 100% advantageous in all situations are its 3 carriers.

You know that the B-2s have had at least one signature upgrade since 1990, right? And are getting another one right now?

Yes, and I remember that B-2 fleet is to be discarded within this decade, too. Which is basically ASAP.

Do their LSTs have air search radars equal to their DDGs? (for sake of argument I will assume that the DDG radars are actually capable of detecting the B2)
If the LSTs do not have a radar equal to their DDGs, then any unescorted LSTs are not going to know there's a bomber overhead and their first warning will be the sudden appearance of some Quicksink JDAMs at about 10nmi range at 45kft.

Doubting the fact that B2 is detectable at all by a late 2010s air defense surface combatant is self-complacency of a level even most...ferocious f-16.net warriors rarely do. I strongly disagree.

China has the largest (such a high relative number of escorts is just dumb if you ask me, but I am no PLAN planner) overmatch of escort numbers over escorted units in the world, absolute majority of them being shiny new. The ratio is much higher than even the escort-oriented JMSDF, and they're still building more. You can safely plan for their AD units to be present in all their big operations.

VHF(wavelength well over 1m) radars are capable of exactly detecting VLO aircraft, and that's the single explainable reason they're present on the 052Ds (otherwise, a much higher frequency would have been chosen - and normally it is). This huge, heavy, draggy (and quite probably maintenance-intensive) mattress is one endless liability otherwise.

Also, VHFs are needed not just to be able to detect a sneaky 50m-wide flying wing up in the sky (human eye can do it, ship optronics can do it, any air search radar worthy of its name can do it within at least gravity bomb radius).
Normal modern(digital AESA) shipborne C/L band search unit will still probably get at least high two digits in detection range, but probably even a bit more; again, we aren't talking about b-21 here, that one is expected to be quite a different beast).
VHFs are needed to detect them under more or less the same conditions as non-stealth aircraft. And that's what they do.

B-2 was expected to be survivable enough(for a fleet of 100 and with plant capable of producing 40 a year) against the mid-1990s soviet threat (i.e. powerful, but still well behind the curve in electronics).
We're talking about a 2020 threat threat here, at a more or less contemporary level of electronics. For a fleet of a dozen, with exactly zero production(and minimum repair) capability.
@TomcatVIPs thesis is the right one - it's an interdiction weapon, to shut down any traffic without a convoy...and god forbid if escort and/or air cover to be disabled - B-2 will be able to kill the whole convoy(and disabled escort) faster than the nuke and be gone before retaliation will arrive.

This explains why Quicksink employs a seeker, and why it is indeed a B-2 and not any other aircraft - to be fast with all of them (for B-2 dynamic multiple targeting was one of its key capabilities from day 1).

Otherwise, any normal 2k pound LJDAM from 45k ft will do exactly the same job, no need for fancy underkeel explosions. Just something like 0,03 fuze is good enough.

 

[NMaude]

ships with broken keel did in fact return (and were repaired, ship isn't human, broken keel is quite repairable).

A good example of such a warship being damaged and successfully repaired was in WWII where the RN's cruiser, HMS Belfast, had its' keel broke by a German magnetic mine, it spent a LOT of time being repaired in a dry dock (And being thoroughly modernised) before being recommissioned. Interestingly enough it is the only big-gun RN warship that has been preserved as a museum-ship.

 

[kqcke for you]

I have question folks.
I have looked into Spice 250 ER in the last days and i just could not find anything related to the warhead size bug it was allways stated to be the same as Spice 250 even tought it still has the extra engine and fuel with it.

 

[Ronny]

I have question folks.
I have looked into Spice 250 ER in the last days and i just could not find anything related to the warhead size bug it was allways stated to be the same as Spice 250 even tought it still has the extra engine and fuel with it.

I think it is common sense that if the missile weight remain the same, then to add fuel/engine, you must reduce weight some where else. But it could be plausible that SPICE-250ER is heavier than SPICE 250 by a little bit but still within limit of the quad rack. To be fair, the small turbojet isn’t very heavy, for example the TJ-150 used for SPEAR weight about 17 kg, I have no idea how much fuel it need to fly 140-150 km though. May be 4 kg?


Beside, SPICE 250 is a bit heavier than GBU-53/B and SPEAR.
GBU-53/B SDB II is 93 kg


SPEAR weight is less than 100 kg


SPICE 250 weight is 130 kg


So hypothetically, let say SPICE 250ER have the same engine and same fuel load as SPEAR, and their guidance weight around the same, then SPICE 250 warhead can still be 30-40 kg heavier than SPEAR warhead

Additionally, we should also keep in mind that we don’t actually know the weight of SPEAR warhead because there is no actual information about it published. We only know that the 50 kg Brimstone missile has a 6 kg warhead. So hypothetically, let say the fuel of SPEAR weight around the same as Brimstone rocket fuel, their guidance are probably the same or similar weight because it both SAL+MMW, then we add the weight of TJ-150 which is about 17 kg. Then we have about 39 kg for warhead + datalink and GPS antenna till the missile reached the 100 kg mark. May be the warhead is somewhere between the 20-30 kg mark?. But then it could also be argued that they just put Brismtone warhead on SPEAR to reduce cost, and since Brimstone warhead is even enough for bunker, may be they don’t feel the need to increase the size further. There are just so many unknown factor really. Most of the weight of a warhead is in the metal filler rather than the explosive filler.

 

[kqcke for you]

I think it is common sense that if the missile weight remain the same, then to add fuel/engine, you must reduce weight some where else. But it could be plausible that SPICE-250ER is heavier than SPICE 250 by a little bit but still within limit of the quad rack. To be fair, the small turbojet isn’t very heavy, for example the TJ-150 used for SPEAR weight about 17 kg, I have no idea how much fuel it need to fly 140-150 km though. May be 4 kg?
View attachment 735429

Spear uses a different TJ-150 from P&W. PBS TJ-150 is a little to large with an 272mm diameter. Rafael also got there own suite of small turbojets.

Beside, SPICE 250 is a bit heavier than GBU-53/B and SPEAR.
GBU-53/B SDB II is 93 kg
View attachment 735431

SPEAR weight is less than 100 kg
View attachment 735432
SPICE 250 weight is 130 kg
View attachment 735433

Yeah that it has more internal volume is clear to me thanks to it body design even with similiar sizes.

So hypothetically, let say SPICE 250ER have the same engine and same fuel load as SPEAR, and their guidance weight around the same, then SPICE 250 warhead can still be 30-40 kg heavier than SPEAR warhead

That was my idea to but maybe the internal layout is more similiar too GBU-53/B or Spear and the edges of the rectangle are empty. That would give some space for the fuel atleast.

Additionally, we should also keep in mind that we don’t actually know the weight of SPEAR warhead because there is no actual information about it published. We only know that the 50 kg Brimstone missile has a 6 kg warhead. So hypothetically, let say the fuel of SPEAR weight around the same as Brimstone rocket fuel, their guidance are probably the same or similar weight because it both SAL+MMW, then we add the weight of TJ-150 which is about 17 kg. Then we have about 39 kg for warhead + datalink and GPS antenna till the missile reached the 100 kg mark. May be the warhead is somewhere between the 20-30 kg mark?. But then it could also be argued that they just put Brismtone warhead on SPEAR to reduce cost, and since Brimstone warhead is even enough for bunker, may be they don’t feel the need to increase the size further. There are just so many unknown factor really. Most of the weight of a warhead is in the metal filler rather than the explosive filler.
View attachment 735434

I had some very small talk about Spear 3's warhead and his guess sits at ~12-15kg.

 

[Ronny]

Spear uses a different TJ-150 from P&W. PBS TJ-150 is a little to large with an 272mm diameter. Rafael also got there own suite of small turbojets.

Ah yeah, thank for the head up. Turn out these micro turbojet are even lighter than I expected, honestly didn't expect STARGATE-TJ 40 to weight only 4 kg though, that would leave so much space for warhead and fuel and guidance system.

That was my idea to but maybe the internal layout is more similiar too GBU-53/B or Spear and the edges of the rectangle are empty. That would give some space for the fuel atleast.

These small turbojet are quite efficient so they probably don't consume a lot of fuel

I had some very small talk about Spear 3's warhead and his guess sits at ~12-15kg.

You mean you talked to someone at MBDA?
12-15 kg also seem like a good guess
Apparently SPEAR-EW without the warhead can fly 430 km compared to 140 km of normal SPEAR

 

[kqcke for you]

Ah yeah, thank for the head up.

No problem i also tought it was PBS Turbojet once but then i found out how large it was.

Turn out these micro turbojet are even lighter than I expected, honestly didn't expect STARGATE-TJ 40 to weight only 4 kg though, that would leave so much space for warhead and fuel and guidance system.

Yeah but whats more important than weight is the size and power of those engines. If we need TJ-150 Power then it should have an Stargate-TJ 120 which isn't small.

These small turbojet are quite efficient so they probably don't consume a lot of fuel

You mean you talked to someone at MBDA?

Which i had the luck but no. I forgot to mention it was with timmymagic where he showed me his "calculation". Tought its really hard to do because of the missing information about the P&W TJ-150.

12-15 kg also seem like a good guess
Apparently SPEAR-EW without the warhead can fly 430 km compared to 140 km of normal SPEAR

Yeah and when you change the warhead out for an fueltank then its quite a lot. Spear EW also doesn't have the normal seeker which my a low it too have even more internal space.

 

[Forest Green]

First Look At Mystery Weapon Pylon Ukrainian MiG-29s Use To Carry Small Diameter Bombs

A picture has emerged of an SDB-armed Ukrainian MiG-29 with a previously unseen pylon with an interesting feature.

www.twz.com

 

[NMaude]

Good! Hopefully they'll be getting SDB-IIs soon.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Yeah and when you change the warhead out for an fueltank then its quite a lot. Spear also doesn't have the normal seeker which my a low it too have even more internal space.

Plus, unburned fuel increases the explosion size.

 

[bobbymike]

How precise?

View: https://m.youtube.com/shorts/xBs4q9AOVKA

Luv videos like this.

 

[Ronny]

Yeah but whats more important than weight is the size and power of those engines. If we need TJ-150 Power then it should have an Stargate-TJ 120 which isn't small.

9 kg is still much smaller than I expected to be honest.
Anyway, since MALD is a bit bigger and heavier than SPEAR, I expect TJ-150-3 engine of SPEAR to be lighter and weaker than TJ-150-1 of MALD though

 

[Ronny]

VHF(wavelength well over 1m) radars are capable of exactly detecting VLO aircraft, and that's the single explainable reason they're present on the 052Ds (otherwise, a much higher frequency would have been chosen - and normally it is). This huge, heavy, draggy (and quite probably maintenance-intensive) mattress is one endless liability otherwise.

Also, VHFs are needed not just to be able to detect a sneaky 50m-wide flying wing up in the sky (human eye can do it, ship optronics can do it, any air search radar worthy of its name can do it within at least gravity bomb radius).
Normal modern(digital AESA) shipborne C/L band search unit will still probably get at least high two digits in detection range, but probably even a bit more; again, we aren't talking about b-21 here, that one is expected to be quite a different beast).
VHFs are needed to detect them under more or less the same conditions as non-stealth aircraft. And that's what they do.

While I firmly believe that Chinese anti air destroyer like Type 052 and Type 055 should be able to detect an engage B-2, B-21 from longer range than quick sink fly distance.I don’t think the Type 517HA VHF radar is the reason for that.


It is ways too small for VHF frequency, that indicate very bad Gain which lead to very inaccuracy reading. It only used mainly as a quick volume search radar.
On Type 052E and Type 055, it was removed completely

 

[TomcatViP]

Let´s not forget that Quicksink is probably not intended for that kind of hard defended targets.

Also, in the press:

https://edition.cnn.com/2024/07/27/asia/rimpac-air-force-b2-bomber-low-cost-bomb-sinking-exercise-intl-hnk-ml/index.html

 

[TAOG]

Yes, and they looked exactly like that since 1940.
Yet, practice was...controversial - reports from all 3 involved sides(sub captains, ships and repair facilities) judged that for everything other than heavily protected targets, benefits weren't magical, and ships with broken keel did in fact return (and were repaired, ship isn't human, broken keel is quite repairable).
The conclusion was that catastrophic stability loss is deadlier for large civilian ships, and the only ships where underkeel explosion is absolutely beneficial are combat ships from heavy cruisers and larger. I.e. ones with TDS and which can be expected to perform timely DC.
I.e. the only ships in whole PLAN, for which an under-keel explosion will be 100% advantageous in all situations are its 3 carriers.

Yes, and I remember that B-2 fleet is to be discarded within this decade, too. Which is basically ASAP.

Doubting the fact that B2 is detectable at all by a late 2010s air defense surface combatant is self-complacency of a level even most...ferocious f-16.net warriors rarely do. I strongly disagree.

China has the largest (such a high relative number of escorts is just dumb if you ask me, but I am no PLAN planner) overmatch of escort numbers over escorted units in the world, absolute majority of them being shiny new. The ratio is much higher than even the escort-oriented JMSDF, and they're still building more. You can safely plan for their AD units to be present in all their big operations.

VHF(wavelength well over 1m) radars are capable of exactly detecting VLO aircraft, and that's the single explainable reason they're present on the 052Ds (otherwise, a much higher frequency would have been chosen - and normally it is). This huge, heavy, draggy (and quite probably maintenance-intensive) mattress is one endless liability otherwise.

Also, VHFs are needed not just to be able to detect a sneaky 50m-wide flying wing up in the sky (human eye can do it, ship optronics can do it, any air search radar worthy of its name can do it within at least gravity bomb radius).
Normal modern(digital AESA) shipborne C/L band search unit will still probably get at least high two digits in detection range, but probably even a bit more; again, we aren't talking about b-21 here, that one is expected to be quite a different beast).
VHFs are needed to detect them under more or less the same conditions as non-stealth aircraft. And that's what they do.

B-2 was expected to be survivable enough(for a fleet of 100 and with plant capable of producing 40 a year) against the mid-1990s soviet threat (i.e. powerful, but still well behind the curve in electronics).
We're talking about a 2020 threat threat here, at a more or less contemporary level of electronics. For a fleet of a dozen, with exactly zero production(and minimum repair) capability.
@TomcatVIPs thesis is the right one - it's an interdiction weapon, to shut down any traffic without a convoy...and god forbid if escort and/or air cover to be disabled - B-2 will be able to kill the whole convoy(and disabled escort) faster than the nuke and be gone before retaliation will arrive.

This explains why Quicksink employs a seeker, and why it is indeed a B-2 and not any other aircraft - to be fast with all of them (for B-2 dynamic multiple targeting was one of its key capabilities from day 1).

Otherwise, any normal 2k pound LJDAM from 45k ft will do exactly the same job, no need for fancy underkeel explosions. Just something like 0,03 fuze is good enough.

B-2 stealth design is still effective at VHF.

VHF can detect fighter size VLO - maybe range is as long as non VLO fighter, but B-2's shape and RAM (thicker RAM which fighter size VLO platform can not adopt) has a certain degree to be effetive at VHF band. Hence its detection range will still be shorter than non VLO fighter.

 

[TAOG]

We dont know the scale bar, but is seems like 10 db. Tacit blue RCS increase significantly from X band to VHF band, however, B-2 is much more slower. Also this RCS is not adopt low frequency suppression method, hence its rcs should be lower in real case with thick RAM applied

 

[Forest Green]

It'll be less that 10dB surely? That wouldn't be stealthy at all.

 

[Forest Green]

It’s Not Replicator, CCA, or Weapon, Yet. What Is the Enterprise Test Vehicle?

The Air Force/Defense Innovation Unit Enterprise Test Vehicle program isn't aimed at creating a weapon but could turn into one.

www.airandspaceforces.com

Shaking Up U.S. Industrial Base Key To ‘Cheap’ Cruise Missile Program

The USAF is looking beyond traditional munitions makers to bolster its stocks and help keep supplies flowing, especially in a high-end fight.

www.twz.com

 

[Ainen]

On Type 052E and Type 055, it was removed completely

Type 52E doesn't exist; it's a Western name that wasn't confirmed. Different batches of 052Ds(as normal) have some changes in electronic equipment, of course.
Newer 052D hulls (most of them) have it replaced with a new radar of the same purpose, among other changes. So probably those capabilities only changed upwards in the newer hulls. Overall, it will result in ~ 40 "aegis" destroyers with VHF capability, operational or still in construction. That's a lot.

 

[Ronny]

Type 52E doesn't exist; it's a Western name that wasn't confirmed. Different batches of 052Ds(as normal) have some changes in electronic equipment, of course.
Newer 052D hulls (most of them) have it replaced with a new radar of the same purpose, among other changes. So probably those capabilities only changed upwards in the newer hulls. Overall, it will result in ~ 40 "aegis" destroyers with VHF capability, operational or still in construction. That's a lot.

On newer hull and Type055, that VHF was replaced with a L-band search radar.
Anyway, my point is that Type 517HA VHF radar is not necessary for detection and engagement of LO target, it simply too small for VHF band to achieve firing solution, moreover, it is a pure 2D search radar, so it lack the capability to determine target altitude. The massive S/C-band Type 346 is the much bigger threat. I vaguely recalled that even the basic SPY-1 could detect a marble size target from 150 km

 

[Ainen]

On newer hull and Type055, that VHF was replaced with a L-band search radar.
Anyway, my point is that Type 517HA VHF radar is not necessary for detection and engagement of LO target, it simply too small for VHF band to achieve firing solution, moreover, it is a pure 2D search radar, so it lack the capability to determine target altitude. The massive S/C-band Type 346 is the much bigger threat. I vaguely recalled that even the basic SPY-1 could detect a marble size target from 150 km

Is it L band though? That huge mattress (see photo) still looks very much VHF to me; I am not an engineer, but for L band I would expect something like Smart-L/S1850.

2D airspace control radars are still crucial in this case, as they're cueing higher frequency fire control and 3D scan ones.

And, as far as I understand, the very fact that array is there means it offers big benefits over/for those huge main panels under the bridge.

 

[Ronny]

Is it L band though? That huge mattress (see photo) still looks very much VHF to me; I am not an engineer, but for L band I would expect something like Smart-L/S1850.

Your photo is Type 052DL, it still got the VHF array, just a bit bigger to improve azimuth/elevation accuracy


On Type 055, the VHF search radar is completely removed

2D airspace control radars are still crucial in this case, as they're cueing higher frequency fire control and 3D scan ones.And, as far as I understand, the very fact that array is there means it offers big benefits over/for those huge main panels under the bridge.

The 2D VHF radar help reduce scan time significantly since they use very wide beam.

 

[bobbymike]

Stormbreaker Goes 14 for 14 from the F-35C in US Navy Flight

--RTX tests StormBreaker across four separate platforms, with three services, for 28 total flight tests in 2023

www.asdnews.com

 

[Ainen]

Your photo is Type 052DL, it still got the VHF array, just a bit bigger to improve azimuth/elevation accuracy
View attachment 735630

On Type 055, the VHF search radar is completely removed

055 didn't replace 052d(g) though, so they're parallel and mutually-complementing existences.

Thus I think the basic point is sound - if there's a navy really seriously preparing for a stealth threat, not leaving anything to the chance - it's PLAN.

It doesn't make bombing it impossible or anything, of course.

 

[bobbymike]

Israel orders Elbit Systems' Iron Sting precision mortars - Breaking Defense

An Elbit official told Breaking Defense the order marks the first large-scale Iron Sting contract, while interest is growing abroad.

breakingdefense.com

 

[Scott Kenny]

Israel orders Elbit Systems' Iron Sting precision mortars - Breaking Defense

An Elbit official told Breaking Defense the order marks the first large-scale Iron Sting contract, while interest is growing abroad.

breakingdefense.com

GPS+laser guided, interesting...

 

[Forest Green]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1819163313663533234

View: https://x.com/AirPowerNEW1/status/1819163313663533234

 

[Forest Green]

Ukraine's "Baba Yaga" Drones Now Appear Capable Of Launching Guided Munitions

Making Ukraine's large multi-rotor industrial drones capable of launching guided munitions at targets behind enemy lines would certainly be a major capability upgrade.

www.twz.com

...one that has a seeker head that appears to be designed for laser guidance, although other possibilities also exist, including an electro-optical type. The weapon is marked BK-30F in Cyrillic and has what appears to be a relatively large fragmentation warhead section that takes up the middle of its body.

 

[NMaude]

Alex Hollings from Sandboxx has just put out a video about how a B-2A Spirit sunk a target in the RIMPAC2024 exercise held earlier this year using a Quicksink JDAM:

During a massive series of Maritime wargames called RIMPAC 2024 held earlier this month, a U.S. Air Force B-2 Spirit stealth bomber demonstrated a new relatively low-cost — but extremely effective — means of engaging even large enemy warships dubbed QUICKSINK. This weapon, which could be thought of as an anti-ship JDAM, has significant implications for the future of naval warfare, so let's talk about it.

This is quite impressive and I suspect it was also a pointed message to the PLA:N.

 

[NMaude]

Simon Whistler from Megaprojects has this interesting new video about the Rapid Dragon programme:

Discover the evolution of long-range weaponry from ancient stones to the advanced USAF Rapid Dragon missile system. Explore its origins, functionality, and groundbreaking efficiency in modern warfare. Watch now!

If Ukraine has suitable transport aircraft this would be something very handy for them to use.

 

[Forest Green]

Drones vs PGMs.

Aftermath of Drone Strike on Lipetsk Airbase -- Over 700 Glide Bombs Destroyed in Ammo Dump​

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1IKy4MUeJ8

 

[NMaude]

The Ukrainians paid Lipetsk airbase's ammunition dump a visit and had a real blast.